Slashdot Mirror

No doubt that churches are one of many different charitable causes. (Not sure what a ""church"" is.) Churches do much good work. A few examples you may wish to consider:

UMC Global Ministries (You may find some surprises here.)

Atheists credit the Gospel

Two high-profile atheists concede that to get practical help to the poor and liberate them from poverty you need Christianity’s teaching about man’s place in the Universe . . . more

Matthew Parris: As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God

Filling backpacks, reaching hearts

Once again, ARM and ACM are collecting backpacks for a Christmas event called Appalachian Christmas Outreach 2016, and NCBM is calling on churches statewide to respond to this need. For many of the children who benefit from this ministry, these backpacks are the only Christmas present that they will receive. Each backpack will include things like inexpensive toys, school supplies, hygiene items, and also a Bible and a pamphlet telling the story of Christmas. This means that each child not only receives a Christmas present, but also receives God’s Word.

Last year, more than 46,000 backpacks were collected and distributed. .

No doubt that churches are one of many different charitable causes. (Not sure what a ""church"" is.) Churches do much good work. A few examples you may wish to consider:

UMC Global Ministries (You may find some surprises here.)

Atheists credit the Gospel

Two high-profile atheists concede that to get practical help to the poor and liberate them from poverty you need Christianity’s teaching about man’s place in the Universe . . . more

Matthew Parris: As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God

Filling backpacks, reaching hearts

Once again, ARM and ACM are collecting backpacks for a Christmas event called Appalachian Christmas Outreach 2016, and NCBM is calling on churches statewide to respond to this need. For many of the children who benefit from this ministry, these backpacks are the only Christmas present that they will receive. Each backpack will include things like inexpensive toys, school supplies, hygiene items, and also a Bible and a pamphlet telling the story of Christmas. This means that each child not only receives a Christmas present, but also receives God’s Word.

Last year, more than 46,000 backpacks were collected and distributed. .

There's even a website

There's also a website that says the Earth is 6000 years old.

http://creation.com/

The buildings on the site you linked to are all quite beautiful. One is even a Corbusier

Here's what brutalism looks like:

http://www.houstonpress.com/ne...

For example this piece of evidence

http://creation.com/triceratop...

The existence of such material challenges strongly the old earth hypothesis.

Then how is Earth 6000 years old? Isn't it what Bible states?
  http://creation.com/6000-years

Because Darwinism is so malleable as to accommodate almost any conceivable observation, science philosopher Karl Popper proclaimed that it was not falsifiable, and therefore not a proper scientific theory in that sense.

http://creation.com/journal-of...

This is full of them. And before you say that it is a creation journal and doesn't count, do you really think that the evolutionary-biased scientific journals are going to publish creationist articles, even if they are brilliant papers?

http://creation.com/journal-of...

Actually there were many geologists at the time who opposed the rejection of the flood and other assumptions being made about geology.

You could say that modern biblical geologists have proven the flood, or it may be more correct to say, "have much evidence to support it".

Nothing absolutely special about the two, but definitely special in combination.
Let's say that water and rocks are very good ingredients on their own, assuming we're interested in variations of 'chemically based' life:

- water has interesting physical properties (you mentioned most of them), but one of them is its dielectric constant, very important for facilitating catalytic conditions (self-replicating molecules?)

- these physical properties allows it to solubilize minerals and a fair range of organic molecules at the same time, useful for catalyzing chemical reactions.

- it is somehow reactive either in reversible ways (hydrogen bonds) or by directly participating in chemical reactions (i.e. oxydation of energetic molecules = generating chemical energy)

- rocks could catalyze the spontaneous formation of chemical precursors or building blocks of life...well, as we know it? yes, but it means it happened at least once.


Now, the important key is obviously the catalysis, i.e. making chemical reactions easier and quicker. Doing that in a low-energy context (i.e. the temperatures found on modern or archaic Earth), makes it much easier for randomly created molecules to survive long enough to have a chance to self replicate.

This is a good article to explain the apparent differences in the creation stories. Genesis Contradictions? Summary: It's basically a misunderstanding about the tense of Hebrew verbs, the word which is translated "formed" in chapter one should be rendered "had formed" in chapter 2. Also, chapter 2 is not just another account of the same story but a more detailed version of the creation of man.

The fossil record is actually a testament to the flood because, lets face it, fossils don't form unless the animal is buried quickly before it rots, bloats or is eaten by scavengers. As one creation songwriter wrote: "millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth"

Cain's wife? The bible doesn't explain it but the assumption is that he married his sister. *gasp* What did you expect them to do? This would have been a one time occurrence because even after the flood destroyed all but three families, they could marry their cousins. This makes sense with the understanding the they were back then genetically pure. The genetic defects that we have now have crept in over time.

I hear over and over that “Evolution is a fact”, but to quote the great philosopher Inigo Montoya, You keep using that word – I do not think it means what you think it means! Evolution is a framework for understanding what we see in the world. The *facts* are the data we observe, which are then interpreted in that framework. Creationists use a different framework to interpret those facts. As a molecular biologist, I use Evolution a lot. It is very useful in writing grants; committees like to see an Evolutionary spin. It's also critical for being published, for the same reason. In each case, its use is entirely ad-hoc. The actual hypotheses, experiments, and conclusions are based on repeatable and observable phenomena. This is standard operating procedure; however, one does not discuss such things. One's career is on the line. Which brings me to the religion vs science shenanigans: if you call Evolution “science”, then attack me when I call into question certain assumptions or conclusions drawn, you demonstrate that it is much more than science, but in fact has become a religion unto itself. You have become one of the Faithful, defending the True Faith from blasphemers and heretics. Anyone seriously interested in whether the “other side” has any real arguments to make should take a look at http://www.creation.com./

http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe

You gotta kidding me , right ? You are DAMN fucking me ? "Creation magazine" ? Pleeease.

It's not the oldest dna, but the oldest human DNA that they've found. This site reports DNA extracted from a 20 million year magnolia leaf.

That's because you're indoctrinated and have fallen into the black hole called faith

I could say the same to you, you choose to believe the evolution and a made up story of history.

Noah managed to gather all the animals in the first place

Noah did not gather the animals. The bible said the animals came to him. Read the text to answer your questions. Also a simple answer as to stopping the animals from eating each other is cages. You build walls around them to stop them making a mess in the boat. Really these are simple questions.

how to explain how he had room for the vast number of species, or the lack of a global flood in the geological record.

It is ridiculousness to think Noah carried all the species on land. The Bible said of each "Kind" not of each species.
You do not need to carry all of the current species we have today. The specification of the animals would of happen rapidly after the flood.
Hence you would only need to carry 20000-25000 kinds, otherwise you will need several cargo ships instead of just one cargo chip.
The Bible says "kind" which roughly translate as Phylum. For example: There are currently over 150 species of dogs but you only needed 2 wolfs (M&F) for the kind, from them they specified into the species we have now.

There is alot of evidence for a massive flood. There are huge sedimentary basins are all around the world. Map of sedimentary basins

The Grand Canyon which each of it's layers laid down in water.
The Three Sisters of Australia

Now what is unscientific about a scientist putting to sleep a man, taking a sample of his tissues and cloning him but without the Y gene.

