Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 154

Thread: "NASA finds religion on Mars"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    103

    "NASA finds religion on Mars"

    And so the merry-go-round continues. Just speaking rhetorically, why do some believers feel soo threatened with science?
    And she claims to be a scientist.

    I find this article's main purpose to be quite sad and insulting to the hundreds, nay thousands that work for NASA and have helped to expand our body of knowledge about ourselves, our world, the the universe around us.

    http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=37774

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,988
    Wow, I was with him all the way until here:

    In other words, discover life on Mars; prove evolution; disprove God.
    That's just terrible. I agree, I don't understand why some people feel so threatened by science. For those who truly believe, no amount of science can "disprove" God, since God is in fact beyond the realm of science since He is untestable. Until these people understand that, the quarrel will always remain. it's just sad.

  3. #3
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    11,292
    My, that sounds familiar. It's reminiscent of a talk given to my school by an Oxford mathematician who employed creationist fallacy after creationist fallacy.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    131
    WIth a smile and a pat on the back, Dr. Hollowell is a "She" not a "He".

    I don't find much offensive in her article. She seems only to be making reference to those who would use evolution to disprove God. You can no more disprove God with science than you can disprove the big bang with faith. Not in a three dimensional universe, at least.

    Dogma editted with respect for the BA.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    209
    What Dr. Hollowell is doing is not necessarily a religious thing. She's simply doing what all devout believers do. And that is to ignore overwhelming evidence in order to support a belief. Overly ambitious scientists do the same thing with their own research (do a search for "the memory of water" for a good example). Religion is beside the point.

    I get the sense that few here would argue against the evidence in favor of Evolution. So the question is why would a respected scientist do just that? The answer is quite simple really.

    The evidence Dr. Hollowell has seen first-hand (in the bible, at church, in nature) is more impactful to her, personally, than the evidence she's read in text books. Creationism has more relevance to her because she has revealed it to herself. Therefore in her mind she has no choice but to ignore the overwhelming evidence in favor of Evolution for the simple fact that it must be wrong if the evidence that she's revealed to herself about Creationism is right.

    So if you followed what I said, you see that it's actually a very rational thought process that leads to these eroneous conclusions. Subconciously I think that's why these individuals sound so convincing when they speak their minds. It honestly makes sense in their heads. And that's also what makes them so very dangerous to true science. Becuase they will perpetuate the dogma of whatever belief they're preaching.

    We should be mindful of the impact this sort 'backwards reasoning' has on young minds. That's why it's extremely important to teach critical thinking in our schools. Not to create cynicism, or teach anti-religion, but to get children to evaluate their beliefs every once in a while. Whether those beliefs are religious in nature or scientific in nature. If you're not progressive about what you believe then you never truely grow.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,479
    Quote Originally Posted by Normandy6644
    Wow, I was with him all the way until here:

    In other words, discover life on Mars; prove evolution; disprove God.
    That's just terrible. I agree, I don't understand why some people feel so threatened by science. For those who truly believe, no amount of science can "disprove" God, since God is in fact beyond the realm of science since He is untestable. Until these people understand that, the quarrel will always remain. it's just sad.
    The problem is that everyone has their own idea of what their god is supposed to be, and how s/he is supposed to work. My mother's a devout Catholic, for instance, and has absolutely no problem in thinking the human race to be less than special in the eyes of God. To her, God created the universe, and moves the bits and pieces around as he feels best. Not unlike playing an overwhelmingly deep strategy based computer game. I think it boils down to the thought that we are NOT at the centre of some omnipotent being's universe. S/he has better things to do than perfectly dictate our lives, or even our evolution.

    Meanwhile, my cousin the creationist seems to have it in his mind that HE should be the centre of God's world. Humanity is apparently so important that S/he has to focus all of His/Her attention on us. We are the perfect result of a perfect being, and thus came straight from God's fingers. We're special!

