What makes Creationism so hard to believe in, and evolution so easy?

[Zohaar818]

zohar818, .

You write beautifully (like the beauty in a thistle) but I don't understand your point. I checked out the first of the 3 links you gave and liked what I saw and hope all of it was true. Much of it I have already questioned myself. The second link required joining. I don't join that easily. The third link to the paranormal I admit I didn't bother with. Extrasensory perception can wait until I exhaust normal perception.

 

Are you saying that a lot of evidence that contradicts a theory doesn't constitute a pattern? Are you saying that the use of pattern recognition is not a tool that we should use?

Or, are you saying that not all things fall into a pattern? If that is so, then they are unique in the universe. Each of us IS unique but we all are part of the pattern called Human.

 

We don't lose our individuality because we are one of a kind.

 

Is this a new variation on the old (contradiction in terms) theme, "there are no absolutes"?

 

Or are you saying that a giant ship from space came down and dropped species onto the planet after each big catastrophic event? If so, that just pushes the problem off-world like life coming down to earth on a meteor. The problem of where and how that life came to be still is there to deal with.

 

 

It's a shame you don't read links I post or you wouldn't ask some of the questions you do.

The paranormal site is not about ghosts and esp..it is about physical evidence which defies theory..such as a lens found in an egyptian crypt..metal objects that have been machined and tooled, which pre-date human history..etc. So why don't you check it out..or do you have some esp that lets you discern webpage content solely from its URL?

 

on other points you mention..YES...i definitely believe that human evolution was interfered with by other than earthly beings/intelligences...the echoes of which we are still feeling today..and I believe we get visits still..or do you totally discredit all UFO reports as bogus on principle?

I would love to list links here but feel it is probably best served to start a new thread and discuss it.

Suffic e it to say..ATTENTION ALL NON-CREATIONISTS!!!..that the majority of what you know, think you know, or have been asked to learn in order to pass state-mandated tests in school is WRONG.

Here's a few links I hope everyone reads before commenting..

http://www.holoscience.com/news/mystery_solved.html

http://www.kronia.com/electric.html

 

Oh..and one more just to round out the experience...

http://www.rense.com/general65/grav.htm

[http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050523halleyborrelly.htm]

 

Since this IS ostensibly a science forum and since we are ostensibly arguing science and not personal faith or creed..can any SCIENTIST please cite contradictory evidence or debunking proofs to discredit the content of the sites?

 

If not, then you'll have to take it on faith that what they taught you in school was a myth, and that you are educated to be fundamentally ignorant of the basics..

Now then..if they lied to you about the universe, how true do you think they've been about evolution theory?

 

http://www.fixedearth.com/electric.html

 

lastly..since you asked...please look up Annunaki..here's a few links to get you started..

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc170.htm

http://www.atlantisrising.com/issue13/ar13annunaki.html

http://www.vibrani.com/Anunnaki.htm

http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/SumerianInfoOfAnnunaki-Anakim.htm

 

Those of you who know your Bible will be familiar with the terms Nephilim and Anakim..being enemies of God ..so much so that he set the jews off to kill every last one of them....Anakim is hebrew for 'giants''..and nephilim in hebrew means those who fell [or descended]...please note that the Genesis legend is derived from the Sumerians ..and the Sumerians called the star gods Annunaki..who were giants..

How can you believe in the Bible and not believe in the Anakim?

[C1ay]

I'm calling the whole process evolution.

 

I now will and do understand the view of evolution not being always one thing turning into a completely other thing (such as monkey to man), but also consider the process of a not so extreme change (such as 2 strait hair cats having a springy hair cat by a mutation of the genetics) also to be a form of evolution.

 

It just seems that every time i hear about evolution, it never comes without the extreme evolution view...and it always has this wacko philosophy of origin of somthing added in. So I grew this thought of it always being to the exxtreme of things, and that it's all pointing to the question of origine (seeing that is like one of the biggest questions out there. And it always seems to take God out and throw him away.

Evolution is not about origins, particularly the origin of life. It is about the change of life, acclimation and adaptation. For me the extreme would be speciation. The origin of life is really a great unknown. Those of faith believe in creation, some evolutionists believe in abiogenesis and some of us simply choose not to speculate, because there is no proof of any origin at this point. To absolutely declare that it is anything is a close minded leap of faith in my opinion.

