Creation science

"God's hand is in EVERYTHING. He doesn't let anything go.
Sure, he gave us free will, but he didn't do this to see what
would happen. He knew what would happen. That's the way God works"

Then your god's hands are quite bloodied...


"You either believe in God or evolution, the two CANNOT co-exist"

Then you should talk to those who believe in the two. I can't help
you here unfortunately.
Your categoric denial I guess does come from a literal reading of
your bible. We may have to adress the consequences of this later...


"Are you a Nihilist?"

No.
What would make you say that? Because I find impossible mathematically
to calculate some complex event?
I'm not a nihilist. But I am a mathematician. This is my field, this
is my turf. If one want to step in and propose anything touching
mathematics, including probability theory, then be sure that I know
how to evaluate this or that argument.


"you linked to an article that makes me sick"

I am glad you are of that opinion; made me sick too.
And I do respect your position where you say that these opinions from
these people may (or are) not related to their "scientific" articles
(quotes mine).
One could, indeed, consider their model only by itself, independently
from the purient filth they expurgate in their other "non-scientific"
articles. That does take some strength of will.
But do consider (by reading again?) that my counter-arguments given
in this thread are based on the content of their model, not the content
of their other articles.


"There is a lot of evidence of change within species, but there is
no evidence that we came from bacteria, apes, etc."

There is not, and never will be, any direct evidence that will
point a common descendant between bacteria, apes, man, x-man, etc...
However, to sustain a theory, scientists try to gather a batterie of
evidences.
Common building blocks is one such evidence. It is not a sufficient
evidence, but it is one of many that scientists/evolutionists build up
in support of what they claim. These common building blocks are the
nucleic acids that make what is called the dna. Every living being
has its own dna, made with the same building blocks. Moreover, when
studying this dna from different species, apart from the differences
seen, there are striking similarities... especially in closely related
species. And even in what evolutionists claim as distant species from
the same "branch", incredible similarities can be seen in some of the
enzymes (wich depend on the dna to be made). But from species in
different "branches", there are no such similrities in these enzymes.
Now, what a coincidence!
And how does evolutionists try to explain that? Genetical inheritance that
spread across species from common ancestors.
And how does creationists explain that? The Matrix... Heu... God made it
that way from the begining...
But why would god make it so that closely related species (eg apes and
man, according to evolutionists) have so much similarities that are not
shared with unrelated species (eg birds in this example)? Well, I'll
let Tater and MrQB answer that.

There are so much of these "coincidences" and marvels that we find in
nature, that do point to close relations between species; marvels hidden
deep inside each cells, in the molecules that are in us.
Complexities in different species that point to each other...
And how does evolutionists try to explain that? Common ancestries,
inherited traits, evolution.
And how does creationists explain that? Same old story: god did it
that way, and god does work in mysterious ways, so there's no point
of trying to understand how and why it was done that way.

I, personally, cannot accept that kind of answer from creationists.


"And how can we have a debate if you won't accept that I am discussing
a science?"

That, Tater, is part of the debate.


"You're Matrix idea is flawed. Only you believe in it."

Is that your argument? A theory is flawed because only one person believes
in it?
Show me the flaw(s). Bring down that Matrix scenario. Proved me that it
isn't true. You'll be surprised at the arguments that I'll come up with to
defend it; it will probably be a song you have heard already.


"so how'd you come up with you're religion?"

I explained that in my description already. I'll repeat it here:
It was Revealed to me.


"It's illogical, my religion isn't."

What exactly is illogical in it? And what is logical in virgin birth,
for example?


"I truely believe that denial of God's existance comes from insecurity,
not from science"

You yourself said "If I was desended from an ape that would mean
there was no God, no heaven, no hell. So who gives a damn if I go splat,
I don't matter anyways." So, from this, it would rather seem that it
is insecurity that generates acceptance of god...


"Any of you formiliar with this clown [Kant]?"

I haven't read much Kant, so I can't comment on him.
But what if some person did like Kant a lot, supported his opinions?
If Kant is a clown, what would this make that person?
When above you said: "QB and juntel, you've both moved dangeriously
close to this...", let me tell you Tater that there are subtile
way to get "dangerously close to this", and your way about
Kant was one. When I get "dangerously close" to something,
I do it directly... with a touch of sarcasm, yes (this is a flaw of mine,
I know... mea culpa, mea ultima culpa...).