    So, it's not a battle of science versus religion. It's a battle between the egos of the hyper-religious versus science. It's a personal battle, not a spiritual one.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    980
    Hmm Interesting article, however I personally do not believe evolution will shatter my faith. In fact I am able to reconcile science with my faith pretty easily.

    Not to get too dogmatic, but while I believe Creationism IS possible, I do not think creationism is what is being described in Genesis, I think the Adam and Eve story is metaphorical.

    We know there were a breed of intelligent bipedal humanoids, Neanderthal. Where did they go? Did homosapien kill them all or did they crossbreed and intermingle, thus diluting the Neanderthal bloodline so much that they were no longer Neanderthal?

    We know there were/are several cultures that believed in Multiple Dieties, even Ancestor worship. I personally believe "Adam and Eve" were the first Homo Sapiens to be Drawn towards a single diety faith. There are gaps and holes in the story we will never know the answers to.

    Sorry, I just don't think the universe and life, In it's perfection just happened. I do believe a higher power is involved. I also believe that when we do discover sentient life outside of Earth, there will be striking similarities in the moral/faith beliefs of both speicies.

    just my 2 cents.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    111
    I have no problem in her article as a whole - she is perfectly entitled to express her opinions. However, one sentence I must take issue with.

    Second, it brings believers in evolution one step closer to refueling the weakening presumption of this theory on earth.
    Bold type by me.

    This is simply not true - indeed science strengthens this theory almost daily. In my mind at least, her statement only serves to discredit many of her other well made arguments.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    2,940
    As has been pointed out above, this line:

    "Second, it brings believers in evolution one step closer to refueling the weakening presumption of this theory on earth."

    is simply false. Read any papers in biology, and the only theory that can make any sense of it all is Darwin's. Everytime I open an issue of Science that conclusion is comfirmed.

    Ms. Hollowell writes:

    "prove evolution; disprove God."

    This is a false dichotomy, but one undectable by the creationist worldview. Without further reading, one could suspect a young earth creationist was writing the piece. Mentioning "Intelligent Design" suggests its, her writing for ICR, AIG, and her very own SMI confirm it.

    Further, Ms. Hollowell (a Ph.D., no less!) sez:

    "The bottom line is life cannot rise from inanimate material. No one needs a Ph.D. to know that a rock sitting in a pool of salt water will not produce life – no matter how many times lightening strikes."

    She boldly asserts that life cannot arise from inanimate material, though no one actually knows in a scientific sense whether this is true. In her next sentence she manages to present both a ridiculously oversimplified summary of an old idea on how life might have started on this planet, and to tell her readers that they need no special training to see that it is false. But, hey, since she is a Ph.D - an authority - and she's reassured us that it can't be so, we can confidently knock down that strawman. Isn't science fun?!

    However, she wisely asks:

    "So if signs of life are found on Mars, what are the other possibilities?"

    and offers as a possibility:

    "Fragments from a collision of a large asteroid with earth jettisoned into space from the impact."

    Nice try, but where is the <6000 year old crater that records an impact energy level high enough to launch debris to escape velocity and can that debris find its way to Mars in the <6000 years required? Simulations done at Cornell by Burns and students showed the quickest time for Mars ejecta to reach Earth was ~700,000 years.

    Lastly, I have to agree with her statement:

    "In any case, the explanation is not an automatic eight ball in the side pocket of evolution."

    if only to ensure rigor, but isn't this:

    "So wouldn't it be refreshing if NASA scientists could disentangle the evidence from their religious worldview?"

    ironic?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,641
    Up until recently I was quite into the Creation/Evolution debate, but really it's got to the point where it isn't worth it. Regardless of what is found, both sides will view things through their own rosey glasses and carry on regardless because they -KNOW- they are right and everyone else is wrong. No matter what is said or show, their side has all the evidence and the other has nothing.

    It reminds me of an old story I was told. In the days of prospecting, a gold miner would start out by searching for signs of gold. He'd work the stream beds and look for quartz and other rocks that gold would form in and over time he'd gather together the evidence of gold being there. At a certain point the evidence of the search would change from "if gold was there" to "Gold is there" and everything that was then found only increased that belief in the mind of the digger. They used to call it "marrying the vein."