 

In another sense you could say the universe has evolved from quark-gluon plasma but that is a different context of evolution. That is a separate topic from the development of life.

[eMTee]

Tell me clay, do more people believe creation threw atheist evolution compared to inteligent design..or more for inteligent design other than atheist evolution?

[C1ay]

Tell me clay, do more people believe creation threw atheist evolution compared to inteligent design..or more for inteligent design other than atheist evolution?

I've no idea how many people believe in each.

[Queso]

my GUESS would be atheism.

[Zohaar818]

Dear Softwaresteve,

 

As I stated earlier, I do not see the reason for positing God's existence in order to justify the fact that 2+2=4...nor does finding the golden mean [and pi] to be releveant in almost all physical structures imply that God created 'designed' the golden mean or devised the formula for finding pi. At best it implies that the 'creator' was working within rules that even He had to follow...the Laws of Nature as it were.

Your argument puts things backwards in positing that God's nature is the Law from whch all things follow..and I absolutely do not agree.

[*As for the second link being to a site you must join..I do not understand that as I called it up on google and went straight to that URL..wasn't asked to join anything..so i have no idea about it.Sorry. i will try and find you another one...]

here's the best debunking site..

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html

 

To the other commentators who seem to take issue with facts on sites I posted...remember..I am not an ID-er and don't necessarily agree with the editorial comments or creationist view as stated..but the first two sites about the electric universe are not creationist sites..they are science sites. Here is the creat ionist response to skeptics refuting the shrinking sun...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/skeptics.asp

 

if you recheck my posts you will see that my reason for posting such links was to play devils advocate and bring facts and questions that I feel are legitmate to raise in any discussion about which is easier to believe...evolution theory or creationism...and to remove that discussion from being based solely on the merits of whether you believe the Bible to be the unaltered word of God.yada yada.

I know it isn't and you probably know it isn't..in my heart of hearts I even believe some of the 'creationsists' know better than to believe it....but that doesn't take the rest of the contradictory evidence off of the table when it comes to evaluating how true [accurate, correct] the evolutionist argument is.

And frankly, a lot of the secular sites are just as guilty, if not moreso, of obfuscating evidence and ignoring glaring errors than the creationsists...so both sides end up talking over each other, and passionately defending articles of faith irrespective of the science and the questions the observed facts raise...here's a site about the myth of the mitochondrial Eve....

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2095

 

My personal view is that any theory of creation..any story which accounts for the observable facts will inevitably have to account for things as varied as the archelogical top ten mysterious artifacts [out of hundreds similar].... the undeniable existence of UFO's,

http://www.filecabi.net/v.php?file=ufoondemand.wmv

and the stunning new data pointing to 'electric' comets.

http://www.rense.com/general63/elele.htm

[Zohaar818]

Here's one for the secular to explain..please.

 

Electric Sun - The Myth

Of The Nuclear Furnace

By David Talbott

Thunderbolts.info

5-27-5

 

What is the source of the Sun"s light and heat" Throughout history people have proposed answers to this question that have always reflected human experience. The Sun was a shining god, or a "spark" cast off in the creation. Later it was a pile of burning sticks or coal.

 

By the nineteenth century, astronomers had become accustomed to thinking that gravity was the dominant force in the heavens. So they began to conjecture that the energy of the Sun might be due to "gravitational collapse", a compression of solar gases by gravity. This simple hypothesis, its proponents claimed, could provide the required energy output for a few tens of millions of years.

 

By the late 19th century, however, geologists were confident that Earth was much older than the astronomers" model would allow, and the conflict between astronomy and geology continued for several decades. Then, in 1920, the British astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington combined the principle of gravitational collapse with an exciting new principle in the physical sciences"nuclear fusion. He proposed that at the core of the Sun, pressures and temperatures induced a nuclear reaction fusing hydrogen into helium.

 

In 1939 two astrophysicists, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar and Hans Bethe, working independently, began to quantify the gravitational collapse and nuclear fusion hypothesis. Bethe described the results of his calculations in a brief paper entitled "Energy Production in Stars", published in 1939.

