This is my first time posting, so I’ll quickly introduce myself.

My name is Terrell and I head up Creation Science Outreach over here in London.

It is my policy not to seek arguments, and unfruitful engagement, so in that sense I agree their should be mutual respect between both parties of Creation and Evolutionism. Respect that all have the right to their own opinion, and to pursue science and the promotion there of.

What I am adamantly adverse to is the unwaiveringly biased, blinkered and unscientific view that some adhere to with religious zeal and faith. Namely x amount of Evolutionists.

First we have to realise that there are 6 types of Evolution. Only one - variation within a kind - is scientific. The others - stellar, cosmic, chemical, organic and macro are purely religious.

Cosmic - The main evidences of the Big Bang theory posited are background radiation and Red Shift. The radiation comes from every where, not from any central point of a magical ‘bang’ of nothing, and most things are Red Shifted, which is explained best by Tired Light or Gravitational Red Shift. Otherwise it would seem Earth is the centre of the nothing that exploded with magical energy from nowhere.

Stellar - No one has conclusively seen one star form. You might see dust clear or a nova happen, but not a star being born. How can dust magically come together in frictionless space into a solid? - it doesn’t happen on Earth. Boyle’s gas law drives it apart. Plus to get this many by random chance for no reason from no here? We’d need to see 6 million defying the laws of physics every minute or so to get this many even in 20 billion years.

Organic - A year after the publishing of Darwin’s ‘Origin…’ (in which he never discusses the origin of species), Louis Pasteur (a real scientist, not an apostate divinity student/ medical school drop out) devised an experiment that proved Biogenesis (that living matter comes from living matter), and disproved the dark ages myth of spontaneous generation. The chances of left handed amino acids being produced with or without oxygen in water by complete random chance, after being hit by lighting, and then forming itself instantly into proteins, a cell, and instantly having a way of respiring, excreting, reproducing and x amount of other essential things is so way beyond ridiculous that any man that holds to it does so simply by religious choice. No oxygen - no Ozone - UV light kills life in 0.3 seconds. Oxygen - oxidizes life and kills it. Law of Mass Action breaks apart any proteins attempting to magically form themselves for no reason. Simple protein forming by nothing but random chance chance - 1 in 10 to the power 119.

Haven’t got time for Chemical, but simply try and cross the Mass Gap at Helium 4.

Macro! - Dogs produce dogs, and the wolf, the dog and the coyote probably had a common ancestor. No new information is ever added to any genome that can produce a new kind. Mutations are a loss of information and there are no positive ones. Nature can by blind chance produce patterns, but never information. You need an intelligent designer to initiative a first cause of information. FARM? We still have fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals and none of the ones we’ve observed have started to change into any other kind in the 5000 years of recorded human history (Evolutionists cry in unison - ‘that’s not long enough! it was a long, long time ago in a land far away). Where does this new genetic info and rearranging of the chromosome come from? Aliens? (No Francis). You’re staring at something physically, mathematically and scientifically impossible. It’s religious! That’s why Goldschmidt posited the ludicrous Punctuated Equilibria religious idea.

Anyway, apologies if I was rude or crass, I can’t help if that’s my manner.

OK, I had to come back.

To agree with you, every word.

While I like the scientific process, it is entirely tooooo easy to take a stance of arrogance and close mindedness. And I have no time for people who try to hide behind science…saying that science would not support the existence of cryptids because of the lack of evidence, or because someone supposedly took a scientific look at a cryptid and just decided it wasn’t there.

Science is a really simple system of trial and error, built over time upon ideas that were explored, tried out, researched. And science has made plenty of mistakes over the centuries. Dinosaurs were first thought to be big, dumb, slow and inferior animals. We now know much more (or at least speculatively:), and that they may have been very advanced in their ability and thinking, especially to survive for so long.

Now, the more complex an equation, the more variables and the more things that have to be factored in. With cryptozoology, there are a huge number of factors to be taken into account, and often the so-called scientific-scoffers either overlook these variables or just outright ignore them. Example? Loch Ness. Large body of water…24 miles by 1 mile wide…also the water is peaty so visibility is nil. Also depth–up to 700+ feet deep. If there is a creature (see I’m being open minded:), we know little about its appearance, intelligence, eating habits, diet, social patterns, sleep patterns, mating habits, its abilites (sight, hearing, echo location as suggested with Champ?), amphibious nature?, and that is just off the top of my head.

From a scientific standpoint, you may be able to say that based on just the eye witness evidence you are not convinced that it exists, and that’s fine. But do not even try to talk in absolutes–that it does not or cannot exist. No one to date has enough information to be able to make a claim like that. Nuff said.

Which brings me back to our present debate…science runs afoul of creationism so often, I think because of its own arrogance–it is too easy in science to take the same sort of stance as any religious fanatic…that science knows all and has the corner on the knowledge market about how the world works. And when that card comes out, it’s enough for creationists and IDers to laugh and scoff, because everyone knows full well that science is at a loss on way too many fronts to explain how the world works.

The reverse is also true…and for scientific supporters, to just throw everything in the “faith” category is too neat and tidy…but hey some people like neat and tidy. That’s the point of religion…it helps you cope, helps you explain the world…and somedays it just helps you get through the crappy day.

Bottom line again is that I don’t see that science and religion have to be at odds…as long as both can accept the idea that no one has all the answers and that the other guy’s ideas are just as valid as our own…that’s a hard one for most people:)

Alright, enough of this, I have to go plan a trip to Lake Champlain…

“Personally, to my mind, science has all the hallmarks of a religion”

Hear! Hear!

The religion of TRUTH.

(But I guess that’s how everyone feels about theiir own religion, isn’t it ?)

“Munnin, I like your post…” “…That’s what I was trying to say, but you presented the idea in a much more articulate way. Thanks”

Thank YOU Kittenz, for your kind words. I appreciate them.

mystery_man responds:

“I appreciate that there are mysteries out there that we may never know the answer to, indeed, may not even be capable of knowing the answers to. This is a thing of faith, and I recognize it as such. I really do think it would be unfair to say that all scientists are atheists, as is often implied.”

Well said mystery_man. I believe that more than a few scientists do also have a spiritual side. Oddly enough, I think many of those on either side of this debate would agree that science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive.

cmgrace responds:
“No, I don’t believe any species came into existence by a series of accidental mutations, but that is a matter of faith. However, I cannot deny that life on Earth has the ability to adapt to changes in it’s respective environment, that is a matter of science.”

Very succinctly put, cmgrace. I agree.

I’ve made my peace with science. I don’t ask any scientist to go out in the woods looking for the sasquatch or the yeti. I get it; they have jobs; they’re busy already.

It’s individual scientists who laugh, guffaw, hee-haw (appropriate) and pooh-pooh, without having looked at the evidence, that arouse my ire. They are speaking from ignorance; they are obstructing progress; and they need to shut up.

Same goes for anyone - creationist; IDer; evolutionist; on-the-fenceist; shoot, Darwin and Einstein themselves if they ever did it. ANYONE who, without having considered anything of the other point(s) of view, makes fun of them.

If you cannot bring the evidence to the table and present it in a dispassionate fashion, you have no call to disparage.

There’s been amazingly little disparagement on this thread. That’s good.

But I don’t think anybody has convinced anybody else. That’s OK too.

Peace is: if you are comfortable, I’m happy. I am too. Or if you aren’t, and still searching, well, so am I. Let’s continue our quests; not feel the need to enlighten the ignorant when we may be the ignorant ourselves; and maybe we’ll both find what we want to.

The search isn’t aided by brickbats or smugness, so let’s get beyond them (which we may, from evidence presented here, be starting to do).

Peace. Really.

My faith hasn’t been questioned. I still believe in God, and I do not need a scientific explanation for my faith. I was trying to get a better understanding of evolution and it’s apparent meanings (macro vs. micro) when it comes to science. I have also reviewed the evidence in favor if ID (Creation) and still have more to review on both sides of the subject. No, I don’t believe any species came into existence by a series of accidental mutations, but that is a matter of faith. However, I cannot deny that life on Earth has the ability to adapt to changes in it’s respective environment, that is a matter of science.

I will continue to expand my knowledge, discuss all viewpoints, and ask questions. I think that this is what everyone here is trying to do.