What's unscientific about it is that it is based on a childish myth invented by primitive people to explain their origins, and is no different than any of the other childish origin myths in existence. What's also unscientific about it is that the fossil and genetic record completely refute this childish story.

Again you are trying to attack the creditably of the source but not attacking the data directly. It's based on History, and no matter how much you want to put your fingers in your ears and say "i am hearing you", you still have not refuted this scenario. We humans almost have this technology now, yet you refuse to even admit to yourself that God would have this technology. Grow up and take this subject matter seriously instead of yelling "I dont want to believe it, its Christain voodoo magic" to paraphrase what you are doing.
Again you have refused to talk about what evidence does the fossil record provide with transitional forms? All phylum are fully formed in the fossil record when ever they are found. The extreme lack of any transitional forms screams creationism. The problem is so great for evolutionists that they invented another theory called punctuated equilibrium, where suddenly out of nowhere the species, gaps, evolves without leaving any trace. Hence the lack of fossils now becomes evidence for evolution.

They believe that can happen, and there's a natural progression of species in the fossil and genetic record, and yet they can't believe in evolution as the origin of species. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be their childish Bible stories holding them back?

Again you didn't answer my question, please define your "evolution". Us creationists believe in what operational science can show. We Christains take the Bib

That's because you're indoctrinated and have fallen into the black hole called faith

I could say the same to you, you choose to believe the evolution and a made up story of history.

Noah managed to gather all the animals in the first place

Noah did not gather the animals. The bible said the animals came to him. Read the text to answer your questions. Also a simple answer as to stopping the animals from eating each other is cages. You build walls around them to stop them making a mess in the boat. Really these are simple questions.

how to explain how he had room for the vast number of species, or the lack of a global flood in the geological record.

It is ridiculousness to think Noah carried all the species on land. The Bible said of each "Kind" not of each species.
You do not need to carry all of the current species we have today. The specification of the animals would of happen rapidly after the flood.
Hence you would only need to carry 20000-25000 kinds, otherwise you will need several cargo ships instead of just one cargo chip.
The Bible says "kind" which roughly translate as Phylum. For example: There are currently over 150 species of dogs but you only needed 2 wolfs (M&F) for the kind, from them they specified into the species we have now.

There is alot of evidence for a massive flood. There are huge sedimentary basins are all around the world. Map of sedimentary basins

The Grand Canyon which each of it's layers laid down in water.
The Three Sisters of Australia

Now what is unscientific about a scientist putting to sleep a man, taking a sample of his tissues and cloning him but without the Y gene.

What's unscientific about it is that it is based on a childish myth invented by primitive people to explain their origins, and is no different than any of the other childish origin myths in existence. What's also unscientific about it is that the fossil and genetic record completely refute this childish story.

Again you are trying to attack the creditably of the source but not attacking the data directly. It's based on History, and no matter how much you want to put your fingers in your ears and say "i am hearing you", you still have not refuted this scenario. We humans almost have this technology now, yet you refuse to even admit to yourself that God would have this technology. Grow up and take this subject matter seriously instead of yelling "I dont want to believe it, its Christain voodoo magic" to paraphrase what you are doing.
Again you have refused to talk about what evidence does the fossil record provide with transitional forms? All phylum are fully formed in the fossil record when ever they are found. The extreme lack of any transitional forms screams creationism. The problem is so great for evolutionists that they invented another theory called punctuated equilibrium, where suddenly out of nowhere the species, gaps, evolves without leaving any trace. Hence the lack of fossils now becomes evidence for evolution.

They believe that can happen, and there's a natural progression of species in the fossil and genetic record, and yet they can't believe in evolution as the origin of species. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be their childish Bible stories holding them back?

Again you didn't answer my question, please define your "evolution". Us creationists believe in what operational science can show. We Christains take the Bib

That's because you're indoctrinated and have fallen into the black hole called faith

I could say the same to you, you choose to believe the evolution and a made up story of history.

Noah managed to gather all the animals in the first place

Noah did not gather the animals. The bible said the animals came to him. Read the text to answer your questions. Also a simple answer as to stopping the animals from eating each other is cages. You build walls around them to stop them making a mess in the boat. Really these are simple questions.

how to explain how he had room for the vast number of species, or the lack of a global flood in the geological record.

It is ridiculousness to think Noah carried all the species on land. The Bible said of each "Kind" not of each species.
You do not need to carry all of the current species we have today. The specification of the animals would of happen rapidly after the flood.
Hence you would only need to carry 20000-25000 kinds, otherwise you will need several cargo ships instead of just one cargo chip.
The Bible says "kind" which roughly translate as Phylum. For example: There are currently over 150 species of dogs but you only needed 2 wolfs (M&F) for the kind, from them they specified into the species we have now.

There is alot of evidence for a massive flood. There are huge sedimentary basins are all around the world. Map of sedimentary basins

The Grand Canyon which each of it's layers laid down in water.
The Three Sisters of Australia

Now what is unscientific about a scientist putting to sleep a man, taking a sample of his tissues and cloning him but without the Y gene.

What's unscientific about it is that it is based on a childish myth invented by primitive people to explain their origins, and is no different than any of the other childish origin myths in existence. What's also unscientific about it is that the fossil and genetic record completely refute this childish story.

Again you are trying to attack the creditably of the source but not attacking the data directly. It's based on History, and no matter how much you want to put your fingers in your ears and say "i am hearing you", you still have not refuted this scenario. We humans almost have this technology now, yet you refuse to even admit to yourself that God would have this technology. Grow up and take this subject matter seriously instead of yelling "I dont want to believe it, its Christain voodoo magic" to paraphrase what you are doing.
Again you have refused to talk about what evidence does the fossil record provide with transitional forms? All phylum are fully formed in the fossil record when ever they are found. The extreme lack of any transitional forms screams creationism. The problem is so great for evolutionists that they invented another theory called punctuated equilibrium, where suddenly out of nowhere the species, gaps, evolves without leaving any trace. Hence the lack of fossils now becomes evidence for evolution.

They believe that can happen, and there's a natural progression of species in the fossil and genetic record, and yet they can't believe in evolution as the origin of species. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be their childish Bible stories holding them back?

Again you didn't answer my question, please define your "evolution". Us creationists believe in what operational science can show. We Christains take the Bib

This link gives a great break down of the 2 lines. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=932 also look at the image to see it visually.

The argument of Did God use evolution to create, well I know of a good video to watch about it. From creation.com (warning an hour long)
The site creation.com as you can guess is my favorite site. Go on and explore that site and see what you think compared to the evidence. They even have a series of videos in the media section.

The reason evolution means God did nothing is because the belief behind evolution means everything does things on their own, and no outside interference.
Dawkins says its deluded too
Classic talk about this doesn't work with the God of the Bible.

Well since I am a programmer and not a geologist I cant test them, But I can point to some examples.

For example of a large deposit of coal see the south of Australia http://creation.com/coal-memorial-to-the-flood
This coal seam is 300kms by 300kms and up to 700m down. It's a vast deposit of coal which is highly unlikely if you expect a mash to sink just right.