 

The model that followed the work of Eddington, Chandrasekhar, and Bethe described a "nuclear furnace" responsible for igniting stars. And for decades now cosmologists, astronomers, and astrophysicists have accepted the basic concept as fact.

 

In the early formulations of this "standard model" of star formation, it was said that the gravitational force within a primordial cloud leads to its progressive compression into a "circumstellar disk", as the outer material in the cloud "falls" inward, and gravity gives birth to a star-sized sphere, whose core temperature continues to rise under increasing pressures. Collisions of atoms within the core eventually become so energetic that electrons are stripped from their nuclei, leaving free electrons and hydrogen protons (a plasma as we now understand it). In stars roughly comparable to our Sun, with envisioned core temperatures less than 15 million Kelvin, the nuclear reaction begins when hydrogen protons are joined or stuck together in the "proton-proton fusion" of hydrogen into helium.

 

Critics, however, pointed out that the temperatures given by standard gas laws are not sufficient to provoke nuclear fusion. They cited the "Coulomb barrier", in this case the electric repulsion between two protons, or like charges. Once protons are fused, they could be held together by the strong nuclear force, but that force dominates only at short distances. To achieve fusion, it would be necessary for protons to cross the barrier of the repulsive electric force, which is sufficient to keep the protons apart forever. But Eddington"s successors accomplished the impossible by something called quantum tunneling, enabling an extremely small percentage of protons to simply "appear" inside the barrier at any particular time.

 

It is ironic that the early objections to the fusion model of the Sun focused on the powerful electric force. This was long before arrival of the space age with its discovery that the charged particles of plasma permeate interplanetary and interstellar space, and long before any systematic investigations of plasma and electricity in space.

 

Advocates of the "nuclear furnace" made a series of fundamental assumptions common to astronomy long before the emergence of a nuclear model of the Sun. The credibility of these assumptions was not an issue to them. They assumed that diffuse clouds of gas in space would collapse gravitationally into star-sized bodies. They assumed that the Sun"s mass could be calculated simply from the orbital motions of the planets. They assumed that Newtonian calculations of mass, coupled with standard gas laws, enabled them to determine the pressure and temperature of the Sun"s core.

 

The pioneers of the nuclear furnace also followed another assumption common to astronomy in their time"that the Sun and planets are electrically neutral. They gave no consideration to the role of electricity and no consideration to the role of the magnetic fields that electric currents generate.

 

Are the assumptions made in the first half of the twentieth century still warranted after decades of space exploration" Those proposing an electrical perspective, based on more recent data, insist that the earlier conjectures are not only unwarranted, but discredited by direct observation and measurement. They emphasize that every feature of the Sun as we now observe it, defies both the gravitational assumptions and the standard gas laws relating to pressure, density, temperature and relative motions of gases. The deepest observable surface of the Sun yields a temperature of about 6,000 degrees Kelvin. As we peer into the darker interior of sunspots we see cooler regions, not hotter. But moving outward to the bottom of the corona, the temperature jumps spectacularly to almost 2 million degrees. Thus, the superheated shell of the Sun"s corona reverses the expected temperature gradient predicted by models of internal heating.

 

It seems that the Sun does not even "respect" gravity. The mass of charged particles expelled by the Sun as the solar wind continues to accelerate beyond Mercury, Venus, and Earth. Solar prominences and coronal mass ejections do not obey gravity either. Nor does sunspot migration. Nor does the movement of the atmosphere, since the upper layers rotate faster than the lower, reversing the situation predicted by theory, while the equatorial atmosphere completes its rotation more rapidly than the atmosphere at higher latitudes, another reversal of predicted motions.If the Sun"s atmosphere were subject only to gravity and the hot surface, it should be only a few thousand kilometers thick instead of the hundred thousand kilometers or more that we measure. Even the shape of the Sun defies the expectations of theory. The revolving Sun should be an oblate sphere. But it is a virtually perfect sphere, as if gravity and inertia have been overruled by something else.

 

For the electrical theorists, the "something else" should be obvious from the dominant observed features of the Sun (in contrast to things assumed but never seen). The anomalies facing the standard model of the Sun are predictable features of a glow discharge, as we shall demonstrate in coming Pictures of the Day.

