Creation vs. Evolution

[dylansan]

I have already explained this:

Distinctions are made in the Creation account, but are not specifically detailed.
Therefore, from that point forward, as said, it is open to some degree of interpretation.

I also already said: I believe this is reserved to breeds and varieties based on the historical record of reality.
But in view of, the lack of specific details, I do not know for sure.
For example, did he make one pair of cats from which all others descended, or several species of cats from which all breeds and varieties came.
Either way, depending on definition, one pair could still be considered, "like kind".

You can't claim like kind reproduces like kind, and then say you are unclear on what like kind is. You have to have a specific definition for your statement to hold any water. It's like saying the area of a circle is pi*r squared, and then saying pi might be anywhere from three to four and a half.

You can't claim something true then "prove" it by saying you don't understand how or why it works. You say there is overwhelming proof of creationism, but all you've given is that things reproduce the "same" things. And yet you don't even know for sure what "same" means. You don't seem to realize that the definition of "same" and "like kind" make all the difference in your argument.

Now you've given us "breeds" and "varieties" as well. Those are also remarkably vague terms. Are a tiger and lion of the same variety? Are you saying that every "variety" or "breed" of creature was placed on the earth, and then spread to what we have today? Because that's barely any deviation. In fact, that's regular creationism, not guided evolution.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Then you need to broaden your outlook. I'm not saying your view of the 'historical record of reality' (by which I take it you mean 'like produces like') is incorrect, but I am saying that it is incomplete, and there is overwhelming evidence to support this.

"like produces like" is the obvious overwhelming and demonstrable conclusive standard.
Only in the realm of interpretive possibilities of evidence in combination with immeasurable undemonstrable abstract time frames, is evolution a remote possibility.
As previously discussed, when taken as a whole, it is woefully short of any conclusive evidence, again residing only in the theoritical and hypothetical.
As far outlook, I could say the same thing. Obviously we view the question here from different perspectives.

Not as you seem to be defining 'historical reality', no. It is not enough. 'Scientific enough' means accounting for all the evidence, not just the small fraction that fits your story. Evolution theory agrees with your view that like produces like, but only to a point - it also goes much further, because the evidence compels it to go much further.

Its not a question of "all the evidence", but what is the weightier of the evidence as to conclusiveness.
In reality the "small fraction" is reserved to the evolutionary theoritical.

"like produces like" is the obvious overwhelming and demonstrable conclusive standard.

No, they are not. Of all the possible patterns of genetic distribution in the natural world, only the tiniest fraction would support common descent, whilst every possible combination could be (and is) cited as supporting the creation hypothesis. That actual patterns observed in nature fit the common descent hypothesis is simply not possible by chance - that it also fits the creation hypothesis is unavoidable!

Precisely my point.

The key difference between the common descent hypothesis and the creation hypothesis is falsifiability. Since every possible result would support the creation hypothesis, it is not falsifiable, and therefore it is of no scientific merit or importance. That observed patterns of genetic distribution happen to occur within the tiny fraction of possibilities that do not falsify the common descent hypothesis is what gives that hypothesis scientific merit.

Again, precisely my point.
The whole evolution theory is one of interpretive hypothetical possibility.
And as with Creation it is neither provable nor disprovable.

 

[dylansan]

"like produces like" is the obvious overwhelming and demonstrable conclusive standard.

Stop saying this. You cannot keep claiming this to be true without even knowing exactly what "like kind" is. It's utter rubbish but you keep spitting it out.

Please respond to my previous post without repeating this same nonsense as if it were proof of anything.

 

[Exorcet]

"like produces like" is the obvious overwhelming and demonstrable conclusive standard.

Your entire point hinges on limits to genetic changes of organisms which you have yet to provide any evidence for. Like produces like is nothing but non sense. It has no meaning, and it has no validity in this discussion.

And if we take "like produces like" to mean that there are limits to organisms' capability to change genetically, there is no evidence for it whatsoever and no matter where you look in time, you clearly see that it is false.