Now the story of standard geology would say that animal after animal decided to walk into a black lake and have a swin until they drowned in massive numbers. (Where are the bones in the oil?). After that, for some strange reason the lake of oil is then covered with dirt without being washed away. The depth of these oil fields varies through out the world, some being 300ft and others 5700ft (1700meters) below the ground and the deepest going just below 12Kms. So you would need 12Kms of dirt to pile up (how many trillions/billions of years is that at current rates?) after 100 million years of dead things rotting away.

Now as far fetch as the idea of dead things turning into oil 12KMs down in the Earth, this is another possibility.
What if the oil is not made from dead things but are natural geochemistry in the ground.
Lets see if there is any other forms of naturally occurring hydrocarbons in the universe. There is methane & ethane on Titan, Uranus, Neptune, (Jupiter & Saturn I think as well).
So we know Hydrocarbons are on other planets & moons and you don't believe there were dinosaurs & plant life on Titan, Jupiter, etc... Why can't this chemistry be natural to the planet Earth as well?

Can you explain how oil is 12kms below the Earth surface? or how billions of animals would choose to die in the same place over and over and sudenly get covered up by sedimentary rock (water washed over it) ?

So Flood geology can explain some of the evidences found in the natural world. (note chemistry of where oil fields are being natural to earth isn't actually flood related, but the coal seams can be). I havn't read about of bones or tree trunks being buried in oil fields, but wouldn't millions of bones be in there? But there are many examples of tree trunks being petrified in coal indicating the coal in the vast coal seams are young i.e. buried all at once in a very rapid about of time

Reading that link you gave, it sounds like the ICR are kind of like assholes and they are struggling to understand everything.
Also the author of that article is still believing that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to form where it would of been very quickly created in weeks after the dam broke open. (Dam of water happen after the flood), Mt St Helens within 24 hours in 1980 carved a canyon 1/40th the size of the grand canyon.

The funnel shape fibre optic cable helps to filter the light bounding in the back of the eye, to quote the book "refuting evolution 2" which i have infront of me (no1 is better imo) on page 118:

One reason is that the images can be distorted by light "noise" i.e. light that is reflected several times within the eye instead of coming directly through the pupil. But the Muller cells transmit the direct light strongly to the rods and cones, while the noise leaks out. This makes the images sharper.

It then goes on to talk about how chromatic aberrations, which is the different colors splitting apart because of the lens of the eye and how the muller cells wide tops allow them to collect any separated colors and refocus them ensuring the colors are in focus. Apparently expensive cameras have multiple lens to help correct this
Cheers
Chris.

The funnel shape fibre optic cable helps to filter the light bounding in the back of the eye, to quote the book "refuting evolution 2" which i have infront of me (no1 is better imo) on page 118:

One reason is that the images can be distorted by light "noise" i.e. light that is reflected several times within the eye instead of coming directly through the pupil. But the Muller cells transmit the direct light strongly to the rods and cones, while the noise leaks out. This makes the images sharper.

It then goes on to talk about how chromatic aberrations, which is the different colors splitting apart because of the lens of the eye and how the muller cells wide tops allow them to collect any separated colors and refocus them ensuring the colors are in focus. Apparently expensive cameras have multiple lens to help correct this
Cheers
Chris.

The "Young" universe is straw man argument for creationist.

A modern creationist would say the Bible says the Earth is 6000 years old as on Earth. The Bible also gives an age for the universe (day 1&2) and the stars at day 4 about 6000 years ago.

About now you would be thinking I just contradicted myself. let me explain:
The bible also says 17 different locations that the heavens is stretched out like a tend. (Space is expanding.)
Time is not constant. The time on earth runs slower than on a satellite. GPS system must compensate for this otherwise you location will be off 400m a day.
The time dilation is very weak only a few nanoseconds i think per year. But if you approach a black hole, they say that time stops when you get deep enough into the gravity well.
So heres the creationist scenerio compared to the big bang: What happens if you have all of the universe within 500 MLyr?
You will get the entire universe inside the event horizon of a black hole!
Time stops on day 4.
After day 4, God starts to stretch out the heaven (space), as the mass of stars & galaixes move out of the event horizions, time for those stars speed up. the light from those stars will reach earth as the event horizon reduces.
So for a galaxy on the edge of the universe, you get 14billion years, on earth, maybe just 24 hours (if not weeks or a few years, we still see the universe expanding).
On Earth you get only the 6 days of creation yet billion of years for galaixies.
This means Earth would have to be near/in the center of the universe. And if you see the red shifts of galaxies they are quanitized into rings. This pattern would only be seen if we were near the center.
http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-centre-of-the-universe-quantized-redshifts-show

Creationism is based on the same facts as operation science gives uniformitarianism.
Uniformitarianism (Atheists) and Creationists both put their own interpretation of the facts.

Pick a subject and go look up what a creationist would believe, http://creation.com/qa#faqs

Please learn about the "other side"'s position before declaring them wrong. There are many strawman arguments atheists put up to defend your failing world view being passed of as a science.


For example:
- Natural Selection (Discovered by a creationist) - is proven by operation science, yet this does not help GTE evolution (goo to you via the zoo type of change).
NS doesn't add information - it only selects from what is there.

- Mutations - also fact - yet this destroys the creature. It doesn't build up creature. (there are a handful of good mutation by destroying functioning things, this observed best case still goes against GTE. To prove my point, walk into a necular plant. If you turn green like the hulk, I am wrong. If you die from cancers and tumors, that only proves that mutations are bad and goes against GTE evolution.

- Natural Selection again: It's doing it's best to slow down the degrade of humans, i.e. by removing the seriously damaged creatures.

So we use facts but we dont try to "spin" it like evolutionists do. We rely on observed repeatable evidence, not speculations based on your philosophy.
I do recommend reading up of the website linked above.
Cheers. Chris.

Creationism is based on the same facts as operation science gives uniformitarianism.
Uniformitarianism (Atheists) and Creationists both put their own interpretation of the facts.

Pick a subject and go look up what a creationist would believe, http://creation.com/qa#faqs

Please learn about the "other side"'s position before declaring them wrong. There are many strawman arguments atheists put up to defend your failing world view being passed of as a science.


For example:
- Natural Selection (Discovered by a creationist) - is proven by operation science, yet this does not help GTE evolution (goo to you via the zoo type of change).
NS doesn't add information - it only selects from what is there.

- Mutations - also fact - yet this destroys the creature. It doesn't build up creature. (there are a handful of good mutation by destroying functioning things, this observed best case still goes against GTE. To prove my point, walk into a necular plant. If you turn green like the hulk, I am wrong. If you die from cancers and tumors, that only proves that mutations are bad and goes against GTE evolution.

- Natural Selection again: It's doing it's best to slow down the degrade of humans, i.e. by removing the seriously damaged creatures.

So we use facts but we dont try to "spin" it like evolutionists do. We rely on observed repeatable evidence, not speculations based on your philosophy.
I do recommend reading up of the website linked above.
Cheers. Chris.

Check it out: http://creation.com/qa#bad_arguments

For example: " ‘Light was created in transit.’ Some older creationist works, as a solution to the distant starlight problem, proposed that God may have created the light in transit. But CMI long ago pointed out the problems with this idea.

It would entail that we would be seeing light from heavenly bodies that don’t really exist; and even light that seems to indicate precise sequences of events predictable by the laws of physics, but which never actually happened. This, in effect, suggests that God is a deceiver.