 

*The full text of this article, with text links, can be viewed at: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050517fusion.htm

[Zohaar818]

To all secualrists and orthodox evolutionists..[and yes, Creationists, too]...a site to consider.

 

Geologic anomalies abound throughout this world and others which suggest interventions of an extraterrestrial form (and, in some cases, the intentional kind). For example...

 

Sediments found off the coast of Greenland bear chemical traces indicating the existence of photosynthesis as early as 3.8 billion years ago. Based on this and other evidence, Sleep of Stanford University [1] concluded that the “window of time” when life on Earth began was just the 200 million years between 4.0 and 3.8 billion years ago. “Everything alive today evolved from organisms that originated within that Window of Time.”

 

Other scientists have concluded that no matter how life began on Earth, it did so about 4.0 billion years ago, and probably by some “catastrophic event.” Nobel prize winner Manfred Eigen [2] concluded that a primordial gene appeared 3.89 billion years ago (plus or minus 600 million), and “this would be possible only in the case of an extraterrestrial origin.” Lynn Margulis [3] has raised the same point when she asked the question: “Did our organic matter originate in interstellar space?”

 

While science has been occasionally successful in explaining how life on Earth evolved, it has never adequately explained how it began! The reality is that the murky-soup or life-from-clay hypotheses (the only current theories remotely viable) are no longer sufficient to account for life on Earth (although either method might have been feasible if there had been more time and energy). The Annals of Earth simply don’t support such theses.

 

The concept of an extraterrestrial source for life on Earth relies on “celestial emissaries”, e.g. comets, meteors, and/or impacting asteroids. Sir Fred Hoyle [4] has said: “about four billion years ago life arrived on a comet.” Lynn Margulis [3] noted that many organisms, when faced with harsh conditions, “release tough little packages (“Propagules”) that carry genetic material into more hospitable surroundings..” Nobel Laureate Sir Francis Crick [5] in a paper titled “Directed Panspermia” went a step further when he concluded that the first organisms or spores came from an extraterrestrial source, not by chance, but as “the deliberate activity of an extraterrestrial society.”

 

Ah yes! We arrive at the core: The possibility of “Prime Directive” Violations. There is a very strong suggestion that life was planted on Earth billions of years ago, intentionally, and with complete awareness of the implications. Thereafter, life began the incredibly slow evolutionary process, thus accounting for the following billions of years.

 

Until suddenly, roughly 550 million years ago, an extraordinary event occurred in the geologic record of the planet Earth. Known as the Cambrian Explosion, the evolution of life on Earth moved from mind-numbing biological simplicity to burgeoning complexity. Suddenly, and with spectacular effect, the trick of cellular differentiation and aggregation into multicellular organisms occurred. An explosion of new life forms came about, with a bewildering variety of complexity.

 

The degree of this complexity can best be demonstrated by reference to the phyla of the Cambrian Era. The biological hierarchy for life and its many forms, includes kingdoms (essentially animals and plants), below which is phyla, and then classes (e.g. mammals and reptiles). Phyla represent discrete body plans, upon which many variations are possible. There are 30 major phyla in today’s world, just as there have been for the past 500 million years. This is a striking continuity of anatomical designs, upon which as many as 50 billion variants have come and gone.

 

However, in the aftermath of the Cambrian Explosion, there may have been as many as 100 phyla! (Most quickly becoming extinct.)

 

What caused this explosion of life in huge variations and the “phase transition”, or what was literally a “quantum leap”, from single-celled to multicellular organisms?

 

The Cambrian Explosion was a geologically brief moment of tremendous evolutionary experimentation, followed by a severe sorting process -- severe in terms of species, with whole phyla (which includes a whole wrath of different species) going extinct in a geologic twinkling of an eye. Furthermore, the shape of today’s world was influenced to a large extinct by which phyla survived 500 million years ago! The question which arises is whether or not the extinction of 70 phyla was random or natural.

