While one may correctly say that evolution is a fraud, that is not to say that that same person “believes in†Creation as it is literally set forth in Genesis.
The answer is: We don’t know where we came from. Let’s find out.
Evolution is as much, if not more, of an irrational religion than what any Creationist spouts.
Sean O’leary
The Church of the FSM is always looking for content. Details here
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
Purchase from
Amazon.com
Purchase from BN.com
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
Add these buttons to your site:
Bobby's Blog
Contact Bobby: Contact Me
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. This means you're free to use the content but not sell it. More Details |
Doc: As Maxwell has previously stated, there’s is little point to discussing the straight science of this issue with each other. There is virtually no chance of either of you making an impact on the other’s beliefs that way. In the end, the one big question we have is “Is Creationism science?” While I understand that there may be scientific study required to poke all your little holes in evolution, Creationism is not science because it requires supernatural intervention by definition. Do I believe that students should be told that there are still numerous holes in evolutionary theory and that there always will be unless a time machine is invented? Of course, but I see absolutely no reason that ID can be taught as a reasonable alternative in our biology classes. What are your thoughts on the issue?
Note: If I seemed to ramble a bit in this post, don’t mind. I’m 14 years old and sick.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Legal Historical proof is strong enough to assert that Jesus did what was claimed that he did do.”
Where?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Okay, using this logic, you find an old fossil, and try to test its DNA and C-14 through a test tube, how is that evidence? â€
.
You are right this alone is not enough, that is why the have geologists to age the rocks around them. They also use fossils found in the ice, and you know that they can tell the age of the ice through various methods.
.
Now if all these different methods match up then they have effectively aged the fossil. But if just one of the above (and more which I am unsure of) is out then a question mark is put on the evidence. Science is obsessive about testing results using several methods, religion fails to use any.
Wrong again!
Religion uses deductive reasoning to come to the conclusions that it does. If you had been anywhere near around the stuff as long as I have, you’d know this. Unfortunately for you, they are probably doubly dependent upon Logic than anything else, and if something does not conform to Logic, it is thrown out. Look up Glenn Miller’s site to see how much work goes into actually proving the stuff Religion does. Its about 5 times the amount of Modern Day Science.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Legal Historical proof is strong enough to assert that Jesus did what was claimed that he did do.â€
Where?
Look up Christian Think Tank, then come back and talk to me. :).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Buttjester: Don’t be a prick. This guy is what we want. Reasonable debate breaks the monotony of stupid insults
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am a very recent convert.
I have taken up pastafarianism in the hope that through communing with the great FSM he will let me not be touched by his noodly appendage as I jump from airplanes. Thus when I am skydiving I can, one day, do so without a parachute, once HE feels that I have sufficient faith. I plan to spread the word of FSM to all of the other skydivers at the local dropzone so that they can help me to convince HIM to help us with his noodly appendage during our “intelligent falling†episodes.
Of course, I doubt many people of other Religious beliefs would be willing to take that Leap of Faith… Maybe their belief in their God just isn’t as strong as they say. I say they should prove how much they believe in their god instead of trying to reason with us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Look up Christian Think Tank, then come back and talk to me. :).
Relax. I was just making fun of you for all the times you’ve done that in this argument. {=)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Doc: As Maxwell has previously stated, there’s is little point to discussing the straight science of this issue with each other. There is virtually no chance of either of you making an impact on the other’s beliefs that way. In the end, the one big question we have is “Is Creationism science?†While I understand that there may be scientific study required to poke all your little holes in evolution, Creationism is not science because it requires supernatural intervention by definition. Do I believe that students should be told that there are still numerous holes in evolutionary theory and that there always will be unless a time machine is invented? Of course, but I see absolutely no reason that ID can be taught as a reasonable alternative in our biology classes. What are your thoughts on the issue?
Note: If I seemed to ramble a bit in this post, don’t mind. I’m 14 years old and sick.
No problem there. Naturalism is actually self defeating. C.S. Lewis has also pointed out that one would have to observe all miracles in order to state that there are no miracles. David Hume tried to disprove miracles, and nothing has come of the argument really since (except a lot of people seem to be misguided by his claims). Hume looked at a bunch of deaths, and then stated, that since many people die, that Jesus could not rise from the dead. He failed to look at the quality of evidence, which is what any wise person would do when making any kind of decision at all on this issue. So Philosophically, Naturalism is bunk.