For example, when a large star explodes as a supernova, we see a neutrino burst before we see the electromagnetic radiation. This is because most neutrinos pass through solid matter as if it were not there, while light is slowed down. This sequence of events carries information recording an apparently real event. So astronomers are perfectly justified in interpreting this ‘message’ as a real supernova that exploded according to the laws of physics, with observations as predicted by those same laws.

This is very different from creating Adam as fully grown, looking like a 20-year-old (although incredibly youthful looking), say, although he was really only a few minutes old. Here, there is no deception, because God has told us that He created Adam from the dust, not by growing from an infant. But God has also told us that the stars are real, and that they are signs (Genesis 1:14), not just apparitions from light waves."

Human beings evolved from ape-like ancestors millions of years ago in Africa. The fossil and genetic evidence are overwhelming.

Are you sure it is overwhelming?

I highly recommend you check out the article by "Tomkins, J. and J. Bergman. 2012. Genomic monkey business - estimates of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity re-evaluated using omitted data. Journal of Creation 26:94-100" (A reprint of the article can be found at this website: http://designed-dna.org/ or you can order the Journal of Creation off this website: http://creation.com/)

In the article they explain how the research done by Roy Britten and again by Ebersberger often did not include a third of the information which did not match chimp genomes. When they finished their research the parts they did use matched up around 92%, but if you add in the discarded data you only end up with a match of about 65%.

I don't think the genetic evidence is as overwhelming as you may think it is.

1st: It's not science fact I was working on: More the premise & possible outcome from it, based on an analogy in film (one I like to use because it tends to have more of a "common-ground" with the common man... would you prefer I quote scripture or classical literature instead? Less people would tend to see a "common-ground" in my estimation were I to use other forms of culture/media in my estimation... that's all).

2nd: This isn't my area either. I rarely post in the 'sciences section' here in fact, but this one "piqued my interest" is all!

3rd: I am only speculating here, using that genre to make a point.

BUT, in MY area, the computer sciences? I can tell you, point-blank, that a lot of folks (including Dr. Mark Russinovich of Microsoft whom I've had some 'dealings' with good & bad in the past + doing work for the same organization/companies for, loves sci-fi too!). Largely this goes on with engineers too. Comes with the territory with geeks to love sci-fi... a lot of what WAS merely science fiction decades ago, after all, is now science-fact because of guys like myself being inspired by it.

It "goes with the territory" in my field, so "my apologies" (not) for using it...

NOW, on the Nazi scientists & what you said:

Could be, I don't doubt you! I might have named the wrong man, but I do know that guy played games on folks. Not nice ones.

Plus - It's just what I "heard tell" (that the nazi's were working on genetic engineering... even nutty stuff like using monkey testicles sewn into the skin & some folks ended up with somekind of STD infections... is it true? I don't know, you tell me perhaps)...

* HOWEVER, this tends to "bear out my statement", so take a read:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22nazi%22+and+%22genetic+engineering%22&go=&qs=ns&form=QBLH

Lot of it too!

So... that "all said & aside":

Was I a victim of "the grapevine" or misinformation? Doesn't appear that way, especially in this one:

http://creation.com/hitlers-master-race-children-haunted-by-their-past

PERTINENT QUOTE ON THE "LEBENSBORN":

"Between 1935 and 1945, there were born some 10,000 children in Germany and an estimated 9,000 in Norway as part of a Nazi genetic engineering plan to build up an Aryan âmaster-raceâ(TM) or super-breed of humanity. This scheme was known as the Lebensborn or âFountain of Lifeâ(TM) program. Special clinics were set up where SS men1 were encouraged to mate with blue-eyed, blonde Nordic girls who had no Jewish ancestry, in order to produce âracially pureâ(TM) German offspring. The resultant babies were then brought up in the foster care of dedicated Nazi couples or reared in special orphanages. There were at least ten Lebensborn homes in Germany,2 and nine in Nazi-occupied Norway, where the unmarried pregnant women could give birth in secret away from their homes.3 The babies were christened in a ritual in which an SS dagger was held over them as the mother swore allegiance to Nazi ideology.4 If any of the children born into the program were disabled, they were killed"

APK

P.S.=> There you go... apk

Hello Frootloops,

Presumably, in your view God created me specially. He apparently designed me to be gay, since as far as I can tell I am innately gay (and in that sense I suppose my homosexuality is "natural" even with your definition). Around puberty when the other guys were becoming interested in girls I became interested in guys. I suspect genes conspired with conditions in my mom's womb to "flip a switch" an unusual way which only became apparent during adolescence. Why would God design me to be gay in light of the verses I quoted? It seems extremely cruel. The same argument can be made with "gay" replaced by "murderer", by the way. As far as I can tell the whole concept of being designed specially is flawed,...

The argument here is that we are not a direct creation of God. It's the same argument with someone with down symdrome or the australian soldiers exposed to nuke blast in australia for british tests in 1950s/60 where they and their children are dieing from cancers, tumors, and ever thing under the sun that could go wrong. I put that historical example in to show mutations are a bad thing to the body. (extremly rarly good but thats another topic)

In the christain belief system, The world & universe is cursed, basically alot of things a "f*cked up" (the * for any slashdot filters). Although Adam & Eve were perfect in the geans, each generation inherited the parent's mutations making them less functional. Some of these mutations can/will cause XXY, XYY kinds of people, maybe even female brain/male body types.
To put it as an analogy, God created a Ferreira, and over time the design being copied like chinese whispers, is starting to look like a golf.
Thats why the early generations (6000 years ago) lived for over 900 years, but with more generations the mistakes built up due to mutations so their live spans decreased like a half life graph, as genisicists would predict would happen. (note that the life span in the history in the bible doesn't actually prove it, it's just what would be expected given the asusmptions presented.)

So when a mutation happens it might make you gay but that it not the blueprint that God designed. (The chritian scienist view is that all living things are devolving, if you want I can talk about the logic/evidence there.)

but most people accept that conceit because of the comfort offered by believing in a benevolent all-powerful personal watchdog you can pray to and maybe get your wish from but who in any case makes everything work out for the best in your life, especially when it doesn't seem like it.

I agree, but I dont think most people think too much about it.

In my own view, evolution may be said to have designed a penis to fit in a vagina, but even supposing I wanted to use your definition of naturalness via design, that fact is not enough for me to call gay sex "unnatural" since the connotations of the word (bad; wrong; evil; confused; etc.) are so incorrect and inflammatory.

Side argument: Actually scientists dont know how sex came about because asexual reproduction is vastly fitter than sexual reproduction. For sexual reproduction, the genitals needs to be form both male and female all awhile asexual is carried on. It doesn't make sence. heres a 10 min video of arguments from a creationist site: http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=Cu0IK-EB5F4. Lets argee to disagree here, I would still call the act not natural, even if you feel it is natural. Also I would admit that "natural" is a very bad/weak definition of a word for my point of view: e.g. some rabits are gay, so would that be natural?.