    In the C/E debate, I honestly think that both sides have "married the vein" so much that no matter what is found or said it HAS to show and prove their point of view. I recall in one discussion the posters were talking about snakes, and how the Bibles claims they had legs. Intially the Evolutionists were claiming that this was absurd and there was no evidence until it was raised that Boa's have a pelvis and evidence of one having had legs. Obviously, claimed the counter argument, this was a sign of Evolution.

    This is just one of many times I have seen people from both sides argue the same side, but totally reverse their position on the evidence a clear sign that people won't change their beleifs regardless of evidence.

    A second thing I see far to often is that of people claiming absolute over whelming evidence. This really is only in their own eyes. Many times I see Creationists using old and outdated arguements, evidences that have been shown wrong hundreds of times, but at the same time, they are not alone. How many times have you seen Evolutionists claims of proof from useless vestial organs and junk DNA, pelvis' in whales, gills on human embryos, clear cut Homid and Horse evolution fossil lines, Dinosaur to Bird evolution? Heck I have seen some of these very arguments used on this site by people that should have know better, but until they do, the same old tired arguements will rage. Someone above me even cited Neanderthal, even though it is pretty much accepted by both sides that Neanderthal was an off-shoot of Humans (whether modern or pre-modern is still a debate) and a compatriate of more modern humans (again ages in debate) who has since died out. This has been shown by both myticondrial DNA and skeleton structures.

    Will life be found on Mars? To be honest I don't know. I would be surprised, but who knows. The thing is though that whether or not they do, it won't matter. If it is Creationists will be able to claim that it was either "created there" or that it was "somehow transported from Earth." If it isn't found then Evolutionists will just claim that "obviously there wasn't time for it to occur before Mars dried up."

    Either way people will carry on regardless, viewing the world through their very own twisted rose coloured glasses and seeing the evidence as over whelming proof of them being right.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,831
    Odd that people can be so educated and not consider evolution a tool God may very well have used. I hope we find life on Mars. Won't hurt my faith.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    65
    I'm a firm athiest and therefore a believer in Darwin/evolution but to PhantomWolfs above post I say =D> =D> =D> =D>

    Until God (from which ever religion you care to pick) appears 'in our faces' with total proof that he/she/they exist, OR, something happens to prove the non existance of God (from which ever religion you care to pick) with 'in your face' evidence then PhantomWolfs points on this will always be true.

    A christian friend of mine talked about this and we concluded that one side could never prove 100% that they were right or that the other was wrong. I wasn't going to change their mind, and they were not going to change mine. So we changed to subject.


    Odd that people can be so educated and not consider evolution a tool God may very well have used.
    Another christian friend of mine was a firm believer in evolution and even considered herself an expert on it. (in an amateur capacity) But turning 21 she became a christian. However, because she so believed and accepted that evolution was the way due to overwhelming evidence. She now believes that God set up the initial conditions for evolution and let it run.

    I don't believe that myself but it's a kind of 'half way house' between the two sides, and I kind of respect that.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,643

    Re: "NASA finds religion on Mars"

    Quote Originally Posted by RMallon
    And so the merry-go-round continues. Just speaking rhetorically, why do some believers feel soo threatened with science?
    And she claims to be a scientist.

    I find this article's main purpose to be quite sad and insulting to the hundreds, nay thousands that work for NASA and have helped to expand our body of knowledge about ourselves, our world, the the universe around us.

    http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=37774
    It's a typical article for WorldNetDaily, a far-right, Christian, Internet "news" site. For example, on their front page is an ad that reads, "Learn about the strong and quiet faith of Ronald Reagan". Clicking on it leads you to WorldNetDaily Books, which contains far-right, Christian, and/or conspiracy publications. Not to mention the books calling for establishment of a US theocracy. :roll:

    So, the article and the site publishing it go together like hogs and...well, you know. :wink:

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196

    Re: "NASA finds religion on Mars"

    Quote Originally Posted by Maksutov
    a far-right, Christian, Internet "news" site.