Is Creationism Science? Sure it is. Go to Creation on the Web (website) and look the question up. Its a great site with plenty of information.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Max
Ya, I’m sorry. You are right. I’m just a little tired and I just couldn’t quite believe he threatened to “ostracize” me. Whatever..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Look up Christian Think Tank, then come back and talk to me. :).
Relax. I was just making fun of you for all the times you’ve done that in this argument. {=)
Right, but mine were legitimate. You don’t back up your arguments with evidence. I have, and you’re playing the card stacking game with me. I’m used to this treatment, even from PHD Scientists sadly enough.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Look up Christian Think Tank, then come back and talk to me. :).
Relax. I was just making fun of you for all the times you’ve done that in this argument. {=)
Right, but mine were legitimate. You don’t back up your arguments with evidence. I have, and you’re playing the card stacking game with me. I’m used to this treatment, even from PHD Scientists sadly enough. That’d be the difference.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
the earth isn’t 6000 years old. it is billions of years old. and yes, radioactive decay and carbon dating to prove so. just saying its false is ignorant.
.
isn’t the real michael martin a philosopher at Boston university, not to mention, an atheist.
.
uh oh, i guess he’s going to hell for being atheist. i know i’m going to hell. i just know that if there’s beer and women, i’m perfectly fine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May his great noodlyness forgive me….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Or perhaps, Jesus was a Liar, Lunatic or Lord? Would you like to go there with me….cause I’d highly doubt you’d want to mess with me here. ”
.
Actually I’d go so far as to say that the character known as Jesus is fictional. There is actually very little evidence of his existance, other than the bible itself ( and lets face it this is the lest trust worthy article EVER).
.
Using the bible as evidence is similar to using the Harry Potter books as evidence that Harry Potter is a real person. “look Potter is a real English name and Paddington station is real too, obviously he is a real person.”.
.
So while I would not say anything directly about Jesus, because I believe he is a fictional character, the writes of this work of fiction are blatant liars, parhaps loonies who can tell it was 2000 years ago.
.
Faith makes you ignorant, which in itself is not a crime but to be happy about your ignorance is the greatest crime ever for a human. Please wake up, I don’t think any of my posts will help you, but at least go and read some material regarding evolution and the age of the earth. After all I have read (and to my displeasure) can quote the bible, I have also read the Koran a few times, so I already know your side at least try learning about mine.
.
I truely recommend Dawkins, the Blind watchmaker.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh for goodness sake! The Doc really, truly believes that the world is only 6000 years old! Hahahahahahaha! This is rich. Thank you so much, Doctor. This has made my day. So, Oral Roberts University gives PHD’s?
.
Just a word to the wise, though: you need to credit where you are snitching your materials from. Otherwise you really could get into trouble. Because they are posted on a website that you can easily access does not mean that they are not someone’s intellectual property — although the intellectual part is debatable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Look up Christian Think Tank, then come back and talk to me. :).
Relax. I was just making fun of you for all the times you’ve done that in this argument. {=)
Right, but mine were legitimate. You don’t back up your arguments with evidence. I have, and you’re playing the card stacking game with me. I’m used to this treatment, even from PHD Scientists sadly enough. ”
.
Evidence? what evidence do you need hundreds of books, websites and programs. Evolution is not a practical joke that has gone on since Darwin came up with it for “shits and giggles” thousands of scientists devote there lives to improving and learning by observation and testing.
.
The evidence you presented regarding Jesus was not evidence, an empty tomb does not equil someone raising from the dead. Say for instance your Dog died you put it on the floor with a blanket over it, you come back and it is gone, do you think to yourself
.
A) best get a cross and some holy water I have a vampire dog to catch
B) It must be Jesus’s dog, praise the lord
C) Someone has obviously moved it.
.
Due to the time period for the tomb 2000 years you have a further D option, has in the course of 2000 years the body decayed to such an extent there is no evidence of the body anymore?
.
It is obvious you have been brought up not to use logic when it comes to your faith but you really should try.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RAmen Captain RAmen. You’re sure to get a nice view of the beer volcanoe and a couple hundred strippers the way you’re headed!
