the principles of world view

In reality evolution is a scientific theory which is supported by multiple connecting theories of how life in the universe may go from nothing to something. It is in no way, shape or form considered "factual evidence", as is the case for most other scientific phenomena, where scientific principles can be proven to be true to a high degree of accuracy in a laboratory or by experiment.Creation and the creation story of the Bible is how the God of the Bible has revealed and minifested Himself to man. Only unbelievers would turn this around and say we are dictating to God what he did.

I stand corrected. Evolution is a belief system that doesn't know how matter came into existance, nor how life sprang from inanimate matter, but has faith that it somehow did, then somehow began the natural evolutionary process of evolving over millions/billions of years into all types of living plants and animals, from which man somehow evolved.Putting aside how matter came into existance, this overall evolutionary process has never been observed or proven to be true to any high degree of accuracy in any lab or in the wild, as are most other scientific principles.Have certain plants and animals adapted themselves to certain climate changes and natural selection techniques, and had minor changes in their anatomy? Yes, but not to the point where the genetic structure of their genes are entirely affected, thus creating and evolving into entirely new species of plants and animals. When you can prove that in a lab or show that it happens naturally in the wild, then you will have some "factual evidence" that you can call science.

The problem that we Creationists will always have with the "belief system of evolution" is that you believe life evolved without a Creator, and we do not. You say it's proven science, and we most emphatically say it's not! I believe in the science that studies the disease of polio, and then develops a cure, saving countless millions from this dredful disease. I believe in the science that studies why certain atoms fission, and then learns how to harness this energy for the good or detrement of mankind. I believe in the science of learning how to overcome gravity, and then developing airplanes and spacecrafts to take us places where gravity held us down. But I do not believe in the "so-called science of evolution" that has never been proven with a high degree of accuracy from start to finish in a single experiment where life forms evolve from single cells to fully grown creatures able to reproduce.As a Creationist, I believe God created everything after their own kind, from the simplest life form to the most complex, able to live and reproduce new life forms after their own kind. As many life forms became extinct during the 5 major extinction periods, God created new life forms, rather than postulating that some life forms survived the major extinction periods, and continued the evolutionary process after each major extinction.To also believe that life somehow sprang from non-living matter requires much faith, much much more faith than simply recognizing that this could only happen by our Creator's mind and hand. Yes, it's an inescapable conclusion that life exists, and has existed in the past, but it takes great faith or just plain ignorance to exclude God from the cause of why you are human, and not an animal.Edited by John 10:10, : No reason given.

OK, why don't you start with the simplest life form of your chosing, put it in a test tube, shake it up for a few years, and see if a rabbit comes out. No, you can't do that because the theory of evolution says you have to wait millions/billions of years for meaningful changes to take place and real creatures to crawl out of that test tube.That's precisely why the theory of evolution is not real science, nor ever will be. Real science is science that can be proven to be true in the time frame of a human's life span to a high degree of accuracy. "So-called evolutionary science" is worthless when it comes to true science, and produces no worthwhile good for mankind.I've been working in the nuclear energy business for over 44 years. The science of nuclear fission was first discovered and proved in 1939 that atoms were fissioning to a very high degree of accuracy. By 1945 atomic weapons were developed from this nuclear science. In the 1950's, nuclear science was engineered into nuclear propulsion systems and nuclear power plants. Now over 20% of our electric energy comes for nuclear power, and about 80% in France.That's what true science can and should do, learn what makes matter tick, and then transform that matter into all forms of useful products. When it comes to life, learn what makes plants, animals and humans tick, and then help them get well when they get sick.True science does not deal with "theories of evolution" that can never be proven in a labortory or in the wild because they are not testable due to the tremendous time frames needed to show if they really work.Yes, some people at this forum need to learn some basic education of what true science is all about.

I don't know what medical school you crawled out of, but this statement is pure hogwash! Every biological technology we have today has come from the creativeness of doctors and scientists and engineers learning how and what makes the human body tick, and then correcting the problems when they don't tick right. This has nothing to do with believing in the "so-called theory of evolution" that life evolved. It's not the half-life of U238 that you should be looking at stupid if you want to understand fission. It's how and why U235 fissions with slow neutrons, and how U238 can be made into U239 so it can also fission. You may not know this, but U238 also fissions very well, but with fast neutrons. Maybe you are the one who should learn some real science? Maybe in the wildness of your lab mind, but never in a real scientific lab where over time the whole evolutionary process is shown to be true to a high degree of accuracy.Edited by John 10:10, : No reason given.

You got that right! I believe in the true science that can be proven true over time to work, not the false science that life somehow evolved by a theroy of evolution.Evolutionists are the ones who have developed something called the "theory of evolution," and then call it science. You may study to your heart's content the fossils of the past through scientific methods, and make all the assumptions you want as to how they came to be, but it's still a theory until you prove to a high degree of accuracy that the theory of evoultion is the true reason how life is the way it is today.

Funny, I've been living and working in the real world of nuclear engineering for 44 years, designing, building, and repairing power plants. I understand why and how they function. Do you?

Evilutionists? Probably true.Until you are able live long enough to observe and prove the claims made by the theories of evolution, they are just that - theories, not facts, and certainly not true science.

Ravhin seemed to be impressed that he knew that U238 has a half life of about 4.5 billion years. I was pointing out that the important thing science has learned is that U235 and U239 are fissionable with slow neutrons, and U238 with fast neutrons. This was learned and proved through true science in labortories, not through some theory that cannot be proven unless one lives millions/billions of lifetimes.

The ones that understand how true science works live in a real world of cause and effects. They look for causes why certain effects are happening, and prove "the why" in a labortory to a high degree of accuracy. They don't live in an unreal world where they base their beliefs on theories that can never be fully proven or shown to be true to a high degree of accuracy.

One big difference!!! Atomic scientists have actually proved to a high degree of accuracy in a labortory that their theory that atoms were fissioning was true. Understanding of how atoms fission is now fact and truth for most atomic scientistsThe evolutionary theory has been and always will remain just that - AN UNPROVABLE THEORY due to the fact that no one can live long enouogh to prove that it actually works.

Theories are just that, theories until they are proven to be true. Theories may be studied by scientific methods, but that does not make them "true science" in and of themselves. When they are proven to be true, then the theories and the science that proved them to be true may be considered true science.

When doctors are quizzed in medical school, they are not quizzed on how well they know evolutionsry biology theories. They are quizzed on how well they know how the human body ticks, and how to repair the human body when things go wrong.The same is true for scientists and engineers getting degrees in their chosen profession. They learn what makes the real world tick, and how to transform the things God has made into something useful.

I will correct my "opinion" on certain matters of how atoms work when we finally "discover" how they really work. Until then, I and most nuclear physicists rely on the things we do understand concerning how atoms work and have proved to a high degree of accuracy.The same is true for most doctors. They may not know everything about how the human body works, but they rely on the things they have learned about the human body from doctors and sceitists who have gone before them and proven what works, and then old and new doctors continue the process of expanding that knowledge into even better knowledge of how the human body works. This they do in labs and in the field with real science as they help humans will all manner of illnesses, not with theories of evolution that cannot help an ameoba get any better.

So it does, but doctors, scientists, and engineers not not use the ToE for anything in the real world we live in. Doctors, scientists, and engineers use laws and principles that have been proven to be true, and the knowledge of how life really works to make a better and healthier world for man to live in.Otherwise, why not just let survival of the fitest, mutations, and adaptations to our environment control everything? Why not just continue to evolve without man's participation whatsoever, and see how well evolution does without the creative abilities our Creator has given us?