About the co-existence of creation and evolution - ooh, ooh! Let me have a shot! That's MY turf!

Shoot.
(my shortest post here!)

Nah, keep going... it'll take me a while to catch up...

Also because I'm lazy.

But my statement will come...

ok... I haven't read "3" in this thread because it's so late, but I don't think this was mentioned...
Quickbeam, you said that there are no links between the major groups of animals. If you look at fossils, however, there are a good many links. Late at night and offhand, I can think of two examples right now;
that half-bird half-reptile that was found.
and the "Mammal-like Reptiles" class that lived mostly before the dinosaurs; the most notable of these (in terms of a "link") was Cynodont, more mammal than reptile. It wiggled its tale back&forth as it ran (like a reptile), but gave birth to live young, and likely milk-fed them.
If I remember correctly, whales were tracked back to a small (about a wolf's size), carnivourus four-legged mammal that started to prefer the water.
Evolution is even happening right now; there is a type of bird in the Galapagos Islands that is the only bird of its kind that has given up flight for being able to swim in the ocean. It is imperfect; its wings still have feathers on them and are shaped much like ordinary wings, unlike penguins which are fully adapted.
Tater said some time ago that he didn't believe in evolution, but that he belived in "changes" like different kinds of people from around the world that have changed to match their surroundings (chinese, native, african, etc.), or like a tiger's stripes, designed to help them remain hidden in the jungle, or like the form of a stick insect, designed to make it look like a brach of a plant.
Well, sorry Tater, but that's called evolution. It's one and the same thing. So think about just how much you contradicted yourself in that message...