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tell me, oh well-read one, why we are not. (Because your explanation is not adequate, and its self defeating and false)…Please Doc. You don’t have to prove that we are not the sum of our biology because my explanation is not adequate, self-defeating and false? This is school yard pansy talk! I said we are the sum of our chemistry and biology( we are what we are because of our brains…which preceed MIND, can’t have mind without brain…). You said C.S Lewis says we are not, which I think means you say we are not. I said prove it, you said you don’t have to because my argument was somehow invalid. CHICKEN!! BAWK BAWWWK. Give me the one bit of evidence that says we are more than the sum of our parts. I can hold the universe in my mind. I can travel to places I’ve never been, and consider your god is my own. It is called imagination. Imagine that there is no god. Imagine that evolution is real. Can you? You claim debating ideas is your forte. Drop the double-speak and talk about imagination.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The good doctor seems to be a member of the WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com forum as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ramen Pixel Pete, when you get to the big noodly harbour in the sky look for me ship “The Now the world has Meaning” she be docked to in the west ‘arbour. We’ll go a plunderin’ together.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What causes a post to “await moderation”??
.
I didn’t say anything nasty in the post. There are two links to wikipedia for references, could that be it??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“What causes a post to “await moderationâ€??”
Perhaps this is an existential statement. I have been awaiting for years.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
lol.
.
I got this one one of my posts, and was just wondering why.
.
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is Creationism Science? Sure it is……I have a tool, especially made for doing Creation science. It measures ’stuff’. When I pose the question “was man created by god, or did man evolve?” the tool says “man was created by god”. When i ask it to explain why evolution is wrong, it says “because nobody can prove it is right”. When I ask it to tell me why god created athiests, it says “free will”. When I use scientific tools, I can’t ask those kinds of questions. I can measure atoms, or length, or weight, or chemical composition etc. The answers I get aren’t in the form of ideas or beliefs. I get to decide what to believe based on how I interpret the evidence. I get to follow the bits and they lead to hypothesis, theory, fact; or to some conclusion I may have not even considered. When all of physics, astronomy etc. finally explain how everything works, you can go ahead and say “well, god created it that way”. That’s what happens with creationism. At first, god created the heavens and the earth. People said “well, ok, if the bible says so it must be true”. Then some unfortunate scientist sniffs out a lead, and challenges the creation scenario. He’s burned at the stake. No one argues for years. Pretty soon, more and more people are educated in the sciences, and now creationists say, “oh well, maybe it wasn’t as clear cut as god created everything like we said at first, but he had a hand in it.” It seems that as science marches forward, creationists keep conceeding ground and playing catch-up. You let us do the work. If you want to swoop in at the end and give god credit, go ahead. Not much of a contribution to humanity if you ask me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Deep.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You have a magic 8 ball too??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is a bit long, but worth reading. http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/socvsjes.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I was talking to marc
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
People keep posting too fast and making the conversation confusing!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My mom said the Magic 8 ball and the ouija board were bad, mmmkay?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry. I wanted to get my reference to South Park in there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“You’re so totally moving it!”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dang I just can’t win today.
.
Not sure if you caught it Max Globs, but I did apologize for “being a prick”. You were right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Dr. Michael Martin….where did you go? At least let us know if you are taking a break or just not coming back!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I did. It’s all good.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Max Globs
Cool.
@Maxwell
Thats the second time today I aplogized to the good Dr. And both times that was the end of the conversation. I’m curious if that’s the magic bullet. They come tell us to go to hell or whatever and we just say “sorry”. And that’s the end of it???
.
Nah, can’t be…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh, I almost forgot. That was definitely a good read Maxwell.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
…..Well….I wanted to get in on this debate….but it’s just too pointless–not too mention moving too fast–for me. The doctor obviously isn’t about to change his mind, and I tend to laugh and switch threads when I see someone try to convince others that god/the bible has been PROVEN. (Newsflash: the whole idea of god is that you take him/it/her on FAITH. Whether that’s a good idea or not is a whole ‘nother debate, but proving that god is real is futile. As is proving that god a is SO TOTALLY REAL OMG as opposed to god b, which any idiot can see is a fake.)
-
One more thing–he said a few times that the bible encouraged looking into things critically? Guess that doesn’t include the women, who, as Paul was so nice to point out, are inferior and should stay nice and quiet so they don’t bother their menfolk. Ah well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Dr. Michael Martin,
I visited your creationist website. I have spent at least 45 minutes looking for signs of science. I couldn’t find any. I found lists of scientists who support creationist ideas. I found it amusing that many of them were dead before Darwin published his evolutionary theory in 1859. None of the ones currently alive have published their work in peer-reviewed journals as far as I can tell. I also found a lot of tabloid style reporting of evolutionary theory, i.e. the articles were big on incredulous arm waving and lacked supporting evidence. In order to disprove evolutionary theory you would need to refute what I see as the four core principles upon which the theory is based. You can find these in any basic evolutionary textbooks but I will reiterate them:
1) Individuals within populations vary, i.e. everyone is different.