You need to come up with something else.

 

[DK]

The existence of ligers is enough for me to render the "like produces like" statement invalid. The existence of mixed-breed pets is enough for me to render the "like produces like" statement invalid, considering that SCJ has yet to define this "like" term that he likes to use.

 

[AndersonG22]

Only in the realm of interpretive possibilities of evidence in combination with immeasurable undemonstrable abstract time frames, is evolution a remote possibility. [/B]

How is the FACT that we are 95%+ indentical genetically the same as chimps "interpretive possibilities of evidence"? It conclusively shows we have a common descendant from which we both (chimps and humans) got over 95% of our genetic makeup.

Just because you cant fathom even 1,000 years you write it off as impossible, a thousand years is nothing other then a page in a 4.5 billion year history of earth. Scientist estamate basic forms of life started about 3.8 billion years ago, thats about 3.8 billion years life has been evolving.

Our common anscestor is thought to have lived around 14 million years ago according to this study. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rangutans-New-research-shows-DNA-matches.html

Do you how many thousand years are in just 1 million years? there are a staggering 100 1,000 year cycles in just 1 hundred thousand years, 1,000 years goes by 1,000 times befor you even reach just 1 million years. I think you get the idea.

Its understandable that you cant begin to fathom these time frames, but to ignore the evidence because you cant fathom the rate at which evolution happens is just wrong. Most dinorsaurs died about 65 million years ago, but a few survived and we call some them of them crocodiles.

Its all very complacted, and if you google your questions its understandable. You should avoid sites like http://www.christiananswers.net/ and find non bias scientific sites for BS free information.

According to cristiananswers.net this is how dinosaurs became extinction. In just 5 paragraphs they explain this mass extinction. Keep in mind they have no sources listed, Non bias scientific sites have plenty.

"The earth’s core also has this metal in it. Iridium can be brought up by volcanic eruptions. Could some of these deposits of metal be evidence of large volcanic eruptions of iridium in the past? It is interesting that some Bible-believing scientists conclude that most of the dinosaurs were killed and buried during a relatively short period of time. And during this time, they believe, the earth was probably in the midst of the greatest earthquakes and volcanic eruptions ever known." - http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-extinct2.html


www.answersingenesis.org isnt much better, they have no sources for this statement "However, the volcanic theory is still believed by a majority of palaeontologists."

They only have sources for things like "Dinosaurs have been unearthed on every continent, including Antarctica.1,2"

Its funny how the summary and conclusion part has no sources at all but at least the admit "Despite the many theories on dinosaur extinction, including the currently popular meteorite impact theory, the demise of the dinosaurs is still unexplained."

No soure for the final statement either "The volcanic and meteorite theories for dinosaur extinction have both supportive and contrary data. The data from these theories can be fitted into a Flood model, a model in which the dinosaurs perished at different times within the first 150 days." - http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/dinosaur.asp





http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/dinosaur.asp

 

[Small_Fryz]

Only in the realm of interpretive possibilities of evidence in combination with immeasurable undemonstrable abstract time frames, is evolution a remote possibility.

Are you ever going to tell us what you regard as "abstract time"?

Its been asked that you define this about 4 - 5 times now.

 

[homeforsummer]

"like produces like" is the obvious overwhelming and demonstrable conclusive standard.

"like produces like" is the obvious overwhelming and demonstrable conclusive standard.

You must have said this about a dozen times now, and about a dozen times you've been asked to clarify your definition of "like". The reason we're asking is because "like produces like" is a hugely broad term and the word "like" doesn't automatically mean "exactly the same".

So again: What is your definition of like? Identical? Very similar? Similar? Close?

Its not a question of "all the evidence", but what is the weightier of the evidence as to conclusiveness.

The weightier of the evidence? That'll be evolutionary theory then, since creationist theory has no evidence whatsoever.

The whole evolution theory is one of interpretive hypothetical possibility. And as with Creation it is neither provable nor disprovable.

