www.ditl.org

Perhaps instead of using the term creationism, which has been hijacked by the christian evangelicals(which in itself is offensive to many faiths, from the judaic, to the hindu to the animalists and zoastras,to those of us with a more contempory slant and assume that the creator is a highly evolved alien; all of whom regard themselves as proponents of creationism and employ creation stories), perhaps we should apply a term more akin to 'intelligent design,', otherwise this may become science versus christianity, which is wrong, especially because there are members of other faiths that advocate creationism in an even more extreme way.

When I said Creationism, I did actually mean any and all forms of it, not just the Christian interpretation as explained in Genesis 1 and 2.

The reason Christianity is so often referred to is because most people who are members here are from countries where Christianity is the dominant religion. I've got no problem with a Muslim coming in and discussing the islamic view of the creation of the universe.

I also would like to hear about intelligent design - whoever, i don't think we can say that the Christian version of creationism is the same as intelligent design, despite the fact that ID is so often pushed by Christians. There are many aspects of Creationism that aren't present in ID, such as the order of the animals that were created etc.

The differences between creationism and ID are as follows:

Summary of Creationism: God did it.

Summary of ID: X(who might or might not be God) did it.

You don't have to be Stephen Hawking to spot the similarities - it's simply a slight rephrasing of the position to prevent its religious nature being as glaringly obvious.

The word "nonsense" DOES have a negative connotation, no matter the etymology. And I have agreed that creationism is unscientific - that's why it is the faith-based component of my viewpoint. Faith by its nature requires no evidence.

I'm sorry if anybody took offence at my use of the word nonsense. But I do feel strongly on this issue, and I do feel that the word is appropriate when it comes to creationism / intelligent design within the context of scientific theory.

Outside that context, viewed as religion; Well let's say I give it the same respect as any other religious idea.

If the religious viewpoint is in err,then its fallacious, but that is hardly a crime(was going to say 'sin' lol) as many lay theories or ideologies are false, so if someone is a orthodox rabbi, imam, shaman, yogi, high priestess or vicar, than fair play, its admirable for anyone to take a stance, if they have true convictions, and the intention to do 'good'.....but what is the 'cardinal evil' in my book; is to deliberately preach and propagate something which you know to be untrue to indoctrinate others(some christian apologists and elements from the third and newest branch of the abrahamite religious tree).
A master manipulator with his prayer hankies and G-D tithes, is Don Stewart, watch his commercials, ahem preaching and read up on this master charlatan...

I was debating whether or not to mention this... Not sure if it would be off topic or not.

But, it might be something to note...

Did any of you know that there are passages in the Bible that agree with science? Passages that were written thousands of years before they were proven by science?

Even the six creative days as told in Genesis 1 holds true with the estimated age of the Earth when you understand that the word "day" used their is used to mean a larger period of time than 24 hours. Like I said in my original post.

Job 26:7--over 3,000 years before the truth was seen that the Earth was indeed hanging in space obeying the laws of gravity and motion:

"[God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging earth upon nothing."


Isaiah 40:22--some 2,700 years ago:

"There is One who is dwelling above the circle (translated from the Hebrew word "chugh", as shown by Davidson's Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, could also mean 'sphere') of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers."


Ecclesiastes 1:7--speaks of the water cycle, generally unknown in the time it was written:

"Every river flows into the sea, but the sea is not yet full. The water returns to where the rivers begun, and starts all over again."



And, I did some more searching around. Consider these two paragraphs:

Complexity is especially evident when living organisms have complex parts that would be useless without other complex parts. Let us focus on the example of reproduction.

According to evolutionary theories, living things continued to reproduce as they became ever more complex. At some stage, though, the female of a number of species had to develop reproductive cells requiring fertilization by a male with complementary reproductive cells. In order to supply the proper number of chromosomes to the offspring, each parent's reproductive cells undergo a remarkable process called meiosis, whereby cells from each parent are left with half the usual number of chromosomes. This process prevents the offspring from having too many chromosomes.

