matt, I can't speak for Wes but the only one I have seen in this thread (and others) who has been complaining about victimization and being offended are people like yourself.

Nobody on the creationist side of the issue is against science and scientific research and discoveries. You're the one who claims that to be the case. It is not so unlike the highest authorities of the Roman Catholic Church who had accused learned men like Gallileo who dared to suggest that the earth wasn't the center of everything. You claim that science and God could never co-exist.

Each scientific discovery and marvel glories the workmanship of God. Every amazing discovery and advancement for me is empirical proof that indeed that we live in an amazing universe crafted by an intelligent hand.

Sadly matt you rely only on the limitations of man's intellect and his handiwork and your natural eyes alone. Fossil records, carbon dating are great but these things alone are not enough to convince me and others that evidence of evolutionary theory is proof beyond reproach.

Whether or not Neanderthal Man had rudimentary spiritual awareness is debatable since it is not even been proven conclusively that Nanderthals could even speak, let alone develop a complex language and abstract thought processes to develop spiritual awareness.

Never have made that claim. Stop lying.

Still having a problem ignoring my posts? Go away.

Consider it done.

If you believe I'm a liar and dishonest then so be it, if you believe I twist or put words in your mouth so be it.

No sense in beating a dead horse with you on these matters given your mindset.

You have told so many lies about me, misrepresented my position on so many issues that I can only conclude that you are a compulsive liar.

Now, stay out of my face and actually mean it this time. Can you do that, hmmm? Can you actually be a man of your word for a change?

Only the ones that happen to disagree with your mindset about the world. Odd how you're willing to take all that science has to offer you... until it clashes with your religion, that is.



Hmm, well, there are plenty of theistic evolutionists out there, and just about any atheist you meet would be more than willing to believe in a god if presented with proof, so... who thinks science and god can't coexist now? Oh, right. It's the creationists who somehow think that accepting evolution would cheapen their interpretation of god for some reason.



If there is a god, I would be inclined to agree with this statement. That being the case, why can't things such as the Big Bang, stellar nucleosynthesis, and evolution be a glorification of the process of creation?



And just what other methods do you suggest we use to discover the universe?



It isn't proof beyond reproach. In fact, that's exactly the point of it. The entire theory of evolution is falsifiable. Find us a fossilized rabbit in the Cambrian era, and you will have disproved evolution. So no, evolution is not beyond reproach. It is, however, an extremely well put together explanation of many different observable facts, that is backed by a mountain of evidence. I wonder, old1miner, and please answer this question entirely honestly.

Do you know any of the evidences that we've used to prove atoms exist? Could you cite what proofs we use as you did with evolution (namely, the fossil record and radiometric dating)? And if you can't (which I suspect is the case, but will reserve judgment until receiving an answer), how do you know atoms exist? Unless of course you don't believe in atoms, in which case my question is just the opposite: why not?

No FTA, I am an avid reader of science and nature, contrary what some may say about me (not saying that you do btw...).I don't think it clashes at all with my faith. In fact, it strenthens my belief in the existance of God. I just don't think random creationism and evolution theory is capable of answering the most fundemental questions that all humans have. Who are twe? Why are we here? Where do we go after we die?



I believe there are plenty of reputable and renowned scientists, naturalists,astromoners and archealogists who stand by thier belief that God is real, just as there are just as many who say there is no evidence of such.

So I ask you this, do we simply state that God simply doesn't exist based on "lack of evidence" that the latest technological marvels of man susposedly have shown?If you are looking for that kind of proof, then you are never going to find God.



The Big Bang, galaxy formation and stellar nuclear fusions and planetary formation processes do denote that there is a God.



Well you can always pray and ask God if these things are true.



I don't know what I can tell you FTA. But for me personally when I see the nightime sky and look at the stars and look at the world around me and reading about the amazing universe it just tells me that only an intelligent hand could have crafted such a finely tuned universe. That also goes for the amazing way how living things were designed for thier enviroment, even in fossil records.



I do believe atoms exist as well as protons and electrons and such. But no one has ever seen physical proof of them. But if we be so readily to believe the theories of physicists who tell us these incredibly tiny things do exist, then why is it so difficult for us to believe the existance of God then?

Everyone on the creationist side of the issue is against science and scientific research and discoveries.

Creationism is inherently hostile to science.

In light of the ever-growing mountain of evidence in support of evolution, there are only three paths to creationism:

1. the path of ignorance.
2. the path of dishonesty.
3. the path of both.

Dishonesty about science is anti-science.

Ignorance about science is not anti science per se, but willful ignorance of science is. And arguing about science form a position of ignorance is dishonest.

Honest, well-informed creationists do not exist. They are an impossibility. An oxymoron.



There is no "empirical proof" whatsoever of a divine hand in any of this. That warm gooey feeling you get when you look at the stars at night is not empirical evidence of anything.



That you cite carbon dating really shows that you've been keeping yourself in the dark about this stuff. (psst! Carbon dating only works up to about 50,000 years ago!)



It's also totally beside the point. Even if the Neanderthals were mindless, drooling sub-apes that went extinct because they kept walking off cliffs (unlikely), it has nothing to do with the study--which shows that your many-greats-grandfather shacked up with a Sheanderthal one night and the result was (eventually) you: not quite fully human, the fruit of a bestial union many eons ago.

Really? You really don't think that evolution or the Big Bang clashes with your faith? I wonder then, why do you not believe in them?