The bits I quoted about sodomy being "unnatural" and a "perversion" have been used to justify the death penalty and murders. This is not an old, abstract issue either. From Wikipedia's

There are many flood legends. http://creation.com/many-flood-legends
http://creation.com/australian-aboriginal-flood-stories

Evidence of a global flood, well off the top of my head,

• 1 - the layers of the grand canyon are all smooth, if they were millions of years old they will be rough like the surface layer.
• 2- Each layer in the grand canyon are all water base including a sand layer which had dunes in it (under water dunes)
• 3 - layers of sedimentary rocks spanning 1000s of squared Kms in USA I think it was. - also in Australia but it broken into 2 groups because of another layer overlayed, I can't remember what the "pink color on the map" layer rock was now., look at map around the 3 sisters to see vast areas cut out.
• 4 - a triangle of 100kms each side of coal on the south of Australia, 3 km thick, is very implausible to be a swamp, but easily explain as a flood.

look around and you will find that you can explain alot with a great flood. Blindly saying theres no evidence will only get you applauses from people who dont want to know.

There are many flood legends. http://creation.com/many-flood-legends
http://creation.com/australian-aboriginal-flood-stories

Evidence of a global flood, well off the top of my head,

• 1 - the layers of the grand canyon are all smooth, if they were millions of years old they will be rough like the surface layer.
• 2- Each layer in the grand canyon are all water base including a sand layer which had dunes in it (under water dunes)
• 3 - layers of sedimentary rocks spanning 1000s of squared Kms in USA I think it was. - also in Australia but it broken into 2 groups because of another layer overlayed, I can't remember what the "pink color on the map" layer rock was now., look at map around the 3 sisters to see vast areas cut out.
• 4 - a triangle of 100kms each side of coal on the south of Australia, 3 km thick, is very implausible to be a swamp, but easily explain as a flood.

look around and you will find that you can explain alot with a great flood. Blindly saying theres no evidence will only get you applauses from people who dont want to know.

"reationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting"

That is a interesting point. What is information. The problem here is that data needs to be interpreted. This is a vagueness about this as what constitute info and data. E.g. you would say Mozart's music is designed even if you heard it being played by a learner on a flute that got every 10th note wrong.
1. 1 increased genetic variety in a population i.e. Lenski
In this example they are trying to show how mutations have made the bacteria evolved.
The problem here is that it is devolution. That is a functioning gene got stuck on.
Bacteria ‘evolving in the lab’?
1.2 increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
The argument here is gene duplication is the technique used to gain "information" in DNA so things can evolve. The theory goes on the lines of "part/whole of a gene/chromosome" which is then free to mutate into something useful while the other picks up the stack.
I have just been reading up on this so I can reply to you (hence my delay in replying (that and work and doing stuff with the wife)), A creationist view here (I assume ID as well) is gene duplication does happen, it's proven many times over. But gene duplication is usually very bad in humans and animals. An example of gene duplication is Down’s syndrome. (the reverse is Turner syndrome). The genes *tend* interact badly with each other and when done artificially in mice, they dont survive. *Tends mean that I read a case where the double up of a gene helped out a lemur to process food when the doubled gene mutated.

I thought I should point out that although genes/chromosomes can duplicate, it doesn't mean it's evolving. As a classic example from a site: Gene Duplication

In regard to gene number, humans have about 25,000 genes,23 while rice has 50,000.24 In terms of genome size, the largest known genome does not occur in man, but rather in a bacterium! Epulopiscium fishelsoni carries 25 times as much DNA as a human cell, and one of its genes has been duplicated 85,000 times yet it is still a bacterium.25

What caught me by surprise is strangely it's seems to be very common and tolerated in plants, but when the plant does this it can suffer from a fitness cost like in mutations and natural selection.
I thought I should also point out this plant which will revert it's DNA if it needs too.

1.3 novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
Sorry but I was having a hard time searching for Knox. I would like a last name so I could know what they are talking about.


1.4 novel genetically-regulated abilities
Just skimming by this. Nylon Bacteria
2. Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway
Sorry my eyes glazed over while looking into this. I am not a chemist :-( Rough shot at the subject, Unless they can show the same bacteria having 2 halves and another generation having it fused, they are just guessing about it's "evolution" pass. Also an alternate solution was it was a whole and a mutation split them into 2, another mutation can join them up. again sorry I couldn't be bother looking too deeply into this.

Zha

"reationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting"

That is a interesting point. What is information. The problem here is that data needs to be interpreted. This is a vagueness about this as what constitute info and data. E.g. you would say Mozart's music is designed even if you heard it being played by a learner on a flute that got every 10th note wrong.
1. 1 increased genetic variety in a population i.e. Lenski
In this example they are trying to show how mutations have made the bacteria evolved.
The problem here is that it is devolution. That is a functioning gene got stuck on.
Bacteria ‘evolving in the lab’?
1.2 increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
The argument here is gene duplication is the technique used to gain "information" in DNA so things can evolve. The theory goes on the lines of "part/whole of a gene/chromosome" which is then free to mutate into something useful while the other picks up the stack.
I have just been reading up on this so I can reply to you (hence my delay in replying (that and work and doing stuff with the wife)), A creationist view here (I assume ID as well) is gene duplication does happen, it's proven many times over. But gene duplication is usually very bad in humans and animals. An example of gene duplication is Down’s syndrome. (the reverse is Turner syndrome). The genes *tend* interact badly with each other and when done artificially in mice, they dont survive. *Tends mean that I read a case where the double up of a gene helped out a lemur to process food when the doubled gene mutated.

I thought I should point out that although genes/chromosomes can duplicate, it doesn't mean it's evolving. As a classic example from a site: Gene Duplication

In regard to gene number, humans have about 25,000 genes,23 while rice has 50,000.24 In terms of genome size, the largest known genome does not occur in man, but rather in a bacterium! Epulopiscium fishelsoni carries 25 times as much DNA as a human cell, and one of its genes has been duplicated 85,000 times yet it is still a bacterium.25

What caught me by surprise is strangely it's seems to be very common and tolerated in plants, but when the plant does this it can suffer from a fitness cost like in mutations and natural selection.
I thought I should also point out this plant which will revert it's DNA if it needs too.

1.3 novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
Sorry but I was having a hard time searching for Knox. I would like a last name so I could know what they are talking about.


1.4 novel genetically-regulated abilities
Just skimming by this. Nylon Bacteria
2. Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway
Sorry my eyes glazed over while looking into this. I am not a chemist :-( Rough shot at the subject, Unless they can show the same bacteria having 2 halves and another generation having it fused, they are just guessing about it's "evolution" pass. Also an alternate solution was it was a whole and a mutation split them into 2, another mutation can join them up. again sorry I couldn't be bother looking too deeply into this.

Zha

"reationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting"

That is a interesting point. What is information. The problem here is that data needs to be interpreted. This is a vagueness about this as what constitute info and data. E.g. you would say Mozart's music is designed even if you heard it being played by a learner on a flute that got every 10th note wrong.
1. 1 increased genetic variety in a population i.e. Lenski
In this example they are trying to show how mutations have made the bacteria evolved.
The problem here is that it is devolution. That is a functioning gene got stuck on.
Bacteria ‘evolving in the lab’?
1.2 increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
The argument here is gene duplication is the technique used to gain "information" in DNA so things can evolve. The theory goes on the lines of "part/whole of a gene/chromosome" which is then free to mutate into something useful while the other picks up the stack.
I have just been reading up on this so I can reply to you (hence my delay in replying (that and work and doing stuff with the wife)), A creationist view here (I assume ID as well) is gene duplication does happen, it's proven many times over. But gene duplication is usually very bad in humans and animals. An example of gene duplication is Down’s syndrome. (the reverse is Turner syndrome). The genes *tend* interact badly with each other and when done artificially in mice, they dont survive. *Tends mean that I read a case where the double up of a gene helped out a lemur to process food when the doubled gene mutated.