    So, the article and the site publishing it go together like hogs and...well, you know. :wink:
    Woowoo

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    980
    Quote Originally Posted by George
    Odd that people can be so educated and not consider evolution a tool God may very well have used. I hope we find life on Mars. Won't hurt my faith.
    well said!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    5,455
    Quote Originally Posted by The Watcher
    I'm a firm athiest and therefore a believer in Darwin/evolution but to PhantomWolfs above post I say =D> =D> =D> =D>

    .......
    Sigh...... Science is once again equated with belief. No no no, it just ain't so.

    You can present all the scientific evidence you want and another person can decline to accept the conclusions. But to support the creation theory one has to present false evidence or discount valid evidence, not merely differ with the conclusions.

    It may be obvious, many folks will never change their minds, but that doesn't mean the two theories have equal evidence supporting them. They don't.


    Here's the mission statement from the author of the article's web site:

    The ministry of SMI is to equip Christians with information on issues of science and technology as well as to stress the relevance of Christian influence on policies related to advancing medical technologies.


    The mission of SMI is to tell unbelievers of Jesus Christ by attesting to the intellectual integrity of the Bible and the logic of Christian morality on issues of science and technology. It was Kepler who said the study of science was “thinking God’s thought after Him.” And it was Newton that concluded “Atheism is so senseless.
    http://www.scienceministries.org/

    I think that qualifies as prejudice when it comes to presenting scientific evidence.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,643

    Re: "NASA finds religion on Mars"

    Hollowell's writing is just more rote creationist dogma. At the bottom of her article you’ll find a link to Science Ministries Inc., which she founded. This website contains “science” such as the following:

    "Starlight And Time (Parts I, II, & III)" (based mostly on the Humphreys book: most distant objects in latest Hubble shots? 6000 LY away!) :-?

    “A Microchip Makes Its Mark: VeriChip & the Beast”

    "Ohio Education War: Evolution, Media, and Intelligent Design"

    A short excerpt:

    "The Ohio Board of Education has now approved model lesson plans for science education by a 13-to-5 vote. That would hardly be national news, except those plans include modest provisions that encourage students to take some critical looks at evolutionary biology. That section of the plans is called "Critical Analysis of Evolution," and, according to some evolutionists, the nation is about to blunder into the next Dark Ages of science as a result.[edit] Along with most biologists, some in the media are caught up in the standard evolutionists' dogma and repudiation of ID [so-called "intelligent design"]. Evolutionary dogma generally rejects any criticism of Darwin's proposed mechanism for evolution. Peripheral criticism can come from within -- the old boys' and girls' network of Darwinism. But substantive criticism is taboo."

    "Walking In Divine Health"

    A short excerpt:

    "At present the amount of money spent by governments globally on drugs to make people healthy runs into billions of dollars annually and yet diseases run rampant worldwide in this planet we live in. It is important for us to understand that there is a mystery to health; a careful study of the book of Leviticus shows us that we need God’s personality and principles to be healthy. Human medication can only at best hold down symptoms but it cannot provide health for the body..."

    Then there's the "M&M" section:

    "The Mission and Ministry of SMI

    The ministry of SMI is to equip Christians with information on issues of science and technology as well as to stress the relevance of Christian influence on policies related to advancing medical technologies.

    The mission of SMI is to tell unbelievers of Jesus Christ by attesting to the intellectual integrity of the Bible and the logic of Christian morality on issues of science and technology. It was Kepler who said the study of science was “thinking God’s thought after Him.” And it was Newton that concluded “Atheism is so senseless.

    If you want to know about salvation and a meaningful relationship with Jesus Christ; If you want to know the reason for living, the purpose for your life and your place here on earth; If you want satisfying answers to life’s challenges, write us at SMI.

    What we have to tell you will change your life now and forever.

