Collegiate Times

I don't know where to begin here so I'm making a list. Reasons you are wrong: Fossils, Uranium isotope dating of the earth that proves its billions of years old, Oil if life is only 10,000 years old why do we have a crap load of oil coal or gas, the fact that everything your theory is based on is the Bible which is a guide to spiritual matters not a science book. This is a short list off the top of my head I could make a much longer list if I took time to think about it.

I think it's GREAT to see debate going on regarding intellectual matters, but hey - this is a UNIVERSITY. Use some research to back your arguments. I respect your opinion, but not when debating facts.

I thought engineers were supposed to be the smarter people. Wow. Just... wow.

lol, I was having trouble finding anything about the Mt. St. Helens thing (except for Creationist websites like answersingenesis), and the reason for that is because the guy didn't even do radiocarbon dating. He did POTASSIUM-ARGON dating. You guys don't even know your own story! And the reason he got screwy dates is because he 1) did the method incorrectly, and 2) the institute that he had date the rocks he used SAID ON THEIR WEBSITE THAT THEY DON'T DATE THINGS UNDER 2 MILLION YEARS OLD. Because their equipment couldn't do it accurately! And yet the guy still sends his young rocks to them! No wonder Creationist arguments get into the mainstream. They change their own stories to make them even more nonsensical, so they're even harder to refute because it's so hard to find information about them.

Why are you studying aerospace engineering? If God had wanted us to fly, He would have given us wings.

So, where's the science journals that point to how crappy carbon dating is? I'd like to think that a Nobel Prize winner knew what he was doing when he developed that method.

Yeah, I can't see Darwin's theory so its really stupid. Its like that Galileo's theory that the Earth orbits the Sun. Hahaha. Everyone can see in the sky that the Sun orbits the immovable Earth and that it conforms to Holy Scripture! (Psalm 93:1).

Travis, the point about the Vatican accepting evolution was meant to point out that NO CATHOLICS ARE CREATIONISTS, at least not if they follow the church's teachings.

You argue that evolution is false, because living matter can't come from non-living matter. Even if that were true it wouldn't make a difference, because that's not what the theory of evolution says. At it's simplest, Darwin's theory of evolution says is that species change over time, they aren't fixed. All of your points conveniently overlook the evidence proving that species change; the fossil record.

Your argument is completely irrelevant to the theory of Evolution. Evolution is a process that acts upon living organisms. It does not, nor does it attempt to, explain the origins of life. There are theories that state that life began abiotically (i.e., spontaneously) but those are NOT part of the theory of Evolution. Additionally, the inaccuracies of radiocarbon dating with regards to "new" samples is something that is known. As such, they don't test young samples in this method. Tell ya what: If you want to believe in creationism, that's fine. Just don't try and tell biologists and the like they are wrong, and we won't tell you that you're wrong with regards to your field. Senior, Biochemistry

Please drop out of engineering, and please leave aerospace engineering of all fields. As an aerospace engineer myself, you're brining shame unto the entire department. If you don't drop out, please please educate yourself about why you're wrong on every account. If you don't believe in evolution, I want you to deny antibiotics the next time that they're prescribed to you.

Hello fellow commentors, I'm Attack Response. Please use me to comment on how perfect someone should be if they are in a certain major - even if it's only their first or second year - and how they'll never succeed in said field because of their viewpoint. Please go on to say that their argument is stupid, pointless, and irrelevant because YOU say so, and since you are God the author should drop out of school. Please don't forget, as a final note, to discourage responsible debate, but rather just "go at 'em" and see how badly you can insult the person. Then, we can all live in misery. Thanks for your support!

Responsible debate? Creationists make up facts and don't use logic in their arguments. We might as well try to have a debate on what 2 + 3 is. The only rational way to respond to creationists like this is to mock them. As far as this issue on the author's major, he might be a straight A engineer. But when it comes to something that contradicts his faith, he suspends all reason in order to preserve his faith. Hopefully the author wake up one day and realize that it is silly to base modern scientific principles on bizarre scribblings by ancient desert nomads.

Travis S. Anderson, are you a liar, or are you just plain stupid. I'm betting on stupid.

The retard wrote "I am an independent Baptist." All Baptists are scientifically illiterate. Drooling idiots can feel at home in a Baptist church.

Just another independent Baptist chiming in to say that I also reject evolution. And I'm very "scientifically illiterate" - so much so that I graduated magna cum laude with a biology BA and am now pursuing medicine. Yup, I'm just a dummy.

When did having an intellectual debate start allowing persons to refer to others as "retards". "Retard" as a description of another person is not acceptable at any level.