2) Variations in traits are heritable. It is important to point out that some traits are a product of the environment and are not heritable. For example my peg leg would not pass to my offspring, i.e. an amputated limb is not heritable. To claim that environmentally acquired traits are transmissible across generations is Lamarckian and wrong.
3) More offspring are produced than can possibly survive.
4) Many heritable traits increase or decrease the chances of offspring survival and thus the frequency of those traits change within the population.
Many creationists accept these principles but argue that they just demonstrate that microevolution occurs and that they do not prove that macroevolution occurs. But that argument is patently ridiculous. There in no distiction between micro- and macroevolution they are just convenient terms to denote the scale of evolutionary change as metres and kilometres denote scales of distance. To accept that a phenomenon occurs at one scale but not another is blatent obfuscation.
The four core principles of evolution are testable hypotheses, which can be measured and evaluated based on the strength of supporting evidence. They are scientific because they are testable. Creationism requires the intervention of God. God cannot be measured. Thus the hypothesis that God created life the universe and everything is not testable, ergo it is not science. That is not to say that so-called creation scientists do not generate testable hypotheses. They do. For example, teleological arguments such as “irreducible complexity” are testable and have been repeatedly falsified.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My dear Dr. Martin…
I see you recently had a hot date with Miss Information. Beware, she’s a fickle wench. Every cherry that she pucks is a lie masquerading as truth. Every quote she mines is a calculated assault upon reality. Her reason for being is to enlist you into her world of fantasy. Don’t dare turn your back on her or you’ll find a knife in your spine.
Go ahead if you dare. It’s your life. It’s your choice. Wallow in the mud of deception, find comfort in her arms of blind conception if it makes you feel better. But please don’t come here preaching your gopsel of ignorance on this message board and claim it has anything to do with science. When it comes to science, you couldn’t hit a bull in the backside with a bass fiddle.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi ButtJester! Thanks for the compliment too. I wonder why you would say you were sorry to the good doctor though. We have nothing to apologize for. If christians come here to blast me, I welcome them. I don’t have anything to say ’sorry’ for. I don’t think you were rude to him, and I don’t think you should have to feel like you need to apologize for your beliefs. Do you think they would apologize to you for calling you a f*cking douchebag? They call us that all the time, and never say ’sorry’. As a matter of fact, we could say nothing, and they still spout off like fools! I’m not about finding a magic bullet to shut them up. I want them to say, out loud, the nonsense that supports their ideas. Maybe by saying (typing) it, they will hear how stupid it is, or someone will read it and judge their argument to be without merit. I mean, beer volcanoes and stripper factories! Come on, FSM makes much more sense than their stuff! I say we continue to seek out their ilk on their own blogs. Let’s invite them here to argue with us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have taken the time to read all of your inane posts and quite frankly, you could have saved us a lot of trouble by simply stating that ‘goddidit’. That would have summed it all up rather nicely. But noooooo, you felt that you had to share your mindless diatribes with us. How fortunate are we. Yet, once again, you have quite effectively demonstrated that since YEC has no scientific data to support it, so you must resort to the ususal tactic of (mis)information overload in order to feign victory. Well, sir, the apparent winning of a debate does not necessarily render that conclusion the correct one. Unfortunately for you, we have the opportunity of a full rebutal on this message board.
.
You have made many unsubstantiated claims here, yet have failed to cite any valid references. Care to back up your postulations with peer-reviewed scientific journals? What was that? There aren’t any? Quote mining is not acceptable in a scientific debate because it is dishonest. (But then, I guess you wouldn’t be too concerned with the truth, would you?) You take statements out of context then twist them to fit into your preconceived notion. This is not scientific refutation, it is not even good philosophical debate, it is political coercion. You have not even come close to to proving that evolution is a fraud. Even if you had, it would still not prove YEC by default. That is an argument from incredulity.
.
Clearly, you do not understand evolution. It is a scientific theory, and since god can neither be proven nor disproven by science, it cannot be used as part of the equation. That is why belief in god is called faith. Further, evolution is not about the origins of life it is the process of change over time after the fact. How did life begin? We don’t know…yet. Abiogenesis (life from non-life) is the current working model but it is not accepted by all evolutionary biologists and IS NOT part of evolution.
