I don't think ancient people really cared about understanding the "ways of nature" ( most people don't care about anything ), some of them did try to guess why things happen (like the greek philosophers) but I think religion itself "Obey the 10 commandments or thou goes to Hell!" is more like what you get you add "psychedelics" to "that guy hears voices in his head" to people being gullible ( you know, how  you can tell a lot of absurd lies to children and most of them believe? That's how it happens ).

80% of the times I've obtained results very different from what I "should", and you know why?

because you fucked the experiment up?

Creationism = Everything made by god in a perfect way. They don't say "evolution" is impossible. They just state that this "evolution" is the result of degeneration as a result of a sinfull world. Really, I read some books, which scientificly prooves the fact that creationism is true, pretty interesting if you ask me. Basicly every piece of evidence they found for evolution can be counter-explained to proove creationism (please don't debate this last argument if you haven't read any book about it).

Evolution = There was no life. Life developed in a great chemical soup and evolution caused the life of today without any devine power.

ID = Basicly both of them together. Soms structures in organisms (eyes, brains) are to complex to have developed without a "blueprint". Therefor it's basicly the evolution theory, but this "evolution" is directed by a higher power, which steers the development and has certain blueprints for the organisms.

Edit: It seems that I didn't read all the posts and had to find out that this was basicly explained allready.

you... don't really know what you're talking about!

cre·a·tion·ism     Audio Help   /kriˈeɪʃəˌnɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.   the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2.   (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.
3.   the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.

creationism does directly refute evolution. sorry!

Really, I read some books, which scientificly prooves the fact that creationism is true, pretty interesting if you ask me. Basicly every piece of evidence they found for evolution can be counter-explained to proove creationism (please don't debate this last argument if you haven't read any book about it).

please, please, elaborate. i would honestly love to hear this.

dude what are you talking about? a vast number of early religions had sea gods and forest gods and basically NATURE RELATED gods because they hoped to harness the power of nature. Even religions where they don't pray to elements of nature often still have mythical creatures OF FIRE or some shit

i.e. judaism isnt even close to being an "early" religion.

Sure I understand that they probably found the sea and sun etc to be cool (because they give you free food) but I don't think that was the reason why they worshipped them and invented their gods. What I mean is, the normal, regular people, know such things exist but don't really care about it, who decides to start offering virgins for sacrifice is probably someone like Gene Ray (the time cube guy). And I don't think mental "illnesses" are something that appeared yesterday. This is so obvious I bet a real anthropologist has a theory exactly like this.

To be honest I'm quite a careful scientist. So either huge errors from the apparatus, or I'm dumb shit.
But seriously, like for the simplest 1st year experiment of finding g through a rigid pendulum, I spend 2 whole afternoons and I did the whole measurements 4 times and I kept on getting 10. somthing with an accuracy of about 0.01%. So I figured out that either there was a huge magnetic field under the lab or dunno... gravity is stronger in the lab?

That's your problem, your instrument is inaccurate and your sample size is too small, which makes your first statement false

Wow way to both use the same link for entirely different purposes.

I am certainly not a biologist. But I am certainly a physisist and a philosopher (or at least close to that) because that's what I study.

no wonder 80% of your physis experiments fail, I understand it's a very difficult field being as it is non-existent.

Unless you're Dutch it won't help you much. But let me see if I can find something on the Internet with similair content.

Though, I must say, that if somebody wants to proove something in general, they just show you the scientific facts that support it. Leaving the counter-facts alone, hoping that people are stupid enough to just go along with it.

Ok, found it. I didn't read it totally through, but I think this is pretty similair.

http://www.creationism.org/genesis.htm

Wait, how did that link scientifically disprove anything? The guy just pulled shit out of his ass for the whole thing, without ever giving any kind of evidence at all! I mean, I only got halfway through it because there's only so much stupid I can take in one sitting, but even the fact that the first point he makes is

There are no fossils which prove any transitional life forms have ever come about through "natural selection" or otherwise.  The third type of evolution is what is believed and preached to our children in the public schools today, but to the best of my understanding there is no scientific evidence to support its tenets.  Regardless of my individual beliefs however I hope that you can glean from the evidence and ideas which are related in this report.

should let you know that this whole thing is kinda, well, completely bullshit. I mean, firstly, there are hundreds of transitional fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html . Secondly, even if there weren't, then stuff like embryology, comparative anatomy, and biogeography still back up evolution.
And I should note here that this guy isn't saying "hey, evolution exists, it's just controlled by god". He's saying that apart from small-scale stuff like dog breeding or whatever, evolution doesn't exist at all.

One thing that most average people don’t know is how wildly the radio-active dates can fluctuate within different samples of the exact same specimen.