Of course, the same process would have been needed for other species. How, then, did the "first mother" of each species become capable of reproducing with a fully developed "first father"? How could both of them have suddenly been able to halve the number of chromosomes in their reproductive cells in the manner needed to produce a healthy offspring with some characteristics of both parents? And if these reproductive features developed gradually, how would the male and female of each species have survived while such vital features were still only partially formed?

You can find the source article here.

Is it really believable that this ^ could have come about by chance, or natural selection, whatever...

Varthikes wrote:Did any of you know that there are passages in the Bible that agree with science? Passages that were written thousands of years before they were proven by science?

Yes, I've heard these passages before, and they don't really say anything that wouldn't have been known by the people alive at the time.

Even the six creative days as told in Genesis 1 holds true with the estimated age of the Earth when you understand that the word "day" used their is used to mean a larger period of time than 24 hours. Like I said in my original post.

The order of the events in Genesis still disagrees with science, even if you interpret days to mean much longer periods of time.

For instance, genesis 1 describes the animals in the sea appearing before the animals on land. But this has whales appearing BEFORE the animals they evolved from.

It also has plants appearing before there was a sun to drive their photosyunthetic processes.

Job 26:7--over 3,000 years before the truth was seen that the Earth was indeed hanging in space obeying the laws of gravity and motion:

"[God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging earth upon nothing."

Saying the Earth hangs on nothing doesn't really describe the Earth obeying the laws of gravity and motion. The closest it comes to gravity is the word "hanging", which implies there is a gravitational force pulling the earth down. And it says nothing about motion. if this really was such an account, why did the church deny Galileo's findings for so long?

Ecclesiastes 1:7--speaks of the water cycle, generally unknown in the time it was written:

"Every river flows into the sea, but the sea is not yet full. The water returns to where the rivers begun, and starts all over again."

it wouldn't have been hard for people living back then to see water rising in steam in the sun, and also to see rain. They'd also see that rivers flood after rain. it also describes the sea being filled, which is counter to the hydrological cycle.

And, I did some more searching around. Consider these two paragraphs:

Complexity is especially evident when living organisms have complex parts that would be useless without other complex parts. Let us focus on the example of reproduction.

According to evolutionary theories, living things continued to reproduce as they became ever more complex. At some stage, though, the female of a number of species had to develop reproductive cells requiring fertilization by a male with complementary reproductive cells. In order to supply the proper number of chromosomes to the offspring, each parent's reproductive cells undergo a remarkable process called meiosis, whereby cells from each parent are left with half the usual number of chromosomes. This process prevents the offspring from having too many chromosomes.

Of course, the same process would have been needed for other species. How, then, did the "first mother" of each species become capable of reproducing with a fully developed "first father"? How could both of them have suddenly been able to halve the number of chromosomes in their reproductive cells in the manner needed to produce a healthy offspring with some characteristics of both parents? And if these reproductive features developed gradually, how would the male and female of each species have survived while such vital features were still only partially formed?

You can find the source article here.

Is it really believable that this ^ could have come about by chance, or natural selection, whatever...

yes, it is very believable. This seems to be describing irreducible complexity, which is commonly cited as evidence against evolution. However, there has never been any example shown of something irreducibly complex.

natural selection is capable of creating some pretty complex things. There are some videos on YouTube which demonstrate how a simple thing, obeying a simple rule, can produce a complex result.

Why Intelligent Design is wrong, part 1

Why Intelligent Design is Wrong, part 2

Tiberius wrote:

Even the six creative days as told in Genesis 1 holds true with the estimated age of the Earth when you understand that the word "day" used their is used to mean a larger period of time than 24 hours. Like I said in my original post.

The order of the events in Genesis still disagrees with science, even if you interpret days to mean much longer periods of time.

For instance, genesis 1 describes the animals in the sea appearing before the animals on land. But this has whales appearing BEFORE the animals they evolved from.

The Genesis account is teaching that the Universe, the Earth, and life upon the Earth were created, not evolved.

It also has plants appearing before there was a sun to drive their photosyunthetic processes.