Well, the first one's easy. We, as a species, are very intelligent apes, our closest relative being chimpanzees, who we have a common ancestor with that lived about seven million years ago. As for the other two questions: who says that they're important? Religious people like to act as though these are questions that demand spiritual answers. Obviously I can't answer either one of these with evidence, but I will tell you what I believe the answers are based on the current evidence.

Why are we here? Because a process of chemical evolution resulted in simple lifeforms about 3.8 billion years ago. From there, those lifeforms procreated and evolved until we humans arrived here. If you're looking for an ultimate purpose for life, I don't believe there is one, except maybe to pass on your genes and keep the species going.

Where do we go after we die? This is what I really am talking about when I say questions that really have no reason to be asked. There is nothing to suggest that we do go anywhere after we die, thus asking this question is kind of nonsensical. I think the answer is the ground. And there we rot and return to the earth from whence we came.

If, however, you want me to speculate on some kind of spiritual or religious answer, I will indulge you for a moment. Of all the ideas ever put forth, reincarnation seems to me the least extraordinary. I could imagine an idea of a consciousness being "recycled", so to speak, of course never having any knowledge of any past lives. But this is just pure speculation (and some wishful thinking) not based on any material evidence, and there's really no reason to believe it.



Not just as many, an overwhelming number of scientists are non-religious. A poll a couple of years ago determined that about 95% of scientists in the United States were non-religious. Now before anyone would like to say, "Aha! See, most of the scientists aren't religious, which is why they construct all these godless theories! You've been busted now," allow me to say this. That sentiment is completely backwards. The theories aren't godless because the scientists are. The scientists are mostly godless because the theories and discoveries are.



How can something show a lack of evidence? That doesn't make any sense. Man's latest technological marvels haven't shown the "lack of evidence" for god, they've just failed to find any. I know that you believe in the power of prayer and spirituality, but the fact is that no material piece of evidence ever collected has suggested that there is a god. You might see design in the way the universe works, and that's your right, but you have to understand that on a material level, the universe existing is only evidence for the universe, not a designer or creator.



If that is your belief, that is fine. Don't you normally deny the idea of the Big Bang though? And I know that you reject evolution, even though that could be just as much a wonder of god as individual instantaneous creation. Perhaps I'm wrong about your Big Bang beliefs, but why is it that you reject evolution? That could glorify god's creation just as much as the Genesis story could.



Hehehe. Funny you should mention this. It was prayer that ended up being the final blow to my Christian faith about five years ago (sans a small four month period in which I almost converted to Mormonism, but that's a story for another time). In any case, after having many doubts about god, I prayed... a lot. It was the fact that I didn't really seem to be receiving any answers that finally caused me to become an agnostic (I later took it one step further to atheism, but it started with agnosticism). So, I've tried prayer, and it did not work.



That's all fine and dandy, but I fail to see what this has to do with the proof and evidence for evolution. Not one evolutionist claims that the theory is beyond reproach. We herald it as fact, sure, because there is just a mountain of evidence for it, but the theory is falsifiable, it can be proven wrong, and it is therefore not beyond reproach. Why does believing in god make it so hard for you to accept evolution? This is the only conclusion I can draw from your statement, as your rebuttal to my statement about the theory of evolution was to talk about a designed universe. Why are the two incompatible for you? And if they're not, then why do you not believe in evolution?



Okay, two things. First off, you didn't fully answer my question. I wanted to know if you knew the evidences for atomic theory. You obviously know some of them for evolution, as you listed the fossil record and radiometric (specifically carbon) dating. Can you list some of the ways we know about atoms? I would wager a guess that you can't, else you probably would have answered the question. That being the case, why are you willing to accept atomic theory without knowing or understanding ANY of the evidence for it, but not evolution?

Second thing, you completely missed my point. The point was exactly what you just said. Not one person ever has directly observed an atom. Just as not one person has ever directly observed the so called "macroevolution". Yet, by making inferences from the available evidence, we know that atoms exist, just as we know that evolution happens. That was my point. You are more than willing to accept atomic theory, I suspect purely because that does not clash with your religion, and in fact strengthens it in your opinion.

Whereas admitting to evolution would mean giving up one of your cherished beliefs about god, despite the fact that we have more observable evidence of evolution than we do of the atom. As a matter of fact, we don't actually have a single unified model of the atom that can explain everything that goes on in it. Every model of an atom you've ever looked at has been wrong, we know it's wrong, but we use it as a teaching model nonetheless, because it is still useful for getting an idea across that we know to be true.



Because atomic theory is still based on observable material evidence, even if we can't see the atom itself. God, on the other hand, has neither ever been observed directly, nor has he left behind evidence from which we can infer his existence. I know you believe that things like the universe are ways in which we can see god's design, but you must realize that in an absolute sense, the universe existing is only evidence of the universe, not that it was designed.

Aside from the second question (Why are we here?), they aren't capable of answering those questions. But for a very good reason...they aren't meant to.

As for question number two...because your parents had sex.


My questions to you: Why do you find it inconceivable that your god (or any other god) might not have used the Big Bang and/or evolution as part of the process of creation? And why, if this god did NOT use those methods, did he provide so much evidence that implies that those events/processes DID occur? Is it just so that he can shout "GOTCHA!!!" at people who don't automatically believe what has been spoon-fed to them for generations going back to the Bronze Age and choose instead to trust their senses and education instead, and damn those people to the fiery abysses of hell for all eternity?

Your god sounds like quite an asshole.

In today's wtf moment, it would appear that 1oldminer believes in the Big Bang (and consequently a 14.5 billion-year-old universe). It's just evolution that's out the window.