Just as I expected, Juntel continues to pursue the same 'evolution is science, creation is religion' theme. I would just like to point out to all of you that not once in this entire discussion have I made ONE SINGLE REFERENCE to the Bible to make my points. I have argued the case, as I always do in debates like this, strictly from the facts of science. Unfortunately, that's not good enough for Juntel, who continues to brand the Creationist arguments as Biblical. Each of you will have to judge for yourselves whether my arguments here have been religious or scientific in nature. I believe those of you who aren't so totally committed to evolution will realize that Juntel's charges on this point have no basis in fact.
A couple of clarifications.
Juntel, you continue to describe natural selection as if it had intelligence and will. Evolution requires RANDOM processes to achieve its goals. Natural selection, in the evolutionary scenario, is merely part of those random processes. You say that NS is another way for evolutionary change to happen IN ADDITION to mutation. In truth, the theory requires BOTH of these elements to affect evoultionary change: mutation produces a slightly altered organism, and natural selection (usually in the form of environment) allows that altered form to replace the original type of organism from which it mutated as the dominant form. Enough of these small changes allegedly result in major evolutionary change. THAT'S how natural selection fits into the random mechanisms of evolution. To give NS any greater power than that is to depart from purely naturalistic explanations into some form of pantheism where nature has an underlying intelligence.
But there are problems with this proposed mechamism. First, the fossil record provides no evidence that any such intermediate forms ever existed. There have been sufficient billions of fossils from enough different places discovered and cataloged that we can now say as a statistical certainty that if such forms DID exist as fossils we would have found some by now (hence Gould's alternate theory). So there is no physical evidence whatsoever to suggest the existence of intermediate forms.
Second, there is the matter of mutations. Unfortunately, mutations are not rare. They are all too plentiful. We see them all the time in all forms of life. And among all these mutations, NOT ONE has ever been observed that was beneficial to the organism. Most, as we both agree, are harmful or fatal. A very few are minor enough to be practically neutral. But none are beneficial. So again, the physical evidence provides no support for the idea of beneficial mutations.
Another problem that evolution faces is exactly how these proposed transitional forms could have been 'selected' as the best adapted forms of the moment. As we all know by now, living systems are very complex. The functioning of parts of living creatures is usually quite intricate. Any reduced function of a major part would obviously tend to greatly reduce that organism's chance for survival.
Let's take the example of reptiles and mammals. Evolutionists tout 'mammal-like reptiles' and 'reptile-like mammals' as a evidence of a possible evolutionary connection. The similarities are in the bone structures of the fossils. But the reptiles are still completely reptiles, and the mammals are completely mammals. Take the ear and jaw structures, for example. Reptiles have multiple jaw bones. Mammals have a single moving jaw bone, and three small inner ear bones. The assumption (note that word) is that the extra jaw bones were 'changed' into the inner ear bones as part of the transition. Does anyone else see a problem with this? How would the ears and mouth be able to function while all these 'beneficial mutations' were happening. As I've mentioned, these organs and bone structures are complex systems that require all their elements to be exactly as their DNA intended them to be to function properly. So what we're talking about here is a long, LONG series of generations of animals that are not only incapable of using their jaws properly to hunt and eat, but which are also deaf. Yet supposedly these animals were 'selected' as the most fit, for generation after generation after generation, until finally the mammilian jaw and ear structures had fully evolved. And of course, at the same time, scales somehow turned into fur, the sophisticated cold-blooded system of the reptile turned into the also sophisticated but radically different warm-blooded system of mammals, the eggs in the female reptiles were replaced by the internal gestation of mammals, and on and on and on. What evolutionists seldom talk about is that the large evolutionary changes involve so much more than just the outward traits that could make an animal better suited to survive, and every component of that change would tend, from the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that we observe, to greatly reduce that animal's chance for survival in every single generation.
Now you say, Juntel, that in spite of all this we can't rule out the possibility that beneficial muations could have happened and transitional forms could have existed. And you're right, we can't KNOW that this didn't happen. After all, there's still so much we don't know about all these processes. But in the spirit of your little 'Matrix' story (which Tater answered well), let me propose a theory.
My theory is that someday trees will walk. I know this idea is from a fictional story, but I once read a story where a frog turned into a Prince. Evolution also teaches that a frog turned into a Prince (except that in that case it took 100 million years or so). So the mere fact that the end result of my theory appears in a work of fiction can't disqualify it. Now, I know that there is all kinds of physical evidence that would contradict this idea. But that doesn't matter, because there is still SO MUCH we DON'T know, and natural selection could make it necessary for trees to move in order to survive. There could be a change in weather patterns someday that would result in long periods of intermittent rain in small areas, and total, decades-long drought everywhere else. The area of rain would move very slowly. Since trees need water to survive, they would have to develop the ability to move along with the rain, or die out. There may be other scenarios that I haven't thought of yet that would cause this change to happen. So I theorize that a series of beneficial mutations will someday result in trees developing the ability to walk. Now, of course, the root structure is crucial to the life of a tree, and a large root structure would make it difficult for a tree to walk. We don't know how a tree could survive such changes, and there are many other difficulties that would also have to be overcome. But no matter: we've got NATURAL SELECTION and TIME working for us here! Eventually, the trees WILL WALK!
By your arguments, Juntel, this is just as viable a scientific theory as the idea that reptiles evolved into mammals. Both are not only utterly without support in the data from the real world we observe, but both fly directly into the face of much contrary evidence. But like you, I appeal to A) the fact that there is so much we still DON'T know, and B) that natural selection works wonders when you give it enough time.
What I hope the rest of you reading this will see (I have little hope that Juntel will allow himself to) is that you can make almost ANY theory credible if your primary justification is to appeal, as Juntel does, to natural selection, time, and our limited knowledge.
REAL SCIENCE deals with things that can be observed and verified. A real scientific theory has to have SOME basis in the empirical data. All the physical evidence that evolutionists ARE able to cite are only things that are CONSISTENT with evolution. All of this evidence can also be explained (frequently better) within the Creation model. The fossil record is a prime example. Evolutionists cite the fossil record as evidence of evoution, but it is just as compatable with the Creation model (moreso when you also look at what ISN'T in the record). What evolutionists do NOT have is one particle of DEFINITIVE evidence, evidence that is in favor of evolution and against its diametric opposite, Creation. (On the other hand, there is MUCH definitive physical evidence that favors Creation and opposes evolution. I've given examples in this thread.) To base a theory like evolution solely on ambiguous evidence makes it as unscientific as my theory that trees will walk. Creation is also unscientific in the strict sense, because it can never be absolutely proven, just as Evolution can't, because both would have happened in the unobservable past, and both are unrepeatable. Being observable and repeatable are both requisites for a true scientific theory. Unsupported speculations about what COULD have happened are not an acceptable substitute. So once again, it all comes back to which model of origins best fits the observable data. In this comparison, Creation wins by a mile.
What has been seen in this discussion has been one side arguing the case based solely on the observable data, and the other side appealing over and over to what we DON'T know to justify his beliefs, and repeatedly departing completely from the facts to argue the philosophical matter of whether Creation is really science. This is what always happens in these debates, and it's unfortunate, because I will not hestiate to say that Juntel's arguments on the FACTS have by no means been completely without merit. Evolution, in its various parts from cosmic to organic, is not a completely worthless model. It is just a very inferior model to Creation. People like me do not wish to exclude evolution from science. In spite of its many faults, I think it should be taught, ALONGSIDE CREATION. Juntel, and those like him, will never consent to this. So it is clearly obvious which side is truly closed-minded on the subject of origins.
At this point, I think there is little more left to be said. I haven't answered all the points Juntel made in his most recent posts, but I had addressed those subjects earlier, and I think the same is true of my points in this post: Juntel's opinions have already been expressed adequately. Further rehashing on either side seems unnecessarily repetitive. If Juntel agrees, what I'd like to do now is end the debate proper and throw the discussion open to questions from other posters who may not be clear on specific points we've made, and to comments from others who haven't yet posted but have something to say. Any responses Juntel and I make to questions should kept as brief as possible. I hope this will meet with approval.
I would also like to thank the admins for allowing this discussion to proceed. Juntel and I have gotten a little emotional here and there, but he has actually been more cordial than some I have discussed these things with, so I was able to keep myself reasonably in control too. If nothing else, we've given a lot of people here some food for thought on an important subject, and that's always a good thing.

