Arjay, “our present science is unable to explain most things” is dead right.

And what a blessing that is. How horrible, the contemplation that we might at some stage cease the need to keep inquiring, that at last we know it all.

Gone would be the joy of searching for yet more interesting elements of how things tick, and of the nature that surrounds us and of which we are part.

It would be a return to the days of the French revolution when a leading chemist’s head was lopped off, accompanied by the words “we have no need of men of science”. Come to think of it, with Lord Monckton’s exorcising the evil goblin of a world communist government, and denigration of scientists – we are getting a re-run of that philosophy.

Runner,

You have a go at firesnake but you need instructing in the terms usually reserved for idiots and appropriately applied to you.

*if* you believe in a god, you believe he made the earth. Since it *is* old he either (1) made it long long ago or (2) your god made it look that way (deception).

It made fossil light coming from stars which ordinary Euclidean geometry tells us are up to billions of light years away.

It made fossils in an approximate order of complexity, relative to the geological features.

It provided the genetic material with the sort of copy errors and editing hitches that are still made today and then carried forward to new generations and amenable to analysis in current generations. Just like the same sort of transcription errors used to date old texts before (and after) the printing press.

This is either (1) real or (2)an elaborate deception to instruct about important topics or (3)an elaborate hoax to trap us (two finger salute to "god" if this is the case).

Having shown you ignorant on this topic, please shut up. Forever. You have nothing to say to us that we don't know better.

You again presume to know what "god" finds funny. I say that you adhere to texts written by men (their names are even in the headers, do read your bible). What they were inspired by, we'll never know, but they could and probably did make it up (so did Hubbard, after all).

You believe that "god" made the earth. What "it" made with "it's" hands directly, proclaims that we evolved. Maybe you should learn directly from "it's" most notable works (I have held some in my hand), rather than the very flawed and questionable stuff that named men wrote in just one (poor) book among many.

Rusty

Rusty

At least you are smart enough to see design written all over the earth. Your other self delusions and fantasies about the age of the earth can be debated with every second scientist who have a different fantasy to debate. Going on your writings I don't think you have much chance of convincing to many with your petty little dogmas.

"Imagine living in the 14th Century: and trying to explain spectrums of light - frequencies of light and sound. Imagine trying to explain different states of consicousness and brainwave patterns. Most people of that period would dismiss those ideas out-of-hand."

Anyone in the fourteenth century who had gone to work with lenses and prisms the way that Newton did three hundred years later would have got a long way towards achieving our current understanding of light. Way back in ancient Greece philosophers were forming testable scientific hypotheses -- they just didn't have the technology to investigate them then. There is no shame or fault in saying "I think this might be the case, but I don't know yet."

But throwing up your hands and saying "I don't understand this, but I can't bear to admit that, so let's pretend God did it." -- this is a non-stop route to explanatory failure.

We all know that you cannot debate "belief" or "faith". These two tenets are unshakable or they cease to exist. Therefore there is no reason for Mr Weiland and Mr. Dawkins to meet. It wold be a total waste of time, certainly for an audience who may expect an outcome.

We know by default that a good creationist cannot capitulate to logic or evidence.

We know by default that a scientist is perfectly happy to change his view if evidence is replicated by his peers to prove him incorrect in his assumptions. He may feel a little jaded and annoyed at himself for missing the mark but, with good grace, will concede to a change in view.

Not so a creationist I am afraid. Such a waste of time.......

Well said Grim. 'Nuff said.

Creationists:
Why did God create our lungs from swim bladders?
(Why didn't we get the bird enhancements...much better!)
Why did God cross our breathing and eating pathways? (Thus killing many millions of babies and countless adult choking deaths)
Why did god build our feet wrong?
Why did God build the back so badly?
Why such a dodgy immune system?
Why does he kill humans with disease the same as the other animals?
(Aren't we "special"?)
Why did God build eggs/sperm to fail so darned often?
Why did God make childbirth so dangerous?
Why does 1 in 100 babies have a tail? (What's with all the other defects?!)
Why the fossils showing transition if it didn't happen? Why develop whales on land for so long then send them back to sea?
For an omnipotent designer...He *really* cocked up!

In short: Why give the complete illusion of evolution from simple forms to the last detail for those who look?
Natural explanations are for curious.
God is for the lazy, the stupid and the scared. By all means pray if it makes you feel good, but *don't* lie to children if you *do not know*. Professionals get angry when others pretend to know. Religions that oppose hard earned knowledge deserve to be scolded and humiliated. Stick to dubious ethics and leave science to those who can be bothered doing it properly.