Genesis 1:3- "And God proceeded to say: 'Let light come to be.' Then, there came to be light."

Genesis 1:12 (after landmasses were formed)- "And the earth began to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it according to its kind."

Job 26:7--over 3,000 years before the truth was seen that the Earth was indeed hanging in space obeying the laws of gravity and motion:

"[God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging earth upon nothing."

Saying the Earth hangs on nothing doesn't really describe the Earth obeying the laws of gravity and motion. The closest it comes to gravity is the word "hanging", which implies there is a gravitational force pulling the earth down.

But, it does say something about the Earth hanging in the nothingness of space. One of the definitions of "hang" according to The New American Webster Dictionary Third Edition is "be suspended." And, it is suspended in orbit around the sun by the sun's gravitational force.

If this really was such an account, why did the church deny Galileo's findings for so long?

Because the Church themselves have strayed away from the teachings of the Bible, as evident by their actions even today. That's a whole discussion itself.

Ecclesiastes 1:7--speaks of the water cycle, generally unknown in the time it was written:

"Every river flows into the sea, but the sea is not yet full. The water returns to where the rivers begun, and starts all over again."

it wouldn't have been hard for people living back then to see water rising in steam in the sun, and also to see rain. They'd also see that rivers flood after rain. it also describes the sea being filled, which is counter to the hydrological cycle.

Would they, without the scientific understanding we have today, know that the steam was the water being evaporated? You can't really see the water droplets in steam like you can when it rains.

And, it is describing the sea NOT being filled, or flooded.

And, I did some more searching around. Consider these two paragraphs:

According to evolutionary theories, living things continued to reproduce as they became ever more complex. At some stage, though, the female of a number of species had to develop reproductive cells requiring fertilization by a male with complementary reproductive cells. In order to supply the proper number of chromosomes to the offspring, each parent's reproductive cells undergo a remarkable process called meiosis, whereby cells from each parent are left with half the usual number of chromosomes. This process prevents the offspring from having too many chromosomes.

Of course, the same process would have been needed for other species. How, then, did the "first mother" of each species become capable of reproducing with a fully developed "first father"? How could both of them have suddenly been able to halve the number of chromosomes in their reproductive cells in the manner needed to produce a healthy offspring with some characteristics of both parents? And if these reproductive features developed gradually, how would the male and female of each species have survived while such vital features were still only partially formed?

You can find the source article here.

Is it really believable that this ^ could have come about by chance, or natural selection, whatever...

yes, it is very believable. This seems to be describing irreducible complexity, which is commonly cited as evidence against evolution. However, there has never been any example shown of something irreducibly complex.

natural selection is capable of creating some pretty complex things. There are some videos on YouTube which demonstrate how a simple thing, obeying a simple rule, can produce a complex result.

Why Intelligent Design is wrong, part 1

Why Intelligent Design is Wrong, part 2

"So once again, I have shown that Evolution driven by Natural Selection will find incredibly improbable solutions simply by applying Survival of the Fittest."

Sounds like chance to me.

And, would you mind explaining how it's believable that Natural Selection could have achieved what was described by those last two paragraphs I quoted? How a female could suddenly (for there couldn't be any gradual process to it, could there?) produce offspring that were capable of each producing a different half of the required ingrediants for another generation?

Varthikes wrote:The Genesis account is teaching that the Universe, the Earth, and life upon the Earth were created, not evolved.

The genesis account says that only in the broad generalities of it. Unless you discount the specifics presented in genesis, it goes against established science. it may be better to call it Intelligent design.

Genesis 1:3- "And God proceeded to say: 'Let light come to be.' Then, there came to be light."

Genesis 1:12 (after landmasses were formed)- "And the earth began to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it according to its kind."

Then why create the sun? What does the sun give that wasn't already there?

But, it does say something about the Earth hanging in the nothingness of space. One of the definitions of "hang" according to The New American Webster Dictionary Third Edition is "be suspended." And, it is suspended in orbit around the sun by the sun's gravitational force.