As you might expect QB, I could easily make another one of those long post, taking one by one your arguments and making proper readjustments to what I think are misunderstood and misused notions and results.

But also you are right that others than me, you and Tater should add their two cents to this debate! As I said to Tater somewhere else, neither of us should expect anyone to "win" this debate, and we cannot expect to solve something that's been around before us, and that will be also be there after us.

I guess Tater himself would like to add his own last big statements before "questionings".

As for myself, I nevertheless add this last thing, that will address a central question I think, and may give people something to help them think about. Here goes:

Diggins are still going on around the world by archeologists, paleontologists, etc... to find more about the past forms of life. Some are about old civilizations, but a lot are also about searching for forms of life to what scientists believe to have been millions of years ago, according to their dating techniques.

Now my statement: IF during one of those diggins in very old stratta a petrified human (or primate) skeletton is discovered that dates back to 1 billion years, then the blow that the current evolutionist idea will receive may well be fatal. Of course that is IF that skeleton is dated actually to 1 billion years.
So, with such a discovery, made during an experiment on evolution (the digging), evolution as we know it now will have to bow down, and biologists will have to search for another model of why life is organized as it is. That is because in the actual evolutionary model, absolutely no humans could have existed 1 billions years ago, and so one prediction is that no human skeleton can be found and dated as being 1 billion years old.

This statement being made, I pose now a friendly challenge to QB: What experimental result would be needed for the Creation "Science" model to "bow down"? That is, now that I have shown that evolution could be brought down by a specific shoking discovery, and so be falsified, what discovery in nature could make creationists say: hey, nature has just told us that after all, we were wrong with our model.

This may help people seeing the difference between what is science and what is not.

That was it.

Now dear Entmooters (after maybe Tater makes a last statement), let the questions come!
Don't be shy! Take a risk!
The Matrix won't bite you!

here I go again

First, about me comment about Kant. Juntel, you're right. I shouldn't have used such a strong word, please forgive me. QB: "I have little hope that Juntel will allow himself to". We all need to watch ourselves about flamming.

Every good creationist argument I have ever seen or read never even mentioned God or the Bible except for when the debater said they weren't going to. When debating something with an atheist (which evolutionists usually are, despite the occasional exception) it's good to do it in a way that they'll accept. I ain't perfect, and because of my limited knowledge I am unable to do this, but I'm sure you know that there are those who do.

Niffiwan, you said that because I accept change within species I believe in evolution. This is where the line between science and dogma or religion is blurred on the side of evolution. Saying that I have to accept everything about evolution or nothing about it makes it, by definition, a religion.

What does science have to do with proof? Nothing. Science is not there to prove things. If there is anything whose job it is to prove it is logic or phylosophy, not science.