There's nothing hypothetical about it. Evolution is observable, as we've mentioned several times already. So unlike creationism, it is provable.

 

[Lain]

SuperCobraJet, your argument essentially boils down to the following:
"Macroevolution hasn't been observed, so it doesn't matter how much you can prove microevolution, macroevolution remains a mere hypothesis."

...which is quite incorrect. I recommend you watch this video:

 

[homeforsummer]

SuperCobraJet, your argument essentially boils down to the following:
"Macroevolution hasn't been observed, so it doesn't matter how much you can prove microevolution, macroevolution remains a mere hypothesis."

To be honest, even strong evidence macroevolution can be extrapolated from fossil records. There's plenty of records going back of Homo sapiens and Homo erectus before that. Plenty of evidence of the species of hominids we out-competed 30,000 years ago too, the Neanderthals.

You don't see any Neanderthals around today (genetically at least, some people make me wonder...) so that's a fairly good example of "survival of the fittest" at work, too.

 

[ShaneG]

Since I haven't read through the entire thread yet, I haven't seen if the creationists have accounted for the flood myth in their explanations yet.

I'm no where near smart enough to join in the "long words exchange" in here, but this lovely video properly destroys the "like kind" argument, as well as explaining it much better than what has been done so far in here.

[Warning, a bit of "colorful" language is used in the video.]

 

[Small_Fryz]

Since I haven't read through the entire thread yet, I haven't seen if the creationists have accounted for the flood myth in their explanations yet.

Here it is

Yes I remember reading it when it was posted too

 

[Moot]

A little outlook on why why we exist and why the universe exists by Amanda Gefter:


AS DOUGLAS ADAMS once wrote: "The universe is big. Really big." And yet if our theory of the big bang is right, the universe was once a lot smaller. Indeed, at one point it was non-existent. Around 13.7 billion years ago time and space spontaneously sprang from the void. How did that happen?

Or to put it another way: why does anything exist at all? It's a big question, perhaps the biggest. The idea that the universe simply appeared out of nothing is difficult enough; trying to conceive of nothingness is perhaps even harder.

It is also a very reasonable question to ask from a scientific perspective. After all, some basic physics suggests that you and the rest of the universe are overwhelmingly unlikely to exist. The second law of thermodynamics, that most existentially resonant of physical laws, says that disorder, or entropy, always tends to increase. Entropy measures the number of ways you can rearrange a system's components without changing its overall appearance. The molecules in a hot gas, for example, can be arranged in many different ways to create the same overall temperature and pressure, making the gas a high-entropy system. In contrast, you can't rearrange the molecules of a living thing very much without turning it into a non-living thing, so you are a low-entropy system.

By the same logic, nothingness is the highest entropy state around - you can shuffle it around all you want and it still looks like nothing.

Given this law, it is hard to see how nothing could ever be turned into something, let alone something as big as a universe. But entropy is only part of the story. The other consideration is symmetry - a quality that appears to exert profound influence on the physical universe wherever it crops up. Nothingness is very symmetrical indeed. "There's no telling one part from another, so it has total symmetry," says physicist Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

And as physicists have learned over the past few decades, symmetries are made to be broken. Wilczek's own speciality is quantum chromodynamics, the theory that describes how quarks behave deep within atomic nuclei. It tells us that nothingness is a precarious state of affairs. "You can form a state that has no quarks and antiquarks in it, and it's totally unstable," says Wilczek. "It spontaneously starts producing quark-antiquark pairs." The perfect symmetry of nothingness is broken. That leads to an unexpected conclusion, says Victor Stenger, a physicist at the University of Colorado in Boulder: despite entropy, "something is the more natural state than nothing".