Graduating in biology and rejecting evolution is comparable to majoring in physics and rejecting thermodynamics (unless one attends Bob Jones University or Liberty College). But then many unqualified students in this country receive cum laude diploma. For those who feel that so called "scientific creationism" is a necessary prerequisite for believing in God, I suggest visiting the website of the clergy project (just Google "the clergy letter project") to learn that one can believe in God and also accept evolution. The first is a spiritual act of faith the second is a scientific model. Only people of weak faith need a scientific confirmation of their God. Unfortunately for them, science is not a spiritual tool and cannot be used to demonstrate whether God exists or not.

Young earth creationist Travis Anderson gets so many things wrong, he proves just how ill-informed he is. It's a shame how a college student has due to his religious beliefs closed his mind before he even got to college. What Darwin did or didn't know about the cell and DNA in the 1800s doesn't change the fact that since then the details of genetic heredity have confirmed Darwin's ideas about natural selection, a whole field of biology called population genetics. Anderson falsely insinuates the opposite. Additionally, Darwin did not discuss abiogenesis in terms of evolution. Furthermore, abiogenesis is not "blindly accepted" but many scientists are specifically doing various kinds of research on the subject today. Carbon dating was *never* used to date the recent eruption of Mt. St. Helens. Anderson has obviously mixed up radiocarbon dating with radiometric dating because he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Moreover, radiometric dating was used to date xenoliths in erupted material, and *not* to date the eruption. Finally, carbon dating has been calibrated back to around 26,000 years ago. The Catholic Church are "creationists" only in the very general sense that they believe that "God created". At the same time, the Catholic Church supports theistic evolution, accepting the scientific facts of the antiquity of the earth and biological evolution. Baptists on the other tend to be scientifically illiterate young earth creationists, pushing the religious myth that the earth was created only about 6,000 years ago.

The article mentions: "the Vatican's views" Regarding Catholic Church teachings, creation, and evolution, ... an infomative on-line Catholic article that "summarizes the magisterial statements on the subject of Adam and Eve, the book of Genesis, the Flood and Creation Ex nihilo" is entitled: "What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?" http://kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm (Partial quote) - Genesis does not contain purified myths.(Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909) - Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)... - All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)... - Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)... What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins? -The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings. ... - Many worldwide natural processes indicate an age for the earth of 10,000 years or less. These include population kinetics, influx of radiocarbon into earth's atmosphere, absence of meteorites from the geologic column, and decay of earth's magnetic field. (End of partial quote) Reference: The Creation account: Genesis 1-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1-11;& version=31

If anyone is interested in the official views of the Catholic Church regarding the theory of evolution, I suggest to Google recent news on "Vatican" and "evolution". There has been recently multiple statements from top Vatican officials clearly stating that (1) the Catholic Church views theory of evolution as compatible with faith; (2) Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific theory; (3) Intelligent Design is “poor theology and poor science” (merely a “cultural phenomenon”); and (4) the theory of evolution had never been formally condemned by the Catholic Church. One may disagree with the views of the Catholic Church, but one should get the facts straight as to what those views currently are.

"the theory of evolution had never been formally condemned by the Catholic Church." In the interests of full disclosure, let's be completely honest about the how the Vatican has treated evolution. Pius IX (not the XII) was Pope when origin of species was published. As the theory of evolution was gaining popularity among scholars, Pius IX issued a decree: "Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith". It doesn't specify evolution in particular, but it was considered a rejection of the theory because it is at odds with Catholic doctrine. Evolution acts incrementally on populations over long periods of time. So if evolution is true, there never was any 'Adam and Eve' scenario. If there never was an Adam and an Eve, then who committed the original sin?

FYI - not all creationists are mindless proponents of religous dogma. I believe in God and creation, but I think organized religion (particulary Catholicism) has caused way more problems than it has ever solved.

Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality by the Dalai Lama is a pretty good read on the topic

God After Darwin: A Theology Of Evolution (Hardcover) by John Haught (Author), John F. Haught (Author) BUY IT NOW

hokie_1997, surely Catholicism has a sordid past, but at the moment, its teachings are among the most progressive in Christianity, especially with respect to evolution. As a casual Catholic, I associate myself no more with the Crusades, Inquisition, etc. than I do with slavery. These were carried out by different people in a different time. To me, it's more important to note that we have adapted to accept that these were errors in our history and should not be repeated.

For a response to Evolution, Carl Sagon, atheism visit FLHFBLOG.ORG

@ Jason_T...and the pedophilia and leadership supported and knowledge of sexual child abuse? Surely that's not "different people in a different time". Sorry, Catholicism has an equally sordid present.

The turtle moves!