Juntel:
"God did it
that way, and God does work in mysterious ways, so there's no point
of trying to understand how and why it was done that way." (capitalization of God is my own.) If so then why am I debating this?

You miss-quoted me regarding the Matrix. Please read my post again. If you still don't understand it I'll try to be clearer.

If I or anyone else accepted God because of fear why is it that we are supposed to fear God? Admitedtly the way we're supposed to fear Him is a healthy fear, in awe of his power and in respect of Him, but why follow something that comes with fear to avoid fear?

I don't understand your argument for why it makes sense to take the jump from believing that there is change within species to believe we come from bacteria. I see no logic in it, please explain.

Quickbeam:
You say that almost all mutations are bad. Nope. Did you ever read "Voyage of the Beagle"? I think if you did you know what I mean. Those beaks were quite usefull, but that's change within species, which I fully believe is true, considering the vast amount of evidence on it's behalf.

You seem to have issues with phylosophy. In a debate about something like this phylosophy is necessary, I believe. Science and phylosophy should and do coexist, we shouldn't ignore this.

Now for the beginning of my final argument:

Juntel, you have set me up perfectly, and I thank you You said that if a billion year old human fossil was found that would change the views about evolution. But you either neglected a key point or did this on purpose, hoping no one would notice. The current dating system, carbon dating, is extremely unreliable. After about 2,000 years (I could have the number wrong, but it ain't long) the margin of error is at least 20,000 years, though it's quite likely that it's more. Currently we are unable to date something that's a billion years old, there are still problems with dating things from this millenia occasionally!
The age of the earth is constantly being changed by scientists, as new "evidence" of evolution shows up. That's right folks, they're saying the world is older and older to accomidate for a theory that just keeps getting weaker and weaker. However, the dating system the way it is, they're also rapidly running out of proof. Basically they're digging themselves into a hole.
QB brings up another important point. What happens to the creatures when they're in between stages of evolution, going from one species to the next. Basically, they're screwed. They'll die out if it isn't for a miracle (which proves the existance of God and therefore, logically, goes against evolution.)

QuickBeam...

Second, there is the matter of mutations. Unfortunately, mutations are not rare. They are all too plentiful. We see them all the time in all forms of life. And among all these mutations, NOT ONE has ever been observed that was beneficial to the organism.

Looks like you haven't done ANY research into that...
I could name one off the top of my head right now; the E. Coli mutation. E. Coli lives inside all of us, but (most of it) is not deadly, there is only one branch of it that is. The mutation seemed to make it live inside cows more easily, and was beneficial to the bacteria. It's deadly to humans, but it's more of an advantage than a dissadvantage because it mostly lives in cows.

Darth Tater, I merely said that "changes" are evolution. Explain why they're not if you believe otherwise.
I may be wrong, but I think that a lot of creationists rather think that all animals' shape and location was rightfully chosen by God so that they would be more successfull.
Also, 20 000 years isn't all that much if you go enough into the past. Oh, and 20 000 years already defies the idea that the world was made 10 000 years ago.

Thankyouandhaveaniceday.

Sorry Niffiwan, guess I missread. And no, 20,000 years doesn't defy that. Just because a time never happened doesn't mean people can't think it did. And since carbon dating is not reliable, it can say something is from a time it is not, and therefore it can say something is from a time that never took place.

Tater,

Carbon dating can only be used for carbon-containing objects that are at most 60 000 years old, tops.

For anything beyond that, especially involving millions and billions years old objects, other dating methods involving other radioactive decay atoms are used.

Carbon dating would never be used for petrified objects anyway, since those objects are mineralized traces of those objects, and so contain (almost) no carbon from which to take samples to test from.

"Every good creationist argument I have ever seen or read never even mentioned God or the Bible"

Omnipotent omniscient creator, creation of the world in six days, a worldwide flood to try to account for fossil records...

No bible allusions?

C'mon!