"According to quantum theory, there is no state of 'emptiness'," agrees Frank Close of the University of Oxford. Emptiness would have precisely zero energy, far too exacting a requirement for the uncertain quantum world. Instead, a vacuum is actually filled with a roiling broth of particles that pop in and out of existence. In that sense this magazine, you, me, the moon and everything else in our universe are just excitations of the quantum vacuum.
Before the big bang

Might something similar account for the origin of the universe itself? Quite plausibly, says Wilczek. "There is no barrier between nothing and a rich universe full of matter," he says. Perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally.

This, of course, raises the question of what came before the big bang, and how long it lasted. Unfortunately at this point basic ideas begin to fail us; the concept "before" becomes meaningless. In the words of Stephen Hawking, it's like asking what is north of the north pole.

Even so, there is an even more mind-blowing consequence of the idea that something can come from nothing: perhaps nothingness itself cannot exist.

Here's why. Quantum uncertainty allows a trade-off between time and energy, so something that lasts a long time must have little energy. To explain how our universe has lasted for the billions of years that it has taken galaxies to form, solar systems to coalesce and life to evolve into bipeds who ask how something came from nothing, its total energy must be extraordinarily low.

That fits with the generally accepted view of the universe's early moments, which sees space-time undergoing a brief burst of expansion immediately after the big bang. This heady period, known as inflation, flooded the universe with energy. But according to Einstein's general theory of relativity, more space-time also means more gravity. Gravity's attractive pull represents negative energy that can cancel out inflation's positive energy - essentially constructing a cosmos for nothing. "I like to say that the universe is the ultimate free lunch," says Alan Guth, a cosmologist at MIT who came up with the inflation theory 30 years ago.

Physicists used to worry that creating something from nothing would violate all sorts of physical laws such as the conservation of energy. But if there is zero overall energy to conserve, the problem evaporates - and a universe that simply popped out of nothing becomes not just plausible, but probable. "Maybe a better way of saying it is that something is nothing," says Guth.

None of this really gets us off the hook, however. Our understanding of creation relies on the validity of the laws of physics, particularly quantum uncertainty. But that implies that the laws of physics were somehow encoded into the fabric of our universe before it existed. How can physical laws exist outside of space and time and without a cause of their own? Or, to put it another way, why is there something rather than nothing?

 

[Touring Mars]

"like produces like" is the obvious overwhelming and demonstrable conclusive standard.

As dylansan and Exorcet said, you cannot simply repeat this and expect everyone to ignore the fundamental questions that it inevitably raises - questions that have been put to you by many people and that you have either ignored, or have already admitted that you don't know the answers to yourself.

Precisely my point.

How you can take my comments as being in any way supportive of "your point" is frankly ridiculous... but it is not surprising given your blinkered views on the matter.

Your most blatant error is this:

The whole evolution theory is one of interpretive hypothetical possibility. And as with Creation it is neither provable nor disprovable.

Wrong.

The common descent hypothesis is easily disprovable. The creation hypothesis is not disprovable at all. That is the key difference.

That there is no evidence to disprove a hypothesis is not the same as saying that it is not possible to disprove a hypothesis, or that there is no evidence at all... this is a key point that creationists like you either refuse to accept or just don't understand. There is plenty of evidence available, a huge mass of it, and the common descent hypothesis is validated by the evidence at almost every turn. The hypothesis itself, however, remains 'disprovable', by virtue of the fact that it made/makes specific predictions about what future lines of evidence will look like. The entire field of genetics continues to provide a collosal wealth of evidence that was essentially predicted by evolution theory - before the gene itself was even discovered. This predictive aspect is a hallmark of a true scientific theory.

On the other hand, if evidence cannot disprove a hypothesis, then not only is all evidence rendered meaningless, but the hypothesis is meaningless too. The Creation hypothesis totally lacks all predictive power, since no possible result can refute it.