I thought I should point out that although genes/chromosomes can duplicate, it doesn't mean it's evolving. As a classic example from a site: Gene Duplication

In regard to gene number, humans have about 25,000 genes,23 while rice has 50,000.24 In terms of genome size, the largest known genome does not occur in man, but rather in a bacterium! Epulopiscium fishelsoni carries 25 times as much DNA as a human cell, and one of its genes has been duplicated 85,000 times yet it is still a bacterium.25

What caught me by surprise is strangely it's seems to be very common and tolerated in plants, but when the plant does this it can suffer from a fitness cost like in mutations and natural selection.
I thought I should also point out this plant which will revert it's DNA if it needs too.

1.3 novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
Sorry but I was having a hard time searching for Knox. I would like a last name so I could know what they are talking about.


1.4 novel genetically-regulated abilities
Just skimming by this. Nylon Bacteria
2. Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway
Sorry my eyes glazed over while looking into this. I am not a chemist :-( Rough shot at the subject, Unless they can show the same bacteria having 2 halves and another generation having it fused, they are just guessing about it's "evolution" pass. Also an alternate solution was it was a whole and a mutation split them into 2, another mutation can join them up. again sorry I couldn't be bother looking too deeply into this.

Zha

"reationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting"

That is a interesting point. What is information. The problem here is that data needs to be interpreted. This is a vagueness about this as what constitute info and data. E.g. you would say Mozart's music is designed even if you heard it being played by a learner on a flute that got every 10th note wrong.
1. 1 increased genetic variety in a population i.e. Lenski
In this example they are trying to show how mutations have made the bacteria evolved.
The problem here is that it is devolution. That is a functioning gene got stuck on.
Bacteria ‘evolving in the lab’?
1.2 increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
The argument here is gene duplication is the technique used to gain "information" in DNA so things can evolve. The theory goes on the lines of "part/whole of a gene/chromosome" which is then free to mutate into something useful while the other picks up the stack.
I have just been reading up on this so I can reply to you (hence my delay in replying (that and work and doing stuff with the wife)), A creationist view here (I assume ID as well) is gene duplication does happen, it's proven many times over. But gene duplication is usually very bad in humans and animals. An example of gene duplication is Down’s syndrome. (the reverse is Turner syndrome). The genes *tend* interact badly with each other and when done artificially in mice, they dont survive. *Tends mean that I read a case where the double up of a gene helped out a lemur to process food when the doubled gene mutated.

I thought I should point out that although genes/chromosomes can duplicate, it doesn't mean it's evolving. As a classic example from a site: Gene Duplication

In regard to gene number, humans have about 25,000 genes,23 while rice has 50,000.24 In terms of genome size, the largest known genome does not occur in man, but rather in a bacterium! Epulopiscium fishelsoni carries 25 times as much DNA as a human cell, and one of its genes has been duplicated 85,000 times yet it is still a bacterium.25

What caught me by surprise is strangely it's seems to be very common and tolerated in plants, but when the plant does this it can suffer from a fitness cost like in mutations and natural selection.
I thought I should also point out this plant which will revert it's DNA if it needs too.

1.3 novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
Sorry but I was having a hard time searching for Knox. I would like a last name so I could know what they are talking about.


1.4 novel genetically-regulated abilities
Just skimming by this. Nylon Bacteria
2. Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway
Sorry my eyes glazed over while looking into this. I am not a chemist :-( Rough shot at the subject, Unless they can show the same bacteria having 2 halves and another generation having it fused, they are just guessing about it's "evolution" pass. Also an alternate solution was it was a whole and a mutation split them into 2, another mutation can join them up. again sorry I couldn't be bother looking too deeply into this.

Zha

Interestingly for the nostalgic amongst us, creation.com today released a story about the first edition of Britannica, published 1771, which speaks of Noah's flood as having covered the globe (with an illustration) and suggests a creation date of around 4007BC.

Imagine living back when these things were part of the mainstream understanding of world history.

"dying, you shall die" is the literal Hebrew translation.

If you want a creationist analysis of the ages, here is a good link http://creation.com/living-for-900-years

Cheers.

From a creationist perspective, also see:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v3/n1/human-veriform-appendix

Regarding rabbits and 'night pellets': after being excreted, these are eaten whole by the rabbit and redigested in a special part of the stomach. (source: wikipedia)

There was an old controversy regarding the Bible classifying rabbits as animals that 'take up' again what they first ate:
http://creation.com/do-rabbits-chew-their-cud

The discovery of this 'night pellet' redigestion process confirmed this.

Hello Anonymous,

I am a creationist, (I am not liked if you look at my karma). I have a few comments about your post.
First: Randomness can not generate the first cell (abiogenesis) . Even the hypothetical of 256 genes using the probability of left vs right handed proteins makes the changes of that "prefect" cell (which is actually too weak to survive) have the odds of 10^3070. The chemical assembly of the cell is not linked to the chemical properties of the cell. Evolution has the issues with science. (I've talked about mutations & natural selection is my history)

Third: Genesis 1 & 2 are to be read literally. Genesis reads with specific ordering. It is not a poem, It is not a allegory, it's not a parable. It is written as a observation recording of what happen. It is therefore to be read as history. But lets use scripture to check this out. Genesis 1 uses ordeal numbers with it days. Day One Day Twom Day three. The only other part in the bible that matches it's structure is in numbers ch 17, where it talked about day one, day two day three where it was talking about some jewish thing I can't remember. That is read has fact/history and not as a poem, so dont try to pick and choose what you want to believe.

How do the people in the bible thought about Gen 1?
  In exodus, in the 10 commandments, Rememberer the 7th day to keep it holy.. (It's referencing to a literal 24 hour day, not periods like muslems, not billion of years like evolutionists.
Jesus say if you don't believe Moses then you wouldn't believe me (Moses written the tora (first 5 books of bible) to my memory)

To others reading this post:
If any one has issues thinking there is a "religion" vs "science" instead of

"creation world view" vs "evolution world view"
"creation science" vs "evolution science"

may I suggest http://creation.com/ and read up on what is fact and what is story telling, instead of just blindly trying to bash reglious groups (even the wrong muslims) because you think there are wrong. When you hear only one side of the story you will think that is correct until the other side gets a chance to speak.

Cheers
(and err, God bless ;-) )

I've been reading the biblical creationist perspective on this since Feb 2011: Rapid tomcod ‘evolution by pollution’? Yeah, right and wrong.

This is not the kind of "evolution" needed to evolve lower-order organisms into higher-order ones. In fact, a better description for this particular case is "develution"

If you look close enough at any of these examples of evolution we keep hearing about, they're never the kind that molecules-to-man evolution requires.