"What does science have to do with proof? Nothing. Science is not there to prove things"

Science and its theories are there to make sense of observations made. Nothing is absolutely proved (in the strictest sense of proof), for we can't foretell the future discoveries of future experiments that may change/add to our current explanations.
So in a sense we agree on that.
Is there a proof that atoms exist, for example?
The atom model is so rich an explanation for all the matter that surrounds us, it accounts for so much observations, its predictions are so well verified by subsequent experimental verifications,
that it is (it seems to me) practically unattackable by any other scientific explanations. Because of this, one says (a bit loosely from the point of view of epistemologists) that the atom model has been proved by science. And this is understandable (although not stricly undeniably true).
Someone could come and say that a little sentient invisible entities were floating all around and toying with our observations just to make us think that atoms existed. Like in the creation model or the Matrix scenario, this is an unprovable and undisprovable scenario; it is not a scientific explanation that lends itself to the scrutiny of peers and the test of nature.

Are evolution and theories of evolution as solid explanations for life as atoms are for matter?
No. And biologists don't deny that.
But it is a disprovable explanation that does lend itself to the test of nature.

"If there is anything whose job it is to prove it is logic or phylosophy, not science"

Mathematicians give logicians and philosophers other kinds of logics to work with (including logical systems where "True" and "False" are just the extremes values in a range of truth values for propositions).
A proof, for a logician, makes only sense within a given logical system (eg a formal system).
And then Gödel came and made interesting discoveries... but that's entirely another subject!

juntel is correct.

Science is a matter of formulating certain principles based on observations - principles that are assumed to be true until they are disproven. However, because the possibility of them being disproven is still there, they cannot be ABSOLUTELY PROVED.

The only true mathematical proof exists in Boolean logic of true and false using indefinite, general values and sets.

Generalities do not encompass everything they say they do but they're damn close enough to constitute a "proof".

ok... I might be the one who knows the most paleontology here, or would if I'd finished all of the books that I have on it ...
First of all, do you believe that the creatures that were now were the only creatures ever to exist? I heard from a Christian friend at school that all the species supposedly survived the flood...
ok, Quickbeam, have you ever studied the Earth's natural history or read a book on paleontology? You should, you might find some flaws in some of your arguments...
ok...

Let's take the example of reptiles and mammals. Evolutionists tout 'mammal-like reptiles' and 'reptile-like mammals' as a evidence of a possible evolutionary connection. The similarities are in the bone structures of the fossils. But the reptiles are still completely reptiles, and the mammals are completely mammals. Take the ear and jaw structures, for example. Reptiles have multiple jaw bones. Mammals have a single moving jaw bone, and three small inner ear bones. The assumption (note that word) is that the extra jaw bones were 'changed' into the inner ear bones as part of the transition. Does anyone else see a problem with this?

about my Cynodont point... they were more mammal than reptile, actually.
Well... here's a quote from a certain book that I have, with a picture of a fossilised skull to prove it...

Mammals are an ancient group of animals. We can trace our ancestors back to the late Carboniferous period 300million years ago when a group of reptiles with a distinctively different-shaped skull evolved. These have been called mammal-like reptiles because their skeleton had certain mammalian characteristics, even though on the outside they would still have looked like reptiles. During the Permian era, they became the dominant group of animals on land. Fossils from South Africa show that these communities were rich and diverse, with a range of predators, large herbovores, and even burrowing animals. ... Ironically, while the dinosaurs began their reign, the mammal-like reptiles were becoming more mammal than reptile. The cynodonts emerged and formed an almost perfect link between the two groups. Cynodonts had long bodies and ran on four crouched legs with a side-to-side movement like that of reptiles. However, they also had mammal-like features and specialized teeth, including molars, incisors, and canines. Their lower jaws were formed out of one bone, rather than the seven found in reptiles, and two of the redundant bones had migrated upward to form the delicate structure of the middle ear. Most significantly, fossil Cuynodont skulls reveal a pattern of small holes in the snout that suggest nerve roots supplying whiskers. Whiskers are specialized hairs, and this suggests that Cynodonts were covered in fur, needed for temperature control. This means that they were probably warm-blooded.

But of course, you wouldn't believe that. Tell me why please,and I would enjoy spending more hours doing research on this in order to put you next argument into the mud.
Another thing that you haven't mentioned at all is Archaeopteryx. You know; the "bird" that was covered in feathers but had claws on its wings and feet. Some believe that it was descended from small two-legged dinosaurs that began to climd trees (but you don't believe in dinosaurs, do you?).
Also, a quote...