.
You are perfectly welcome to believe in any god you choose, as are we. Why is your god so much more acceptable? Is this not arrogance? What about Allah, Yaweh, Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, Baal, et al.? Are they any less viable simply because your little book, based on a technology two-thousand-years-out-of-date, says so? How have you substantiated any claim that YEC is scientific in nature? Inane rhetoric certainly doesn’t.
.
Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. They coexist quite peacefully in models such as theistic evolution. Have you read Kenneth Miller’s “Finding Darwin’s God” or “Random Designer” by Richard Colling?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi mad John. I’m glad to see that someone else sees the trees thru the forest of BS he posted. The dear doctor appears to rely on quantity instead of quality. As far as the theistic evolution part though, that really starts to get at the heart of the intelligent design debate, and is what ID proponents use to flog us every chance they get. They suggest that life is so complicated and diverse that only an intelligent being, aka ‘creator’ could have started the process. While I can’t dispute theistic evolution as a possibility, I think it goes against Pastafarianism at our most basic level. Maybe I am getting more radical in my old age? In my opinion, conceding theistic evolution as a viable alternative means we should allow ID in schools. Maybe I’m way off on this. What do you think?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dr. Martin…
.
You said that, “Your very a ability to think refutes Materialism.” Again, goddit. Again, an argument from incredulity. Gods have been given credit for lightning until science determined natural causes. Infectious diseases were attributed to gods until science discovered bacteria and viruses. God-fearing Christians burned thousands of mentally ill patients at the stake or left them in prison cells to rot before science found biochemical causes. Your logic is completely illogical.
.
You also said that “Christianity is the only thig out there that tells us to check out all sides.” Since when? I took Christianity a around four hundred years to absolve Galileo of heresy because he said the earth revolves around the sun, for an example. Science, on the other hand, is a history of errors corrected and has found YEC to be wanting. Simply ignoring the overwhelming evidence and pounding your square peg into a round hole does not prove any claim in your favour. For the record, there are nearly 186, 000 peer-reviewed scientific journals supporting evolution, while you have only a single source which fails miserably at every turn to provide any semblence of refutation.
.
Once again, abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Please wake up and smell what you are peddling. Evolution begins where abiogenesis ends. Evolution does not require a witness in order for the process to occur. It has occurred, is occurring, and will continue to occur whether anyone of us mere mortals is around, or not. YEC, on the other hand, does not exist without some to believe in it because it is based entirely on faith.
.
You know nothing of genetics. If you accept natural slection, variation, and speciation, then you are describing evolution. The only part you left out was the fact that all living things are composed of cells. Geometric fecundity and pre-reproductive mortality provide the struggle for existence. Infraspecific variation and heretability of variations provide for the natural selection of favoured forms. Natural selection does not produce ideal forms, rather variations of original forms. Design is the result not the cause. These favoured forms exist at the expense of non-favoured forms. Or is that too complicated for you? How about something a little more on your level? More offspring are produced than can survive. Diversity is the spice of life. And the big guy can’t survive without the little guy. Or, as Richard Dawkins puts it: “The world becomes full of organisms that have what it takes to become ancestors. That in a sentence, is Darwinism.”
.
Darwin did remarkable well considering he did not understand the mechanism. We have progressed quite a long way since then, with the advent of genetics, a more extensive fossil record, and an understanding of geographical isolation to explain how genetic drift can affect speciation.
.
According to the Talk Origin Archives, evolution is one of the most strongly supported theories in all of science. It is nowhere near a theory in crisis, as you suggest. This claim has been made constantly since well before Darwin. At that time nearly all relevant scientists were creationists. Now the numbers sit at far less than one percent. Therefore, your claims of scientists abandoning evolution theory in favour of creationism is a bold-faced lie.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dr. Martin…
.
YEC is…asinine…maybe pathetic would be more descriptive. Look it up, it’s in the dictionary. You have demonstrated no understanding whatsoever of paleontology, biochemistry, geochemistry, physics, or genetics, to name but a few. In order to support this antiquated notion, you would have to redefine all kknow laws of science to include supernatural explanations. Chemistry becomes alchemy, astronomy becomes astrology, eg. There is NO scientific evidence to support Noah’s Flood. Nada, zero, zilch.
.