 

David Myers [6] has theorized an extraterrestrial intervention into the natural evolution of Earth by the bringing into close orbit an artificial satellite which we now refer to as the Moon! This astounding and controversial suggestion has three major points in its favor. The first is that the sudden appearance of the Moon in orbit about the Earth would have profound effects on the Hyperdimensional Physics and the ability of the Earth-Moon system to tap into the Zero-Point Energy of other dimensions. The sudden surge of resulting energies would be more than enough for the Cambrian Explosion of new life. This would thus explain why the Cambrian Explosion occurred, as well as how.

 

Meanwhile, the subsequent elimination of seventy percent of the phyla in the Cambrian Period from a natural evolutionary process does not make sense in and of itself, and suggests strongly that intervention by extraterrestrial intelligences might have been the key. It’s rather like an extraterrestrial culture bringing a Moon into orbit around a planet ripe for a quantum leap in evolution, and then tweaking the system in order to choose the phyla which the extraterrestrial culture has determined would be allowed to survive. Natural selection may have played a part, but may have been only a part of the process. It would have been equivalent to the same process a modern day gardener might use in creating the best roses for market or flower competition.

 

A second point in Myers’ favor is the distinct possibility that the Moon currently in orbit about the Earth is, in fact, artificial. When one of the landers of the Apollo missions was allowed to crash back onto the surface of the Moon, scientists were amazed to discover through their seismology instruments that the Moon “rang like a bell”. This suggests a hollow Moon -- which in turn suggests an artificial Moon.

 

Hoagland [7] and others have suggested that the anomalously large size of the Earth’s Moon (based on the satellites of other planets in our solar system) is not arbitrary. The fact the Moon precisely fills the Sun’s disk during a total solar eclipse is not coincidental according to this argument. Neither is the distance from the Earth to the Moon arbitrary, but was at one time (millions of years ago) exactly 60 times the radius of the Earth. This relationship is significant in the theory of Hyperdimensional Physics and might have contributed to the quantum-like leap in the Earth’s evolutionary history. In addition, the timing of the exact relationship (based on the Moon’s current and apparently steady progression away from the Earth) is the Permian Period, 285 million years ago, the Age of the Dinosaurs, and the final Period in the Paleozoic (“old life”) Era.

 

The third point is the evidence for a time When the Earth Was Moonless. The simple assumption that the Moon was created simultaneously with the Earth is... well, simplistic. A later arrival of the Moon, either by chance or intention, or as an artificial vehicle or just a natural, very large hunk of rock is much more likely.

 

Curiously, and as equally baffling as the Cambrian Explosion, there have also been mass extinctions of species. In the Permian Extinction, no less than 96 percent of all the then-existing species perished (possibly a K-Mart Blue Light special on discontinued species). The Permian close-out special occurred 250 million years ago and began a trend in mass eliminations. Based on the fossil record, mass extinctions have occurred (in terms of millions of years): 250, 222, 198, 175, 146, 126, 94, 68, 42, and 16 million years ago -- and thereby displaying a periodicity of approximately 26 million years. As a result of these extinctions, 99.9 percent of all species that have ever lived on Earth are now extinct!

 

The question that must be asked is whether or not the mass extinctions (and the lesser extinctions) are natural or if they’re induced by “Prime Directive” Violations. Scientists today might argue that the Dinosaurs disappeared as the result of a comet hitting the earth. But could this just have easily been an interstellar war? Or a large rock aimed at the Earth? What better way to have a rock fight with someone than to be at the top of a gravity well and your opponent at the bottom? Ever try to have a rock fight from the bottom of a well, with the other guy at the top? See, for example, Robert Heinlein’s The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.

 

In fact, one might ask the question as to whether or not the current “lesser” extinction rate of species in the modern world -- due in large part to the actions of an allegedly intelligent species (in this case, humankind) -- might eventually culminate in yet another mass extinction! An extinction that might potentially include the perpetrator either as a result of cause and effect, or as an overt act by a displeased higher tribunal.

 

http://www.halexandria.org/dward357.htm

[ldsoftwaresteve]

It's a shame you don't read links I post or you wouldn't ask some of the questions you do.

The paranormal site is not about ghosts and esp..it is about physical evidence which defies theory..such as a lens found in an egyptian crypt..metal objects that have been machined and tooled, which pre-date human history..etc. So why don't you check it out..or do you have some esp that lets you discern webpage content solely from its URL?