Then it would have been more accurate to have the Bible say, "he hangeth the Earth around the Sun."

Because the Church themselves have strayed away from the teachings of the Bible, as evident by their actions even today. That's a whole discussion itself.

There are many who would disagree. Suffice it to say, this is the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

Would they, without the scientific understanding we have today, know that the steam was the water being evaporated? You can't really see the water droplets in steam like you can when it rains.

Well, yeah. I mean, I did it when I was a kid. And they can see water droplets forming on a spider web in the mist. Doesn't take a great deal of intelligence to figure it out.

And, it is describing the sea NOT being filled, or flooded.

it says the sea is not full YET. The "yet" implies a state which will one day be acheived.

"So once again, I have shown that Evolution driven by Natural Selection will find incredibly improbable solutions simply by applying Survival of the Fittest."

First, you are equating improbable with impossible. This is not true.

Secondly, there are lots of things that can create incredibly improbable results without intelligence. Natural Selection producing these results is no more surprising than a flowing stream resulting in smooth pebbles.

Sounds like chance to me.

Chance is random. Natural selection is not. Please watch those two videos I linked to. They explain this.

And, would you mind explaining how it's believable that Natural Selection could have achieved what was described by those last two paragraphs I quoted? How a female could suddenly (for there couldn't be any gradual process to it, could there?) produce offspring that were capable of each producing a different half of the required ingrediants for another generation?

Your flaw is in assuming that there could not be a gradual process leading up to it. As for the development of sex, the Wiki article will give a decent grounding in it. I regret that I'm not that familiar with this particular issue.

In any case, your claim that sex is irreducibly complex isn't true. There have been no examples of irreducible complexity produced.

it's often cited that a mouse trap is irreducibly complex, but that is again not true. THIS page describes the 'evolution" of a mousetrap from a piece of bent wire to what we have today.

Tiberius wrote:

Varthikes wrote:The Genesis account is teaching that the Universe, the Earth, and life upon the Earth were created, not evolved.

The genesis account says that only in the broad generalities of it. Unless you discount the specifics presented in genesis, it goes against established science. it may be better to call it Intelligent design.

Established science which even some scientists (with credentials) have come to disagree.

And, the order in which the events of Genesis 1 happened is agreed by science, as geologist William Pratt noted--from the origin of the oceans, to eht emergence of land, to the appearance of marine life, and hen to birds, mammals, and other land creatures--is essentially the sequence of the principle divisions of geologic time.

Genesis 1:3- "And God proceeded to say: 'Let light come to be.' Then, there came to be light."

Genesis 1:12 (after landmasses were formed)- "And the earth began to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it according to its kind."

Then why create the sun? What does the sun give that wasn't already there?

The sun IS the light.

But, it does say something about the Earth hanging in the nothingness of space. One of the definitions of "hang" according to The New American Webster Dictionary Third Edition is "be suspended." And, it is suspended in orbit around the sun by the sun's gravitational force.

Then it would have been more accurate to have the Bible say, "he hangeth the Earth around the Sun."

It's not so much the "hanging" than it is the "nothing" in that passage. Keep in mind, too, that the account was written in Hebrew, which is far more accurate than the English language where we use the same word to mean several different things.

Because the Church themselves have strayed away from the teachings of the Bible, as evident by their actions even today. That's a whole discussion itself.

There are many who would disagree. Suffice it to say, this is the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

And, there are many who would agree. But, as I said, that's another topic.

"So once again, I have shown that Evolution driven by Natural Selection will find incredibly improbable solutions simply by applying Survival of the Fittest."

First, you are equating improbable with impossible. This is not true.

Secondly, there are lots of things that can create incredibly improbable results without intelligence. Natural Selection producing these results is no more surprising than a flowing stream resulting in smooth pebbles.

Sounds like chance to me.

Chance is random. Natural selection is not. Please watch those two videos I linked to. They explain this.

I did watch the videos. In addition to what I quoted up there ^, something else jumped out me. Something along the lines of Evolution, through Natural Selection, proceeding with no discernable goal in mind. And somehow ending up as we see it today. That, to me, equates to chance.