A LIVING FOSSIL?
The modern bird most similar to the Archaeopterix is the South American Hoatzin. It has weak flight muscles and climbs trees to glide, rather than fly, from branch to branch. Hoatzin chicks have claws on their wings

There you go, modern "proof" of evolution; I really don't see why a "Creator" would choose them to be this primitive and not being able to fly; it would really be much better for them if they could fly, don't you agree? So it is my opinion that they are like some ancient human tribes found on a few islands this time (who almost haven't progressed since the stone age). Speaking of which, you can see evolution in humans even fairly recently; our brains have grown more complex since several thousand years ago. Also the more quick evolution; in the last 50 years or so, kids have grown unexpectedly bigger then their parents.

Now I'll introduce a new theory, in which I believe could happen, not that it rules evolution out, though...
Devolution. It means that a species will de-evolve back into where it came from if there's no need for evolution. Well, actually this has been "proven" already; I don't know about present deep-sea fish, but Trilobites which moved into the deep parts of the oceans had lost their eyesight without suffering a defect in their living; it was too dark to see anything anyway.
In fact, there's one scientist who believes that mankind (or a more sophisticated variation) was the first lifeform on Earth, presumably coming from outer space. Then, as the need for its superiority wasn't needed, mankind devolved into all of the different species that we see today. He provided some proof too; descendants of some lost travelers were found some time ago in the jungle, and they were indeed half-ape and couldn't talk a language, or even learn a language because their brains weren't used to anything so complicated.
Now, I believe that devolution is possible and has been observed at times (it seems to happen much quicker then evolution does...), but I don't believe that mankind was the first form of lifeform on Earth and eventually devolved into all of the other animals.
What do all you others think? Has anyone heard of this theory?

But since it continued beyond the point I thought it would, I figure I might as well toss in my two cents.

Scratch that... only one cent for now.

Contemporary science is analogous to a house of cards - each element carefully placed, all supporting one another. Fragile.

What happens when a card is dislodged? The house crumbles to the ground. This is referred to as, in less destructive terms, a paradigm shift.

This is not to say that everything is lost - oh, no. Most of the elements can be reused, but in a different manner now, to ensure that they fit into the latest card house - or paradigm.

Fortunately for the scientific community, there are rarely shake-ups so bad that the entire set of theories and "laws" hit the table. Rather, a small section starts to give way, a few cards flutter down, but it seems that we have a team of trained professionals ensuring that the damage is quickly repaired.

But it seems to me that science is still just the house of cards... no matter how elaborate, how well-maintained... it still has that fragility... and furthermore, what it becomes is not so much dependant on the circumstances which surround it, but on the whims and inclinations of the builders.

Well, there's a bit of text I spewed out at one o'clock in the morning... it'll have to do for now, I guess.

Lurker, that fragility you mention is due to science's will to let itself vulnerable to future investigations by experimentations, scrutinity by peers, etc...
Fullproof models that are independant of experimental data, as the creation model and the Matrix model, are basically unshakable not because of their believed truth, but because they don't allow experimental data to be able to disprove them; they can't put forward any prediction that may be disproved; they don't allow experimentation to be able to make them "bow down".

That fragility of science comes from the humility its proponents have in front of the complexitiy of nature.
Absolute models like creationism and the Matrix scenario just take this complexity as a given fact not to be investigated further, since it was created mostly as is.

Devolution... never heard of that one...

But it sounds like a strange mix or creationism, raelism and panspermia!

Anyways, can you give the sources for us to have a more complete description of that explanation, if one want to like into this?

From Tater: "you're religion states that no one knows about the Matrix"

I indeed should have said: "no one knew about the Matrix, until it was Revealed to me, and maybe others."

Does that remove what you described as illogical in my scenario?
Hey, I'll try to refine the scenario for its few rough spots, but the main idea is there, the core of the scenario is that what we consider as Reality comes from some machine (the Matrix) that feeds our minds (what ever these are!) with informations...
Hey! Your bible is thousands of years old in its most ancient parts, gimme time to write mine!

And the challenge is to bring down that scenario.
If one can't, then I propose that if the Creation "Scientists" do succeed in bringing their "dual" models proposition in schools, then my scenario should be up there also (and therefore mandatory screenings of TheMatrix movie and its sequels should exist in classes... who's with me?!)

Hey that's really cool... I'll take that theology class for sure! I'll be your first pope ok? We'll convert everyone!
I'm so excited! Long live the matrix and Juntel the first prophet!