Talk Origins Archives lists a vast load of evidence consistently pointing to the same big picture.
* All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanics of replication, heretability, catalysis, and metabolism.
* Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern.
* Morphological, biochemical, and genetic traits all show the same results regarding common descent.
* The fossil record is a history of transitional forms.
* The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history.
* Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist.
* The same principle applies on the molecualr level.
* When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited.
* The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions.
* Suboptimality appearing on the molecular level can render much DNA nonfunctional.
* Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
* The day-to-day aspects of evolution—heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection—are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.
The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it p[oints unambiguosly to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Mad John Kidd
Science is distinct from religion, they are mutually exclusive and do not coexist. That is not to say that you cannot believe in God, a god or many gods and be a scientist. Indeed many scientists do and they have every right to. Some supernatural entity may have sparked life but that theory is not testable and therefore does not constitute science. Theistic evolution is an attempt to find the work of God hiding out among gaps in knowledge. We may never fill that gap, which leaves room for the supernatural but equally it does not rule out the mundane.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dr. Martin…
.
You can cut and paste until your fingers throb, but your assumptions of radiometric dating have been well refuted by relevant science and require much more space than available here. I suggest you read an updated book on Geochronology and step away from the crackpipe of YEC if you really want to understand the concept. But that is the whole point, innit. You would rather rely on erroneous assumptions based on a dusty textbook that is fifty years obsolete. Talk about old hat. Dating methods have evolved quite extensively since then. Therefore, you have refuted nothing. Maybe you should join the twenty-first century before spouting mouldy ignorance and calling it science.
A wise old pirate once said, “A closed mouth gathers no foot.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dr. Martin…
.
Here we go, back to square one. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of your god. Referring to YEC as science is inane, irrational, and irresponsible. Analyze your god through all the theoidiocy and theocracy you choose, but it is still a violation of federal law to teach religious beliefs in a science classroom. What part of this do you not understand? I will repeat it more slowly, if necessary. There is NO EVIDENCE for Noah’s Flood. None whatsoever.
.
Science is “functionally atheistic” by keeping supernatural explanations out of the equation. Contrary to your beleifs, this in no way inplies that all evolutionists are atheists. I have already discussed theistic evolution. Deal with it.
.
While I admire your tenacity, your logic is all but non-existent. Religion can be defined as scrupulous conformity to an arduous principle as easily as a commitment to dogmatic faith. If you use the bible as proof of creation, you might as well use “The Cat in the Hat” to prove that the Cat in the Hat exists, while you’re at it.
.
If you are seriously relying on Josephus to support your verbose postulation, then I must inform you that much of his writings have been discredited by actual historians. http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm
.
There have been many artifacts found and claimed to be proof of Jesus. The problem being that science has failed to verify any such evidence. In fact, your shroud thingy has been overwhelmingly exposed as a forgery manufatured in fourteenth century France. And simply finding inscriptions with his name on it is not proof of anything other than someone did it. There is no indication that Jesus himself ever wrote anything down. Would have helped your cause immensly. But he didn’t. Since the gospels were written well after his death it could hardly be considered an eye witness account. In fact, very little of archaeology can unmitigatedly verify any account described in your bible. Don get me wrong, it is not that I don’t think that Jesus did not exist. I think that he was a very wise man and if his followers actually practiced what he preached the world would be a better place. But then, that is only my opinion, not a scientific fact.
“But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”—Matthew 5:44
.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
maxwell
.
Sorry it took so long to post a reply to your questions. I was on a roll.
Theistic evolution is more of a scientific philosophy than an actual scientific position. It is still based on evolutionary theory, so that part should be taught in the science classroom because it is sciecne, but theistic evolutionists do not believe in incorporating the discussion of that “generating force” by whatever name it is given because that is in the realm of theology. Supernatural expalnations don’t belong in science, therfore the science classroom. Now, I would be okay with it in a current issues class or something of that nature, no problem. The National Academy of Science Education (US) has clearly stated as such.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi, Maxwell. Your welcome!
.
I apologized to the good doctor because that’s what seperates him and I. I know when I’m wrong and can admit it. I invite more debate, but while they tell me to die and go to hell, I will do my best not to return the favor. I am only human so I’m sure I won’t be perfect, but I will try.
.
@Mad John Kidd
Wow, you managed to read all that? I tried but just couldn’t stomach it. It was like trying to eat one of those 100′ party subs full of rotten meat.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0