Here's an analogy: imagine a safe with a combination lock. The lock is not much use if every possible combination will open it. The lock is only meaningful if the number of right answers is extremely low compared to the number of possibilities. In the analogy, the code is the observed data. But the fact that the code is correct and opens the lock depends not just on knowing the code, but also on what type of lock you have - a useless one where every possible code would work, or a useful one, where only one, or a very few, specific codes work. In the analogy, the locks are the competing theories. The observable genetic evidence is the right answer for both 'theories', but creation theory is like the useless lock that would match any possible answer and evolution theory is the useful lock that is matched only by the observed data. That both theories appear to match the data is not the key point - it is the predictive quality, the accuracy of specific predictions, and the explanatory power of a theory that is of critical importance - all of which evolution theory has in spades, and creation 'theory' entirely lacks.

 

[Villain]

That's a beautiful analogy, TM. Nice one! 👍

 

[Tic Tach]

Books on the subject:


http://www.amazon.com/dp/0143116649/?tag=gtplanet-20





http://www.amazon.com/dp/026261037X/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/1591020840/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/0813538726/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/0879754516/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307277224/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001714ZCU/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/0375424474/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/1591025648/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/0309105862/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/0231139624/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/0195109813/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393330516/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/061861916X/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393315703/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393330737/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/0679640975/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/0674030583/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/0195384342/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/0465002218/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/067403175X/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/037570261X/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/1416594787/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/0813545501/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/0807032786/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/0520261879/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/0195333152/?tag=gtplanet-20




http://www.amazon.com/dp/0521139260/?tag=gtplanet-20

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Since I haven't read through the entire thread yet, I haven't seen if the creationists have accounted for the flood myth in their explanations yet.

I'm no where near smart enough to join in the "long words exchange" in here, but this lovely video properly destroys the "like kind" argument, as well as explaining it much better than what has been done so far in here.

[Warning, a bit of "colorful" language is used in the video.]

LOL ^ this was funny and makes a great amount of sense. And no I'm not an atheist

EDIT: Meaning one should not ignore the evidence that has been given to them cause it doesn't sit well, when it points to the actual facts.

 

[TankAss95]

You know it's really funny. I remember getting a goldfish a while back. Over time it developed claws and climbed out of it's tank and before I knew it the thing was eating the cat food.

 

[Joey D]

You know it's really funny. I remember getting a goldfish a while back. Over time it developed claws and climbed out of it's tank and before I knew it the thing was eating the cat food.

That's not how evolution works...unless you're goldfish was, in fact, a Magikarp.

 

[TankAss95]

That's not how evolution works...unless you're goldfish was, in fact, a Magikarp.

Shouldn't have killed it. I could have gotten lots of money. The thing got really big teeth.

 

[ScouserInExile]

The whole evolution theory is one of interpretive hypothetical possibility.

Let's put this to bed once and for all. A lot of people misinterpret the word "theory" when it is used in conjunction with wordslike "evolution". It does not mean the same as when you use it like "in theory". In the case of the Theory of Evolution, it means "this is the logical conclusion from the facts presented by the scientifically verifiable reasearch completed", not "I think that...".

The theory of evolution is not the idle musics of someone contemplating where we might have come from, it is the result of actual scientific research that can be easily proven to be true. It's not even like it's a theory that's difficult to prove, we can easily lay hands on examples of evolution. It is not something that is "of interpretive hypothetical possibility" it is a well-proven scientific fact.

Creationism is what can accurately be called "an ass pull" - it is a wild guess that has been presented as fact and run with.

 

[wfooshee]

I've made that point many times in this thread, that in the scientific community something that has reached the level of Theory is the highest level of acceptance that any idea can have. It is not the same usage as Columbo saying, "I have a theory about that. . . ."

One might note that there is no Theory of Creationism.

