Atheism and atheistic evolution are both phisophies. Religions are
also philosophies.

I'm not opposed to the term "evolution". Things change over time, and
every organism is constantly evolving.

Wrong! Evolution does not take place in individuals per se, but in
populations over time. In its simplest sense, it means only a change
in allele (gene variant) frequency in a population.

If changes didn't take place in individuals, they couldn't take place
in populations, species, etc.

This is why I attach the term "atheistic" to evolutionist. I'm
opposed to the concept of spontaneous generation in the absence of a
Creator.

Evolution has nothing to do with spontaneous generation, which does
not happen.

Some theories include it, others omit it.

Indeed abiogenesis presents a great complication on biochemist, who
realize the extreme improbability in making life from non-life, and
having that life survive long enough to reproduce enough to have
surviving offspring before it dies.

I would be interested in seeing this "mounting evidence" as currently
I don't know of any.

There was a controlled experiment run by
scientists who created macromolecules in today's oxygenated
environment. However, the Hot Big Bang Model states that early earth
was a reducing environment.

Atheism has nothing to do with evolution and vice-versa.

But atheistic evolution is the backbone of atheism. If there was a
Creator (as I believe), atheism is a philosophy in which people choose
to refuse to believe the evidence.

Evolution is the best explanation scientists have for the facts we see
related to the distribution and diversity of life on Earth. Until and
unless someone comes up with a better explanation that competently
addresses all the facts and survives publication in the peer-reviewed
science journals, evolution is it, regardless of whether or not there
is a god of some sort, somewhere, doing something.

There has always been a better explaination. The first people
understood, and recorded historical truths. Those who observed the
formation of earth passed the info down through history. However,
they did not explain the physical/chemical/biological processes in
detail.

Just centrifuge bacteria until they lyse. Then shake or stir up the
container and wait for the contents to reassemble. They obviously
have all the ingredients necissary for life.

Wrong. What you have created there is death, not the conditions under
which life, it appears, first began. To do that you would have to
travel back 4 billion years and change the entire Earth's atmosphere
and geochemistry, as demonstrated in assorted lab experiments since
1950 or so.

If these are the rules, then proving evolution would require us to
travel back in time to observe it as well. My point is that if this
simple experiment fails, in which all ingredients for life are in the
tube, then how would people expect life to evolve on its own?

Of course the problem
with this expirament would be that a scientist was manipulating rather
than observing, so the ingredients are already their and they are
given the right combination of forces to mix the ingriedients
together. Still, I haven't found it to work yet.

You haven't been keeping up with the latest scientific research on the
subject. Actual life has not yet been generated under those
conditions, but aspects of it have. The building blocks for life
occur naturally and abundantly in space and are brought to Earth on
meteorites.

Must have been a pretty tough form of life to survive the heat of
entering earth's atmosphere and the impact as the meteorites crashed
into land.

Of course then you still have the question, "How did the life on the
meteorites evolve?"

Anyway, to answer your question, I believe all who believe the Bible
(or at least the Torah) is God's Word cannot accept the following
philosophies: the Hot Big Bang Model, life on earth originated in the
absence of a creator, or animals were killed on earth prior to Adam
and Eve's sin.

That's only if you interpret the Bible literally. Obviously there had
to be death since predators were created, according to the Bible.
Predators would not have survived if they had not killed and eaten
their prey.

Original diet: Gen. 1:30
"Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to
everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have
given every green herb for food"; and it was so."

There were changes in organisms after Adam and Eve sinned.

Remember, the Bible is not the word of any god, only the words of
fallible and scientifically ignorant humans who claimed they were
writing the words of some god.

Several humans inspired by God throughout history wrote it. Here is a
link to some prophecies by multiple people that were fulfilled
hundreds of years later under other authors.
http://www.angelfire.com/theforce/thanks_4_life/messiah.html

All the evidence available so far indicates that there was indeed a
"Big Bang" (so-called) some 13.7 billion years ago and that Earth came
to be some 4.5 billion years ago. Either that or some god deceitfully
created the universe just 6,000 years ago, but made it look like it
arose naturally almost 14 billion years ago. Do you really want to
worship a god capable of that kind of deceit?