Natural Selection is chance because it requires a series of certain mutations caused by certain genes to take place in order to evolve.

And, would you mind explaining how it's believable that Natural Selection could have achieved what was described by those last two paragraphs I quoted? How a female could suddenly (for there couldn't be any gradual process to it, could there?) produce offspring that were capable of each producing a different half of the required ingrediants for another generation?

Your flaw is in assuming that there could not be a gradual process leading up to it. As for the development of sex, the Wiki article will give a decent grounding in it. I regret that I'm not that familiar with this particular issue.

Oh? There could have been a instantaneous process to it?

I read that article. The first paragraph admits that the development of sex is a "major puzzle in modern evolutionary biology."

Additionally, does it make sense that evolution would result in an animal that is adapted for a specific environment and, yet, its stomach unable to derive sufficient nourishment from its diet? (Panda)

Or, that it would produce us with only being able to use a tinyfraction of our total brain capacity as reported here (scroll down to yellow area) by the Dormant Brain Research and Development Laboratory?

Varthikes wrote:Established science which even some scientists (with credentials) have come to disagree.

Can you give examples of this?

And, the order in which the events of Genesis 1 happened is agreed by science, as geologist William Pratt noted--from the origin of the oceans, to eht emergence of land, to the appearance of marine life, and hen to birds, mammals, and other land creatures--is essentially the sequence of the principle divisions of geologic time.

However, the Bible says that whales came before land creatures, and science tells us otherwise.

The sun IS the light.

It is not. The light was created on the first day (in Gen 1:3) and the sun was not created until the forth day - in Genesis 1:16. it is impossible for the sun to have been producing light before it existed.

It's not so much the "hanging" than it is the "nothing" in that passage. Keep in mind, too, that the account was written in Hebrew, which is far more accurate than the English language where we use the same word to mean several different things.

But the hanging is still in there. We can't just dismiss it by claiming another word is more important.

I did watch the videos. In addition to what I quoted up there ^, something else jumped out me. Something along the lines of Evolution, through Natural Selection, proceeding with no discernable goal in mind. And somehow ending up as we see it today. That, to me, equates to chance.

Natural Selection is chance because it requires a series of certain mutations caused by certain genes to take place in order to evolve.

natural selection is NOT chance because there are traits that are removed or kept on a specific basis - and that basis is how well those traits allow the animal to survive. There is a specific rule to the keeping or removal of traits - so it can't possibly be chance.

And (avoiding any idea of a conscious decision) natural selection does move towards a specific goal - the goal of having animals that are adapted to their environment as well as possible.

Oh? There could have been a instantaneous process to it?

I never said any such thing.

I read that article. The first paragraph admits that the development of sex is a "major puzzle in modern evolutionary biology."

That does not give us a reason to say that it will always be a puzzle. neither does it mean we throw out the theory and put God in its place.

Additionally, does it make sense that evolution would result in an animal that is adapted for a specific environment and, yet, its stomach unable to derive sufficient nourishment from its diet? (Panda)

Logic would tell us that if pandas were unable to gain enough nutrients from their diet to survive, then they would be extinct very quickly. as they are not, it certainly does seem that they can get enough nutrients from their diet. Can you back up your claim?

Or, that it would produce us with only being able to use a tinyfraction of our total brain capacity as reported here (scroll down to yellow area) by the Dormant Brain Research and Development Laboratory?

First of all, read THIS page from Snopes. it goes into a fair bit of detail, providing evidence that we use all our brains, including PET scans and fMRI scnas which show all parts of the brain being used.

Secondly, do you think that we would have an organ which uses so much of the nutrients we consume and so much of the oxygen we breathe if 90% of it were useless? Even if we were designed by a higher being, as you claim, what does such a bad design tell us about such a being? Would God give us something that costs so much, but is 90% useless?

Thirdly, if 90% of the brain does nothing, why is it that brain damage is so serious? Why do we not have doctors routinely saying, "Well, Joe sustained a great deal of damage to his brain, but luckily it's the 90% he doesn't use, so he'll be fine and can go home tomorrow"?