Try again

Natural Selection (and maybe mutations) are the main methods for new species.
(Definitions: Species: are creatures who dont bread with each other
                      Kind: Not sure how to describe it, basically how you classify something to a 8yr old, (dog, fish, horse) )

These fish are the same "Kind", Fish, theses are still the same "Species".
A "Kind" contains lots of variations within itself (DNA) where the creature can be fine tune to the enviroment. That process called natural selection.

An example of this is Dogs and Wolfs. Chiwawas and great danes come of wolfs. The Wolf had the information for all these species within the K9 "Kind" The Chiawawas and great danes are different species but they are all dogs, but the Chiawawa & GD are more specified than the wolf meaning you can't get the wolf from the chiawawa, but you can get the chiawawa from the wolf. So a more specified (selected) creature doesn't show evolution, as it shows a decrease in the variation of the host. It is not evolved because it has less variations (hence harder to adapt to new enviroments) than the parent kind.

In the fish, the Mutated fish grow slower and is only found near the hudson where it's mutation gives a better advantage than the flaws it brings. Each is better suited to its enviroment. But having something broken is not a sign a evolution. evolution (Goo to you via zoo) needs increases in structures and features, not things breaking.

Lets do a car analogy, I took a brick, though it in your car window, it is now smashed up so you can't see, you will now have to drive slower and so you now dont skid as much. this only works in snowy (PCB) areas but it shows your car has evolved by having a smashed up window. I bet you wont thank anyone that tests that out. But this is the BS that gets passed as evolution all the time. Something that breaks doesn't show evolution. Something that changes doesn't show evolution (according to how lazy you define evolution). Only new features could explain Evolution which this case doesn't show. PCB resistances via broken genes I argue isn't a "new feature", but a smashed window.

Things we agree on?
      Each fish are better suited to it's environment.

things we dont agree on:
      These mutations dont show evolution (things breaking dont show "Goo to you via zoo" evolution)
      The hudson fish are "weaker" because they can't survive in the wild (as good as others)
      Evolution causes "specification/speciation". The theory of Evol is not needed for speciation. NS & Mutations do that already.

So my remark stands that claiming that a gene broken is "evolution" (goo to you type) is bad science.
(Please dont try to argue that simply changing is evolution, as no creationist argues that creatures change. Natural Selection & Mutations are real science that can be observed in the lab and repeated, for ~400 years. The "goo to you via zoo" version of "evolution" is not observable and makes no predictions. See the great dawkins being stump when ask what causes evolution (play the video) http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again )

What bad science. This is just another article pushing evolution as the theory of how everything works.

I read about these fish about a 2 weeks ago, Here a link to a online version if you want to read it. http://creation.com/rapid-tomcod-evolution

Basically the fish are an example of mutations and natural selection. The damage genes in the fish make it better suited to it's environment but it doesn't show it getting more complex, actually the opposite, a weaker fish. But you dont get published without towing the line of Evolution.
Notice how the mutations are limited to the Hudson area. The fish are less fit than the wild fish in the oceans.

(I define evolution as change going up hill, or as to quote a catch parse, "goo to you via zoo". I do not defined it as "things changes", as Natural Selection & Mutations cover that area already.)

Of course I will be modded down as always, I just thought that a different view should be presented, take it or leave it, its up to you.

A quick google will come up with:
Evolution as a religious system has been adopted by many students, scholars and laypeople as a way to explain the origin and the development of the cosmos and all life including man. They are building their lives on the following beliefs:

I indeed googled and found this quote. The strange thing is that the author, a "David Unfred" also seems to be the author of a book rationalizing dinosaurs in the context of a literal interpretation of the Bible. So once again, we have the claim that Evolution is a religious system, but only from someone who apparently is a Bible literalist.

Did you search for "Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. " Thoses are from evolutionists, the above was a description of evolution as a religion from a Christian source. But I still shown that view from:
- Professor Richard Lewontin
-Dr Michael Ruse
-Shallis, M
Yes, it would make sence for a bible believing creationist to say that dinosaurs where around. The word dinosaur was coined up in the 1800s, When the King James bible was translated they used another word, Dragon.

(copy and paste from http://creation.com/dinosaurs-and-dragons-stamping-on-the-legends)
In fact, two such animals are described in the book of Job. The first is a giant vegetarian animal that may be either a Diplodocus or a Brachiosaurus: ‘Behold now behemoth which I made with thee; he eateth grass like an ox . He moveth his tail like a cedar his bones are like bars of iron, he drinketh up a river’ (Job 40:15–24). The second appears to have been some sort of large fire-breathing animal. Just as the small bombardier beetle has an explosion-producing mechanism, so the great sea-dragon may have had an explosion-producing mechanism to enable it to be a real fire breathing dragon: ‘Canst thou draw out leviathan with a hook his breath kindleth coals and a flame goeth out of his mouth .’ (Job 41:1–34).

The bombardier beetle is a bug in India which creates a large explosion in it's belly to scare of attackers because of the large bang and the terrible smell. The program with this beetle is that the 2 chemicals that get mixed must be perfectly done or the beetle blows himself up. Evolution in small steps can not do this because any mistakes the the beetle is dead. It must be a all or nothing thing. This also protects against mutations because if it degrades then the beetle dies too.

Now you are under the belief that dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago. Did you know that there has been discovered a T Rex with stretchy blood vessels and red blood cells found in USA. the dating on it was ~30,000 years using c14 dating (which is another argument) but that proves that dinos were around very recently. from cave painting in usa from native indians which look like brachiosaurus, to the historical stroy about st george that kill a big lizzard thing, alaxain who army in India was scared by a big thing in a cave, to temples in Lios, which had an icon looking like a 3 horn dino trisearatop (can't spell it).
I ask you to look up this dinosaur with blood cells and ask yourself how do you get dinos with red blood cells because it can't be 65Myrs because DNA can not last that long.

This shows the evolutionist is commited to the idea of naturalism no matter the evidence.

"Naturalism" is whatever the evidence is, by definition.

naturalism is the belief that of only the physical exists.

Evolution makes no prediction about anything.

Nonsense. Scientific theories make predictions and explanations by definition. I have discussed a number of predictions made by evolution, particularly the presence

Evolution doesn't make these claims nor are they implications of the theory. People do, such as yourself. And if humans aren't descended from animals, then how is it possible for us to act like animals? Such things as hedonism (and human behavior in general) really can only be explained by humans have significant common traits with animals, particularly primates (which the current theory asserts are closely related to us).

A quick google will come up with:
Evolution as a religious system has been adopted by many students, scholars and laypeople as a way to explain the origin and the development of the cosmos and all life including man. They are building their lives on the following beliefs:

1 - Space, matter and time are the infinite and the eternal trinity. It is neither being created or destroyed, only changing in form and essence;
2 - Because time is infinite, the potential of accidents to happen, for example, the formation of life from previously nonliving matter, becomes not only possible, but probable;
3 - All life that exists today is the result of these chance accidents occurring in time and giving rise to a process of continued upward development of life on Earth. Man, ape, dog, cat, ant and plant, all life, at one distant point in time arose from at least one common ancestor.

Do you believe the above statements?

I did a look around for well regarded people to quote from and not just "bums by the side of the bus stop", that is I picked the leaders and not no-bodies to quote from.
So a google will come up with:

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ...'