..All right, I'll look at it. :naughty:

Incidentally, the first site pointed out that some of the dating methodologies were weak, at best, and some of your latest posts deal heavily with conclusions based upon dating. If some of the assumptions behind these methodologies are false or possibly false, I'd say that before we can conclude anything using dating, we'd need to solidify the assumptions.

[Boerseun]

eMTee - I have a book here that says the Earth is riding on the back of a huge tortoise. The Earth is flat, and the ocean is constantly falling off the side, being replaced by rivers and streams.

Now - this book also says that we humans have been created by the Great Fish, the Source of all Life and Morals, and that the Great Fish is everywhere, omnipresent and omnipotent.

The reason I should believe the contents of this book, is solely that the book says if I don't, I will be shoved up the Cosmic Tortoise's butt for the rest of Eternity. Which I don't want to have happen to me. I would much rather dine forever at the Great Feast of the Righteous, for believing in this Book.

I want to challenge you to disprove anything this book tells me, but only if you accept this book as the ultimate Truth in All Matters - which you'll have to do before I'll argue with you.

Sorry, but those are the Rules of the Game, as laid out by the Great Fish.

[C1ay]

eMTee - I have a book here that says the Earth is riding on the back of a huge tortoise. The Earth is flat, and the ocean is constantly falling off the side, being replaced by rivers and streams.

Now - this book also says that we humans have been created by the Great Fish, the Source of all Life and Morals, and that the Great Fish is everywhere, omnipresent and omnipotent.

The reason I should believe the contents of this book, is solely that the book says if I don't, I will be shoved up the Cosmic Tortoise's butt for the rest of Eternity. Which I don't want to have happen to me. I would much rather dine forever at the Great Feast of the Righteous, for believing in this Book.

I want to challenge you to disprove anything this book tells me, but only if you accept this book as the ultimate Truth in All Matters - which you'll have to do before I'll argue with you.

Sorry, but those are the Rules of the Game, as laid out by the Great Fish.

Does that mean that all of us that don't believe are destined for anal retention by the great fish? :naughty:

[Queso]

that's just as funny as saying we'd go to hell :naughty:

[Boerseun]

That's my whole point, see. If the Creationists can support their point of view with the Bible as the only evidence, then I can make any silly claim based on a book, without factual or evidential support. Is there really a wicked which of the West? There's gotta be - 'coz it's right there, in that book! You see? So the Tin Man and the Scarecrow and the Caterpillar smoking it up on his mushroom must also exist. You have to be consiquential. If all the stuff in the Bible is fact, then my Great Fish Conjecture must be true, too - seeing as my evidence (a book) carries exactly the same weight.

[Queso]

yes yes! i love how funny it all is.

[niviene]

That's my whole point, see. If the Creationists can support their point of view with the Bible as the only evidence, then I can make any silly claim based on a book, without factual or evidential support. Is there really a wicked which of the West? There's gotta be - 'coz it's right there, in that book! You see? So the Tin Man and the Scarecrow and the Caterpillar smoking it up on his mushroom must also exist. You have to be consiquential. If all the stuff in the Bible is fact, then my Great Fish Conjecture must be true, too - seeing as my evidence (a book) carries exactly the same weight.

 

Good point, really. Some parts of the bible are recorded in many different histories, but so are some parts of Robin Hood and King Arthur, both fictional works. I wouldn't say that a Dr. Seuss book carries the same weight as the bible, but you make a very valid point.

[Boerseun]

A good thing too, that Dr. Suess didn't have a hand in writing the Bible. Imagine...

 

...and on the Seventh Day, she tried an apple on for size

Adam got to hear of it and thought "Boy, that wasn't wise!"

So they got kicked out the garden for not listening to the Boss

He looked at all the monkeys and figured: "No great loss"

 

But the bastards were persistent, they just wouldn't die!

pests, famine, hunger, it's not as if He didn't try!

So he cast them in the desert where they were all to toast

and for 40 years the monkey had to listen to him boast

 

blah di blah

etc.

etc.

 

I'm probably getting slightly anal here.

[Queso]

hahahaha! wtf that came out of nowhere. HELLA funny!