    Kelly Hollowell JD,PhD"
    >>>

    Yup, just loaded with science. :roll:

    BTW, most of the articles on the site are from the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), so you know that the content is totally unbiased. :wink:

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    14,122
    Quote Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

    snip


    . How many times have you seen Evolutionists claims of proof from useless vestial organs and junk DNA, pelvis' in whales, gills on human embryos, clear cut Homid and Horse evolution fossil lines, Dinosaur to Bird evolution? Heck I have seen some of these very arguments used on this site by people that should have know better,

    snip

    .
    I'm sorry I don't understand your point?

    What is wrong with the above as evidence of evolution? (not proofs)

    And it's not Gills on an Embryo but the Pharyngial arch which is the common starting point for two homologous structures in both humans and fish.

    Don't you agree that a pelvis in a Whale is now a useless vestige of it's former self? Dino to Bird evolution is universaly accepted, the arguments that exist are over how early it occured not if it occured.

    What are your specific problems with any of the above?
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    3,234
    It would be interesting to see what Dr. Hollowell will say if life is discovered on Europa.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531

    Re: "NASA finds religion on Mars"

    I've always found the "we have to take a critical look at evolution" argument by creationists to be the funniest of all.

    I can't image these same folks ever taking a critical look at the "creation myth".
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,641
    Quote Originally Posted by captain swoop
    Don't you agree that a pelvis in a Whale is now a useless vestige of it's former self? Dino to Bird evolution is universaly accepted, the arguments that exist are over how early it occured not if it occured.
    Actual whale pelviss aren't redundant, they are actually different for the male and female whales and are used by their reproductive systems. Without them there'd be no little whales.

    Dino-Bird evolution is -NOT- universally accepted, in fact a number of high profile evolutional orthithogists (sic?) rubbish it pointing out numerous things including real bird fossils (Liaoningornis) that are dated far to old for such an occurance (almost the same age as Archaeopteryx.) Come to that, apart from it having teeth Archaeopteryx can itself be classified as a bird, especially when the crushed skull is reassembed as a birds would be, not a lizard/dinosaur's would have been (it was apparently modeleled from a similar shaped raptor in the belief that it was a descendant of that creature). Because it has teath it was assumed to be a dinosaur and so in reconstruction was made to look like one. When that assumption is removed, and it is modelled as a bird should have been, the resemblances to a dinosaur are lost.

    add to that:

    - Birds have hollow bones, raptor-like dinosaurs didn't. (some of the surapods did though)

    - Birds are warm bloodied, dinosaurs are reptiles which aren't

    - The dinosaurs that actually had hips structure similar to birds were Surapods, the four legged mammoths of the Dinosaur world, not the Raptors which Dino-Bird Evolutions claim developed into birds.

    - The muscle structures of bird wings and of dinosaur forelimbs are totally different and the motion they create is nearly the exact opposite.

    - Birds lung structure is unique among animals and totally different to reptiles or dinosaurs.

    -Bird embryos lack the 'thumb' which Dinosaur embryos had, and their "finger" structure is incorrect. Dinosaurs had a 1,2,3 cofiguration while birds have a 2,3,4.

    - Bird eggs are complete different to reptile eggs, even dinosaur eggs.

    I was planning to conclude with a link to abc news story about a fossil bird that was believed to have predated Archaeopteryx and perhaps even dinosaurs, but unfortunately it's gone. (mutters nasty things about abc removing webstorys after two years) so instead I'll just point to the total lack of evidence in the fossil record of such a claim. The two biggest claims of proof, Archaeoraptor and Sinornithosaurus Millenii have both been shown to be frauds and without them, the case is highly shaky.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    103

    Re: "NASA finds religion on Mars"

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F.
    I've always found the "we have to take a critical look at evolution" argument by creationists to be the funniest of all.

    I can't image these same folks ever taking a critical look at the "creation myth".
    You hit the nail on the head.
    For all intensive purposes, if Dr. Hollowell is calling herself a scientist, well - in that same vein, I'd like to be called the King of England.