This shows the evolutionist is commited to the idea of naturalism no matter the evidence.
Another athiests (who is well regarded)

Link: http://creation.com/the-religious-nature-of-evolution

Renowned Canadian science philosopher Dr Michael Ruse made astonishing admissions about the religious nature of evolution at a symposium titled ‘The New Antievolutionism’ (during the 1993 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.) These statements shocked his colleagues because he has written a book, But is it Science?, denouncing creationism because it is religious and was the last person expected to give the game away.

He appeared to admit that evolution is based upon dogmatic exclusion of a miraculous creation/creator—in effect, a faith commitment to naturalism, the unprovable, religious belief that no supernatural element exists or is relevant.

Ruse said this:
‘at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things, come what may.’
He went on to defend this unprovable a

Some of these comments are isomorphic to this review of Richard Dawkin's history of your family tree:

http://creation.com/review-the-ancestors-tale-richard-dawkins

Interesting that this answer to your question was posted yesterday: http://creation.com/oil-not-always-fossil

Er... not exactly new. And hasn't set the world on fire. Oil companies don't use this model because it hasn't worked.

I suspect it takes a lot more money than you think to start an oil company.

I didn't suggest starting an oil company.

I suggested starting an oil surveying company.

"those f**ing scientists". The guy who wrote the article has a PhD in marine biology (which can be verified) - see here. I'd say he knows what he's talking about when it comes to the actual science of the matter. The reality is that a set of data can be made to fit just about any model you like if certain assumptions are allowed to be made at the outset.

Creation Ministries International have put together this article which rebuts the claims of BioLogos:

http://creation.com/historical-adam-biologos

The conclusion of the article reads:

"It is disingenuous for Biologos to claim no evidence for Adam and Eve for several reasons. First, their conclusions are based on evolutionary assumptions. One cannot legitimately claim something to be proven without testing the assumptions behind that claim. To do otherwise amounts to circular reasoning and question begging, and a rejection of any alternative theory following from this is thus reduced to nothing more than a straw man argument. Second, the majority of data fit nicely into the straightforward biblical model, including a single starting couple a mere 6,000 years ago. While there are several unresolved issues with the biblical model as it relates to the data at hand, the same can be said about every evolutionary model, so one cannot conclude that the Bible has been invalidated by the available evidence. Albert Einstein is rumored to have opined, “A thousand experiments cannot prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong.” This is sound logic. Francis Collins and BioLogos would do well to heed his advice."

The article talks from the assumption of long ages and evolution. It assumes about the humans mutating from (insert type) monkeys. The Christian view is that we did not come of any type of monkey or ancestry ape. Therefor if you are trying to map the human gnome to any monkey/ape you will require large changes to the information in the dna. I remember reading that even atheists claim that from a mutating gene we all came from a human in Africa (although they date it at ~40K years)

You should all of hear how chims are 98% human, how many of you know that we are 95% horse and 95% mouse, 50% banana.

If you want to hear from what "true" (take it however you want) creation/Christian scientist then take a look at what they are really saying
http://creation.com/qa#faqs // scroll down to the biology section,
http://creation.com/mutations-questions-and-answers // If you want to know the facts behind mutions
http://creation.com/chimp-y-chromosome // thats just a simple search to see the 98% chim claim was bad science.

They do not believe the assumptions behind evolution. When your eyes are open to examining the evidence yourself you will see the weakness of the evolution claim.

So next time you try to bash a Christian as not knowing anything, first see what they say about the subject.
And yes I do interpret Genesis as literal history as it is written in such a way. It starts the foundation of jewdo/christain reliegon and if a Christian can't take that as a fact, they can't take anything else in the bible as fact. It is important to understand why "we" believe in the things we do, Christianity is logical system and not something to that should be just "believed" in like the tooth fiery or "santa claws" (he did exist in 12th cen, so say that to your 5 yr then say he dead, lol >:-) )

p.s. There is no apple in the garden! we dont know wtf it looks like! so someone draw an apple instead, just be glad it wasn't a durian fruit.
Cheers

The article talks from the assumption of long ages and evolution. It assumes about the humans mutating from (insert type) monkeys. The Christian view is that we did not come of any type of monkey or ancestry ape. Therefor if you are trying to map the human gnome to any monkey/ape you will require large changes to the information in the dna. I remember reading that even atheists claim that from a mutating gene we all came from a human in Africa (although they date it at ~40K years)

You should all of hear how chims are 98% human, how many of you know that we are 95% horse and 95% mouse, 50% banana.

If you want to hear from what "true" (take it however you want) creation/Christian scientist then take a look at what they are really saying
http://creation.com/qa#faqs // scroll down to the biology section,
http://creation.com/mutations-questions-and-answers // If you want to know the facts behind mutions
http://creation.com/chimp-y-chromosome // thats just a simple search to see the 98% chim claim was bad science.

They do not believe the assumptions behind evolution. When your eyes are open to examining the evidence yourself you will see the weakness of the evolution claim.

So next time you try to bash a Christian as not knowing anything, first see what they say about the subject.
And yes I do interpret Genesis as literal history as it is written in such a way. It starts the foundation of jewdo/christain reliegon and if a Christian can't take that as a fact, they can't take anything else in the bible as fact. It is important to understand why "we" believe in the things we do, Christianity is logical system and not something to that should be just "believed" in like the tooth fiery or "santa claws" (he did exist in 12th cen, so say that to your 5 yr then say he dead, lol >:-) )

p.s. There is no apple in the garden! we dont know wtf it looks like! so someone draw an apple instead, just be glad it wasn't a durian fruit.
Cheers

The article talks from the assumption of long ages and evolution. It assumes about the humans mutating from (insert type) monkeys. The Christian view is that we did not come of any type of monkey or ancestry ape. Therefor if you are trying to map the human gnome to any monkey/ape you will require large changes to the information in the dna. I remember reading that even atheists claim that from a mutating gene we all came from a human in Africa (although they date it at ~40K years)

You should all of hear how chims are 98% human, how many of you know that we are 95% horse and 95% mouse, 50% banana.

If you want to hear from what "true" (take it however you want) creation/Christian scientist then take a look at what they are really saying
http://creation.com/qa#faqs // scroll down to the biology section,
http://creation.com/mutations-questions-and-answers // If you want to know the facts behind mutions
http://creation.com/chimp-y-chromosome // thats just a simple search to see the 98% chim claim was bad science.

They do not believe the assumptions behind evolution. When your eyes are open to examining the evidence yourself you will see the weakness of the evolution claim.

So next time you try to bash a Christian as not knowing anything, first see what they say about the subject.
And yes I do interpret Genesis as literal history as it is written in such a way. It starts the foundation of jewdo/christain reliegon and if a Christian can't take that as a fact, they can't take anything else in the bible as fact. It is important to understand why "we" believe in the things we do, Christianity is logical system and not something to that should be just "believed" in like the tooth fiery or "santa claws" (he did exist in 12th cen, so say that to your 5 yr then say he dead, lol >:-) )

p.s. There is no apple in the garden! we dont know wtf it looks like! so someone draw an apple instead, just be glad it wasn't a durian fruit.
Cheers