K-Ar dating can be very decietfull.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i9n.htm

According to the fossil record, life on Earth arose some 3.8 billion
years ago, starting with the simplest single-celled organisms, and
slowly "progressing" to more complex (at least in cell count)
organisms. It's only in the last fraction of the Earth's life-span
that life as we typically think of it (fish, amphibians, reptiles,
birds, and mammals) began to appear.

Carbon 13 dating is a very rough estimate in telling age.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i10f.htm

The Bible cannot explain this evidence with the Genesis creation and
flood stories.

What about the Grand Canyon and oil? Last I heard it was an
unrenewable resourse. There must have been some catastrophic event
that buried animals under layers of earth. Of course this would also
cause the earth to appear (by man's standards) older than it really
is.

Having said this, I also use the terms evolution and random mutation
occasionally. People know what I'm talking about. Statistically,
"random" helps provide a mathematical explaination. But in reality,
there are forces that govern when a mutation occur. Some beings have
wills capable of learning how to produce such forces to induce
mutations.

And in which scientific peer-reviewed publication was evidence for
this claim published?

None that I know of. This is just interpretation of a combination of
material.

Budikka

Regards,
Joey

Indeed abiogenesis presents a great complication on biochemist, who
realize the extreme improbability in making life from non-life, and
having that life survive long enough to reproduce enough to have
surviving offspring before it dies.

I would be interested in seeing this "mounting evidence" as currently
I don't know of any.

There was a controlled experiment run by
scientists who created macromolecules in today's oxygenated
environment. However, the Hot Big Bang Model states that early earth
was a reducing environment.

But atheistic evolution is the backbone of atheism.

If there was a
Creator (as I believe), atheism is a philosophy in which people choose
to refuse to believe the evidence.

Evolution is the best explanation scientists have for the facts we see
related to the distribution and diversity of life on Earth. Until and
unless someone comes up with a better explanation that competently
addresses all the facts and survives publication in the peer-reviewed
science journals, evolution is it, regardless of whether or not there
is a god of some sort, somewhere, doing something.

There has always been a better explaination.

The first people
understood, and recorded historical truths. Those who observed the
formation of earth passed the info down through history. However,
they did not explain the physical/chemical/biological processes in
detail.

If these are the rules, then proving evolution would require us to
travel back in time to observe it as well. My point is that if this
simple experiment fails, in which all ingredients for life are in the
tube, then how would people expect life to evolve on its own?

Must have been a pretty tough form of life to survive the heat of
entering earth's atmosphere and the impact as the meteorites crashed
into land.

Of course then you still have the question, "How did the life on the
meteorites evolve?"

Original diet: Gen. 1:30
"Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to
everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have
given every green herb for food"; and it was so."

There were changes in organisms after Adam and Eve sinned.

Several humans inspired by God throughout history wrote it.

Here is a
link to some prophecies by multiple people that were fulfilled
hundreds of years later under other authors.
http://www.angelfire.com/theforce/thanks_4_life/messiah.html

K-Ar dating can be very decietfull.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i9n.htm

Carbon 13 dating is a very rough estimate in telling age.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i10f.htm\

The Bible cannot explain this evidence with the Genesis creation and
flood stories.

What about the Grand Canyon and oil? Last I heard it was an
unrenewable resourse. There must have been some catastrophic event
that buried animals under layers of earth. Of course this would also
cause the earth to appear (by man's standards) older than it really
is.

And in which scientific peer-reviewed publication was evidence for
this claim published?

None that I know of. This is just interpretation of a combination of
material.

budikka1@netscape.net (Budikka) wrote in message news:<e1e30450.0404170219.9ef3211@posting.google.com>...

Atheistic evolutionists use these terms too.
Ie. "random mutation"

Why are you asking these questions in alt.atheism rather than
talk.origins, unless you are trolling?

Atheism and atheistic evolution are both phisophies.