Fourthly, if you only use ten percent of your brain, why don't you have that other 90% removed?

And finally, I myself have been hooked up to a machine that measures brain activity, and I can assure you that I saw each and every part of my brain being used.

In any case, the article seems to equate brain use with only IQ and memory. The brain does a whole lot more than that. I also find it hard that the article also mentions that "Humans have an unlimited capacity to learn. Unlike computers, no human brain has ever said: "Hard drive full."" This doesn't tie in with the idea that we only use a small part of our brains.

The best the article can do is to claim that we can't possibly use all our braisn because we forget where we left our car keys. The one time they actually cite any research, they come up with the claim:

" A simple look at brain scans will show us that the brain modulates dramatically from one moment to the next in regards to its activity and usage. Here it is then, on the screen of Functional MRI machines and Pet scans, incontrovertible evidence that we do not use all of our brain all of the time." This I quite agree with - the entirety of the brain is not being used at one time. However, each and every part of the brain is used at various times. the website's claim is similar to saying you've only seen a small part of your house merely because you can't see every part of every room at the same time, or that only a small number of the keys on your keyboard have been used because you never press them all at the same time.

In short, each and every part of the brain is used for something. We use 100% of our brain, just not all at once. Your claim that we are only "able to use a tinyfraction of our total brain capacity" is wrong, I'm afraid.

Tiberius wrote:

Varthikes wrote:Established science which even some scientists (with credentials) have come to disagree.

Can you give examples of this?

Paul Davies - physicist
Allan Sandage - astronomer
Robert Jastrow - astronomer, physicist, cosmologist
Here are quotes from many scientists, including some evolutionists themselves.

The sun IS the light.

It is not. The light was created on the first day (in Gen 1:3) and the sun was not created until the forth day - in Genesis 1:16. it is impossible for the sun to have been producing light before it existed.

Genesis 1:16: "And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars."

Like I said before, the English language is rather poor in comparison to the more accurate Hebrew language. Written in the original Hebrew, 'ohr is used in 1:3 while, on the fourth day, the word changes to ma'ohr.

In the Emphasised Bible, Rotherham explains that 'ohr is "light diffused" while ma'ohr is something "affording light".

In other words, if there had been someone on Earth during the first day, he/she/it would have had light, but the sources of the light would have been unseen by the thick layer of clouds covering the Earth at the time.

By the fourth day, this would have changed by the plants absorbing the initially carbon dioxide-rich atmosphere. If there had been someone on Earth then, they would have been able to see the sun, moon, and stars. The light would have reached the Earth unobscured.

It's not so much the "hanging" than it is the "nothing" in that passage. Keep in mind, too, that the account was written in Hebrew, which is far more accurate than the English language where we use the same word to mean several different things.

But the hanging is still in there. We can't just dismiss it by claiming another word is more important.

"...hang the earth upon nothing." Or, not hanging the earth upon anything.

I did watch the videos. In addition to what I quoted up there ^, something else jumped out me. Something along the lines of Evolution, through Natural Selection, proceeding with no discernable goal in mind. And somehow ending up as we see it today. That, to me, equates to chance.

Natural Selection is chance because it requires a series of certain mutations caused by certain genes to take place in order to evolve.

natural selection is NOT chance because there are traits that are removed or kept on a specific basis - and that basis is how well those traits allow the animal to survive. There is a specific rule to the keeping or removal of traits - so it can't possibly be chance.

The animals survive because they, a random individual, received a specific trait from a specific mutation in a specific gene (out of so many genes). Do you not see the chance here?

And (avoiding any idea of a conscious decision) natural selection does move towards a specific goal - the goal of having animals that are adapted to their environment as well as possible.

I read that article. The first paragraph admits that the development of sex is a "major puzzle in modern evolutionary biology."

That does not give us a reason to say that it will always be a puzzle. neither does it mean we throw out the theory and put God in its place.