Actually, most claims that carbon dating is inaccurate are based on the idea that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has changed over the decades. While these changes have occured, they're already accounted for by means of comparison with tree-rings. Note how no evidence whatsoever was given to back up claims of variation.

Another fact that the highly vaunted geologic column (as drawn by artists) is often stacked wrong, there are gaps, often layers lie in "the wrong order" or even upside down.

Leaving aside the fact that I'm not sure how a layer of rock can be upside down, I have no idea what he's basing this claim on since he offers no evidence or citations whatsoever. He talks about how the geologic column is best explained by the flood, which is wrong for a whole bunch of reasons, but this link explains most: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

Is it necessarily religious (but not scientific) to include God in geologic strata interpretation?

Is this a trick question? Of course it's religious! And it pretty much pisses all over the scientific method to just say 'god done it' without any kind of further explanation, so it's not scientific either.

There is significant evidence that the Earth’s climate used to be much more uniform and comfortably warmer than today.  This is in keeping with the Bible’s record in Genesis.  It is not in keeping with modern evolutionary beliefs.

How does this contradict evolution?

Ask any diehard evolutionist who adamantly insists that there was not a global flood: "Where did coal and oil come from?, by what process were they created?"  They have no logical answer.

Haha, what? Did I dream all those high-school geography classes where we learned where fossil fuels came from? http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0015289.html

Discrete pockets of preserved former life, separated by wide layers of muck and rock.  Then nothing grew there for millions of years?, then "bam" a burst of stored life, then nothing for millions more years, then another concentrated coal or oil pocket.  A million years is a long time.  Where you live can you imagine that nothing grew there for one million or more years?

Oil flows to the surface, where it'd biodegraded by bacteria. The 'pockets of preserved former life' occur when oil seeps upward through porous rock and collects underneath an impermeable 'cap' rock. This information was brought to you, yet again, by a high-school geography textbook.

Peat is partially decomposed and shows damage from massive root penetration.  But coal, when scientifically incinerated to determine its BTU rating or when looked at under a microscope - isn’t and doesn’t, i.e. peat and coal are not 2 different stages of the same process.

Coal is peat that's been physically and chemically altered by stuff like compaction, bacterial decay, and heat. I have no idea what he's talking about, or what the BTU rating has to do with it (because coal has been chemically altered from peat, with many altered complex carbons, so it produces a different amount of energy when burned).

While the evolutionist postulates that each subsequent layer down indicates a different age or episode recorded in that region and then believes millions of years of this or that, the creationist postulates that these same sedimentary layers altogether record a singular recent violent catastrophic flood.  According to the Bible the Flood lasted about one year.

Take that, geochronology!

Did this happen about 4,400 years ago (as per Biblical chronology)?; or are we advanced primates with a long illiterate history of swinging from trees, scratching and picking lice off of each other, and then for whatever reason(?) inexplicably growing and developing into civilization, beginning slightly over 4,000 years ago?  Hmmm, that timing works out pretty closely, doesn’t it?  A Flood about 4,400 years ago; then new civilizations arising around 4,000 years ago.

Once again, this only makes sense if you completely ignore paleontology in all it's forms. Also, the growth of civilisation was a pretty damn long process and not just an event that happened 4000 years ago! Jesus, why am I even bothering to debate this stuff?

According to the theory of evolution, as commonly believed today, our ancestors slowly became smarter, invented the wheel, learned to control fire, and only recently got pretty good at making clipper ships and jumbo jets.  The creationist though could point to an ancient world from before the Flood, with about 1600 years of history and possible exploration.

... Uh, evolution doesn't claim anything like that. No-one's claiming anything like that. Does this guy even know what evolution is, because he's pretty much using it interchangeably with science as a whole!

Anyway, I'm bored and don't want to spend my day picking this shit apart, so I'll drop this here. The point is, that page doesn't prove creationism in any way, shape or form.

could someone give a quick run down of the earths history or a link to one because i'm having a hard time wrapping my head around when humans arrived etc

this just seems way too long, 30,000 generations for one changes in bacteria, 100 changes to form an eye. i guess a lot of them would overlapor something.

i'm a bit iffy with dinosaurs as well though so maybe i'm just a loon

jesus christ climbtree you are either dumb as hell or a troll

life started 4 billions years ago, there was plenty of time for humans to evolve out of prokaryotic bacterias,

human beings appeared around 200k years ago but they already lacked a functional appendix so humans didnt loose the appendix because they already didnt have it.

and evolution doesnt works with isolated traits and if you think that you should crack open a biology book. evolution works by random mutations and how those mutations help certain organisms to survive better and reproduce. so multiple mutations may be selected simultaneously and therefore its not like one thing develops at a time i.e. "heh how much time you need to develop a penis and then an eye....."