 

[TankAss95]

Books on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268240326&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Abusing-Science-Case-Against-Creationism/dp/026261037X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210087061&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Unintelligent-Design-Mark-Perakh/dp/1591020840/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210087608&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Intelligent-Design-Fails-Creationism/dp/0813538726/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210087653&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Not-Design-Universe-Victor-Stenger/dp/0879754516/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210087936&sr=1-5

http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Thought-Science-versus-Movement/dp/0307277224/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210090862&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Darwin-Matters-Against-Intelligent/dp/B001714ZCU/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210088618&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0375424474/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210089675&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Relics-Eden-Powerful-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1591025648/ref=pd_sim_b_img_1

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Evolution-Creationism-National-Sciences/dp/0309105862/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210090002&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210090048&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Fossil-Trail-Think-About-Evolution/dp/0195109813/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210090048&sr=1-6

http://www.amazon.com/Making-Fittest-Ultimate-Forensic-Evolution/dp/0393330516/ref=pd_sim_b_img_6

http://www.amazon.com/Ancestors-Tale-Pilgrimage-Dawn-Evolution/dp/061861916X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210092468&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210091304&sr=1-11

http://www.amazon.com/Scientists-Confront-Creationism-Intelligent-Design/dp/0393330737/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226113435&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Prehistory-Making-Modern-Library-Chronicles/dp/0679640975/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226113920&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Mind-Evolution-Memory-Dreams/dp/0674030583/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238520333&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Living-Darwin-Evolution-Design-Philosophy/dp/0195384342/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253029222&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/000-Year-Explosion-Civilization-Accelerated/dp/0465002218/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257443353&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-First-Four-Billion-Years/dp/067403175X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257443607&sr=1-1　

http://www.amazon.com/Life-Natural-History-First-Billion/dp/037570261X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257443810&sr=1-3

http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257882631&sr=1-3

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-Works-Creationism-Fails/dp/0813545501/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259707475&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Not-Our-Classrooms-Intelligent-Schools/dp/0807032786/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259715049&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-vs-Creationism-Eugenie-Scott/dp/0520261879/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259716664&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/World-Beginnings-4000-Oxford-History/dp/0195333152/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260465510&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Marketing-Intelligent-Design-Creationist-Agenda/dp/0521139260/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1294241122&sr=1-1

I have no money.
If you want the majority of people to study your thoughts/beliefs/theories then vids or websites would be a better way.
Thanks though.

All of my earnings are currently engaged right now in priority spendings.

 

[Tic Tach]

I'd recommend AronRa on YouTube then. He's got a whole series called "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism. Here's part 1.

 

[TankAss95]

I'd recommend AronRa on YouTube then. He's got a whole series called "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism. Here's part 1.

I have watched part 1. I will comment later when AI have more knowledge of the content of the series.

 

[Joey D]

If you can read only one book I suggest The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins. Maybe it's because it was virtually a bible to all my Anthropology classes, but I'm rather partial to it. It should be available at any library.

 

[TankAss95]

If you can read only one book I suggest The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins. Maybe it's because it was virtually a bible to all my Anthropology classes, but I'm rather partial to it. It should be available at any library.

I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to any kind of science, yet I strive to learn. I'll maybe look into some books further down the line but right now the net does just fine. :tup;
Thanks for the recommendation though. I will keep it in mind.

 

[ScouserInExile]

If you can read only one book I suggest The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins. Maybe it's because it was virtually a bible to all my Anthropology classes, but I'm rather partial to it. It should be available at any library.

I have a slight problem with Richard Dawkins, in that he seems more convened with pricing creationists wrong that sane people right. Which means he can come across as a bit of an arse at times

 

[homeforsummer]

I have a slight problem with Richard Dawkins, in that he seems more convened with pricing creationists wrong that sane people right. Which means he can come across as a bit of an arse at times

Even as an atheist myself, I'd actually agree with that. He might be a clever bloke but certainly veers more towards the ignorant side of things.

 

[TankAss95]

You know it's really funny. I remember getting a goldfish a while back. Over time it developed claws and climbed out of it's tank and before I knew it the thing was eating the cat food.

I'd love to say this to him just to annoy him.^

I have a slight problem with Richard Dawkins, in that he seems more convened with pricing creationists wrong that sane people right. Which means he can come across as a bit of an arse at times