Well, let me know when they think they've solved the puzzle.

Additionally, does it make sense that evolution would result in an animal that is adapted for a specific environment and, yet, its stomach unable to derive sufficient nourishment from its diet? (Panda)

Logic would tell us that if pandas were unable to gain enough nutrients from their diet to survive, then they would be extinct very quickly. as they are not, it certainly does seem that they can get enough nutrients from their diet. Can you back up your claim?

Yes, they get enough nutrients, but they have to eat A LOT of it to do so. Spending 16 hours a day eating 25 to 45 pounds and digesting only a small amount in that time.

Or, that it would produce us with only being able to use a tinyfraction of our total brain capacity as reported here (scroll down to yellow area) by the Dormant Brain Research and Development Laboratory?

Secondly, do you think that we would have an organ which uses so much of the nutrients we consume and so much of the oxygen we breathe if 90% of it were useless? Even if we were designed by a higher being, as you claim, what does such a bad design tell us about such a being? Would God give us something that costs so much, but is 90% useless?

Thirdly, if 90% of the brain does nothing, why is it that brain damage is so serious? Why do we not have doctors routinely saying, "Well, Joe sustained a great deal of damage to his brain, but luckily it's the 90% he doesn't use, so he'll be fine and can go home tomorrow"?

Fourthly, if you only use ten percent of your brain, why don't you have that other 90% removed?

And finally, I myself have been hooked up to a machine that measures brain activity, and I can assure you that I saw each and every part of my brain being used.

In any case, the article seems to equate brain use with only IQ and memory. The brain does a whole lot more than that. I also find it hard that the article also mentions that "Humans have an unlimited capacity to learn. Unlike computers, no human brain has ever said: "Hard drive full."" This doesn't tie in with the idea that we only use a small part of our brains.

The best the article can do is to claim that we can't possibly use all our braisn because we forget where we left our car keys. The one time they actually cite any research, they come up with the claim:

" A simple look at brain scans will show us that the brain modulates dramatically from one moment to the next in regards to its activity and usage. Here it is then, on the screen of Functional MRI machines and Pet scans, incontrovertible evidence that we do not use all of our brain all of the time." This I quite agree with - the entirety of the brain is not being used at one time. However, each and every part of the brain is used at various times. the website's claim is similar to saying you've only seen a small part of your house merely because you can't see every part of every room at the same time, or that only a small number of the keys on your keyboard have been used because you never press them all at the same time.

In short, each and every part of the brain is used for something. We use 100% of our brain, just not all at once. Your claim that we are only "able to use a tinyfraction of our total brain capacity" is wrong, I'm afraid.

First of all, Genesis 2 and 3 talks about how God originally created the original Human pair perfect, that they would never get sick or grow old and die and how they forfeited that because they rebelled and failed to obey a simple order.

Second, it's not that we don't use every part of our brain. Just that we don't use it to its fullest potential in our current 80-year (give or take) lifespan.

Varthikes wrote:Paul Davies - physicist
Allan Sandage - astronomer
Robert Jastrow - astronomer, physicist, cosmologist

And why are these people's opinions on biological evolution correct? I wouldn't cite Steven Hawking on marine biology, so astrophysicists would not be a valid source regarding biological evolution.

Anyway, I don't see anything in that article regarding any part of science that Paul Davies has challenged. The article on Allan Sandage seems to indicate that he equates non-design with randomness, and I have already explained how naturalistic process can give non-random results despite there being no intelligence behind it. The article on Robert jastrow says that he is not a believer of creationism or of Intelligent Design.

Here are quotes from many scientists, including some evolutionists themselves.

Some interesting quotes.

A respnse to Fred Hoyle's claim.

Robert Mulliken seems to be using prove in the scientific sense - in that nothing can ever be proved 100%. We can't prove gravity either, as we have no way of showing that next time we drop a hammer it won't just stay there. All we can do is base our conclusions on all the evidence so far. In any case, searching his articles in both Wiki and the Encyclopedia britannica finds nothing about evolution.

A search for "A Fleishmann" returns very little, only THIS, and that's a psychologist. Could you please provide a source.

Needless to say, the article continues on like this. I won't cover more, due to space and time limitations.

However, there is one that I feel duty bound to point out:

article wrote:"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
(Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter "Difficulties")

That quote is taken entirely out of context. Anti-evolutionists take great delight in taking that one quote and parading it around as proof that Darwin himself admitted that evolution was wrong.

However, they always leave out the very next sentence:

Charles Darwin wrote:To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

Anti-evolutionist quote-mining lets them pickj and choose, and renders the people who take what they are told without doing any research utterly convinced of something which is utterly false.

In other words, if there had been someone on Earth during the first day, he/she/it would have had light, but the sources of the light would have been unseen by the thick layer of clouds covering the Earth at the time.

By the fourth day, this would have changed by the plants absorbing the initially carbon dioxide-rich atmosphere. If there had been someone on Earth then, they would have been able to see the sun, moon, and stars. The light would have reached the Earth unobscured.

Then the Bible is wrong when it says that God made the sun and moon at that time, because they changed in no way.

"...hang the earth upon nothing." Or, not hanging the earth upon anything.

That's just saying that the earth isn't held up by anything. I see no way in which saying something "hangs upon nothing" can be interpreted to equate to the laws of gravity and motion.

The animals survive because they, a random individual, received a specific trait from a specific mutation in a specific gene (out of so many genes). Do you not see the chance here?

Yes, on the level of the individual, the traits are random.

However, there is much more to evolution that that!!!

Evolution is what traits are passed on and spread throughout the population. Remember, individuals do not evolve, populations do. And natural selection makes sure that the traits which are beneficial are passed on through the population.

A trait will not spread through a population by chance. It must be a beneficial trait for that to happen. There is a selective force which prevents damaging traits from continuing.

Well, let me know when they think they've solved the puzzle.

Why do remain so convinced that science will fail in this?

Yes, they get enough nutrients, but they have to eat A LOT of it to do so. Spending 16 hours a day eating 25 to 45 pounds and digesting only a small amount in that time.

Ah, so they DO get sufficient nutrients, despite what you said previously?

Then we merely have an animal that is very adapted to its environment. it is a specialist. it has adapted to one particular environment to such a degree that a change to that environment will be very damaging to the species. it's happened before - in fact, animals have become extinct because they have been adapted to suit an environment that changes. if the animal can't adapt to those changes, then it dies out.

In any case, are you suggesting that God would make such a poorly designed animal?

First of all, Genesis 2 and 3 talks about how God originally created the original Human pair perfect, that they would never get sick or grow old and die and how they forfeited that because they rebelled and failed to obey a simple order.

Where did that come from? With regards to the brain, I haven't mentioned anything from the Bible.

Second, it's not that we don't use every part of our brain. Just that we don't use it to its fullest potential in our current 80-year (give or take) lifespan.

Ah, so you've changed your claim now. Instead of "only being able to use a tinyfraction of our total brain capacity", you are now claiming, "only being able to use a tinyfraction of our total brain potential".

May I ask how the brains total potential has been determined in order to know we are only at the 10% mark? How has it been determined what 100% is?[/i]

Tiberius wrote:However, there is one that I feel duty bound to point out:

article wrote:"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
(Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter "Difficulties")

That quote is taken entirely out of context. Anti-evolutionists take great delight in taking that one quote and parading it around as proof that Darwin himself admitted that evolution was wrong.

This is exactly what I mean when I said that the leaders of the creationist movements are deliberate knowing liars. Their use of this quote dates back years, a good decade or more. They have been showed the full quote repeatedly. If they were honest, they would alter their position. But they are not honest, nor interested in debating the truth.

Contrast this with how science dealt with something like Piltdown Man. When found to be a hoax, it was removed from the field of discussion. You won't find one mention of it in any current science text as anything other than a hoax.

The creationist movement has but one aim; to provide the believers with a blizzard of quotes and names and numbers that will give them an excuse to believe what they want to believe.