    If she was religiously bent towards the all mighty levitating Khrisna Bing-bada-boom, she'd be dis-ing NASA with their "religion" of gravitational mathmatics.

    (Websters) A Scientist is a specialist in science; esp., a person whose profession is investigating in one of the natural sciences, as biology, chemistry, physics, etc.

    Based on her own article, he is no scientist.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    111
    Anyone wanting to read a Creationist vs. Evolutionist debate might like to check out this link. It's quite a long read (5 pages to date) but nevertheless, highly informative - and an excellent example of a good debunking by some very well educated contributors.

    For the non-UK readers, it's based on a BBC program shown last Sunday which essentially debunked the Noah's Ark story as told in the Bible and declared it a myth. It did however offer alternatives that, whilst contradicting the biblical tale, were scientifically plausible.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,831
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrator
    Anyone wanting to read a Creationist vs. Evolutionist debate might like to check out this link. It's quite a long read (5 pages to date) but nevertheless, highly informative - and an excellent example of a good debunking by some very well educated contributors....
    Hmmm....seems like a lot of "junk" about a Chinese boat. :wink: (sorry, puns allowed).

    The "flood" may not have been global. A "day" of creation may not have been 1 earth spin. I would be surprised if most believers are hung-up on extreme literalism. Most just aren’t as loud as YEC. I wish there was more unified effort in these matters. Science is revealing, once again (thanks Galileo and others), that God is bigger than they thought. The two are reconcilable, IMO.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,285

    Re: "NASA finds religion on Mars"

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F.
    I've always found the "we have to take a critical look at evolution" argument by creationists to be the funniest of all.

    I can't image these same folks ever taking a critical look at the "creation myth".
    Well, first we've got to decide which creation myth we're going to take a critical look at. My favortie is Tolkien's, but I'm guessing you're not thinking about that one, eh?

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    628

    Reply

    Yes, well how can anyone take a journalist who says 'How cool is that?' seriously?

    She sounds like a children's TV presenter.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    628

    Me

    I'm a Born Again Atheist (having studied for the church once) and i wonder why so many people on so many sites say 'You can't disprove God, He is...sorry, my rides turned up..will finish post later.....

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2

    Evolution

    The theory of evolution is just that - a theory.
    In fact, it is one of the easiest theories there is to disprove.
    The proof of the fallacy of the theory of evolution comes from,
    of all places, science (not religion).

    The brainwashing of children in our public school system, has, however created a society of people who believe in something they have never thought to question, let alone research.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    3,364

    Re: Evolution

    Welcome to the board knowsthegame.
    Quote Originally Posted by knowsthegame
    The theory of evolution is just that - a theory.
    In science pretty much everything is a theory. Gravity is a theory. "Your heart pumps blood through your body" is a theory. Just because something is a theory does not always mean that it is on shaky ground.
    In fact, it is one of the easiest theories there is to disprove.
    The proof of the fallacy of the theory of evolution comes from,
    of all places, science (not religion).
    Unless your evidence contrary to evolution is astronomical in nature you should go to http://www.talkorigins.org/ to discuss it.
    The brainwashing of children in our public school system, has, however created a society of people who believe in something they have never thought to question, let alone research.
    I assume you're talking about evolution? Lots and lots of people study it all of the time, such as most biology and paleotology students. Anyway, that's another topic for http://www.talkorigins.org/

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    103
    Here's a simple to browse FAQ on creationist claims...
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 2011-Nov-04, 07:24 PM
  2. Replies: 221
    Last Post: 2009-Aug-01, 03:00 AM
  3. The "1996" NASA conspiracy, about the "MARS-FOSSIL-Meteorite"!
    By Fossman in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 200
    Last Post: 2008-Dec-01, 10:43 PM
  4. Replies: 68
    Last Post: 2007-Jan-31, 08:11 AM
  5. NASA finds something "significant" on mars. ancmen
    By culov in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2004-Mar-02, 12:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •