# Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?



## james bond

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.


----------



## MisterBeale

"The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific."

. . . but, the counter assumption. . . that there were supernatural occurrences IS somehow scientific?


----------



## bullwinkle

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.


I guess my first question would be "WHOSE creation"?  All across the world there are creation stories and myths and legends.  Among American Indians alone there are many.  I don't know much about India or Buddha or China or Borneo and their creation legends, but I'm betting there are more than I have fingers and toes.  We get ours from the Torah.  My copy of Josephus in his History of the Jews says at the end of Genesis (his is same as our Bible)..anyway, he says that Moses was speaking 'metaphorically'.  This suggests to me that the Garden of Eden and the events there are symbolic.  Although I always thought that when the devil, that old serpent, tempted Eve that he used Orrin Hatch's oily voice to half lie/half true her into apostasy.


----------



## TNHarley

Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.


----------



## cnm

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.


America deserves this.


----------



## james bond

MisterBeale said:


> but, the counter assumption. . . that there were supernatural occurrences IS somehow scientific?



You didn't read my links nor watch the vid.


----------



## OldLady

TNHarley said:


> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.


The couple of times I've talked to students about early hominds, "Neanderthal man" and the theory of all humans evolving and spreading out of Africa, I explain that there is another belief system by some Christians, that of Creationism, which holds that God created the world.  

But that's pretty much all I know about it, so if a student ever asked for more information about it, I'd have to refer them to their minister.


----------



## james bond

bullwinkle said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess my first question would be "WHOSE creation"?  All across the world there are creation stories and myths and legends.  Among American Indians alone there are many.  I don't know much about India or Buddha or China or Borneo and their creation legends, but I'm betting there are more than I have fingers and toes.  We get ours from the Torah.  My copy of Josephus in his History of the Jews says at the end of Genesis (his is same as our Bible)..anyway, he says that Moses was speaking 'metaphorically'.  This suggests to me that the Garden of Eden and the events there are symbolic.  Although I always thought that when the devil, that old serpent, tempted Eve that he used Orrin Hatch's oily voice to half lie/half true her into apostasy.
Click to expand...


The Christian one since science backs up the Bible.  This is the science and technology section, not religion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.



*Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.*

I don't think you're using the correct definition of "scientific method".


----------



## james bond

TNHarley said:


> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.



That's what we're doing now.  We are teaching faith-based science.  You have nothing to back up macroevolution via the scientific method.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I don't think you're using the correct definition of "scientific method".



Did you read my link or watch the video?  Your assertion is meaningless.


----------



## rightwinger

Creation should be taught as a fantasy


----------



## OldLady

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you're using the correct definition of "scientific method".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read my link or watch the video?  Your assertion is meaningless.
Click to expand...

I've read some of the arguments for Creationism, and they get pretty deep in the weeds about dating techniques, DNA testing, etc. as well as the philosophical arguments for God.  K-12 doesn't get into that kind of detail.  It is mostly a refutation of the techniques used to date and analyze artifacts.  I'm not sure how well a K-12 student would grasp a lot of that.  Just telling them that God created the world because science is all wet isn't much of a curriculum.


----------



## bullwinkle

james bond said:


> The Christian one since science backs up the Bible. This is the science and technology section, not religion.


Your whole basis is built on sand, james.  
The New Testament is the Christian one.  The Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible.  Although I agree with Paul when he spoke about ignoring the Old Testament to his questioners.  He said 'if the root dies, can the branch survive?'  However, mt point is..what science tells you Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac, or about Ishmael's exile?  What science proves the sun stood still for Joshua?  And then there's the oldest question of all...who did Cain marry out there in the land of Nod?  And where's that famous Tower of Babel where in the twinkling of an eye, several languages were created that other groups could not understand?
I love these old tales, and even learned from many of them, but....science?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you're using the correct definition of "scientific method".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read my link or watch the video?  Your assertion is meaningless.
Click to expand...


*Did you read my link or watch the video?*

Do they give the correct definition of scientific method?

*Your assertion is meaningless.*

What, you're the only one who gets to do that?


----------



## MisterBeale

james bond said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> but, the counter assumption. . . that there were supernatural occurrences IS somehow scientific?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read my links nor watch the vid.
Click to expand...

Of course not.  Not when you make such a silly declarative statement.  

I am a person of great faith, yet, I also believe that the collective consciousness is the prime mover.  

You cannot make such a statement, and then have us all take the reverse as a matter of fact.

Do you even know what science is?


----------



## MisterBeale

james bond said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we're doing now.  We are teaching faith-based science.  You have nothing to back up macroevolution via the scientific method.
Click to expand...


----------



## MisterBeale

The OP is having a difficult time with what is "scientific" i.e. what is empirical, and what is not.

Synonyms of empirical | Thesaurus.com

*empirical*
[ em-pir-i-kuhl ]SEE DEFINITION OF _empirical_

experimental
factual
observational
empiric
experient
experiential
observed
pragmatic
provisional
speculative




And the opposite?

Antonyms for _empirical_


conjectural
hypothetical
impractical
theoretic
theoretical
unobserved
unproved


----------



## BuckToothMoron

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.



Creationism does not hold up to the scientific method, sorry. The scientific method doesn’t require the utilization of faith. It should be taught thru private/religious institutions, not at institutions funded by my tax dollars.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

TNHarley said:


> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.



Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.

Give them options


----------



## BuckToothMoron

james bond said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we're doing now.  We are teaching faith-based science.  You have nothing to back up macroevolution via the scientific method.
Click to expand...


Evolution is not fully discovered. It is a theory, a work in progress with a level of undeniable certainty.


----------



## MisterBeale

SassyIrishLass said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.
> 
> Give them options
Click to expand...


The natural selection evolution experiments of Gregor Mendel can be reproduced in advanced High School or beginning college biology courses with either plants, or more commonly, with fruit flies. . . 


Now, if you want to suggest someway we can have a reproducible AGW experiment?  I am open to observe that?


----------



## TNHarley

SassyIrishLass said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.
> 
> Give them options
Click to expand...

None of that should be taught either.
I dont believe in indoctrination of any form.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

TNHarley said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.
> 
> Give them options
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of that should be taught either.
> I dont believe in indoctrination of any form.
Click to expand...


If you're not willing to give them the option you are


----------



## SassyIrishLass

MisterBeale said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.
> 
> Give them options
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The natural selection evolution experiments of Gregor Mendel can be reproduced in advanced High School or beginning college biology courses with either plants, or more commonly, with fruit flies. . .
> 
> 
> Now, if you want to suggest someway we can have a reproducible AGW experiment?  I am open to observe that?
Click to expand...


Evolution of man is all well and good...too bad that pesky missing link is so elusive though


----------



## TNHarley

SassyIrishLass said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.
> 
> Give them options
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of that should be taught either.
> I dont believe in indoctrination of any form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're not willing to give them the option you are
Click to expand...

I mean fact should only be taught in school. Fact isnt indoctrination


----------



## OldLady

BuckToothMoron said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we're doing now.  We are teaching faith-based science.  You have nothing to back up macroevolution via the scientific method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is not fully discovered. It is a theory, a work in progress with a level of undeniable certainty.
Click to expand...

That is so true.  The history of our world is constantly changing as we learn more.


----------



## Crepitus

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.


It doesn't matter how many times you say "creation science" it still isn't a science and never will be.  

It is not "backed up by the scientific method", it is pushed by religious fanatics in direct contradiction of it.

No, keep your religious clap-trap out of our schools.


----------



## MisterBeale

SassyIrishLass said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.
> 
> Give them options
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The natural selection evolution experiments of Gregor Mendel can be reproduced in advanced High School or beginning college biology courses with either plants, or more commonly, with fruit flies. . .
> 
> 
> Now, if you want to suggest someway we can have a reproducible AGW experiment?  I am open to observe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution of man is all well and good...too bad that pesky missing link is so elusive though
Click to expand...

True enough.

But, if we are not sure, does not mean we should teach every possible option under the sun. . . . or else the Scientologists will want to come into the schools too you know. . . .


----------



## captkaos

james bond said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we're doing now.  We are teaching faith-based science.  You have nothing to back up macroevolution via the scientific method.
Click to expand...


You all forget that the Bible, Torah, Koran and other Religious texts were all written by "men" *Human* men not theoretical supernatural men. IMHO if people want to indoctrinate their children to a particular religion they should do it on their own time not spread un proven theory on those who believe differently or their children. Maybe we should teach the theory that Extra terrestrials manipulated Animal DNA to create modern man, Ridiculous right! Some people don't think so! Keep religion out of Schools!


----------



## SassyIrishLass

TNHarley said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.
> 
> Give them options
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of that should be taught either.
> I dont believe in indoctrination of any form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're not willing to give them the option you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mean fact should only be taught in school. Fact isnt indoctrination
Click to expand...


Evolution of humans isn't "fact"...toss it


----------



## Crepitus

james bond said:


> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess my first question would be "WHOSE creation"?  All across the world there are creation stories and myths and legends.  Among American Indians alone there are many.  I don't know much about India or Buddha or China or Borneo and their creation legends, but I'm betting there are more than I have fingers and toes.  We get ours from the Torah.  My copy of Josephus in his History of the Jews says at the end of Genesis (his is same as our Bible)..anyway, he says that Moses was speaking 'metaphorically'.  This suggests to me that the Garden of Eden and the events there are symbolic.  Although I always thought that when the devil, that old serpent, tempted Eve that he used Orrin Hatch's oily voice to half lie/half true her into apostasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christian one since science backs up the Bible.  This is the science and technology section, not religion.
Click to expand...

Science does not back up the Bible.


----------



## Crepitus

SassyIrishLass said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.
> 
> Give them options
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The natural selection evolution experiments of Gregor Mendel can be reproduced in advanced High School or beginning college biology courses with either plants, or more commonly, with fruit flies. . .
> 
> 
> Now, if you want to suggest someway we can have a reproducible AGW experiment?  I am open to observe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution of man is all well and good...too bad that pesky missing link is so elusive though
Click to expand...

Good thing they found it huh?

Fossils discovered in South Africa are the 'missing link' in human evolution, study finds


----------



## MisterBeale

SassyIrishLass said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.
> 
> Give them options
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of that should be taught either.
> I dont believe in indoctrination of any form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're not willing to give them the option you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mean fact should only be taught in school. Fact isnt indoctrination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution of humans isn't "fact"...toss it
Click to expand...



Our species is _Homo sapiens sapiens_.  One of the long extinct species on our planet that had once interbred with our species, whom some white Europeans have DNA in their genome, is _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_.

So, when you say, "pesky missing link is so elusive," I'm not really sure you know a whole lot about physical anthropology.

Neanderthals: Facts About Our Extinct Human Relatives | Live Science

Europeans are closer to Neanderthals than first thought | Daily Mail Online


----------



## SassyIrishLass

MisterBeale said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.
> 
> Give them options
> 
> 
> 
> None of that should be taught either.
> I dont believe in indoctrination of any form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're not willing to give them the option you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mean fact should only be taught in school. Fact isnt indoctrination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution of humans isn't "fact"...toss it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Our species is _Homo sapiens sapiens_.  One of the long extinct species on our planet that had once interbred with our species, whom some white Europeans have DNA in their genome, is _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_.
> 
> So, when you say, "pesky missing link is so elusive," I'm not really sure you know a whole lot about physical anthropology.
> 
> Neanderthals: Facts About Our Extinct Human Relatives | Live Science
> 
> Europeans are closer to Neanderthals than first thought | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...


The fact is that no matter how hard they try "scientists" can't connect the missing links in human evolution. That's just factual


----------



## Taz

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.


"Creation science is backed by the scientific method". Not even close. Have a link?


----------



## anynameyouwish

SassyIrishLass said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of that should be taught either.
> I dont believe in indoctrination of any form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not willing to give them the option you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mean fact should only be taught in school. Fact isnt indoctrination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution of humans isn't "fact"...toss it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Our species is _Homo sapiens sapiens_.  One of the long extinct species on our planet that had once interbred with our species, whom some white Europeans have DNA in their genome, is _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_.
> 
> So, when you say, "pesky missing link is so elusive," I'm not really sure you know a whole lot about physical anthropology.
> 
> Neanderthals: Facts About Our Extinct Human Relatives | Live Science
> 
> Europeans are closer to Neanderthals than first thought | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that no matter how hard they try "scientists" can't connect the missing links in human evolution. That's just factual
Click to expand...



the fact is that no matter how hard they try evangelicals can't provide any evidence of a god.  That is just a fact.


----------



## MisterBeale

Crepitus said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.
> 
> Give them options
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The natural selection evolution experiments of Gregor Mendel can be reproduced in advanced High School or beginning college biology courses with either plants, or more commonly, with fruit flies. . .
> 
> 
> Now, if you want to suggest someway we can have a reproducible AGW experiment?  I am open to observe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution of man is all well and good...too bad that pesky missing link is so elusive though
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good thing they found it huh?
> 
> Fossils discovered in South Africa are the 'missing link' in human evolution, study finds
Click to expand...


This leads us to a question of what IS the missing link?  We have fossil evidence all along the evolutionary progression.  I'm not sure what folks are referring too when this is brought up anymore.

For me, it has always been. . . . .

What caused the explosion of culture.  What differentiates modern man from his ancestors?    Why all of a sudden did all the tech go Super Nova?


Civilization flourished, not in just one area of the globe, but many, simultaneously, at once.  (ON a geologic time scale of course.) But why?  


Personally, I think this USA Today piece has it all wrong.  The missing link was never between the Australopithecines and the Hominids.  It has to do with what caused the creative communal consciousness among the Hominids.  It definitely occurred AFTER the neanderthals.  On this, Sassy is closer to the truth.

. . . but, it remains an elusive mystery.


Why did modern humans create civilizations?  What was that fruit of knowledge, what was the loss of innocence?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

anynameyouwish said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not willing to give them the option you are
> 
> 
> 
> I mean fact should only be taught in school. Fact isnt indoctrination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution of humans isn't "fact"...toss it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Our species is _Homo sapiens sapiens_.  One of the long extinct species on our planet that had once interbred with our species, whom some white Europeans have DNA in their genome, is _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_.
> 
> So, when you say, "pesky missing link is so elusive," I'm not really sure you know a whole lot about physical anthropology.
> 
> Neanderthals: Facts About Our Extinct Human Relatives | Live Science
> 
> Europeans are closer to Neanderthals than first thought | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that no matter how hard they try "scientists" can't connect the missing links in human evolution. That's just factual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the fact is that no matter how hard they try evangelicals can't provide any evidence of a god.  That is just a fact.
Click to expand...


And you can't disprove Him...another fact. Now sit down, dumbass


----------



## progressive hunter

BuckToothMoron said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we're doing now.  We are teaching faith-based science.  You have nothing to back up macroevolution via the scientific method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is not fully discovered. It is a theory, a work in progress with a level of undeniable certainty.
Click to expand...



I've seen no undeniable certainty in evolution,,


----------



## SassyIrishLass

MisterBeale said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.
> 
> Give them options
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The natural selection evolution experiments of Gregor Mendel can be reproduced in advanced High School or beginning college biology courses with either plants, or more commonly, with fruit flies. . .
> 
> 
> Now, if you want to suggest someway we can have a reproducible AGW experiment?  I am open to observe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution of man is all well and good...too bad that pesky missing link is so elusive though
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good thing they found it huh?
> 
> Fossils discovered in South Africa are the 'missing link' in human evolution, study finds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This leads us to a question of what IS the missing link?  We have fossil evidence all along the evolutionary progression.  I'm not sure what folks are referring too when this is brought up anymore.
> 
> For me, it has always been. . . . .
> 
> What caused the explosion of culture.  What differentiates modern man from his ancestors?    Why all of a sudden did all the tech go Super Nova?
> 
> 
> Civilization flourished, not in just one area of the globe, but many, simultaneously, at once.  (ON a geologic time scale of course.) But why?
> 
> 
> Personally, I think this USA Today piece has it all wrong.  The missing link was never between the Australopithecines and the Hominids.  It has to do with what caused the creative communal consciousness among the Hominids.  It definitely occurred AFTER the neanderthals.  On this, Sassy is closer to the truth.
> 
> . . . but, it remains an elusive mystery.
> 
> 
> Why did modern humans create civilizations?  What was that fruit of knowledge, what was the loss of innocence?
Click to expand...


Last year I saw a great debate between high school debate teams on it. It got really heated and was fun to watch


----------



## OldLady

MisterBeale said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.
> 
> Give them options
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The natural selection evolution experiments of Gregor Mendel can be reproduced in advanced High School or beginning college biology courses with either plants, or more commonly, with fruit flies. . .
> 
> 
> Now, if you want to suggest someway we can have a reproducible AGW experiment?  I am open to observe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution of man is all well and good...too bad that pesky missing link is so elusive though
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good thing they found it huh?
> 
> Fossils discovered in South Africa are the 'missing link' in human evolution, study finds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This leads us to a question of what IS the missing link?  We have fossil evidence all along the evolutionary progression.  I'm not sure what folks are referring too when this is brought up anymore.
> 
> For me, it has always been. . . . .
> 
> What caused the explosion of culture.  What differentiates modern man from his ancestors?    Why all of a sudden did all the tech go Super Nova?
> 
> 
> Civilization flourished, not in just one area of the globe, but many, simultaneously, at once.  (ON a geologic time scale of course.) But why?
> 
> 
> Personally, I think this USA Today piece has it all wrong.  The missing link was never between the Australopithecines and the Hominids.  It has to do with what caused the creative communal consciousness among the Hominids.  It definitely occurred AFTER the neanderthals.  On this, Sassy is closer to the truth.
> 
> . . . but, it remains an elusive mystery.
> 
> 
> Why did modern humans create civilizations?  What was that fruit of knowledge, what was the loss of innocence?
Click to expand...

Excellent questions.


----------



## progressive hunter

anynameyouwish said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not willing to give them the option you are
> 
> 
> 
> I mean fact should only be taught in school. Fact isnt indoctrination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution of humans isn't "fact"...toss it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Our species is _Homo sapiens sapiens_.  One of the long extinct species on our planet that had once interbred with our species, whom some white Europeans have DNA in their genome, is _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_.
> 
> So, when you say, "pesky missing link is so elusive," I'm not really sure you know a whole lot about physical anthropology.
> 
> Neanderthals: Facts About Our Extinct Human Relatives | Live Science
> 
> Europeans are closer to Neanderthals than first thought | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that no matter how hard they try "scientists" can't connect the missing links in human evolution. That's just factual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the fact is that no matter how hard they try evangelicals can't provide any evidence of a god.  That is just a fact.
Click to expand...


and they openly admit that and call it faith not fact


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.


No, we should not be teaching creationism as science.  It is just a 'God of the gaps' fallacy.


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we should not be teaching creationism as science.  It is just a 'God of the gaps' fallacy.
Click to expand...



hey you ever find that proof of a common designer or what it looked like and how it spawned all other life???


----------



## anynameyouwish

progressive hunter said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean fact should only be taught in school. Fact isnt indoctrination
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution of humans isn't "fact"...toss it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Our species is _Homo sapiens sapiens_.  One of the long extinct species on our planet that had once interbred with our species, whom some white Europeans have DNA in their genome, is _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_.
> 
> So, when you say, "pesky missing link is so elusive," I'm not really sure you know a whole lot about physical anthropology.
> 
> Neanderthals: Facts About Our Extinct Human Relatives | Live Science
> 
> Europeans are closer to Neanderthals than first thought | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that no matter how hard they try "scientists" can't connect the missing links in human evolution. That's just factual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the fact is that no matter how hard they try evangelicals can't provide any evidence of a god.  That is just a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and they openly admit that and call it faith not fact
Click to expand...



actually.....

you lie.


they may ultimately ADMIT IT and call it FAITH but they are constantly using ridiculous things to "prove that god exists"

"Proof that god is real" is a common thread.....

although they can't actually provide any proof.


----------



## progressive hunter

anynameyouwish said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution of humans isn't "fact"...toss it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our species is _Homo sapiens sapiens_.  One of the long extinct species on our planet that had once interbred with our species, whom some white Europeans have DNA in their genome, is _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_.
> 
> So, when you say, "pesky missing link is so elusive," I'm not really sure you know a whole lot about physical anthropology.
> 
> Neanderthals: Facts About Our Extinct Human Relatives | Live Science
> 
> Europeans are closer to Neanderthals than first thought | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that no matter how hard they try "scientists" can't connect the missing links in human evolution. That's just factual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the fact is that no matter how hard they try evangelicals can't provide any evidence of a god.  That is just a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and they openly admit that and call it faith not fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> actually.....
> 
> you lie.
> 
> 
> they may ultimately ADMIT IT and call it FAITH but they are constantly using ridiculous things to "prove that god exists"
> 
> "Proof that god is real" is a common thread.....
> 
> although they can't actually provide any proof.
Click to expand...



got a link??


----------



## james bond

rightwinger said:


> Creation should be taught as a fantasy



Why is it fantasy when it is the truth and backed by science and the scientific method?  You didn't read my links nor watch the video either.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

progressive hunter said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we're doing now.  We are teaching faith-based science.  You have nothing to back up macroevolution via the scientific method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is not fully discovered. It is a theory, a work in progress with a level of undeniable certainty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen no undeniable certainty in evolution,,
Click to expand...


Evolution is small changes over a long time. Human beings are about 5% taller today than they were 100 years ago. That is a microcosm of evolution and it is undeniable.

And I’ve seen no evidence of a god that I should revere and pray to.


----------



## progressive hunter

BuckToothMoron said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we're doing now.  We are teaching faith-based science.  You have nothing to back up macroevolution via the scientific method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is not fully discovered. It is a theory, a work in progress with a level of undeniable certainty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen no undeniable certainty in evolution,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is small changes over a long time. Human beings are about 5% taller today than they were 100 years ago. That is a microcosm of evolution and it is undeniable.
> 
> And I’ve seen no evidence of a god that I should revere and pray to.
Click to expand...



or it could be all the chemicals we are putting in the food,,,

sorry but that is not proof we all came from a rock


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.


All myths are based on Creationism.


----------



## cnm

Taz said:


> "Creation science is backed by the scientific method". Not even close. Have a link?


Come on. He's got a video!


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> hey you ever find that proof of a common designer or what it looked like and how it spawned all other life???


Yes I did.  Thanks for asking.


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey you ever find that proof of a common designer or what it looked like and how it spawned all other life???
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I did.  Thanks for asking.
Click to expand...



no you didnt,,,still asking,,,


----------



## cnm

Anyone bother to watch it?


----------



## james bond

OldLady said:


> I've read some of the arguments for Creationism, and they get pretty deep in the weeds about dating techniques, DNA testing, etc. as well as the philosophical arguments for God.  K-12 doesn't get into that kind of detail.  It is mostly a refutation of the techniques used to date and analyze artifacts.  I'm not sure how well a K-12 student would grasp a lot of that.  Just telling them that God created the world because science is all wet isn't much of a curriculum.



I know what you are referring to because that's where I get information, too, to compare to Understanding Evolution.  All my evolution and creation came during post-grad studies and as an adult primarily.  During 2007 - 2011 time frame a lot of secular articles came out against evolution.  I didn't become Christian until 2012.  Thus, I'm not sure what can help teach K - 12 curriculums.  I would think the K - 12 would need to learn both.  That's the topic of my post.  On the creation side, we have the Bible and ID.

Have you checked out these websites?  I haven't,.  Just know who supports these sites.  The AIG site has baraminology for kids.

AIG
Creation & Apologetics Videos for Kids

Creation homeschool mom
Creation Science 4 Kids

ID
Intelligent Design

Discovery Institute


----------



## james bond

BuckToothMoron said:


> Evolution is not fully discovered. It is a theory, a work in progress with a level of undeniable certainty.



Where's your undeniable certainty?  I said it was evidence made to fit a theory.


----------



## james bond

MisterBeale said:


> The natural selection evolution experiments of Gregor Mendel can be reproduced in advanced High School or beginning college biology courses with either plants, or more commonly, with fruit flies. . .



Natural selection, artificial selection, hybrid breeding such as horse + donkey = mule, and epigenetics are part of creation science, too.  It's variations within a species.  It's the other principles of evolution that are questioned.


----------



## james bond

TNHarley said:


> I mean fact should only be taught in school. Fact isnt indoctrination



No, teach a person how to think.  Let them find what the facts are and make their own conclusions.  Kids and students are indoctrinated in biased science.  Let them learn the other creation science.


----------



## james bond

Taz said:


> "Creation science is backed by the scientific method". Not even close. Have a link?









For you, I have to provide stuff like this so you'll read, learn, and, heaven forbid, think.


----------



## cnm

james bond said:


> Where's your undeniable certainty?


No hominoid fossils with dinosaurs.


----------



## deanrd

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.


Creation science is backed by the scientific method?

 Please explain the scientific method.


----------



## deanrd

I’m pretty sure this guy would make a better Jesus.

 And he’s white.


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey you ever find that proof of a common designer or what it looked like and how it spawned all other life???
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I did.  Thanks for asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you didnt,,,still asking,,,
Click to expand...

I did, you just refused to accept it.  As I recall you didn't even have the level of knowledge they offer on CSI television shows.


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey you ever find that proof of a common designer or what it looked like and how it spawned all other life???
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I did.  Thanks for asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you didnt,,,still asking,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did, you just refused to accept it.  As I recall you didn't even have the level of knowledge they offer on CSI television shows.
Click to expand...



telling me chimps walked upright after millions of yrs and became humans is not proof of a common designer or how it spawned all life as we know it,,,

try again


----------



## OldLady

Poor James


progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey you ever find that proof of a common designer or what it looked like and how it spawned all other life???
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I did.  Thanks for asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you didnt,,,still asking,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did, you just refused to accept it.  As I recall you didn't even have the level of knowledge they offer on CSI television shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> telling me chimps walked upright after millions of yrs and became humans is not proof of a common designer or how it spawned all life as we know it,,,
> 
> try again
Click to expand...

They no longer teach that we evolved straight from chimps.


----------



## progressive hunter

cnm said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your undeniable certainty?
> 
> 
> 
> No hominoid fossils with dinosaurs.
Click to expand...

“Modern” Fossils with Dinosaurs | Genesis Park

Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?


----------



## progressive hunter

OldLady said:


> Poor James
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey you ever find that proof of a common designer or what it looked like and how it spawned all other life???
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I did.  Thanks for asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you didnt,,,still asking,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did, you just refused to accept it.  As I recall you didn't even have the level of knowledge they offer on CSI television shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> telling me chimps walked upright after millions of yrs and became humans is not proof of a common designer or how it spawned all life as we know it,,,
> 
> try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They no longer teach that we evolved straight from chimps.
Click to expand...



dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it

but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it


----------



## Wyatt earp

deanrd said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method?
> 
> Please explain the scientific method.
Click to expand...



Liberals came from monkeys 

Conservatives was created 


Not that complicated..


Facts are facts


----------



## Taz

james bond said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Creation science is backed by the scientific method". Not even close. Have a link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For you, I have to provide stuff like this so you'll read, learn, and, heaven forbid, think.
Click to expand...

So you can't back up your claim?


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> telling me chimps walked upright after millions of yrs and became humans is not proof of a common designer or how it spawned all life as we know it,,,
> 
> try again


Telling you anything has proved to be a complete waste of time.  It's like giving a book to someone who doesn't know how to read.


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> telling me chimps walked upright after millions of yrs and became humans is not proof of a common designer or how it spawned all life as we know it,,,
> 
> try again
> 
> 
> 
> Telling you anything has proved to be a complete waste of time.  It's like giving a book to someone who doesn't know how to read.
Click to expand...



just admit you cant,,,its easier since we all know it doesnt exist


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> just admit you cant,,,its easier since we all know it doesnt exist


All??  Who is this 'all'?  Certainly not me or a sizeable minority of the country.  Not surprisingly, at least to me, belief in creationism decreases as education level increases.


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> just admit you cant,,,its easier since we all know it doesnt exist
> 
> 
> 
> All??  Who is this 'all'?  Certainly not me or a sizeable minority of the country.  Not surprisingly, at least to me, belief in creationism decreases as education level increases.
Click to expand...

as always you revert to creation as a defense,,,
if you know it exist then why are you keeping it a secret??
dude you still think we came from chimps.apes or some other form of life


you are more than welcome to believe in any religion you want but dont tell us its a fact without proof.


----------



## OldLady

progressive hunter said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor James
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I did.  Thanks for asking.
> 
> 
> 
> no you didnt,,,still asking,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did, you just refused to accept it.  As I recall you didn't even have the level of knowledge they offer on CSI television shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> telling me chimps walked upright after millions of yrs and became humans is not proof of a common designer or how it spawned all life as we know it,,,
> 
> try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They no longer teach that we evolved straight from chimps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it
> 
> but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it
Click to expand...

I think that's two different questions, isn't it?  Lucy is our ancestor.  She didn't make little green apples, though.  I'm confused.


----------



## progressive hunter

OldLady said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor James
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> no you didnt,,,still asking,,,
> 
> 
> 
> I did, you just refused to accept it.  As I recall you didn't even have the level of knowledge they offer on CSI television shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> telling me chimps walked upright after millions of yrs and became humans is not proof of a common designer or how it spawned all life as we know it,,,
> 
> try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They no longer teach that we evolved straight from chimps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it
> 
> but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that's two different questions, isn't it?  Lucy is our ancestor.  She didn't make little green apples, though.  I'm confused.
Click to expand...



there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> just admit you cant,,,its easier since we all know it doesnt exist
> 
> 
> 
> All??  Who is this 'all'?  Certainly not me or a sizeable minority of the country.  Not surprisingly, at least to me, belief in creationism decreases as education level increases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as always you revert to creation as a defense,,,
> if you know it exist then why are you keeping it a secret??
> dude you still think we came from chimps.apes or some other form of life
> 
> 
> you are more than welcome to believe in any religion you want but dont tell us its a fact without proof.
Click to expand...

As I recall, you don't believe in evolution and claim you're not a creationist.  So what exactly do you believe?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

progressive hunter said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor James
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did, you just refused to accept it.  As I recall you didn't even have the level of knowledge they offer on CSI television shows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> telling me chimps walked upright after millions of yrs and became humans is not proof of a common designer or how it spawned all life as we know it,,,
> 
> try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They no longer teach that we evolved straight from chimps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it
> 
> but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that's two different questions, isn't it?  Lucy is our ancestor.  She didn't make little green apples, though.  I'm confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
Click to expand...


Lucy was just a small ape.


----------



## MisterBeale

james bond said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> The natural selection evolution experiments of Gregor Mendel can be reproduced in advanced High School or beginning college biology courses with either plants, or more commonly, with fruit flies. . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural selection, artificial selection, hybrid breeding such as horse + donkey = mule, and epigenetics are part of creation science, too.  It's variations within a species.  It's the other principles of evolution that are questioned.
Click to expand...

Respectfully James, I have studied physical anthropology in depth at University.

If you want, I am open to look at a double blind or peer reviewed principle of evolution that is under scrutiny, but please, be specific, and link to an article.

I am skeptical.  Try not to have your source guilty of this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

I sense you have an agenda here, a very specific one.


What are your facts, and where do they lead?

Instead. .  . it is my belief that you have a conclusion and you are looking for suppositions to lead you to that conclusion.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we should not be teaching creationism as science.  It is just a 'God of the gaps' fallacy.
Click to expand...


The God of the gaps fallacy was created by creation scientist Sir Francis Bacon as a warning for Christian scientists to not use God to support their hypothesis.  It was stolen by atheists as an argument against creationists when explaining their big bang hypothesis.  The big bang is impossible to happen as it violates the laws of physics and math (cannot divide by zero) in the natural world.  What you are talking about is the evolution of the gaps.  You have no explanation.

Instead, let's focus on how God created the electromagnetic spectrum on the first day.  He would also have had to create space and time as he created the heavens and Earth.  We are finding he created the Higgs field, CMB, Planck's constant, basic gases, solar wind, and more.  He separated the light from the dark and called one day and the other night.  How did the big bang do this?  There is no explanation and this is just the first day.  God started stretching the universe and spacetime started marching forward.


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> just admit you cant,,,its easier since we all know it doesnt exist
> 
> 
> 
> All??  Who is this 'all'?  Certainly not me or a sizeable minority of the country.  Not surprisingly, at least to me, belief in creationism decreases as education level increases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as always you revert to creation as a defense,,,
> if you know it exist then why are you keeping it a secret??
> dude you still think we came from chimps.apes or some other form of life
> 
> 
> you are more than welcome to believe in any religion you want but dont tell us its a fact without proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I recall, you don't believe in evolution and claim you're not a creationist.  So what exactly do you believe?
Click to expand...


as of yet I dont have anything to believe in since neither has given me  anything but opinion,
 but creation at least admits its based on faith because its a religion


are you going to show me what this common ancestor looked like and explain how it spawned all life as we know it or not???


----------



## james bond

MisterBeale said:


> Respectfully James, I have studied physical anthropology in depth at University.
> 
> If you want, I am open to look at a double blind or peer reviewed principle of evolution that is under scrutiny, but please, be specific, and link to an article.
> 
> I am skeptical. Try not to have your source guilty of this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
> 
> I sense you have an agenda here, a very specific one.
> 
> 
> What are your facts, and where do they lead?
> 
> Instead. . . it is my belief that you have a conclusion and you are looking for suppositions to lead you to that conclusion.




 

Good.  I think anthropologists like paleontologists are indoctrinated in evolution.  Thus, you are biased from the get go.  I have an MBA and Bachelor's in computer science, so life sciences are not my field, but I learned how to think critically in HS and at college.  I already presented my argument in the OP.  Let's see what your presented so far in rebuttal.

You didn't like the supernatural, but I'm only using it relating to the first two books of Genesis.  We aren't talking miracles Jesus performed like turning water into wine.  No experiment can replicate that and you won't believe it unless you were there, so let's get that out of the way.

Next, you admitted you didn't read my link nor watch the vid, so you're out.  Why should I waste my time with your points when you fail to listen to mine but just chime in with your bias?  It doesn't sound like someone who got an anthro degree at a university.  Where did you go?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.


No, it shouldn't, because to do so would violate the First Amendment (Edwards v. Aguillard).

Creationism is religion, devoid of fact and merit.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

james bond said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation should be taught as a fantasy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it fantasy when it is the truth and backed by science and the scientific method?  You didn't read my links nor watch the video either.
Click to expand...

It is neither the truth nor is it supported by science.


----------



## progressive hunter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it shouldn't, because to do so would violate the First Amendment (Edwards v. Aguillard).
> 
> Creationism is religion, devoid of fact and merit.
Click to expand...



same applies to evolution,,


----------



## james bond

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it shouldn't, because to do so would violate the First Amendment (Edwards v. Aguillard).
> 
> Creationism is religion, devoid of fact and merit.
Click to expand...


Not the first two books of Genesis.  You didn't watch the vid either.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It is neither the truth nor is it supported by science.



That's just your assertion and nothing in science backs it.  So far, your posts are meaningless.


----------



## Wyatt earp

james bond said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully James, I have studied physical anthropology in depth at University.
> 
> If you want, I am open to look at a double blind or peer reviewed principle of evolution that is under scrutiny, but please, be specific, and link to an article.
> 
> I am skeptical. Try not to have your source guilty of this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
> 
> I sense you have an agenda here, a very specific one.
> 
> 
> What are your facts, and where do they lead?
> 
> Instead. . . it is my belief that you have a conclusion and you are looking for suppositions to lead you to that conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 276375
> 
> Good.  I think anthropologists like paleontologists are indoctrinated in evolution.  Thus, you are biased from the get go.  I have an MBA and Bachelor's in computer science, so life sciences are not my field, but I learned how to think critically in HS and at college.  I already presented my argument in the OP.  Let's see what your presented so far in rebuttal.
> 
> You didn't like the supernatural, but I'm only using it relating to the first two books of Genesis.  We aren't talking miracles Jesus performed like turning water into wine.  No experiment can replicate that and you won't believe it unless you were there, so let's get that out of the way.
> 
> Next, you admitted you didn't read my link nor watch the vid, so you're out.  Why should I waste my time with your points when you fail to listen to mine but just chime in with your bias?  It doesn't sound like someone who got an anthro degree at a university.  Where did you go?
Click to expand...


Wait you deny liberals came from monkeys?


----------



## westwall

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.


Creation science is not supported by the scientific method in any way.  Your trolling is pretty poor.


----------



## Wyatt earp

james bond said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it shouldn't, because to do so would violate the First Amendment (Edwards v. Aguillard).
> 
> Creationism is religion, devoid of fact and merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the first two books of Genesis.  You didn't watch the vid either.
Click to expand...



Genius, exodus, leviticus..

What first two books?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation should be taught as a fantasy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it fantasy when it is the truth and backed by science and the scientific method?  You didn't read my links nor watch the video either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is neither the truth nor is it supported by science.
Click to expand...


Evolution isn't supported by science either.

Just a theory


----------



## Wyatt earp

westwall said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is not supported by the scientific method in any way.  Your trolling is pretty poor.
Click to expand...



Its belief..

No science needed


----------



## Wyatt earp

SassyIrishLass said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation should be taught as a fantasy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it fantasy when it is the truth and backed by science and the scientific method?  You didn't read my links nor watch the video either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is neither the truth nor is it supported by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution isn't supported by science either.
> 
> Just a theory
Click to expand...



Exactly..

Love ..


----------



## Wyatt earp

James 4:17


----------



## Wyatt earp

bear513 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation should be taught as a fantasy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it fantasy when it is the truth and backed by science and the scientific method?  You didn't read my links nor watch the video either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is neither the truth nor is it supported by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution isn't supported by science either.
> 
> Just a theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly..
> 
> Love ..
Click to expand...


Love is a theory,  but is it?


----------



## MisterBeale

james bond said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully James, I have studied physical anthropology in depth at University.
> 
> If you want, I am open to look at a double blind or peer reviewed principle of evolution that is under scrutiny, but please, be specific, and link to an article.
> 
> I am skeptical. Try not to have your source guilty of this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
> 
> I sense you have an agenda here, a very specific one.
> 
> 
> What are your facts, and where do they lead?
> 
> Instead. . . it is my belief that you have a conclusion and you are looking for suppositions to lead you to that conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 276375
> 
> Good.  I think anthropologists like paleontologists are indoctrinated in evolution.  Thus, you are biased from the get go.  I have an MBA and Bachelor's in computer science, so life sciences are not my field, but I learned how to think critically in HS and at college.  I already presented my argument in the OP.  Let's see what your presented so far in rebuttal.
> 
> You didn't like the supernatural, but I'm only using it relating to the first two books of Genesis.  We aren't talking miracles Jesus performed like turning water into wine.  No experiment can replicate that and you won't believe it unless you were there, so let's get that out of the way.
> 
> Next, you admitted you didn't read my link nor watch the vid, so you're out.  Why should I waste my time with your points when you fail to listen to mine but just chime in with your bias?  It doesn't sound like someone who got an anthro degree at a university.  Where did you go?
Click to expand...



So. . . that's a no, you are not going to post any article or paper the has some peer review or standard, for a hypothesis or theory to explain the nature of our world?


I honestly did not mean to trigger you. 

All I wanted was a discussion of these so called "other principles of evolution that are questioned."

If you don't want to have that?  Just say so.

You can't expect folks to wade through an hour long proselytizing evangelical video just to get to the meat of your position.  If you can not tell me, or post an article, I guess you are not serious.


----------



## OldLady

SassyIrishLass said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor James
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> telling me chimps walked upright after millions of yrs and became humans is not proof of a common designer or how it spawned all life as we know it,,,
> 
> try again
> 
> 
> 
> They no longer teach that we evolved straight from chimps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it
> 
> but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that's two different questions, isn't it?  Lucy is our ancestor.  She didn't make little green apples, though.  I'm confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
Click to expand...

She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation should be taught as a fantasy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it fantasy when it is the truth and backed by science and the scientific method?  You didn't read my links nor watch the video either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is neither the truth nor is it supported by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution isn't supported by science either.
> 
> Just a theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly..
> 
> Love ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Love is a theory,  but is it?
Click to expand...


No love is real... I'm immersed in it with my family.


----------



## progressive hunter

OldLady said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor James
> They no longer teach that we evolved straight from chimps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it
> 
> but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that's two different questions, isn't it?  Lucy is our ancestor.  She didn't make little green apples, though.  I'm confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
Click to expand...



dead bones dont walk,,,the rest is just opinion


and didnt you say earlier this was no longer the view we came from primates???


----------



## SassyIrishLass

OldLady said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor James
> They no longer teach that we evolved straight from chimps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it
> 
> but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that's two different questions, isn't it?  Lucy is our ancestor.  She didn't make little green apples, though.  I'm confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
Click to expand...


Better read up on it. The shape and angle of the pelvic bones would have prevented walking upright constantly. She also would have had the ape "sway" when she did walk upright.

Just a small ape evolutionists cling to in their quest to sell evolution.


----------



## Wyatt earp

SassyIrishLass said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it fantasy when it is the truth and backed by science and the scientific method?  You didn't read my links nor watch the video either.
> 
> 
> 
> It is neither the truth nor is it supported by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution isn't supported by science either.
> 
> Just a theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly..
> 
> Love ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Love is a theory,  but is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No love is real... I'm immersed in it with my family.
Click to expand...

Exactly.. you didn't learn it..

You cant kill neither can I


----------



## Wyatt earp

SassyIrishLass said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it
> 
> but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's two different questions, isn't it?  Lucy is our ancestor.  She didn't make little green apples, though.  I'm confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better read up on it. The shape and angle of the pelvic bones would have prevented walking upright constantly. She also would have had the ape "sway" when she did walk upright.
> 
> Just a small ape evolutionists cling to in their quest to sell evolution.
Click to expand...


And monkeys are strong as hell, they can RIP your face off  .

We are weak


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> We are finding he created the Higgs field, CMB, Planck's constant, basic gases, solar wind, and more.


You have that backwards.  We've found these things and since there is a gap in our understanding of how or when they came to be, you attribute them to a creator, a 'he'.


----------



## Wyatt earp

OldLady said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor James
> They no longer teach that we evolved straight from chimps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it
> 
> but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that's two different questions, isn't it?  Lucy is our ancestor.  She didn't make little green apples, though.  I'm confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
Click to expand...



But she had sex with the biggest ones?


----------



## Wyatt earp

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are finding he created the Higgs field, CMB, Planck's constant, basic gases, solar wind, and more.
> 
> 
> 
> You have that backwards.  We've found these things and since there is a gap in our understanding of how or when they came to be, you attribute them to a creator, a 'he'.
Click to expand...

God is a she


----------



## OldLady

progressive hunter said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it
> 
> but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's two different questions, isn't it?  Lucy is our ancestor.  She didn't make little green apples, though.  I'm confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dead bones dont walk,,,the rest is just opinion
> 
> 
> and didnt you say earlier this was no longer the view we came from primates???
Click to expand...

We popped up as one of many hominid types and because our brains grew we figured out how to survive.  
It is not opinion that the pelvis and spine are aligned in such a way in Lucy that we can definitely say she walked upright.  Scientists don't make "opinions" about that.  They compare those bones to others that walk upright and creatures that don't.
I sure don't profess to be an expert on any of this stuff, but I've read enough to know that Lucy wasn't just an ape.


----------



## sparky

If you want your kid to '_get religion_' take him/her to church....~S~


----------



## progressive hunter

OldLady said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's two different questions, isn't it?  Lucy is our ancestor.  She didn't make little green apples, though.  I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dead bones dont walk,,,the rest is just opinion
> 
> 
> and didnt you say earlier this was no longer the view we came from primates???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We popped up as one of many hominid types and because our brains grew we figured out how to survive.
> It is not opinion that the pelvis and spine are aligned in such a way in Lucy that we can definitely say she walked upright.  Scientists don't make "opinions" about that.  They compare those bones to others that walk upright and creatures that don't.
> I sure don't profess to be an expert on any of this stuff, but I've read enough to know that Lucy wasn't just an ape.
Click to expand...



popped up sounds like a magical thing,,,and what did we pop up from???

did we pop up as a baby??? how does a baby feed itself??? it cant even walk let alone gather food


----------



## Wyatt earp

OldLady said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's two different questions, isn't it?  Lucy is our ancestor.  She didn't make little green apples, though.  I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dead bones dont walk,,,the rest is just opinion
> 
> 
> and didnt you say earlier this was no longer the view we came from primates???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We popped up as one of many hominid types and because our brains grew we figured out how to survive.
> It is not opinion that the pelvis and spine are aligned in such a way in Lucy that we can definitely say she walked upright.  Scientists don't make "opinions" about that.  They compare those bones to others that walk upright and creatures that don't.
> I sure don't profess to be an expert on any of this stuff, but I've read enough to know that Lucy wasn't just an ape.
Click to expand...


You really think Lucy was the pinnacle?

Nah


----------



## Wyatt earp

It was all about love.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

OldLady said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's two different questions, isn't it?  Lucy is our ancestor.  She didn't make little green apples, though.  I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dead bones dont walk,,,the rest is just opinion
> 
> 
> and didnt you say earlier this was no longer the view we came from primates???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We popped up as one of many hominid types and because our brains grew we figured out how to survive.
> It is not opinion that the pelvis and spine are aligned in such a way in Lucy that we can definitely say she walked upright.  Scientists don't make "opinions" about that.  They compare those bones to others that walk upright and creatures that don't.
> I sure don't profess to be an expert on any of this stuff, but I've read enough to know that Lucy wasn't just an ape.
Click to expand...


Real scientists say she was just an ape too. Keep clinging to your myth if you wish. Makes no difference to me at all.


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> just admit you cant,,,its easier since we all know it doesnt exist
> 
> 
> 
> All??  Who is this 'all'?  Certainly not me or a sizeable minority of the country.  Not surprisingly, at least to me, belief in creationism decreases as education level increases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as always you revert to creation as a defense,,,
> if you know it exist then why are you keeping it a secret??
> dude you still think we came from chimps.apes or some other form of life
> 
> 
> you are more than welcome to believe in any religion you want but dont tell us its a fact without proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I recall, you don't believe in evolution and claim you're not a creationist.  So what exactly do you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as of yet I dont have anything to believe in since neither has given me  anything but opinion,
> but creation at least admits its based on faith because its a religion
> 
> 
> are you going to show me what this common ancestor looked like and explain how it spawned all life as we know it or not???
Click to expand...

Why would I show you our common ancestor?  You'll just say it is a pile of dead bones.  To a scientist those bones are a book filled with information, to you they are just bones because you can't read what they say.  You're a science illiterate and won't admit it.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> just admit you cant,,,its easier since we all know it doesnt exist
> 
> 
> 
> All??  Who is this 'all'?  Certainly not me or a sizeable minority of the country.  Not surprisingly, at least to me, belief in creationism decreases as education level increases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as always you revert to creation as a defense,,,
> if you know it exist then why are you keeping it a secret??
> dude you still think we came from chimps.apes or some other form of life
> 
> 
> you are more than welcome to believe in any religion you want but dont tell us its a fact without proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I recall, you don't believe in evolution and claim you're not a creationist.  So what exactly do you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as of yet I dont have anything to believe in since neither has given me  anything but opinion,
> but creation at least admits its based on faith because its a religion
> 
> 
> are you going to show me what this common ancestor looked like and explain how it spawned all life as we know it or not???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I show you our common ancestor?  You'll just say it is a pile of dead bones.  To a scientist those bones are a book filled with information, to you they are just bones because you can't read what they say.  You're a science illiterate and won't admit it.
Click to expand...


Just knock it off if you could you would


----------



## Wyatt earp

OldLady said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's two different questions, isn't it?  Lucy is our ancestor.  She didn't make little green apples, though.  I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dead bones dont walk,,,the rest is just opinion
> 
> 
> and didnt you say earlier this was no longer the view we came from primates???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We popped up as one of many hominid types and because our brains grew we figured out how to survive.
> It is not opinion that the pelvis and spine are aligned in such a way in Lucy that we can definitely say she walked upright.  Scientists don't make "opinions" about that.  They compare those bones to others that walk upright and creatures that don't.
> I sure don't profess to be an expert on any of this stuff, but I've read enough to know that Lucy wasn't just an ape.[/QUOTE
> So Lucy was  created?
Click to expand...


----------



## MisterBeale

OldLady said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor James
> They no longer teach that we evolved straight from chimps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it
> 
> but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that's two different questions, isn't it?  Lucy is our ancestor.  She didn't make little green apples, though.  I'm confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
Click to expand...







Human Family Tree


----------



## Wyatt earp

bear513 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dead bones dont walk,,,the rest is just opinion
> 
> 
> and didnt you say earlier this was no longer the view we came from primates???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We popped up as one of many hominid types and because our brains grew we figured out how to survive.
> It is not opinion that the pelvis and spine are aligned in such a way in Lucy that we can definitely say she walked upright.  Scientists don't make "opinions" about that.  They compare those bones to others that walk upright and creatures that don't.
> I sure don't profess to be an expert on any of this stuff, but I've read enough to know that Lucy wasn't just an ape.[/QUOTE
> So Lucy was  created?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So now you admit lucy was created?


----------



## MisterBeale

Lucy is in the middle of the Australopithecus group.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

MisterBeale said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it
> 
> but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's two different questions, isn't it?  Lucy is our ancestor.  She didn't make little green apples, though.  I'm confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human Family Tree
Click to expand...


Nice theory...and it is you know.


----------



## OldLady

SassyIrishLass said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it
> 
> but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's two different questions, isn't it?  Lucy is our ancestor.  She didn't make little green apples, though.  I'm confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better read up on it. The shape and angle of the pelvic bones would have prevented walking upright constantly. She also would have had the ape "sway" when she did walk upright.
> 
> Just a small ape evolutionists cling to in their quest to sell evolution.
Click to expand...

I did read up on it.  You obviously read articles refuting the "find" because you don't want to believe that evolution happened.


----------



## Votto

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.



From my vantage point as a Christian, we have a immaterial God creating a material world, but all science is interested in is a material universe.

Granted, science is also interested in other dimensions, dimensions that are apart of this material existence but how do we study them?  Interestingly, scientists say that there are other dimensions, as if they are certain of it, that is foreign to our thought process, but how could we ever know or study them?

I think what concerns me most is a lack of teaching kids morals and ethics.  Teaching people knowledge empowers them, so the question begs, do we want to empower amoral people?


----------



## alang1216

bear513 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are finding he created the Higgs field, CMB, Planck's constant, basic gases, solar wind, and more.
> 
> 
> 
> You have that backwards.  We've found these things and since there is a gap in our understanding of how or when they came to be, you attribute them to a creator, a 'he'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is a she
Click to expand...

So 'She' and Mary had a baby?  Truly a miracle.  She isn't a lesbian is she?


----------



## OldLady

bear513 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's two different questions, isn't it?  Lucy is our ancestor.  She didn't make little green apples, though.  I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better read up on it. The shape and angle of the pelvic bones would have prevented walking upright constantly. She also would have had the ape "sway" when she did walk upright.
> 
> Just a small ape evolutionists cling to in their quest to sell evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And monkeys are strong as hell, they can RIP your face off  .
> 
> We are weak
Click to expand...

But we were smart enough to invent sharp objects to kill the monkeys, didn't we?


----------



## Wyatt earp

OldLady said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor James
> They no longer teach that we evolved straight from chimps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it
> 
> but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that's two different questions, isn't it?  Lucy is our ancestor.  She didn't make little green apples, though.  I'm confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
Click to expand...


The question is would you kill me .

Of course you wouldn't. Would  I hurt you..

Nope..

We were created. 
We Believe  in love


----------



## Wyatt earp

OldLady said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better read up on it. The shape and angle of the pelvic bones would have prevented walking upright constantly. She also would have had the ape "sway" when she did walk upright.
> 
> Just a small ape evolutionists cling to in their quest to sell evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And monkeys are strong as hell, they can RIP your face off  .
> 
> We are weak
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But we were smart enough to invent sharp objects to kill the monkeys, didn't we?
Click to expand...

Exactly.  

We were created.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Think about it.  ..


----------



## alang1216

SassyIrishLass said:


> Why would I show you our common ancestor?  You'll just say it is a pile of dead bones.  To a scientist those bones are a book filled with information, to you they are just bones because you can't read what they say.  You're a science illiterate and won't admit it.



Just knock it off if you could you would[/QUOTE]
I could and I did.  The answer I got from progressive hunter was that fossils are just a pile of dead bones.  Willful ignorance is a tough barrier.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

alang1216 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I show you our common ancestor?  You'll just say it is a pile of dead bones.  To a scientist those bones are a book filled with information, to you they are just bones because you can't read what they say.  You're a science illiterate and won't admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just knock it off if you could you would
Click to expand...

I could and I did.  The answer I got from progressive hunter was that fossils are just a pile of dead bones.  Willful ignorance is a tough barrier.[/QUOTE]

Obviously....yours is preventing you from proving a damn thing you say.

Anyone paying attention recognizes that


----------



## OldLady

bear513 said:


> Think about it.  ..


I've thought about it a lot, bear, thanks.  I'm old enough to have spent years on it, actually.
I'm not going to try and change your mind, but for a few of the posters here (not you) they are making claims that are just flat out wrong about the scientific process and what has been found.  That's more what I'm arguing against.


----------



## Wyatt earp

OldLady said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about it.  ..
> 
> 
> 
> I've thought about it a lot, bear, thanks.  I'm old enough to have spent years on it, actually.
> I'm not going to try and change your mind, but for a few of the posters here (not you) they are making claims that are just flat out wrong about the scientific process and what has been found.  That's more what I'm arguing against.
Click to expand...


I love you young old lady. 

You know me I am not scared to say it .

But i really think love is the key to everything. 

And I think mother Mary watches us


----------



## Wyatt earp

I really  think we were created  .

That's my belief. it's all about love


----------



## MisterBeale

SassyIrishLass said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's two different questions, isn't it?  Lucy is our ancestor.  She didn't make little green apples, though.  I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human Family Tree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice theory...and it is you know.
Click to expand...

Sure.

I guess.

So is everything.  Even your belief in God when it comes right down to it.

Everything, in the end, is an epistemological leap of faith, ain't it?


----------



## Wyatt earp

If we don't have love?

What are we?


----------



## Wyatt earp

MisterBeale said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human Family Tree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice theory...and it is you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure.
> 
> I guess.
> 
> So is everything.  Even your belief in God when it comes right down to it.
> 
> Everything, in the end, is an epistemological leap of faith, ain't it?
Click to expand...


Yeah a leap of love as james said


----------



## alang1216

SassyIrishLass said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I show you our common ancestor?  You'll just say it is a pile of dead bones.  To a scientist those bones are a book filled with information, to you they are just bones because you can't read what they say.  You're a science illiterate and won't admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just knock it off if you could you would
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I could and I did.  The answer I got from progressive hunter was that fossils are just a pile of dead bones.  Willful ignorance is a tough barrier.
Click to expand...


Obviously....yours is preventing you from proving a damn thing you say.

Anyone paying attention recognizes that[/QUOTE]
progressive hunter said "hey you ever find that proof of a common designer or what it looked like and how it spawned all other life???"  Since you're paying attention, maybe you could translate what is being asked.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

MisterBeale said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human Family Tree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice theory...and it is you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure.
> 
> I guess.
> 
> So is everything.  Even your belief in God when it comes right down to it.
> 
> Everything, in the end, is an epistemological leap of faith, ain't it?
Click to expand...


Pretty much...the difference is my leap of faith covers me in the event God is real. If He is there are going to be some real "oh shit" moments for some.

I'll never forget a woman telling our daughter she's going to be very surprised to die and find out her God was just a myth. Our daughter responded with not nearly as surprised as you'll be when you die and He does exist.

Mom smiled


----------



## BuckToothMoron

progressive hunter said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we're doing now.  We are teaching faith-based science.  You have nothing to back up macroevolution via the scientific method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is not fully discovered. It is a theory, a work in progress with a level of undeniable certainty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen no undeniable certainty in evolution,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is small changes over a long time. Human beings are about 5% taller today than they were 100 years ago. That is a microcosm of evolution and it is undeniable.
> 
> And I’ve seen no evidence of a god that I should revere and pray to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be all the chemicals we are putting in the food,,,
> 
> sorry but that is not proof we all came from a rock
Click to expand...


You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

james bond said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not fully discovered. It is a theory, a work in progress with a level of undeniable certainty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your undeniable certainty?  I said it was evidence made to fit a theory.
Click to expand...


That’s funny. Creationism is entirely  dependent on faith and there is no evidence that a being living in the clouds made everything.


----------



## MisterBeale

bear513 said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> 
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human Family Tree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice theory...and it is you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure.
> 
> I guess.
> 
> So is everything.  Even your belief in God when it comes right down to it.
> 
> Everything, in the end, is an epistemological leap of faith, ain't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah a leap of love as james said
Click to expand...

I'm talking about reality here.


The Bible also states that the Earth is the center of the Universe, that the Sun, Moon, and stars revolve around it.

Thus, the Earth has an "above," and a "below."

The type of absolute fundamental adherence to scripture which folks are trying to necessitate are what caused Galileo's ideas to be condemned as just, "theories."

It is what, today, causes folks to deny that the Earth is round, or that the Earth revolves around the Sun.



All of the cosmological realities most folks take for granted, and then can easily be denied, all because ancient tales tell them to deny their common sense.


----------



## danielpalos

We should teach that All myths are based on Creationism, if the right wing cannot prove otherwise.


----------



## MisterBeale

SassyIrishLass said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> 
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human Family Tree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice theory...and it is you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure.
> 
> I guess.
> 
> So is everything.  Even your belief in God when it comes right down to it.
> 
> Everything, in the end, is an epistemological leap of faith, ain't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much...the difference is my leap of faith covers me in the event God is real. If He is there are going to be some real "oh shit" moments for some.
> 
> I'll never forget a woman telling our daughter she's going to be very surprised to die and find out her God was just a myth. Our daughter responded with not nearly as surprised as you'll be when you die and He does exist.
> 
> Mom smiled
Click to expand...


Not really.  As Einstein said, the eternal is not here to fool us.  This isn't a game.







You may find, heaven, hell, the afterlife, collective consciousness isn't what you have been led to believe.

I have already tasted it, I have already been in touch.






_"Jesus said: If those who lead you say to you: See, the kingdom is in heaven, then the birds of the heaven will go before you; if they say to you: It is in the sea, then the fish will go before you. But the kingdom is within you, and it is outside of you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will know that you are the sons of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you are in poverty, and you are poverty."_


The potential for your own paradise, and your own condemnation already lay within your own soul sweet child.  There is no fooling the eternal one.  If your only reason for the belief you have is because you refuse to use the faculties that creation gave you. . .  and that is because it is out of fear?







. . . . . . . . . .


Everyone will be judged by the measure they lived by.  Thus, there will be no, "oh shit," moments.  God is a construct of that by which we live.

Even those who refuse the concept will understand once they pass and will have no such moment.  They will not accept, even after they pass.  And it will not matter.


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> just admit you cant,,,its easier since we all know it doesnt exist
> 
> 
> 
> All??  Who is this 'all'?  Certainly not me or a sizeable minority of the country.  Not surprisingly, at least to me, belief in creationism decreases as education level increases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as always you revert to creation as a defense,,,
> if you know it exist then why are you keeping it a secret??
> dude you still think we came from chimps.apes or some other form of life
> 
> 
> you are more than welcome to believe in any religion you want but dont tell us its a fact without proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I recall, you don't believe in evolution and claim you're not a creationist.  So what exactly do you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as of yet I dont have anything to believe in since neither has given me  anything but opinion,
> but creation at least admits its based on faith because its a religion
> 
> 
> are you going to show me what this common ancestor looked like and explain how it spawned all life as we know it or not???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I show you our common ancestor?  You'll just say it is a pile of dead bones.  To a scientist those bones are a book filled with information, to you they are just bones because you can't read what they say.  You're a science illiterate and won't admit it.
Click to expand...

so now you admit you havent shown it before,,,

if you do it would go a long way towards proof of evolution and give me omething of substance other than opinion which is all I've seen so far


----------



## progressive hunter

MisterBeale said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it
> 
> but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's two different questions, isn't it?  Lucy is our ancestor.  She didn't make little green apples, though.  I'm confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human Family Tree
Click to expand...



why does this picture never show the roots of the tree???


----------



## progressive hunter

BuckToothMoron said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we're doing now.  We are teaching faith-based science.  You have nothing to back up macroevolution via the scientific method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not fully discovered. It is a theory, a work in progress with a level of undeniable certainty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen no undeniable certainty in evolution,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is small changes over a long time. Human beings are about 5% taller today than they were 100 years ago. That is a microcosm of evolution and it is undeniable.
> 
> And I’ve seen no evidence of a god that I should revere and pray to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be all the chemicals we are putting in the food,,,
> 
> sorry but that is not proof we all came from a rock
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.
Click to expand...

it had to begin somewhere,,,

a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims


----------



## james bond

MisterBeale said:


> So. . . that's a no, you are not going to post any article or paper the has some peer review or standard, for a hypothesis or theory to explain the nature of our world?



You can't even answer my question of where you went to school.  I doubt you even got your anthro degree.  It means you lied about that.  I don't know anyone who went to college or university who wouldn't review someone's else's argument including a video.  What do you think peer reviewers do?  I've had evos here want me to read a book to show me how much they knew.  These evos couldn't explain the book, so I had to explain it to them.  It made me question whether they read the book.  In your case, it's anthropology classes, so you should know and understand more.  If they're any good, then I learn something from them.  You aren't any good.  Thus, we are done.  You are dismissed.


----------



## progressive hunter

progressive hunter said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dead bones dont walk,,,the rest is just opinion
> 
> 
> and didnt you say earlier this was no longer the view we came from primates???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We popped up as one of many hominid types and because our brains grew we figured out how to survive.
> It is not opinion that the pelvis and spine are aligned in such a way in Lucy that we can definitely say she walked upright.  Scientists don't make "opinions" about that.  They compare those bones to others that walk upright and creatures that don't.
> I sure don't profess to be an expert on any of this stuff, but I've read enough to know that Lucy wasn't just an ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> popped up sounds like a magical thing,,,and what did we pop up from???
> 
> did we pop up as a baby??? how does a baby feed itself??? it cant even walk let alone gather food
Click to expand...

HEY old lady!!! you gonna tell u what it popped out of and what it was ,,a baby or full grown human and how it survived until it got smarter???

come on tell us,, cause your sounding a little crazy leaving it here


----------



## james bond

bear513 said:


> Wait you deny liberals came from monkeys?



.  They may think and act like monkeys, but they did not _evolve_ from monkeys.  They would probably be happy as a monkey being about to climb trees to get their food and swing through trees for fun and get away from their predators.


----------



## james bond

westwall said:


> Creation science is not supported by the scientific method in any way. Your trolling is pretty poor.



Oy vey.  The vid debunked Miller-Urey amino acids and single-cell with experiments.  You didn't read nor watch my OP.


----------



## james bond

bear513 said:


> Genius, exodus, leviticus..
> 
> What first two books?



Genesis before the serpent was the most cunning of all the beasts.  First two books (chapters).


----------



## OldLady

progressive hunter said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> 
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dead bones dont walk,,,the rest is just opinion
> 
> 
> and didnt you say earlier this was no longer the view we came from primates???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We popped up as one of many hominid types and because our brains grew we figured out how to survive.
> It is not opinion that the pelvis and spine are aligned in such a way in Lucy that we can definitely say she walked upright.  Scientists don't make "opinions" about that.  They compare those bones to others that walk upright and creatures that don't.
> I sure don't profess to be an expert on any of this stuff, but I've read enough to know that Lucy wasn't just an ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> popped up sounds like a magical thing,,,and what did we pop up from???
> 
> did we pop up as a baby??? how does a baby feed itself??? it cant even walk let alone gather food
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HEY old lady!!! you gonna tell u what it popped out of and what it was ,,a baby or full grown human and how it survived until it got smarter???
> 
> come on tell us,, cause your sounding a little crazy leaving it here
Click to expand...

Good question.  I guess, based on what we know, it had to come from an ape like creature, right?   Although they say we didn't evolve directly from apes, those early hominids came out of somebody's birth canal, didn't they?


----------



## westwall

james bond said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is not supported by the scientific method in any way. Your trolling is pretty poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oy vey.  The vid debunked Miller-Urey amino acids and single-cell with experiments.  You didn't read nor watch my OP.
Click to expand...








Give me a testable experiment for creation.


----------



## progressive hunter

OldLady said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dead bones dont walk,,,the rest is just opinion
> 
> 
> and didnt you say earlier this was no longer the view we came from primates???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We popped up as one of many hominid types and because our brains grew we figured out how to survive.
> It is not opinion that the pelvis and spine are aligned in such a way in Lucy that we can definitely say she walked upright.  Scientists don't make "opinions" about that.  They compare those bones to others that walk upright and creatures that don't.
> I sure don't profess to be an expert on any of this stuff, but I've read enough to know that Lucy wasn't just an ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> popped up sounds like a magical thing,,,and what did we pop up from???
> 
> did we pop up as a baby??? how does a baby feed itself??? it cant even walk let alone gather food
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HEY old lady!!! you gonna tell u what it popped out of and what it was ,,a baby or full grown human and how it survived until it got smarter???
> 
> come on tell us,, cause your sounding a little crazy leaving it here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good question.  I guess, based on what we know, it had to come from an ape like creature, right?   Although they say we didn't evolve directly from apes, those early hominids came out of somebody's birth canal, didn't they?
Click to expand...



its your claim not mine,,,
and popped up doesnt sound like giving birth,let alone somebodys birth canal


----------



## OldLady

progressive hunter said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> dead bones dont walk,,,the rest is just opinion
> 
> 
> and didnt you say earlier this was no longer the view we came from primates???
> 
> 
> 
> We popped up as one of many hominid types and because our brains grew we figured out how to survive.
> It is not opinion that the pelvis and spine are aligned in such a way in Lucy that we can definitely say she walked upright.  Scientists don't make "opinions" about that.  They compare those bones to others that walk upright and creatures that don't.
> I sure don't profess to be an expert on any of this stuff, but I've read enough to know that Lucy wasn't just an ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> popped up sounds like a magical thing,,,and what did we pop up from???
> 
> did we pop up as a baby??? how does a baby feed itself??? it cant even walk let alone gather food
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HEY old lady!!! you gonna tell u what it popped out of and what it was ,,a baby or full grown human and how it survived until it got smarter???
> 
> come on tell us,, cause your sounding a little crazy leaving it here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good question.  I guess, based on what we know, it had to come from an ape like creature, right?   Although they say we didn't evolve directly from apes, those early hominids came out of somebody's birth canal, didn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its your claim not mine,,,
> and popped up doesnt sound like giving birth,let alone somebodys birth canal
Click to expand...

Well, I bowed to your excellent point, so quit beating it to death.  You can't argue with someone who agrees with you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is not supported by the scientific method in any way. Your trolling is pretty poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oy vey.  The vid debunked Miller-Urey amino acids and single-cell with experiments.  You didn't read nor watch my OP.
Click to expand...



* The vid debunked Miller-Urey amino acids and single-cell with experiments.*

So that would prove.....creation?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

progressive hunter said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not fully discovered. It is a theory, a work in progress with a level of undeniable certainty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen no undeniable certainty in evolution,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is small changes over a long time. Human beings are about 5% taller today than they were 100 years ago. That is a microcosm of evolution and it is undeniable.
> 
> And I’ve seen no evidence of a god that I should revere and pray to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be all the chemicals we are putting in the food,,,
> 
> sorry but that is not proof we all came from a rock
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
Click to expand...


No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.


----------



## progressive hunter

BuckToothMoron said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen no undeniable certainty in evolution,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is small changes over a long time. Human beings are about 5% taller today than they were 100 years ago. That is a microcosm of evolution and it is undeniable.
> 
> And I’ve seen no evidence of a god that I should revere and pray to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be all the chemicals we are putting in the food,,,
> 
> sorry but that is not proof we all came from a rock
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
Click to expand...



but it does claim that all life came from a rock soup,,


----------



## OldLady

BuckToothMoron said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen no undeniable certainty in evolution,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is small changes over a long time. Human beings are about 5% taller today than they were 100 years ago. That is a microcosm of evolution and it is undeniable.
> 
> And I’ve seen no evidence of a god that I should revere and pray to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be all the chemicals we are putting in the food,,,
> 
> sorry but that is not proof we all came from a rock
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
Click to expand...

See post #144.  Whose birth canal did Lucy-type Australophithicuses come from?  It wasn't a giraffe.


----------



## OldLady

progressive hunter said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is small changes over a long time. Human beings are about 5% taller today than they were 100 years ago. That is a microcosm of evolution and it is undeniable.
> 
> And I’ve seen no evidence of a god that I should revere and pray to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be all the chemicals we are putting in the food,,,
> 
> sorry but that is not proof we all came from a rock
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but it does claim that all life came from a rock soup,,
Click to expand...

No more hot thin soup and a bolt of lightning?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

progressive hunter said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is small changes over a long time. Human beings are about 5% taller today than they were 100 years ago. That is a microcosm of evolution and it is undeniable.
> 
> And I’ve seen no evidence of a god that I should revere and pray to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be all the chemicals we are putting in the food,,,
> 
> sorry but that is not proof we all came from a rock
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but it does claim that all life came from a rock soup,,
Click to expand...


Again No. Evolution deals with the changes in species. It does not  deal with the origin of living things. Your Sunday school teacher really did a job on you!


----------



## progressive hunter

BuckToothMoron said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be all the chemicals we are putting in the food,,,
> 
> sorry but that is not proof we all came from a rock
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but it does claim that all life came from a rock soup,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again No. Evolution deals with the changes in species. It does not  deal with the origin of living things. Your Sunday school teacher really did a job on you!
Click to expand...

it had to start somewhere and the evos say it was with the primordial soup,,,,maybe its you that was brainwashed


pri·mor·di·al soup
_noun_

a solution rich in organic compounds in the primitive oceans of the earth, from which life is hypothesized to have originated.


----------



## progressive hunter

OldLady said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is small changes over a long time. Human beings are about 5% taller today than they were 100 years ago. That is a microcosm of evolution and it is undeniable.
> 
> And I’ve seen no evidence of a god that I should revere and pray to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be all the chemicals we are putting in the food,,,
> 
> sorry but that is not proof we all came from a rock
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See post #144.  Whose birth canal did Lucy-type Australophithicuses come from?  It wasn't a giraffe.
Click to expand...

she most likely came from her mothers birth canal,,,

but that doesnt mean she gave birth to a human,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

OldLady said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be all the chemicals we are putting in the food,,,
> 
> sorry but that is not proof we all came from a rock
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but it does claim that all life came from a rock soup,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No more hot thin soup and a bolt of lightning?
Click to expand...

what was the soup made of???

again this sounds very magical,,,


----------



## Wyatt earp

BuckToothMoron said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen no undeniable certainty in evolution,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is small changes over a long time. Human beings are about 5% taller today than they were 100 years ago. That is a microcosm of evolution and it is undeniable.
> 
> And I’ve seen no evidence of a god that I should revere and pray to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be all the chemicals we are putting in the food,,,
> 
> sorry but that is not proof we all came from a rock
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
Click to expand...

Oh we have three species on earth 

Liberals who came from monkeys 

Grays. 

And created conservatives 

True story


----------



## Lysistrata

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.



Which creation theory should be taught? Around the world, there must be hundreds. Let science be taught as science in our public schools, and creation stories from the world's religions be taught in classes on comparative religion.


----------



## Frannie

BuckToothMoron said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen no undeniable certainty in evolution,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is small changes over a long time. Human beings are about 5% taller today than they were 100 years ago. That is a microcosm of evolution and it is undeniable.
> 
> And I’ve seen no evidence of a god that I should revere and pray to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be all the chemicals we are putting in the food,,,
> 
> sorry but that is not proof we all came from a rock
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
Click to expand...

Well where did humans come from, why don't you clear the air and correct us


----------



## Wry Catcher

james bond said:


> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess my first question would be "WHOSE creation"?  All across the world there are creation stories and myths and legends.  Among American Indians alone there are many.  I don't know much about India or Buddha or China or Borneo and their creation legends, but I'm betting there are more than I have fingers and toes.  We get ours from the Torah.  My copy of Josephus in his History of the Jews says at the end of Genesis (his is same as our Bible)..anyway, he says that Moses was speaking 'metaphorically'.  This suggests to me that the Garden of Eden and the events there are symbolic.  Although I always thought that when the devil, that old serpent, tempted Eve that he used Orrin Hatch's oily voice to half lie/half true her into apostasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christian one since science backs up the Bible.  This is the science and technology section, not religion.
Click to expand...


Who wrote the bible?


----------



## Frannie

BuckToothMoron said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be all the chemicals we are putting in the food,,,
> 
> sorry but that is not proof we all came from a rock
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but it does claim that all life came from a rock soup,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again No. Evolution deals with the changes in species. It does not  deal with the origin of living things. Your Sunday school teacher really did a job on you!
Click to expand...

Evolution does deal with the origin of living things, you should read Darwins letter to Hooker

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "



~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)


----------



## Frannie

Wry Catcher said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess my first question would be "WHOSE creation"?  All across the world there are creation stories and myths and legends.  Among American Indians alone there are many.  I don't know much about India or Buddha or China or Borneo and their creation legends, but I'm betting there are more than I have fingers and toes.  We get ours from the Torah.  My copy of Josephus in his History of the Jews says at the end of Genesis (his is same as our Bible)..anyway, he says that Moses was speaking 'metaphorically'.  This suggests to me that the Garden of Eden and the events there are symbolic.  Although I always thought that when the devil, that old serpent, tempted Eve that he used Orrin Hatch's oily voice to half lie/half true her into apostasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christian one since science backs up the Bible.  This is the science and technology section, not religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who wrote the bible?
Click to expand...


This clown believes that the big bang is in the bible


----------



## Wry Catcher

Frannie said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess my first question would be "WHOSE creation"?  All across the world there are creation stories and myths and legends.  Among American Indians alone there are many.  I don't know much about India or Buddha or China or Borneo and their creation legends, but I'm betting there are more than I have fingers and toes.  We get ours from the Torah.  My copy of Josephus in his History of the Jews says at the end of Genesis (his is same as our Bible)..anyway, he says that Moses was speaking 'metaphorically'.  This suggests to me that the Garden of Eden and the events there are symbolic.  Although I always thought that when the devil, that old serpent, tempted Eve that he used Orrin Hatch's oily voice to half lie/half true her into apostasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christian one since science backs up the Bible.  This is the science and technology section, not religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who wrote the bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This clown believes that the big bang is in the bible
Click to expand...


How did you come to this conclusion?

The BIG BANG may have been when the Holy Ghost banged Mary.


----------



## Frannie

Wry Catcher said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess my first question would be "WHOSE creation"?  All across the world there are creation stories and myths and legends.  Among American Indians alone there are many.  I don't know much about India or Buddha or China or Borneo and their creation legends, but I'm betting there are more than I have fingers and toes.  We get ours from the Torah.  My copy of Josephus in his History of the Jews says at the end of Genesis (his is same as our Bible)..anyway, he says that Moses was speaking 'metaphorically'.  This suggests to me that the Garden of Eden and the events there are symbolic.  Although I always thought that when the devil, that old serpent, tempted Eve that he used Orrin Hatch's oily voice to half lie/half true her into apostasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christian one since science backs up the Bible.  This is the science and technology section, not religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who wrote the bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This clown believes that the big bang is in the bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did you come to this conclusion?
> 
> The BIG BANG may have been when the Holy Ghost banged Mary.
Click to expand...


Nope according to Bond the big bang happened about 4000 years before that particular bang


----------



## otto105

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.



Creation is religion, while science is not.


Build that wall.


----------



## Frannie

otto105 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation is religion, while science is not.
> 
> 
> Build that wall.
Click to expand...

Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from

Duh


----------



## progressive hunter

Frannie said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.
> 
> 
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but it does claim that all life came from a rock soup,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again No. Evolution deals with the changes in species. It does not  deal with the origin of living things. Your Sunday school teacher really did a job on you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution does deal with the origin of living things, you should read Darwins letter to Hooker
> 
> "But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "
> 
> 
> 
> ~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)
Click to expand...



when that happens you let us know,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Frannie said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation is religion, while science is not.
> 
> 
> Build that wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from
> 
> Duh
Click to expand...



correction:
they THINK they know where it came from


----------



## Frannie

progressive hunter said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation is religion, while science is not.
> 
> 
> Build that wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from
> 
> Duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> correction:
> they THINK they know where it came from
Click to expand...


I do wish you knew what you believed


----------



## otto105

Frannie said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation is religion, while science is not.
> 
> 
> Build that wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from
> 
> Duh
Click to expand...


The previous post is rated Dumb.


----------



## progressive hunter

Frannie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation is religion, while science is not.
> 
> 
> Build that wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from
> 
> Duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> correction:
> they THINK they know where it came from
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do wish you knew what you believed
Click to expand...



i;M STILL SEARCHING,,,nothing wrong with that


----------



## Frannie

otto105 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation is religion, while science is not.
> 
> 
> Build that wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from
> 
> Duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The previous post is rated Dumb.
Click to expand...


Nope global warming is clearly a religion based on morons interpreting what they think is science


----------



## Third Party

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.


No. My Biology teacher in high school said she was going to teach us evolution but she did not believe in it. She was a Catholic, I a Protestant and at least one jew in the class. Evolution was the same for everybody, but the religious approach would have been all over the map.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

OldLady said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is small changes over a long time. Human beings are about 5% taller today than they were 100 years ago. That is a microcosm of evolution and it is undeniable.
> 
> And I’ve seen no evidence of a god that I should revere and pray to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be all the chemicals we are putting in the food,,,
> 
> sorry but that is not proof we all came from a rock
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See post #144.  Whose birth canal did Lucy-type Australophithicuses come from?  It wasn't a giraffe.
Click to expand...


I am referring to monkeys/apes as we know them today. Humans descended differently than the monkeys  and apes we see today. We didn’t come from monkeys, although we may have common ancestry.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Frannie said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.
> 
> 
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but it does claim that all life came from a rock soup,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again No. Evolution deals with the changes in species. It does not  deal with the origin of living things. Your Sunday school teacher really did a job on you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution does deal with the origin of living things, you should read Darwins letter to Hooker
> 
> "But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "
> 
> 
> 
> ~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)
Click to expand...


Darwin’s letter to Hooker is not the same as Darwin’s Origin of Species, which is his theory of evolution. Look, any numbskull who wants to deny evolution is ok with me. It just shows dogmatic religious ignorance, but there really is no harm in it. 

I suppose God created all the different types of dog breeds, even though we are creating more breeds still......hmmm, hows that work.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Why would I show you our common ancestor? You'll just say it is a pile of dead bones. To a scientist those bones are a book filled with information, to you they are just bones because you can't read what they say. You're a science illiterate and won't admit it.



A pile of dead bones is the way the public took Lucy.  Nobody wanted to pay to see it and thus ended up back where it belongs.

It's really what you say these fossils are.  Instead of saying this animal died here, you make up stuff to fit a fairy tale.


----------



## progressive hunter

BuckToothMoron said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be all the chemicals we are putting in the food,,,
> 
> sorry but that is not proof we all came from a rock
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See post #144.  Whose birth canal did Lucy-type Australophithicuses come from?  It wasn't a giraffe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am referring to monkeys/apes as we know them today. Humans descended differently than the monkeys  and apes we see today. We didn’t come from monkeys, although we may have common ancestry.
Click to expand...




ahhhh that elusive common ancestor again,,,

do you know what it looked like or how it managed to spawn all life as we know it???


----------



## progressive hunter

BuckToothMoron said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but it does claim that all life came from a rock soup,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again No. Evolution deals with the changes in species. It does not  deal with the origin of living things. Your Sunday school teacher really did a job on you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution does deal with the origin of living things, you should read Darwins letter to Hooker
> 
> "But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "
> 
> 
> 
> ~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin’s letter to Hooker is not the same as Darwin’s Origin of Species, which is his theory of evolution. Look, any numbskull who wants to deny evolution is ok with me. It just shows dogmatic religious ignorance, but there really is no harm in it.
> 
> I suppose God created all the different types of dog breeds, even though we are creating more breeds still......hmmm, hows that work.
Click to expand...

dogs created all the types of dog breeds, evolution says the first dog/wolf came from a totally different kind of animal

I have to ask why you are skipping over the first 4 stages of evolution???


----------



## deanrd

I love it when God wears a red superman cape and waves a wand.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Frannie said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is small changes over a long time. Human beings are about 5% taller today than they were 100 years ago. That is a microcosm of evolution and it is undeniable.
> 
> And I’ve seen no evidence of a god that I should revere and pray to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be all the chemicals we are putting in the food,,,
> 
> sorry but that is not proof we all came from a rock
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well where did humans come from, why don't you clear the air and correct us
Click to expand...


There, right there is the problem that most Christians deal with. They need an answer to all things, so any time the answer is not clearly observable they say it was God. Well we should all thank God that real scientists aren’t so emotionally fragile and intellectually lazy.

I can’t tell you where man came from. I can only read the theories of people who have dedicated their lives to studying the question. Based on that, the theory of evolution and the primordial soup makes more sense than some creature that nobody has ever seen being the answer.

Why did God Bury all those rocks in the earth, and make them fit together so they look like what we call dinosaurs? Was he just fucking with us?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

progressive hunter said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.
> 
> 
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See post #144.  Whose birth canal did Lucy-type Australophithicuses come from?  It wasn't a giraffe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am referring to monkeys/apes as we know them today. Humans descended differently than the monkeys  and apes we see today. We didn’t come from monkeys, although we may have common ancestry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ahhhh that elusive common ancestor again,,,
> 
> do you know what it looked like or how it managed to spawn all life as we know it???
Click to expand...


Nope, I sure don’t. But that doesn’t mean it was God. Do you know what God looks like? And who the hell created God?


----------



## progressive hunter

BuckToothMoron said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See post #144.  Whose birth canal did Lucy-type Australophithicuses come from?  It wasn't a giraffe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am referring to monkeys/apes as we know them today. Humans descended differently than the monkeys  and apes we see today. We didn’t come from monkeys, although we may have common ancestry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ahhhh that elusive common ancestor again,,,
> 
> do you know what it looked like or how it managed to spawn all life as we know it???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, I sure don’t. But that doesn’t mean it was God. Do you know what God looks like? And who the hell created God?
Click to expand...

I never said it was god,,,and thats a poor deflection to justify evolution


----------



## Astrostar

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.


Let's just cut through your long winded BULL SHIT and get to the bottom line.  Call it anything you want to, but it is Creationism, pure and simple.  It is RELIGIOUS BULL SHIT that says a creator created the universe and everything in it.  Total BULL SHIT, because there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF, or EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that a creator exists or has existed, none, nada, nothing, PERIOD!!!


----------



## Frannie

BuckToothMoron said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but it does claim that all life came from a rock soup,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again No. Evolution deals with the changes in species. It does not  deal with the origin of living things. Your Sunday school teacher really did a job on you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution does deal with the origin of living things, you should read Darwins letter to Hooker
> 
> "But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "
> 
> 
> 
> ~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin’s letter to Hooker is not the same as Darwin’s Origin of Species, which is his theory of evolution. Look, any numbskull who wants to deny evolution is ok with me. It just shows dogmatic religious ignorance, but there really is no harm in it.
> 
> I suppose God created all the different types of dog breeds, even though we are creating more breeds still......hmmm, hows that work.
Click to expand...


Where are you saying that life came from because you are rambling


----------



## Frannie

progressive hunter said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but it does claim that all life came from a rock soup,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again No. Evolution deals with the changes in species. It does not  deal with the origin of living things. Your Sunday school teacher really did a job on you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution does deal with the origin of living things, you should read Darwins letter to Hooker
> 
> "But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "
> 
> 
> 
> ~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin’s letter to Hooker is not the same as Darwin’s Origin of Species, which is his theory of evolution. Look, any numbskull who wants to deny evolution is ok with me. It just shows dogmatic religious ignorance, but there really is no harm in it.
> 
> I suppose God created all the different types of dog breeds, even though we are creating more breeds still......hmmm, hows that work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dogs created all the types of dog breeds, evolution says the first dog/wolf came from a totally different kind of animal
> 
> I have to ask why you are skipping over the first 4 stages of evolution???
Click to expand...


Completely wrong because all dogs are selectively mutated wolves. Or dogs are wolves, all of them


----------



## Frannie

BuckToothMoron said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be all the chemicals we are putting in the food,,,
> 
> sorry but that is not proof we all came from a rock
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well where did humans come from, why don't you clear the air and correct us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There, right there is the problem that most Christians deal with. They need an answer to all things, so any time the answer is not clearly observable they say it was God. Well we should all thank God that real scientists aren’t so emotionally fragile and intellectually lazy.
> 
> I can’t tell you where man came from. I can only read the theories of people who have dedicated their lives to studying the question. Based on that, the theory of evolution and the primordial soup makes more sense than some creature that nobody has ever seen being the answer.
> 
> Why did God Bury all those rocks in the earth, and make them fit together so they look like what we call dinosaurs? Was he just fucking with us?
Click to expand...

No scientist has any idea where life came from, and this scientist is saying that we are all a computer simulation created by a programmer that he will not call god but fills the niche


----------



## progressive hunter

Frannie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> but it does claim that all life came from a rock soup,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again No. Evolution deals with the changes in species. It does not  deal with the origin of living things. Your Sunday school teacher really did a job on you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution does deal with the origin of living things, you should read Darwins letter to Hooker
> 
> "But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "
> 
> 
> 
> ~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin’s letter to Hooker is not the same as Darwin’s Origin of Species, which is his theory of evolution. Look, any numbskull who wants to deny evolution is ok with me. It just shows dogmatic religious ignorance, but there really is no harm in it.
> 
> I suppose God created all the different types of dog breeds, even though we are creating more breeds still......hmmm, hows that work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dogs created all the types of dog breeds, evolution says the first dog/wolf came from a totally different kind of animal
> 
> I have to ask why you are skipping over the first 4 stages of evolution???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Completely wrong because all dogs are selectively mutated wolves. Or dogs are wolves, all of them
Click to expand...



to say dog are mutated wolves means you are mutated from your mother,,,,

they are not mutations they are variations based on breeding and environment


----------



## progressive hunter

Frannie said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.
> 
> 
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well where did humans come from, why don't you clear the air and correct us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There, right there is the problem that most Christians deal with. They need an answer to all things, so any time the answer is not clearly observable they say it was God. Well we should all thank God that real scientists aren’t so emotionally fragile and intellectually lazy.
> 
> I can’t tell you where man came from. I can only read the theories of people who have dedicated their lives to studying the question. Based on that, the theory of evolution and the primordial soup makes more sense than some creature that nobody has ever seen being the answer.
> 
> Why did God Bury all those rocks in the earth, and make them fit together so they look like what we call dinosaurs? Was he just fucking with us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No scientist has any idea where life came from, and this scientist is saying that we are all a computer simulation created by a programmer that he will not call god but fills the niche
Click to expand...

he just described god and satan,,,

and it could be thise scenario,,


----------



## Frannie

progressive hunter said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well where did humans come from, why don't you clear the air and correct us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There, right there is the problem that most Christians deal with. They need an answer to all things, so any time the answer is not clearly observable they say it was God. Well we should all thank God that real scientists aren’t so emotionally fragile and intellectually lazy.
> 
> I can’t tell you where man came from. I can only read the theories of people who have dedicated their lives to studying the question. Based on that, the theory of evolution and the primordial soup makes more sense than some creature that nobody has ever seen being the answer.
> 
> Why did God Bury all those rocks in the earth, and make them fit together so they look like what we call dinosaurs? Was he just fucking with us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No scientist has any idea where life came from, and this scientist is saying that we are all a computer simulation created by a programmer that he will not call god but fills the niche
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he just described god and satan,,,
> 
> and it could be thise scenario,,
Click to expand...


He did not describe satan, he is substituting the word simulation for creation.  In reality he is partly right because we are the result of the DNA code which was written by God, but if Tyson wants to call God a program simulator, it means the same thing


----------



## progressive hunter

Frannie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
> 
> 
> 
> Well where did humans come from, why don't you clear the air and correct us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There, right there is the problem that most Christians deal with. They need an answer to all things, so any time the answer is not clearly observable they say it was God. Well we should all thank God that real scientists aren’t so emotionally fragile and intellectually lazy.
> 
> I can’t tell you where man came from. I can only read the theories of people who have dedicated their lives to studying the question. Based on that, the theory of evolution and the primordial soup makes more sense than some creature that nobody has ever seen being the answer.
> 
> Why did God Bury all those rocks in the earth, and make them fit together so they look like what we call dinosaurs? Was he just fucking with us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No scientist has any idea where life came from, and this scientist is saying that we are all a computer simulation created by a programmer that he will not call god but fills the niche
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he just described god and satan,,,
> 
> and it could be thise scenario,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did not describe satan, he is substituting the word simulation for creation.  In reality he is partly right because we are the result of the DNA code which was written by God, but if Tyson wants to call God a program simulator, it means the same thing
Click to expand...



it was when he said about stirring the pot, that sounded a lot like satan does


----------



## Frannie

progressive hunter said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well where did humans come from, why don't you clear the air and correct us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There, right there is the problem that most Christians deal with. They need an answer to all things, so any time the answer is not clearly observable they say it was God. Well we should all thank God that real scientists aren’t so emotionally fragile and intellectually lazy.
> 
> I can’t tell you where man came from. I can only read the theories of people who have dedicated their lives to studying the question. Based on that, the theory of evolution and the primordial soup makes more sense than some creature that nobody has ever seen being the answer.
> 
> Why did God Bury all those rocks in the earth, and make them fit together so they look like what we call dinosaurs? Was he just fucking with us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No scientist has any idea where life came from, and this scientist is saying that we are all a computer simulation created by a programmer that he will not call god but fills the niche
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he just described god and satan,,,
> 
> and it could be thise scenario,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did not describe satan, he is substituting the word simulation for creation.  In reality he is partly right because we are the result of the DNA code which was written by God, but if Tyson wants to call God a program simulator, it means the same thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it was when he said about stirring the pot, that sounded a lot like satan does
Click to expand...



You have never heard satan, or do you hear voices


----------



## MisterBeale

james bond said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> So. . . that's a no, you are not going to post any article or paper the has some peer review or standard, for a hypothesis or theory to explain the nature of our world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even answer my question of where you went to school.  I doubt you even got your anthro degree.  It means you lied about that.  I don't know anyone who went to college or university who wouldn't review someone's else's argument including a video.  What do you think peer reviewers do?  I've had evos here want me to read a book to show me how much they knew.  These evos couldn't explain the book, so I had to explain it to them.  It made me question whether they read the book.  In your case, it's anthropology classes, so you should know and understand more.  If they're any good, then I learn something from them.  You aren't any good.  Thus, we are done.  You are dismissed.
Click to expand...


I am not on this website to share personal information about myself.

The world’s most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data

Anything that I present as factual?  I will back up with links if you have any doubts.

Surely, you can do the same?

There is nothing that I have presented that has not been backed up.

I will not ask you to watch any video that is not in your interest that is longer than ten to twelve minutes.


Asking anyone to spend more than a quarter of an hour to watch a video that is not something they find interesting, which, they believe to be rubbish?  That is unreasonable.  Certainly you could find an article if you really were so inclined.

If I can do it, you can do it.

Some of the crap you are reading?  It is not backed by anything in the fossil record.  It is philosophy, and religion, NOT SCIENCE.

The evolution of feathers: a major problem for Darwinism - creation.com


----------



## Frannie

MisterBeale said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> So. . . that's a no, you are not going to post any article or paper the has some peer review or standard, for a hypothesis or theory to explain the nature of our world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even answer my question of where you went to school.  I doubt you even got your anthro degree.  It means you lied about that.  I don't know anyone who went to college or university who wouldn't review someone's else's argument including a video.  What do you think peer reviewers do?  I've had evos here want me to read a book to show me how much they knew.  These evos couldn't explain the book, so I had to explain it to them.  It made me question whether they read the book.  In your case, it's anthropology classes, so you should know and understand more.  If they're any good, then I learn something from them.  You aren't any good.  Thus, we are done.  You are dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not on this website to share personal information about myself.
> 
> The world’s most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data
> 
> Anything that I present as factual?  I will back up with links if you have any doubts.
> 
> Surely, you can do the same?
> 
> There is nothing that I have presented that has not been backed up.
> 
> I will not ask you to watch any video that is not in your interest that is longer than ten to twelve minutes.
> 
> 
> Asking anyone to spend more than a quarter of an hour to watch a video that is not something they find interesting, which, they believe to be rubbish?  That is unreasonable.  Certainly you could find an article if you really were so inclined.
> 
> If I can do it, you can do it.
> 
> Some of the crap you are reading?  It is not backed by anything in the fossil record.  It is philosophy, and religion, NOT SCIENCE.
> 
> The evolution of feathers: a major problem for Darwinism - creation.com
Click to expand...


Evolution has never been backed up, but you do have a cartoon that you presented as evidence since what you claim does not exist in reality


----------



## progressive hunter

Frannie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> There, right there is the problem that most Christians deal with. They need an answer to all things, so any time the answer is not clearly observable they say it was God. Well we should all thank God that real scientists aren’t so emotionally fragile and intellectually lazy.
> 
> I can’t tell you where man came from. I can only read the theories of people who have dedicated their lives to studying the question. Based on that, the theory of evolution and the primordial soup makes more sense than some creature that nobody has ever seen being the answer.
> 
> Why did God Bury all those rocks in the earth, and make them fit together so they look like what we call dinosaurs? Was he just fucking with us?
> 
> 
> 
> No scientist has any idea where life came from, and this scientist is saying that we are all a computer simulation created by a programmer that he will not call god but fills the niche
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he just described god and satan,,,
> 
> and it could be thise scenario,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did not describe satan, he is substituting the word simulation for creation.  In reality he is partly right because we are the result of the DNA code which was written by God, but if Tyson wants to call God a program simulator, it means the same thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it was when he said about stirring the pot, that sounded a lot like satan does
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have never heard satan, or do you hear voices
Click to expand...

sorry I missed a word,,

it sounds a lot like WHAT satan does


----------



## progressive hunter

MisterBeale said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> So. . . that's a no, you are not going to post any article or paper the has some peer review or standard, for a hypothesis or theory to explain the nature of our world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even answer my question of where you went to school.  I doubt you even got your anthro degree.  It means you lied about that.  I don't know anyone who went to college or university who wouldn't review someone's else's argument including a video.  What do you think peer reviewers do?  I've had evos here want me to read a book to show me how much they knew.  These evos couldn't explain the book, so I had to explain it to them.  It made me question whether they read the book.  In your case, it's anthropology classes, so you should know and understand more.  If they're any good, then I learn something from them.  You aren't any good.  Thus, we are done.  You are dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not on this website to share personal information about myself.
> 
> The world’s most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data
> 
> Anything that I present as factual?  I will back up with links if you have any doubts.
> 
> Surely, you can do the same?
> 
> There is nothing that I have presented that has not been backed up.
> 
> I will not ask you to watch any video that is not in your interest that is longer than ten to twelve minutes.
> 
> 
> Asking anyone to spend more than a quarter of an hour to watch a video that is not something they find interesting, which, they believe to be rubbish?  That is unreasonable.  Certainly you could find an article if you really were so inclined.
> 
> If I can do it, you can do it.
> 
> Some of the crap you are reading?  It is not backed by anything in the fossil record.  It is philosophy, and religion, NOT SCIENCE.
> 
> The evolution of feathers: a major problem for Darwinism - creation.com
Click to expand...


----------



## cnm

james bond said:


> You didn't watch the vid either.


Did anyone?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Frannie said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation is religion, while science is not.
> 
> 
> Build that wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from
> 
> Duh
Click to expand...


"Duh", yep that's exactly how I find your comment on science.


----------



## Frannie

Wry Catcher said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation is religion, while science is not.
> 
> 
> Build that wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from
> 
> Duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Duh", yep that's exactly how I find your comment on science.
Click to expand...


What is the science of ponds writing DNA

Be specific


----------



## Wry Catcher

Frannie said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation is religion, while science is not.
> 
> 
> Build that wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from
> 
> Duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Duh", yep that's exactly how I find your comment on science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the science of ponds writing DNA
> 
> Be specific
Click to expand...


Scum forms on its surface (see Trump's swamp for the names of the Secretaries floating on that blue/green pond).


----------



## Frannie

Wry Catcher said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation is religion, while science is not.
> 
> 
> Build that wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from
> 
> Duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Duh", yep that's exactly how I find your comment on science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the science of ponds writing DNA
> 
> Be specific
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scum forms on its surface (see Trump's swamp for the names of the Secretaries floating on that blue/green pond).
Click to expand...

The scum that you mention is formed from life.  Before life the pond was sterile and scum free.

Try again


----------



## jillian

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.



Why would you pretend that something is science when it isn’t?

That would be really really stupid


----------



## Frannie

jillian said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you pretend that something is science when it isn’t?
> 
> That would be really really stupid
Click to expand...

Retards do that


----------



## Wry Catcher

Frannie said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation is religion, while science is not.
> 
> 
> Build that wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from
> 
> Duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Duh", yep that's exactly how I find your comment on science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the science of ponds writing DNA
> 
> Be specific
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scum forms on its surface (see Trump's swamp for the names of the Secretaries floating on that blue/green pond).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The scum that you mention is formed from life.  Before life the pond was sterile and scum free.
> 
> Try again
Click to expand...


Single cell bacteria seems to have festered with power, corrupting them into the foul stink emanating from the White House.


----------



## Frannie

Wry Catcher said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is just another religion that worships people who know where the universe came from
> 
> Duh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Duh", yep that's exactly how I find your comment on science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the science of ponds writing DNA
> 
> Be specific
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scum forms on its surface (see Trump's swamp for the names of the Secretaries floating on that blue/green pond).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The scum that you mention is formed from life.  Before life the pond was sterile and scum free.
> 
> Try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Single cell bacteria seems to have festered with power, corrupting them into the foul stink emanating from the White House.
Click to expand...

Really, are the Clinton cum stained rugs still there


----------



## Wry Catcher

Frannie said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Duh", yep that's exactly how I find your comment on science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the science of ponds writing DNA
> 
> Be specific
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scum forms on its surface (see Trump's swamp for the names of the Secretaries floating on that blue/green pond).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The scum that you mention is formed from life.  Before life the pond was sterile and scum free.
> 
> Try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Single cell bacteria seems to have festered with power, corrupting them into the foul stink emanating from the White House.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, are the Clinton cum stained rugs still there
Click to expand...


Nope, Trump's tiny little hands are reflective of his tiny and flaccid penis; his envy of Bill cause him to destroy the carpet.


----------



## Frannie

Wry Catcher said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the science of ponds writing DNA
> 
> Be specific
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scum forms on its surface (see Trump's swamp for the names of the Secretaries floating on that blue/green pond).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The scum that you mention is formed from life.  Before life the pond was sterile and scum free.
> 
> Try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Single cell bacteria seems to have festered with power, corrupting them into the foul stink emanating from the White House.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, are the Clinton cum stained rugs still there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, Trump's tiny little hands are reflective of his tiny and flaccid penis; his envy of Bill cause him to destroy the carpet.
Click to expand...

Is that why bill was fucking ugly Monica and the nose known as Paula jones


----------



## MisterBeale

Why is this thread not in the faith and religion section yet?


Has this forum really devolved that much in the past decade?


----------



## Frannie

MisterBeale said:


> Why is this thread not in the faith and religion section yet?
> 
> 
> Has this forum really devolved that much in the past decade?


U scared of something


----------



## james bond

deanrd said:


> I love it when God wears a red superman cape and waves a wand.



Haha.  That's not a wand, but a scepter.  It's Lord Jesus Christ and the scepter represents his authority over kings, peoples, and nations.  It also represents something to fear to his enemies.


----------



## james bond

jillian said:


> Why would you pretend that something is science when it isn’t?
> 
> That would be really really stupid





Creation science is the real science.  Evolution science is fake science.  Here is an example using bent rock formations.  Secular or atheist scientists claim rock gets bent due to great amount of pressure over long time.  They think sedimentary layers became rock due to pressure over thousands of years (see stupid videos above), but it's not what happened at all.

What happens in reality is sedimentary layers are washed in the rivers, streams, and other flowing water and a chemical reaction takes place so that the sediment becomes rock.  This doesn't take that long as thousands of years under pressure.  Rocks form relatively fast due to chemical reactions.  If you want to go through the following vids, it explains the real science (sorry, it's probably a bit dry if you're not interested in geology.  When the rocks are forming due to chemical reaction like cement (synthetic rock) forming into concrete, the rock can be bent due to external pressure bearing upon it.  Thus, the formations that you see of sedimentary layer rocks happened in much shorter time than thousands or millions of years.


----------



## Wyatt earp

MisterBeale said:


> Why is this thread not in the faith and religion section yet?
> 
> 
> Has this forum really devolved that much in the past decade?


----------



## MisterBeale

Frannie said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is this thread not in the faith and religion section yet?
> 
> 
> Has this forum really devolved that much in the past decade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U scared of something
Click to expand...

This subforum is devoted to science and technology.  These two aspects of Western culture seperate and have made the west dominate over both Islamic culture, Russian Imperial culture, and the far East.

Two aspects propelled the west's dominance in Science and Technology, and it was not Christianity, nor was it Judaism. 

It was the west's fanatical devotion to this school of philosophy;
Empiricism - Wikipedia

And, it was going through this;
Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia


If you prefer to be a religious zealotry like ISIS or the Taliban, giving it all up?  If that doesn't bother you?  


I prefer empiricism and reason to living in the stone age. . . . .


----------



## MisterBeale

progressive hunter said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your undeniable certainty?
> 
> 
> 
> No hominoid fossils with dinosaurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Modern” Fossils with Dinosaurs | Genesis Park
> 
> Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?
Click to expand...


----------



## MisterBeale

progressive hunter said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> dont tell him that,,,he still thinks it
> 
> but what I'm asking for is this common ancestor and how it spawned all life as we know it
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's two different questions, isn't it?  Lucy is our ancestor.  She didn't make little green apples, though.  I'm confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dead bones dont walk,,,the rest is just opinion
> 
> 
> and didnt you say earlier this was no longer the view we came from primates???
Click to expand...


Humans are primates.  They are now considered, taxonomically speaking, just another great ape, like a chimp or a gorilla.

Hominidae - Wikipedia


----------



## cnm

james bond said:


> Haha. That's not a wand, but a scepter. It's Lord Jesus Christ and the scepter represents his authority over kings, peoples, and nations. It also represents something to fear to his enemies.


Where's YHWH?


----------



## Frannie

MisterBeale said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is this thread not in the faith and religion section yet?
> 
> 
> Has this forum really devolved that much in the past decade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U scared of something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This subforum is devoted to science and technology.  These two aspects of Western culture seperate and have made the west dominate over both Islamic culture, Russian Imperial culture, and the far East.
> 
> Two aspects propelled the west's dominance in Science and Technology, and it was not Christianity, nor was it Judaism.
> 
> It was the west's fanatical devotion to this school of philosophy;
> Empiricism - Wikipedia
> 
> And, it was going through this;
> Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> If you prefer to be a religious zealotry like ISIS or the Taliban, giving it all up?  If that doesn't bother you?
> 
> 
> I prefer empiricism and reason to living in the stone age. . . . .
Click to expand...

Okeedokee Charlie


----------



## james bond

MisterBeale said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your undeniable certainty?
> 
> 
> 
> No hominoid fossils with dinosaurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Modern” Fossils with Dinosaurs | Genesis Park
> 
> Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Has to resort to memes.  I'm still waiting for you to explain some anthro.  Did you graduate HS?  You definitely write like a moron with an IQ of 50 to 70, but I'm being generous.

The word dinosaur wasn't created then, so they had behemoths or sauropods and leviathans or plesiosaurs during Jesus' time.

Like I said, creation science has natural selection except it doesn't need billions of years.  How can your dinosaur fossils be billions of years old when petrified trees run vertical to the layers they were found in?  Why doesn't evos mention finding those in their layers?  Why is it that we have the massive explosion of animals in the Cambrian period and no other time?

Let's look at the fossil record per the link progressive hunter provided from AIG:

"*What Do We Find in the Fossil Record?*
The first issue to consider is what we actually find in the fossil record.

~95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.
~95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants.
~95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects.
The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. (95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age after the Flood.)1"
Most of it is marine organisms and evolution has no explanation for find marine fossils on top of Mt. Everest and in the Himalayas.  They just make us fairy tales to explain the evidence.  For example, the world's oldest whale fossil was found in the Himalayas.  Evos said it walked up there haha, but no evidence of legs or feet.  None of the other marine animals had feet either.

World's oldest whale is found in the Himalayas

Maybe you can use your anthro knowledge to explain why we have artists representations of dinosaurs throughout the world.  How could they know what they looked like?  Occam's Razor says they lived with them, saw them, and even fought with them.

  

We also were able to do radiocarbon dating on these dinosaur fossils and they were estimated around 40,000 years.  The soft tissue remained in these fossils when they were supposedly millions of years old.  Why do you not accept the evidence and go from there?  Instead, you try to find fake reasons why they are billions of years old.  Evolution needs long time and they just won't give up their lies and fairy tales.  Haha, what a joke you are.


----------



## Frannie

james bond said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your undeniable certainty?
> 
> 
> 
> No hominoid fossils with dinosaurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Modern” Fossils with Dinosaurs | Genesis Park
> 
> Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Has to resort to memes.  I'm still waiting for you to explain some anthro.  Did you graduate HS?  You definitely write like a moron with an IQ of 50 to 70, but I'm being generous.
> 
> The word dinosaur wasn't created then, so they had behemoths or sauropods and leviathans or plesiosaurs during Jesus' time.
> 
> Like I said, creation science has natural selection except it doesn't need billions of years.  How can your dinosaur fossils be billions of years old when petrified trees run vertical to the layers they were found in?  Why doesn't evos mention finding those in their layers?  Why is it that we have the massive explosion of animals in the Cambrian period and no other time?
> 
> Let's look at the fossil record per the link progressive hunter provided from AIG:
> 
> "*What Do We Find in the Fossil Record?*
> The first issue to consider is what we actually find in the fossil record.
> 
> ~95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.
> ~95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants.
> ~95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects.
> The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. (95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age after the Flood.)1"
> Most of it is marine organisms and evolution has no explanation for find marine fossils on top of Mt. Everest and in the Himalayas.  They just make us fairy tales to explain the evidence.  For example, the world's oldest whale fossil was found in the Himalayas.  Evos said it walked up there haha, but no evidence of legs or feet.  None of the other marine animals had feet either.
> 
> World's oldest whale is found in the Himalayas
> 
> Maybe you can use your anthro knowledge to explain why we have artists representations of dinosaurs throughout the world.  How could they know what they looked like?  Occam's Razor says they lived with them, saw them, and even fought with them.
> 
> View attachment 276500View attachment 276501 View attachment 276502
> 
> We also were able to do radiocarbon dating on these dinosaur fossils and they were estimated around 40,000 years.  The soft tissue remained in these fossils when they were supposedly millions of years old.  Why do you not accept the evidence and go from there?  Instead, you try to find fake reasons why they are billions of years old.  Evolution needs long time and they just won't give up their lies and fairy tales.  Haha, what a joke you are.
Click to expand...

Only retards like you believe that there were dinosaurs in jesus lifetime

You however will never comprehend your level of mental disease


----------



## MisterBeale




----------



## MisterBeale

^^^  See video.  If you are a Creationist, you are more likely to be either Hindu or Muslim.  So, if you want to be in that company?  Go ahead.


----------



## bullwinkle

SassyIrishLass said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.
> 
> Give them options
Click to expand...

But kids do have options, Ms Sassy.   There's school and there's Sunday school...and schule...and madras...etc.  If parents want specialized teaching they can always take the kids to church, temple, mosque....


----------



## SassyIrishLass

bullwinkle said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.
> 
> Give them options
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But kids do have options, Ms Sassy.   There's school and there's Sunday school...and schule...and madras...etc.  If parents want specialized teaching they can always take the kids to church, temple, mosque....
Click to expand...


Or schools can do what our children's do...teach both.

Of course leftists won't go for that it disrupts the indoctrination.


----------



## bullwinkle

SassyIrishLass said:


> Or schools can do what our children's do...teach both.
> 
> Of course leftists won't go for that it disrupts the indoctrination.


Both?  What both?  Evolution AND Christian/Jewish creation?  Or Evolution AND Hindi?  Or evolution AND Buddhism?  Your added slander against what leftists will 'go for' is sheer partisanship slander just for the sake of making your own outlook seem moral.  And it's hogwash!


----------



## SassyIrishLass

bullwinkle said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or schools can do what our children's do...teach both.
> 
> Of course leftists won't go for that it disrupts the indoctrination.
> 
> 
> 
> Both?  What both?  Evolution AND Christian/Jewish creation?  Or Evolution AND Hindi?  Or evolution AND Buddhism?  Your added slander against what leftists will 'go for' is sheer partisanship slander just for the sake of making your own outlook seem moral.  And it's hogwash!
Click to expand...


Gfy Dullwinkle. How's that?


----------



## bullwinkle

SassyIrishLass said:


> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or schools can do what our children's do...teach both.
> 
> Of course leftists won't go for that it disrupts the indoctrination.
> 
> 
> 
> Both?  What both?  Evolution AND Christian/Jewish creation?  Or Evolution AND Hindi?  Or evolution AND Buddhism?  Your added slander against what leftists will 'go for' is sheer partisanship slander just for the sake of making your own outlook seem moral.  And it's hogwash!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gfy Dullwinkle. How's that?
Click to expand...

Crystal clear, Ms. Sassy!


----------



## SassyIrishLass

But left loons think this is just peachy for the tykes

Illinois Passes New Law Requiring LGBTQ Classes in Middle School


----------



## progressive hunter

MisterBeale said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's two different questions, isn't it?  Lucy is our ancestor.  She didn't make little green apples, though.  I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dead bones dont walk,,,the rest is just opinion
> 
> 
> and didnt you say earlier this was no longer the view we came from primates???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans are primates.  They are now considered, taxonomically speaking, just another great ape, like a chimp or a gorilla.
> 
> Hominidae - Wikipedia
Click to expand...



wiki is not a good source,,,


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

sparky said:


> If you want your kid to '_get religion_' take him/her to church....~S~


That’s not the point.

The point is conservatives want every child to be compelled to ‘get religion.’


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

james bond said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it shouldn't, because to do so would violate the First Amendment (Edwards v. Aguillard).
> 
> Creationism is religion, devoid of fact and merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the first two books of Genesis.  You didn't watch the vid either.
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is neither the truth nor is it supported by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just your assertion and nothing in science backs it.  So far, your posts are meaningless.
Click to expand...

That most conservatives have nothing but contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law comes as no surprise, of course.

And that conservatives would continue to advocate for something already ruled to be un-Constitutional is further confirmation of that fact.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it shouldn't, because to do so would violate the First Amendment (Edwards v. Aguillard).
> 
> Creationism is religion, devoid of fact and merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the first two books of Genesis.  You didn't watch the vid either.
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is neither the truth nor is it supported by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just your assertion and nothing in science backs it.  So far, your posts are meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That most conservatives have nothing but contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law comes as no surprise, of course.
> 
> And that conservatives would continue to advocate for something already ruled to be un-Constitutional is further confirmation of that fact.
Click to expand...


----------



## dblack

You should be able to teach whatever you want.

This is why government shouldn't be in charge of education.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

bullwinkle said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.
> 
> Give them options
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But kids do have options, Ms Sassy.   There's school and there's Sunday school...and schule...and madras...etc.  If parents want specialized teaching they can always take the kids to church, temple, mosque....
Click to expand...

‘Creationism’ is a façade behind which the religious right has attempted to insert religious dogma into public schools, the consequence of conservatives’ unwarranted hostility toward Establishment Clause jurisprudence and the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.
> 
> Give them options
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But kids do have options, Ms Sassy.   There's school and there's Sunday school...and schule...and madras...etc.  If parents want specialized teaching they can always take the kids to church, temple, mosque....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ‘Creationism’ is a façade behind which the religious right has attempted to insert religious dogma into public schools, the consequence of conservatives’ unwarranted hostility toward Establishment Clause jurisprudence and the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate.
Click to expand...


You're annoying, Jones.


----------



## progressive hunter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.
> 
> Give them options
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But kids do have options, Ms Sassy.   There's school and there's Sunday school...and schule...and madras...etc.  If parents want specialized teaching they can always take the kids to church, temple, mosque....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ‘Creationism’ is a façade behind which the religious right has attempted to insert religious dogma into public schools, the consequence of conservatives’ unwarranted hostility toward Establishment Clause jurisprudence and the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate.
Click to expand...

LIAR!!


----------



## OldLady

dblack said:


> You should be able to teach whatever you want.
> 
> This is why government shouldn't be in charge of education.


Local and then state government has ALWAYS been in charge of what is taught.  How the feds got involved was special ed requirements, which no school wanted to pay for.  The federal government only contributes about 10% of a school's funding, but budgets are so tight that schools need every penny of it.  If the feds aren't paying it, your taxes will go up to make up the difference, or your schools will close.


----------



## dblack

OldLady said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should be able to teach whatever you want.
> 
> This is why government shouldn't be in charge of education.
> 
> 
> 
> Local and then state government has ALWAYS been in charge of what is taught.
Click to expand...

Yep. I'm saying that was/is a mistake.  



> How the feds got involved was special ed requirements, which no school wanted to pay for.  The federal government only contributes about 10% of a school's funding, but budgets are so tight that schools need every penny of it.  If the feds aren't paying it, your taxes will go up to make up the difference, or your schools will close.



And that was an even bigger mistake.


----------



## progressive hunter

OldLady said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should be able to teach whatever you want.
> 
> This is why government shouldn't be in charge of education.
> 
> 
> 
> Local and then state government has ALWAYS been in charge of what is taught.  How the feds got involved was special ed requirements, which no school wanted to pay for.  The federal government only contributes about 10% of a school's funding, but budgets are so tight that schools need every penny of it.  If the feds aren't paying it, your taxes will go up to make up the difference, or your schools will close.
Click to expand...



WHETHER its state taxs or fed they are still taxs


bottom line is the feds have no business in education


----------



## 22lcidw

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want your kid to '_get religion_' take him/her to church....~S~
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not the point.
> 
> The point is conservatives want every child to be compelled to ‘get religion.’
Click to expand...

We have to get to the point we have children first. You guys want millions of abortions a year and  the unborn used for science experiments and the newly born used for sexual agendas and diseases and more. So leave some room to get some religion.


----------



## Natural Citizen

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.



I disagree.

Here's why. And just skip the first 3:50, if you don't wan't to get upset. At 3:50, the mop comes out and the floor gets cleaned. Very humbly and respectfully, I'd add.


Irrelevant of that, I think the state is the last entity I'd want teachng my kid faith. Ho lee sht. Are you kidding? Government is force anyway. Duh.


----------



## progressive hunter

Natural Citizen said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> Here's why. And just skip the first 3:50, if you don't wan't to get upset. At 3:50, the mop comes out and the floor gets cleaned.
> 
> 
> Irrelevant of that, I think the state is the last entity I'd want teachng my kid faith. Ho lee sht. Are you kidding? Government is force anyway. Duh.
Click to expand...

that should include the faith/relligion of evolution


----------



## progressive hunter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it shouldn't, because to do so would violate the First Amendment (Edwards v. Aguillard).
> 
> Creationism is religion, devoid of fact and merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the first two books of Genesis.  You didn't watch the vid either.
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is neither the truth nor is it supported by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just your assertion and nothing in science backs it.  So far, your posts are meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That most conservatives have nothing but contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law comes as no surprise, of course.
> 
> And that conservatives would continue to advocate for something already ruled to be un-Constitutional is further confirmation of that fact.
Click to expand...


case law is a full contempt for the constitution, but you already knew that


----------



## MisterBeale

progressive hunter said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof lucy is anything other than dead bones found in the ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dead bones dont walk,,,the rest is just opinion
> 
> 
> and didnt you say earlier this was no longer the view we came from primates???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans are primates.  They are now considered, taxonomically speaking, just another great ape, like a chimp or a gorilla.
> 
> Hominidae - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wiki is not a good source,,,
Click to expand...

Do you know why?  Wiki is an aggregator of sources.  You have been told by your college and High school teachers it is "not a good source," for your research papers, because you cannot source a news or research aggregator.  

If you know how to use it, for pedestrian purposes?  It doesn't matter.

You have really done what they told you at HS and College, not think for yourself, right?

This is one of the sources that wiki pages has used, since you are completely and totally unable to think for yourself and understand how wiki-pages work.

Mammal Species of the World - Browse: Hominidae


----------



## progressive hunter

MisterBeale said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lucy was just a small ape.
> 
> 
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dead bones dont walk,,,the rest is just opinion
> 
> 
> and didnt you say earlier this was no longer the view we came from primates???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans are primates.  They are now considered, taxonomically speaking, just another great ape, like a chimp or a gorilla.
> 
> Hominidae - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wiki is not a good source,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know why?  Wiki is an aggregator of sources.  You have been told by your college and High school teachers it is "not a good source," for your research papers, because you cannot source a news or research aggregator.
> 
> If you know how to use it, for pedestrian purposes?  It doesn't matter.
> 
> You have really done what they told you at HS and College, not think for yourself, right?
> 
> This is one of the sources that wiki pages has used, since you are completely and totally unable to think for yourself and understand how wiki-pages work.
> 
> Mammal Species of the World - Browse: Hominidae
Click to expand...



thanks for proving my point,,,

and who said I went to college and got indoctrinated???


----------



## MisterBeale

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.
> 
> Give them options
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But kids do have options, Ms Sassy.   There's school and there's Sunday school...and schule...and madras...etc.  If parents want specialized teaching they can always take the kids to church, temple, mosque....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ‘Creationism’ is a façade behind which the religious right has attempted to insert religious dogma into public schools, the consequence of conservatives’ unwarranted hostility toward Establishment Clause jurisprudence and the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate.
Click to expand...


If localities WANT to have it in their public schools though, that IS their prerogative.


The Constitution makes clear, public education is the province and the authority of the state governments.  State government detirmine curriculum, not Uncle Sam.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

MisterBeale said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.
> 
> Give them options
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But kids do have options, Ms Sassy.   There's school and there's Sunday school...and schule...and madras...etc.  If parents want specialized teaching they can always take the kids to church, temple, mosque....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ‘Creationism’ is a façade behind which the religious right has attempted to insert religious dogma into public schools, the consequence of conservatives’ unwarranted hostility toward Establishment Clause jurisprudence and the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If localities WANT to have it in their public schools though, that IS their prerogative.
> 
> 
> The Constitution makes clear, public education is the province and the authority of the state governments.  State government detirmine curriculum, not Uncle Sam.
Click to expand...


Someone should have told Ears that


----------



## MisterBeale

progressive hunter said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> She walked upright, which apes don't, and we found 40% of her bones, which is a whole lot.   The bigger brain that gives us the double sapiens in our name didn't come until later.  But she was on her hind legs.   That's big.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dead bones dont walk,,,the rest is just opinion
> 
> 
> and didnt you say earlier this was no longer the view we came from primates???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans are primates.  They are now considered, taxonomically speaking, just another great ape, like a chimp or a gorilla.
> 
> Hominidae - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wiki is not a good source,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know why?  Wiki is an aggregator of sources.  You have been told by your college and High school teachers it is "not a good source," for your research papers, because you cannot source a news or research aggregator.
> 
> If you know how to use it, for pedestrian purposes?  It doesn't matter.
> 
> You have really done what they told you at HS and College, not think for yourself, right?
> 
> This is one of the sources that wiki pages has used, since you are completely and totally unable to think for yourself and understand how wiki-pages work.
> 
> Mammal Species of the World - Browse: Hominidae
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for proving my point,,,
> 
> and who said I went to college and got indoctrinated???
Click to expand...


I didn't prove your point.

I just told you, that for our purposes, since this isn't a research project, NO, wiki is JUST FINE.

If you have a problem with something in the wiki, LOOK at where the information came from originally.  


Or. . .


----------



## MisterBeale

OldLady said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should be able to teach whatever you want.
> 
> This is why government shouldn't be in charge of education.
> 
> 
> 
> Local and then state government has ALWAYS been in charge of what is taught.  How the feds got involved was special ed requirements, which no school wanted to pay for.  The federal government only contributes about 10% of a school's funding, but budgets are so tight that schools need every penny of it.  If the feds aren't paying it, your taxes will go up to make up the difference, or your schools will close.
Click to expand...


This is not true.

Before the civil war, parents were all in charge of educating their own children.
https://domestiquecap.com/wp-content/uploads/September-2012.pdf


----------



## Natural Citizen

progressive hunter said:


> that should include the faith/relligion of evolution



I want to abolish the entire Department of Education, so. Like yesterday.


----------



## MisterBeale

SassyIrishLass said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.
> 
> Give them options
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But kids do have options, Ms Sassy.   There's school and there's Sunday school...and schule...and madras...etc.  If parents want specialized teaching they can always take the kids to church, temple, mosque....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ‘Creationism’ is a façade behind which the religious right has attempted to insert religious dogma into public schools, the consequence of conservatives’ unwarranted hostility toward Establishment Clause jurisprudence and the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If localities WANT to have it in their public schools though, that IS their prerogative.
> 
> 
> The Constitution makes clear, public education is the province and the authority of the state governments.  State government detirmine curriculum, not Uncle Sam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone should have told Ears that
Click to expand...

He knew, he was a Constitutional scholar.

How do you think he knew how to circumvent it all so well?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

MisterBeale said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah instead let's teach the kiddies all about, "climate changey" homos, transgenders, there are a gazzilion different genders etc, etc .....how's that working out? A generation of messed up indoctrinated loons are the result.
> 
> Give them options
> 
> 
> 
> But kids do have options, Ms Sassy.   There's school and there's Sunday school...and schule...and madras...etc.  If parents want specialized teaching they can always take the kids to church, temple, mosque....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ‘Creationism’ is a façade behind which the religious right has attempted to insert religious dogma into public schools, the consequence of conservatives’ unwarranted hostility toward Establishment Clause jurisprudence and the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If localities WANT to have it in their public schools though, that IS their prerogative.
> 
> 
> The Constitution makes clear, public education is the province and the authority of the state governments.  State government detirmine curriculum, not Uncle Sam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone should have told Ears that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He knew, he was a Constitutional scholar.
> 
> How do you think he knew how to circumvent it all so well?
Click to expand...


Trump's fixed most of it


----------



## progressive hunter

SassyIrishLass said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> 
> But kids do have options, Ms Sassy.   There's school and there's Sunday school...and schule...and madras...etc.  If parents want specialized teaching they can always take the kids to church, temple, mosque....
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Creationism’ is a façade behind which the religious right has attempted to insert religious dogma into public schools, the consequence of conservatives’ unwarranted hostility toward Establishment Clause jurisprudence and the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If localities WANT to have it in their public schools though, that IS their prerogative.
> 
> 
> The Constitution makes clear, public education is the province and the authority of the state governments.  State government detirmine curriculum, not Uncle Sam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone should have told Ears that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He knew, he was a Constitutional scholar.
> 
> How do you think he knew how to circumvent it all so well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's fixed most of it
Click to expand...



trump  fixed most of what???


----------



## SassyIrishLass

progressive hunter said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Creationism’ is a façade behind which the religious right has attempted to insert religious dogma into public schools, the consequence of conservatives’ unwarranted hostility toward Establishment Clause jurisprudence and the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If localities WANT to have it in their public schools though, that IS their prerogative.
> 
> 
> The Constitution makes clear, public education is the province and the authority of the state governments.  State government detirmine curriculum, not Uncle Sam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone should have told Ears that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He knew, he was a Constitutional scholar.
> 
> How do you think he knew how to circumvent it all so well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's fixed most of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> trump  fixed most of what???
Click to expand...


Ear's fuckups


----------



## progressive hunter

SassyIrishLass said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> If localities WANT to have it in their public schools though, that IS their prerogative.
> 
> 
> The Constitution makes clear, public education is the province and the authority of the state governments.  State government detirmine curriculum, not Uncle Sam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should have told Ears that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He knew, he was a Constitutional scholar.
> 
> How do you think he knew how to circumvent it all so well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's fixed most of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> trump  fixed most of what???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ear's fuckups
Click to expand...



OK ,,
I thought you meant the constitution which of course is laughable,,,


----------



## SassyIrishLass

progressive hunter said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should have told Ears that
> 
> 
> 
> He knew, he was a Constitutional scholar.
> 
> How do you think he knew how to circumvent it all so well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's fixed most of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> trump  fixed most of what???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ear's fuckups
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK ,,
> I thought you meant the constitution which of course is laughable,,,
Click to expand...


Ears was a colossal disaster


----------



## progressive hunter

SassyIrishLass said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> He knew, he was a Constitutional scholar.
> 
> How do you think he knew how to circumvent it all so well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's fixed most of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> trump  fixed most of what???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ear's fuckups
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK ,,
> I thought you meant the constitution which of course is laughable,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ears was a colossal disaster
Click to expand...



from my POV I agree,, but it is a matter of perspective, to some he was a success


----------



## OldLady

dblack said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should be able to teach whatever you want.
> 
> This is why government shouldn't be in charge of education.
> 
> 
> 
> Local and then state government has ALWAYS been in charge of what is taught.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. I'm saying that was/is a mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the feds got involved was special ed requirements, which no school wanted to pay for.  The federal government only contributes about 10% of a school's funding, but budgets are so tight that schools need every penny of it.  If the feds aren't paying it, your taxes will go up to make up the difference, or your schools will close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that was an even bigger mistake.
Click to expand...

"Local government" is actually the parents' input.  School boards, etc.  But schools have always relied on local and state taxes to function.


----------



## james bond

Frannie said:


> Only retards like you believe that there were dinosaurs in jesus lifetime
> 
> You however will never comprehend your level of mental disease



You can't explain how dinosaurs came to be.  You cannot think for yourself with that puny brain of yours so I have to explain it to you.  The evidence shows that dinosaurs lived with humans.  Why do you believe stupid shat like an asteroid killed them off?  Everything has a relationship with something else.  That's science.


----------



## james bond

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it shouldn't, because to do so would violate the First Amendment (Edwards v. Aguillard).
> 
> Creationism is religion, devoid of fact and merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the first two books of Genesis.  You didn't watch the vid either.
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is neither the truth nor is it supported by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just your assertion and nothing in science backs it.  So far, your posts are meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That most conservatives have nothing but contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law comes as no surprise, of course.
> 
> And that conservatives would continue to advocate for something already ruled to be un-Constitutional is further confirmation of that fact.
Click to expand...


We just leave the religion of Christianity out and discuss the science.  The vid does not even mention religion.  The evidence is for a creator who had intelligence in his designs like us.  Secular science tries to explain it as it just happens.  We're just an infinite multiverse and life just happens in this universe.  Life doesn't just happen and the evidence shows it.  It's not unconstitutional, but logical to teach it as such.


----------



## james bond

Natural Citizen said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> Here's why. And just skip the first 3:50, if you don't wan't to get upset. At 3:50, the mop comes out and the floor gets cleaned. Very humbly and respectfully, I'd add.
> 
> 
> Irrelevant of that, I think the state is the last entity I'd want teachng my kid faith. Ho lee sht. Are you kidding? Government is force anyway. Duh.
Click to expand...


She's a secular scientist.  Part of the Cosmos show.  Too much bias.  You should learn to make your own arguments.  That's what most of us do.  Carl Sagan died without finding aliens.  What an idiot.  There are no aliens.  If there were, then we would've been contacted or found them already.  Even evos have admitted life is rare now.  It's so rare that it is only on this planet.


----------



## bullwinkle

james bond said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only retards like you believe that there were dinosaurs in jesus lifetime
> 
> You however will never comprehend your level of mental disease
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't explain how dinosaurs came to be.  You cannot think for yourself with that puny brain of yours so I have to explain it to you.  The evidence shows that dinosaurs lived with humans.  Why do you believe stupid shat like an asteroid killed them off?  Everything has a relationship with something else.  That's science.
Click to expand...

James, other than the annals of Ally Oop and Fed Flintstone, I'd like to see that evidence that shows the dinosaurs lived with humans.  Can you provide a link for those of us skeptics?


----------



## koshergrl

BuckToothMoron said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be all the chemicals we are putting in the food,,,
> 
> sorry but that is not proof we all came from a rock
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re an idiot. I didn’t say it was proof we can from a rock, and if you had any meaningful education you would know that evolution is not about the origin of man. It is about the changes that species go thru which are often caused by their environment, including what they eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it had to begin somewhere,,,
> 
> a change within species doesnt mean a dog changed to a cat or a monkey changed to a human which is what evolution claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, evolution does not claim that humans came from monkeys. Those are the misconceptions spread to the unwitting (people like you) by religious liars who think god and evolution can’t coexist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See post #144.  Whose birth canal did Lucy-type Australophithicuses come from?  It wasn't a giraffe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am referring to monkeys/apes as we know them today. Humans descended differently than the monkeys  and apes we see today. We didn’t come from monkeys, although we may have common ancestry.
Click to expand...

Yes. God.


----------



## progressive hunter

bullwinkle said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only retards like you believe that there were dinosaurs in jesus lifetime
> 
> You however will never comprehend your level of mental disease
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't explain how dinosaurs came to be.  You cannot think for yourself with that puny brain of yours so I have to explain it to you.  The evidence shows that dinosaurs lived with humans.  Why do you believe stupid shat like an asteroid killed them off?  Everything has a relationship with something else.  That's science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> James, other than the annals of Ally Oop and Fed Flintstone, I'd like to see that evidence that shows the dinosaurs lived with humans.  Can you provide a link for those of us skeptics?
Click to expand...



well there are the tens of thousands of written accounts along with the thousands of depictions in statues and paintings throughout history 

how did they know what they looked like if they didnt see them
OH and what about the human footprints along side dino prints???


and of course there is the complete lack of evidence they didnt by evolutionist


----------



## Natural Citizen

james bond said:


> You should learn to make your own arguments.



I would have said the same thing to you considering the content of the op. And then some.  It's why I chose it rather than type it. I've seen dolts like you posting the same crap for years. It's just not worth the time anymore. If it wasn't for the lunacy of your faith in the government dictating faith, I wouldn't even have responded to your stupid thread. Ya statist hack.

And be careful what you ask for. You just might get it. Guaranteed you're not ready for it either. Gare awn teed. A smartass comment like that will get you stuck in the bull ring showing us all how smart you are with probably just about the very last person on this forum you wanna be stuck in it with. Heh heh. Oh, yes indeedy.


----------



## james bond

bullwinkle said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only retards like you believe that there were dinosaurs in jesus lifetime
> 
> You however will never comprehend your level of mental disease
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't explain how dinosaurs came to be.  You cannot think for yourself with that puny brain of yours so I have to explain it to you.  The evidence shows that dinosaurs lived with humans.  Why do you believe stupid shat like an asteroid killed them off?  Everything has a relationship with something else.  That's science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> James, other than the annals of Ally Oop and Fed Flintstone, I'd like to see that evidence that shows the dinosaurs lived with humans.  Can you provide a link for those of us skeptics?
Click to expand...


First, just leave your fictional cartoons at the door.

How do you explain what I just showed you?  They're very good representations of dinosaurs and they're all over the world.  We have writings that describe them all over the world.  It's in the Bible as behemoths and leviathans, one land, one water, or saurapods and plesiosaurs.  We have evidence of dinosaurs and human tracks.  

Genesis Park 
Genesis Park | Dinosaurs: living evidence of a powerful Creator!

Dinosaur and human tracks
Dinosaur Tracks

Human and dinosaur fossil footprints? - creation.com


----------



## Frannie

james bond said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only retards like you believe that there were dinosaurs in jesus lifetime
> 
> You however will never comprehend your level of mental disease
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't explain how dinosaurs came to be.  You cannot think for yourself with that puny brain of yours so I have to explain it to you.  The evidence shows that dinosaurs lived with humans.  Why do you believe stupid shat like an asteroid killed them off?  Everything has a relationship with something else.  That's science.
Click to expand...

How is your pet dinosaur dino doing bam bam


----------



## beautress

MisterBeale said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should be able to teach whatever you want.
> 
> This is why government shouldn't be in charge of education.
> 
> 
> 
> Local and then state government has ALWAYS been in charge of what is taught.  How the feds got involved was special ed requirements, which no school wanted to pay for.  The federal government only contributes about 10% of a school's funding, but budgets are so tight that schools need every penny of it.  If the feds aren't paying it, your taxes will go up to make up the difference, or your schools will close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not true.
> 
> Before the civil war, parents were all in charge of educating their own children.
> https://domestiquecap.com/wp-content/uploads/September-2012.pdf
Click to expand...

 
Thanks for the educational video.


----------



## beautress

Natural Citizen said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> that should include the faith/relligion of evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want to abolish the entire Department of Education, so. Like yesterday.
Click to expand...

It needs to be placed back in the church, where it started out in the beginning, and/or private schools, whichever the parents choose. It should never have been put into the hands of people who retire and get out, but in the hands of the gifted people who love children on a platonic level who in addition to reading, writing, and arithmetic, also teach good citizenship and manners of kindness to children.

And the internet needs to be off-limits to people under the age of ~ fill in the blank, but vote on it first.


----------



## james bond

Natural Citizen said:


> I would have said the same thing to you considering the content of the op. It's why I chose it rather than type it.
> 
> And be careful what you ask for. You just might get it. Guaranteed your'e not ready for it either. Gare awn teed.



Name one thing that I said that wasn't true to you?  Formulate a logical argument instead of making empty threats on a forum.  Make me do some work.  Who knows?  It may motivate me to get a PhD.  This is how intelligent people and scientists discuss to repudiate someone or they may just discover new things.  For example, Professor Stephen Hawking argued with Jakob Bekestein, a PhD student at the time, over his thesis stating that black holes have entropy and that it was proportional to the area of its event horizon.  Hawking's argument against it was a black hole could not radiate energy and no entropy.  However, this exchange got him to do some lengthy calculations and this lead to his discovery of Hawking radiation.  Bekenstein got his Phd and the 2015 Einstein Prize from the American Physical Society for his "ground-breaking work on black hole entropy."






Jacob Bekenstein - Wikipedia

In Memoriam: Jacob Bekenstein (1947–2015) and Black Hole Entropy


----------



## MisterBeale

james bond said:


> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only retards like you believe that there were dinosaurs in jesus lifetime
> 
> You however will never comprehend your level of mental disease
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't explain how dinosaurs came to be.  You cannot think for yourself with that puny brain of yours so I have to explain it to you.  The evidence shows that dinosaurs lived with humans.  Why do you believe stupid shat like an asteroid killed them off?  Everything has a relationship with something else.  That's science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> James, other than the annals of Ally Oop and Fed Flintstone, I'd like to see that evidence that shows the dinosaurs lived with humans.  Can you provide a link for those of us skeptics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, just leave your fictional cartoons at the door.
> 
> How do you explain what I just showed you?  They're very good representations of dinosaurs and they're all over the world.  We have writings that describe them all over the world.  It's in the Bible as behemoths and leviathans, one land, one water, or saurapods and plesiosaurs.  We have evidence of dinosaurs and human tracks.
> 
> Genesis Park
> Genesis Park | Dinosaurs: living evidence of a powerful Creator!
> 
> Dinosaur and human tracks
> Dinosaur Tracks
> 
> Human and dinosaur fossil footprints? - creation.com
Click to expand...


This is from a creation journal.


You are grasping, give it up . . . . 

"The colorations provide strong confirmation that all the trackways on the Taylor site are dinosaurian. Even before these colorations became more prominent, the tracks did not merit a human interpretation. Not only did the Loma Linda team, Booth, and others observe dinosaurian features soon after the original excavation but nonhuman features on the "mantracks" can even be observed in Taylor's film: if one watches carefully, the anterior splaying and indications of the color patterns are visible on some of the Taylor trail tracks in the distant shots of the upriver end of the site and in some of the close-up shots (of which few were shown of the Taylor site tracks). Morris states on page 97 of his book that the Taylor trail tracks showed no evidence of dinosaurian origin, yet photos of these tracks on pages 204 and 205 of his book show examples of anterior splaying and other problematic features.. . . "

<snip>

". . . I am a Christian and believe in the Creator but have not yet formed definite conclusions about some aspects of the origins controversy, such as the exact age of the earth or the limits to biological change. However, on some issues that I have studied in depth, such as the Paluxy controversy, I have formed definite conclusions, as explained in this article. I chose to publish my research in Creation/Evolution not to attack creationism but to help set the record straight on the true nature of the Paluxy evidence."
A Summary of the Taylor Site Evidence


----------



## MisterBeale

beautress said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should be able to teach whatever you want.
> 
> This is why government shouldn't be in charge of education.
> 
> 
> 
> Local and then state government has ALWAYS been in charge of what is taught.  How the feds got involved was special ed requirements, which no school wanted to pay for.  The federal government only contributes about 10% of a school's funding, but budgets are so tight that schools need every penny of it.  If the feds aren't paying it, your taxes will go up to make up the difference, or your schools will close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not true.
> 
> Before the civil war, parents were all in charge of educating their own children.
> https://domestiquecap.com/wp-content/uploads/September-2012.pdf
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the educational video.
Click to expand...

Welcome.

If the OP had listened to it, which I don't expect him to anymore than he should expect others to listen to his over hour long video, he would have learned that the leader of the human genome project was a home schooled, born-again Christian.

I remember way back when I studied biology and anthropology, humans used to have their own phylogenic family, and biologists and anthropologists were debating whether or not to throw us in with the apes, as we were more similar, (except for language and culture,) than dolphins are similar to whales, yet those are in the same order?

Well, then they finished the genome project, which essentially ended the debate.  The genome project just reinforced the "theory" of evolution.  Now. . .  humans are considered just another of the Great Apes, not any different or outside of the order that contains Chimpanzees, Gorillas and Orangutans.







Gatto is a luminary.    I highly recommend his stuff.

https://iwcenglish1.typepad.com/Documents/Gatto_Dumbing_Us_Down.pdf

The Underground History of American Education: A School Teacher's Intimate Investigation Into the Problem of Modern Schooling : John Taylor Gatto : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive


----------



## james bond

Frannie said:


> How is your pet dinosaur dino doing bam bam



If I had a pet dinosaur, then I can move into the wealthy neighborhoods.  There is a house on the lake that I've had my eye on for a while.  It would one of those big ones with teeth and a meat eater.  I would have to make a fast deal with Disney in case it got loose in the city.  Of course, my pet dino would not be one of those_ festive_ ones with feathers. Those are ugly birds that look like reptiles, and for the atheists and their scientists.  Yuck.  Those idiots would not take it as evidence for God either, so who cares?

It could be a large water one, but I'd have no place to keep it.  The lakes in the parks would be too small.  Yassir, give me a big meat eater that I can keep in a cage until Disney can get it.  It would become a star and main attraction at a theme park and catalyst for a reboot of Jurassic Park.


----------



## james bond

MisterBeale said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only retards like you believe that there were dinosaurs in jesus lifetime
> 
> You however will never comprehend your level of mental disease
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't explain how dinosaurs came to be.  You cannot think for yourself with that puny brain of yours so I have to explain it to you.  The evidence shows that dinosaurs lived with humans.  Why do you believe stupid shat like an asteroid killed them off?  Everything has a relationship with something else.  That's science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> James, other than the annals of Ally Oop and Fed Flintstone, I'd like to see that evidence that shows the dinosaurs lived with humans.  Can you provide a link for those of us skeptics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, just leave your fictional cartoons at the door.
> 
> How do you explain what I just showed you?  They're very good representations of dinosaurs and they're all over the world.  We have writings that describe them all over the world.  It's in the Bible as behemoths and leviathans, one land, one water, or saurapods and plesiosaurs.  We have evidence of dinosaurs and human tracks.
> 
> Genesis Park
> Genesis Park | Dinosaurs: living evidence of a powerful Creator!
> 
> Dinosaur and human tracks
> Dinosaur Tracks
> 
> Human and dinosaur fossil footprints? - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is from a creation journal.
> 
> 
> You are grasping, give it up . . . .
> 
> "The colorations provide strong confirmation that all the trackways on the Taylor site are dinosaurian. Even before these colorations became more prominent, the tracks did not merit a human interpretation. Not only did the Loma Linda team, Booth, and others observe dinosaurian features soon after the original excavation but nonhuman features on the "mantracks" can even be observed in Taylor's film: if one watches carefully, the anterior splaying and indications of the color patterns are visible on some of the Taylor trail tracks in the distant shots of the upriver end of the site and in some of the close-up shots (of which few were shown of the Taylor site tracks). Morris states on page 97 of his book that the Taylor trail tracks showed no evidence of dinosaurian origin, yet photos of these tracks on pages 204 and 205 of his book show examples of anterior splaying and other problematic features.. . . "
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ". . . I am a Christian and believe in the Creator but have not yet formed definite conclusions about some aspects of the origins controversy, such as the exact age of the earth or the limits to biological change. However, on some issues that I have studied in depth, such as the Paluxy controversy, I have formed definite conclusions, as explained in this article. I chose to publish my research in Creation/Evolution not to attack creationism but to help set the record straight on the true nature of the Paluxy evidence."
> A Summary of the Taylor Site Evidence
Click to expand...


The article is by Glen J. Kuban.  He's an atheist nut jobber and anti-Christian who will say anything to stay in the limelight.


----------



## MisterBeale

james bond said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only retards like you believe that there were dinosaurs in jesus lifetime
> 
> You however will never comprehend your level of mental disease
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't explain how dinosaurs came to be.  You cannot think for yourself with that puny brain of yours so I have to explain it to you.  The evidence shows that dinosaurs lived with humans.  Why do you believe stupid shat like an asteroid killed them off?  Everything has a relationship with something else.  That's science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> James, other than the annals of Ally Oop and Fed Flintstone, I'd like to see that evidence that shows the dinosaurs lived with humans.  Can you provide a link for those of us skeptics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, just leave your fictional cartoons at the door.
> 
> How do you explain what I just showed you?  They're very good representations of dinosaurs and they're all over the world.  We have writings that describe them all over the world.  It's in the Bible as behemoths and leviathans, one land, one water, or saurapods and plesiosaurs.  We have evidence of dinosaurs and human tracks.
> 
> Genesis Park
> Genesis Park | Dinosaurs: living evidence of a powerful Creator!
> 
> Dinosaur and human tracks
> Dinosaur Tracks
> 
> Human and dinosaur fossil footprints? - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is from a creation journal.
> 
> 
> You are grasping, give it up . . . .
> 
> "The colorations provide strong confirmation that all the trackways on the Taylor site are dinosaurian. Even before these colorations became more prominent, the tracks did not merit a human interpretation. Not only did the Loma Linda team, Booth, and others observe dinosaurian features soon after the original excavation but nonhuman features on the "mantracks" can even be observed in Taylor's film: if one watches carefully, the anterior splaying and indications of the color patterns are visible on some of the Taylor trail tracks in the distant shots of the upriver end of the site and in some of the close-up shots (of which few were shown of the Taylor site tracks). Morris states on page 97 of his book that the Taylor trail tracks showed no evidence of dinosaurian origin, yet photos of these tracks on pages 204 and 205 of his book show examples of anterior splaying and other problematic features.. . . "
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ". . . I am a Christian and believe in the Creator but have not yet formed definite conclusions about some aspects of the origins controversy, such as the exact age of the earth or the limits to biological change. However, on some issues that I have studied in depth, such as the Paluxy controversy, I have formed definite conclusions, as explained in this article. I chose to publish my research in Creation/Evolution not to attack creationism but to help set the record straight on the true nature of the Paluxy evidence."
> A Summary of the Taylor Site Evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The article is by Glen J. Kuban.  He's an atheist nut jobber and anti-Christian who will say anything to stay in the limelight.
Click to expand...


hmmm. . . . by reading his page, he doesn't appear to be.  Why would you slander someone in such a way?  

Are you in league with the dark one?  

*The Testimony of a Formerly Young Earth Missionary*
* Dr. Joshua Zorn *
The Testimony of a Formerly Young Earth Missionary

". . . However harmful we think someone's view is, as Christians we must not slander (say negative and untrue things about someone) and we must speak the truth in love.. . .  ."

<snip>

". . . For those of you wanting to see the science, YECS arguments have been refuted in many places by both Christian and secular authors. For starters, let me recommend Creation and Time by former astrophysicist and evangelism pastor, Dr. Hugh Ross. In chapter ten of this book, Ross refutes ten typical arguments for a young earth. In chapter nine, several astronomical evidences for an ancient universe are presented. The books by Young mentioned above, and the books by Newman and Wonderly mentioned in the bibliography below, refute more YECS arguments and give additional scientific reasons to believe in an old universe and earth. All these authors are conservative evangelicals with advanced training in science. A secular critique of YECS is Kitcher's book, Abusing Science."

<snip>

*"Negative Spiritual Implications of YECS *
 The worst aspect of YECS teaching is that it creates a nearly insurmountable barrier between the educated world and the church. Certainly God in his sovereignty has allowed some to be persuaded to believe in Christ through the arguments of YECSers. But how many more have not accepted the Gospel because of the unnecessary demand that converts believe that the world is no more than 10,000 years old? And how many have unnecessarily gone through a crisis of faith similar to that which I described above? How many have chosen to give up their faith altogether rather than to accept scientific nonsense or a major reinterpretation of Scripture? How much have we dishonored our Lord by slandering scientists and their reputation? How much have we sinned against Christian brothers holding another opinion by naming them "dangerous" and "compromisers"? How much responsibility do we bear for having taught others (James 3:1) things that probably are not even true? Each must search his own heart.. . . "


----------



## james bond

MisterBeale said:


> Are you in league with the dark one?



Nah.  I didn't lie and commit fraud like the evos.


----------



## james bond

Evolution has been destroyed.  It could not get to ToE.  Even Darwin admitted that his tree of life and common ancestor over long time could not happen if life didn't happen.  It amounts to a couple thousands of years of lies.

Watch from 12:17 if you have no time.  It would be icky if abiogenesis did happen as our food industry would be destroyed.  Eww...


----------



## RandomPoster

MisterBeale said:


> "The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific."
> 
> . . . but, the counter assumption. . . that there were supernatural occurrences IS somehow scientific?



  Don't you get it?  You have to prove the Creationist account didn't happen since verifiable evidence is no longer relevant to science.  LOL

  They may not have evidence, except they have reasons why it makes sense to them to think it occurred.


----------



## james bond

RandomPoster said:


> Don't you get it? You have to prove the Creationist account didn't happen since verifiable evidence is no longer relevant to science. LOL
> 
> They may not have evidence, except they have reasons why it makes sense to them to think it occurred.



There is no lol to this when it is your soul on the line..  One cannot prove an unprovable God, but we have evidence that God created Adam and Eve.  The atheists do not have proof that this did not happen nor have evidence of abiogenesis.  The scientific experiments are against it.

Thus, there should be no argument as to what the truth is.  One side just keeps accusing the other of believing in magic.


----------



## progressive hunter

RandomPoster said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific."
> 
> . . . but, the counter assumption. . . that there were supernatural occurrences IS somehow scientific?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you get it?  You have to prove the Creationist account didn't happen since verifiable evidence is no longer relevant to science.  LOL
> 
> They may not have evidence, except they have reasons why it makes sense to them to think it occurred.
Click to expand...



yeah that evolution ended the need for verifiable evidence a long time ago, but at least the bible thumpers admit its based on faith where the evos think its fact and want tax money to teach it


----------



## Vandalshandle

I'll make a deal with you guys. Keep your religion out of my schools, and we won't preach evolution in your churches.


----------



## RandomPoster

james bond said:


> RandomPoster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you get it? You have to prove the Creationist account didn't happen since verifiable evidence is no longer relevant to science. LOL
> 
> They may not have evidence, except they have reasons why it makes sense to them to think it occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no lol to this when it is your soul on the line..  One cannot prove an unprovable God, but we have evidence that God created Adam and Eve.  The atheists do not have proof that this did not happen nor have evidence of abiogenesis.  The scientific experiments are against it.
> 
> Thus, there should be no argument as to what the truth is.  One side just keeps accusing the other of believing in magic.
Click to expand...


  I am agnostic.  The way I see it, Evolution is a hell of a lot more verifiable than Creationism or any other religious based system.  I realize that using verifiable facts to support your beliefs may be considered an outdated practice in this postmodern world we live in, except my money's on evolution.


----------



## james bond

RandomPoster said:


> I am agnostic. The way I see it, Evolution is a hell of a lot more verifiable than Creationism or any other religious based system. I realize that using verifiable facts to support your beliefs may be considered an outdated practice in this postmodern world we live in, except my money's on evolution.



I think I presented enough in the OP, but if it was too long, then I have post #279.  Evolution is not verifiable.  Except for microevolution, there is no scientific method used to verify it.  It's circular thinking and logic and circumstantial or forensic evidence.  Sorry to say they have pulled the wool over your eyes.  There is a reason why everything their different writers wrote over a period of 1500 years contradict everything that is written in the Bible.  Everything from the universe to multiverses, creation vs eternal universe/big bang, natural selection vs macroevolution, and more.  Even for non-related end of the world stuff has been contradicted.  The Cambrian explosion alone disproves evolution.


----------



## james bond

MisterBeale said:


> If the OP had listened to it, which I don't expect him to anymore than he should expect others to listen to his over hour long video, he would have learned that the leader of the human genome project was a home schooled, born-again Christian.
> 
> I remember way back when I studied biology and anthropology, humans used to have their own phylogenic family, and biologists and anthropologists were debating whether or not to throw us in with the apes, as we were more similar, (except for language and culture,) than dolphins are similar to whales, yet those are in the same order?
> 
> Well, then they finished the genome project, which essentially ended the debate. The genome project just reinforced the "theory" of evolution. Now. . . humans are considered just another of the Great Apes, not any different or outside of the order that contains Chimpanzees, Gorillas and Orangutans.



I've talked about people like Dr. Francis Collins.  He's been duped by fake science based on circumstantial evidence.  What he and BioLogos presents is genome based.  Why don't you explain it to us since it is anthropological; it's about ancient DNA.

This is one of the reasons why I was upset you didn't read my links nor watch the vid in the OP.  If you really were an archaeologist or majored in archaeology, then I would have had to struggle through articles such as the following to understand what you were arguing.  I've argued with a biologist on another forum and people with my level of education.  Generally, it takes up time to read Nature and Science articles and scientific peer-reveiwed papers.  Instead, I find that you do not present any of their arguments nor briefly express what they are trying to say or represent.  It means that you're not what you say your are.  It's a waste of my time and I'm less than impressed.  If you could have just thought of one argument that was your own, then I would've accepted that.  Instead, its more of the same spiel and memes.


----------



## Natural Citizen

james bond said:


> Formulate a logical argument instead of making empty threats on a forum.



Alright, smartass. I'll see you in the Bull Ring. You're in big trouble, mister. I just woke up, though, so gonna make breakfast and feed the birds and whatnot. Maybe watch the sun come up with a hot beverage. The early bird catches the worm. Or so they say.


----------



## MisterBeale

james bond said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the OP had listened to it, which I don't expect him to anymore than he should expect others to listen to his over hour long video, he would have learned that the leader of the human genome project was a home schooled, born-again Christian.
> 
> I remember way back when I studied biology and anthropology, humans used to have their own phylogenic family, and biologists and anthropologists were debating whether or not to throw us in with the apes, as we were more similar, (except for language and culture,) than dolphins are similar to whales, yet those are in the same order?
> 
> Well, then they finished the genome project, which essentially ended the debate. The genome project just reinforced the "theory" of evolution. Now. . . humans are considered just another of the Great Apes, not any different or outside of the order that contains Chimpanzees, Gorillas and Orangutans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've talked about people like Dr. Francis Collins.  He's been duped by fake science based on circumstantial evidence.  What he and BioLogos presents is genome based.  Why don't you explain it to us since it is anthropological; it's about ancient DNA.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why I was upset you didn't read my links nor watch the vid in the OP.  If you really were an archaeologist or majored in archaeology, then I would have had to struggle through articles such as the following to understand what you were arguing.  I've argued with a biologist on another forum and people with my level of education.  Generally, it takes up time to read Nature and Science articles and scientific peer-reveiwed papers.  Instead, I find that you do not present any of their arguments nor briefly express what they are trying to say or represent.  It means that you're not what you say your are.  It's a waste of my time and I'm less than impressed.  If you could have just thought of one argument that was your own, then I would've accepted that.  Instead, its more of the same spiel and memes.
Click to expand...



So now the human genome project is fake?

Listen buddy, genetic science has nothing to do with anthropology.  I do not know anything about it.  Nor is it "circumstantial".  They have ACTUAL PHOTOS of genes.  I SHIT YOU NOT.







It is a second, completely different discipline of science, which confirms the "theory" of evolution. It is why the scientific world and society does not take you seriously, none of your hypothesis accords with the rest of reality.

Sorry.


You can sit there and slander and call anything that does not reinforce your POV, fake, or false till the day your die, it does not, however, lessen the reality of it's truth.

Folks will see, you do not know what you are talking about.


----------



## hjmick

_Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools? _


Not no, but absofuckinglutely not, no fucking way, no how.


----------



## progressive hunter

Vandalshandle said:


> I'll make a deal with you guys. Keep your religion out of my schools, and we won't preach evolution in your churches.




how about we keep both religions out of schools??


----------



## progressive hunter

MisterBeale said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the OP had listened to it, which I don't expect him to anymore than he should expect others to listen to his over hour long video, he would have learned that the leader of the human genome project was a home schooled, born-again Christian.
> 
> I remember way back when I studied biology and anthropology, humans used to have their own phylogenic family, and biologists and anthropologists were debating whether or not to throw us in with the apes, as we were more similar, (except for language and culture,) than dolphins are similar to whales, yet those are in the same order?
> 
> Well, then they finished the genome project, which essentially ended the debate. The genome project just reinforced the "theory" of evolution. Now. . . humans are considered just another of the Great Apes, not any different or outside of the order that contains Chimpanzees, Gorillas and Orangutans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've talked about people like Dr. Francis Collins.  He's been duped by fake science based on circumstantial evidence.  What he and BioLogos presents is genome based.  Why don't you explain it to us since it is anthropological; it's about ancient DNA.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why I was upset you didn't read my links nor watch the vid in the OP.  If you really were an archaeologist or majored in archaeology, then I would have had to struggle through articles such as the following to understand what you were arguing.  I've argued with a biologist on another forum and people with my level of education.  Generally, it takes up time to read Nature and Science articles and scientific peer-reveiwed papers.  Instead, I find that you do not present any of their arguments nor briefly express what they are trying to say or represent.  It means that you're not what you say your are.  It's a waste of my time and I'm less than impressed.  If you could have just thought of one argument that was your own, then I would've accepted that.  Instead, its more of the same spiel and memes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So now the human genome project is fake?
> 
> Listen buddy, genetic science has nothing to do with anthropology.  I do not know anything about it.  Nor is it "circumstantial".  They have ACTUAL PHOTOS of genes.  I SHIT YOU NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a second, completely different discipline of science, which confirms the "theory" of evolution. It is why the scientific world and society does not take you seriously, none of your hypothesis accords with the rest of reality.
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> 
> You can sit there and slander and call anything that does not reinforce your POV, fake, or false till the day your die, it does not, however, lessen the reality of it's truth.
> 
> Folks will see, you do not know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...



that still doesnt prove we came from a rock,,,


----------



## james bond

MisterBeale said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the OP had listened to it, which I don't expect him to anymore than he should expect others to listen to his over hour long video, he would have learned that the leader of the human genome project was a home schooled, born-again Christian.
> 
> I remember way back when I studied biology and anthropology, humans used to have their own phylogenic family, and biologists and anthropologists were debating whether or not to throw us in with the apes, as we were more similar, (except for language and culture,) than dolphins are similar to whales, yet those are in the same order?
> 
> Well, then they finished the genome project, which essentially ended the debate. The genome project just reinforced the "theory" of evolution. Now. . . humans are considered just another of the Great Apes, not any different or outside of the order that contains Chimpanzees, Gorillas and Orangutans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've talked about people like Dr. Francis Collins.  He's been duped by fake science based on circumstantial evidence.  What he and BioLogos presents is genome based.  Why don't you explain it to us since it is anthropological; it's about ancient DNA.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why I was upset you didn't read my links nor watch the vid in the OP.  If you really were an archaeologist or majored in archaeology, then I would have had to struggle through articles such as the following to understand what you were arguing.  I've argued with a biologist on another forum and people with my level of education.  Generally, it takes up time to read Nature and Science articles and scientific peer-reveiwed papers.  Instead, I find that you do not present any of their arguments nor briefly express what they are trying to say or represent.  It means that you're not what you say your are.  It's a waste of my time and I'm less than impressed.  If you could have just thought of one argument that was your own, then I would've accepted that.  Instead, its more of the same spiel and memes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So now the human genome project is fake?
> 
> Listen buddy, genetic science has nothing to do with anthropology.  I do not know anything about it.  Nor is it "circumstantial".  They have ACTUAL PHOTOS of genes.  I SHIT YOU NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a second, completely different discipline of science, which confirms the "theory" of evolution. It is why the scientific world and society does not take you seriously, none of your hypothesis accords with the rest of reality.
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> 
> You can sit there and slander and call anything that does not reinforce your POV, fake, or false till the day your die, it does not, however, lessen the reality of it's truth.
> 
> Folks will see, you do not know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


I didn't say that; you did Mister Fakir (sarcasm).  The human genome project was completed in 2003.  How does it confirm the ToE?  You do not explain.  Just what are we looking at?  The X and Y sound familiar.

You just avoided ancient DNA which relates more to the point you were trying to make of monkeys to humans, but I'm sure you'll get to that after we discuss the genome.


----------



## james bond

Natural Citizen said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Formulate a logical argument instead of making empty threats on a forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, smartass. I'll see you in the Bull Ring. You're in big trouble, mister. I just woke up, though, so gonna make breakfast and feed the birds and whatnot. Maybe watch the sun come up with a hot beverage. The early bird catches the worm. Or so they say.
Click to expand...


Watch the sun come up is thanks to God.  He created the sun, moon, and planets on the 4th day.  Not evolution.  How did the sun form?  How did it end up so that it is in the middle of our solar system and we revolve around it?  That's a suggested start.


----------



## Natural Citizen

james bond said:


> Watch the sun come up is thanks to God.  He created the sun, moon, and planets on the 4th day.  Not evolution.  How did the sun form?  How did it end up so that it is in the middle of our solar system and we revolve around it?  That's a suggested start.



Seeing as I'm the guy with the planetery science and physics degree and seeing as I'm the guy who has sat on the Science, Technology, Engineering and Math board in the public school system. And seeing as I've a bit more experience in assessing said curriculum in the company of both the religious community as well as the science community on that same board, I'll decide how I'm gonna start it. I was just kind of waiting to see if and how you were gonna respond. I'll likely do it this evening or tonight. I'm getting ready to jump off here for a while.

Feel free to add to it what you want, though. I don't really care. It's not my first time on the ride, my friend. Hardly so. As I said, I've seen your argument more times than I care to recall.

Don't worry. I'll try my best to formulate, as you contend, a logical argument. Heh heh.


----------



## james bond

I got an idea for a simple experiment from Pedals. This bear became fully bipedal because he injured his front paw.  From observation of bears and how they act in Yellowstone towards tourists, I thought they were more adept at being bipedal than apes or chimps.  Can we tie one of an apes/chimps hands so it is disabled temporarily?  Will it be forced to walk bipedal or will it have difficulties?  I think it will have difficulties and use three legs.  Obviously, we cannot document it being passed on, but it would show whether an ape can be fully bipedal or not.

Here's an example of apes and chimps.  They seem more comfortable as quadrupeds despite the biased video.


Macroevolution debunked?


----------



## dblack

james bond said:


> Macroevolution debunked?



Not so much.


----------



## james bond

MisterBeale said:


> They have ACTUAL PHOTOS of genes. I SHIT YOU NOT.



More evidence you do not know what you are talking about.  Those are chromosomes, not genes.  Put them together and they make up a gene.

No college student uses words like you.  College students understand the requirements for an anthropology degree and part of anthropology is learning about genetics, genomes, and DNA.  Before that, they formulate some kind of idea of what type of careers their interests point them to.  Your words betray you.  You do not state the kind of things that most basic HS students headed for college or university have interests in.


----------



## james bond

dblack said:


> Not so much.



I am beginning to suspect being atheist/agnostic/non-believer in God has less to do with science and more to do with selfish desires, greed, and sexual freedom.  Sex, drugs, and rock and roll.  Not so much following the Golden Rule.  Isn't that what Adam, Eve, and Lucifer did?  They disobeyed God.  There you go.  Your simple, silly comment has been debunked into the lower regions.


----------



## dblack

james bond said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am beginning to suspect being atheist/agnostic/non-believer in God has less to do with science and more to do with selfish desires, greed, and sexual freedom.  Sex, drugs, and rock and roll.  Not so much following the Golden Rule.  Isn't that what Adam, Eve, and Lucifer did?  They disobeyed God.  There you go.  Your simple, silly comment has been debunked into the lower regions.
Click to expand...



And I'm beginning to think being a Christian has lot more to do with accommodating the selfish desires, greed and sexual freedom of corrupt leaders. I'm not sure they can even recall the Golden Rule. 

In any case, none of that has anything to do with your ignorant post. A bear learning to walk on its hind legs doesn't "debunk" anything.


----------



## james bond

dblack said:


> And I'm beginning to think being a Christian has lot more to do with accommodating the selfish desires, greed and sexual freedom of corrupt leaders. I'm not sure they can even recall the Golden Rule.
> 
> In any case, none of that has anything to do with your ignorant post. A bear learning to walk on its hind legs doesn't "debunk" anything.



You must be talking about leftist Obama and the Clintons.  We just had another Clinton friend commit suicide.  It's not a coincidence when it gets over double digits.  And Obama is not a monkey's uncle.  The ancient DNA story is not true.  That's two lies right there.  What it is is statistics and with statistics, there are lies, bigger lies, and then there are statistics.  Instead of ancient DNA, which secular/atheist scientists use to show closeness, if you go by molecules, then there are millions of differences between humans and apes.  Those are better statistics.  What I said which your ignorant arse did not understand was bears have more bipedalism than apes, but we do not look like bears.  Even birds are more bipedal than apes haha.  We did not evolve from birds either.

Anyway, you cannot refute this piece of science that I dropped on the atheists and their scientists here.  Observable evidence is one.  Being able to repeat it in experiments is another and we have seen humans from monkeys experiment fail time after time.  Thus, this piece of macroevolution.  Did.  Not.  Happen.  And it won't happen in a million or billion years.  We still have monkeys and apes acting like monkeys and apes.  That is observable.  That is testable,  That is falsifiable.

Your stuff.  Not at all.


----------



## dblack

james bond said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm beginning to think being a Christian has lot more to do with accommodating the selfish desires, greed and sexual freedom of corrupt leaders. I'm not sure they can even recall the Golden Rule.
> 
> In any case, none of that has anything to do with your ignorant post. A bear learning to walk on its hind legs doesn't "debunk" anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be talking about leftist Obama and the Clintons.
Click to expand...


Yep. The whole lot of them. The Clintons, Bushes, Obamas, Trump, etc, etc....



> Anyway, you cannot refute this piece of science that I dropped on the atheists and their scientists here.  Observable evidence is one.  Being able to repeat it in experiments is another and we have seen humans from monkeys experiment fail time after time.  Thus, this piece of macroevolution.  Did.  Not.  Happen.  And it won't happen in a million or billion years.  We still have monkeys and apes acting like monkeys and apes.  That is observable.  That is testable,  That is falsifiable.
> 
> Your stuff.  Not at all.



Have you actually read anything about evolution? I mean outside your blogs and late night AM radio? Because you have some really bad misconceptions about it. I wouldn't complain, but you seem like you expect to be take seriously. Ain't gonna happen.


----------



## james bond

dblack said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm beginning to think being a Christian has lot more to do with accommodating the selfish desires, greed and sexual freedom of corrupt leaders. I'm not sure they can even recall the Golden Rule.
> 
> In any case, none of that has anything to do with your ignorant post. A bear learning to walk on its hind legs doesn't "debunk" anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be talking about leftist Obama and the Clintons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. The whole lot of them. The Clintons, Bushes, Obamas, Trump, etc, etc....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, you cannot refute this piece of science that I dropped on the atheists and their scientists here.  Observable evidence is one.  Being able to repeat it in experiments is another and we have seen humans from monkeys experiment fail time after time.  Thus, this piece of macroevolution.  Did.  Not.  Happen.  And it won't happen in a million or billion years.  We still have monkeys and apes acting like monkeys and apes.  That is observable.  That is testable,  That is falsifiable.
> 
> Your stuff.  Not at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you actually read anything about evolution? I mean outside your blogs and late night AM radio? Because you have some really bad misconceptions about it. I wouldn't complain, but you seem like you expect to be take seriously. Ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...


LMAO.  I know more about evolution in my little pinkie than your entire rectum and whatever else you have for brains.  Get woke, go broke.  Pull your head out.


----------



## MisterBeale

james bond said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have ACTUAL PHOTOS of genes. I SHIT YOU NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence you do not know what you are talking about.  Those are chromosomes, not genes.  Put them together and they make up a gene.
> 
> No college student uses words like you.  College students understand the requirements for an anthropology degree and part of anthropology is learning about genetics, genomes, and DNA.  Before that, they formulate some kind of idea of what type of careers their interests point them to.  Your words betray you.  You do not state the kind of things that most basic HS students headed for college or university have interests in.
Click to expand...


If you need to start making up lies about me to make your arguments more sound, go ahead.

I believe you know what I meant when I posted that photo of the chromosomes. 

I am beginning to believe that you do not want a friendly and well meaning debate.


_"an anthropology degree and part of anthropology is learning about genetics, genomes, and DNA."_

Twenty years ago, this was not true.  The emphasis in my physical anthropology part of my degree was in primatology.  As far as I know, at most schools, folks get to choose their emphasis. 

I looked around, and find what you wrote, still is not true.  You strike me as pretty ignorant, you seem to be just making things up.  Go ahead a POST for me proof of what you say, otherwise, you are bearing false witness, and we are done here.

Anthropologists just don't deal in the information you are talking about.  If you weren't so science illiterate, you would know this.

Folks that actually have been to University know the folks that study this are called;

EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS & BIOINFOMATICS 

Bioinformatics - Wikipedia

6 Things You Should Know About Biological Evolution

If you want to continue discussing?  Do not personally attack me, it isn't very Christian.

Next time you use Ad Hominem, we are done.


----------



## james bond

MisterBeale said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have ACTUAL PHOTOS of genes. I SHIT YOU NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence you do not know what you are talking about.  Those are chromosomes, not genes.  Put them together and they make up a gene.
> 
> No college student uses words like you.  College students understand the requirements for an anthropology degree and part of anthropology is learning about genetics, genomes, and DNA.  Before that, they formulate some kind of idea of what type of careers their interests point them to.  Your words betray you.  You do not state the kind of things that most basic HS students headed for college or university have interests in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you need to start making up lies about me to make your arguments more sound, go ahead.
> 
> I believe you know what I meant when I posted that photo of the chromosomes.
> 
> I am beginning to believe that you do not want a friendly and well meaning debate.
> 
> 
> _"an anthropology degree and part of anthropology is learning about genetics, genomes, and DNA."_
> 
> Twenty years ago, this was not true.  The emphasis in my physical anthropology part of my degree was in primatology.  As far as I know, at most schools, folks get to choose their emphasis.
> 
> I looked around, and find what you wrote, still is not true.  You strike me as pretty ignorant, you seem to be just making things up.  Go ahead a POST for me proof of what you say, otherwise, you are bearing false witness, and we are done here.
> 
> Anthropologists just don't deal in the information you are talking about.  If you weren't so science illiterate, you would know this.
> 
> Folks that actually have been to University know the folks that study this are called;
> 
> EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS & BIOINFOMATICS
> 
> Bioinformatics - Wikipedia
> 
> 6 Things You Should Know About Biological Evolution
> 
> If you want to continue discussing?  Do not personally attack me, it isn't very Christian.
> 
> Next time you use Ad Hominem, we are done.
Click to expand...


Addressing the non-hate part of your post, it seems I have to do the work for you and read what you mean.  I don't even know what you mean and how it relates to our discussion and evolution by posting your links.  Can you explain?  Most people with degrees are happy to explain their knowledge.  It sounds like you went from discussing genomes, chromasomes, and the human genome project, BioLogos Francis Collins to biology (?). 

As for the former part, you did not explain so how am I suppose to verify your credentials?  I am not a mind reader nor can tell who I am debating with.  Can you explain primatology and how it relates to your points on evolution?  What courses does one have to take in order to get your degree?  I know anthro covers both social and hard science.  Some may not cover hard science very much.  It should include math.

Go ahead and run away if my asking for verification means ad  hominem attack.  That would be very weak willed of you.


----------



## MisterBeale

james bond said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have ACTUAL PHOTOS of genes. I SHIT YOU NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence you do not know what you are talking about.  Those are chromosomes, not genes.  Put them together and they make up a gene.
> 
> No college student uses words like you.  College students understand the requirements for an anthropology degree and part of anthropology is learning about genetics, genomes, and DNA.  Before that, they formulate some kind of idea of what type of careers their interests point them to.  Your words betray you.  You do not state the kind of things that most basic HS students headed for college or university have interests in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you need to start making up lies about me to make your arguments more sound, go ahead.
> 
> I believe you know what I meant when I posted that photo of the chromosomes.
> 
> I am beginning to believe that you do not want a friendly and well meaning debate.
> 
> 
> _"an anthropology degree and part of anthropology is learning about genetics, genomes, and DNA."_
> 
> Twenty years ago, this was not true.  The emphasis in my physical anthropology part of my degree was in primatology.  As far as I know, at most schools, folks get to choose their emphasis.
> 
> I looked around, and find what you wrote, still is not true.  You strike me as pretty ignorant, you seem to be just making things up.  Go ahead a POST for me proof of what you say, otherwise, you are bearing false witness, and we are done here.
> 
> Anthropologists just don't deal in the information you are talking about.  If you weren't so science illiterate, you would know this.
> 
> Folks that actually have been to University know the folks that study this are called;
> 
> EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS & BIOINFOMATICS
> 
> Bioinformatics - Wikipedia
> 
> 6 Things You Should Know About Biological Evolution
> 
> If you want to continue discussing?  Do not personally attack me, it isn't very Christian.
> 
> Next time you use Ad Hominem, we are done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Addressing the non-hate part of your post, it seems I have to do the work for you and read what you mean.  I don't even know what you mean and how it relates to our discussion and evolution by posting your links.  Can you explain?  Most people with degrees are happy to explain their knowledge.  It sounds like you went from discussing genomes, chromasomes, and the human genome project, BioLogos Francis Collins to biology (?).
> 
> As for the former part, you did not explain so how am I suppose to verify your credentials?  I am not a mind reader nor can tell who I am debating with.  Can you explain primatology and how it relates to your points on evolution?  What courses does one have to take in order to get your degree?  I know anthro covers both social and hard science.  Some may not cover hard science very much.  It should include math.
> 
> Go ahead and run away if my asking for verification means ad  hominem attack.  That would be very weak willed of you.
Click to expand...

None of it is important buddy.

Do we need to know who you are to discuss your position?


----------



## hjmick

MisterBeale said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have ACTUAL PHOTOS of genes. I SHIT YOU NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence you do not know what you are talking about.  Those are chromosomes, not genes.  Put them together and they make up a gene.
> 
> No college student uses words like you.  College students understand the requirements for an anthropology degree and part of anthropology is learning about genetics, genomes, and DNA.  Before that, they formulate some kind of idea of what type of careers their interests point them to.  Your words betray you.  You do not state the kind of things that most basic HS students headed for college or university have interests in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you need to start making up lies about me to make your arguments more sound, go ahead.
> 
> I believe you know what I meant when I posted that photo of the chromosomes.
> 
> I am beginning to believe that you do not want a friendly and well meaning debate.
> 
> 
> _"an anthropology degree and part of anthropology is learning about genetics, genomes, and DNA."_
> 
> Twenty years ago, this was not true.  The emphasis in my physical anthropology part of my degree was in primatology.  As far as I know, at most schools, folks get to choose their emphasis.
> 
> I looked around, and find what you wrote, still is not true.  You strike me as pretty ignorant, you seem to be just making things up.  Go ahead a POST for me proof of what you say, otherwise, you are bearing false witness, and we are done here.
> 
> Anthropologists just don't deal in the information you are talking about.  If you weren't so science illiterate, you would know this.
> 
> Folks that actually have been to University know the folks that study this are called;
> 
> EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS & BIOINFOMATICS
> 
> Bioinformatics - Wikipedia
> 
> 6 Things You Should Know About Biological Evolution
> 
> If you want to continue discussing?  Do not personally attack me, it isn't very Christian.
> 
> Next time you use Ad Hominem, we are done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Addressing the non-hate part of your post, it seems I have to do the work for you and read what you mean.  I don't even know what you mean and how it relates to our discussion and evolution by posting your links.  Can you explain?  Most people with degrees are happy to explain their knowledge.  It sounds like you went from discussing genomes, chromasomes, and the human genome project, BioLogos Francis Collins to biology (?).
> 
> As for the former part, you did not explain so how am I suppose to verify your credentials?  I am not a mind reader nor can tell who I am debating with.  Can you explain primatology and how it relates to your points on evolution?  What courses does one have to take in order to get your degree?  I know anthro covers both social and hard science.  Some may not cover hard science very much.  It should include math.
> 
> Go ahead and run away if my asking for verification means ad  hominem attack.  That would be very weak willed of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of it is important buddy.
> 
> Do we need to know who you are to discuss your position?
Click to expand...



You are arguing with someone who thinks there is science in creationism...


----------



## MisterBeale

james bond said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have ACTUAL PHOTOS of genes. I SHIT YOU NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence you do not know what you are talking about.  Those are chromosomes, not genes.  Put them together and they make up a gene.
> 
> No college student uses words like you.  College students understand the requirements for an anthropology degree and part of anthropology is learning about genetics, genomes, and DNA.  Before that, they formulate some kind of idea of what type of careers their interests point them to.  Your words betray you.  You do not state the kind of things that most basic HS students headed for college or university have interests in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you need to start making up lies about me to make your arguments more sound, go ahead.
> 
> I believe you know what I meant when I posted that photo of the chromosomes.
> 
> I am beginning to believe that you do not want a friendly and well meaning debate.
> 
> 
> _"an anthropology degree and part of anthropology is learning about genetics, genomes, and DNA."_
> 
> Twenty years ago, this was not true.  The emphasis in my physical anthropology part of my degree was in primatology.  As far as I know, at most schools, folks get to choose their emphasis.
> 
> I looked around, and find what you wrote, still is not true.  You strike me as pretty ignorant, you seem to be just making things up.  Go ahead a POST for me proof of what you say, otherwise, you are bearing false witness, and we are done here.
> 
> Anthropologists just don't deal in the information you are talking about.  If you weren't so science illiterate, you would know this.
> 
> Folks that actually have been to University know the folks that study this are called;
> 
> EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS & BIOINFOMATICS
> 
> Bioinformatics - Wikipedia
> 
> 6 Things You Should Know About Biological Evolution
> 
> If you want to continue discussing?  Do not personally attack me, it isn't very Christian.
> 
> Next time you use Ad Hominem, we are done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Addressing the non-hate part of your post, it seems I have to do the work for you and read what you mean.  I don't even know what you mean and how it relates to our discussion and evolution by posting your links.  Can you explain?  Most people with degrees are happy to explain their knowledge.  It sounds like you went from discussing genomes, chromasomes, and the human genome project, BioLogos Francis Collins to biology (?).
> 
> As for the former part, you did not explain so how am I suppose to verify your credentials?  I am not a mind reader nor can tell who I am debating with.  Can you explain primatology and how it relates to your points on evolution?  What courses does one have to take in order to get your degree?  I know anthro covers both social and hard science.  Some may not cover hard science very much.  It should include math.
> 
> Go ahead and run away if my asking for verification means ad  hominem attack.  That would be very weak willed of you.
Click to expand...


_"Can you explain primatology and how it relates to your points on evolution?"

_
If you are really curious, I recommend this book;

* Kanzi: The Ape at the Brink of the Human Mind 1st Edition *
*




*
https://www.amazon.com/Kanzi-Ape-Brink-Human-Mind/dp/047115959X&tag=ff0d01-20


Incidentally, I recently heard Kanzi is still alive and doing fine.  He is now teaching his son.


----------



## james bond

MisterBeale said:


> None of it is important buddy.
> 
> Do we need to know who you are to discuss your position?



YOU ARE A FUCKING DIPSHIT.  WE ARE DONE STUPID FUCKER.  YOU ARE IGNORED.  EAT SHIT AND DIE.  LOL.


----------



## james bond

hjmick said:


> You are arguing with someone who thinks there is science in creationism...



Too much ingnorance.  Best scientists are creation scientists today and before 1850's -- Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com.


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Formulate a logical argument instead of making empty threats on a forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, smartass. I'll see you in the Bull Ring. You're in big trouble, mister. I just woke up, though, so gonna make breakfast and feed the birds and whatnot. Maybe watch the sun come up with a hot beverage. The early bird catches the worm. Or so they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch the sun come up is thanks to God.  He created the sun, moon, and planets on the 4th day.  Not evolution.  How did the sun form?  How did it end up so that it is in the middle of our solar system and we revolve around it?  That's a suggested start.
Click to expand...

Did you know that some of the lights up in the sky are not stars, but whole galaxies?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Yo Wewei...knock off the funny shit. You're annoying me, fuckwit

It's also against the rules


----------



## danielpalos

...it must be a self-evident Truth, that we can assume a least one intelligent species in every galaxy.


----------



## Sunsettommy

progressive hunter said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your undeniable certainty?
> 
> 
> 
> No hominoid fossils with dinosaurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Modern” Fossils with Dinosaurs | Genesis Park
> 
> Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?
Click to expand...


The first link mentions published papers, but no link to them, gee I wonder why.....

Here is the first paper mentioned, note the ABSTRACT doesn't support their narrative at all

*Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana*

*1966*



> *Abstract*
> THE discovery of pollen and spores in beds considered Precambrian (Proterozoic) has received brief notice in geological journals and the press1–3. Individual authors will doubtless publish detailed stratigraphic and palynologic accounts of the occurrence in due course. Meanwhile it is considered desirable to give an outline of the facts of the case before distorted interpretations develop from inadequate data. The following summary statement has been prepared jointly by several members of the Asociación Venezolana de Geología, Minería y Petróleo. A single author is nominated to simplify bibliographic references.



The next paper doesn't help either:

Sahni, B., “Microfossils and the Salt Range Thrust,” _Proceedings of the NAS, India_, 1945, pp. i-xix

Not found on the internet outside of Genesis Park website.

The next paper mentioned, was not found on google search, got a 1946 paper instead.

Coates, J. et al., “Age of Saline Series in the Punjab Salt Range,” Nature 155, 1945, pp.

not found on the internet at all, just the mention of it is found at Genesis Park and NO WHERE ELSE!

We get this instead:

*Preliminary Observations on a new disease of wheat at Allahabad. *

Full text of "Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences India Vol-16"

and the last paper doesn't help either:

*Mesozoic birds of China—a synoptic review*

*"Abstract*

A synoptic review of the discoveries and studies of Chinese Mesozoic birds is provided in this paper. 40Ar/39Ar dating of several bird-bearing deposits in the Jehol Group has established a geochronological framework for the study of the early avian radiation. Chinese Mesozoic birds had lasted for at least 11 Ma during about 131 Ma and 120 Ma (Barremian to Aptian) of the middle and late Early Cretaceous, respectively. In order to further evaluate the change of the avian diversity in the Jehol Biota, six new orders and families are erected based on known genera and species, which brings the total number of orders of Chinese Mesozoic birds to 15 and highlights a remarkable radiation ever since the first appearance of birds in the Late Jurassic. Chinese Early Cretaceous birds had experienced a significant differentiation in morphology, flight, diet and habitat. Further examination of the foot of _Jeholornis_ suggests this bird might not have possessed a fully reversed hallux. However, the attachment of metatarsal I to the medial side of metatarsal II does not preclude trunk climbing, a pre-adaptation for well developed perching life of early birds. Arboreality had proved to be a key adaptation in the origin and early evolution of bird flight, and the adaptation to lakeshore environment had played an equally important role in the origin of ornithurine birds and their near-modern flight skill. Many Chinese Early Cretaceous birds had preserved the direct evidence of their diet, showing that the most primitive birds were probably mainly insectivorous and that specialized herbivorous or carnivorous (e.g., piscivorous) dietary adaptation had appeared only in later advanced forms. The only known Early Cretaceous bird embryo fossil has shown that precocial birds had occurred prior to altricial birds in avian history, and the size of the embryo and other analysis indicate it probably had a short incubation period. Leg feathers probably have a wide range of distribution in early birds, further suggesting that leg feathers had played a key role in the beginning stage of the flight of birds. Finally, the Early Cretaceous avian radiation can be better understood against the background of their unique ecosystem. The advantage of birds in the competitions with other vertebrate groups such as pterosaurs had probably not only resulted in the rapid differentiation and radiation of birds but also the worldwide spreading of pterosaurs and other vertebrates from East Asia in the Early Cretaceous."

No mention of the word MAMMAL in it, despite what the first link stated about this paper:



> In 2005 researchers in China identified a small dinosaur known as _Psittacosaurus_ amongst the stomach region of a fossilized furry mammal that resembled a Tasmanian devil. (Hu, Y. et al., “Large Mesozoic Mammals Fed on Young Dinosaurs,” _Nature:_ 433, 2005, pp. 149-152.)



Scientists have long said Birds lived during the time of Dinosaurs:

*Gigantic Birds Trod Earth During Age of Dinosaurs*

 Selected excerpt:

Scientists have long known that birds, or avian dinosaurs, lived during the Mesozoic, the era when dinosaurs ruled the Earth. Although researchers have discovered numerous Mesozoic bird species, these were virtually all the size of crows or smaller.

=============

Creationists have known to lie and distort the evidence, it is their nature since what they propose is nonsense, thus have to ... he he... create evidence to support their belief system.


----------



## cnm

SassyIrishLass said:


> Gfy Dullwinkle. How's that?


To be expected when the flaws in your argument are pointed out.


----------



## Ringtone

OldLady said:


> Just telling them that God created the world because science is all wet isn't much of a curriculum.



God _did_ create the universe!  The rational and empirical evidence for God's existence, God's necessity, is overwhelming.  _God created the world because science is all wet_ is nonsensical.  Are you implying that the alternative option would be that science created the world because God is all wet?  See the problem?

I don't think you meant to imply what you implied.  Just saying.


----------



## james bond

Sunsettommy said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your undeniable certainty?
> 
> 
> 
> No hominoid fossils with dinosaurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Modern” Fossils with Dinosaurs | Genesis Park
> 
> Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first link mentions published papers, but no link to them, gee I wonder why.....
> 
> Here is the first paper mentioned, note the ABSTRACT doesn't support their narrative at all
> 
> *Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana*
> 
> *1966*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Abstract*
> THE discovery of pollen and spores in beds considered Precambrian (Proterozoic) has received brief notice in geological journals and the press1–3. Individual authors will doubtless publish detailed stratigraphic and palynologic accounts of the occurrence in due course. Meanwhile it is considered desirable to give an outline of the facts of the case before distorted interpretations develop from inadequate data. The following summary statement has been prepared jointly by several members of the Asociación Venezolana de Geología, Minería y Petróleo. A single author is nominated to simplify bibliographic references.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The next paper doesn't help either:
> 
> Sahni, B., “Microfossils and the Salt Range Thrust,” _Proceedings of the NAS, India_, 1945, pp. i-xix
> 
> Not found on the internet outside of Genesis Park website.
> 
> The next paper mentioned, was not found on google search, got a 1946 paper instead.
> 
> Coates, J. et al., “Age of Saline Series in the Punjab Salt Range,” Nature 155, 1945, pp.
> 
> not found on the internet at all, just the mention of it is found at Genesis Park and NO WHERE ELSE!
> 
> We get this instead:
> 
> *Preliminary Observations on a new disease of wheat at Allahabad. *
> 
> Full text of "Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences India Vol-16"
> 
> and the last paper doesn't help either:
> 
> *Mesozoic birds of China—a synoptic review*
> 
> *"Abstract*
> 
> A synoptic review of the discoveries and studies of Chinese Mesozoic birds is provided in this paper. 40Ar/39Ar dating of several bird-bearing deposits in the Jehol Group has established a geochronological framework for the study of the early avian radiation. Chinese Mesozoic birds had lasted for at least 11 Ma during about 131 Ma and 120 Ma (Barremian to Aptian) of the middle and late Early Cretaceous, respectively. In order to further evaluate the change of the avian diversity in the Jehol Biota, six new orders and families are erected based on known genera and species, which brings the total number of orders of Chinese Mesozoic birds to 15 and highlights a remarkable radiation ever since the first appearance of birds in the Late Jurassic. Chinese Early Cretaceous birds had experienced a significant differentiation in morphology, flight, diet and habitat. Further examination of the foot of _Jeholornis_ suggests this bird might not have possessed a fully reversed hallux. However, the attachment of metatarsal I to the medial side of metatarsal II does not preclude trunk climbing, a pre-adaptation for well developed perching life of early birds. Arboreality had proved to be a key adaptation in the origin and early evolution of bird flight, and the adaptation to lakeshore environment had played an equally important role in the origin of ornithurine birds and their near-modern flight skill. Many Chinese Early Cretaceous birds had preserved the direct evidence of their diet, showing that the most primitive birds were probably mainly insectivorous and that specialized herbivorous or carnivorous (e.g., piscivorous) dietary adaptation had appeared only in later advanced forms. The only known Early Cretaceous bird embryo fossil has shown that precocial birds had occurred prior to altricial birds in avian history, and the size of the embryo and other analysis indicate it probably had a short incubation period. Leg feathers probably have a wide range of distribution in early birds, further suggesting that leg feathers had played a key role in the beginning stage of the flight of birds. Finally, the Early Cretaceous avian radiation can be better understood against the background of their unique ecosystem. The advantage of birds in the competitions with other vertebrate groups such as pterosaurs had probably not only resulted in the rapid differentiation and radiation of birds but also the worldwide spreading of pterosaurs and other vertebrates from East Asia in the Early Cretaceous."
> 
> No mention of the word MAMMAL in it, despite what the first link stated about this paper:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2005 researchers in China identified a small dinosaur known as _Psittacosaurus_ amongst the stomach region of a fossilized furry mammal that resembled a Tasmanian devil. (Hu, Y. et al., “Large Mesozoic Mammals Fed on Young Dinosaurs,” _Nature:_ 433, 2005, pp. 149-152.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientists have long said Birds lived during the time of Dinosaurs:
> 
> *Gigantic Birds Trod Earth During Age of Dinosaurs*
> 
> Selected excerpt:
> 
> Scientists have long known that birds, or avian dinosaurs, lived during the Mesozoic, the era when dinosaurs ruled the Earth. Although researchers have discovered numerous Mesozoic bird species, these were virtually all the size of crows or smaller.
> 
> =============
> 
> Creationists have known to lie and distort the evidence, it is their nature since what they propose is nonsense, thus have to ... he he... create evidence to support their belief system.
Click to expand...


"J.B.S. Haldane famously retorted, when asked to name an observation that would disprove the theory of evolution, ‘Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!"

The first link was for a Precambrian rabbit which JBS Haldane said would be proof on no evolution.  The National Geographic article is missing, but here's two from earlier the same year -- Fossil of Oldest Rabbit Relative Found

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Fossil finds are rabbit forebears

The second reference from Nature:
Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana

The next one is a book reference:
Sahni, B., “Microfossils and the Salt Range Thrust,” _Proceedings of the NAS, India_, 1945, pp. i-xix

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001P8BPGE/?tag=ff0d01-20

Age of the Saline Series in the Salt Range of the Punjab
Age of the Saline Series in the Salt Range of the Punjab

Large Mesozoic mammals fed on young dinosaurs
Large Mesozoic mammals fed on young dinosaurs

Living Fossils, a powerful evidence for creation, Don Batten, _Creation_
Werner living fossils - creation.com

Large Mesozoic mammals fed on young dinosaurs
Large Mesozoic mammals fed on young dinosaurs

You can read the GP article, the links here, and I would be glad to discuss.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your undeniable certainty?
> 
> 
> 
> No hominoid fossils with dinosaurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Modern” Fossils with Dinosaurs | Genesis Park
> 
> Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first link mentions published papers, but no link to them, gee I wonder why.....
> 
> Here is the first paper mentioned, note the ABSTRACT doesn't support their narrative at all
> 
> *Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana*
> 
> *1966*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Abstract*
> THE discovery of pollen and spores in beds considered Precambrian (Proterozoic) has received brief notice in geological journals and the press1–3. Individual authors will doubtless publish detailed stratigraphic and palynologic accounts of the occurrence in due course. Meanwhile it is considered desirable to give an outline of the facts of the case before distorted interpretations develop from inadequate data. The following summary statement has been prepared jointly by several members of the Asociación Venezolana de Geología, Minería y Petróleo. A single author is nominated to simplify bibliographic references.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The next paper doesn't help either:
> 
> Sahni, B., “Microfossils and the Salt Range Thrust,” _Proceedings of the NAS, India_, 1945, pp. i-xix
> 
> Not found on the internet outside of Genesis Park website.
> 
> The next paper mentioned, was not found on google search, got a 1946 paper instead.
> 
> Coates, J. et al., “Age of Saline Series in the Punjab Salt Range,” Nature 155, 1945, pp.
> 
> not found on the internet at all, just the mention of it is found at Genesis Park and NO WHERE ELSE!
> 
> We get this instead:
> 
> *Preliminary Observations on a new disease of wheat at Allahabad. *
> 
> Full text of "Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences India Vol-16"
> 
> and the last paper doesn't help either:
> 
> *Mesozoic birds of China—a synoptic review*
> 
> *"Abstract*
> 
> A synoptic review of the discoveries and studies of Chinese Mesozoic birds is provided in this paper. 40Ar/39Ar dating of several bird-bearing deposits in the Jehol Group has established a geochronological framework for the study of the early avian radiation. Chinese Mesozoic birds had lasted for at least 11 Ma during about 131 Ma and 120 Ma (Barremian to Aptian) of the middle and late Early Cretaceous, respectively. In order to further evaluate the change of the avian diversity in the Jehol Biota, six new orders and families are erected based on known genera and species, which brings the total number of orders of Chinese Mesozoic birds to 15 and highlights a remarkable radiation ever since the first appearance of birds in the Late Jurassic. Chinese Early Cretaceous birds had experienced a significant differentiation in morphology, flight, diet and habitat. Further examination of the foot of _Jeholornis_ suggests this bird might not have possessed a fully reversed hallux. However, the attachment of metatarsal I to the medial side of metatarsal II does not preclude trunk climbing, a pre-adaptation for well developed perching life of early birds. Arboreality had proved to be a key adaptation in the origin and early evolution of bird flight, and the adaptation to lakeshore environment had played an equally important role in the origin of ornithurine birds and their near-modern flight skill. Many Chinese Early Cretaceous birds had preserved the direct evidence of their diet, showing that the most primitive birds were probably mainly insectivorous and that specialized herbivorous or carnivorous (e.g., piscivorous) dietary adaptation had appeared only in later advanced forms. The only known Early Cretaceous bird embryo fossil has shown that precocial birds had occurred prior to altricial birds in avian history, and the size of the embryo and other analysis indicate it probably had a short incubation period. Leg feathers probably have a wide range of distribution in early birds, further suggesting that leg feathers had played a key role in the beginning stage of the flight of birds. Finally, the Early Cretaceous avian radiation can be better understood against the background of their unique ecosystem. The advantage of birds in the competitions with other vertebrate groups such as pterosaurs had probably not only resulted in the rapid differentiation and radiation of birds but also the worldwide spreading of pterosaurs and other vertebrates from East Asia in the Early Cretaceous."
> 
> No mention of the word MAMMAL in it, despite what the first link stated about this paper:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2005 researchers in China identified a small dinosaur known as _Psittacosaurus_ amongst the stomach region of a fossilized furry mammal that resembled a Tasmanian devil. (Hu, Y. et al., “Large Mesozoic Mammals Fed on Young Dinosaurs,” _Nature:_ 433, 2005, pp. 149-152.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientists have long said Birds lived during the time of Dinosaurs:
> 
> *Gigantic Birds Trod Earth During Age of Dinosaurs*
> 
> Selected excerpt:
> 
> Scientists have long known that birds, or avian dinosaurs, lived during the Mesozoic, the era when dinosaurs ruled the Earth. Although researchers have discovered numerous Mesozoic bird species, these were virtually all the size of crows or smaller.
> 
> =============
> 
> Creationists have known to lie and distort the evidence, it is their nature since what they propose is nonsense, thus have to ... he he... create evidence to support their belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "J.B.S. Haldane famously retorted, when asked to name an observation that would disprove the theory of evolution, ‘Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!"
> 
> The first link was for a Precambrian rabbit which JBS Haldane said would be proof on no evolution.  The National Geographic article is missing, but here's another one from the same date -- King of Rabbits: Ancient, Gigantic Bunny Discovered.
> 
> The second reference from Nature:
> Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana
> 
> The next one is a book reference:
> Sahni, B., “Microfossils and the Salt Range Thrust,” _Proceedings of the NAS, India_, 1945, pp. i-xix
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001P8BPGE/?tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> Age of the Saline Series in the Salt Range of the Punjab
> Age of the Saline Series in the Salt Range of the Punjab
> 
> Large Mesozoic mammals fed on young dinosaurs
> Large Mesozoic mammals fed on young dinosaurs
> 
> Living Fossils, a powerful evidence for creation, Don Batten, _Creation_
> Werner living fossils - creation.com
> 
> Large Mesozoic mammals fed on young dinosaurs
> Large Mesozoic mammals fed on young dinosaurs
> 
> You can read the GP article, the links here, and I would be glad to discuss.
Click to expand...


*The first link was for a Precambrian rabbit which JBS Haldane said would be proof on no evolution. The National Geographic article is missing, but here's another one from the same date -- King of Rabbits: Ancient, Gigantic Bunny Discovered.*

Ummm…..5 million years ago isn't pre-Cambrian.


----------



## dblack

Actually, when my kids were in school, it would have been kind of funny if they'd tried to teach creationism.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your undeniable certainty?
> 
> 
> 
> No hominoid fossils with dinosaurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Modern” Fossils with Dinosaurs | Genesis Park
> 
> Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first link mentions published papers, but no link to them, gee I wonder why.....
> 
> Here is the first paper mentioned, note the ABSTRACT doesn't support their narrative at all
> 
> *Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana*
> 
> *1966*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Abstract*
> THE discovery of pollen and spores in beds considered Precambrian (Proterozoic) has received brief notice in geological journals and the press1–3. Individual authors will doubtless publish detailed stratigraphic and palynologic accounts of the occurrence in due course. Meanwhile it is considered desirable to give an outline of the facts of the case before distorted interpretations develop from inadequate data. The following summary statement has been prepared jointly by several members of the Asociación Venezolana de Geología, Minería y Petróleo. A single author is nominated to simplify bibliographic references.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The next paper doesn't help either:
> 
> Sahni, B., “Microfossils and the Salt Range Thrust,” _Proceedings of the NAS, India_, 1945, pp. i-xix
> 
> Not found on the internet outside of Genesis Park website.
> 
> The next paper mentioned, was not found on google search, got a 1946 paper instead.
> 
> Coates, J. et al., “Age of Saline Series in the Punjab Salt Range,” Nature 155, 1945, pp.
> 
> not found on the internet at all, just the mention of it is found at Genesis Park and NO WHERE ELSE!
> 
> We get this instead:
> 
> *Preliminary Observations on a new disease of wheat at Allahabad. *
> 
> Full text of "Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences India Vol-16"
> 
> and the last paper doesn't help either:
> 
> *Mesozoic birds of China—a synoptic review*
> 
> *"Abstract*
> 
> A synoptic review of the discoveries and studies of Chinese Mesozoic birds is provided in this paper. 40Ar/39Ar dating of several bird-bearing deposits in the Jehol Group has established a geochronological framework for the study of the early avian radiation. Chinese Mesozoic birds had lasted for at least 11 Ma during about 131 Ma and 120 Ma (Barremian to Aptian) of the middle and late Early Cretaceous, respectively. In order to further evaluate the change of the avian diversity in the Jehol Biota, six new orders and families are erected based on known genera and species, which brings the total number of orders of Chinese Mesozoic birds to 15 and highlights a remarkable radiation ever since the first appearance of birds in the Late Jurassic. Chinese Early Cretaceous birds had experienced a significant differentiation in morphology, flight, diet and habitat. Further examination of the foot of _Jeholornis_ suggests this bird might not have possessed a fully reversed hallux. However, the attachment of metatarsal I to the medial side of metatarsal II does not preclude trunk climbing, a pre-adaptation for well developed perching life of early birds. Arboreality had proved to be a key adaptation in the origin and early evolution of bird flight, and the adaptation to lakeshore environment had played an equally important role in the origin of ornithurine birds and their near-modern flight skill. Many Chinese Early Cretaceous birds had preserved the direct evidence of their diet, showing that the most primitive birds were probably mainly insectivorous and that specialized herbivorous or carnivorous (e.g., piscivorous) dietary adaptation had appeared only in later advanced forms. The only known Early Cretaceous bird embryo fossil has shown that precocial birds had occurred prior to altricial birds in avian history, and the size of the embryo and other analysis indicate it probably had a short incubation period. Leg feathers probably have a wide range of distribution in early birds, further suggesting that leg feathers had played a key role in the beginning stage of the flight of birds. Finally, the Early Cretaceous avian radiation can be better understood against the background of their unique ecosystem. The advantage of birds in the competitions with other vertebrate groups such as pterosaurs had probably not only resulted in the rapid differentiation and radiation of birds but also the worldwide spreading of pterosaurs and other vertebrates from East Asia in the Early Cretaceous."
> 
> No mention of the word MAMMAL in it, despite what the first link stated about this paper:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2005 researchers in China identified a small dinosaur known as _Psittacosaurus_ amongst the stomach region of a fossilized furry mammal that resembled a Tasmanian devil. (Hu, Y. et al., “Large Mesozoic Mammals Fed on Young Dinosaurs,” _Nature:_ 433, 2005, pp. 149-152.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientists have long said Birds lived during the time of Dinosaurs:
> 
> *Gigantic Birds Trod Earth During Age of Dinosaurs*
> 
> Selected excerpt:
> 
> Scientists have long known that birds, or avian dinosaurs, lived during the Mesozoic, the era when dinosaurs ruled the Earth. Although researchers have discovered numerous Mesozoic bird species, these were virtually all the size of crows or smaller.
> 
> =============
> 
> Creationists have known to lie and distort the evidence, it is their nature since what they propose is nonsense, thus have to ... he he... create evidence to support their belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "J.B.S. Haldane famously retorted, when asked to name an observation that would disprove the theory of evolution, ‘Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!"
> 
> The first link was for a Precambrian rabbit which JBS Haldane said would be proof on no evolution.  The National Geographic article is missing, but here's two from earlier the same year -- Fossil of Oldest Rabbit Relative Found
> 
> BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Fossil finds are rabbit forebears
> 
> The second reference from Nature:
> Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana
> 
> The next one is a book reference:
> Sahni, B., “Microfossils and the Salt Range Thrust,” _Proceedings of the NAS, India_, 1945, pp. i-xix
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001P8BPGE/?tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> Age of the Saline Series in the Salt Range of the Punjab
> Age of the Saline Series in the Salt Range of the Punjab
> 
> Large Mesozoic mammals fed on young dinosaurs
> Large Mesozoic mammals fed on young dinosaurs
> 
> Living Fossils, a powerful evidence for creation, Don Batten, _Creation_
> Werner living fossils - creation.com
> 
> Large Mesozoic mammals fed on young dinosaurs
> Large Mesozoic mammals fed on young dinosaurs
> 
> You can read the GP article, the links here, and I would be glad to discuss.
Click to expand...


J.B.S. Haldane suggested that anyone wishing to disprove evolutionary theory only needs to discover a rabbit fossil from pre-Cambrian rock. That would do just fine. A few creationist frauds have been claimed, but nothing to challenge science.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.



Creation science quackery is _*clearly not*_ backed by the Scientific Method. iD’iot creationism / creation science, and the other labels for Christian fundamentalism are just fronts for Christian religious extremism.

The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "_The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model_." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.

In the same way, when creationists find themselves unable to deal with the multiple independent sources of evidence for evolution that include the fossils, the genetic comparisons, comparative anatomy, biogeography, ecology etc., they retreat further and further into really angry outbursts from the more angry religionists.


Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> J.B.S. Haldane suggested that anyone wishing to disprove evolutionary theory only needs to discover a rabbit fossil from pre-Cambrian rock. That would do just fine. A few creationist frauds have been claimed, but nothing to challenge science.



Piffle.  Adaptive radiation—per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection—is readily observable.  Aside from being a mathematical and engineering monstrosity, the hypothetical extrapolation of an evolutionary, transmutationally branching speciation from a common ancestry is the philosophical mumbo-jumbo of naturalism and nothing more.  If the extrapolation were true, what we should see is a Precambrian strata with a decisive indication of the same, if not a Precambrian strata saturated with transitional forms.  We don't.  What we see is a strata conducive to a series of creative events over geological time.  The argument that tens of millions of animals undergoing billions of transitions in aggregate would not leave a decisive record of ten of thousands, if not millions, of transitional forms, regardless of the fossilization conditions, is nonsense.  

Oh, look, the unobservable and indemonstrable, evolutionary extrapolation is true even when there's no observable or demonstrable evidence that the evolutionary extrapolation is true!  LOL!


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.




Lee Strobel?

Why drag that quack out?

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Lee Strobel

Lee Strobel is a popular Christian apologetics speaker, creationist, newspaper writer, intelligent design panderer, former legal editor at the Chicago Tribune television host (“Faith under Fire”), and author of several books, all with titles starting with “The case for …”. In his publications and interviews Strobel’s approach is to claim to assume the role of an investigative reporter but take anything that agrees with his position at face value (regardless of how vague, foggy, or unsupported it is; examples here and here). His tactic against people he disagrees with is to take a quote out of context and use it to erect a strawman. Note that his point is not to argue that faith is compatible with science - he does indeed perceive a conflict between science and religion; fortunately, his armchair arguments for God are supposedly good enough to refute the parts of science he doesn't fancy.


Strobel’s own arguments against evolutionary theory are mostly based on ignorance and distortion, for instance “Evolution is defined as a random, undirected process” [no, it isn’t], and “Darwinism offers no explanation for human consciousness. The gaps in science point to a creator.” It is followed by “700 scientists of impeccable credentials signed the Dissent from Darwinism statement. Believing in evolution requires a leap of fatih. This isn't faith versus science it's science versus science.” Right.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> J.B.S. Haldane suggested that anyone wishing to disprove evolutionary theory only needs to discover a rabbit fossil from pre-Cambrian rock. That would do just fine. A few creationist frauds have been claimed, but nothing to challenge science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Piffle.  Adaptive radiation—per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection—is readily observable.  Aside from being a mathematical and engineering monstrosity, the hypothetical extrapolation of an evolutionary, transmutationally branching speciation from a common ancestry is the philosophical mumbo-jumbo of naturalism and nothing more.  If the extrapolation were true, what we should see is a Precambrian strata with a decisive indication of the same, if not a Precambrian strata saturated with transitional forms.  We don't.  What we see is a strata conducive to a series of creative events over geological time.  The argument that tens of millions of animals undergoing billions of transitions in aggregate would not leave a decisive record of ten of thousands, if not millions, of transitional forms, regardless of the fossilization conditions, is nonsense.
> 
> Oh, look, the unobservable and indemonstrable, evolutionary extrapolation is true even when there's no observable or demonstrable evidence that the evolutionary extrapolation is true!  LOL!
Click to expand...


Speaking of piffle, your juvenile, mostly incoherent rambling offers nothing but.... well... piffle.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Creation science quackery is _*clearly not*_ backed by the Scientific Method. iD’iot creationism / creation science, and the other labels for Christian fundamentalism are just fronts for Christian religious extremism.



Nonsense!  Once again, while adaptive radiation—per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection—is readily observable, . the hypothetical extrapolation of an evolutionary, transmutationally branching speciation from a common ancestry is the philosophical mumbo-jumbo of a mathematical and engineering monstrosity.  Materialism is quackery.  Ontological naturalism is quackery.  Atheism is quackery.  The hypothetical extrapolation is quackery.  Your post is quackery.  Your Cousin Chimp is quackery.  Your Grandpa Ape is quackery.  Your monkey's uncle is quackery.  Your quackery is quackery.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> J.B.S. Haldane suggested that anyone wishing to disprove evolutionary theory only needs to discover a rabbit fossil from pre-Cambrian rock. That would do just fine. A few creationist frauds have been claimed, but nothing to challenge science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Piffle.  Adaptive radiation—per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection—is readily observable.  Aside from being a mathematical and engineering monstrosity, the hypothetical extrapolation of an evolutionary, transmutationally branching speciation from a common ancestry is the philosophical mumbo-jumbo of naturalism and nothing more.  If the extrapolation were true, what we should see is a Precambrian strata with a decisive indication of the same, if not a Precambrian strata saturated with transitional forms.  We don't.  What we see is a strata conducive to a series of creative events over geological time.  The argument that tens of millions of animals undergoing billions of transitions in aggregate would not leave a decisive record of ten of thousands, if not millions, of transitional forms, regardless of the fossilization conditions, is nonsense.
> 
> Oh, look, the unobservable and indemonstrable, evolutionary extrapolation is true even when there's no observable or demonstrable evidence that the evolutionary extrapolation is true!  LOL!
Click to expand...


Actually, speciation has been observed and is quite common. 

So, you’re back with a new account but the same old piffle, eh?


Observed Instances of Speciation

Odd that what we don’t have evidence for is super-magical “creative events”.  

I guess Amun Ra has been too busy with his administrative duties to wow us with pulling rabbits out of a hat...LOL.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science quackery is _*clearly not*_ backed by the Scientific Method. iD’iot creationism / creation science, and the other labels for Christian fundamentalism are just fronts for Christian religious extremism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense!  Once again, while adaptive radiation—per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection—is readily observable, . the hypothetical extrapolation of an evolutionary, transmutationally branching speciation from a common ancestry is the philosophical mumbo-jumbo of a mathematical and engineering monstrosity.  Materialism is quackery.  Ontological naturalism is quackery.  Atheism is quackery.  The hypothetical extrapolation is quackery.  Your post is quackery.  Your Cousin Chimp is quackery.  Your Grandpa Ape is quackery.  Your monkey's uncle is quackery.  Your quackery is quackery.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. You can’t even define the nonsense term “adaptive radiation”.

What phony, crank ID’iot creation ministry did you steal that from?

LOL.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Speaking of piffle, your juvenile, mostly incoherent rambling offers nothing but.... well... piffle.



Nonsense!  The evolutionist's pathetic excuse for the stunning lack of transitional forms is juvenile, incoherent, baby talk.  Your post is piffle.  Your piffle is . . . well . . . piffle.  Evolution?  A pure myth, a superstition, a delusion, a long con; it's the stuff of magic, unicorns, goblins, fairies with boots. . . .


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of piffle, your juvenile, mostly incoherent rambling offers nothing but.... well... piffle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense!  The evolutionist's pathetic excuse for the stunning lack of transitional forms is juvenile, incoherent, baby talk.  Your post is piffle.  Your piffle is . . . well . . . piffle.  Evolution?  A pure myth, a superstition, a delusion, a long con; it's the stuff of magic, unicorns, goblins, fairies with boots. . . .
Click to expand...


Oh, my. It’s the angry, self-hating, bible thumping Rawlings with a new account.

So, about those common transitional forms you thumped around but couldn’t address.


Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ


Transitional Species in Insect Evolution

Maybe wrap your bibles with duct tape into a double wide and find your favorite street corner.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Nonsense. You can’t even define the nonsense term “adaptive radiation”.
> 
> What phony, crank ID’iot creation ministry did you steal that from?



Oh, look, we got ourselves another atheist know-nothing, pretending to understand or to know things better than those who eschew the unobservable and indemonstrable Darwinian extrapolation, another fraud unwittingly exposing herself for the ignoramus that she is. 

*Adaptive radiation* is a process in which organisms diversify rapidly from an ancestral species into a multitude of new forms, particularly when a change in the environment makes new resources available, creates new challenges, or opens new environmental niches. Starting with a recent single ancestor, this process results in the speciation and phenotypic adaptation of an array of species exhibiting different morphological and physiological traits. The prototypical example of adaptive radiation is finch speciation on the Galapagos ("Darwin's finches"), but examples are known from around the world. (Wikipedia)​


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. You can’t even define the nonsense term “adaptive radiation”.
> 
> What phony, crank ID’iot creation ministry did you steal that from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, look, we got ourselves another atheist know-nothing, pretending to understand or to know things better than those who eschew the unobservable and indemonstrable Darwinian extrapolation, another fraud unwittingly exposing herself for the ignoramus that she is.
> 
> *Adaptive radiation* is a process in which organisms diversify rapidly from an ancestral species into a multitude of new forms, particularly when a change in the environment makes new resources available, creates new challenges, or opens new environmental niches. Starting with a recent single ancestor, this process results in the speciation and phenotypic adaptation of an array of species exhibiting different morphological and physiological traits. The prototypical example of adaptive radiation is finch speciation on the Galapagos ("Darwin's finches"), but examples are known from around the world. (Wikipedia)​
Click to expand...


Oh, a wiki groupie. How cute.

Another bible thumping zealot who trolls wiki in a hopeless attempt to conceal his complete lack of a science vocabulary.

Still thumping along with no response to the evidence for speciation. Somehow, your lack of ability to respond with a coherent argument is very familiar.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Maybe wrap your bibles with duct tape



Maybe you should duct tape your pie hole and stick to the science.  Oh, wait, you can't do the science either.

Those sites are not talking about fossilized transitional forms entailing one organism evolving into an entirely new organism.  They're alternately talking about fossilized specimens of adaptive radiation within species or genera, or the non-fossilized, branchings of the hypothetical extrapolation.  You're a know-nothing, a fraud, a pretender.


----------



## cnm

Ringtone said:


> God _did_ create the universe! The rational and empirical evidence for God's existence, God's necessity, is overwhelming. _God created the world because science is all wet_ is nonsensical. Are you implying that the alternative option would be that science created the world because God is all wet? See the problem?


Yes. The problem is you have no rational evidence of god's existence, only assertion. Nothing new.


----------



## cnm

Ringtone said:


> What we see is a strata conducive to a series of creative events over geological time.


Oh. Are you saying YHWH created species millions of years apart? Interesting.
If so, when do you estimate that creation of species stopped?


----------



## Ringtone

cnm said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> God _did_ create the universe! The rational and empirical evidence for God's existence, God's necessity, is overwhelming. _God created the world because science is all wet_ is nonsensical. Are you implying that the alternative option would be that science created the world because God is all wet? See the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. The problem is you have no rational evidence of god's existence, only assertion. Nothing new.
Click to expand...



No.  You have no evidence.  I have plenty.  You're blind and irrational.  I see and think clearly.  You're an atheist crackpot.  I'm a sane, rational human being.  The empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is self-evident.


----------



## cnm

Ringtone said:


> No. You have no evidence. I have plenty. You're blind and irrational. I see and think clearly. You're an atheist crackpot. I'm a sane, rational human being. The empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is self-evident.


Well fair enough. Who could argue against such an earnestly asserted assertion?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ummm…..5 million years ago isn't pre-Cambrian.



Try *53 million years old* which is quite close to the time evolutionists think dinosaurs were still alive.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> J.B.S. Haldane suggested that anyone wishing to disprove evolutionary theory only needs to discover a rabbit fossil from pre-Cambrian rock. That would do just fine. A few creationist frauds have been claimed, but nothing to challenge science.



What science?  It's fake.  Evolution is built up fossil evidence.  What creation scientists have found are a number of _out-of-place_ fossils. 

It ends up disproving evolution and the silly birds from dinosaurs.  No one is going to go see feathered dinosaurs.


We'll probably have reboots of those old, old, old sci-fi movies from the 50s again (sarcasm) .


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Lee Strobel?



The documentary shows how he changed his mind through real science.


----------



## james bond

We've always had a lot of myths written about birds going back to ancient times.  There are plenty of stories about dragons, dinosaurs of ancient times, too.  There are no mythical stories of dinosaurs turning into birds  

10 Truly Crazy Birds From World Mythology - Listverse

"After Alexander the Great invaded India he brought back reports of seeing a great hissing dragon living in a cave. Later Greek rulers supposedly brought dragons alive from Ethiopia. (Gould, Charles, _Mythical Monsters_, W.H. Allen & Co., London, 1886, pp. 382-383.) Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia (“Dinosaur” entry) explains that the historical references to dinosaur bones may extend as far back as the 5th century BC. In fact, some scholars think that the Greek historian Herodotus was referring to fossilized dinosaur skeletons and eggs when he described griffins guarding nests in central Asia. “Dragon bones” mentioned in a 3rd century AD text from China are thought to refer to bones of dinosaurs.




Titus Flavius Josephus




Herodotus – “Father of History”

Ancient explorers and historians, like Josephus, told of small flying reptiles in ancient Egypt and Arabia and described their predators, the ibis, stopping their invasion into Egypt. (Epstein, Perle S., _Monsters: Their Histories, Homes, and Habits_, 1973, p.43.) A third century historian Gaius Solinus, discussed the Arabian flying serpents, and stated that “the poison is so quick that death follows before pain can be felt.” (Cobbin, Ingram, _Condensed Commentary and Family Exposition on the Whole Bible_, 1837, p. 171.) The well-respected Greek researcher Herodotus wrote: “There is a place in Arabia, situated very near the city of Buto, to which I went, on hearing of some winged serpents; and when I arrived there, I saw bones and spines of serpents, in such quantities as it would be impossible to describe. The form of the serpent is like that of the water-snake; but he has wings without feathers, and as like as possible to the wings of a bat.” (Herodotus, _Historiae_, tr. Henry Clay, 1850, pp. 75-76.) This is a remarkable description of a pterosaur! In his third volume Herodotus goes on to tell how these animals could sometimes be found in the Arabian spice groves. He describes their size, coloration, and reproduction.  It seems that venomous flying serpents were infamous for living in frankincense trees. When workers wanted to gather the tree’s incense, they would employ putrid smoke to drive the flying reptiles away. (Note the illustration below to the the right.) Herodotus has been called “the Father of History” because he was the first historian we know who collected his materials systematically and then tested them for accuracy. John Goertzen noted the Egyptian representation of _tail vanes_ with flying reptiles and concluded that they must have observed pterosaurs or they would not have known to sketch this leaf-shaped tail. (Goertzen, J.C., “Shadows of Rhamphorhynchoid Pterosaurs in Ancient Egypt and Nubia,” _Cryptozoology_, Vol 13, 1998.)"

Dragons in History | Genesis Park


----------



## cnm

Seek help.


----------



## james bond

cnm said:


> Seek help.



I'm not the one who believes birds from dinosaurs as science.  Why is that so important for you anyway?  Weren't you the one who insisted birds_ are_ dinosaurs and the reason for the Satan thread?  The humans from monkeys argument isn't as stupid.  Dinosaurs are usually huge beasts.  Birds are smaller.  Someone else claimed birds are land animals.  They're flying animals.  Why can't birds just be birds?  Before that, it was birds from reptiles.

Basically, the secular scientists and the MSM try too hard to make you believe their bullshit.  We got people fearing the end of the world due to an asteroid hit.  We got hit by a huge meteor before and survived.  Probably a few dinosaurs survived.  Stop ignoring the evidence just to make stuff fit your stupid science.


----------



## MisterBeale

*How Necking Shaped the Giraffe*
* The private life of the African giant offers a remarkable view on evolution. *
*How Necking Shaped the Giraffe: The quirks of the giraffe offer a remarkable view on evolution.*
*




*
Funny Bones: As notably long as a giraffe’s neck may be, it is outclassed by its legs. In fact, that monumental neck is too short to comfortably reach a puddle; as a result, a drinking giraffe must splay its front feet wide apart, an awkward stance that makes it vulnerable to predators.Giraffe neck detail photo by Mike Taylor and Matt Wedel

". . .  As an evolutionary biologist and professor, I have put _Giraffa camelopardalis_ on stage in my classrooms—well, not literally—as the embodiment of how natural selection has produced a creature that on the one hand is spectacularly adapted to its peculiar ecological niche and on the other is an example of evolution’s “clumsy, wasteful and blundering” process, to borrow Darwin’s own words. It’s sometimes assumed those blunders result from mutations or evolutionary errors. *But in fact they result from history: the fact that at any given point natural selection has no choice but to work from what is already available. More than most animals, giraffes reflect the fact that organisms have not been created from scratch (or if they were, the Special Creator was notably inept). Rather, they have been cobbled together, via trial and success, from their historical antecedents. . . . "  (MORE)*


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> J.B.S. Haldane suggested that anyone wishing to disprove evolutionary theory only needs to discover a rabbit fossil from pre-Cambrian rock. That would do just fine. A few creationist frauds have been claimed, but nothing to challenge science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What science?  It's fake.  Evolution is built up fossil evidence.  What creation scientists have found are a number of _out-of-place_ fossils.
> 
> It ends up disproving evolution and the silly birds from dinosaurs.  No one is going to go see feathered dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> We'll probably have reboots of those old, old, old sci-fi movies from the 50s again (sarcasm) .
Click to expand...



The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.

CC214:  Transitional Birds


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lee Strobel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The documentary shows how he changed his mind through real science.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. 

He’s just another tired excuse for a religious extremist.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> We've always had a lot of myths written about birds going back to ancient times.  There are plenty of stories about dragons, dinosaurs of ancient times, too.  There are no mythical stories of dinosaurs turning into birds
> 
> 10 Truly Crazy Birds From World Mythology - Listverse
> 
> "After Alexander the Great invaded India he brought back reports of seeing a great hissing dragon living in a cave. Later Greek rulers supposedly brought dragons alive from Ethiopia. (Gould, Charles, _Mythical Monsters_, W.H. Allen & Co., London, 1886, pp. 382-383.) Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia (“Dinosaur” entry) explains that the historical references to dinosaur bones may extend as far back as the 5th century BC. In fact, some scholars think that the Greek historian Herodotus was referring to fossilized dinosaur skeletons and eggs when he described griffins guarding nests in central Asia. “Dragon bones” mentioned in a 3rd century AD text from China are thought to refer to bones of dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Titus Flavius Josephus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herodotus – “Father of History”
> 
> Ancient explorers and historians, like Josephus, told of small flying reptiles in ancient Egypt and Arabia and described their predators, the ibis, stopping their invasion into Egypt. (Epstein, Perle S., _Monsters: Their Histories, Homes, and Habits_, 1973, p.43.) A third century historian Gaius Solinus, discussed the Arabian flying serpents, and stated that “the poison is so quick that death follows before pain can be felt.” (Cobbin, Ingram, _Condensed Commentary and Family Exposition on the Whole Bible_, 1837, p. 171.) The well-respected Greek researcher Herodotus wrote: “There is a place in Arabia, situated very near the city of Buto, to which I went, on hearing of some winged serpents; and when I arrived there, I saw bones and spines of serpents, in such quantities as it would be impossible to describe. The form of the serpent is like that of the water-snake; but he has wings without feathers, and as like as possible to the wings of a bat.” (Herodotus, _Historiae_, tr. Henry Clay, 1850, pp. 75-76.) This is a remarkable description of a pterosaur! In his third volume Herodotus goes on to tell how these animals could sometimes be found in the Arabian spice groves. He describes their size, coloration, and reproduction.  It seems that venomous flying serpents were infamous for living in frankincense trees. When workers wanted to gather the tree’s incense, they would employ putrid smoke to drive the flying reptiles away. (Note the illustration below to the the right.) Herodotus has been called “the Father of History” because he was the first historian we know who collected his materials systematically and then tested them for accuracy. John Goertzen noted the Egyptian representation of _tail vanes_ with flying reptiles and concluded that they must have observed pterosaurs or they would not have known to sketch this leaf-shaped tail. (Goertzen, J.C., “Shadows of Rhamphorhynchoid Pterosaurs in Ancient Egypt and Nubia,” _Cryptozoology_, Vol 13, 1998.)"
> 
> Dragons in History | Genesis Park




*Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum*
by Britt Kennerly 

Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum




For a group of paleontologists, a tour of the Creation Museum seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off a serious conference.

But while there were a few laughs and some clowning for the camera, most left more offended than amused by the frightening way in which evolution -- and their life's work -- was attacked.

"It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?" said Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology and evolution at University of California, Berkeley.

"Like Sunday school with statues... this is a special brand of religion here. I don't think even most mainstream Christians would believe in this interpretation of Earth's history."

The 27 million dollar, 70,000-square-foot (6,500-square-metre) museum which has been dubbed a "creationist Disneyland" has attracted 715,000 visitors since it opened in mid-2007 with a vow to "bring the pages of the Bible to life."

Its presents a literal interpretation of the Bible and argues that believing otherwise leads to moral relativism and the destruction of social values.

Creationism is a theory not supported by most mainstream Christian churches.

Lisa Park of the University of Akron cried at one point as she walked a hallway full of flashing images of war, famine and natural disasters which the museum blames on belief in evolution.

"I think it's very bad science and even worse theology -- and the theology is far more offensive to me," said Park, a professor of paleontology who is an elder in the Presbyterian Church. 

"I think there's a lot of focus on fear, and I don't think that's a very Christian message... I find it a malicious manipulation of the public."

Phil Jardine posed for a picture below a towering, toothy dinosaur display.

The museum argues that the fossil record has been misinterpreted and that Tyrannosaurus rex was a vegetarian before Adam and Eve bit into that sin-inducing apple.

Jardine, a palaeobiologist graduate student from the University of Birmingham, was having fun on the tour, but told a reporter that he was disturbed by the museum's cartoonish portrayal of scientists and teachers.

"I feel very sorry for teachers when the children who come here start guessing if what they're being taught is wrong," Jardine said.

Arnie Miller, a palentologist at the University of Cincinnati who was chairman of the convention, said he hoped the tour would introduce the scientists to "the lay of the land" and show them firsthand what's being put forth in a place that has elicited vehement criticism from the scientific community.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe wrap your bibles with duct tape
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should duct tape your pie hole and stick to the science.  Oh, wait, you can't do the science either.
> 
> Those sites are not talking about fossilized transitional forms entailing one organism evolving into an entirely new organism.  They're alternately talking about fossilized specimens of adaptive radiation within species or genera, or the non-fossilized, branchings of the hypothetical extrapolation.  You're a know-nothing, a fraud, a pretender.
Click to expand...


You’re not paying attention. Your tired, cut and paste nonsense has been addressed and refuted previously.

You crank, xtian Taliban are a joke.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm…..5 million years ago isn't pre-Cambrian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try *53 million years old* which is quite close to the time evolutionists think dinosaurs were still alive.
Click to expand...


Try *53 million years old*​




Ummmm…..5 million to 3 million, not 53 million. Not pre-Cambrian. Try again?


----------



## cnm

james bond said:


> Dinosaurs are usually huge beasts. Birds are smaller.


Ffs.


----------



## MisterBeale




----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.



Creationism and ID are not the same, but both are against the false science of evolution.  It's as simple as that.  There is the creator God, the supernatural in Genesis, and the Bible theory in regards to creation science.  Creation science has a history of creating the scientific method, debunking spontaneous generation, eternal universe that evolutionary thinking has long believed.  Furthermore, it has exposed the fraudulence in the Piltdown Man and racist Ernst Haeckel's drawings of the embryos to support Darwinism.  Moreover, Darwin was exposed as a racist believing in eugenics created by his cousin, Francis Galton, based on Theory of Evolution.  Hitler picked it up and used it to commit the Holocaust.  Darwinism inspired socialDarwinism and genocide of blacks which continues to this day with Planned Parenthood.  Contrary, to popular belief, Darwin did not come up with ToE.  He started with a single-cell and explained how evolution worked.  You have not been able to explain what ToE and evolutionary thinking and history has been.  Thus, what you post about creationism and creation science is wrong.  My arguments are not cherry picked, use quote mining, nor use evidence to back up theory like the evolutionists and you do.  We do not make hasty generalizations like you just did.  Creation science and I try to avoid using fallacies in our arguments like you just did.  If you examine what you just posted, then it is made to fit evolution.

I have no idea why you post your link.  Care to explain what it is I am suppose to get out of it?  Why did you waste time writing criticism of creationism and ID and then post something that is a non sequitur to what you wrote?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> *Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum*
> by Britt Kennerly
> 
> Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For a group of paleontologists, a tour of the Creation Museum seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off a serious conference.
> 
> But while there were a few laughs and some clowning for the camera, most left more offended than amused by the frightening way in which evolution -- and their life's work -- was attacked.
> 
> "It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?" said Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology and evolution at University of California, Berkeley.
> 
> "Like Sunday school with statues... this is a special brand of religion here. I don't think even most mainstream Christians would believe in this interpretation of Earth's history."
> 
> The 27 million dollar, 70,000-square-foot (6,500-square-metre) museum which has been dubbed a "creationist Disneyland" has attracted 715,000 visitors since it opened in mid-2007 with a vow to "bring the pages of the Bible to life."
> 
> Its presents a literal interpretation of the Bible and argues that believing otherwise leads to moral relativism and the destruction of social values.
> 
> Creationism is a theory not supported by most mainstream Christian churches.
> 
> Lisa Park of the University of Akron cried at one point as she walked a hallway full of flashing images of war, famine and natural disasters which the museum blames on belief in evolution.
> 
> "I think it's very bad science and even worse theology -- and the theology is far more offensive to me," said Park, a professor of paleontology who is an elder in the Presbyterian Church.
> 
> "I think there's a lot of focus on fear, and I don't think that's a very Christian message... I find it a malicious manipulation of the public."
> 
> Phil Jardine posed for a picture below a towering, toothy dinosaur display.
> 
> The museum argues that the fossil record has been misinterpreted and that Tyrannosaurus rex was a vegetarian before Adam and Eve bit into that sin-inducing apple.
> 
> Jardine, a palaeobiologist graduate student from the University of Birmingham, was having fun on the tour, but told a reporter that he was disturbed by the museum's cartoonish portrayal of scientists and teachers.
> 
> "I feel very sorry for teachers when the children who come here start guessing if what they're being taught is wrong," Jardine said.
> 
> Arnie Miller, a palentologist at the University of Cincinnati who was chairman of the convention, said he hoped the tour would introduce the scientists to "the lay of the land" and show them firsthand what's being put forth in a place that has elicited vehement criticism from the scientific community.



This is really biased science.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ummmm…..5 million to 3 million, not 53 million. Not pre-Cambrian. Try again?



Don't have to.  You're wrong again.


----------



## james bond

cnm said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dinosaurs are usually huge beasts. Birds are smaller.
> 
> 
> 
> Ffs.
Click to expand...


What does what you are have to do with dinosaurs and birds?


----------



## deanrd

I’ve been reading Marvel and DC since I was a little kid. I love beings with super powers. I think super powers are so cool.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum*
> by Britt Kennerly
> 
> Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For a group of paleontologists, a tour of the Creation Museum seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off a serious conference.
> 
> But while there were a few laughs and some clowning for the camera, most left more offended than amused by the frightening way in which evolution -- and their life's work -- was attacked.
> 
> "It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?" said Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology and evolution at University of California, Berkeley.
> 
> "Like Sunday school with statues... this is a special brand of religion here. I don't think even most mainstream Christians would believe in this interpretation of Earth's history."
> 
> The 27 million dollar, 70,000-square-foot (6,500-square-metre) museum which has been dubbed a "creationist Disneyland" has attracted 715,000 visitors since it opened in mid-2007 with a vow to "bring the pages of the Bible to life."
> 
> Its presents a literal interpretation of the Bible and argues that believing otherwise leads to moral relativism and the destruction of social values.
> 
> Creationism is a theory not supported by most mainstream Christian churches.
> 
> Lisa Park of the University of Akron cried at one point as she walked a hallway full of flashing images of war, famine and natural disasters which the museum blames on belief in evolution.
> 
> "I think it's very bad science and even worse theology -- and the theology is far more offensive to me," said Park, a professor of paleontology who is an elder in the Presbyterian Church.
> 
> "I think there's a lot of focus on fear, and I don't think that's a very Christian message... I find it a malicious manipulation of the public."
> 
> Phil Jardine posed for a picture below a towering, toothy dinosaur display.
> 
> The museum argues that the fossil record has been misinterpreted and that Tyrannosaurus rex was a vegetarian before Adam and Eve bit into that sin-inducing apple.
> 
> Jardine, a palaeobiologist graduate student from the University of Birmingham, was having fun on the tour, but told a reporter that he was disturbed by the museum's cartoonish portrayal of scientists and teachers.
> 
> "I feel very sorry for teachers when the children who come here start guessing if what they're being taught is wrong," Jardine said.
> 
> Arnie Miller, a palentologist at the University of Cincinnati who was chairman of the convention, said he hoped the tour would introduce the scientists to "the lay of the land" and show them firsthand what's being put forth in a place that has elicited vehement criticism from the scientific community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is really biased science.
Click to expand...


You’re really struggling to make excuses for religious quackery.


----------



## james bond

How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have lied and committed fraud before?  We had Piltdown Man and Haeckel's false embryo drawings based on Darwin's OoS book fool an entire generation.

We had a Chinese farmer glue together fossils to create the fake Archaeoraptor.  The composite fossil was purchased by a United States museum and was prominently written about in National Geographic in 1999 despite the evidence against it.  The fake was not stopped.

The 5 Greatest Palaeontology Hoaxes Of All Time #3. Archaeoraptor

More
Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten was a professor of anthropology at Frankfurt University for 30 years before he was forced to resign.  He falsified dates on many "stone age" fossils which included a skull fragment named Hahnhöfersand Man which supposedly linked humans and Neanderthals.

Reiner Rudolph Robert Protsch (von Zieten) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

Do I need to publicly whip cnm arse again?  Holy Toledo!


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have lied and committed fraud before?  We had Piltdown Man and Haeckel's false embryo drawings based on Darwin's OoS book fool an entire generation.
> 
> We had a Chinese farmer glue together fossils to create the fake Archaeoraptor.  The composite fossil was purchased by a United States museum and was prominently written about in National Geographic in 1999 despite the evidence against it.  The fake was not stopped.
> 
> The 5 Greatest Palaeontology Hoaxes Of All Time #3. Archaeoraptor
> 
> More
> Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten was a professor of anthropology at Frankfurt University for 30 years before he was forced to resign.  He falsified dates on many "stone age" fossils which included a skull fragment named Hahnhöfersand Man which supposedly linked humans and Neanderthals.
> 
> Reiner Rudolph Robert Protsch (von Zieten) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
> 
> Do I need to publicly whip cnm arse again?  Holy Toledo!



You bought into the fraud of Archaeoraptor. Science did not. The alleged fossil discovery of _Archaeoraptor_ was published in National Geographic, not in peer-reviewed journals.

The link you provided states”Archaeoraptor was suspicious right from the start.”

What a shame you don’t know facts but mindlessly cut and paste from quack fundamentalist web sites,


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism and ID are not the same, but both are against the false science of evolution.  It's as simple as that.  There is the creator God, the supernatural in Genesis, and the Bible theory in regards to creation science.  Creation science has a history of creating the scientific method, debunking spontaneous generation, eternal universe that evolutionary thinking has long believed.  Furthermore, it has exposed the fraudulence in the Piltdown Man and racist Ernst Haeckel's drawings of the embryos to support Darwinism.  Moreover, Darwin was exposed as a racist believing in eugenics created by his cousin, Francis Galton, based on Theory of Evolution.  Hitler picked it up and used it to commit the Holocaust.  Darwinism inspired socialDarwinism and genocide of blacks which continues to this day with Planned Parenthood.  Contrary, to popular belief, Darwin did not come up with ToE.  He started with a single-cell and explained how evolution worked.  You have not been able to explain what ToE and evolutionary thinking and history has been.  Thus, what you post about creationism and creation science is wrong.  My arguments are not cherry picked, use quote mining, nor use evidence to back up theory like the evolutionists and you do.  We do not make hasty generalizations like you just did.  Creation science and I try to avoid using fallacies in our arguments like you just did.  If you examine what you just posted, then it is made to fit evolution.
> 
> I have no idea why you post your link.  Care to explain what it is I am suppose to get out of it?  Why did you waste time writing criticism of creationism and ID and then post something that is a non sequitur to what you wrote?
Click to expand...



*Creation science has a history of creating the scientific method, *

How do you figure that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm…..5 million to 3 million, not 53 million. Not pre-Cambrian. Try again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to.  You're wrong again.
Click to expand...


*Don't have to. You're wrong again. *

How am I wrong? I used the link you posted.
Are you confused by two-digit numbers?
Or is anything older than 6000 years pre-Cambrian in your book?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have lied and committed fraud before?  We had Piltdown Man and Haeckel's false embryo drawings based on Darwin's OoS book fool an entire generation.
> 
> We had a Chinese farmer glue together fossils to create the fake Archaeoraptor.  The composite fossil was purchased by a United States museum and was prominently written about in National Geographic in 1999 despite the evidence against it.  The fake was not stopped.
> 
> The 5 Greatest Palaeontology Hoaxes Of All Time #3. Archaeoraptor
> 
> More
> Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten was a professor of anthropology at Frankfurt University for 30 years before he was forced to resign.  He falsified dates on many "stone age" fossils which included a skull fragment named Hahnhöfersand Man which supposedly linked humans and Neanderthals.
> 
> Reiner Rudolph Robert Protsch (von Zieten) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
> 
> Do I need to publicly whip cnm arse again?  Holy Toledo!




*How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have lied and committed fraud before?*

How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have picked their noses before?
How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have lied and cheated on their taxes before?
How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have farted in an elevator before?


----------



## dblack

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism and ID are not the same, but both are against the false science of evolution.  It's as simple as that.  There is the creator God, the supernatural in Genesis, and the Bible theory in regards to creation science.  Creation science has a history of creating the scientific method, debunking spontaneous generation, eternal universe that evolutionary thinking has long believed.  Furthermore, it has exposed the fraudulence in the Piltdown Man and racist Ernst Haeckel's drawings of the embryos to support Darwinism.  Moreover, Darwin was exposed as a racist believing in eugenics created by his cousin, Francis Galton, based on Theory of Evolution.  Hitler picked it up and used it to commit the Holocaust.  Darwinism inspired socialDarwinism and genocide of blacks which continues to this day with Planned Parenthood.  Contrary, to popular belief, Darwin did not come up with ToE.  He started with a single-cell and explained how evolution worked.  You have not been able to explain what ToE and evolutionary thinking and history has been.  Thus, what you post about creationism and creation science is wrong.  My arguments are not cherry picked, use quote mining, nor use evidence to back up theory like the evolutionists and you do.  We do not make hasty generalizations like you just did.  Creation science and I try to avoid using fallacies in our arguments like you just did.  If you examine what you just posted, then it is made to fit evolution.
> 
> I have no idea why you post your link.  Care to explain what it is I am suppose to get out of it?  Why did you waste time writing criticism of creationism and ID and then post something that is a non sequitur to what you wrote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Creation science has a history of creating the scientific method, *
> 
> How do you figure that?
Click to expand...


The monotheism of Christianity was arguably responsible for the ”one reality” premise of science.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You bought into the fraud of Archaeoraptor. Science did not. The alleged fossil discovery of _Archaeoraptor_ was published in National Geographic, not in peer-reviewed journals.



Stop making excuses and own your frauds and mistakes.  The people who were involved were evolutionists.  The museum put up the money and contacted their people.  Instead of admitting that someone put a stop to it, it just festered and grew even larger.  I think it shows that evos take the evidence and fit it to their their theory.  The evidence was so good that they did not want to stop it.  They just wanted their "faith based" science to be true.  Wiki states, "Archosauria, the archosaur clade, is a crown group that includes the most recent common ancestor of living birds and crocodilians and all of its descendants."  Archosaur - Wikipedia

Put it together with all the other frauds and with every contradiction against what God said in the Bible.  Is that evidence for Satan?  What other contradictions will come from birds are dinosaurs?  Birds are land animals?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism and ID are not the same, but both are against the false science of evolution.  It's as simple as that.  There is the creator God, the supernatural in Genesis, and the Bible theory in regards to creation science.  Creation science has a history of creating the scientific method, debunking spontaneous generation, eternal universe that evolutionary thinking has long believed.  Furthermore, it has exposed the fraudulence in the Piltdown Man and racist Ernst Haeckel's drawings of the embryos to support Darwinism.  Moreover, Darwin was exposed as a racist believing in eugenics created by his cousin, Francis Galton, based on Theory of Evolution.  Hitler picked it up and used it to commit the Holocaust.  Darwinism inspired socialDarwinism and genocide of blacks which continues to this day with Planned Parenthood.  Contrary, to popular belief, Darwin did not come up with ToE.  He started with a single-cell and explained how evolution worked.  You have not been able to explain what ToE and evolutionary thinking and history has been.  Thus, what you post about creationism and creation science is wrong.  My arguments are not cherry picked, use quote mining, nor use evidence to back up theory like the evolutionists and you do.  We do not make hasty generalizations like you just did.  Creation science and I try to avoid using fallacies in our arguments like you just did.  If you examine what you just posted, then it is made to fit evolution.
> 
> I have no idea why you post your link.  Care to explain what it is I am suppose to get out of it?  Why did you waste time writing criticism of creationism and ID and then post something that is a non sequitur to what you wrote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Creation science has a history of creating the scientific method, *
> 
> How do you figure that?
Click to expand...


Because you are ignorant -- Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> How am I wrong? I used the link you posted.
> Are you confused by two-digit numbers?
> Or is anything older than 6000 years pre-Cambrian in your book?



I already answered your questions with two sources.  Can I help it if you won't accept it?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have picked their noses before?
> How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have lied and cheated on their taxes before?
> How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have farted in an elevator before?



Non sequitur means you continue to make mistakes.  Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.


----------



## james bond

Let's look at the evidence for God creating flying animals on the fifth day and land animals on the sixth day.  This is based on the first two books of Genesis in the Bible as the Bible theory of creation.







We have aquatic reptiles, such as the plesiosaur, and the flying reptiles, such as the pteranodon.  The plesiosaur are considered sea creatures and not fish, but Genesis states, "20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day." Genesis 1:20-23

The pteranodon are flying creatures, but not not classified as dinosaurs.  Both the plesiosaur and pteranodon are not classified as dinosaurs which are land animals.  Thus it fits the days of creation chart.  Science backs up the Bible.  Now, he did say "birds," but what classifies an animal as a bird?  God states they are flying animals.  How does this work for the evos?

Unfortunately, birds are dinosaurs does not.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You bought into the fraud of Archaeoraptor. Science did not. The alleged fossil discovery of _Archaeoraptor_ was published in National Geographic, not in peer-reviewed journals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop making excuses and own your frauds and mistakes.  The people who were involved were evolutionists.  The museum put up the money and contacted their people.  Instead of admitting that someone put a stop to it, it just festered and grew even larger.  I think it shows that evos take the evidence and fit it to their their theory.  The evidence was so good that they did not want to stop it.  They just wanted their "faith based" science to be true.  Wiki states, "Archosauria, the archosaur clade, is a crown group that includes the most recent common ancestor of living birds and crocodilians and all of its descendants."  Archosaur - Wikipedia
> 
> Put it together with all the other frauds and with every contradiction against what God said in the Bible.  Is that evidence for Satan?  What other contradictions will come from birds are dinosaurs?  Birds are land animals?
Click to expand...


You need to stop promoting your frauds. The fact is, Archaeoraptor was not promoted by the science community. 

And yes, science will contradict the Bibles. Science tells us the planet is not flat and that the planet is far older than a mere 6,000 years. You have problems with those facts because they contradict a literal rendering of biblical tales and fables. 

Learn to, you know, evolve and adapt.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Let's look at the evidence for God creating flying animals on the fifth day and land animals on the sixth day.  This is based on the first two books of Genesis in the Bible as the Bible theory of creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have aquatic reptiles, such as the plesiosaur, and the flying reptiles, such as the pteranodon.  The plesiosaur are considered sea creatures and not fish, but Genesis states, "20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day." Genesis 1:20-23
> 
> The pteranodon are flying creatures, but not not classified as dinosaurs.  Both the plesiosaur and pteranodon are not classified as dinosaurs which are land animals.  Thus it fits the days of creation chart.  Science backs up the Bible.  Now, he did say "birds," but what classifies an animal as a bird?  God states they are flying animals.  How does this work for the evos?
> 
> Unfortunately, birds are dinosaurs does not.



Cartoons and false renderings of planetary history (derived from religious cult followers), are not matters for the public schools. 

Why It's Unconstitutional to Teach "Intelligent Design" in the Public Schools, as an Alternative to Evolution | FindLaw


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism and ID are not the same, but both are against the false science of evolution.  It's as simple as that.  There is the creator God, the supernatural in Genesis, and the Bible theory in regards to creation science.  Creation science has a history of creating the scientific method, debunking spontaneous generation, eternal universe that evolutionary thinking has long believed.  Furthermore, it has exposed the fraudulence in the Piltdown Man and racist Ernst Haeckel's drawings of the embryos to support Darwinism.  Moreover, Darwin was exposed as a racist believing in eugenics created by his cousin, Francis Galton, based on Theory of Evolution.  Hitler picked it up and used it to commit the Holocaust.  Darwinism inspired socialDarwinism and genocide of blacks which continues to this day with Planned Parenthood.  Contrary, to popular belief, Darwin did not come up with ToE.  He started with a single-cell and explained how evolution worked.  You have not been able to explain what ToE and evolutionary thinking and history has been.  Thus, what you post about creationism and creation science is wrong.  My arguments are not cherry picked, use quote mining, nor use evidence to back up theory like the evolutionists and you do.  We do not make hasty generalizations like you just did.  Creation science and I try to avoid using fallacies in our arguments like you just did.  If you examine what you just posted, then it is made to fit evolution.
> 
> I have no idea why you post your link.  Care to explain what it is I am suppose to get out of it?  Why did you waste time writing criticism of creationism and ID and then post something that is a non sequitur to what you wrote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Creation science has a history of creating the scientific method, *
> 
> How do you figure that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you are ignorant -- Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How am I wrong? I used the link you posted.
> Are you confused by two-digit numbers?
> Or is anything older than 6000 years pre-Cambrian in your book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already answered your questions with two sources.  Can I help it if you won't accept it?
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have picked their noses before?
> How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have lied and cheated on their taxes before?
> How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have farted in an elevator before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur means you continue to make mistakes.  Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.
Click to expand...


Because you are ignorant, the fraud of “creation science” was a fairly recent invention by xtian extremists. The fraud of “scientific creationism” was an invention by xtian fundies as a way to try and introduce xtian indoctrination into the public schools. When that fraud was exposed, they changed the name of their cult doctrine to “intelligent design creationism”.  

That also was thrown out by the courts. 

Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire literature of creationism (and of its recent offspring, "intelligent design" creationism) works entirely on that principle: they don't like any science that disagrees with their view of religion, so they pick tiny bits out of context that seem to support what they want to believe, and cherry-pick individual cases which fits their bias. In their writings, they are legendary for "quote-mining": taking a quote out of context to mean the exact opposite of what the author clearly intended (sometimes unintentionally, but often deliberately and maliciously). They either cannot understand the scientific meaning of many fields from genetics to paleontology to geochronology, or their bias filters out all but tiny bits of a research subject that seems to comfort them, and they ignore all the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism and ID are not the same, but both are against the false science of evolution.  It's as simple as that.  There is the creator God, the supernatural in Genesis, and the Bible theory in regards to creation science.  Creation science has a history of creating the scientific method, debunking spontaneous generation, eternal universe that evolutionary thinking has long believed.  Furthermore, it has exposed the fraudulence in the Piltdown Man and racist Ernst Haeckel's drawings of the embryos to support Darwinism.  Moreover, Darwin was exposed as a racist believing in eugenics created by his cousin, Francis Galton, based on Theory of Evolution.  Hitler picked it up and used it to commit the Holocaust.  Darwinism inspired socialDarwinism and genocide of blacks which continues to this day with Planned Parenthood.  Contrary, to popular belief, Darwin did not come up with ToE.  He started with a single-cell and explained how evolution worked.  You have not been able to explain what ToE and evolutionary thinking and history has been.  Thus, what you post about creationism and creation science is wrong.  My arguments are not cherry picked, use quote mining, nor use evidence to back up theory like the evolutionists and you do.  We do not make hasty generalizations like you just did.  Creation science and I try to avoid using fallacies in our arguments like you just did.  If you examine what you just posted, then it is made to fit evolution.
> 
> I have no idea why you post your link.  Care to explain what it is I am suppose to get out of it?  Why did you waste time writing criticism of creationism and ID and then post something that is a non sequitur to what you wrote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Creation science has a history of creating the scientific method, *
> 
> How do you figure that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you are ignorant -- Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How am I wrong? I used the link you posted.
> Are you confused by two-digit numbers?
> Or is anything older than 6000 years pre-Cambrian in your book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already answered your questions with two sources.  Can I help it if you won't accept it?
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have picked their noses before?
> How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have lied and cheated on their taxes before?
> How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have farted in an elevator before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur means you continue to make mistakes.  Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.
Click to expand...


*I already answered your questions with two sources. Can I help it if you won't accept it?*

Your source that I excerpted said 3-5 million. Can I help it if you think that's the same as 53 million?

*Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.*

So are you. Now, about that 53 million year old rabbit......Try again?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You need to stop promoting your frauds. The fact is, Archaeoraptor was not promoted by the science community.
> 
> And yes, science will contradict the Bibles. Science tells us the planet is not flat and that the planet is far older than a mere 6,000 years. You have problems with those facts because they contradict a literal rendering of biblical tales and fables.
> 
> Learn to, you know, evolve and adapt.



It was bought by a museum who did due diligence, but still didn't stop it.  The guy admitted it himself.  Why do you think it got published?  Part of your problem is you cannot answer my questions to you?  If you could, then you would come to a valid conclusion instead of having embarrassing occurrences happen to you. This is how someone debunks someone else's science.  So far, the major frauds have been on the evolutionists side.

Czerkas, the museum's owner probably paid Rowe and Currie to keep quiet.  Currie is a paleontologist and museum curator himself of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleonotolgy in Canada, so should have known better and disassociated himself with the finding.  Tim Rowe is a paleontology professor, so he should have done the same, but maybe he didn't know about National Geographic being involved.  He isn't as prominent as Currie saying he regretted not informing National Geographic.

Next, the fossil was rejected by bot Nature and Science for lack of peer review, but Czerkas and Currie allowed it to go forward for the fame, publicity, and money.  They didn't inform National Geographic of its rejection from peer review.  NG probably thought it was going to be peer reviewed and pass.  They didn't do their due diligence and got burned.

"It should have stopped, right there. But, much to Czerkas' later regret, it didn't. *Czerkas instead pressurized Rowe and Currie to keep their reservations quiet. Currie then got the fossil looked at by his preparator, Kevin Aulenback, who also noted that it seemed to be a composite of three to five different specimens. And, much to Currie's later regret, he never informed National Geographic of this. So, incredibly, the whole affair rumbles on.*

The group then prepared a paper for Nature, which was flatly rejected as the group's time constraints meant that there wouldn't be enough time for peer review. Then, the paper was then resubmitted to Science, who also rejected it. This time, their reviewers spotted that on top of the fossil having been illegally imported, it had clearly been severely doctored to enhance its value.

I'll reiterate that: Archaeoraptor was never published in a peer-reviewed paper. Therefore, as far as science is concerned, it doesn't exist, and never did exist.

Again, it should have stopped there. Two journals have rejected your find, and many people have expressed severe doubts over the validity of your fossil. *But - and, God knows what went through their mind - they decided not to inform National Geographic of the paper rejections. On October 15, 1999 National Geographic unveiled the fossil, and decided to go ahead and publish the Archaeoraptor story in the November issue on the assumption that it would eventually be published in a peer reviewed paper.*"

I don't think I have to point this out to a grown adult interested in science and have to whip their arse in public.  You are an embarrassment to intelligent posters interested in real science and technology on this forum.  You, as a poster, reflect the values of too many on the evolution side who will do anything for a quick buck and fame.  You do not even get paid.  All you get is poster cred.  In this case, you got b*llshit on your face.  It is even more evidence of the lies of birds from dinosaurs.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So are you. Now, about that 53 million year old rabbit



LMAO .  Why don't you just admit Genesis Park was right and you were wrong and cannot read?  For the rest of the knowledgeable people here, here is the evidence to back GP -- LMGTFY.  Knock yourself out.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to stop promoting your frauds. The fact is, Archaeoraptor was not promoted by the science community.
> 
> And yes, science will contradict the Bibles. Science tells us the planet is not flat and that the planet is far older than a mere 6,000 years. You have problems with those facts because they contradict a literal rendering of biblical tales and fables.
> 
> Learn to, you know, evolve and adapt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was bought by a museum who did due diligence, but still didn't stop it.  The guy admitted it himself.  Why do you think it got published?  Part of your problem is you cannot answer my questions to you?  If you could, then you would come to a valid conclusion instead of having embarrassing occurrences happen to you. This is how someone debunks someone else's science.  So far, the major frauds have been on the evolutionists side.
> 
> Czerkas, the museum's owner probably paid Rowe and Currie to keep quiet.  Currie is a paleontologist and museum curator himself of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleonotolgy in Canada, so should have known better and disassociated himself with the finding.  Tim Rowe is a paleontology professor, so he should have done the same, but maybe he didn't know about National Geographic being involved.  He isn't as prominent as Currie saying he regretted not informing National Geographic.
> 
> Next, the fossil was rejected by bot Nature and Science for lack of peer review, but Czerkas and Currie allowed it to go forward for the fame, publicity, and money.  They didn't inform National Geographic of its rejection from peer review.  NG probably thought it was going to be peer reviewed and pass.  They didn't do their due diligence and got burned.
> 
> "It should have stopped, right there. But, much to Czerkas' later regret, it didn't. *Czerkas instead pressurized Rowe and Currie to keep their reservations quiet. Currie then got the fossil looked at by his preparator, Kevin Aulenback, who also noted that it seemed to be a composite of three to five different specimens. And, much to Currie's later regret, he never informed National Geographic of this. So, incredibly, the whole affair rumbles on.*
> 
> The group then prepared a paper for Nature, which was flatly rejected as the group's time constraints meant that there wouldn't be enough time for peer review. Then, the paper was then resubmitted to Science, who also rejected it. This time, their reviewers spotted that on top of the fossil having been illegally imported, it had clearly been severely doctored to enhance its value.
> 
> I'll reiterate that: Archaeoraptor was never published in a peer-reviewed paper. Therefore, as far as science is concerned, it doesn't exist, and never did exist.
> 
> Again, it should have stopped there. Two journals have rejected your find, and many people have expressed severe doubts over the validity of your fossil. *But - and, God knows what went through their mind - they decided not to inform National Geographic of the paper rejections. On October 15, 1999 National Geographic unveiled the fossil, and decided to go ahead and publish the Archaeoraptor story in the November issue on the assumption that it would eventually be published in a peer reviewed paper.*"
> 
> I don't think I have to point this out to a grown adult interested in science and have to whip their arse in public.  You are an embarrassment to intelligent posters interested in real science and technology on this forum.  You, as a poster, reflect the values of too many on the evolution side who will do anything for a quick buck and fame.  You do not even get paid.  All you get is poster cred.  In this case, you got b*llshit on your face.  It is even more evidence of the lies of birds from dinosaurs.
Click to expand...


Well thanks for this: "Archaeoraptor was never published in a peer-reviewed paper. Therefore, as far as science is concerned, it doesn't exist, and never did exist."

So, we're back to questioning why you were adamant to insist that Archaeoraptor was a science fraud when the relevant science community never endorsed the alleged discovery.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you. Now, about that 53 million year old rabbit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO .  Why don't you just admit Genesis Park was right and you were wrong and cannot read?  For the rest of the knowledgeable people here, here is the evidence to back GP -- LMGTFY.  Knock yourself out.
Click to expand...


Let me know when you find proof of a pre-Cambrian rabbit. DURR


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Let me know when you find proof of a pre-Cambrian rabbit. DURR



That's not what the GP article stated.  Will you accept it as debunking evolution?  The oldest rabbit fossil found so far is close enough.  It should make you question what the evos are telling you.  We also know humans lived with dinosaurs and that they were small enough to take aboard Noah's Ark.  Evolution denied it before they started claiming birds are dinosaurs, so they cannot use the argument dinosaurs were too large anymore.  We found dinosaur fossils with soft tissue still in them and they could be radiocarbon dated because C-14 was still present.  They're not hundreds of millions of years old.  Care to explain how that could happen?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when you find proof of a pre-Cambrian rabbit. DURR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the GP article stated.  Will you accept it as debunking evolution?  The oldest rabbit fossil found so far is close enough.  It should make you question what the evos are telling you.  We also know humans lived with dinosaurs and that they were small enough to take aboard Noah's Ark.  Evolution denied it before they started claiming birds are dinosaurs, so they cannot use the argument dinosaurs were too large anymore.  We found dinosaur fossils with soft tissue still in them and they could be radiocarbon dated because C-14 was still present.  They're not hundreds of millions of years old.  Care to explain how that could happen?
Click to expand...


*That's not what the GP article stated.*

You posted an article, to back up a pre-Cambrian rabbit, about something 3-5 million years ago.
3-5 million years ago isn't pre-Cambrian.

Then, a rabbit ancestor (I guess it evolved since, eh?) 53 million years ago was pre-Cambrian.

Do you even know the time frame covered by "pre-Cambrian"? Post it.


----------



## Lysistrata

Don't mix legitimate science with religion. The myths of each religion should be taught in comparative religion classes.


----------



## james bond

Lysistrata said:


> Don't mix legitimate science with religion. The myths of each religion should be taught in comparative religion classes.



This is fallacy by generalization.  We have atheism which is a religion and people believe in evolution based on their religion.  ToE, evolutionary thinking and its history are "faith-based" science.  One can only infer from fossils except where the animal died.  The time chronology associated with the layers is bullsh*t the evos made up with fake radiometric assumptions.  This is why atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.  They base their science on religion of atheism.  OTOH, creation scientists invented the scientific method and use real science that is observable, testable, and falsifiable.  Evos' evidence is all circumstantial and is based on circular reasoning which is a fallacy.  So take your own advice and "Don't mix legitimate science with religion."  Birds from dinosaurs is a myth.  You do not even have any evidence disproving God.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't mix legitimate science with religion. The myths of each religion should be taught in comparative religion classes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is fallacy by generalization.  We have atheism which is a religion and people believe in evolution based on their religion.  ToE, evolutionary thinking and its history are "faith-based" science.  One can only infer from fossils except where the animal died.  The time chronology associated with the layers is bullsh*t the evos made up with fake radiometric assumptions.  This is why atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.  They base their science on religion of atheism.  OTOH, creation scientists invented the scientific method and use real science that is observable, testable, and falsifiable.  Evos' evidence is all circumstantial and is based on circular reasoning which is a fallacy.  So take your own advice and "Don't mix legitimate science with religion."  Birds from dinosaurs is a myth.  You do not even have any evidence disproving God.
Click to expand...


I have evidence disproving your gods. You do not even have any evidence disproving my disproof.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't mix legitimate science with religion. The myths of each religion should be taught in comparative religion classes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is fallacy by generalization.  We have atheism which is a religion and people believe in evolution based on their religion.  ToE, evolutionary thinking and its history are "faith-based" science.  One can only infer from fossils except where the animal died.  The time chronology associated with the layers is bullsh*t the evos made up with fake radiometric assumptions.  This is why atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.  They base their science on religion of atheism.  OTOH, creation scientists invented the scientific method and use real science that is observable, testable, and falsifiable.  Evos' evidence is all circumstantial and is based on circular reasoning which is a fallacy.  So take your own advice and "Don't mix legitimate science with religion."  Birds from dinosaurs is a myth.  You do not even have any evidence disproving God.
Click to expand...

Birds from donosaurs a myth? That's what they teach you at the Watchtower Bible Society but the scientific evidence tells us otherwise.


CC214.1.1:  Archaeopteryx a bird?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I have evidence disproving your gods. You do not even have any evidence disproving my disproof.



I can imagine seeing the veins pop out of your neck.  You could not disprove Satan and his rebellious nature by contradicting everything God said in Genesis ch. 1 & 2.  This is another contradiction as God created animals that fly such as birds on the fifth day.  Land animals were the sixth day.  Are you going to go for another contradiction by saying birds are land animals?  We have some nutzos that believe this, again circular reasoning, but flightless birds could just be via natural selection.  Variations within a species is part of God's design.  It's another evidence for God.


----------



## Lysistrata

james bond said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't mix legitimate science with religion. The myths of each religion should be taught in comparative religion classes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is fallacy by generalization.  We have atheism which is a religion and people believe in evolution based on their religion.  ToE, evolutionary thinking and its history are "faith-based" science.  One can only infer from fossils except where the animal died.  The time chronology associated with the layers is bullsh*t the evos made up with fake radiometric assumptions.  This is why atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.  They base their science on religion of atheism.  OTOH, creation scientists invented the scientific method and use real science that is observable, testable, and falsifiable.  Evos' evidence is all circumstantial and is based on circular reasoning which is a fallacy.  So take your own advice and "Don't mix legitimate science with religion."  Birds from dinosaurs is a myth.  You do not even have any evidence disproving God.
Click to expand...


This is the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever read. Atheism is not a "religion," you twit. There is no such thing as a "creation scientist." You cult people are such a bunch of fools. You are trying to wreck our educational system so that we become a third-world country full of the ignorant. BTW: which god? Every civilization has a creation myth. 

It is evident that you have fallen into the idiotic belief that the bible is inerrant and infallible, brought to us by the stupid side of protestantism.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have evidence disproving your gods. You do not even have any evidence disproving my disproof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can imagine seeing the veins pop out of your neck.  You could not disprove Satan and his rebellious nature by contradicting everything God said in Genesis ch. 1 & 2.  This is another contradiction as God created animals that fly such as birds on the fifth day.  Land animals were the sixth day.  Are you going to go for another contradiction by saying birds are land animals?  We have some nutzos that believe this, again circular reasoning, but flightless birds could just be via natural selection.  Variations within a species is part of God's design.  It's another evidence for God.
Click to expand...

Actually, none of the gods said anything in any of the bibles. The bibles were written by various men, none of whom had any meetings, luncheons, or even just an evening out to yuck it up with the gods over a few beers. 

I can see the veins popping out in your neck but there is no evidence to suggest that the gods magically created existence in six days, all of which occurred just 6,000 years ago. 

However, there is ample evidence to suggest bireds descended from dinosaurs over immense time periods. 


CC214.1:  Archaeopteryx as a Transitional Bird


----------



## JimBowie1958

OldLady said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> The couple of times I've talked to students about early hominds, "Neanderthal man" and the theory of all humans evolving and spreading out of Africa, I explain that there is another belief system by some Christians, that of Creationism, which holds that God created the world.
> 
> But that's pretty much all I know about it, so if a student ever asked for more information about it, I'd have to refer them to their minister.
Click to expand...


Science raises a whole slew of questions about what happened to cause the Big Bang; what came 'before' the flow of space time.

But there is no 'before' the beginning of time, and so science has no answers and I doubt it will be abler to offer anything more than a wild guess for another century or two.

But by definition, the *cause* of the universe coming into being *must* be extra-natural or super-natural as a thing cannot cause itself, and anything outside our universe is 'extra-natural' therefore whatever caused the universe is extra-natural.

But science cannot answer this question as it must remain within the naturalistic assumptions/framework.

Therefore, 'Creation Science' is by definition not science, but a set of scientific evidence the believers believes supports their theology..


----------



## JimBowie1958

james bond said:


> That's what we're doing now.  We are teaching faith-based science.  You have nothing to back up macroevolution via the scientific method.


So the fossil record is just a Divine Head Fake?


----------



## james bond

Lysistrata said:


> This is the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever read. Atheism is not a "religion," you twit. There is no such thing as a "creation scientist." You cult people are such a bunch of fools. You are trying to wreck our educational system so that we become a third-world country full of the ignorant. BTW: which god? Every civilization has a creation myth.
> 
> It is evident that you have fallen into the idiotic belief that the bible is inerrant and infallible, brought to us by the stupid side of protestantism.



My saying it probably bugs you because it_ is_ a religion.  The US Government agreed and gave in tax-exempt status, so who is the farking twit who is ignorant and stupid af?  Get lost, creepl.


----------



## Lysistrata

james bond said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever read. Atheism is not a "religion," you twit. There is no such thing as a "creation scientist." You cult people are such a bunch of fools. You are trying to wreck our educational system so that we become a third-world country full of the ignorant. BTW: which god? Every civilization has a creation myth.
> 
> It is evident that you have fallen into the idiotic belief that the bible is inerrant and infallible, brought to us by the stupid side of protestantism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My saying it probably bugs you because it_ is_ a religion.  The US Government agreed and gave in tax-exempt status, so who is the farking twit who is ignorant and stupid af?  Get lost, creepl.
Click to expand...


It is not a "religion." When did the US government say it was? What year? Was it the same U.S. Government that sent frankie graham to Jerusalem after this POS said that Islam was not a religion? I still strongly suspect that you are in the southern baptist cult.


----------



## james bond

JimBowie1958 said:


> Therefore, 'Creation Science' is by definition not science, but a set of scientific evidence the believers believes supports their theology..



Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method.  Nothing in evolution can by using the scientific method except natural selection.  That is part of creation science, too, as we saw it with flying birds become flightless birds such as the ostrich and emu to give a couple of examples.  

Another example, is the chicken came before the egg as the proteins on the eggshell can only be produced by the ovaries of a chicken.  This experiment has been ignored by the evolutionists because they claim the egg came first because everything had to have a common ancestor.  

Why do you think the evos are so adamant about birds from dinosaurs? They tried to backward engineer a chicken to become a dinosaur, but failed.  Why has evolution from the ancient times contradicted "everything" God said in the Bible?


----------



## Lysistrata

james bond said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, 'Creation Science' is by definition not science, but a set of scientific evidence the believers believes supports their theology..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method.  Nothing in evolution can by using the scientific method except natural selection.  That is part of creation science, too, as we saw it with flying birds become flightless birds such as the ostrich and emu to give a couple of examples.
> 
> Another example, is the chicken came before the egg as the proteins on the eggshell can only be produced by the ovaries of a chicken.  This experiment has been ignored by the evolutionists because they claim the egg came first because everything had to have a common ancestor.
> 
> Why do you think the evos are so adamant about birds from dinosaurs? They tried to backward engineer a chicken to become a dinosaur, but failed.  Why has evolution from the ancient times contradicted "everything" God said in the Bible?
Click to expand...


The Supreme Creator did not write the bible.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, 'Creation Science' is by definition not science, but a set of scientific evidence the believers believes supports their theology..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method.  Nothing in evolution can by using the scientific method except natural selection.  That is part of creation science, too, as we saw it with flying birds become flightless birds such as the ostrich and emu to give a couple of examples.
> 
> Another example, is the chicken came before the egg as the proteins on the eggshell can only be produced by the ovaries of a chicken.  This experiment has been ignored by the evolutionists because they claim the egg came first because everything had to have a common ancestor.
> 
> Why do you think the evos are so adamant about birds from dinosaurs? They tried to backward engineer a chicken to become a dinosaur, but failed.  Why has evolution from the ancient times contradicted "everything" God said in the Bible?
Click to expand...


*Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method. * 

What are your 3 favorite examples of this?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever read. Atheism is not a "religion," you twit. There is no such thing as a "creation scientist." You cult people are such a bunch of fools. You are trying to wreck our educational system so that we become a third-world country full of the ignorant. BTW: which god? Every civilization has a creation myth.
> 
> It is evident that you have fallen into the idiotic belief that the bible is inerrant and infallible, brought to us by the stupid side of protestantism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My saying it probably bugs you because it_ is_ a religion.  The US Government agreed and gave in tax-exempt status, so who is the farking twit who is ignorant and stupid af?  Get lost, creepl.
Click to expand...

Wrong, as always.  Atheism is lack of belief.  It's not a religion.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever read. Atheism is not a "religion," you twit. There is no such thing as a "creation scientist." You cult people are such a bunch of fools. You are trying to wreck our educational system so that we become a third-world country full of the ignorant. BTW: which god? Every civilization has a creation myth.
> 
> It is evident that you have fallen into the idiotic belief that the bible is inerrant and infallible, brought to us by the stupid side of protestantism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My saying it probably bugs you because it_ is_ a religion.  The US Government agreed and gave in tax-exempt status, so who is the farking twit who is ignorant and stupid af?  Get lost, creepl.
Click to expand...

The federal government did not give atheism tax exempt status, moron.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, 'Creation Science' is by definition not science, but a set of scientific evidence the believers believes supports their theology..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method.  Nothing in evolution can by using the scientific method except natural selection.  That is part of creation science, too, as we saw it with flying birds become flightless birds such as the ostrich and emu to give a couple of examples.
> 
> Another example, is the chicken came before the egg as the proteins on the eggshell can only be produced by the ovaries of a chicken.  This experiment has been ignored by the evolutionists because they claim the egg came first because everything had to have a common ancestor.
> 
> Why do you think the evos are so adamant about birds from dinosaurs? They tried to backward engineer a chicken to become a dinosaur, but failed.  Why has evolution from the ancient times contradicted "everything" God said in the Bible?
Click to expand...

How is supernaturalism demonstrated by the scientific method?


----------



## JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958 said:


> Science raises a whole slew of questions about what happened to cause the Big Bang; what came 'before' the flow of space time.
> But there is no 'before' the beginning of time, and so science has no answers and I doubt it will be abler to offer anything more than a wild guess for another century or two.
> But by definition, the *cause* of the universe coming into being *must* be extra-natural or super-natural as a thing cannot cause itself, and anything outside our universe is 'extra-natural' therefore whatever caused the universe is extra-natural.
> But science cannot answer this question as it must remain within the naturalistic assumptions/framework.
> Therefore, 'Creation Science' is by definition not science, but a set of scientific evidence the believers believes supports their theology..



Abu Afak, such a fake name, lol, n ot sure how I lost you in my post, but maybe this might help[ you to understand it.

Bahbah, googoo, glabglab, thppppthppp, gagaga.

There, did that help?


----------



## JimBowie1958

bripat9643 said:


> Wrong, as always.  Atheism is lack of belief.  It's not a religion.


True, while atheism is not formally a religion, it does stake out positions on religious questions like a religion would.

It is the unreligion, lol..


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, 'Creation Science' is by definition not science, but a set of scientific evidence the believers believes supports their theology..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method.  Nothing in evolution can by using the scientific method except natural selection.  That is part of creation science, too, as we saw it with flying birds become flightless birds such as the ostrich and emu to give a couple of examples.
> 
> Another example, is the chicken came before the egg as the proteins on the eggshell can only be produced by the ovaries of a chicken.  This experiment has been ignored by the evolutionists because they claim the egg came first because everything had to have a common ancestor.
> 
> Why do you think the evos are so adamant about birds from dinosaurs? They tried to backward engineer a chicken to become a dinosaur, but failed.  Why has evolution from the ancient times contradicted "everything" God said in the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method. *
> 
> What are your 3 favorite examples of this?
Click to expand...


First, you ignore my questions, take my quote of context, and just ask me yours.  That tells me you cannot answer my questions and that you are one ignorant SOB.  You cannot explain science nor complex ideas to others.  IOW, you are a simpleton.

Anyway, I'll be generous and answer your questions.  

 1.  Sir Francis Bacon created the scientific method and warned creation scientists to not use God of the gaps.  Originally, God of the gaps was a warning to creation scientists to not use God to demonstrate their theories, but evos stole it for their arguments against creation when debating their big bang theory.  The scientific method would have to be based on experimental and observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, and repeatable evidence.  

 2.  Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked evolutionary spontaneous generation and showed only life begats life.  His experiment also debunks abiogenesis as one cannot have O2 and hydogen present in the early atmosphere, and Miller-Urey assumed the wrong early gases present in the early atmosphere.  Thus, no amino acids could form.  Evos claim the amino acids formed in the atmosphere via Miller-Urey and these acids fell into the oceans and formed primordial soup.  Even if they did form amino acids, that's still a long way from forming proteins, the building blocks of life.  They now claim primordial soup and life can form in hot geysers because a lightening would cause an explosion with free oxygen and hydrogen present.  Can you demonstrate that amino acids can become proteins outside the cell?  

 3.  Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and laws of motion for a fixed space universe.  Now, we have Einstein's special theory of relativity to show a flexible space-time universe and gravitation, but Newton's calculations for gravitation still work for the most of the universe except for quantum calculations with gravity.

What are yours for evolution?


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> The federal government did not give atheism tax exempt status, moron.



Ad hominem attack and fallacy right off the bat.  You lose.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> How is supernaturalism demonstrated by the scientific method?



It goes to show that whatever I said and showed you went in one ear and out the other or over your head.  You are another person who cannot answer my questions.  What is the difference between creationism and intelligent design?  I've explained this to you at least three times and you did not get it so became ignored.

All you do is parrot what the stupid internet atheists have told you.  Read and watch the video in post #1.  What does the icr article discuss?  How does an atheist and then neutral Lee Strobel use science to formulate his ideology?  This is a person who wanted to know how things worked?


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> Wrong, as always. Atheism is lack of belief. It's not a religion.



It _is_ a religion.  You just don't know.  Thus, you are wrong.  Atheists are usually wrong.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government did not give atheism tax exempt status, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hominem attack and fallacy right off the bat.  You lose.
Click to expand...

What's the fallacy?  What you claimed is blatantly untrue.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, as always. Atheism is lack of belief. It's not a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It _is_ a religion.  You just don't know.  Thus, you are wrong.  Atheists are usually wrong.
Click to expand...

It's not a religion.  Atheism postulates no claims lacking any proof.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, as always. Atheism is lack of belief. It's not a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It _is_ a religion.  You just don't know.  Thus, you are wrong.  Atheists are usually wrong.
Click to expand...

It's not a religion.


----------



## Lysistrata

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, as always. Atheism is lack of belief. It's not a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It _is_ a religion.  You just don't know.  Thus, you are wrong.  Atheists are usually wrong.
Click to expand...

And you pathetic fundies are right? Why do you idiots try to shove your pathetic, prostituted variation of Christianity on all of us? Don't you have any pride or dignity?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, 'Creation Science' is by definition not science, but a set of scientific evidence the believers believes supports their theology..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method.  Nothing in evolution can by using the scientific method except natural selection.  That is part of creation science, too, as we saw it with flying birds become flightless birds such as the ostrich and emu to give a couple of examples.
> 
> Another example, is the chicken came before the egg as the proteins on the eggshell can only be produced by the ovaries of a chicken.  This experiment has been ignored by the evolutionists because they claim the egg came first because everything had to have a common ancestor.
> 
> Why do you think the evos are so adamant about birds from dinosaurs? They tried to backward engineer a chicken to become a dinosaur, but failed.  Why has evolution from the ancient times contradicted "everything" God said in the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method. *
> 
> What are your 3 favorite examples of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you ignore my questions, take my quote of context, and just ask me yours.  That tells me you cannot answer my questions and that you are one ignorant SOB.  You cannot explain science nor complex ideas to others.  IOW, you are a simpleton.
> 
> Anyway, I'll be generous and answer your questions.
> 
> 1.  Sir Francis Bacon created the scientific method and warned creation scientists to not use God of the gaps.  Originally, God of the gaps was a warning to creation scientists to not use God to demonstrate their theories, but evos stole it for their arguments against creation when debating their big bang theory.  The scientific method would have to be based on experimental and observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, and repeatable evidence.
> 
> 2.  Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked evolutionary spontaneous generation and showed only life begats life.  His experiment also debunks abiogenesis as one cannot have O2 and hydogen present in the early atmosphere, and Miller-Urey assumed the wrong early gases present in the early atmosphere.  Thus, no amino acids could form.  Evos claim the amino acids formed in the atmosphere via Miller-Urey and these acids fell into the oceans and formed primordial soup.  Even if they did form amino acids, that's still a long way from forming proteins, the building blocks of life.  They now claim primordial soup and life can form in hot geysers because a lightening would cause an explosion with free oxygen and hydrogen present.  Can you demonstrate that amino acids can become proteins outside the cell?
> 
> 3.  Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and laws of motion for a fixed space universe.  Now, we have Einstein's special theory of relativity to show a flexible space-time universe and gravitation, but Newton's calculations for gravitation still work for the most of the universe except for quantum calculations with gravity.
> 
> What are yours for evolution?
Click to expand...


* Sir Francis Bacon created the scientific method *

He did that. Creation science did not do that.

*Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked evolutionary spontaneous generation *

Where does evolution require spontaneous generation?
And again, you claimed creation science did these wonderful things, not creation believing scientists.

*Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and laws of motion for a fixed space universe.*

Was that because of creation science? From something in the Bible?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, 'Creation Science' is by definition not science, but a set of scientific evidence the believers believes supports their theology..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method.  Nothing in evolution can by using the scientific method except natural selection.  That is part of creation science, too, as we saw it with flying birds become flightless birds such as the ostrich and emu to give a couple of examples.
> 
> Another example, is the chicken came before the egg as the proteins on the eggshell can only be produced by the ovaries of a chicken.  This experiment has been ignored by the evolutionists because they claim the egg came first because everything had to have a common ancestor.
> 
> Why do you think the evos are so adamant about birds from dinosaurs? They tried to backward engineer a chicken to become a dinosaur, but failed.  Why has evolution from the ancient times contradicted "everything" God said in the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method. *
> 
> What are your 3 favorite examples of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you ignore my questions, take my quote of context, and just ask me yours.  That tells me you cannot answer my questions and that you are one ignorant SOB.  You cannot explain science nor complex ideas to others.  IOW, you are a simpleton.
> 
> Anyway, I'll be generous and answer your questions.
> 
> 1.  Sir Francis Bacon created the scientific method and warned creation scientists to not use God of the gaps.  Originally, God of the gaps was a warning to creation scientists to not use God to demonstrate their theories, but evos stole it for their arguments against creation when debating their big bang theory.  The scientific method would have to be based on experimental and observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, and repeatable evidence.
> 
> 2.  Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked evolutionary spontaneous generation and showed only life begats life.  His experiment also debunks abiogenesis as one cannot have O2 and hydogen present in the early atmosphere, and Miller-Urey assumed the wrong early gases present in the early atmosphere.  Thus, no amino acids could form.  Evos claim the amino acids formed in the atmosphere via Miller-Urey and these acids fell into the oceans and formed primordial soup.  Even if they did form amino acids, that's still a long way from forming proteins, the building blocks of life.  They now claim primordial soup and life can form in hot geysers because a lightening would cause an explosion with free oxygen and hydrogen present.  Can you demonstrate that amino acids can become proteins outside the cell?
> 
> 3.  Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and laws of motion for a fixed space universe.  Now, we have Einstein's special theory of relativity to show a flexible space-time universe and gravitation, but Newton's calculations for gravitation still work for the most of the universe except for quantum calculations with gravity.
> 
> What are yours for evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * Sir Francis Bacon created the scientific method *
> 
> He did that. Creation science did not do that.
> 
> *Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked evolutionary spontaneous generation *
> 
> Where does evolution require spontaneous generation?
> And again, you claimed creation science did these wonderful things, not creation believing scientists.
> 
> *Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and laws of motion for a fixed space universe.*
> 
> Was that because of creation science? From something in the Bible?
Click to expand...


Like I said you can't or don't answer my questions because you're a pinhead..  You're one who needs to learn creation science as real science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, 'Creation Science' is by definition not science, but a set of scientific evidence the believers believes supports their theology..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method.  Nothing in evolution can by using the scientific method except natural selection.  That is part of creation science, too, as we saw it with flying birds become flightless birds such as the ostrich and emu to give a couple of examples.
> 
> Another example, is the chicken came before the egg as the proteins on the eggshell can only be produced by the ovaries of a chicken.  This experiment has been ignored by the evolutionists because they claim the egg came first because everything had to have a common ancestor.
> 
> Why do you think the evos are so adamant about birds from dinosaurs? They tried to backward engineer a chicken to become a dinosaur, but failed.  Why has evolution from the ancient times contradicted "everything" God said in the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method. *
> 
> What are your 3 favorite examples of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you ignore my questions, take my quote of context, and just ask me yours.  That tells me you cannot answer my questions and that you are one ignorant SOB.  You cannot explain science nor complex ideas to others.  IOW, you are a simpleton.
> 
> Anyway, I'll be generous and answer your questions.
> 
> 1.  Sir Francis Bacon created the scientific method and warned creation scientists to not use God of the gaps.  Originally, God of the gaps was a warning to creation scientists to not use God to demonstrate their theories, but evos stole it for their arguments against creation when debating their big bang theory.  The scientific method would have to be based on experimental and observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, and repeatable evidence.
> 
> 2.  Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked evolutionary spontaneous generation and showed only life begats life.  His experiment also debunks abiogenesis as one cannot have O2 and hydogen present in the early atmosphere, and Miller-Urey assumed the wrong early gases present in the early atmosphere.  Thus, no amino acids could form.  Evos claim the amino acids formed in the atmosphere via Miller-Urey and these acids fell into the oceans and formed primordial soup.  Even if they did form amino acids, that's still a long way from forming proteins, the building blocks of life.  They now claim primordial soup and life can form in hot geysers because a lightening would cause an explosion with free oxygen and hydrogen present.  Can you demonstrate that amino acids can become proteins outside the cell?
> 
> 3.  Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and laws of motion for a fixed space universe.  Now, we have Einstein's special theory of relativity to show a flexible space-time universe and gravitation, but Newton's calculations for gravitation still work for the most of the universe except for quantum calculations with gravity.
> 
> What are yours for evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * Sir Francis Bacon created the scientific method *
> 
> He did that. Creation science did not do that.
> 
> *Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked evolutionary spontaneous generation *
> 
> Where does evolution require spontaneous generation?
> And again, you claimed creation science did these wonderful things, not creation believing scientists.
> 
> *Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and laws of motion for a fixed space universe.*
> 
> Was that because of creation science? From something in the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said you can't or don't answer my questions because you're a pinhead..  You're one who needs to learn creation science as real science.
Click to expand...


If you pull your head out of your ass long enough to (finally) post your proof of a pre-Cambrian rabbit, let me know.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, 'Creation Science' is by definition not science, but a set of scientific evidence the believers believes supports their theology..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method.  Nothing in evolution can by using the scientific method except natural selection.  That is part of creation science, too, as we saw it with flying birds become flightless birds such as the ostrich and emu to give a couple of examples.
> 
> Another example, is the chicken came before the egg as the proteins on the eggshell can only be produced by the ovaries of a chicken.  This experiment has been ignored by the evolutionists because they claim the egg came first because everything had to have a common ancestor.
> 
> Why do you think the evos are so adamant about birds from dinosaurs? They tried to backward engineer a chicken to become a dinosaur, but failed.  Why has evolution from the ancient times contradicted "everything" God said in the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method. *
> 
> What are your 3 favorite examples of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you ignore my questions, take my quote of context, and just ask me yours.  That tells me you cannot answer my questions and that you are one ignorant SOB.  You cannot explain science nor complex ideas to others.  IOW, you are a simpleton.
> 
> Anyway, I'll be generous and answer your questions.
> 
> 1.  Sir Francis Bacon created the scientific method and warned creation scientists to not use God of the gaps.  Originally, God of the gaps was a warning to creation scientists to not use God to demonstrate their theories, but evos stole it for their arguments against creation when debating their big bang theory.  The scientific method would have to be based on experimental and observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, and repeatable evidence.
> 
> 2.  Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked evolutionary spontaneous generation and showed only life begats life.  His experiment also debunks abiogenesis as one cannot have O2 and hydogen present in the early atmosphere, and Miller-Urey assumed the wrong early gases present in the early atmosphere.  Thus, no amino acids could form.  Evos claim the amino acids formed in the atmosphere via Miller-Urey and these acids fell into the oceans and formed primordial soup.  Even if they did form amino acids, that's still a long way from forming proteins, the building blocks of life.  They now claim primordial soup and life can form in hot geysers because a lightening would cause an explosion with free oxygen and hydrogen present.  Can you demonstrate that amino acids can become proteins outside the cell?
> 
> 3.  Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and laws of motion for a fixed space universe.  Now, we have Einstein's special theory of relativity to show a flexible space-time universe and gravitation, but Newton's calculations for gravitation still work for the most of the universe except for quantum calculations with gravity.
> 
> What are yours for evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * Sir Francis Bacon created the scientific method *
> 
> He did that. Creation science did not do that.
> 
> *Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked evolutionary spontaneous generation *
> 
> Where does evolution require spontaneous generation?
> And again, you claimed creation science did these wonderful things, not creation believing scientists.
> 
> *Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and laws of motion for a fixed space universe.*
> 
> Was that because of creation science? From something in the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said you can't or don't answer my questions because you're a pinhead..  You're one who needs to learn creation science as real science.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone need to learn what is patently false?


----------



## cnm

JimBowie1958 said:


> But by definition, the *cause* of the universe coming into being *must* be extra-natural or super-natural as a thing cannot cause itself, and anything outside our universe is 'extra-natural' therefore whatever caused the universe is extra-natural.


We do not know that. You do not know that. You cannot provide evidence for those assertions. You are filling with gods the gaps in your knowledge that make you fearful.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, 'Creation Science' is by definition not science, but a set of scientific evidence the believers believes supports their theology..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method.  Nothing in evolution can by using the scientific method except natural selection.  That is part of creation science, too, as we saw it with flying birds become flightless birds such as the ostrich and emu to give a couple of examples.
> 
> Another example, is the chicken came before the egg as the proteins on the eggshell can only be produced by the ovaries of a chicken.  This experiment has been ignored by the evolutionists because they claim the egg came first because everything had to have a common ancestor.
> 
> Why do you think the evos are so adamant about birds from dinosaurs? They tried to backward engineer a chicken to become a dinosaur, but failed.  Why has evolution from the ancient times contradicted "everything" God said in the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method. *
> 
> What are your 3 favorite examples of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you ignore my questions, take my quote of context, and just ask me yours.  That tells me you cannot answer my questions and that you are one ignorant SOB.  You cannot explain science nor complex ideas to others.  IOW, you are a simpleton.
> 
> Anyway, I'll be generous and answer your questions.
> 
> 1.  Sir Francis Bacon created the scientific method and warned creation scientists to not use God of the gaps.  Originally, God of the gaps was a warning to creation scientists to not use God to demonstrate their theories, but evos stole it for their arguments against creation when debating their big bang theory.  The scientific method would have to be based on experimental and observable evidence, falsifiable evidence, and repeatable evidence.
> 
> 2.  Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked evolutionary spontaneous generation and showed only life begats life.  His experiment also debunks abiogenesis as one cannot have O2 and hydogen present in the early atmosphere, and Miller-Urey assumed the wrong early gases present in the early atmosphere.  Thus, no amino acids could form.  Evos claim the amino acids formed in the atmosphere via Miller-Urey and these acids fell into the oceans and formed primordial soup.  Even if they did form amino acids, that's still a long way from forming proteins, the building blocks of life.  They now claim primordial soup and life can form in hot geysers because a lightening would cause an explosion with free oxygen and hydrogen present.  Can you demonstrate that amino acids can become proteins outside the cell?
> 
> 3.  Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and laws of motion for a fixed space universe.  Now, we have Einstein's special theory of relativity to show a flexible space-time universe and gravitation, but Newton's calculations for gravitation still work for the most of the universe except for quantum calculations with gravity.
> 
> What are yours for evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * Sir Francis Bacon created the scientific method *
> 
> He did that. Creation science did not do that.
> 
> *Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked evolutionary spontaneous generation *
> 
> Where does evolution require spontaneous generation?
> And again, you claimed creation science did these wonderful things, not creation believing scientists.
> 
> *Sir Isaac Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and laws of motion for a fixed space universe.*
> 
> Was that because of creation science? From something in the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said you can't or don't answer my questions because you're a pinhead..  You're one who needs to learn creation science as real science.
Click to expand...


Creation science is simply religious fundamentalism under a burqa of false labels.

You need to spend some time and actually learn some science if you're going to rail against it. There is no disagreement among the relevant science community that biological organisms evolve, that the earth is billions of years old and the universe is far older. Your revulsion for science is focused on those particular elements.

Science is based on observational, testable evidence. This is different from religion, which selectively uses evidence to support its position. In other words, science *comes from* evidence, while religion *uses* evidence to support an unverifiable, pre-existing source (the holy text _de jour_).

Theism is not science, because it relies completely on miraculous interventions (floods, miracles and the creation itself, not to mention just about all the rest of the book(s))-- things that cannot be used in the formulation of a scientific theory. Since miraculous events cannot be tested, repeated, nor can the processes by which they operate be described, they must be taken on faith. Theism is an expression of religious belief-- not science. There is a huge difference.

You Harun Yahya clones are a danger to yourselves.


----------



## cnm

Hollie said:


> Creation science is simply religious fundamentalism under a burqa of false labels.


Hoho, the hijab of hypocrisy...


----------



## JimBowie1958

Why would anyone need to learn what is patently false?[/QUOTE]
If 'Creation Science' was framed as the pursuit of science topics that suggest a Creator may have designed the universe or kicked off the Big Bang, it might have validity.

But Naturalistic Science cannot PROVE a Creator because it is outside its realm of application, hence an internally flawed oxymoron.


----------



## danielpalos

we cannot teach any Thing as science if we don't understand it.


----------



## bripat9643

JimBowie1958 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> The couple of times I've talked to students about early hominds, "Neanderthal man" and the theory of all humans evolving and spreading out of Africa, I explain that there is another belief system by some Christians, that of Creationism, which holds that God created the world.
> 
> But that's pretty much all I know about it, so if a student ever asked for more information about it, I'd have to refer them to their minister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science raises a whole slew of questions about what happened to cause the Big Bang; what came 'before' the flow of space time.
> 
> But there is no 'before' the beginning of time, and so science has no answers and I doubt it will be abler to offer anything more than a wild guess for another century or two.
> 
> But by definition, the *cause* of the universe coming into being *must* be extra-natural or super-natural as a thing cannot cause itself, and anything outside our universe is 'extra-natural' therefore whatever caused the universe is extra-natural.
> 
> But science cannot answer this question as it must remain within the naturalistic assumptions/framework.
> 
> Therefore, 'Creation Science' is by definition not science, but a set of scientific evidence the believers believes supports their theology..
Click to expand...

What caused God?


----------



## JimBowie1958

bripat9643 said:


> What caused God?


God is outside the flow of time, so it is impossible for anything to 'cause' the Creator.

The is no 'before' to allow for cause.


----------



## bripat9643

JimBowie1958 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone need to learn what is patently false?
> 
> 
> 
> If 'Creation Science' was framed as the pursuit of science topics that suggest a Creator may have designed the universe or kicked off the Big Bang, it might have validity.
> 
> But Naturalistic Science cannot PROVE a Creator because it is outside its realm of application, hence an internally flawed oxymoron.
Click to expand...

"Naturalistic Science," or science, in other words, doesn't need to "PROVE a creator."   What it can do is prove that all theories about some supernatural creator are absurd.


----------



## bripat9643

JimBowie1958 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What caused God?
> 
> 
> 
> God is outside the flow of time, so it is impossible for anything to 'cause' the Creator.
> 
> The is no 'before' to allow for cause.
Click to expand...

A theory with no visible means of support.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you pull your head out of your ass long enough to (finally) post your proof of a pre-Cambrian rabbit, let me know.



GP already did, but I see you failed miserably in pulling your ass out.  You must like the stink, the darkness, and eating feces.  Absolutely disgusting!

We also do not have any reporting of feathered dinosaurs from the ancient times.  That fits the theory that the fossils had skin follicles, not feathers (similar in looks).  From the OSU study, we found if birds used their upper leg to run like theopods, then their lungs would collapse.  We also have the warm blooded vs cold blooded circulatory system of dinosaurs.  Can I help it if the evos fit the evidence to their common ancestor theory?  What kind of evidence did you provide?  What are the parts of the leg of a bird and location?  What are the parts of the leg for a theropod and their location?  It adds up to birds and dinosaurs are different classes of animals.  Even the size difference is tremendous.  What you provided was I read the article wrong and are still stuck on rabbits.  We are talking about birds and dinosaurs here .


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> Why would anyone need to learn what is patently false?



That's what I have been saying about birds are not dinosaurs (BAND), and why people need to learn real science in public schools.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you pull your head out of your ass long enough to (finally) post your proof of a pre-Cambrian rabbit, let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GP already did, but I see you failed miserably in pulling your ass out.  You must like the stink, the darkness, and eating feces.  Absolutely disgusting!
> 
> We also do not have any reporting of feathered dinosaurs from the ancient times.  That fits the theory that the fossils had skin follicles, not feathers (similar in looks).  From the OSU study, we found if birds used their upper leg to run like theopods, then their lungs would collapse.  We also have the warm blooded vs cold blooded circulatory system of dinosaurs.  Can I help it if the evos fit the evidence to their common ancestor theory?  What kind of evidence did you provide?  What are the parts of the leg of a bird and location?  What are the parts of the leg for a theropod and their location?  It adds up to birds and dinosaurs are different classes of animals.  Even the size difference is tremendous.  What you provided was I read the article wrong and are still stuck on rabbits.  We are talking about birds and dinosaurs here .
Click to expand...

You only proved that you don't know a thing about dinosaurs.  Plenty of fossils of feathered dinosaurs.  The feathers were fossilized, not just the "skin follicles."  The rest of your tripe is even more absurd and wrong.  The facts are practically the exact opposite of what you posted.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone need to learn what is patently false?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I have been saying about birds are not dinosaurs (BAND), and why people need to learn real science in public schools.
Click to expand...

You are someone who wants to learn what is patently false.  The idiocies you posted are patently false.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you pull your head out of your ass long enough to (finally) post your proof of a pre-Cambrian rabbit, let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GP already did, but I see you failed miserably in pulling your ass out.  You must like the stink, the darkness, and eating feces.  Absolutely disgusting!
> 
> We also do not have any reporting of feathered dinosaurs from the ancient times.  That fits the theory that the fossils had skin follicles, not feathers (similar in looks).  From the OSU study, we found if birds used their upper leg to run like theopods, then their lungs would collapse.  We also have the warm blooded vs cold blooded circulatory system of dinosaurs.  Can I help it if the evos fit the evidence to their common ancestor theory?  What kind of evidence did you provide?  What are the parts of the leg of a bird and location?  What are the parts of the leg for a theropod and their location?  It adds up to birds and dinosaurs are different classes of animals.  Even the size difference is tremendous.  What you provided was I read the article wrong and are still stuck on rabbits.  We are talking about birds and dinosaurs here .
Click to expand...


*GP already did, *

You're lying.

*We also do not have any reporting of feathered dinosaurs from the ancient times.*

So that means Genesis explains all of science?

*What kind of evidence did you provide?*

You made the claim that.....

"Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method" 

How can the scientific method show that Genesis correctly describes how life appeared on Earth?

* It adds up to birds and dinosaurs are different classes of animals.*

Which Bible passage explains how they're different?

*What you provided was I read the article wrong and are still stuck on rabbits.  *

So you still don't know the time frame of pre-Cambrian, do you?


----------



## james bond

cnm said:


> We do not know that. You do not know that. You cannot provide evidence for those assertions. You are filling with gods the gaps in your knowledge that make you fearful.




We do have evidence in that quantum particles need space and time to form and move.  Even Stephen Hawking admitted this.  Oops.  Thus, we could not have universe ex nihilo.  God is timeless and spaceless so can do creation ex nihilo.  Universe ex nihilo led to the Big Bang Theory.  Before that, it was the eternal universe and creation science showed it was pseudoscience with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB).  Also, we found gravitation waves in observation.  

What kind of idiot are you?  You are the dumbest mf'er I have seen on USMB.  And you're the one who insisted birds ARE dinosaurs causing the_ Is This Evidence for Satan_ thread -- Is This Evidence For Satan? 

Moreover, Hawking could not explain why his big bang could happen violating the laws of physics.  He tried to come up with the theory of everything, but failed.  Thus, he and other atheist physicists went to the multiverse hypothesis.  He died before he could find the evidence he claims exists.  I would venture to guess all of the atheists/agnostics here will die like this.  They will die believing in their fake science and you know what that means according to creation science  .  It's not worth it for beliving in stuff like universe ex nihilo and birds ARE dinosaurs as you claimed.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> "Naturalistic Science," or science, in other words, doesn't need to "PROVE a creator."



The universe did not form naturally.  There can be no singularity of infinite temperature and infinite density (except for the brain of some of the atheists here).  Nothing infinite can exist in the physical world.  Mathematically, one cannot divide by zero.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not know that. You do not know that. You cannot provide evidence for those assertions. You are filling with gods the gaps in your knowledge that make you fearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do have evidence in that quantum particles need space and time to form and move.  Even Stephen Hawking admitted this.  Oops.  Thus, we could not have universe ex nihilo.  God is timeless and spaceless so can do creation ex nihilo.  Universe ex nihilo led to the Big Bang Theory.  Before that, it was the eternal universe and creation science showed it was pseudoscience with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB).  Also, we found gravitation waves in observation.
> 
> What kind of idiot are you?  You are the dumbest mf'er I have seen on USMB.  And you're the one who insisted birds ARE dinosaurs causing the_ Is This Evidence for Satan_ thread -- Is This Evidence For Satan?
> 
> Moreover, Hawking could not explain why his big bang could happen violating the laws of physics.  He tried to come up with the theory of everything, but failed.  Thus, he and other atheist physicists went to the multiverse hypothesis.  He died before he could find the evidence he claims exists.  I would venture to guess all of the atheists/agnostics here will die like this.  They will die believing in their fake science and you know what that means according to creation science  .  It's not worth it for beliving in stuff like universe ex nihilo and birds ARE dinosaurs as you claimed.
Click to expand...

But you believe in God ex nihilo.  Why don't you see a problem with that?


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> You are someone who wants to learn what is patently false. The idiocies you posted are patently false.



You are repeating yourself now.  Let's just agree to disagree and I can't waste time with people who just bring up the same points over and over.  Why don't you get a room with Toddsterpatriot.  He repeats himself ad nauseum, too.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Naturalistic Science," or science, in other words, doesn't need to "PROVE a creator."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe did not form naturally.  There can be no singularity of infinite temperature and infinite density (except for the brain of some of the atheists here).  Nothing infinite can exist in the physical world.  Mathematically, one cannot divide by zero.
Click to expand...


But you conjured up some gaseous vertebrate who can create the universe from nothing? 

One reason that modern physics is looking for alternatives to the big bang theory is precisely because of the "divide by zero" issue it has.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are someone who wants to learn what is patently false. The idiocies you posted are patently false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are repeating yourself now.  Let's just agree to disagree and I can't waste time with people who just bring up the same points over and over.  Why don't you get a room with Toddsterpatriot.  He repeats himself ad nauseum, too.
Click to expand...

I'm bringing up the point that all your claims about dinosaurs are false.   I'm not repeating anything.   We have fossil evidence that dinosaurs had feathers.

Finally, You Can See Dinosaurs in All Their Feathered Glory






Fossil of _Microraptor gui_ includes impressions of feathered wings (see arrows)


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Naturalistic Science," or science, in other words, doesn't need to "PROVE a creator."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe did not form naturally.  There can be no singularity of infinite temperature and infinite density (except for the brain of some of the atheists here).  Nothing infinite can exist in the physical world.  Mathematically, one cannot divide by zero.
Click to expand...

The conclusion doesn't follow the premise.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you pull your head out of your ass long enough to (finally) post your proof of a pre-Cambrian rabbit, let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GP already did, but I see you failed miserably in pulling your ass out.  You must like the stink, the darkness, and eating feces.  Absolutely disgusting!
> 
> We also do not have any reporting of feathered dinosaurs from the ancient times.  That fits the theory that the fossils had skin follicles, not feathers (similar in looks).  From the OSU study, we found if birds used their upper leg to run like theopods, then their lungs would collapse.  We also have the warm blooded vs cold blooded circulatory system of dinosaurs.  Can I help it if the evos fit the evidence to their common ancestor theory?  What kind of evidence did you provide?  What are the parts of the leg of a bird and location?  What are the parts of the leg for a theropod and their location?  It adds up to birds and dinosaurs are different classes of animals.  Even the size difference is tremendous.  What you provided was I read the article wrong and are still stuck on rabbits.  We are talking about birds and dinosaurs here .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *GP already did, *
> 
> You're lying.
> 
> *We also do not have any reporting of feathered dinosaurs from the ancient times.*
> 
> So that means Genesis explains all of science?
> 
> *What kind of evidence did you provide?*
> 
> You made the claim that.....
> 
> "Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method"
> 
> How can the scientific method show that Genesis correctly describes how life appeared on Earth?
> 
> * It adds up to birds and dinosaurs are different classes of animals.*
> 
> Which Bible passage explains how they're different?
> 
> *What you provided was I read the article wrong and are still stuck on rabbits.  *
> 
> So you still don't know the time frame of pre-Cambrian, do you?
Click to expand...


Read my post #415 and #420.  You argue semantics which is boring and want everything handed to you on a silver platter.  Why don't you answer my questions such what kind of evidence did you provide?  Maybe you are the stupidest mf'er here.  *ANSWER MY QUESTIONS DIPSHIT!!! * .  LMAO.

It just goes to show that you are a dipshit and that I am right.  Atheists are usually wrong and end up with their heads up their anus.  It's not ad hominem fallacy if it is true.  There you go.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are someone who wants to learn what is patently false. The idiocies you posted are patently false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are repeating yourself now.  Let's just agree to disagree and I can't waste time with people who just bring up the same points over and over.  Why don't you get a room with Toddsterpatriot.  He repeats himself ad nauseum, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm bringing up the point that all your claims about dinosaurs are false.   I'm not repeating anything.   We have fossil evidence that dinosaurs had feathers.
> 
> Finally, You Can See Dinosaurs in All Their Feathered Glory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil of _Microraptor gui_ includes impressions of feathered wings (see arrows)
Click to expand...


Meh.  That was found in a layer where there were bird fossils.  That feather is way too large for the microraptor.  Keep trying.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are someone who wants to learn what is patently false. The idiocies you posted are patently false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are repeating yourself now.  Let's just agree to disagree and I can't waste time with people who just bring up the same points over and over.  Why don't you get a room with Toddsterpatriot.  He repeats himself ad nauseum, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm bringing up the point that all your claims about dinosaurs are false.   I'm not repeating anything.   We have fossil evidence that dinosaurs had feathers.
> 
> Finally, You Can See Dinosaurs in All Their Feathered Glory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil of _Microraptor gui_ includes impressions of feathered wings (see arrows)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh.  That was found in a layer where there were bird fossils.  That feather is way too large for the microraptor.  Keep trying.
Click to expand...

ROFL!  So you're saying that the fossil lies?

Can you provide a link to something that supports your accusations?

Microraptor - Wikipedia​
_Microraptor was among the most abundant non-avialan dinosaurs in its ecosystem, and the genus is represented by more fossils than any other dromaeosaurid, with possibly over 300 fossil specimens represented across various museum collections.[2]_​


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> The conclusion doesn't follow the premise.



I was describing the evos thesis of how the universe started.  So, you agree?  Moreover, how do you explain God creating the electromagnetic spectrum or light on the first day?  He separated the light from the dark.  We observe this when we go watch the Aurora Borealis.  That's real obsevable science.  


Hawking kicked the bucket without knowing.  You will die the same way.  Maybe you should watch the entire video to commes des farkdown?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you pull your head out of your ass long enough to (finally) post your proof of a pre-Cambrian rabbit, let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GP already did, but I see you failed miserably in pulling your ass out.  You must like the stink, the darkness, and eating feces.  Absolutely disgusting!
> 
> We also do not have any reporting of feathered dinosaurs from the ancient times.  That fits the theory that the fossils had skin follicles, not feathers (similar in looks).  From the OSU study, we found if birds used their upper leg to run like theopods, then their lungs would collapse.  We also have the warm blooded vs cold blooded circulatory system of dinosaurs.  Can I help it if the evos fit the evidence to their common ancestor theory?  What kind of evidence did you provide?  What are the parts of the leg of a bird and location?  What are the parts of the leg for a theropod and their location?  It adds up to birds and dinosaurs are different classes of animals.  Even the size difference is tremendous.  What you provided was I read the article wrong and are still stuck on rabbits.  We are talking about birds and dinosaurs here .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *GP already did, *
> 
> You're lying.
> 
> *We also do not have any reporting of feathered dinosaurs from the ancient times.*
> 
> So that means Genesis explains all of science?
> 
> *What kind of evidence did you provide?*
> 
> You made the claim that.....
> 
> "Creation science is real science because it can be demonstrated by the scientific method"
> 
> How can the scientific method show that Genesis correctly describes how life appeared on Earth?
> 
> * It adds up to birds and dinosaurs are different classes of animals.*
> 
> Which Bible passage explains how they're different?
> 
> *What you provided was I read the article wrong and are still stuck on rabbits.  *
> 
> So you still don't know the time frame of pre-Cambrian, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read my post #415 and #420.  You argue semantics which is boring and want everything handed to you on a silver platter.  Why don't you answer my questions such what kind of evidence did you provide?  Maybe you are the stupidest mf'er here.  *ANSWER MY QUESTIONS DIPSHIT!!! * .  LMAO.
> 
> It just goes to show that you are a dipshit and that I am right.  Atheists are usually wrong and end up with their heads up their anus.  It's not ad hominem fallacy if it is true.  There you go.
Click to expand...


*Read my post #415 and #420.*

Neither one proves your claim of pre-Cambrian rabbits. How long ago was pre-Cambrian? LOL!

*You argue semantics which is boring *

I'm arguing your claims. Which are silly.

*Why don't you answer my questions such what kind of evidence did you provide?*

We're working to prove your claims right now.
After you post your proof, then we'll work on your silly questions.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are someone who wants to learn what is patently false. The idiocies you posted are patently false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are repeating yourself now.  Let's just agree to disagree and I can't waste time with people who just bring up the same points over and over.  Why don't you get a room with Toddsterpatriot.  He repeats himself ad nauseum, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm bringing up the point that all your claims about dinosaurs are false.   I'm not repeating anything.   We have fossil evidence that dinosaurs had feathers.
> 
> Finally, You Can See Dinosaurs in All Their Feathered Glory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil of _Microraptor gui_ includes impressions of feathered wings (see arrows)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh.  That was found in a layer where there were bird fossils.  That feather is way too large for the microraptor.  Keep trying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  So you're saying that the fossil lies?
> 
> Can you provide a link to something that supports your accusations?
> 
> Microraptor - Wikipedia​
> _Microraptor was among the most abundant non-avialan dinosaurs in its ecosystem, and the genus is represented by more fossils than any other dromaeosaurid, with possibly over 300 fossil specimens represented across various museum collections.[2]_​
Click to expand...


Real science shows that fossils were mostly that of marine animals.  We have fossils of fish and crustaceans on top of Mt. Everest.  They discovered a whale in the Himalayas.  Atheist scientists tried to say it walked up there lol.  Dinosaur and bird fossils just show where they died.  It does not mean they are connected.  We know from historical and anthropoligical evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs.  All you have is made up paleontological evidence which fits the common ancestor theory.  How many times do I have to repeat myself?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conclusion doesn't follow the premise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was describing the evos thesis of how the universe started.  So, you agree?  Moreover, how do you explain God creating the electromagnetic spectrum or light on the first day?  He separated the light from the dark.  We observe this when we go watch the Aurora Borealis.  That's real obsevable science.
> 
> 
> Hawking kicked the bucket without knowing.  You will die the same way.  Maybe you should watch the entire video to commes des farkdown?
Click to expand...


What you were doing is posting a non sequitur.  You started with a conclusion, and then posted a lot of gibberish that had nothing to do with that conclusion.

I don't explain God creating the electromagnetic spectrum because there isn't a scintilla of evidence for it.  

The Aurora Borealis is the result of God separating the light from the dark?  Edison created the light bulb, which "separates the light from the dark."  Is he God?


----------



## JimBowie1958

bripat9643 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What caused God?
> 
> 
> 
> God is outside the flow of time, so it is impossible for anything to 'cause' the Creator.
> 
> The is no 'before' to allow for cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A theory with no visible means of support.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of support for a belief that there was a beginning to the flow of time.

Whatever began the flow of time exists outside the flow of time by definition, and therefor there is no 'before' that origination point, dude.

Simple math tells us this.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> We're working to prove your claims right now.
> After you post your proof, then we'll work on your silly questions.



I already showed you were a _liar_ claiming oldest rabbits were 5 M years old instead of 53 million.  Why should anyone believe you?  Besides, your pea brain can't come up with or figure out the answers.  I already said that, too.  What kind of idiot are you?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are someone who wants to learn what is patently false. The idiocies you posted are patently false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are repeating yourself now.  Let's just agree to disagree and I can't waste time with people who just bring up the same points over and over.  Why don't you get a room with Toddsterpatriot.  He repeats himself ad nauseum, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm bringing up the point that all your claims about dinosaurs are false.   I'm not repeating anything.   We have fossil evidence that dinosaurs had feathers.
> 
> Finally, You Can See Dinosaurs in All Their Feathered Glory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil of _Microraptor gui_ includes impressions of feathered wings (see arrows)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh.  That was found in a layer where there were bird fossils.  That feather is way too large for the microraptor.  Keep trying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  So you're saying that the fossil lies?
> 
> Can you provide a link to something that supports your accusations?
> 
> Microraptor - Wikipedia​
> _Microraptor was among the most abundant non-avialan dinosaurs in its ecosystem, and the genus is represented by more fossils than any other dromaeosaurid, with possibly over 300 fossil specimens represented across various museum collections.[2]_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real science shows that fossils were mostly that of marine animals.  We have fossils of fish and crustaceans on top of Mt. Everest.  They discovered a whale in the Himalayas.  Atheist scientists tried to say it walked up there lol.  Dinosaur and bird fossils just show where they died.  It does not mean they are connected.  We know from historical and anthropoligical evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs.  All you have is made up paleontological evidence which fits the common ancestor theory.  How many times do I have to repeat myself?
Click to expand...


It's hard to fathom the pile of bullshit you posted. Not a single sentence of your post is a fact.

The "common ancestry theory" is called evolution.  There's nothing "made up" about what I posted.  Those are actual fossils.  They are facts.

You're the one who is making things up.  Furthermore, what you make up is so absurd that even grade school children would laugh at it.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're working to prove your claims right now.
> After you post your proof, then we'll work on your silly questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already showed you were a _liar_ claiming oldest rabbits were 5 M years old instead of 53 million.  Why should anyone believe you?  Besides, your pea brain can't come up with or figure out the answers.  I already said that, too.  What kind of idiot are you?
Click to expand...


_Rabbit - Diversity and conservation status

The family Leporidae (rabbits and hares) has been relatively unchanged since the Eocene Epoch about 40 million years ago, when its fossil record first became well documented._​


----------



## JimBowie1958

bripat9643 said:


> "Naturalistic Science," or science, in other words, doesn't need to "PROVE a creator."



Well that is all good and well since no one can use science to prove something that is beyond nature or science, and cannot disprove it either.




bripat9643 said:


> What it can do is prove that all theories about some supernatural creator are absurd.



Bullshit, or else morons like Richard Dawkins would not be able to shut up about  it.

Science cannot prove anything outside the natural realm or disprove it.

Now go back to the kiddie table.


----------



## bripat9643

JimBowie1958 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What caused God?
> 
> 
> 
> God is outside the flow of time, so it is impossible for anything to 'cause' the Creator.
> 
> The is no 'before' to allow for cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A theory with no visible means of support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is plenty of support for a belief that there was a beginning to the flow of time.
> 
> Whatever began the flow of time exists outside the flow of time by definition, and therefor there is no 'before' that origination point, dude.
> 
> Simple math tells us this.
Click to expand...

Your first sentence is true.  The rest is bullshit.

However, many new theories reject the proposition that time began with the big bang or that the singularity ever occured.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are repeating yourself now.  Let's just agree to disagree and I can't waste time with people who just bring up the same points over and over.  Why don't you get a room with Toddsterpatriot.  He repeats himself ad nauseum, too.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm bringing up the point that all your claims about dinosaurs are false.   I'm not repeating anything.   We have fossil evidence that dinosaurs had feathers.
> 
> Finally, You Can See Dinosaurs in All Their Feathered Glory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil of _Microraptor gui_ includes impressions of feathered wings (see arrows)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh.  That was found in a layer where there were bird fossils.  That feather is way too large for the microraptor.  Keep trying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  So you're saying that the fossil lies?
> 
> Can you provide a link to something that supports your accusations?
> 
> Microraptor - Wikipedia​
> _Microraptor was among the most abundant non-avialan dinosaurs in its ecosystem, and the genus is represented by more fossils than any other dromaeosaurid, with possibly over 300 fossil specimens represented across various museum collections.[2]_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real science shows that fossils were mostly that of marine animals.  We have fossils of fish and crustaceans on top of Mt. Everest.  They discovered a whale in the Himalayas.  Atheist scientists tried to say it walked up there lol.  Dinosaur and bird fossils just show where they died.  It does not mean they are connected.  We know from historical and anthropoligical evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs.  All you have is made up paleontological evidence which fits the common ancestor theory.  How many times do I have to repeat myself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hard to fathom the pile of bullshit you posted. Not a single sentence of your post is a fact.
> 
> The "common ancestry theory" is called evolution.  There's nothing "made up" about what I posted.  Those are actual fossils.  They are facts.
> 
> You're the one who is making things up.  Furthermore, what you make up is so absurd that even grade school children would laugh at it.
Click to expand...


Your fossil is the bullsh*t.

"Most people don’t realize that in terms of numbers of fossils 95% of the fossil record consists of shallow marine organisms such as corals and shellfish.6 Within the remaining 5%, 95% are all the algae and plant/tree fossils, including the vegetation that now makes up the trillions of tonnes of coal, and all the other invertebrate fossils including the insects. Thus the vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) together make up very little of the fossil record—in fact, 5% of 5%, which is a mere 0.25% of the entire fossil record. So comparatively speaking there are very, very few amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal fossils, yet so much is often made of them. For example, the number of dinosaur skeletons in all the world’s museums (both public and university) totals only about 2,100.New Scientist *128*(1745):30, 1990.">7 Furthermore, of this 0.25% of the fossil record which is vertebrates, only 1% of that 0.25% (or 0.0025%) are vertebrate fossils that consist of more than a single bone! For example, there’s only one Stegosaurus skull that has been found, and many of the horse species are each represented by only one specimen of one tooth!8"

Where are all the human fossils - creation.com


----------



## bripat9643

JimBowie1958 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Naturalistic Science," or science, in other words, doesn't need to "PROVE a creator."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is all good and well since no one can use science to prove something that is beyond nature or science, and cannot disprove it either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What it can do is prove that all theories about some supernatural creator are absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit, or else morons like Richard Dawkins would not be able to shut up about  it.
> 
> Science cannot prove anything outside the natural realm or disprove it.
> 
> Now go back to the kiddie table.
Click to expand...

There is nothing outside the natural realm other than your fantasies.  If it can't be discussed scientifically, then it's a fairy tale.  If a scientist can't know, then neither can you.

BTW, Richard Dawkins is constantly talking about the implausibility of claims about a supernatural creator.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> We have fossils of fish and crustaceans on top of Mt. Everest.  They discovered a whale in the Himalayas.  Atheist scientists tried to say it walked up there lol.


Just making stuff up?  No scientist believes whales walked to the Himalayas or can you provide a link?  Of course you can't.

Just for the record, the fish, crustaceans, and whales on top of Mt. Everest were fossilized underwater, they are found in marine sediments, and elevated as Tibet was elevated, just like it is still doing today.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm bringing up the point that all your claims about dinosaurs are false.   I'm not repeating anything.   We have fossil evidence that dinosaurs had feathers.
> 
> Finally, You Can See Dinosaurs in All Their Feathered Glory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil of _Microraptor gui_ includes impressions of feathered wings (see arrows)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meh.  That was found in a layer where there were bird fossils.  That feather is way too large for the microraptor.  Keep trying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL!  So you're saying that the fossil lies?
> 
> Can you provide a link to something that supports your accusations?
> 
> Microraptor - Wikipedia​
> _Microraptor was among the most abundant non-avialan dinosaurs in its ecosystem, and the genus is represented by more fossils than any other dromaeosaurid, with possibly over 300 fossil specimens represented across various museum collections.[2]_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real science shows that fossils were mostly that of marine animals.  We have fossils of fish and crustaceans on top of Mt. Everest.  They discovered a whale in the Himalayas.  Atheist scientists tried to say it walked up there lol.  Dinosaur and bird fossils just show where they died.  It does not mean they are connected.  We know from historical and anthropoligical evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs.  All you have is made up paleontological evidence which fits the common ancestor theory.  How many times do I have to repeat myself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hard to fathom the pile of bullshit you posted. Not a single sentence of your post is a fact.
> 
> The "common ancestry theory" is called evolution.  There's nothing "made up" about what I posted.  Those are actual fossils.  They are facts.
> 
> You're the one who is making things up.  Furthermore, what you make up is so absurd that even grade school children would laugh at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your fossil is the bullsh*t.
> 
> "Most people don’t realize that in terms of numbers of fossils 95% of the fossil record consists of shallow marine organisms such as corals and shellfish.6 Within the remaining 5%, 95% are all the algae and plant/tree fossils, including the vegetation that now makes up the trillions of tonnes of coal, and all the other invertebrate fossils including the insects. Thus the vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) together make up very little of the fossil record—in fact, 5% of 5%, which is a mere 0.25% of the entire fossil record. So comparatively speaking there are very, very few amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal fossils, yet so much is often made of them. For example, the number of dinosaur skeletons in all the world’s museums (both public and university) totals only about 2,100.New Scientist *128*(1745):30, 1990.">7 Furthermore, of this 0.25% of the fossil record which is vertebrates, only 1% of that 0.25% (or 0.0025%) are vertebrate fossils that consist of more than a single bone! For example, there’s only one Stegosaurus skull that has been found, and many of the horse species are each represented by only one specimen of one tooth!8"
> 
> Where are all the human fossils - creation.com
Click to expand...

Even if true, you proved exactly nothing. 

By the way, a single bone is not a skeleton.  So there must be many times more bones in storage than the ones that are included in the 2100 skeletons on display.

There are many fossils that are not in museums.  For instance, there were thousands of fossil skeletons preserved in the ash from a Yellowstone eruption

Ashfall Fossil Beds - Wikipedia


----------



## JimBowie1958

bripat9643 said:


> However, many new theories reject the proposition that time began with the big bang or that the singularity ever occured.



I think it is safe to say that the evidence for the Big Bang is very strong if not conclusive, but it does not matter.

We know from the Infinite Regression Fallacy that time had to have a start, whether it was prior to the Big Bang, if we did not have a Big Bang, whatever.


----------



## bripat9643

JimBowie1958 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, many new theories reject the proposition that time began with the big bang or that the singularity ever occured.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is safe to say that the evidence for the Big Bang is very strong if not conclusive, but it does not matter.
> 
> We know from the Infinite Regression Fallacy that time had to have a start, whether it was prior to the Big Bang, if we did not have a Big Bang, whatever.
Click to expand...

No, we actually don't know that.  Whether the big bang occurred is one thing.  Whether the singularity occurred is another.  The two are not synonymous.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're working to prove your claims right now.
> After you post your proof, then we'll work on your silly questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already showed you were a _liar_ claiming oldest rabbits were 5 M years old instead of 53 million.  Why should anyone believe you?  Besides, your pea brain can't come up with or figure out the answers.  I already said that, too.  What kind of idiot are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Rabbit - Diversity and conservation status
> 
> The family Leporidae (rabbits and hares) has been relatively unchanged since the Eocene Epoch about 40 million years ago, when its fossil record first became well documented._​
Click to expand...


My rabbit is earlier and larger at 53 million years ago.  It probably lived with the dinosaurs and humans.  Does this destroy your evolution?


----------



## JimBowie1958

bripat9643 said:


> There is nothing outside the natural realm other than your fantasies.  If it can't be discussed scientifically, then it's a fairy tale.  If a scientist can't know, then neither can you.



Lol, so if we lived in 1600, radio waves couldn't exist because the science at that time could not affirm they existed?

And there cant be other universes either since that is supernatural to our naturalistic Universe, roflmao

Also, is mathematics outside of the natural realm or not?

lolol



bripat9643 said:


> BTW, Richard Dawkins is constantly talking about the implausibility of claims about a supernatural creator.



Dawkins talks out of his colon. There is no science that proves God cannot exist or is absurd.

If you have such evidence show it, don't just run your mouth about it.


----------



## JimBowie1958

bripat9643 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, many new theories reject the proposition that time began with the big bang or that the singularity ever occured.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is safe to say that the evidence for the Big Bang is very strong if not conclusive, but it does not matter.
> 
> We know from the Infinite Regression Fallacy that time had to have a start, whether it was prior to the Big Bang, if we did not have a Big Bang, whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we actually don't know that.  Whether the big bang occurred is one thing.  Whether the singularity occurred is another.  The two are not synonymous.
Click to expand...


I don't believe that material singularities are actually plausible since time is altered as one approaches the singularity. 

The point is TIME BEGAN somewhere in the past. Time is not eternal.


----------



## james bond

I think what I've shown is the scarcity of evidence of birds from dinosaurs shows they didn't have feathers and its the evos taking a small percentage of what was found and blowing it up to make a case of birds are dinosaurs.  They don't even stop to think that it could the common sense notion of where the animals died.  Anyway, I think we can put this BS to reast.  Moreover, the birds could not breathe if they descended from theropods.  They also would not run the way they do today as knee runners.  Not upper leg runners like the theropods.  I also showed why we should teach creation science instead of secular or atheist fake science.  We can go back to enjoying scary dinosaurs with skin again.  I hope Jurassic Park series do not believe the dumb paleontologists and continue on with how it was thousands of years ago.


----------



## Death Angel

bullwinkle said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess my first question would be "WHOSE creation"?  All across the world there are creation stories and myths and legends.  Among American Indians alone there are many.  I don't know much about India or Buddha or China or Borneo and their creation legends, but I'm betting there are more than I have fingers and toes.  We get ours from the Torah.  My copy of Josephus in his History of the Jews says at the end of Genesis (his is same as our Bible)..anyway, he says that Moses was speaking 'metaphorically'.  This suggests to me that the Garden of Eden and the events there are symbolic.  Although I always thought that when the devil, that old serpent, tempted Eve that he used Orrin Hatch's oily voice to half lie/half true her into apostasy.
Click to expand...

God dealt DIRECTLY with Moses. You may CHOOSE not to believe that, but it is a FACT.

All other creation stories are the result of THE STORY being passed down orally from generation to generation.

God corrected the errors directly thru Moses.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're working to prove your claims right now.
> After you post your proof, then we'll work on your silly questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already showed you were a _liar_ claiming oldest rabbits were 5 M years old instead of 53 million.  Why should anyone believe you?  Besides, your pea brain can't come up with or figure out the answers.  I already said that, too.  What kind of idiot are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Rabbit - Diversity and conservation status
> 
> The family Leporidae (rabbits and hares) has been relatively unchanged since the Eocene Epoch about 40 million years ago, when its fossil record first became well documented._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My rabbit is earlier and larger at 53 million years ago.  It probably lived with the dinosaurs and humans.  Does this destroy your evolution?
Click to expand...


What the hell is "your rabbit?"  I cited the known facts.  Anything else is pure moonshine.  How does making things up that no one believes prove your theory of creation?


----------



## bripat9643

Death Angel said:


> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess my first question would be "WHOSE creation"?  All across the world there are creation stories and myths and legends.  Among American Indians alone there are many.  I don't know much about India or Buddha or China or Borneo and their creation legends, but I'm betting there are more than I have fingers and toes.  We get ours from the Torah.  My copy of Josephus in his History of the Jews says at the end of Genesis (his is same as our Bible)..anyway, he says that Moses was speaking 'metaphorically'.  This suggests to me that the Garden of Eden and the events there are symbolic.  Although I always thought that when the devil, that old serpent, tempted Eve that he used Orrin Hatch's oily voice to half lie/half true her into apostasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God dealt DIRECTLY with Moses. You may CHOOSE not to believe that, but it is a FACT.
> 
> All other creation stories are the result of THE STORY being passed down orally from generation to generation.
> 
> God corrected the errors directly thru Moses.
Click to expand...

It's not a fact.  It's a myth.


----------



## bripat9643

JimBowie1958 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, many new theories reject the proposition that time began with the big bang or that the singularity ever occured.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is safe to say that the evidence for the Big Bang is very strong if not conclusive, but it does not matter.
> 
> We know from the Infinite Regression Fallacy that time had to have a start, whether it was prior to the Big Bang, if we did not have a Big Bang, whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we actually don't know that.  Whether the big bang occurred is one thing.  Whether the singularity occurred is another.  The two are not synonymous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe that material singularities are actually plausible since time is altered as one approaches the singularity.
> 
> The point is TIME BEGAN somewhere in the past. Time is not eternal.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but none of your suppositions have been proven.  As I mentioned previously, many astrophysicists have a problem with the singularity.  That means time may not have had a beginning.


----------



## bripat9643

JimBowie1958 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing outside the natural realm other than your fantasies.  If it can't be discussed scientifically, then it's a fairy tale.  If a scientist can't know, then neither can you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, so if we lived in 1600, radio waves couldn't exist because the science at that time could not affirm they existed?
> 
> And there cant be other universes either since that is supernatural to our naturalistic Universe, roflmao
> 
> Also, is mathematics outside of the natural realm or not?
> 
> lolol
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, Richard Dawkins is constantly talking about the implausibility of claims about a supernatural creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dawkins talks out of his colon. There is no science that proves God cannot exist or is absurd.
> 
> If you have such evidence show it, don't just run your mouth about it.
Click to expand...

Nope.  Note that I said "if it can't be discussed scientifically."  We have always had the ability to to discuss radio waves and other universes.  We were just too ignorant in 1600 to know about them.  I'm a child of 5 and I never heard of China, does that mean China doesn't exist?  Obviously not.

You just said that God cannot be proven, so why are you even talking about it?  If he can't be proven to exist, then nothing you say about him is justified.  You can't make any claims about him whatsoever.

However, there is plenty of logic that says a supernatural creator is absurd.  The fact that you say we can't know anything about him and then proceed to tell us about him is a contradiction.  It's absurd.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're working to prove your claims right now.
> After you post your proof, then we'll work on your silly questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already showed you were a _liar_ claiming oldest rabbits were 5 M years old instead of 53 million.  Why should anyone believe you?  Besides, your pea brain can't come up with or figure out the answers.  I already said that, too.  What kind of idiot are you?
Click to expand...



*I already showed you were a liar claiming oldest rabbits were 5 M years old*

You're lying.
You posted a link which you thought had proof of rabbits 53 million years ago.
When I read your link, it discussed a rabbit from 3-5 million years ago.
I made no claim of rabbits at all. Just pointed out your error (lie?).

*rabbits were 5 M years old instead of 53 million.*

Yes, your second link actually pointed out a rabbit ancestor from 53 million years ago.
Ironic, a creationist pointing out that something from 53 million years ago evolved into current rabbits.

*Why should anyone believe you?*

Coming from the guy who thinks the pre-Cambrian was 53 million years ago, that's funny!


----------



## Death Angel

bripat9643 said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess my first question would be "WHOSE creation"?  All across the world there are creation stories and myths and legends.  Among American Indians alone there are many.  I don't know much about India or Buddha or China or Borneo and their creation legends, but I'm betting there are more than I have fingers and toes.  We get ours from the Torah.  My copy of Josephus in his History of the Jews says at the end of Genesis (his is same as our Bible)..anyway, he says that Moses was speaking 'metaphorically'.  This suggests to me that the Garden of Eden and the events there are symbolic.  Although I always thought that when the devil, that old serpent, tempted Eve that he used Orrin Hatch's oily voice to half lie/half true her into apostasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God dealt DIRECTLY with Moses. You may CHOOSE not to believe that, but it is a FACT.
> 
> All other creation stories are the result of THE STORY being passed down orally from generation to generation.
> 
> God corrected the errors directly thru Moses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a fact.  It's a myth.
Click to expand...

Atheist and God Haters have an agenda and are biased


----------



## bripat9643

Death Angel said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess my first question would be "WHOSE creation"?  All across the world there are creation stories and myths and legends.  Among American Indians alone there are many.  I don't know much about India or Buddha or China or Borneo and their creation legends, but I'm betting there are more than I have fingers and toes.  We get ours from the Torah.  My copy of Josephus in his History of the Jews says at the end of Genesis (his is same as our Bible)..anyway, he says that Moses was speaking 'metaphorically'.  This suggests to me that the Garden of Eden and the events there are symbolic.  Although I always thought that when the devil, that old serpent, tempted Eve that he used Orrin Hatch's oily voice to half lie/half true her into apostasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God dealt DIRECTLY with Moses. You may CHOOSE not to believe that, but it is a FACT.
> 
> All other creation stories are the result of THE STORY being passed down orally from generation to generation.
> 
> God corrected the errors directly thru Moses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a fact.  It's a myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheist and God Haters have an agenda and are biased
Click to expand...

And you don't have an agenda?  Truth is my agenda.


----------



## JimBowie1958

bripat9643 said:


> Nope.  Note that I said "if it can't be discussed scientifically."  We have always had the ability to  discuss radio waves and other universes.  We were just too ignorant in 1600 to know about them.



That's my point. Our ignorance in various subjects should not imply some kind of categorical limit.  If you described 'invisible light' to a scientist of the 17th century they would say you are talking fantasy. Given hind-sight we know that is not true, but it would not be discernable at that time.




bripat9643 said:


> I'm a child of 5 and I never heard of China, does that mean China doesn't exist?  Obviously not.



Hmmm, that is not what I was suggesting.



bripat9643 said:


> You just said that God cannot be proven, so why are you even talking about it?  If he can't be proven to exist, then nothing you say about him is justified.  You can't make any claims about him whatsoever.



I said one cannot prove God via Science, but there are other means to knowledge outside of science. Mathematics, philosophy, theology, logic, etc all can be used to attain Truth.



bripat9643 said:


> However, there is plenty of logic that says a supernatural creator is absurd.  The fact that you say we can't know anything about him and then proceed to tell us about him is a contradiction.  It's absurd.



OK, what logic says God is absurd, that is the Creator, not Thor, lol.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> What the hell is "your rabbit?" I cited the known facts. Anything else is pure moonshine. How does making things up that no one believes prove your theory of creation?



Do you not know who evolutionary biologist and geneticist, JBS Haldane, is and his famous rabbit quote was?  He was asked what would convince him evolution was false.  I wonder if he's spinning in his grave now.

'“J.B.S. Haldane famously retorted, when asked to name an observation that would disprove the theory of evolution, ‘Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!’” (Dawkins, Richard, _The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution_, 2009, p. 147.) While certainly not Precambrian, a fossilized rabbit discovered in India is supposed to be 53 million years old, quite close to the time evolutionists think dinosaurs were still alive. (Handwerk, B., “Easter Surprise: World’s Oldest Rabbit Bones Found,” _National Geographic News_, March 21, 2008.)'

“Modern” Fossils with Dinosaurs | Genesis Park


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> And you don't have an agenda? Truth is my agenda.



Truth may be your agenda, but it appears that you made some mistakes.  For example, the two experiments to counter Miller-Urey and abiogenesis destroyed life forming in primordial soup in geyers.  If it was a lightening strike and a sparker was used in Miller-Urey, then it likely would have exploded.  What were the gases present in the early atmosphere?  Do you want to try the Miller-Urey experiment online to see if you are successful in creating amino acids?  The other evos and atheists were too scared to try I guess.

Miller-Urey Experiment

All of this is explained in my video in post #1.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell is "your rabbit?" I cited the known facts. Anything else is pure moonshine. How does making things up that no one believes prove your theory of creation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not know who evolutionary biologist and geneticist, JBS Haldane, is and his famous rabbit quote was?  He was asked what would convince him evolution was false.  I wonder if he's spinning in his grave now.
> 
> '“J.B.S. Haldane famously retorted, when asked to name an observation that would disprove the theory of evolution, ‘Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!’” (Dawkins, Richard, _The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution_, 2009, p. 147.) While certainly not Precambrian, a fossilized rabbit discovered in India is supposed to be 53 million years old, quite close to the time evolutionists think dinosaurs were still alive. (Handwerk, B., “Easter Surprise: World’s Oldest Rabbit Bones Found,” _National Geographic News_, March 21, 2008.)'
> 
> “Modern” Fossils with Dinosaurs | Genesis Park
Click to expand...

That proves absolutely nothing.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you don't have an agenda? Truth is my agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth may be your agenda, but it appears that you made some mistakes.  For example, the two experiments to counter Miller-Urey and abiogenesis destroyed life forming in primordial soup in geyers.  If it was a lightening strike and a sparker was used in Miller-Urey, then it likely would have exploded.  What were the gases present in the early atmosphere?  Do you want to try the Miller-Urey experiment online to see if you are successful in creating amino acids?  The other evos and atheists were too scared to try I guess.
> 
> Miller-Urey Experiment
> 
> All of this is explained in my video in post #1.
Click to expand...

An experiment is not the final word on anything, moron.  It's just an experiment.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> That proves absolutely nothing.



It may make JBS Haldane change his mind if he were alive.  I believed in evolution, too, at one time using the Understanding Evolution website to learn about it.  However, some of it did appear circular reasoning and finally I compared it to creation science.  Was surprised at all the famous scientists of the past believed in creation.  I, too, did some of the things Lee Strobel did except I read about them.  It was Miller-Urey vs. Duane Gish.  Abiogenesis had that oxygen problem.  Then the experiment with just volcanic gases showed no amino acids.



bripat9643 said:


> An experiment is not the final word on anything, moron. It's just an experiment.



Hm.. let's discuss.  Which experiment are you talking about?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell is "your rabbit?" I cited the known facts. Anything else is pure moonshine. How does making things up that no one believes prove your theory of creation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not know who evolutionary biologist and geneticist, JBS Haldane, is and his famous rabbit quote was?  He was asked what would convince him evolution was false.  I wonder if he's spinning in his grave now.
> 
> '“J.B.S. Haldane famously retorted, when asked to name an observation that would disprove the theory of evolution, ‘Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!’” (Dawkins, Richard, _The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution_, 2009, p. 147.) While certainly not Precambrian, a fossilized rabbit discovered in India is supposed to be 53 million years old, quite close to the time evolutionists think dinosaurs were still alive. (Handwerk, B., “Easter Surprise: World’s Oldest Rabbit Bones Found,” _National Geographic News_, March 21, 2008.)'
> 
> “Modern” Fossils with Dinosaurs | Genesis Park
Click to expand...



* While certainly not Precambrian, *

No kidding, moron.

*a fossilized rabbit discovered in India is supposed to be 53 million years old, quite close to the time evolutionists think dinosaurs were still alive. *

Haldane didn't say, when asked to name an observation that would disprove the theory of evolution,
"fossil rabbits in the Eocene"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you don't have an agenda? Truth is my agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth may be your agenda, but it appears that you made some mistakes.  For example, the two experiments to counter Miller-Urey and abiogenesis destroyed life forming in primordial soup in geyers.  If it was a lightening strike and a sparker was used in Miller-Urey, then it likely would have exploded.  What were the gases present in the early atmosphere?  Do you want to try the Miller-Urey experiment online to see if you are successful in creating amino acids?  The other evos and atheists were too scared to try I guess.
> 
> Miller-Urey Experiment
> 
> All of this is explained in my video in post #1.
Click to expand...


* If it was a lightening strike and a sparker was used in Miller-Urey, then it likely would have exploded.  *

Why would it have exploded?


----------



## james bond

Paleontologists and other scientists have lied and made up the birds are dinosaurs story to fit evolution.  The truth is they have found modern birds in the dinosaurs layers, but they do not want to admit and publicize it.


"Dr Carl Werner’s book and DVD, _Living Fossils_, reveals that fossil researchers have found many modern bird remains with dinosaurs, _yet museums do not display these fossils_, thus keeping this information from the public. By keeping this information hidden, children and adults are indoctrinated with the false idea that animals changed over time (since the time of the dinosaurs), and that evolution is true.

'Every time you see a _T. rex_ or a _Triceratops_ in a museum display, you should also see ducks, loons, flamingos or some of these other modern birds that have been found in the same rock layers as these dinosaurs.'

In order to test evolution, Dr Werner visited 60 natural history museums and ten dinosaur dig sites in seven different countries. When he asked paleontologists if they had any personal knowledge of modern birds found with dinosaurs, he was in for quite a surprise.

“I interviewed a scientist at the Museum of Paleontology at Berkeley who discussed a parrot fossil they had found in Cretaceous layers (‘dinosaur rock’). But the parrot fossil was not on display in the museum.” 

With each interview, more modern birds that had been found with dinosaurs were added to his list, including: parrots, penguins, owls, sandpipers, albatross, flamingos, loons, ducks, cormorants and avocets. Carl assembled this list from interviews he did with various paleontologists, as well as from articles by evolutionist scientists and a textbook (the details of the sources can be found in _Living Fossils_).

It was not long before Dr. Werner noted an important discrepancy: museums were *not* displaying what the scientists were revealing in their one-on-one interviews. In fact, the natural history museums contradicted reality and were suggesting the opposite. Of the 60 museums he visited, he did not see one single _fossil_ of a modern bird that had been found in a dinosaur rock layer and only one museum out of 60 displayed a modern bird model with a dinosaur: the Milwaukee Museum. In an out-of-the-way corner, the museum had a reconstructed avocet that had been found at Hell Creek (Montana) dinosaur dig site (see photo of avocet reconstruction below)—this is clearly an avocet."

Modern birds with dinosaurs - creation.com


----------



## cnm

Death Angel said:


> Atheist and God Haters have an agenda and are biased


'Death Angel' is a god lover!


----------



## cnm

JimBowie1958 said:


> ous subjects should not imply some kind of categorical limit. If you described 'invisible light' to a scientist of the 17th century they would say you are talking fantasy.


Because it's an oxymoron. Light, by definition, is visible. If instead 'invisible electro-magnetic rays' was used as a description with the example of radiated heat from a fire then the reaction might have been entirely different.

You're projecting your difficulties with comprehension on to everyone else.


----------



## cnm

james bond said:


> Modern birds with dinosaurs - creation.com


Fake news! get so old so quickly.


----------



## james bond

cnm said:


> 'Death Angel' is a god lover!



Of course!  We love God because he loves us and gave us all that is good.  You do not even know what is good.  Now, we are waiting for the afterlife after spending around 120 years in this one.  The atheists and their scientists with their "faith-based" false science will probably have much less life span imho.  They think GMO foods are safe.  Is it good?  According to them, it will help feed the world.



cnm said:


> Fake news! get so old so quickly.



It just goes to show what is _real_ seems _fake_ to you because your "faith-based" science is fake.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Paleontologists and other scientists have lied and made up the birds are dinosaurs story to fit evolution.  The truth is they have found modern birds in the dinosaurs layers, but they do not want to admit and publicize it.
> 
> 
> "Dr Carl Werner’s book and DVD, _Living Fossils_, reveals that fossil researchers have found many modern bird remains with dinosaurs, _yet museums do not display these fossils_, thus keeping this information from the public. By keeping this information hidden, children and adults are indoctrinated with the false idea that animals changed over time (since the time of the dinosaurs), and that evolution is true.
> 
> 'Every time you see a _T. rex_ or a _Triceratops_ in a museum display, you should also see ducks, loons, flamingos or some of these other modern birds that have been found in the same rock layers as these dinosaurs.'
> 
> In order to test evolution, Dr Werner visited 60 natural history museums and ten dinosaur dig sites in seven different countries. When he asked paleontologists if they had any personal knowledge of modern birds found with dinosaurs, he was in for quite a surprise.
> 
> “I interviewed a scientist at the Museum of Paleontology at Berkeley who discussed a parrot fossil they had found in Cretaceous layers (‘dinosaur rock’). But the parrot fossil was not on display in the museum.”
> 
> With each interview, more modern birds that had been found with dinosaurs were added to his list, including: parrots, penguins, owls, sandpipers, albatross, flamingos, loons, ducks, cormorants and avocets. Carl assembled this list from interviews he did with various paleontologists, as well as from articles by evolutionist scientists and a textbook (the details of the sources can be found in _Living Fossils_).
> 
> It was not long before Dr. Werner noted an important discrepancy: museums were *not* displaying what the scientists were revealing in their one-on-one interviews. In fact, the natural history museums contradicted reality and were suggesting the opposite. Of the 60 museums he visited, he did not see one single _fossil_ of a modern bird that had been found in a dinosaur rock layer and only one museum out of 60 displayed a modern bird model with a dinosaur: the Milwaukee Museum. In an out-of-the-way corner, the museum had a reconstructed avocet that had been found at Hell Creek (Montana) dinosaur dig site (see photo of avocet reconstruction below)—this is clearly an avocet."
> 
> Modern birds with dinosaurs - creation.com



*Paleontologists and other scientists have lied and made up the birds are dinosaurs story to fit evolution.  *

Creationism refutes the dinosaur >>> bird theory?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Paleontologists and other scientists have lied and made up the birds are dinosaurs story to fit evolution.  The truth is they have found modern birds in the dinosaurs layers, but they do not want to admit and publicize it.
> 
> 
> "Dr Carl Werner’s book and DVD, _Living Fossils_, reveals that fossil researchers have found many modern bird remains with dinosaurs, _yet museums do not display these fossils_, thus keeping this information from the public. By keeping this information hidden, children and adults are indoctrinated with the false idea that animals changed over time (since the time of the dinosaurs), and that evolution is true.
> 
> 'Every time you see a _T. rex_ or a _Triceratops_ in a museum display, you should also see ducks, loons, flamingos or some of these other modern birds that have been found in the same rock layers as these dinosaurs.'
> 
> In order to test evolution, Dr Werner visited 60 natural history museums and ten dinosaur dig sites in seven different countries. When he asked paleontologists if they had any personal knowledge of modern birds found with dinosaurs, he was in for quite a surprise.
> 
> “I interviewed a scientist at the Museum of Paleontology at Berkeley who discussed a parrot fossil they had found in Cretaceous layers (‘dinosaur rock’). But the parrot fossil was not on display in the museum.”
> 
> With each interview, more modern birds that had been found with dinosaurs were added to his list, including: parrots, penguins, owls, sandpipers, albatross, flamingos, loons, ducks, cormorants and avocets. Carl assembled this list from interviews he did with various paleontologists, as well as from articles by evolutionist scientists and a textbook (the details of the sources can be found in _Living Fossils_).
> 
> It was not long before Dr. Werner noted an important discrepancy: museums were *not* displaying what the scientists were revealing in their one-on-one interviews. In fact, the natural history museums contradicted reality and were suggesting the opposite. Of the 60 museums he visited, he did not see one single _fossil_ of a modern bird that had been found in a dinosaur rock layer and only one museum out of 60 displayed a modern bird model with a dinosaur: the Milwaukee Museum. In an out-of-the-way corner, the museum had a reconstructed avocet that had been found at Hell Creek (Montana) dinosaur dig site (see photo of avocet reconstruction below)—this is clearly an avocet."
> 
> Modern birds with dinosaurs - creation.com



As goofy conspiracy theories go, this one from the charlatans at the creation.com madrassah is less entertaining.


----------



## bripat9643

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paleontologists and other scientists have lied and made up the birds are dinosaurs story to fit evolution.  The truth is they have found modern birds in the dinosaurs layers, but they do not want to admit and publicize it.
> 
> 
> "Dr Carl Werner’s book and DVD, _Living Fossils_, reveals that fossil researchers have found many modern bird remains with dinosaurs, _yet museums do not display these fossils_, thus keeping this information from the public. By keeping this information hidden, children and adults are indoctrinated with the false idea that animals changed over time (since the time of the dinosaurs), and that evolution is true.
> 
> 'Every time you see a _T. rex_ or a _Triceratops_ in a museum display, you should also see ducks, loons, flamingos or some of these other modern birds that have been found in the same rock layers as these dinosaurs.'
> 
> In order to test evolution, Dr Werner visited 60 natural history museums and ten dinosaur dig sites in seven different countries. When he asked paleontologists if they had any personal knowledge of modern birds found with dinosaurs, he was in for quite a surprise.
> 
> “I interviewed a scientist at the Museum of Paleontology at Berkeley who discussed a parrot fossil they had found in Cretaceous layers (‘dinosaur rock’). But the parrot fossil was not on display in the museum.”
> 
> With each interview, more modern birds that had been found with dinosaurs were added to his list, including: parrots, penguins, owls, sandpipers, albatross, flamingos, loons, ducks, cormorants and avocets. Carl assembled this list from interviews he did with various paleontologists, as well as from articles by evolutionist scientists and a textbook (the details of the sources can be found in _Living Fossils_).
> 
> It was not long before Dr. Werner noted an important discrepancy: museums were *not* displaying what the scientists were revealing in their one-on-one interviews. In fact, the natural history museums contradicted reality and were suggesting the opposite. Of the 60 museums he visited, he did not see one single _fossil_ of a modern bird that had been found in a dinosaur rock layer and only one museum out of 60 displayed a modern bird model with a dinosaur: the Milwaukee Museum. In an out-of-the-way corner, the museum had a reconstructed avocet that had been found at Hell Creek (Montana) dinosaur dig site (see photo of avocet reconstruction below)—this is clearly an avocet."
> 
> Modern birds with dinosaurs - creation.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As goofy conspiracy theories go, this one from the charlatans at the creation.com madrassah is less entertaining.
Click to expand...

I marvel that anyone could believe ridiculous shit like this


----------



## james bond

For Newtonian and JW believers,

Hope I skimmed over your link correctly...


If not, then there's probably still stuff to discuss as I'm not familiar with all the JW science.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> For Newtonian and JW believers,
> 
> Hope I skimmed over your link correctly...
> 
> 
> If not, then there's probably still stuff to discuss as I'm not familiar with all the JW science.


There's a thorough debunking of the charlatan Jonathan Wells here; Icons of Evolution FAQs


----------



## westwall

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> For Newtonian and JW believers,
> 
> Hope I skimmed over your link correctly...
> 
> 
> If not, then there's probably still stuff to discuss as I'm not familiar with all the JW science.
> 
> 
> 
> There's a thorough debunking of the charlatan Jonathan Wells here; Icons of Evolution FAQs
Click to expand...






Instead of attacking the source, attack the information they provide.  Even fools get things correct from time to time.

Attacking the messenger doesn't help you.


----------



## Hollie

westwall said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> For Newtonian and JW believers,
> 
> Hope I skimmed over your link correctly...
> 
> 
> If not, then there's probably still stuff to discuss as I'm not familiar with all the JW science.
> 
> 
> 
> There's a thorough debunking of the charlatan Jonathan Wells here; Icons of Evolution FAQs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of attacking the source, attack the information they provide.  Even fools get things correct from time to time.
> 
> Attacking the messenger doesn't help you.
Click to expand...

It's a little difficult to "attack" a YouTube video which is all the previous poster provided.

In the introduction to his book, Well carries on with statements such as "students and the public are being systematically misinformed about the evidence for evolution,". If any of the creationists wish to expand on that, something beyond a YouTube video, I'll be happy to pursue it.


----------



## westwall

Hollie said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> For Newtonian and JW believers,
> 
> Hope I skimmed over your link correctly...
> 
> 
> If not, then there's probably still stuff to discuss as I'm not familiar with all the JW science.
> 
> 
> 
> There's a thorough debunking of the charlatan Jonathan Wells here; Icons of Evolution FAQs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of attacking the source, attack the information they provide.  Even fools get things correct from time to time.
> 
> Attacking the messenger doesn't help you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a little difficult to "attack" a YouTube video which is all the previous poster provided.
> 
> In the introduction to his book, Well carries on with statements such as "students and the public are being systematically misinformed about the evidence for evolution,". If any of the creationists wish to expand on that, something beyond a YouTube video, I'll be happy to pursue it.
Click to expand...









Easy, attack the statement.  Provide the proof we do have of evolutionary theory and let them argue those facts.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

TNHarley said:


> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.



Whose faith, yours, mine, Omar's, Tulsi's, Bernie's, etc.?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

rightwinger said:


> Creation should be taught as a fantasy



That would make you a figment of my imagination.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

bullwinkle said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Christian one since science backs up the Bible. This is the science and technology section, not religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Your whole basis is built on sand, james.
> The New Testament is the Christian one.  The Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible.  Although I agree with Paul when he spoke about ignoring the Old Testament to his questioners.  He said 'if the root dies, can the branch survive?'  However, mt point is..what science tells you Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac, or about Ishmael's exile?  What science proves the sun stood still for Joshua?  And then there's the oldest question of all...who did Cain marry out there in the land of Nod?  And where's that famous Tower of Babel where in the twinkling of an eye, several languages were created that other groups could not understand?
> I love these old tales, and even learned from many of them, but....science?
Click to expand...


Saw your problem right away.  The Bible does not claim to be about all the humans on the face of the earth.  Cain married a pre-Adamite.


----------



## Hollie

westwall said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> For Newtonian and JW believers,
> 
> Hope I skimmed over your link correctly...
> 
> 
> If not, then there's probably still stuff to discuss as I'm not familiar with all the JW science.
> 
> 
> 
> There's a thorough debunking of the charlatan Jonathan Wells here; Icons of Evolution FAQs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of attacking the source, attack the information they provide.  Even fools get things correct from time to time.
> 
> Attacking the messenger doesn't help you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a little difficult to "attack" a YouTube video which is all the previous poster provided.
> 
> In the introduction to his book, Well carries on with statements such as "students and the public are being systematically misinformed about the evidence for evolution,". If any of the creationists wish to expand on that, something beyond a YouTube video, I'll be happy to pursue it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy, attack the statement.  Provide the proof we do have of evolutionary theory and let them argue those facts.
Click to expand...

Gad zukes, man. The fact of biological evolution is simply not in question among the relevant science community.  I've presented the data only to be met with YouTube videos from the creationist ministries or reams of bible verses used to prove the Bibles. The creationists believe they are in the process of overthrowing modern biology, anthropology, geology, paleontology, astronomy, oceanography, physics, archaeology, cosmology and every other branch of science that conflicts with the Bible.


----------



## ding

No


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> There's a thorough debunking of the charlatan Jonathan Wells here; Icons of Evolution FAQs



You don't address his points in the video.  Did you even watch it?  It's the scientific method, so you need to present some real science instead of a biased and wrong website.


----------



## westwall

Hollie said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> For Newtonian and JW believers,
> 
> Hope I skimmed over your link correctly...
> 
> 
> If not, then there's probably still stuff to discuss as I'm not familiar with all the JW science.
> 
> 
> 
> There's a thorough debunking of the charlatan Jonathan Wells here; Icons of Evolution FAQs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of attacking the source, attack the information they provide.  Even fools get things correct from time to time.
> 
> Attacking the messenger doesn't help you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a little difficult to "attack" a YouTube video which is all the previous poster provided.
> 
> In the introduction to his book, Well carries on with statements such as "students and the public are being systematically misinformed about the evidence for evolution,". If any of the creationists wish to expand on that, something beyond a YouTube video, I'll be happy to pursue it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy, attack the statement.  Provide the proof we do have of evolutionary theory and let them argue those facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gad zukes, man. The fact of biological evolution is simply not in question among the relevant science community.  I've presented the data only to be met with YouTube videos from the creationist ministries or reams of bible verses used to prove the Bibles. The creationists believe they are in the process of overthrowing modern biology, anthropology, geology, paleontology, astronomy, oceanography, physics, archaeology, cosmology and every other branch of science that conflicts with the Bible.
Click to expand...







Extremists are beyond help.  Make your posts to the silent viewers.  They are the ones seeking knowledge.  The extremists are your sounding board.


----------



## TNHarley

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whose faith, yours, mine, Omar's, Tulsi's, Bernie's, etc.?
Click to expand...

Your response is exactly why faith shouldnt be taught.


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.


Quack quack


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

TNHarley said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whose faith, yours, mine, Omar's, Tulsi's, Bernie's, etc.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your response is exactly why faith shouldnt be taught.
Click to expand...


You couldn't answer the question, as per usual.  Come on!  You can admit you admit your fucking clueless.  We already know that!


----------



## TNHarley

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whose faith, yours, mine, Omar's, Tulsi's, Bernie's, etc.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your response is exactly why faith shouldnt be taught.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You couldn't answer the question, as per usual.  Come on!  You can admit you admit your fucking clueless.  We already know that!
Click to expand...

But I did... Lol
No faith, Copernicus. Geezus
Your question was a good example of my opinion because ones faith shouldnt override another. 
We should teach fact.
Does your old ass understand now?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.


Creation science (falsely labeled Christian fundamentalism), has no business in the public schools. 









						Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education
					

1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.




					ncse.ngo


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

TNHarley said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whose faith, yours, mine, Omar's, Tulsi's, Bernie's, etc.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your response is exactly why faith shouldnt be taught.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You couldn't answer the question, as per usual.  Come on!  You can admit you admit your fucking clueless.  We already know that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I did... Lol
> No faith, Copernicus. Geezus
> Your question was a good example of my opinion because ones faith shouldnt override another.
> We should teach fact.
> Does your old ass understand now?
Click to expand...


Fact?  Faith?  Which are you blathering about?  Make up your mind!

Are you a Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Shinto, Jehovah's Witness, Atheist, Agnostic, Pagan, Wiccan, etc.?

Tell us!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science (falsely labeled Christian fundamentalism), has no business in the public schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education
> 
> 
> 1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ncse.ngo
Click to expand...


When Thomas Jefferson wrote his "_separation of church and state_" letter to the Danbury Baptists, it meant 180 degrees opposite of what you just said.  

Education was not a function of the federal government at that time; the most widely teaching tool was the textbook,  New England Primer, which used the Bible to teach children how to read and write.









						The New England Primer - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Maybe we should get the feds out of education.


----------



## esalla

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith shouldn't be taught in schools. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whose faith, yours, mine, Omar's, Tulsi's, Bernie's, etc.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your response is exactly why faith shouldnt be taught.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You couldn't answer the question, as per usual.  Come on!  You can admit you admit your fucking clueless.  We already know that!
Click to expand...

Now now be polite


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools ...



Let me get this straight ... you want _Congress_ deciding how religion is taught? ...

( ... wait for it ... )

There, see what a non-sensical idea this is ... the Catholic Church has more than enough money to bring creation science to fore-front of human advancement ... and when it comes to holding true the notions and ideas of long ago, Catholics have a proven track record ... let's let the _experts_ teach creation science, in their own way and manner ... best to keep it away from government contamination ... "Government can only despoil and ruin, it's its only function" ...


----------



## Hollie

Porter Rockwell said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science (falsely labeled Christian fundamentalism), has no business in the public schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education
> 
> 
> 1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ncse.ngo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Thomas Jefferson wrote his "_separation of church and state_" letter to the Danbury Baptists, it meant 180 degrees opposite of what you just said.
> 
> Education was not a function of the federal government at that time; the most widely teaching tool was the textbook,  New England Primer, which used the Bible to teach children how to read and write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New England Primer - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should get the feds out of education.
Click to expand...

I think you will find that the courts have ruled to uphold the Establishment Clause. If you disagree, you can write a strongly worded email to the The_New_England_Primer

The Establishment Clause was ratified in 1791. If my math is correct, 1791 comes after 1790.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Hollie said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science (falsely labeled Christian fundamentalism), has no business in the public schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education
> 
> 
> 1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ncse.ngo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Thomas Jefferson wrote his "_separation of church and state_" letter to the Danbury Baptists, it meant 180 degrees opposite of what you just said.
> 
> Education was not a function of the federal government at that time; the most widely teaching tool was the textbook,  New England Primer, which used the Bible to teach children how to read and write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New England Primer - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should get the feds out of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you will find that the courts have ruled to uphold the Establishment Clause. If you disagree, you can write a strongly worded email to the The_New_England_Primer
> 
> The Establishment Clause was ratified in 1791. If my math is correct, 1791 comes after 1790.
Click to expand...



The interpretations were not made until all the founders /framers died.  Fact is, the courts didn't rule that way until 1962 and 1963.  And what, exactly, has the difference been?






						Education Expert: Removing Bible, Prayer from Public Schools Has Caused Decline
					






					www.cnsnews.com


----------



## Hollie

Porter Rockwell said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science (falsely labeled Christian fundamentalism), has no business in the public schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education
> 
> 
> 1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ncse.ngo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Thomas Jefferson wrote his "_separation of church and state_" letter to the Danbury Baptists, it meant 180 degrees opposite of what you just said.
> 
> Education was not a function of the federal government at that time; the most widely teaching tool was the textbook,  New England Primer, which used the Bible to teach children how to read and write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New England Primer - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should get the feds out of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you will find that the courts have ruled to uphold the Establishment Clause. If you disagree, you can write a strongly worded email to the The_New_England_Primer
> 
> The Establishment Clause was ratified in 1791. If my math is correct, 1791 comes after 1790.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretations were not made until all the founders /framers died.  Fact is, the courts didn't rule that way until 1962 and 1963.  And what, exactly, has the difference been?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education Expert: Removing Bible, Prayer from Public Schools Has Caused Decline
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnsnews.com
Click to expand...


Take a look at Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing, 1947.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Hollie said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science (falsely labeled Christian fundamentalism), has no business in the public schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education
> 
> 
> 1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ncse.ngo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Thomas Jefferson wrote his "_separation of church and state_" letter to the Danbury Baptists, it meant 180 degrees opposite of what you just said.
> 
> Education was not a function of the federal government at that time; the most widely teaching tool was the textbook,  New England Primer, which used the Bible to teach children how to read and write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New England Primer - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should get the feds out of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you will find that the courts have ruled to uphold the Establishment Clause. If you disagree, you can write a strongly worded email to the The_New_England_Primer
> 
> The Establishment Clause was ratified in 1791. If my math is correct, 1791 comes after 1790.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretations were not made until all the founders /framers died.  Fact is, the courts didn't rule that way until 1962 and 1963.  And what, exactly, has the difference been?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education Expert: Removing Bible, Prayer from Public Schools Has Caused Decline
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take a look at Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing, 1947.
Click to expand...


On what precedents did they decide Everson?


----------



## Hollie

Porter Rockwell said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science (falsely labeled Christian fundamentalism), has no business in the public schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education
> 
> 
> 1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ncse.ngo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Thomas Jefferson wrote his "_separation of church and state_" letter to the Danbury Baptists, it meant 180 degrees opposite of what you just said.
> 
> Education was not a function of the federal government at that time; the most widely teaching tool was the textbook,  New England Primer, which used the Bible to teach children how to read and write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New England Primer - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should get the feds out of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you will find that the courts have ruled to uphold the Establishment Clause. If you disagree, you can write a strongly worded email to the The_New_England_Primer
> 
> The Establishment Clause was ratified in 1791. If my math is correct, 1791 comes after 1790.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretations were not made until all the founders /framers died.  Fact is, the courts didn't rule that way until 1962 and 1963.  And what, exactly, has the difference been?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education Expert: Removing Bible, Prayer from Public Schools Has Caused Decline
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take a look at Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing, 1947.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On what precedents did they decide Everson?
Click to expand...

It was enforcement of the Establishment Clause.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight ... you want _Congress_ deciding how religion is taught? ...
> 
> ( ... wait for it ... )
> 
> There, see what a non-sensical idea this is ... the Catholic Church has more than enough money to bring creation science to fore-front of human advancement ... and when it comes to holding true the notions and ideas of long ago, Catholics have a proven track record ... let's let the _experts_ teach creation science, in their own way and manner ... best to keep it away from government contamination ... "Government can only despoil and ruin, it's its only function" ...
Click to expand...


Creation science isn't religion nor the fake science of evolution, but real science.  The students will be able to decide for themselves.  It's creation vs. evolution.  For example, it found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  It can be proven by the scientific method.  Real science should be more than a creation vs. evolution forum on these message boards.

No, the Catholic Church can only teach it in parochial schools, not public.  Thus, you are wrong.  Creation science is the Book of Genesis in a literary context minus the religious parts.  It includes Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel.  No afterlife.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight ... you want _Congress_ deciding how religion is taught? ...
> 
> ( ... wait for it ... )
> 
> There, see what a non-sensical idea this is ... the Catholic Church has more than enough money to bring creation science to fore-front of human advancement ... and when it comes to holding true the notions and ideas of long ago, Catholics have a proven track record ... let's let the _experts_ teach creation science, in their own way and manner ... best to keep it away from government contamination ... "Government can only despoil and ruin, it's its only function" ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science isn't religion nor the fake science of evolution, but real science.  The students will be able to decide for themselves.  It's creation vs. evolution.  For example, it found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  It can be proven by the scientific method.  Real science should be more than a creation vs. evolution forum on these message boards.
> 
> No, the Catholic Church can only teach it in parochial schools, not public.  Thus, you are wrong.  Creation science is the Book of Genesis in a literary context minus the religious parts.  It includes Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel.  No afterlife.
Click to expand...

"Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label.  The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> Creation science isn't religion nor the fake science of evolution, but real science.  The students will be able to decide for themselves.  It's creation vs. evolution.  For example, it found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  It can be proven by the scientific method.  Real science should be more than a creation vs. evolution forum on these message boards.
> 
> No, the Catholic Church can only teach it in parochial schools, not public.  Thus, you are wrong.  Creation science is the Book of Genesis in a literary context minus the religious parts.  It includes Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel.  No afterlife.



Forget the trivial horseshit ... *skip straight to explaining the virgin birth, on the cellular level* ... something I can test in a lab ...

The RCC can teach creation science anywhere they want to ... except USA public schools ... they can publish books, fund research, teach it at church AND speak it on the streets ...


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Hollie said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science (falsely labeled Christian fundamentalism), has no business in the public schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education
> 
> 
> 1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ncse.ngo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Thomas Jefferson wrote his "_separation of church and state_" letter to the Danbury Baptists, it meant 180 degrees opposite of what you just said.
> 
> Education was not a function of the federal government at that time; the most widely teaching tool was the textbook,  New England Primer, which used the Bible to teach children how to read and write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New England Primer - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should get the feds out of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you will find that the courts have ruled to uphold the Establishment Clause. If you disagree, you can write a strongly worded email to the The_New_England_Primer
> 
> The Establishment Clause was ratified in 1791. If my math is correct, 1791 comes after 1790.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretations were not made until all the founders /framers died.  Fact is, the courts didn't rule that way until 1962 and 1963.  And what, exactly, has the difference been?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education Expert: Removing Bible, Prayer from Public Schools Has Caused Decline
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take a look at Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing, 1947.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On what precedents did they decide Everson?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was enforcement of the Establishment Clause.
Click to expand...


That is not the question I asked you.  Let me ask you again:

On what precedent did the Court decide the Everson case?

You're wanting to argue law.  I'm willing to argue law with you.  It's a simple enough question.  By the math provided by you, the law was passed in 1790, but it 157 years later before the United States Supreme Court does some mythical _"enforcement_" of the Establishment Clause.  Let us contrast that with the rest of the Constitution.

In the Constitution, the federal government had ONE area over immigrants - to pass an uniform Rule of Immigration.  They did that in six months.  On gun control, the courts began ruling on that issue in 1822, saying that the Right was absolute.  So, the Bill of Rights became law in 1791.  That means that it took 31 years between the ratification of the Bill of Rights and the precedent interpreting the Second Amendment.  But, it took 157 years to address an issue that affects society's most treasured asset,... its children? 

The fact of the matter is, the terminology separation of church and state does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, nor the Constitution of the United States.  So, I'm asking you on what precedent did the high Court rely on in arriving at its decision?  I'm sure you are aware of the fact that our system is based on the Anglo system of jurisprudence.  As such, you also know that the English common law is used to interpret our laws.  All of that relies on stare decisis (a big fancy Latin term meaning let the decision stand.)  When interpreting the law, the courts look to the customs of the people to establish a precedent.  You might want to brush up on the history of education in America:









						History of education in the United States - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




As you can see, the courts had ample opportunity and reason to bring up this "_Establishment Clause_," so on what precedent did the court rely on in making their decision?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight ... you want _Congress_ deciding how religion is taught? ...
> 
> ( ... wait for it ... )
> 
> There, see what a non-sensical idea this is ... the Catholic Church has more than enough money to bring creation science to fore-front of human advancement ... and when it comes to holding true the notions and ideas of long ago, Catholics have a proven track record ... let's let the _experts_ teach creation science, in their own way and manner ... best to keep it away from government contamination ... "Government can only despoil and ruin, it's its only function" ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science isn't religion nor the fake science of evolution, but real science.  The students will be able to decide for themselves.  It's creation vs. evolution.  For example, it found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  It can be proven by the scientific method.  Real science should be more than a creation vs. evolution forum on these message boards.
> 
> No, the Catholic Church can only teach it in parochial schools, not public.  Thus, you are wrong.  Creation science is the Book of Genesis in a literary context minus the religious parts.  It includes Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel.  No afterlife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label.  The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.
Click to expand...


And yet real scientists disagree with you:


----------



## ReinyDays

"In the beginning, God created heaven and Earth" ...

How do we test this in a lab? ...


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ReinyDays said:


> "In the beginning, God created heaven and Earth" ...
> 
> How do we test this in a lab? ...



This is like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg.  Nonbelievers are still stuck with coming up with an ultimate origination point for the elements they say evolved into what we have today.  You simply cannot get something from nothing.


----------



## ReinyDays

Porter Rockwell said:


> This is like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg.  Nonbelievers are still stuck with coming up with an ultimate origination point for the elements they say evolved into what we have today.  You simply cannot get something from nothing.



That's why scientific theories, including evolution, are written in pencil ... as we learn new things, we can change the theory ... this is acceptable scientific method ...

I believe in Creation ... but I don't treat as science ... there's absolutely nothing in the Bible that requires me to treat Creation as science ... the main failure is that science requires that what we study be observable, be measurable and be able to repeat ... who was available to observe the Creation? ... the beast of the fields and Man was created days later ... how are we measuring Creation? ... what objective scale do we use for miracles? ...

Finally, the Creation was a unique event ... the Bible doesn't say God created a heaven and an earth and found it to be bad, destroyed it all and created a new heaven and earth and just kept trying until He found a Heaven and Earth that was good ... there's no reason to believe Creation can be repeated ...

Again I ask ... what experiment can we conduct to demonstrate the virgin birth? ...


----------



## Hollie

Porter Rockwell said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science (falsely labeled Christian fundamentalism), has no business in the public schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education
> 
> 
> 1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ncse.ngo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Thomas Jefferson wrote his "_separation of church and state_" letter to the Danbury Baptists, it meant 180 degrees opposite of what you just said.
> 
> Education was not a function of the federal government at that time; the most widely teaching tool was the textbook,  New England Primer, which used the Bible to teach children how to read and write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New England Primer - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should get the feds out of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you will find that the courts have ruled to uphold the Establishment Clause. If you disagree, you can write a strongly worded email to the The_New_England_Primer
> 
> The Establishment Clause was ratified in 1791. If my math is correct, 1791 comes after 1790.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretations were not made until all the founders /framers died.  Fact is, the courts didn't rule that way until 1962 and 1963.  And what, exactly, has the difference been?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education Expert: Removing Bible, Prayer from Public Schools Has Caused Decline
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take a look at Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing, 1947.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On what precedents did they decide Everson?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was enforcement of the Establishment Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the question I asked you.  Let me ask you again:
> 
> On what precedent did the Court decide the Everson case?
> 
> You're wanting to argue law.  I'm willing to argue law with you.  It's a simple enough question.  By the math provided by you, the law was passed in 1790, but it 157 years later before the United States Supreme Court does some mythical _"enforcement_" of the Establishment Clause.  Let us contrast that with the rest of the Constitution.
> 
> In the Constitution, the federal government had ONE area over immigrants - to pass an uniform Rule of Immigration.  They did that in six months.  On gun control, the courts began ruling on that issue in 1822, saying that the Right was absolute.  So, the Bill of Rights became law in 1791.  That means that it took 31 years between the ratification of the Bill of Rights and the precedent interpreting the Second Amendment.  But, it took 157 years to address an issue that affects society's most treasured asset,... its children?
> 
> The fact of the matter is, the terminology separation of church and state does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, nor the Constitution of the United States.  So, I'm asking you on what precedent did the high Court rely on in arriving at its decision?  I'm sure you are aware of the fact that our system is based on the Anglo system of jurisprudence.  As such, you also know that the English common law is used to interpret our laws.  All of that relies on stare decisis (a big fancy Latin term meaning let the decision stand.)  When interpreting the law, the courts look to the customs of the people to establish a precedent.  You might want to brush up on the history of education in America:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History of education in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the courts had ample opportunity and reason to bring up this "_Establishment Clause_," so on what precedent did the court rely on in making their decision?
Click to expand...

I think you will find the Establishment Clause was a part of Article One of the Constitution so your claim it not being a part of the Constitution is, odd.


----------



## Hollie

Porter Rockwell said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight ... you want _Congress_ deciding how religion is taught? ...
> 
> ( ... wait for it ... )
> 
> There, see what a non-sensical idea this is ... the Catholic Church has more than enough money to bring creation science to fore-front of human advancement ... and when it comes to holding true the notions and ideas of long ago, Catholics have a proven track record ... let's let the _experts_ teach creation science, in their own way and manner ... best to keep it away from government contamination ... "Government can only despoil and ruin, it's its only function" ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science isn't religion nor the fake science of evolution, but real science.  The students will be able to decide for themselves.  It's creation vs. evolution.  For example, it found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  It can be proven by the scientific method.  Real science should be more than a creation vs. evolution forum on these message boards.
> 
> No, the Catholic Church can only teach it in parochial schools, not public.  Thus, you are wrong.  Creation science is the Book of Genesis in a literary context minus the religious parts.  It includes Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel.  No afterlife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label.  The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet real scientists disagree with you:
Click to expand...


Real scientists dont affiliate themselves with quacks from Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum. 

Tell us about the "statement of faith" one has to endorse in order to join the cult of AIG?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ReinyDays said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg.  Nonbelievers are still stuck with coming up with an ultimate origination point for the elements they say evolved into what we have today.  You simply cannot get something from nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why scientific theories, including evolution, are written in pencil ... as we learn new things, we can change the theory ... this is acceptable scientific method ...
> 
> I believe in Creation ... but I don't treat as science ... there's absolutely nothing in the Bible that requires me to treat Creation as science ... the main failure is that science requires that what we study be observable, be measurable and be able to repeat ... who was available to observe the Creation? ... the beast of the fields and Man was created days later ... how are we measuring Creation? ... what objective scale do we use for miracles? ...
> 
> Finally, the Creation was a unique event ... the Bible doesn't say God created a heaven and an earth and found it to be bad, destroyed it all and created a new heaven and earth and just kept trying until He found a Heaven and Earth that was good ... there's no reason to believe Creation can be repeated ...
> 
> Again I ask ... what experiment can we conduct to demonstrate the virgin birth? ...
Click to expand...


The answer is, you use the same experiment that proves you can get something from nothing.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Hollie said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science (falsely labeled Christian fundamentalism), has no business in the public schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education
> 
> 
> 1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ncse.ngo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Thomas Jefferson wrote his "_separation of church and state_" letter to the Danbury Baptists, it meant 180 degrees opposite of what you just said.
> 
> Education was not a function of the federal government at that time; the most widely teaching tool was the textbook,  New England Primer, which used the Bible to teach children how to read and write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New England Primer - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should get the feds out of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you will find that the courts have ruled to uphold the Establishment Clause. If you disagree, you can write a strongly worded email to the The_New_England_Primer
> 
> The Establishment Clause was ratified in 1791. If my math is correct, 1791 comes after 1790.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretations were not made until all the founders /framers died.  Fact is, the courts didn't rule that way until 1962 and 1963.  And what, exactly, has the difference been?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education Expert: Removing Bible, Prayer from Public Schools Has Caused Decline
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take a look at Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing, 1947.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On what precedents did they decide Everson?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was enforcement of the Establishment Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the question I asked you.  Let me ask you again:
> 
> On what precedent did the Court decide the Everson case?
> 
> You're wanting to argue law.  I'm willing to argue law with you.  It's a simple enough question.  By the math provided by you, the law was passed in 1790, but it 157 years later before the United States Supreme Court does some mythical _"enforcement_" of the Establishment Clause.  Let us contrast that with the rest of the Constitution.
> 
> In the Constitution, the federal government had ONE area over immigrants - to pass an uniform Rule of Immigration.  They did that in six months.  On gun control, the courts began ruling on that issue in 1822, saying that the Right was absolute.  So, the Bill of Rights became law in 1791.  That means that it took 31 years between the ratification of the Bill of Rights and the precedent interpreting the Second Amendment.  But, it took 157 years to address an issue that affects society's most treasured asset,... its children?
> 
> The fact of the matter is, the terminology separation of church and state does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, nor the Constitution of the United States.  So, I'm asking you on what precedent did the high Court rely on in arriving at its decision?  I'm sure you are aware of the fact that our system is based on the Anglo system of jurisprudence.  As such, you also know that the English common law is used to interpret our laws.  All of that relies on stare decisis (a big fancy Latin term meaning let the decision stand.)  When interpreting the law, the courts look to the customs of the people to establish a precedent.  You might want to brush up on the history of education in America:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History of education in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the courts had ample opportunity and reason to bring up this "_Establishment Clause_," so on what precedent did the court rely on in making their decision?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you will find the Establishment Clause was a part of Article One of the Constitution so your claim it not being a part of the Constitution is, odd.
Click to expand...


Where have I claimed anything of the sort?  I'm asking you to tell me on what precedent the court came to the conclusion that we could not teach creation in a public school, especially considering that Thomas Jefferson was promising the Danbury Baptists that the federal government would never interfere in with the education of children.  I'm still looking for that part of the Constitution giving the federal government any jurisdiction in education.  I'll settle for that.  If you really don't know what precedent was used in the Everson case, a simple I don't know will suffice.  If you don't know how we arrived at that point, you don't know.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Hollie said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight ... you want _Congress_ deciding how religion is taught? ...
> 
> ( ... wait for it ... )
> 
> There, see what a non-sensical idea this is ... the Catholic Church has more than enough money to bring creation science to fore-front of human advancement ... and when it comes to holding true the notions and ideas of long ago, Catholics have a proven track record ... let's let the _experts_ teach creation science, in their own way and manner ... best to keep it away from government contamination ... "Government can only despoil and ruin, it's its only function" ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science isn't religion nor the fake science of evolution, but real science.  The students will be able to decide for themselves.  It's creation vs. evolution.  For example, it found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  It can be proven by the scientific method.  Real science should be more than a creation vs. evolution forum on these message boards.
> 
> No, the Catholic Church can only teach it in parochial schools, not public.  Thus, you are wrong.  Creation science is the Book of Genesis in a literary context minus the religious parts.  It includes Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel.  No afterlife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label.  The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet real scientists disagree with you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real scientists dont affiliate themselves with quacks from Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.
> 
> Tell us about the "statement of faith" one has to endorse in order to join the cult of AIG?
Click to expand...


Blowing smoke like that doesn't lend itself to a very productive conversation.  Lisle is a scientist - a REAL scientist.  As for any "_cult_," if you have to join anything to learn some hidden truth, it's probably a lot of B.S.  so I don't know.  I didn't join anything to learn the material.  Did you bother to watch it or do you just like to argue?


----------



## Hollie

Porter Rockwell said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science (falsely labeled Christian fundamentalism), has no business in the public schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education
> 
> 
> 1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ncse.ngo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Thomas Jefferson wrote his "_separation of church and state_" letter to the Danbury Baptists, it meant 180 degrees opposite of what you just said.
> 
> Education was not a function of the federal government at that time; the most widely teaching tool was the textbook,  New England Primer, which used the Bible to teach children how to read and write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New England Primer - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should get the feds out of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you will find that the courts have ruled to uphold the Establishment Clause. If you disagree, you can write a strongly worded email to the The_New_England_Primer
> 
> The Establishment Clause was ratified in 1791. If my math is correct, 1791 comes after 1790.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretations were not made until all the founders /framers died.  Fact is, the courts didn't rule that way until 1962 and 1963.  And what, exactly, has the difference been?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education Expert: Removing Bible, Prayer from Public Schools Has Caused Decline
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take a look at Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing, 1947.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On what precedents did they decide Everson?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was enforcement of the Establishment Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the question I asked you.  Let me ask you again:
> 
> On what precedent did the Court decide the Everson case?
> 
> You're wanting to argue law.  I'm willing to argue law with you.  It's a simple enough question.  By the math provided by you, the law was passed in 1790, but it 157 years later before the United States Supreme Court does some mythical _"enforcement_" of the Establishment Clause.  Let us contrast that with the rest of the Constitution.
> 
> In the Constitution, the federal government had ONE area over immigrants - to pass an uniform Rule of Immigration.  They did that in six months.  On gun control, the courts began ruling on that issue in 1822, saying that the Right was absolute.  So, the Bill of Rights became law in 1791.  That means that it took 31 years between the ratification of the Bill of Rights and the precedent interpreting the Second Amendment.  But, it took 157 years to address an issue that affects society's most treasured asset,... its children?
> 
> The fact of the matter is, the terminology separation of church and state does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, nor the Constitution of the United States.  So, I'm asking you on what precedent did the high Court rely on in arriving at its decision?  I'm sure you are aware of the fact that our system is based on the Anglo system of jurisprudence.  As such, you also know that the English common law is used to interpret our laws.  All of that relies on stare decisis (a big fancy Latin term meaning let the decision stand.)  When interpreting the law, the courts look to the customs of the people to establish a precedent.  You might want to brush up on the history of education in America:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History of education in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the courts had ample opportunity and reason to bring up this "_Establishment Clause_," so on what precedent did the court rely on in making their decision?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you will find the Establishment Clause was a part of Article One of the Constitution so your claim it not being a part of the Constitution is, odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have I claimed anything of the sort?  I'm asking you to tell me on what precedent the court came to the conclusion that we could not teach creation in a public school, especially considering that Thomas Jefferson was promising the Danbury Baptists that the federal government would never interfere in with the education of children.  I'm still looking for that part of the Constitution giving the federal government any jurisdiction in education.  I'll settle for that.  If you really don't know what precedent was used in the Everson case, a simple I don't know will suffice.  If you don't know how we arrived at that point, you don't know.
Click to expand...

Why do you think Constitutional law needs a precedent?


----------



## Hollie

Porter Rockwell said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight ... you want _Congress_ deciding how religion is taught? ...
> 
> ( ... wait for it ... )
> 
> There, see what a non-sensical idea this is ... the Catholic Church has more than enough money to bring creation science to fore-front of human advancement ... and when it comes to holding true the notions and ideas of long ago, Catholics have a proven track record ... let's let the _experts_ teach creation science, in their own way and manner ... best to keep it away from government contamination ... "Government can only despoil and ruin, it's its only function" ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science isn't religion nor the fake science of evolution, but real science.  The students will be able to decide for themselves.  It's creation vs. evolution.  For example, it found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  It can be proven by the scientific method.  Real science should be more than a creation vs. evolution forum on these message boards.
> 
> No, the Catholic Church can only teach it in parochial schools, not public.  Thus, you are wrong.  Creation science is the Book of Genesis in a literary context minus the religious parts.  It includes Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel.  No afterlife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label.  The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet real scientists disagree with you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real scientists dont affiliate themselves with quacks from Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.
> 
> Tell us about the "statement of faith" one has to endorse in order to join the cult of AIG?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blowing smoke like that doesn't lend itself to a very productive conversation.  Lisle is a scientist - a REAL scientist.  As for any "_cult_," if you have to join anything to learn some hidden truth, it's probably a lot of B.S.  so I don't know.  I didn't join anything to learn the material.  Did you bother to watch it or do you just like to argue?
Click to expand...

If you want to discuss real science, get someone who is credible and abides by the Scientific Method. Abiding by a statement of faith that requires one to meet a predefined conclusion is unethical and announces a bias. 

What peer reviewed journals has Lisle submitted to?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Hollie said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science (falsely labeled Christian fundamentalism), has no business in the public schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education
> 
> 
> 1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ncse.ngo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Thomas Jefferson wrote his "_separation of church and state_" letter to the Danbury Baptists, it meant 180 degrees opposite of what you just said.
> 
> Education was not a function of the federal government at that time; the most widely teaching tool was the textbook,  New England Primer, which used the Bible to teach children how to read and write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New England Primer - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should get the feds out of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you will find that the courts have ruled to uphold the Establishment Clause. If you disagree, you can write a strongly worded email to the The_New_England_Primer
> 
> The Establishment Clause was ratified in 1791. If my math is correct, 1791 comes after 1790.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The interpretations were not made until all the founders /framers died.  Fact is, the courts didn't rule that way until 1962 and 1963.  And what, exactly, has the difference been?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education Expert: Removing Bible, Prayer from Public Schools Has Caused Decline
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take a look at Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing, 1947.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On what precedents did they decide Everson?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was enforcement of the Establishment Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the question I asked you.  Let me ask you again:
> 
> On what precedent did the Court decide the Everson case?
> 
> You're wanting to argue law.  I'm willing to argue law with you.  It's a simple enough question.  By the math provided by you, the law was passed in 1790, but it 157 years later before the United States Supreme Court does some mythical _"enforcement_" of the Establishment Clause.  Let us contrast that with the rest of the Constitution.
> 
> In the Constitution, the federal government had ONE area over immigrants - to pass an uniform Rule of Immigration.  They did that in six months.  On gun control, the courts began ruling on that issue in 1822, saying that the Right was absolute.  So, the Bill of Rights became law in 1791.  That means that it took 31 years between the ratification of the Bill of Rights and the precedent interpreting the Second Amendment.  But, it took 157 years to address an issue that affects society's most treasured asset,... its children?
> 
> The fact of the matter is, the terminology separation of church and state does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, nor the Constitution of the United States.  So, I'm asking you on what precedent did the high Court rely on in arriving at its decision?  I'm sure you are aware of the fact that our system is based on the Anglo system of jurisprudence.  As such, you also know that the English common law is used to interpret our laws.  All of that relies on stare decisis (a big fancy Latin term meaning let the decision stand.)  When interpreting the law, the courts look to the customs of the people to establish a precedent.  You might want to brush up on the history of education in America:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History of education in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the courts had ample opportunity and reason to bring up this "_Establishment Clause_," so on what precedent did the court rely on in making their decision?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you will find the Establishment Clause was a part of Article One of the Constitution so your claim it not being a part of the Constitution is, odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have I claimed anything of the sort?  I'm asking you to tell me on what precedent the court came to the conclusion that we could not teach creation in a public school, especially considering that Thomas Jefferson was promising the Danbury Baptists that the federal government would never interfere in with the education of children.  I'm still looking for that part of the Constitution giving the federal government any jurisdiction in education.  I'll settle for that.  If you really don't know what precedent was used in the Everson case, a simple I don't know will suffice.  If you don't know how we arrived at that point, you don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think Constitutional law needs a precedent?
Click to expand...


It is the way our system was set up.  The courts are empowered to interpret the Constitution consistent with the way the founders / framers intended; then consistent with our customs so that each person is treated the same (if they fine you $50 for spitting on the sidewalk and charge me $10 for the same offense) it wouldn't be fair or equitable - nor just, and it was intended to force the courts to treat all cases with the same outcome.  Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“_On *every question* of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed_.” 

In the instant case, I know the answer.  The answer is, there was NO precedent.  Instead, the Justices relied on the words of Thomas Jefferson in a *private letter*.  In law, a private letter has no standing authority.  It is wholly irrelevant to the law.  Secondary to that, Jefferson's letter meant exactly 180 degrees opposite of what Jefferson stated in that letter.  That court ruling was controversial and divisive when it was written and it remains so today.  Not all laws are constitutional nor right.  Many people here would raise holy Hell if we reminded them that the laws in the United States upheld racial segregation.  It's true albeit unpopular.  The point there is that even the courts fail to follow the law in every instance.  And that is relevant for another reason.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Hollie said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight ... you want _Congress_ deciding how religion is taught? ...
> 
> ( ... wait for it ... )
> 
> There, see what a non-sensical idea this is ... the Catholic Church has more than enough money to bring creation science to fore-front of human advancement ... and when it comes to holding true the notions and ideas of long ago, Catholics have a proven track record ... let's let the _experts_ teach creation science, in their own way and manner ... best to keep it away from government contamination ... "Government can only despoil and ruin, it's its only function" ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science isn't religion nor the fake science of evolution, but real science.  The students will be able to decide for themselves.  It's creation vs. evolution.  For example, it found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  It can be proven by the scientific method.  Real science should be more than a creation vs. evolution forum on these message boards.
> 
> No, the Catholic Church can only teach it in parochial schools, not public.  Thus, you are wrong.  Creation science is the Book of Genesis in a literary context minus the religious parts.  It includes Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel.  No afterlife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label.  The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet real scientists disagree with you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real scientists dont affiliate themselves with quacks from Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.
> 
> Tell us about the "statement of faith" one has to endorse in order to join the cult of AIG?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blowing smoke like that doesn't lend itself to a very productive conversation.  Lisle is a scientist - a REAL scientist.  As for any "_cult_," if you have to join anything to learn some hidden truth, it's probably a lot of B.S.  so I don't know.  I didn't join anything to learn the material.  Did you bother to watch it or do you just like to argue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to discuss real science, get someone who is credible and abides by the Scientific Method. Abiding by a statement of faith that requires one to meet a predefined conclusion is unethical and announces a bias.
> 
> What peer reviewed journals has Lisle submitted to?
Click to expand...


That is very dishonest.  I don't know what "_peer reviewed journals_" Lisle has submitted to.  The real issue is, does he have the education and experience to be called a scientist?   That is more relevant than whether or not a clique group accepts his views. 

Norman Bourlag was an agronomist that studied ways to make wheat produce bigger yields.  His contemporaries tried to discredit him; the Rockefellers told him they would cut funding if he persisted in his studies.  And so he went out on his own.  Soon, the Rockefellers were back in.  Bourlag made significant progress despite having been *negatively* reviewed by his peers.  That is my answer to the value of your question.


----------



## Hollie

Porter Rockwell said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight ... you want _Congress_ deciding how religion is taught? ...
> 
> ( ... wait for it ... )
> 
> There, see what a non-sensical idea this is ... the Catholic Church has more than enough money to bring creation science to fore-front of human advancement ... and when it comes to holding true the notions and ideas of long ago, Catholics have a proven track record ... let's let the _experts_ teach creation science, in their own way and manner ... best to keep it away from government contamination ... "Government can only despoil and ruin, it's its only function" ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science isn't religion nor the fake science of evolution, but real science.  The students will be able to decide for themselves.  It's creation vs. evolution.  For example, it found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  It can be proven by the scientific method.  Real science should be more than a creation vs. evolution forum on these message boards.
> 
> No, the Catholic Church can only teach it in parochial schools, not public.  Thus, you are wrong.  Creation science is the Book of Genesis in a literary context minus the religious parts.  It includes Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel.  No afterlife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label.  The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet real scientists disagree with you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real scientists dont affiliate themselves with quacks from Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.
> 
> Tell us about the "statement of faith" one has to endorse in order to join the cult of AIG?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blowing smoke like that doesn't lend itself to a very productive conversation.  Lisle is a scientist - a REAL scientist.  As for any "_cult_," if you have to join anything to learn some hidden truth, it's probably a lot of B.S.  so I don't know.  I didn't join anything to learn the material.  Did you bother to watch it or do you just like to argue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to discuss real science, get someone who is credible and abides by the Scientific Method. Abiding by a statement of faith that requires one to meet a predefined conclusion is unethical and announces a bias.
> 
> What peer reviewed journals has Lisle submitted to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is very dishonest.  I don't know what "_peer reviewed journals_" Lisle has submitted to.  The real issue is, does he have the education and experience to be called a scientist?   That is more relevant than whether or not a clique group accepts his views.
> 
> Norman Bourlag was an agronomist that studied ways to make wheat produce bigger yields.  His contemporaries tried to discredit him; the Rockefellers told him they would cut funding if he persisted in his studies.  And so he went out on his own.  Soon, the Rockefellers were back in.  Bourlag made significant progress despite having been *negatively* reviewed by his peers.  That is my answer to the value of your question.
Click to expand...

There’s nothing dishonest about asking if Jason Lisle has submitted any work for peer review. It’s a completely fair question given his association with a Christian ministry that requires a “statement of faith”. Such a condition presumes one is not going to be honest in any objective evaluation of the data and has a predefined conclusion.  Such an objective is purely theological, not scientific.

Religious dogma does not gain currency in any scientific field merely because a creation ministry finds a “scientist” to promote the dogma. We have specific tools that allow us to discriminate between good theories and bad ones. And science is the single most powerful and productive human enterprise in the history of our species only because these tools actually work. While never providing “proof,” they demonstrably move us incrementally towards objective truth. If they did not, then science would not have changed our world as it has, for better or worse. My preference for objectivity and ethics is based (as has been repeatedly pointed out) on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. Your preference, and that of the creation ministries is based (as they admit) purely on which best fits _a priori_ religious commitment.

 A ”clique group” is hardly the correct label for the National Academy of Science, for example. Secondly, what is or is not science has nothing to do with personal biases and religious belief. For an idea to be considered scientific, it must run a continuous gauntlet of testing, replication, and peer review. 

The member of a creation menistry who simply proposes ideas that are intended to conform with the Bibles, without any supporting evidence, reasoning or testing is at best a crackpot, at worst a charlatan. 

So, help us understand which of these Jason Lisle claims to be.


----------



## gtopa1

Science can never explain God. That is why Faith is so important.

Greg


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Hollie said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight ... you want _Congress_ deciding how religion is taught? ...
> 
> ( ... wait for it ... )
> 
> There, see what a non-sensical idea this is ... the Catholic Church has more than enough money to bring creation science to fore-front of human advancement ... and when it comes to holding true the notions and ideas of long ago, Catholics have a proven track record ... let's let the _experts_ teach creation science, in their own way and manner ... best to keep it away from government contamination ... "Government can only despoil and ruin, it's its only function" ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science isn't religion nor the fake science of evolution, but real science.  The students will be able to decide for themselves.  It's creation vs. evolution.  For example, it found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  It can be proven by the scientific method.  Real science should be more than a creation vs. evolution forum on these message boards.
> 
> No, the Catholic Church can only teach it in parochial schools, not public.  Thus, you are wrong.  Creation science is the Book of Genesis in a literary context minus the religious parts.  It includes Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel.  No afterlife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label.  The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet real scientists disagree with you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real scientists dont affiliate themselves with quacks from Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.
> 
> Tell us about the "statement of faith" one has to endorse in order to join the cult of AIG?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blowing smoke like that doesn't lend itself to a very productive conversation.  Lisle is a scientist - a REAL scientist.  As for any "_cult_," if you have to join anything to learn some hidden truth, it's probably a lot of B.S.  so I don't know.  I didn't join anything to learn the material.  Did you bother to watch it or do you just like to argue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to discuss real science, get someone who is credible and abides by the Scientific Method. Abiding by a statement of faith that requires one to meet a predefined conclusion is unethical and announces a bias.
> 
> What peer reviewed journals has Lisle submitted to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is very dishonest.  I don't know what "_peer reviewed journals_" Lisle has submitted to.  The real issue is, does he have the education and experience to be called a scientist?   That is more relevant than whether or not a clique group accepts his views.
> 
> Norman Bourlag was an agronomist that studied ways to make wheat produce bigger yields.  His contemporaries tried to discredit him; the Rockefellers told him they would cut funding if he persisted in his studies.  And so he went out on his own.  Soon, the Rockefellers were back in.  Bourlag made significant progress despite having been *negatively* reviewed by his peers.  That is my answer to the value of your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There’s nothing dishonest about asking if Jason Lisle has submitted any work for peer review. It’s a completely fair question given his association with a Christian ministry that requires a “statement of faith”. Such a condition presumes one is not going to be honest in any objective evaluation of the data and has a predefined conclusion.  Such an objective is purely theological, not scientific.
> 
> Religious dogma does not gain currency in any scientific field merely because a creation ministry finds a “scientist” to promote the dogma. We have specific tools that allow us to discriminate between good theories and bad ones. And science is the single most powerful and productive human enterprise in the history of our species only because these tools actually work. While never providing “proof,” they demonstrably move us incrementally towards objective truth. If they did not, then science would not have changed our world as it has, for better or worse. My preference for objectivity and ethics is based (as has been repeatedly pointed out) on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. Your preference, and that of the creation ministries is based (as they admit) purely on which best fits _a priori_ religious commitment.
> 
> A ”clique group” is hardly the correct label for the National Academy of Science, for example. Secondly, what is or is not science has nothing to do with personal biases and religious belief. For an idea to be considered scientific, it must run a continuous gauntlet of testing, replication, and peer review.
> 
> The member of a creation menistry who simply proposes ideas that are intended to conform with the Bibles, without any supporting evidence, reasoning or testing is at best a crackpot, at worst a charlatan.
> 
> So, help us understand which of these Jason Lisle claims to be.
Click to expand...


Quite the joker you are.  You simply do not want to recognize Lisle as being a scientist.  You're scared.  I get that.  The National Academy of Science is just a clique group with a fancy name that has told more than one scientist that their work was _"junk science_" only to be proven wrong.  In 1870 the National Academy of Science agreed with the proposition that there are specific races of mankind.  Today, those who advocate that race is a "_social construct_" are not called out by those same scientists that found differences in races.









						Profiling Humans from their Voice
					

This book is about recent research in the area of profiling humans from their voice, which seeks to deduce and describe the speaker's entire persona and their surroundings from voice alone. It covers several key aspects of this technology, describing how the human voice is unique in its ability...



					books.google.com
				




See entry # 101


----------



## Hollie

Porter Rockwell said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight ... you want _Congress_ deciding how religion is taught? ...
> 
> ( ... wait for it ... )
> 
> There, see what a non-sensical idea this is ... the Catholic Church has more than enough money to bring creation science to fore-front of human advancement ... and when it comes to holding true the notions and ideas of long ago, Catholics have a proven track record ... let's let the _experts_ teach creation science, in their own way and manner ... best to keep it away from government contamination ... "Government can only despoil and ruin, it's its only function" ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science isn't religion nor the fake science of evolution, but real science.  The students will be able to decide for themselves.  It's creation vs. evolution.  For example, it found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  It can be proven by the scientific method.  Real science should be more than a creation vs. evolution forum on these message boards.
> 
> No, the Catholic Church can only teach it in parochial schools, not public.  Thus, you are wrong.  Creation science is the Book of Genesis in a literary context minus the religious parts.  It includes Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel.  No afterlife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label.  The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet real scientists disagree with you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real scientists dont affiliate themselves with quacks from Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.
> 
> Tell us about the "statement of faith" one has to endorse in order to join the cult of AIG?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blowing smoke like that doesn't lend itself to a very productive conversation.  Lisle is a scientist - a REAL scientist.  As for any "_cult_," if you have to join anything to learn some hidden truth, it's probably a lot of B.S.  so I don't know.  I didn't join anything to learn the material.  Did you bother to watch it or do you just like to argue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to discuss real science, get someone who is credible and abides by the Scientific Method. Abiding by a statement of faith that requires one to meet a predefined conclusion is unethical and announces a bias.
> 
> What peer reviewed journals has Lisle submitted to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is very dishonest.  I don't know what "_peer reviewed journals_" Lisle has submitted to.  The real issue is, does he have the education and experience to be called a scientist?   That is more relevant than whether or not a clique group accepts his views.
> 
> Norman Bourlag was an agronomist that studied ways to make wheat produce bigger yields.  His contemporaries tried to discredit him; the Rockefellers told him they would cut funding if he persisted in his studies.  And so he went out on his own.  Soon, the Rockefellers were back in.  Bourlag made significant progress despite having been *negatively* reviewed by his peers.  That is my answer to the value of your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There’s nothing dishonest about asking if Jason Lisle has submitted any work for peer review. It’s a completely fair question given his association with a Christian ministry that requires a “statement of faith”. Such a condition presumes one is not going to be honest in any objective evaluation of the data and has a predefined conclusion.  Such an objective is purely theological, not scientific.
> 
> Religious dogma does not gain currency in any scientific field merely because a creation ministry finds a “scientist” to promote the dogma. We have specific tools that allow us to discriminate between good theories and bad ones. And science is the single most powerful and productive human enterprise in the history of our species only because these tools actually work. While never providing “proof,” they demonstrably move us incrementally towards objective truth. If they did not, then science would not have changed our world as it has, for better or worse. My preference for objectivity and ethics is based (as has been repeatedly pointed out) on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. Your preference, and that of the creation ministries is based (as they admit) purely on which best fits _a priori_ religious commitment.
> 
> A ”clique group” is hardly the correct label for the National Academy of Science, for example. Secondly, what is or is not science has nothing to do with personal biases and religious belief. For an idea to be considered scientific, it must run a continuous gauntlet of testing, replication, and peer review.
> 
> The member of a creation menistry who simply proposes ideas that are intended to conform with the Bibles, without any supporting evidence, reasoning or testing is at best a crackpot, at worst a charlatan.
> 
> So, help us understand which of these Jason Lisle claims to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the joker you are.  You simply do not want to recognize Lisle as being a scientist.  You're scared.  I get that.  The National Academy of Science is just a clique group with a fancy name that has told more than one scientist that their work was _"junk science_" only to be proven wrong.  In 1870 the National Academy of Science agreed with the proposition that there are specific races of mankind.  Today, those who advocate that race is a "_social construct_" are not called out by those same scientists that found differences in races.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Profiling Humans from their Voice
> 
> 
> This book is about recent research in the area of profiling humans from their voice, which seeks to deduce and describe the speaker's entire persona and their surroundings from voice alone. It covers several key aspects of this technology, describing how the human voice is unique in its ability...
> 
> 
> 
> books.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See entry # 101
Click to expand...

Lisle being a scientist doesn’t assume he is ethical. Being associated with a Christian ministry that requires a “statement of faith” assures he is _not _ethical. I understand your revulsion for those who don’t unthinkingly accept your religious beliefs as true are categorized as “just a clique group with a fancy name…” but let’s be honest and admit that organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and similar organizations are the entities that further research. What actual research is done by the ICR?

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual _rigor mortis_ of received dogma.

The gods will punish those in the National Academy of Sciences for what happened in 1870. Hey, wasn't 1870 the time period after the civil war when those god-fearing Baptists lost their slaves?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight ... you want _Congress_ deciding how religion is taught? ...
> 
> ( ... wait for it ... )
> 
> There, see what a non-sensical idea this is ... the Catholic Church has more than enough money to bring creation science to fore-front of human advancement ... and when it comes to holding true the notions and ideas of long ago, Catholics have a proven track record ... let's let the _experts_ teach creation science, in their own way and manner ... best to keep it away from government contamination ... "Government can only despoil and ruin, it's its only function" ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science isn't religion nor the fake science of evolution, but real science.  The students will be able to decide for themselves.  It's creation vs. evolution.  For example, it found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  It can be proven by the scientific method.  Real science should be more than a creation vs. evolution forum on these message boards.
> 
> No, the Catholic Church can only teach it in parochial schools, not public.  Thus, you are wrong.  Creation science is the Book of Genesis in a literary context minus the religious parts.  It includes Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel.  No afterlife.
Click to expand...


Reptiles were laying eggs long before chickens existed.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> Forget the trivial horseshit ... *skip straight to explaining the virgin birth, on the cellular level* ... something I can test in a lab ...



Now, you are making a fallacy of mixing religion and creation science.  What does a virgin birth have to do with Genesis?  Only the science parts of Book of Genesis is presented.



ReinyDays said:


> "In the beginning, God created heaven and Earth" ...
> 
> How do we test this in a lab? ...



First, you are biased.  There is nothing about evolution that one can test in a lab.

The evidence is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.  Instead of God, we have Jesus as creator since there was a beginning.  The Kalam Cosmological argument presents the creator since we know there was a beginning by the CMB.  What is also presented is the big bang could not have happened because it defies the laws of physics.  Only astronomers accept it for the most part.



ReinyDays said:


> I believe in Creation ... but I don't treat as science ... there's absolutely nothing in the Bible that requires me to treat Creation as science ... the main failure is that science requires that what we study be observable, be measurable and be able to repeat ... who was available to observe the Creation? ... the beast of the fields and Man was created days later ... how are we measuring Creation? ... what objective scale do we use for miracles? ...



The Bible isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible.  That makes creation science a science.  Nothing in evolution is observable while we can observe the 7 days of creation where one day = 24 hours.



ReinyDays said:


> Finally, the Creation was a unique event ... the Bible doesn't say God created a heaven and an earth and found it to be bad, destroyed it all and created a new heaven and earth and just kept trying until He found a Heaven and Earth that was good ... there's no reason to believe Creation can be repeated ...
> 
> Again I ask ... what experiment can we conduct to demonstrate the virgin birth? ...



None of what you said makes any sense.


----------



## james bond

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Reptiles were laying eggs long before chickens existed.



Got a link?  How does one know?

Here's mine -- Duck ancestors roamed Earth with dinosaurs.

The reptiles came first before their egg.  God created adult creatures including humans.  The only baby was Baby Jesus.  T


----------



## ReinyDays

Porter Rockwell said:


> The answer is, you use the same experiment that proves you can get something from nothing.



We have plenty of Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen and Nitrogen available to form life ... that's something from something ...


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reptiles were laying eggs long before chickens existed.
> 
> 
> 
> Got a link?  How does one know?
Click to expand...


Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia - 2 billion year old cyanobacteria were setting the stage for egg development ... an interesting article if you're interested on where and when the development of eggs came about ... "Many protists reproduce sexually, as do the multicellular plants, animals, and fungi. In the eukaryotic fossil record, sexual reproduction first appeared by 1.2 billion years ago in the Proterozoic Eon. All sexually reproducing eukaryotic organisms likely derive from a single-celled common ancestor. It is probable that the evolution of sex was an integral part of the evolution of the first eukaryotic cell.  There are a few species which have secondarily lost this feature, such as _Bdelloidea_ and some parthenocarpic plants." ... in-line citations can be found at the source linked to above ...

Eggs pre-date life on land by 700 million years ...


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forget the trivial horseshit ... *skip straight to explaining the virgin birth, on the cellular level* ... something I can test in a lab ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, you are making a fallacy of mixing religion and creation science.  What does a virgin birth have to do with Genesis?  Only the science parts of Book of Genesis is presented.
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In the beginning, God created heaven and Earth" ...
> 
> How do we test this in a lab? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you are biased.  There is nothing about evolution that one can test in a lab.
> 
> The evidence is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.  Instead of God, we have Jesus as creator since there was a beginning.  The Kalam Cosmological argument presents the creator since we know there was a beginning by the CMB.  What is also presented is the big bang could not have happened because it defies the laws of physics.  Only astronomers accept it for the most part.
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in Creation ... but I don't treat as science ... there's absolutely nothing in the Bible that requires me to treat Creation as science ... the main failure is that science requires that what we study be observable, be measurable and be able to repeat ... who was available to observe the Creation? ... the beast of the fields and Man was created days later ... how are we measuring Creation? ... what objective scale do we use for miracles? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible.  That makes creation science a science.  Nothing in evolution is observable while we can observe the 7 days of creation where one day = 24 hours.
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, the Creation was a unique event ... the Bible doesn't say God created a heaven and an earth and found it to be bad, destroyed it all and created a new heaven and earth and just kept trying until He found a Heaven and Earth that was good ... there's no reason to believe Creation can be repeated ...
> 
> Again I ask ... what experiment can we conduct to demonstrate the virgin birth? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of what you said makes any sense.
Click to expand...

Science does not back up the Bible


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

james bond said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reptiles were laying eggs long before chickens existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got a link?  How does one know?
> 
> Here's mine -- Duck ancestors roamed Earth with dinosaurs.
> 
> The reptiles came first before their egg.  God created adult creatures including humans.  The only baby was Baby Jesus.  T
Click to expand...


Even you started from an egg you moron!


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> Now, you are making a fallacy of mixing religion and creation science.  What does a virgin birth have to do with Genesis?  Only the science parts of Book of Genesis is presented.



Cherry picking the Bible? ... shame on you ... but thank you for admitting that the Bible contains severe scientific mistakes ... who is to arbitrate? ... you? ... pride is a sin you know, sounds like you think far to highly of yourself ... are you God's equal to make such pronouncements? ...

What is the volume of water needed to raise sea levels 30,000 feet and flood all the lands? ... bonus questions: where did it come from and where did it go ... Noah's flood is in Genesis, please explain in detail the meteorology that caused it to rain 40 days and 40 nights a volume of water equal to what you calculated for us above ...



james bond said:


> First, you are biased.  There is nothing about evolution that one can test in a lab.
> 
> The evidence is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.  Instead of God, we have Jesus as creator since there was a beginning.  The Kalam Cosmological argument presents the creator since we know there was a beginning by the CMB.  What is also presented is the big bang could not have happened because it defies the laws of physics.  Only astronomers accept it for the most part.



Surprisingly ... you know less about astronomy than you do about Christianity ... the 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to three people who discovered the Big Bang Theory was flat wrong, at least the current statement of the Big Bang Theory at the time ... we have a NEW Big Bang Theory today just waiting for someone to come along and disprove it again ... proper scientific method ...

If you take an Evolutionary Biology course (with lab) at some big university ... the teachers will let you perform experiments that demonstrate evolution ... I'm guessing you missed all the news about Covid-19, but this is a brand new species of virus that just evolved a few months ago ... just a random mutation that probably won't succeed, Coronaviruses rely on their victims surviving so they can be infected again ... Covid-19 is too deadly for it's own good ... if evolution cared about the victims, we wouldn't call them victims ...



james bond said:


> The Bible isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible.  That makes creation science a science.  Nothing in evolution is observable while we can observe the 7 days of creation where one day = 24 hours.



26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 
[spoiling verses 27-30]


Spoiler



27 So God created man in his _own_ image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which _is_ upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which _is_ the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein _there is_ life, _I have given_ every green herb for meat: and it was so.


31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, _it was_ very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

What occurring during the first five days was non-observable ... Man wasn't created himself until Day 6 ... do you ever read the Bible in it's spiritual context? ... just curious is all ... you come across vexed by the flesh of this world ...


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Hollie said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight ... you want _Congress_ deciding how religion is taught? ...
> 
> ( ... wait for it ... )
> 
> There, see what a non-sensical idea this is ... the Catholic Church has more than enough money to bring creation science to fore-front of human advancement ... and when it comes to holding true the notions and ideas of long ago, Catholics have a proven track record ... let's let the _experts_ teach creation science, in their own way and manner ... best to keep it away from government contamination ... "Government can only despoil and ruin, it's its only function" ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science isn't religion nor the fake science of evolution, but real science.  The students will be able to decide for themselves.  It's creation vs. evolution.  For example, it found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  It can be proven by the scientific method.  Real science should be more than a creation vs. evolution forum on these message boards.
> 
> No, the Catholic Church can only teach it in parochial schools, not public.  Thus, you are wrong.  Creation science is the Book of Genesis in a literary context minus the religious parts.  It includes Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel.  No afterlife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label.  The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet real scientists disagree with you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real scientists dont affiliate themselves with quacks from Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.
> 
> Tell us about the "statement of faith" one has to endorse in order to join the cult of AIG?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blowing smoke like that doesn't lend itself to a very productive conversation.  Lisle is a scientist - a REAL scientist.  As for any "_cult_," if you have to join anything to learn some hidden truth, it's probably a lot of B.S.  so I don't know.  I didn't join anything to learn the material.  Did you bother to watch it or do you just like to argue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to discuss real science, get someone who is credible and abides by the Scientific Method. Abiding by a statement of faith that requires one to meet a predefined conclusion is unethical and announces a bias.
> 
> What peer reviewed journals has Lisle submitted to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is very dishonest.  I don't know what "_peer reviewed journals_" Lisle has submitted to.  The real issue is, does he have the education and experience to be called a scientist?   That is more relevant than whether or not a clique group accepts his views.
> 
> Norman Bourlag was an agronomist that studied ways to make wheat produce bigger yields.  His contemporaries tried to discredit him; the Rockefellers told him they would cut funding if he persisted in his studies.  And so he went out on his own.  Soon, the Rockefellers were back in.  Bourlag made significant progress despite having been *negatively* reviewed by his peers.  That is my answer to the value of your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There’s nothing dishonest about asking if Jason Lisle has submitted any work for peer review. It’s a completely fair question given his association with a Christian ministry that requires a “statement of faith”. Such a condition presumes one is not going to be honest in any objective evaluation of the data and has a predefined conclusion.  Such an objective is purely theological, not scientific.
> 
> Religious dogma does not gain currency in any scientific field merely because a creation ministry finds a “scientist” to promote the dogma. We have specific tools that allow us to discriminate between good theories and bad ones. And science is the single most powerful and productive human enterprise in the history of our species only because these tools actually work. While never providing “proof,” they demonstrably move us incrementally towards objective truth. If they did not, then science would not have changed our world as it has, for better or worse. My preference for objectivity and ethics is based (as has been repeatedly pointed out) on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. Your preference, and that of the creation ministries is based (as they admit) purely on which best fits _a priori_ religious commitment.
> 
> A ”clique group” is hardly the correct label for the National Academy of Science, for example. Secondly, what is or is not science has nothing to do with personal biases and religious belief. For an idea to be considered scientific, it must run a continuous gauntlet of testing, replication, and peer review.
> 
> The member of a creation menistry who simply proposes ideas that are intended to conform with the Bibles, without any supporting evidence, reasoning or testing is at best a crackpot, at worst a charlatan.
> 
> So, help us understand which of these Jason Lisle claims to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the joker you are.  You simply do not want to recognize Lisle as being a scientist.  You're scared.  I get that.  The National Academy of Science is just a clique group with a fancy name that has told more than one scientist that their work was _"junk science_" only to be proven wrong.  In 1870 the National Academy of Science agreed with the proposition that there are specific races of mankind.  Today, those who advocate that race is a "_social construct_" are not called out by those same scientists that found differences in races.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Profiling Humans from their Voice
> 
> 
> This book is about recent research in the area of profiling humans from their voice, which seeks to deduce and describe the speaker's entire persona and their surroundings from voice alone. It covers several key aspects of this technology, describing how the human voice is unique in its ability...
> 
> 
> 
> books.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See entry # 101
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lisle being a scientist doesn’t assume he is ethical. Being associated with a Christian ministry that requires a “statement of faith” assures he is _not _ethical. I understand your revulsion for those who don’t unthinkingly accept your religious beliefs as true are categorized as “just a clique group with a fancy name…” but let’s be honest and admit that organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and similar organizations are the entities that further research. What actual research is done by the ICR?
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual _rigor mortis_ of received dogma.
> 
> The gods will punish those in the National Academy of Sciences for what happened in 1870. Hey, wasn't 1870 the time period after the civil war when those god-fearing Baptists lost their slaves?
Click to expand...


LMAO.  You are freaking hilarious.  In grasping for straws you denounce Christians an unethical.  My my. You got a monopoly on human virtue.  How divine of you.  My "_revulsion_?"  Actually humor is hardly revolting.  I could tell you didn't avail yourself of the videos which makes your ignorance even more comical.  The Baptists lost their slaves???  Funny beyond words considering that over 92 percent of the people of that era never owned a slave.  But, go ahead and share some more of that arrogant idiocy.  Grasping at straws and trying to insult me because you cannot sustain a civil conversation is entertaining; in a debate context you would have forfeited on that post.  So, we're down to insults and that is where I accept your concession of defeat and move on.  Thanks for the laughs.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ReinyDays said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is, you use the same experiment that proves you can get something from nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have plenty of Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen and Nitrogen available to form life ... that's something from something ...
Click to expand...


No those are different elements... hardly nothing.


----------



## Hollie

Porter Rockwell said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight ... you want _Congress_ deciding how religion is taught? ...
> 
> ( ... wait for it ... )
> 
> There, see what a non-sensical idea this is ... the Catholic Church has more than enough money to bring creation science to fore-front of human advancement ... and when it comes to holding true the notions and ideas of long ago, Catholics have a proven track record ... let's let the _experts_ teach creation science, in their own way and manner ... best to keep it away from government contamination ... "Government can only despoil and ruin, it's its only function" ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science isn't religion nor the fake science of evolution, but real science.  The students will be able to decide for themselves.  It's creation vs. evolution.  For example, it found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  It can be proven by the scientific method.  Real science should be more than a creation vs. evolution forum on these message boards.
> 
> No, the Catholic Church can only teach it in parochial schools, not public.  Thus, you are wrong.  Creation science is the Book of Genesis in a literary context minus the religious parts.  It includes Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel.  No afterlife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label.  The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet real scientists disagree with you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real scientists dont affiliate themselves with quacks from Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.
> 
> Tell us about the "statement of faith" one has to endorse in order to join the cult of AIG?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blowing smoke like that doesn't lend itself to a very productive conversation.  Lisle is a scientist - a REAL scientist.  As for any "_cult_," if you have to join anything to learn some hidden truth, it's probably a lot of B.S.  so I don't know.  I didn't join anything to learn the material.  Did you bother to watch it or do you just like to argue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to discuss real science, get someone who is credible and abides by the Scientific Method. Abiding by a statement of faith that requires one to meet a predefined conclusion is unethical and announces a bias.
> 
> What peer reviewed journals has Lisle submitted to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is very dishonest.  I don't know what "_peer reviewed journals_" Lisle has submitted to.  The real issue is, does he have the education and experience to be called a scientist?   That is more relevant than whether or not a clique group accepts his views.
> 
> Norman Bourlag was an agronomist that studied ways to make wheat produce bigger yields.  His contemporaries tried to discredit him; the Rockefellers told him they would cut funding if he persisted in his studies.  And so he went out on his own.  Soon, the Rockefellers were back in.  Bourlag made significant progress despite having been *negatively* reviewed by his peers.  That is my answer to the value of your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There’s nothing dishonest about asking if Jason Lisle has submitted any work for peer review. It’s a completely fair question given his association with a Christian ministry that requires a “statement of faith”. Such a condition presumes one is not going to be honest in any objective evaluation of the data and has a predefined conclusion.  Such an objective is purely theological, not scientific.
> 
> Religious dogma does not gain currency in any scientific field merely because a creation ministry finds a “scientist” to promote the dogma. We have specific tools that allow us to discriminate between good theories and bad ones. And science is the single most powerful and productive human enterprise in the history of our species only because these tools actually work. While never providing “proof,” they demonstrably move us incrementally towards objective truth. If they did not, then science would not have changed our world as it has, for better or worse. My preference for objectivity and ethics is based (as has been repeatedly pointed out) on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. Your preference, and that of the creation ministries is based (as they admit) purely on which best fits _a priori_ religious commitment.
> 
> A ”clique group” is hardly the correct label for the National Academy of Science, for example. Secondly, what is or is not science has nothing to do with personal biases and religious belief. For an idea to be considered scientific, it must run a continuous gauntlet of testing, replication, and peer review.
> 
> The member of a creation menistry who simply proposes ideas that are intended to conform with the Bibles, without any supporting evidence, reasoning or testing is at best a crackpot, at worst a charlatan.
> 
> So, help us understand which of these Jason Lisle claims to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the joker you are.  You simply do not want to recognize Lisle as being a scientist.  You're scared.  I get that.  The National Academy of Science is just a clique group with a fancy name that has told more than one scientist that their work was _"junk science_" only to be proven wrong.  In 1870 the National Academy of Science agreed with the proposition that there are specific races of mankind.  Today, those who advocate that race is a "_social construct_" are not called out by those same scientists that found differences in races.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Profiling Humans from their Voice
> 
> 
> This book is about recent research in the area of profiling humans from their voice, which seeks to deduce and describe the speaker's entire persona and their surroundings from voice alone. It covers several key aspects of this technology, describing how the human voice is unique in its ability...
> 
> 
> 
> books.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See entry # 101
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lisle being a scientist doesn’t assume he is ethical. Being associated with a Christian ministry that requires a “statement of faith” assures he is _not _ethical. I understand your revulsion for those who don’t unthinkingly accept your religious beliefs as true are categorized as “just a clique group with a fancy name…” but let’s be honest and admit that organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and similar organizations are the entities that further research. What actual research is done by the ICR?
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual _rigor mortis_ of received dogma.
> 
> The gods will punish those in the National Academy of Sciences for what happened in 1870. Hey, wasn't 1870 the time period after the civil war when those god-fearing Baptists lost their slaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO.  You are freaking hilarious.  In grasping for straws you denounce Christians an unethical.  My my. You got a monopoly on human virtue.  How divine of you.  My "_revulsion_?"  Actually humor is hardly revolting.  I could tell you didn't avail yourself of the videos which makes your ignorance even more comical.  The Baptists lost their slaves???  Funny beyond words considering that over 92 percent of the people of that era never owned a slave.  But, go ahead and share some more of that arrogant idiocy.  Grasping at straws and trying to insult me because you cannot sustain a civil conversation is entertaining; in a debate context you would have forfeited on that post.  So, we're down to insults and that is where I accept your concession of defeat and move on.  Thanks for the laughs.
Click to expand...

If you’re going to use the juvenile “I accept your concession of defeat and move on”, do move on. It’s a cowardly tactic but one I’ve seen from creationists when creationists dump silly YouTube videos in a thread and expect others to take that seriously.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> We have plenty of Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen and Nitrogen available to form life ... that's something from something ...





			Miller-Urey Experiment
		


Give it a try with those gases you listed.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> Cherry picking the Bible? ... shame on you ... but thank you for admitting that the Bible contains severe scientific mistakes ... who is to arbitrate? ... you? ... pride is a sin you know, sounds like you think far to highly of yourself ... are you God's equal to make such pronouncements? ...
> 
> What is the volume of water needed to raise sea levels 30,000 feet and flood all the lands? ... bonus questions: where did it come from and where did it go ... Noah's flood is in Genesis, please explain in detail the meteorology that caused it to rain 40 days and 40 nights a volume of water equal to what you calculated for us above ...



The Bible contains no mistakes.  It's you who is wrong.  It's you who is mistaken.  I can tell by the way you talk.

What is the volume of water one needs to flood the lands?  How do you get 30,000 feet?  Why don't you tell us?

Anyway, the water came from above and below with 40 days and 40 nights of rain and water coming up from beneath the seafloor, magma, mountain ridges, and fountains of the deep.

Read it and weep.  You were mistaken and not the Bible.  Science backs up the Bible.  Not your statements.

'*Triggering of Deep Earthquakes*

The authors also found that the pressure could reach as high as 200,000 atmospheres. The research team therefore suggested that this new water may be under so much pressure that it can trigger earthquakes hundreds of kilometers below the Earth’s surface, tremors whose origins have so far remained unexplained. “We observed the water to be at high pressure, which might lead to the possibility of induced earthquakes,” says Tse.7


The earthquakes could be triggered as the water finally escapes from the crystals. The occurrence of deep earthquakes in the uppermost mantle lithosphere beneath stable cratons (the foundational cores of continents) are known but remain enigmatic in their origin.8 For example, the 2013 Wind River (Wyoming) earthquake occurred at 75 ± 8 kilometers, well beneath the base of the crust, suggesting that it represented brittle failure at high temperatures in the rock of the mantle lithosphere. However, the triggering mechanism for such brittle failure in the stable mantle lithosphere remained a mystery.


These new computer simulations by this research team have now shown that the over-pressured water from the reaction between silica and hydrogen could be a possible trigger for initiating deep earthquakes in the mantle lithosphere below the continents. Other researchers agree, such as John Ludden, executive director of the British Geological Survey.9 But obviously further research is needed to quantify the amount of released water needed for triggering such deep earthquakes.

*The Source of Earth’s Water?*

However, what is even more significant is that this research team suggests that their findings may also inform us on how our planet got its water to start with. “As long as the supply of hydrogen can be sustained, one can speculate that water formed from this process could be a contributor to the origin of water during Earth’s early accretion,” says Tse. “Water formed in the mantle can reach the surface via multiple ways, for example, carried by magma in the form of volcanic activities.”10


And it is also possible that water is still being made this way deep inside Earth today. This “study highlights how the minerals that make up Earth’s mantle can incorporate large amounts of water, and how Earth is probably ‘wet’ in some sense all the way down to its core,” says Lydia Hallis at the University of Glasgow, UK.11

*Not a New Discovery*

However, this latest announcement is hardly new, considering numerous studies published over more than two and a half decades have found evidence of several oceans’ worth of water locked up in mantle rocks and minerals.


Even as recently as November 2016 there was news of the discovery of water in an inclusion within a diamond claimed to have come to the Earth’s surface from 1,000 kilometers down in the mantle.12 An international team had studied a diamond found in the São Luíz River system in Juina, Brazil, and found a sealed-off mineral inclusion that became trapped during the diamond’s formation.13


When the researchers took a closer look at this inclusion with infrared microscopy, they saw the unmistakable presence of hydroxyl ions (OH-), which normally come from water. They identified the mineral as ferropericlase, which consists of iron and magnesium oxide and can also absorb other metals such as chromium, aluminum, and titanium at the ultra-high temperatures and pressures of the lower mantle.




> Water clearly has a role in plate tectonics, and we didn’t know before how deep these effects could reach.



According to team member Steve Jacobsen of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, the clincher was that, since the inclusion was trapped in the diamond the whole time, the water signature can only have come from the diamond’s place of formation in the lower mantle.14 “This is the deepest evidence for water recycling on the planet,” Jacobsen said. “The big take-home message is that the water cycle on Earth is bigger than we ever thought, extending into the deep mantle. Water clearly has a role in plate tectonics, and we didn’t know before how deep these effects could reach. It has implications for the origin of water on the planet.”15

*Earlier Discoveries*

Back in 2014 we reported on another similar study.16 In that instance, it was water found in the mineral ringwoodite discovered as an inclusion in another Brazilian diamond.17 In one news report, based on a relevant related study,18 it was even suggested that a reservoir of water three times the volume of all the oceans had thus been discovered 700 kilometers down beneath the Earth’s surface, which is good evidence that at least some of Earth’s water came from within.19


Furthermore, all these recently published studies are but the culmination of a long history of investigations of samples of mantle rocks and minerals brought to the Earth’s surface by volcanism coupled with studies of deep earthquakes.20 The collective conclusion is that there are vast amounts of water stored in the Earth’s mantle within its minerals. And not only does that water assist in mantle convection, plate movements, and volcanism, but that water can also be released onto the Earth’s surface via volcanic activity. “In fact, more than 400 kilometres inside the Earth there may be enough water to replace the surface oceans more than ten times”!21

*The Implications*

Yet Raymond Jeanloz of the University of California at Berkeley cannot fathom “a sudden outpouring of water, Noah-style . . . even if the balance does tilt to a greater outflow.”22 Thus it is only his evolutionary bias that precludes him accepting that a catastrophic outburst of water under pressure in the mantle could have occurred as “Noah-style” fountains, just as the Bible describes!


Therefore, it is plainly obvious that the Genesis account’s statement that the cataclysmic global Flood began with “the fountains of the great deep” being broken up (Genesis 7:11) is a vivid description of a catastrophic outbursting of water to the Earth’s surface. It is also obvious that water had been stored under pressure deep in the mantle during the pre-Flood era. Such outbursting of water would have accompanied an upwelling of plumes of mantle materials that melted as they rose to erupt and produce catastrophic volcanism. Under the oceans, the erupted lavas produced new ocean floor. On the continents, the humungous outpourings of lava flows and explosions of volcanic ash layers were deposited in between rapidly accumulating, fossil-burying sedimentary layers. The extra water that poured from the fountains added to rising sea level because of the upward push of the new, hot, buoyant ocean floor so that the ocean water was able to flood the continents. The earthquakes from these upheavals added tsunami-like surges of ocean waters to the rising flood, which deposited sediment layers right across the continents, burying critters as fossils.


Furthermore, the outbursts of mantle water through a vast global network of fractures split apart the original pre-Flood supercontinent into “tectonic plates.”23 The water inside the mantle lowered the viscosity of the mantle material (made the material less “thick”) so that it helped to move the tectonic plates across the Earth’s surface, producing the rapid-moving plate tectonics of the Flood event.24




> The Bible’s description of that outbursting event is merely confirmed by the latest findings of the secular scientists.



So the waters that came from inside the Earth, combined with the waters in the original, created oceans to produce the Genesis Flood. The Bible’s description of that outbursting event is merely confirmed by the latest findings of the secular scientists. We can always absolutely trust the veracity of the Genesis account of the cataclysmic global Flood of Noah’s day and its history back to the creation in its very first verse. Thus the bulk of the Earth’s ocean waters did not originally come from the mantle, but were created by God already in place “in the beginning.”'









						From Where Did the Earth’s Water Come?
					

“Planet Earth makes its own water from scratch deep in the mantle” was the article headline in the January 27, 2017, New Scientist’s Daily News.




					answersingenesis.org


----------



## james bond

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reptiles were laying eggs long before chickens existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got a link?  How does one know?
> 
> Here's mine -- Duck ancestors roamed Earth with dinosaurs.
> 
> The reptiles came first before their egg.  God created adult creatures including humans.  The only baby was Baby Jesus.  T
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even you started from an egg you moron!
Click to expand...


You need to pull you head out of your dumb ass.  Before the egg had to be a man and woman you dipshit.  I can figure these things out while you just have to sit on your dumb ass and listen.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia - 2 billion year old cyanobacteria were setting the stage for egg development ... an interesting article if you're interested on where and when the development of eggs came about ... "Many protists reproduce sexually, as do the multicellular plants, animals, and fungi. In the eukaryotic fossil record, sexual reproduction first appeared by 1.2 billion years ago in the Proterozoic Eon. All sexually reproducing eukaryotic organisms likely derive from a single-celled common ancestor. It is probable that the evolution of sex was an integral part of the evolution of the first eukaryotic cell. There are a few species which have secondarily lost this feature, such as _Bdelloidea_ and some parthenocarpic plants." ... in-line citations can be found at the source linked to above ...
> 
> Eggs pre-date life on land by 700 million years ...



There was no evolution of sexual reproduction.  You can't believe that worthless biased atheist website called wikipedia.  It was founded by a pornographer.

"Scientists have found proof that the first chicken came before the first egg,[32] consistent with a special creation of chickens but not with a gradual descent with modifications from a proto-chicken and proto-egg."

MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos 

Try this one.  It's more accurate.




__





						Counterexamples to Evolution - Conservapedia
					






					www.conservapedia.com


----------



## gtopa1

Hollie said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight ... you want _Congress_ deciding how religion is taught? ...
> 
> ( ... wait for it ... )
> 
> There, see what a non-sensical idea this is ... the Catholic Church has more than enough money to bring creation science to fore-front of human advancement ... and when it comes to holding true the notions and ideas of long ago, Catholics have a proven track record ... let's let the _experts_ teach creation science, in their own way and manner ... best to keep it away from government contamination ... "Government can only despoil and ruin, it's its only function" ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science isn't religion nor the fake science of evolution, but real science.  The students will be able to decide for themselves.  It's creation vs. evolution.  For example, it found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  It can be proven by the scientific method.  Real science should be more than a creation vs. evolution forum on these message boards.
> 
> No, the Catholic Church can only teach it in parochial schools, not public.  Thus, you are wrong.  Creation science is the Book of Genesis in a literary context minus the religious parts.  It includes Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel.  No afterlife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label.  The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet real scientists disagree with you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real scientists dont affiliate themselves with quacks from Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.
> 
> Tell us about the "statement of faith" one has to endorse in order to join the cult of AIG?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blowing smoke like that doesn't lend itself to a very productive conversation.  Lisle is a scientist - a REAL scientist.  As for any "_cult_," if you have to join anything to learn some hidden truth, it's probably a lot of B.S.  so I don't know.  I didn't join anything to learn the material.  Did you bother to watch it or do you just like to argue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to discuss real science, get someone who is credible and abides by the Scientific Method. Abiding by a statement of faith that requires one to meet a predefined conclusion is unethical and announces a bias.
> 
> What peer reviewed journals has Lisle submitted to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is very dishonest.  I don't know what "_peer reviewed journals_" Lisle has submitted to.  The real issue is, does he have the education and experience to be called a scientist?   That is more relevant than whether or not a clique group accepts his views.
> 
> Norman Bourlag was an agronomist that studied ways to make wheat produce bigger yields.  His contemporaries tried to discredit him; the Rockefellers told him they would cut funding if he persisted in his studies.  And so he went out on his own.  Soon, the Rockefellers were back in.  Bourlag made significant progress despite having been *negatively* reviewed by his peers.  That is my answer to the value of your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There’s nothing dishonest about asking if Jason Lisle has submitted any work for peer review. It’s a completely fair question given his association with a Christian ministry that requires a “statement of faith”. Such a condition presumes one is not going to be honest in any objective evaluation of the data and has a predefined conclusion.  Such an objective is purely theological, not scientific.
> 
> Religious dogma does not gain currency in any scientific field merely because a creation ministry finds a “scientist” to promote the dogma. We have specific tools that allow us to discriminate between good theories and bad ones. And science is the single most powerful and productive human enterprise in the history of our species only because these tools actually work. While never providing “proof,” they demonstrably move us incrementally towards objective truth. If they did not, then science would not have changed our world as it has, for better or worse. My preference for objectivity and ethics is based (as has been repeatedly pointed out) on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. Your preference, and that of the creation ministries is based (as they admit) purely on which best fits _a priori_ religious commitment.
> 
> A ”clique group” is hardly the correct label for the National Academy of Science, for example. Secondly, what is or is not science has nothing to do with personal biases and religious belief. For an idea to be considered scientific, it must run a continuous gauntlet of testing, replication, and peer review.
> 
> The member of a creation menistry who simply proposes ideas that are intended to conform with the Bibles, without any supporting evidence, reasoning or testing is at best a crackpot, at worst a charlatan.
> 
> So, help us understand which of these Jason Lisle claims to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the joker you are.  You simply do not want to recognize Lisle as being a scientist.  You're scared.  I get that.  The National Academy of Science is just a clique group with a fancy name that has told more than one scientist that their work was _"junk science_" only to be proven wrong.  In 1870 the National Academy of Science agreed with the proposition that there are specific races of mankind.  Today, those who advocate that race is a "_social construct_" are not called out by those same scientists that found differences in races.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Profiling Humans from their Voice
> 
> 
> This book is about recent research in the area of profiling humans from their voice, which seeks to deduce and describe the speaker's entire persona and their surroundings from voice alone. It covers several key aspects of this technology, describing how the human voice is unique in its ability...
> 
> 
> 
> books.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See entry # 101
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lisle being a scientist doesn’t assume he is ethical. Being associated with a Christian ministry that requires a “statement of faith” assures he is _not _ethical. I understand your revulsion for those who don’t unthinkingly accept your religious beliefs as true are categorized as “just a clique group with a fancy name…” but let’s be honest and admit that organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and similar organizations are the entities that further research. What actual research is done by the ICR?
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual _rigor mortis_ of received dogma.
> 
> The gods will punish those in the National Academy of Sciences for what happened in 1870. Hey, wasn't 1870 the time period after the civil war when those god-fearing Baptists lost their slaves?
Click to expand...

"Being associated with a Christian ministry that requires a “statement of faith” assures he is _not _ethical."

You have made one of the most stupid, arrogant and grossly wrong statements I have ever read. Congratulation; you have won the trifecta of ignorant!!

Greg


----------



## gtopa1

james bond said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reptiles were laying eggs long before chickens existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got a link?  How does one know?
> 
> Here's mine -- Duck ancestors roamed Earth with dinosaurs.
> 
> The reptiles came first before their egg.  God created adult creatures including humans.  The only baby was Baby Jesus.  T
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even you started from an egg you moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to pull you head out of your dumb ass.  Before the egg had to be a man and woman you dipshit.  I can figure these things out while you just have to sit on your dumb ass and listen.
Click to expand...

WRONG!!! gametes predated humans by many millions of years...so the gametes came first. 

*Human Sperm Gene Traced to Dawn of Animal Evolution









						Human Sperm Gene Traced to Dawn of Animal Evolution
					

The gene responsible for sperm in all sexual creatures dates to the beginning of animal evolution—and may be a key to the elusive male birth control pill, a new study says.




					www.nationalgeographic.com
				




Greg*


----------



## gtopa1

ReinyDays said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg.  Nonbelievers are still stuck with coming up with an ultimate origination point for the elements they say evolved into what we have today.  You simply cannot get something from nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why scientific theories, including evolution, are written in pencil ... as we learn new things, we can change the theory ... this is acceptable scientific method ...
> 
> I believe in Creation ... but I don't treat as science ... there's absolutely nothing in the Bible that requires me to treat Creation as science ... the main failure is that science requires that what we study be observable, be measurable and be able to repeat ... who was available to observe the Creation? ... the beast of the fields and Man was created days later ... how are we measuring Creation? ... what objective scale do we use for miracles? ...
> 
> Finally, the Creation was a unique event ... the Bible doesn't say God created a heaven and an earth and found it to be bad, destroyed it all and created a new heaven and earth and just kept trying until He found a Heaven and Earth that was good ... there's no reason to believe Creation can be repeated ...
> 
> Again I ask ... what experiment can we conduct to demonstrate the virgin birth? ...
Click to expand...

The virgin birth??



> Kaplan told the meeting of the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 2 July that about half of the 725 eggs survived the injection procedure and 102 of them formed two polar bodies and two pronuclei, each with a half-complement of chromosomes. Of those "fertilized" eggs, 47 developed into clumps of cells called morulae and 13 went on to form blastocysts--a hollow ball of a few hundred cells that normally implant themselves in the uterus. None of the embryos were implanted into the uterus of a mouse, so the team doesn't know whether animals could be born from this technique.
> 
> The result is interesting from a cell biology perspective, says cloning pioneer Ian Wilmut of the Roslin Institute outside Edinburgh, Scotland. However, he notes, producing a blastocyst is a long way from producing live offspring--only a tiny percentage of implanted cloned blastocysts survive. "There could still be chromosome damage and breakage," he says, that would interrupt development at a later stage.







__





						Science | AAAS
					






					www.sciencemag.org
				




That's just for a start. However, I consider such experiments in humans as unethical.



> Yes, in theory. However, a number of rare events would have to occur in close succession, and the chances of these all happening in real life are virtually zero. For a virgin to get pregnant, one of her eggs would have to produce, on its own, the biochemical changes indicative of fertilization, and then divide abnormally to compensate for the lack of sperm DNA. That’s the easy part: These two events occur in the eggs or egg precursor cells of one out of every few thousand women. But the egg would also need to be carrying at least two specific genetic deletions to produce a viable offspring.











						Is it possible for a virgin to give birth?
					

During the holidays, Christians celebrate the birth of a human baby to his virginal mother. We know that female wasps, fish, birds, and lizards can...




					slate.com
				




Theoretically yes. 

Greg


----------



## gtopa1

james bond said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reptiles were laying eggs long before chickens existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got a link?  How does one know?
> 
> Here's mine -- Duck ancestors roamed Earth with dinosaurs.
> 
> The reptiles came first before their egg.  God created adult creatures including humans.  The only baby was Baby Jesus.  T
Click to expand...


Logically incorrect. You must understand that the "FIRST" of any species must have had mutations not the same as its parents. So a duck precursor was not a duck but its eggs and sperm genetically mutated pre-fertilisation  or even post fertilisation but before cell division to form gametes or a  zygote that was a duck.

Greg


----------



## james bond

gtopa1 said:


> WRONG!!! gametes predated humans by many millions of years...so the gametes came first.



Naw, you're wrong.  We know before there were humans to produce the sperm and egg.  The fact that you are flesh and BLOOD means you need a complete human first.  Else what you CLAIM is true, then we'd see life just happen all over the place.  National Geographic is not the greatest source to put one's afterlife on haha.


----------



## james bond

gtopa1 said:


> Logically incorrect. You must understand that the "FIRST" of any species must have had mutations not the same as its parents. So a duck precursor was not a duck but its eggs and sperm genetically mutated pre-fertilisation or even post fertilisation but before cell division to form gametes or a zygote that was a duck.
> 
> Greg



Like I said atheists are usually wrong, wrong, wrong.  Yours is hypothesis based on what the atheist scientists told you based on their atheist religious principle of no God.  None of can be observed nor demonstrated.  This accounts for all the crackpot ideas we are subject to and how science has gone false since the 1850s.


----------



## gtopa1

james bond said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logically incorrect. You must understand that the "FIRST" of any species must have had mutations not the same as its parents. So a duck precursor was not a duck but its eggs and sperm genetically mutated pre-fertilisation or even post fertilisation but before cell division to form gametes or a zygote that was a duck.
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said atheists are usually wrong, wrong, wrong.  Yours is hypothesis based on what the atheist scientists told you based on their atheist religious principle of no God.  None of can be observed nor demonstrated.  This accounts for all the crackpot ideas we are subject to and how science has gone false since the 1850s.
Click to expand...


I try not to confuse Religion and Science. Enough do that already. One can observe through various means that mutations occur. That Evolution tries to make sense of speciation using genetics is interesting. Does it particularly matter? I am much more concerned about gene treatments and so on including their mechanisms...or at least I was. I'm too close to retirement now to bother. An understanding of what Science is is something many Scientists aren't good at. 

Greg


----------



## ReinyDays

gtopa1 said:


> I try not to confuse Religion and Science. Enough do that already. One can observe through various means that mutations occur. That Evolution tries to make sense of speciation using genetics is interesting. Does it particularly matter? I am much more concerned about gene treatments and so on including their mechanisms...or at least I was. I'm too close to retirement now to bother. An understanding of what Science is is something many Scientists aren't good at.
> 
> Greg



I find that people who argue evolution vs. creation know very little of either ... 

I use science to decide when and what to plant in my garden ... I use religion to decide who gets the food I grow ... both have rolls in our lives ...


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logically incorrect. You must understand that the "FIRST" of any species must have had mutations not the same as its parents. So a duck precursor was not a duck but its eggs and sperm genetically mutated pre-fertilisation or even post fertilisation but before cell division to form gametes or a zygote that was a duck.
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said atheists are usually wrong, wrong, wrong.  Yours is hypothesis based on what the atheist scientists told you based on their atheist religious principle of no God.  None of can be observed nor demonstrated.  This accounts for all the crackpot ideas we are subject to and how science has gone false since the 1850s.
Click to expand...

All your usual bumper sticker slogans. 

While you're repulsed by the advancement of science since the 1850’s, nothing requires you to accept the advances in health, medicine, exploration, knowledge, etc.  

The next time you’re sick, rattle bones for a cure.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> All your usual bumper sticker slogans.
> While you're repulsed by the advancement of science since the 1850’s, nothing requires you to accept the advances in health, medicine, exploration, knowledge, etc.
> The next time you’re sick, rattle bones for a cure.



He's using the internet to condemn the internet ... the Bible warns us about hypocrisy ... hating on electromagnetism, too funny ...


----------



## james bond

gtopa1 said:


> I try not to confuse Religion and Science. Enough do that already. One can observe through various means that mutations occur. That Evolution tries to make sense of speciation using genetics is interesting. Does it particularly matter? I am much more concerned about gene treatments and so on including their mechanisms...or at least I was. I'm too close to retirement now to bother. An understanding of what Science is is something many Scientists aren't good at.
> 
> Greg



I do not confuse religion and creation science.  I use real science that backs up Genesis in the Bible.

Yet, you have done an excellent job with atheist science.  That is fake science.  The Earth and universe aren't billions of years old.  Nothing lasts that long in space.  The planetary bodies collide, explode, speed away, sucked into black holes, and face other gravitational effects.  It is common sense that rocks and fossils do not last that long due to weathering, chemical reactions, and mechanical pressure.  Just look at the catastrophes that happened on the planet already.  Your atheist scientists claim AGW and large asteroid hits and comets brought megatons of ice to this planet to cover it with surface water.  Even the supercontinent broke up and the remains are slowly drifting apart.  We are in in entropy, so no system can last that long.

Before this, you thought the universe lasted forever , but that was proven to be pseudoscience.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> All your usual bumper sticker slogans.
> While you're repulsed by the advancement of science since the 1850’s, nothing requires you to accept the advances in health, medicine, exploration, knowledge, etc.
> The next time you’re sick, rattle bones for a cure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's using the internet to condemn the internet ... the Bible warns us about hypocrisy ... hating on electromagnetism, too funny ...
Click to expand...


Now, you mixing up what the posters said.  You have been shook to the core and become confused.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I try not to confuse Religion and Science. Enough do that already. One can observe through various means that mutations occur. That Evolution tries to make sense of speciation using genetics is interesting. Does it particularly matter? I am much more concerned about gene treatments and so on including their mechanisms...or at least I was. I'm too close to retirement now to bother. An understanding of what Science is is something many Scientists aren't good at.
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not confuse religion and creation science.  I use real science that backs up Genesis in the Bible.
> 
> Yet, you have done an excellent job with atheist science.  That is fake science.  The Earth and universe aren't billions of years old.  Nothing lasts that long in space.  The planetary bodies collide, explode, speed away, sucked into black holes, and face other gravitational effects.  It is common sense that rocks and fossils do not last that long due to weathering, chemical reactions, and mechanical pressure.  Just look at the catastrophes that happened on the planet already.  Your atheist scientists claim AGW and large asteroid hits and comets brought megatons of ice to this planet to cover it with surface water.  Even the supercontinent broke up and the remains are slowly drifting apart.  We are in in entropy, so no system can last that long.
> 
> Before this, you thought the universe lasted forever , but that was proven to be pseudoscience.
Click to expand...

Science doesn’t back up the Bibles. That’s why you have never been able to support that comment.


----------



## Likkmee

Creation is obvious FACT. Science is timeline challenged


----------



## Likkmee




----------



## Damaged Eagle

ReinyDays said:


> "In the beginning, God created heaven and Earth" ...
> 
> How do we test this in a lab? ...








How do you test the theory of the universe suddenly coming into existence from nowhere?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Newtonian

MisterBeale said:


> The OP is having a difficult time with what is "scientific" i.e. what is empirical, and what is not.
> 
> Synonyms of empirical | Thesaurus.com
> 
> *empirical*
> [ em-pir-i-kuhl ]SEE DEFINITION OF _empirical_
> 
> experimental
> factual
> observational
> empiric
> experient
> experiential
> observed
> pragmatic
> provisional
> speculative
> 
> 
> 
> And the opposite?
> 
> Antonyms for _empirical_
> 
> 
> conjectural
> hypothetical
> impractical
> theoretic
> theoretical
> unobserved
> unproved



Or, simply stated in the Bible  - 1 Thessalonians 5:21 KJV: "Prove all things."

In the U.S. generally there is separation of "church and state."   Some things taught by creationists are actually religious doctrines.   Those of my religion disagree with many of them on the length of a creative day in Genesis chapter 1 - clearly the vast carbonate deposits in earth's crust were not deposited in one week - the geologic carbon cycle cannot proceed that fast.

However, schools go too far in teaching what are actually religious doctrines (or unproved speculations which they have faith in) as scientific facts.   

Ice age models for one of many examples.    The actual evidence in the arctic permafrost is a sudden  and permanent (until the current global warming) change in climate - not a process involving thousands of years.   Study of plant species which now extinct bison, horse and mammoth grazed on before quick and permanent freezing for example.

But those of my religion agree with separation of church and state - we teach our children the truth at home.   And  our literature is careful about accuracy of statement - though, or course, subject to human imperfection (which applies to all humans and all groups of humans including scientists).


----------



## Newtonian

Damaged Eagle said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In the beginning, God created heaven and Earth" ...
> 
> How do we test this in a lab? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 327394
> 
> How do you test the theory of the universe suddenly coming into existence from nowhere?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


The universe did not come from nowhere.   That would violate both the law of conservation of matter and energy and also the scientific observation of cause and effect.

Sadly, some schools teach the 'singularity' came from nothing with no cause - this is an example of blind faith.

The Divine Name Jehovah contains a Hebrew verb for "to be" in the causative sense so that a basic definition of this name is "He causes to be."

God is the ultimate cause - a collision of two 2-d branes edge on may have been the immediate cause of the singularity - but this was a fine tuned collision which resulted in the fine tuned properties (and laws) of our universe which allowed stars and life as we know it to be created and to exist.


----------



## ReinyDays

Newtonian said:


> The universe did not come from nowhere.   That would violate both the law of conservation of matter and energy and also the scientific observation of cause and effect.
> 
> Sadly, some schools teach the 'singularity' came from nothing with no cause - this is an example of blind faith.
> 
> The Divine Name Jehovah contains a Hebrew verb for "to be" in the causative sense so that a basic definition of this name is "He causes to be."
> 
> God is the ultimate cause - a collision of two 2-d branes edge on may have been the immediate cause of the singularity - but this was a fine tuned collision which resulted in the fine tuned properties (and laws) of our universe which allowed stars and life as we know it to be created and to exist.



These are well known issues with current theories ... among many many others ... and they're well documented, _blind_ faith is unfair, we make _assumptions_ ...

Obviously airplanes fly ... why would you say this belief is blind? ... yes, the properties of an airfoil are based on the assumption Navier-Stokes is true, and that's never been proven to be so ... 

Singularities cannot exist under Quantum Mechanics ... why do you think they do exist? ... just curious ...


----------



## Hollie

Another affirmation that Christian fundamentalism has no place in public schools.










						The Trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover
					

"Intelligent Design" is a religious view, not a scientific theory, according to U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III in his historic decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover.




					www.aclu.org
				




“Intelligent Design" is a religious view, not a scientific theory, according to U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III in his historic decision in _Kitzmiller v. Dover_.

The decision is a victory not only for the ACLU, who led the legal challenge, but for all who believe it is in appropriate, and unconstitutional, to advance a particular religious belief at the expense of our children's education
​


----------



## Hollie

Newtonian said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In the beginning, God created heaven and Earth" ...
> 
> How do we test this in a lab? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 327394
> 
> How do you test the theory of the universe suddenly coming into existence from nowhere?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The universe did not come from nowhere.   That would violate both the law of conservation of matter and energy and also the scientific observation of cause and effect.
> 
> Sadly, some schools teach the 'singularity' came from nothing with no cause - this is an example of blind faith.
> 
> The Divine Name Jehovah contains a Hebrew verb for "to be" in the causative sense so that a basic definition of this name is "He causes to be."
> 
> God is the ultimate cause - a collision of two 2-d branes edge on may have been the immediate cause of the singularity - but this was a fine tuned collision which resulted in the fine tuned properties (and laws) of our universe which allowed stars and life as we know it to be created and to exist.
Click to expand...


Im not aware of any schools teach the 'singularity' came from nothing with no cause.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

james bond said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reptiles were laying eggs long before chickens existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got a link?  How does one know?
> 
> Here's mine -- Duck ancestors roamed Earth with dinosaurs.
> 
> The reptiles came first before their egg.  God created adult creatures including humans.  The only baby was Baby Jesus.  T
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even you started from an egg you moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to pull you head out of your dumb ass.  Before the egg had to be a man and woman you dipshit.  I can figure these things out while you just have to sit on your dumb ass and listen.
Click to expand...


As I said before, which you obviously are too stupid to understand, reptiles had the first 'eggs".


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Newtonian said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In the beginning, God created heaven and Earth" ...
> 
> How do we test this in a lab? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 327394
> 
> How do you test the theory of the universe suddenly coming into existence from nowhere?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The universe did not come from nowhere.   That would violate both the law of conservation of matter and energy and also the scientific observation of cause and effect.
> 
> Sadly, some schools teach the 'singularity' came from nothing with no cause - this is an example of blind faith.
> 
> The Divine Name Jehovah contains a Hebrew verb for "to be" in the causative sense so that a basic definition of this name is "He causes to be."
> 
> God is the ultimate cause - a collision of two 2-d branes edge on may have been the immediate cause of the singularity - but this was a fine tuned collision which resulted in the fine tuned properties (and laws) of our universe which allowed stars and life as we know it to be created and to exist.
Click to expand...





Anything prior to the big bang is simply conjecture or shall I say theory. Theories are just that theories not fact. There is no proof other than some vague theories about what kick started the universe. It is much like creation that the Bible teaches that many people have faith in and the Bible is much more poetic about it...

"In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters.
God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light."

*****SMILE*****


----------



## james bond

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> As I said before, which you obviously are too stupid to understand, reptiles had the first 'eggs".



I've read many said the same thing of you and agree with them.


----------



## Indeependent

james bond said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, which you obviously are too stupid to understand, reptiles had the first 'eggs".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read many said the same thing of you and agree with them.
Click to expand...

Relax...I've never met an athiest who has read any Bible verse word for word, let alone why the word has a prefix, a suffix and what the root of the words actually mean.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

james bond said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, which you obviously are too stupid to understand, reptiles had the first 'eggs".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read many said the same thing of you and agree with them.
Click to expand...


Well, opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one and they all stink!


----------



## LittleNipper

What should be taught are KNOWN facts without conjecture of any kind. That said, it is observable fact that the volcanic eruption of Mount St. Helen demonstrated that strata and gorges/canyons can form very quickly and do not have to take millions of years of erosion. If a man such as Ben Stein can perceive that there is a major problem with secularism and  pervasive atheistic opinion getting total support and having full control, then there must be a problem:


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> What should be taught are KNOWN facts without conjecture of any kind. That said, it is observable fact that the volcanic eruption of Mount St. Helen demonstrated that strata and gorges/canyons can form very quickly and do not have to take millions of years of erosion. If a man such as Ben Stein can perceive that there is a major problem with secularism and  pervasive atheistic opinion getting total support and having full control, then there must be a problem:


When was Ben Stein assigned the title of "Grand Master of All Things secularism and  pervasive atheistic opinions"?


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What should be taught are KNOWN facts without conjecture of any kind. That said, it is observable fact that the volcanic eruption of Mount St. Helen demonstrated that strata and gorges/canyons can form very quickly and do not have to take millions of years of erosion. If a man such as Ben Stein can perceive that there is a major problem with secularism and  pervasive atheistic opinion getting total support and having full control, then there must be a problem:
> 
> 
> 
> When was Ben Stein assigned the title of "Grand Master of All Things secularism and  pervasive atheistic opinions"?
Click to expand...

When was anybody? Mr. Stein is expressing his opinion and I concur with his assessment.  The science community has been hijacked by authorities who want no part of anything or one that will undermine their position and control.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What should be taught are KNOWN facts without conjecture of any kind. That said, it is observable fact that the volcanic eruption of Mount St. Helen demonstrated that strata and gorges/canyons can form very quickly and do not have to take millions of years of erosion. If a man such as Ben Stein can perceive that there is a major problem with secularism and  pervasive atheistic opinion getting total support and having full control, then there must be a problem:
> 
> 
> 
> When was Ben Stein assigned the title of "Grand Master of All Things secularism and  pervasive atheistic opinions"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was anybody?
Click to expand...

So what exactly is all the fuss about some claimed major problem with secularism and pervasive atheistic opinion?

What exactly is a pervasive atheistic opinion?


----------



## ReinyDays

What lab experiment can we conduit in the classroom that demonstrates God? ... a "hypothesis" that can't be tested isn't a hypothesis ... it's philosophy ...


----------



## LittleNipper

ReinyDays said:


> What lab experiment can we conduit in the classroom that demonstrates God? ... a "hypothesis" that can't be tested isn't a hypothesis ... it's philosophy ...


Say a fellow student is very ill and the doctors give a 50/50 chance for survival (maybe even less than that). One could certainly encourage individuals to seek GOD's intervention on behalf of such an individual and note any effects or mood changes.  Another way would be to encourage divine guidance in problem understanding/solving. Note which group more quickly solves the issues at hand. 

Obviously, a scientist/professor claiming that life originated on earth by way of crystal formations and or lighting striking water. but cannot demonstrate it, is also quite the  philosopher. Yet, such individuals are very free in secular educational institutions to use their students as their personal audience.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

LittleNipper said:


> What should be taught are KNOWN facts without conjecture of any kind. That said, it is observable fact that the volcanic eruption of Mount St. Helen demonstrated that strata and gorges/canyons can form very quickly and do not have to take millions of years of erosion. If a man such as Ben Stein can perceive that there is a major problem with secularism and  pervasive atheistic opinion getting total support and having full control, then there must be a problem:



That depends on the type of rock.  Igneous rocks are easily eroded.  Sandstone and other sedimentary rocks takes much longer.


----------



## LittleNipper

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What should be taught are KNOWN facts without conjecture of any kind. That said, it is observable fact that the volcanic eruption of Mount St. Helen demonstrated that strata and gorges/canyons can form very quickly and do not have to take millions of years of erosion. If a man such as Ben Stein can perceive that there is a major problem with secularism and  pervasive atheistic opinion getting total support and having full control, then there must be a problem:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on the type of rock.  Igneous rocks are easily eroded.  Sandstone and other sedimentary rocks takes much longer.
Click to expand...

Kind of like natural concrete...


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight ... you want _Congress_ deciding how religion is taught? ...
> 
> ( ... wait for it ... )
> 
> There, see what a non-sensical idea this is ... the Catholic Church has more than enough money to bring creation science to fore-front of human advancement ... and when it comes to holding true the notions and ideas of long ago, Catholics have a proven track record ... let's let the _experts_ teach creation science, in their own way and manner ... best to keep it away from government contamination ... "Government can only despoil and ruin, it's its only function" ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science isn't religion nor the fake science of evolution, but real science.  The students will be able to decide for themselves.  It's creation vs. evolution.  For example, it found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017.  It can be proven by the scientific method.  Real science should be more than a creation vs. evolution forum on these message boards.
> 
> No, the Catholic Church can only teach it in parochial schools, not public.  Thus, you are wrong.  Creation science is the Book of Genesis in a literary context minus the religious parts.  It includes Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel.  No afterlife.
Click to expand...


You are not a scientist, you are an uneducated schizzo who because of his delusions of grandeur believes themself to be the savior of reality

You are spinning in circles chasing your own tail

Do tell us about your pending scientific theories though as Rodney Dangerfield has passed


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> What lab experiment can we conduit in the classroom that demonstrates God? ... a "hypothesis" that can't be tested isn't a hypothesis ... it's philosophy ...
> 
> 
> 
> Say a fellow student is very ill and the doctors give a 50/50 chance for survival (maybe even less than that). One could certainly encourage individuals to seek GOD's intervention on behalf of such an individual and note any effects or mood changes.  Another way would be to encourage divine guidance in problem understanding/solving. Note which group more quickly solves the issues at hand.
> 
> Obviously, a scientist/professor claiming that life originated on earth by way of crystal formations and or lighting striking water. but cannot demonstrate it, is also quite the  philosopher. Yet, such individuals are very free in secular educational institutions to use their students as their personal audience.
Click to expand...

Prayer, lighting incense, rattling bones or reading tea leaves have never been shown to cure disease.


----------



## LuckyDuck

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big
> bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.


The belief in a deity, or multiple deities (Hinduism), is just that...a "belief."  A belief is just an assumption that something is factual, without any factual basis to it.  The Hindu belief that there are multiple gods, does not rise to any level of fact.  The Abrahamic religions that there is only one deity falls into the same category.
Science classes devote their material to subjects that fall into categories of factual provable data, or at least, "scientific" theory...which is not the same as your average theory.
To date there has never been any provable scientific evidence of an "invisible" deity...or deities.
As there is no scientific theory to "creation" theory, it does not fall into the category of a science.
Until a deity is absolutely proven to exist, it must continue to remain in Sunday school and private religious schools/universities.  
If you don't like that your kid is learning actual science, just make sure you take them to your favorite Sunday school, or have them attend some religious school.


----------



## james bond

LuckyDuck said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big
> bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The belief in a deity, or multiple deities (Hinduism), is just that...a "belief."  A belief is just an assumption that something is factual, without any factual basis to it.  The Hindu belief that there are multiple gods, does not rise to any level of fact.  The Abrahamic religions that there is only one deity falls into the same category.
> Science classes devote their material to subjects that fall into categories of factual provable data, or at least, "scientific" theory...which is not the same as your average theory.
> To date there has never been any provable scientific evidence of an "invisible" deity...or deities.
> As there is no scientific theory to "creation" theory, it does not fall into the category of a science.
> Until a deity is absolutely proven to exist, it must continue to remain in Sunday school and private religious schools/universities.
> If you don't like that your kid is learning actual science, just make sure you take them to your favorite Sunday school, or have them attend some religious school.
Click to expand...


You leave out atheism which is a belief in no God nor gods.  "A belief is just an assumption that something is factual, without any factual basis to it."  

OTOH, Christianity has the existence of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  It is in the Bible which explains step-by-step how everything was created from void of nothing.  The Bible isn't a science book, but science backs it up.  Thus, I have something that is factual and has factual basis.  Thus, you are wrong.  

The Biblical evidence shows how we are here from the only eyewitness who was here at the time.  From God himself.  This is not a belief, but a finding.  The Bible is God's word and his auto-biography.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big
> bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The belief in a deity, or multiple deities (Hinduism), is just that...a "belief."  A belief is just an assumption that something is factual, without any factual basis to it.  The Hindu belief that there are multiple gods, does not rise to any level of fact.  The Abrahamic religions that there is only one deity falls into the same category.
> Science classes devote their material to subjects that fall into categories of factual provable data, or at least, "scientific" theory...which is not the same as your average theory.
> To date there has never been any provable scientific evidence of an "invisible" deity...or deities.
> As there is no scientific theory to "creation" theory, it does not fall into the category of a science.
> Until a deity is absolutely proven to exist, it must continue to remain in Sunday school and private religious schools/universities.
> If you don't like that your kid is learning actual science, just make sure you take them to your favorite Sunday school, or have them attend some religious school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You leave out atheism which is a belief in no God nor gods.  "A belief is just an assumption that something is factual, without any factual basis to it."
> 
> OTOH, Christianity has the existence of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  It is in the Bible which explains step-by-step how everything was created from void of nothing.  The Bible isn't a science book, but science backs it up.  Thus, I have something that is factual and has factual basis.  Thus, you are wrong.
> 
> The Biblical evidence shows how we are here from the only eyewitness who was here at the time.  From God himself.  This is not a belief, but a finding.  The Bible is God's word and his auto-biography.
Click to expand...

The gods didn't write the Bible so it is obviously not an autobiography.


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big
> bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The belief in a deity, or multiple deities (Hinduism), is just that...a "belief."  A belief is just an assumption that something is factual, without any factual basis to it.  The Hindu belief that there are multiple gods, does not rise to any level of fact.  The Abrahamic religions that there is only one deity falls into the same category.
> Science classes devote their material to subjects that fall into categories of factual provable data, or at least, "scientific" theory...which is not the same as your average theory.
> To date there has never been any provable scientific evidence of an "invisible" deity...or deities.
> As there is no scientific theory to "creation" theory, it does not fall into the category of a science.
> Until a deity is absolutely proven to exist, it must continue to remain in Sunday school and private religious schools/universities.
> If you don't like that your kid is learning actual science, just make sure you take them to your favorite Sunday school, or have them attend some religious school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You leave out atheism which is a belief in no God nor gods.  "A belief is just an assumption that something is factual, without any factual basis to it."
> 
> OTOH, Christianity has the existence of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  It is in the Bible which explains step-by-step how everything was created from void of nothing.  The Bible isn't a science book, but science backs it up.  Thus, I have something that is factual and has factual basis.  Thus, you are wrong.
> 
> The Biblical evidence shows how we are here from the only eyewitness who was here at the time.  From God himself.  This is not a belief, but a finding.  The Bible is God's word and his auto-biography.
Click to expand...

The bible never mentions the universe

So what you think is the bible is really mad magazine


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> The gods didn't write the Bible so it is obviously not an autobiography.



God wrote the first Bible and his autobiography.  Satan wrote the Antibible and maybe it is _his_ autobiography, i.e. no God, with Evolution; he started with a Scottish farmer named James Hutton, Charles Lyell, and then Charles Darwin.  Since the 1850s, he eliminated creation scientists from peer reviews, public schools including high schools, colleges, and universities, and science museums.  That is a heck of a piece of work!!!


----------



## james bond

esalla said:


> The bible never mentions the universe



Junior, just let the adults do the talking and go play in the toilet.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gods didn't write the Bible so it is obviously not an autobiography.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God wrote the first Bible and his autobiography.  Satan wrote the Antibible and maybe it is _his_ autobiography, i.e. no God, with Evolution; he started with a Scottish farmer named James Hutton, Charles Lyell, and then Charles Darwin.  Since the 1850s, he eliminated creation scientists from peer reviews, public schools including high schools, colleges, and universities, and science museums.  That is a heck of a piece of work!!!
Click to expand...

Suggesting your gods wrote the Bible is in conflict with the accounts of various authors who wrote various parts of the Bible. Can you identify any evidence to suggest that a Bible written by the gods magically appeared in written form?

You're adding the usual slogans about some event you insist happened in the 1850's that caused fear and superstition to yield to knowledge and learning. Fear and superstition gave way to science exploration in the 1850's. Religious fundamentalists (you call them creationists), eliminated themselves from science as the discipline of the Scientific Method left less and less room for magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Suggesting your gods wrote the Bible is in conflict with the accounts of various authors who wrote various parts of the Bible.



The various authors is how the ancient kings verified it and we can do the same except we have modern science to compare it to  I should say "had" because science has took a detour since the 1850s.  Now, if today's science of evolution is observable and testable, then that would make it a super strong case for evolution, but none of it is.  Nothing can be seen nor tested from millions and billions of years ago as rocks and fossils would have weathered and aged to fubar or returned to dust as we like to call it.  The method of testing isn't in question, but the assumptions made for it.  If one does radiocarbon dating, then it gives a much, much, much younger age in thousands of years.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suggesting your gods wrote the Bible is in conflict with the accounts of various authors who wrote various parts of the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The various authors is how the ancient kings verified it and we can do the same except we have modern science to compare it to  I should say "had" because science has took a detour since the 1850s.  Now, if today's science of evolution is observable and testable, then that would make it a super strong case for evolution, but none of it is.  Nothing can be seen nor tested from millions and billions of years ago as rocks and fossils would have weathered and aged to fubar or returned to dust as we like to call it.  The method of testing isn't in question, but the assumptions made for it.  If one does radiocarbon dating, then it gives a much, much, much younger age in thousands of years.
Click to expand...

It's nonsensical to claim on the one hand that the gods wrote the bible and then, on the other hand, acknowledge many, unknown authors. Yes, when we compare modern science to the bibles, we're left with the bibles being truly terrible as science texts.

Yes, science took a detour away from fear and superstition in the 1850's. Yes, you lament the advances of science as you apparently lament the loss of the primacy of the church in Medieval Europe. 

Yes, things can be seen and tested from millions and billions of years ago. The cosmic background radiation has been measured and we can see light from billions of years in the past. Yes, you deny that. You have a right to deny reality.


----------



## LuckyDuck

esalla said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big
> bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The belief in a deity, or multiple deities (Hinduism), is just that...a "belief."  A belief is just an assumption that something is factual, without any factual basis to it.  The Hindu belief that there are multiple gods, does not rise to any level of fact.  The Abrahamic religions that there is only one deity falls into the same category.
> Science classes devote their material to subjects that fall into categories of factual provable data, or at least, "scientific" theory...which is not the same as your average theory.
> To date there has never been any provable scientific evidence of an "invisible" deity...or deities.
> As there is no scientific theory to "creation" theory, it does not fall into the category of a science.
> Until a deity is absolutely proven to exist, it must continue to remain in Sunday school and private religious schools/universities.
> If you don't like that your kid is learning actual science, just make sure you take them to your favorite Sunday school, or have them attend some religious school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You leave out atheism which is a belief in no God nor gods.  "A belief is just an assumption that something is factual, without any factual basis to it."
> 
> OTOH, Christianity has the existence of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  It is in the Bible which explains step-by-step how everything was created from void of nothing.  The Bible isn't a science book, but science backs it up.  Thus, I have something that is factual and has factual basis.  Thus, you are wrong.
> 
> The Biblical evidence shows how we are here from the only eyewitness who was here at the time.  From God himself.  This is not a belief, but a finding.  The Bible is God's word and his auto-biography.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bible never mentions the universe
> 
> So what you think is the bible is really mad magazine
Click to expand...

Mad magazine...no.  A collection of writings that were approved by early Christian clerics, while other writings were rejected.  All of these writings were written by individuals who sought to unite, as well as control the public behavior in some fashion.  In these writings, they interspersed actual events that had been known to have occurred (wars, et cetera), with fictional (parting of Red Sea, the Ark) events meant to awe the listeners.
As for Jesus, all writings accepted into the New Testament, were written centuries after his death, thus it is nothing more than hearsay.  The story of "the Messiah," was told and attributed to others, before he was born.  
Bottom line, at least in my humble opinion, is that there was not, is not and never will be some Messiah.  What we see is what we have.  The only things we don't see with our eyes are molecules, sub-atomic particles and that asteroid that is hurtling through the universe and destined to flatten this place.  All else is fiction.


----------



## Moonglow

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.


Creation science is backed by the scientific method, 

Which one?


----------



## esalla

LuckyDuck said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big
> bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The belief in a deity, or multiple deities (Hinduism), is just that...a "belief."  A belief is just an assumption that something is factual, without any factual basis to it.  The Hindu belief that there are multiple gods, does not rise to any level of fact.  The Abrahamic religions that there is only one deity falls into the same category.
> Science classes devote their material to subjects that fall into categories of factual provable data, or at least, "scientific" theory...which is not the same as your average theory.
> To date there has never been any provable scientific evidence of an "invisible" deity...or deities.
> As there is no scientific theory to "creation" theory, it does not fall into the category of a science.
> Until a deity is absolutely proven to exist, it must continue to remain in Sunday school and private religious schools/universities.
> If you don't like that your kid is learning actual science, just make sure you take them to your favorite Sunday school, or have them attend some religious school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You leave out atheism which is a belief in no God nor gods.  "A belief is just an assumption that something is factual, without any factual basis to it."
> 
> OTOH, Christianity has the existence of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  It is in the Bible which explains step-by-step how everything was created from void of nothing.  The Bible isn't a science book, but science backs it up.  Thus, I have something that is factual and has factual basis.  Thus, you are wrong.
> 
> The Biblical evidence shows how we are here from the only eyewitness who was here at the time.  From God himself.  This is not a belief, but a finding.  The Bible is God's word and his auto-biography.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bible never mentions the universe
> 
> So what you think is the bible is really mad magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mad magazine...no.  A collection of writings that were approved by early Christian clerics, while other writings were rejected.  All of these writings were written by individuals who sought to unite, as well as control the public behavior in some fashion.  In these writings, they interspersed actual events that had been known to have occurred (wars, et cetera), with fictional (parting of Red Sea, the Ark) events meant to awe the listeners.
> As for Jesus, all writings accepted into the New Testament, were written centuries after his death, thus it is nothing more than hearsay.  The story of "the Messiah," was told and attributed to others, before he was born.
> Bottom line, at least in my humble opinion, is that there was not, is not and never will be some Messiah.  What we see is what we have.  The only things we don't see with our eyes are molecules, sub-atomic particles and that asteroid that is hurtling through the universe and destined to flatten this place.  All else is fiction.
Click to expand...

Actually Matthew was chosen by jesus because he was an educated tax collector reformed.  The 4 main text of the new testament were written in the lifetimes of matthew, mark luke and john.  I do not put much faith in the bible per say like the loony who believes that noah collected 2 of every animal which is goofy doo doo


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> If one does radiocarbon dating, then it gives a much, much, much younger age in thousands of years.


That is not true. It has been shown that the readings you are referring to are nothing but instrument background noise. Even if it weren't it shows up to 100,000 years (machines with the lowest noise level). That is well beyond the creationists 6,000 years.

Radiological dating of diamonds and meteors with longer lived isotopes give ages in the billions of years. You already know that and it is disingenuous that you fail to mention that.
.


----------



## esalla

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one does radiocarbon dating, then it gives a much, much, much younger age in thousands of years.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true. It has been shown that the readings you are referring to are nothing but instrument background noise. Even if it weren't it shows up to 100,000 years (machines with the lowest noise level). That is well beyond the creationists 6,000 years.
> 
> Radiological dating of diamonds and meteors with longer lived isotopes give ages in the billions of years. You already know that and it is disingenuous that you fail to mention that.
> .
Click to expand...

Is this the schizzo argues with the schizzo show?






The Earth is 48,000 years old, the jehovah across the street told me, right before I punted him, he never came back


----------



## james bond

Moonglow said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method,
> 
> Which one?


The two greatest supernatural events humans have went through are Noah's Flood and The Resurrection.  Noah's Flood is a true event in which Noah's family told about and it got passed down throughout history.  This is why we have flood stories from around the world.  We also have plate tectonics which show how one land mass of Pangea separated into the seven continents we have today.  Plate tectonics also show how the Himalayas and Mt. Everest came to be.  We also can observe it caused dinosaur fossils to be scattered across the middle and western parts of the US.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> The two greatest supernatural events humans have went through are Noah's Flood and The Resurrection.  Noah's Flood is a true event in which Noah's family told about and it got passed down throughout history.  This is why we have flood stories from around the world.  We also have plate tectonics which show how one land mass of Pangea separated into the seven continents we have today.  Plate tectonics also show how the Himalayas and Mt. Everest came to be.  We also can observe it caused dinosaur fossils to be scattered across the middle and western parts of the US.


At least a global flood would have been noticed by everyone.  Seems only a few people claimed they saw Jesus' resurrection.  I think more people say Elvis' resurrection, just sayin'.


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> At least a global flood would have been noticed by everyone.  Seems only a few people claimed they saw Jesus' resurrection.  I think more people say Elvis' resurrection, just sayin'.


unless everyone but the few died in the flood,,

got any names for those that saw elvis's resurrection??


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> unless everyone but the few died in the flood,,


Thanks for making my point.  Everyone but the few died in the flood and we have flood stories from around the world.  Jesus was executed in the center of the Western world and almost nobody noticed.  Curious I think.



progressive hunter said:


> got any names for those that saw elvis's resurrection??


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> Thanks for making my point.  Everyone but the few died in the flood and we have flood stories from around the world.  Jesus was executed in the center of the Western world and almost nobody noticed.  Curious I think.


I like how you left out a lot of details,,


----------



## westwall

alang1216 said:


> At least a global flood would have been noticed by everyone.  Seems only a few people claimed they saw Jesus' resurrection.  I think more people say Elvis' resurrection, just sayin'.





It was.  There are flood histories from all over the world, and across cultures.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> At least a global flood would have been noticed by everyone.  Seems only a few people claimed they saw Jesus' resurrection.  I think more people say Elvis' resurrection, just sayin'.


You would've noticed it, but wouldn't be able to tell anyone about it.  God's wrath killed every living creature, but Noah's family and guests.  The remaining told us of the flood and this is what was passed down.  If it was a true event, then it would've lasted and gone around the world.  If it was a fairy tale or local flood, then it wouldn't have gone around the world and have been forgotten.  However, we do have evolution, a fairy tale.


----------



## Lysistrata

james bond said:


> The two greatest supernatural events humans have went through are Noah's Flood and The Resurrection.  Noah's Flood is a true event in which Noah's family told about and it got passed down throughout history.  This is why we have flood stories from around the world.  We also have plate tectonics which show how one land mass of Pangea separated into the seven continents we have today.  Plate tectonics also show how the Himalayas and Mt. Everest came to be.  We also can observe it caused dinosaur fossils to be scattered across the middle and western parts of the US.


Flood stories exist all over the world and they most likely happened. The belief in the Resurrection is a purely Christian belief. It doesn't exist in other religions, including religions practiced by people in 5,000-year-old civilizations, like India and China. There is nothing scientific about it. It can be taught in comparative religion courses.


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> I like how you left out a lot of details,,


Exactly what details were you expecting?


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> Thanks for making my point.  Everyone but the few died in the flood and we have flood stories from around the world.  Jesus was executed in the center of the Western world and almost nobody noticed.  Curious I think.


Just like we have 1,000 media outlets today with  everyone of them giving their slant of what happened with any given event.


----------



## otto105

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.


No, no it isn't.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> You would've noticed it, but wouldn't be able to tell anyone about it.  God's wrath killed every living creature, but Noah's family and guests.


That's not true.  As I recall Noah saw a bird and knew that land had appeared because it found a fresh olive leaf.  Obviously some life survived.



james bond said:


> However, we do have evolution, a fairy tale.


And one of the two greatest supernatural miracles, the resurrection, that only a few took notice of.


----------



## alang1216

Indeependent said:


> Just like we have 1,000 media outlets today with  everyone of them giving their slant of what happened with any given event.


Are you saying that what we read may not be the truth???  And people wonder that I have no faith...


----------



## james bond

Lysistrata said:


> Flood stories exist all over the world and they most likely happened. The belief in the Resurrection is a purely Christian belief. It doesn't exist in other religions, including religions practiced by people in 5,000-year-old civilizations, like India and China. There is nothing scientific about it. It can be taught in comparative religion courses.


The flood stories over the world from the ancient times back up the one true supernatural Noah's Flood.  We also have the fountain of the deep ring around the world where the water from the oceans came up.  It caused the Himalayas and Mt. Everest to rise and cover our surface with 3/4 water.  That's hard evidence and real science.  It's like the atheists go blind when presented with the truth.


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> Are you saying that what we read may not be the truth???  And people wonder that I have no faith...


I am saying that you are not qualified to be a science teacher because you think in Black & White.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> That's not true. As I recall Noah saw a bird and knew that land had appeared because it found a fresh olive leaf. Obviously some life survived.


This is proof that atheists believe what they want even lies.  It's just like evolution.  It was Noah who sent his bird to seek dry land.


alang1216 said:


> And one of the two greatest supernatural miracles, the resurrection, that only a few took notice of.


smh.  Even more evidence that atheists believe what they want.  Witnesses from both sides confirmed it.  There were things that happened that could not be explained rationally.  We still take notice today and this is the message.


----------



## alang1216

Indeependent said:


> I am saying that you are not qualified to be a science teacher because you think in Black & White.


That's rich coming from someone with a B&W avatar from a century ago.


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> That's rich coming from someone with a B&W avatar from a century ago.


Who was more ingenious at nuance than anyone in history.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> This is proof that atheists believe what they want even lies.  It's just like evolution.  It was Noah who sent his bird to seek dry land.


If all living things died in the flood (does that include fish and bacteria) how could that bird find a fresh olive leaf?



james bond said:


> Witnesses from both sides confirmed it.


What were the two sides?


----------



## alang1216

Indeependent said:


> Who was more ingenious at nuance than anyone in history.


I don't know everyone in history so I'll have to take your word for it.  I am a fan of his of course.


----------



## Wuwei

Lysistrata said:


> Flood stories exist all over the world and they most likely happened.


When James B. tries to use that as scientific proof, he forgets that real proof should be that the plethora of floods all happened within a very short window of 40 days at around 2304 BC. But those people around the world presumably drowned.


----------



## Lysistrata

james bond said:


> The flood stories over the world from the ancient times back up the one true supernatural Noah's Flood.  We  also have the fountain of the deep ring around the world where the water from the oceans came up.  It caused the Himalayas and Mt. Everest to rise and cover our surface with 3/4 water.  That's hard evidence and real science.  It's like the atheists go blind when presented with the truth.


The flood stories across the world only support a finding that there was extensive flooding. Of course, ancient writers in the Middle East would have some passed-down memory of flooding in their area. Look at the Bosphorus strait. They were locals who would have had no idea about other areas of the world that they didn't even know existed. People of all cultures have attributed things that they didn't understand to supernatural behavior. Remember that thousands of years passed after the writing of Genesis before people like the Vikings and Christopher Columbus accidently bumped into a large land mass, now known as the Western Hemisphere. They were probably quite surprised to find that other people were living there who had other beliefs. 

Your "atheists" thing is nonsense, BTW. People may just not buy your version of things. They may have beliefs of their own.


----------



## Lysistrata

Wuwei said:


> When James B. tries to use that as scientific proof, he forgets that real proof should be that the plethora of floods all happened within a very short window of 40 days at around 2304 BC. But those people around the world presumably drowned.



The Chinese and the Indians certainly don't have any stories about everybody drowning.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> If all living things died in the flood (does that include fish and bacteria) how could that bird find a fresh olive leaf?
> 
> 
> What were the two sides?


Now, you're changing your story.  *You need to own up to your wrongness.  Atheists are usually wrong.*  20 lashes should be reigned down upon you for every wrong lol.  Why don't you continue this rewriting of a story BY YOU of what happened so Noah knew that he had found land and it was safe to disembark?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Now, you're changing your story.  *You need to own up to your wrongness.  Atheists are usually wrong.*  20 lashes should be reigned down upon you for every wrong lol.  Why don't you continue this rewriting of a story BY YOU of what happened so Noah knew that he had found land and it was safe to disembark?


You might want to read the Bible before you talk about it.  If you were a better reader you'd see that my story has not changed.

Genesis 8:
10  He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark.
11  When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> You might want to read the Bible before you talk about it.  If you were a better reader you'd see that my story has not changed.
> 
> Genesis 8:
> 10  He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark.
> 11  When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.


>>That's not true. As I recall Noah saw a bird and knew that land had appeared because it found a fresh olive leaf. Obviously some life survived.<<

Heh.  So now you're confessing that you didn't read the Bible because you were so wrong and called what I said a lie.  There was not only a dove that Noah sent out, but a raven.  Thus, you were wrong again.  No life survived, but you claim bacteria survived.  You are trying so hard to find a contradiction.  Instead, you have contradicted yourself.  We should teach this Noah's Flood and creation science in schools as there is scientific evidence for the global flood.  Then you would know the answers instead of contradicting yourself.

Let's talk about bacteria.  How does it breathe?  What does it breathe?  Can you see that a flood would kill bacteria, too?  I'm sick of explaining and showing proof to atheists, but they just can't believe it.  smh lol.

You also mentioned the olive leaf.  Now, that takes more explanation, but how fast do olive trees grow?  Wouldn't there have been enough time for it to grow again?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.


Religionism under a burqa of the phony label called creationism has been addressed repeatedly by the courts. “Cretinism” lost.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> We should teach this Noah's Flood and creation science in schools as there is scientific evidence for the global flood.


Jeez. Try to get that past the Board of School Directors.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Religionism under a burqa of the phony label called creationism has been addressed repeatedly by the courts. “Cretinism” lost.


That's not true -- Can creation be taught in public schools?.  My take is creationism can be taught in public school as creation science, i.e. Genesis only.  The Bible can be used as a textbook, but rather see a textbook made specifically for its teaching.  It could be creation vs. evolution, but that is too contentious.  I've never seen a science class taught that way.  I rather see creation science taught as an elective, at first.  Regardless, we'll have to fight ACLU and teachers will have to check the local law.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> That's not true -- Can creation be taught in public schools?.  My take is creationism can be taught in public school as creation science, i.e. Genesis only.  The Bible can be used as a textbook, but rather see a textbook made specifically for its teaching.  It could be creation vs. evolution, but that is too contentious.  I've never seen a science class taught that way.  I rather see creation science taught as an elective, at first.  Regardless, we'll have to fight ACLU and teachers will have to check the local law.


I understand how desperate you are to force your religious view on others, especially in the public schools but that horse is not just dead, it’s a Montanan fossil.

Dover was perhaps the last gasp for fundamentalist Christians to force religion nto the public schools. Earlier attempts by fundie christians to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.


----------



## Wuwei

Hollie said:


> Dover was perhaps the last gasp for fundamentalist Christians to force religion nto the public schools.


I remember the incident. I was able to refresh my memory from a long article at the web site:








						Design on Trial in Dover, Pennsylvania | National Center for Science Education
					

On December 14, 2004, eleven parents from Dover, Pennsylvania, filed suit against the Dover Area School District in federal court. The matter at issue is a policy introducing "intelligent design" into the biology curriculum.




					ncse.ngo
				




These are excerpts from the Dover, PA skirmish on the textbook _Of Pandas and People_. 

_Strangely, *none* of the [Dover school] board members seemed to have much familiarity at all with ID, and none gave anything resembling a direct, coherent answer about what they thought ID meant. For example, Buckingham was asked:_​​_*Q*: Do you have an understanding in very simple terms of what "Intelligent design" stands for? What does it teach? _​_*A*: Other than what I expressed, that's — Scientists, a lot of scientists — Don't ask me the names. I can't tell you where it came from. A lot of scientists believe that back through time, something, molecules, amoeba, whatever, evolved into the complexities of life we have now. _​_*Q*: That's the theory of "intelligent design"? _​_*A*: You asked me my understanding of it. I'm not a scientist. I can't go into detail and debate you on it. (Buckingham deposition, January 3, 2005)_​​The irony is that Buckingham was describing evolution, not ID. 

_When asked about the "master intellect" suggested on pages 58 and 85 of Pandas, Superintendent Nilsen was somewhat more clear:_​​_*Q*: Do you have any explanation for what a master intellect could be referring to in terms of the creation or development of species other than to God?_​_*A*: Yes._​_*Q*: What?_​_*A*: Aliens._​_*Q*: Can you think of anything else?_​_*A*: No._​_*Q*: Using master intellect in that context, it must mean God or aliens?_​_*A*: In this context, yes. (Nilsen deposition, January 3, 2005)_​​The school board simply didn't know what they wanted to teach the kids. The defense strategy was,

_If [lawyer for Dover Sch.] Thompson wants to base his defense on "the science of ID," so much the better. It will be time for ID advocates to "put up or shut up" about the "scientific theory" of ID. We know that there is no science of ID, and we suspect this will become readily apparent to the court if [ID] expert witnesses testify._​


----------



## Rogue AI

If they can teach that boys can be girls, anything should be on the table.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> You leave out atheism which is a belief in no God nor gods.  "A belief is just an assumption that something is factual, without any factual basis to it."
> 
> OTOH, Christianity has the existence of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  It is in the Bible which explains step-by-step how everything was created from void of nothing.  The Bible isn't a science book, but science backs it up.  Thus, I have something that is factual and has factual basis.  Thus, you are wrong.
> 
> The Biblical evidence shows how we are here from the only eyewitness who was here at the time.  From God himself.  This is not a belief, but a finding.  The Bible is God's word and his auto-biography.



Science does NOT back up the Bible by any stretch of the imagination.  Even the great sage Rambam deferred to science.


----------



## Wuwei

surada said:


> Science does NOT back up the Bible by any stretch of the imagination. Even the great sage Rambam deferred to science.


I said that many times, but he doesn't have anything further to say. He won't rationalize the out-of-order sequence of the 6 days of creation, and he makes up a weird and very incomplete story about the flood that is clearly not implied in the Bible.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> I said that many times, but he doesn't have anything further to say. He won't rationalize the out-of-order sequence of the 6 days of creation, and he makes up a weird and very incomplete story about the flood that is clearly not implied in the Bible.


You're a troll and being ignored by me.  Real science backs up the Bible while no science backs up evolution; It's not observable nor testable.  Just stop discussing me with others as you should just ignore what I have to say since I'm the troll to you.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Science does NOT back up the Bible by any stretch of the imagination.  Even the great sage Rambam deferred to science.


I've already posted the youtube of what science backed up and we discussed fountains of the deep.  How would the ancient Bible know hydrothermal vents?

You can believe whatever atheist stuff you want.  I'm not trying to change you, but correct you as atheists are usually wrong.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> You're a troll and being ignored by me. Real science backs up the Bible while no science backs up evolution; It's not observable nor testable. Just stop discussing me with others as you should just ignore what I have to say since I'm the troll to you.


Oh yes I know I'm on your ignore list. It would really help the discussion if you talked more specifically about the science, and not just continually repeat science backs the Bible. 
.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> I've already posted the youtube of what science backed up and we discussed fountains of the deep.  How would the ancient Bible know hydrothermal vents?
> 
> You can believe whatever atheist stuff you want.  I'm not trying to change you, but correct you as atheists are usually wrong.



I'm not an atheist. God gave us a brain. We should use it.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> You're a troll and being ignored by me.  Real science backs up the Bible while no science backs up evolution; It's not observable nor testable.  Just stop discussing me with others as you should just ignore what I have to say since I'm the troll to you.


You have never identified how science “backs up the Bibles”. That’s simply a slogan you cut and paste into most into threads.

Where has science ever “backed up” dead people coming back to life?

Where does science “back up” a flat earth?


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> I'm not an atheist. God gave us a brain. We should use it.


You are what you are.  It is what it is.  One has to _believe_ something.  This is the science section.  Even though one member thinks science is not about believing, _it is_. The atheist scientists have taken over and made people think creation science is religion when it is the real science. There's nothing real about evolution. I proved it because it isn't observable nor testable. One member here has gone looney/stupid over it. He steals what I said and then claims it's atheist science.  Another says I'm a troll and keeps following me instead of ignoring.  Otherwise, we would be discussing the same thing and thinking about and working out the details.


----------



## surada

Hollie said:


> You have never identified how science “backs up the Bibles”. That’s simply a slogan you cut and paste into most into threads.
> 
> Where has science ever “backed up” dead people coming back to life?
> 
> Where does science “back up” a flat earth?



It doesn't.. There are MANY anachronisms in the Bible as well as errors of geography. There is no Rapture in the Bible or King Solomon's Mines. Much of what is attributed to Solomon is the work of King Omri.

The Red Sea and Gulf of Aqaba are too steep and too deep to have been walked by 3 million people and their livestock. There is NO world wide flood footprint..Either you leave the church or look for the deeper message.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> You're a troll and being ignored by me. Real science backs up the Bible while no science backs up evolution; It's not observable nor testable. Just stop discussing me with others as you should just ignore what I have to say since I'm the troll to you.


I will contribute to this forum whether I'm on your ignore list or not. I am willing to discuss creation science as long as it is a clean debate without ad hominem.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> >>That's not true. As I recall Noah saw a bird and knew that land had appeared because it found a fresh olive leaf. Obviously some life survived.<<
> 
> Heh.  So now you're confessing that you didn't read the Bible because you were so wrong and called what I said a lie.


I have read the Bible but that is not relevant to my point.  You said there was nothing left alive after the flood yet there was a fresh olive leaf.



james bond said:


> There was not only a dove that Noah sent out, but a raven.  Thus, you were wrong again.


If you actually read what I wrote you'd see I said 'bird'.  Both doves and ravens would qualify.



james bond said:


> No life survived, but you claim bacteria survived.  You are trying so hard to find a contradiction.  Instead, you have contradicted yourself.


I asked about bacteria since there was no mention of it in the Bible and there are no males or females.  Not surprising since the Bible doesn't mention any life not found in the Middle East.  You'd think kangaroos would be worth a mention at least.



james bond said:


> We should teach this Noah's Flood and creation science in schools as there is scientific evidence for the global flood.  Then you would know the answers instead of contradicting yourself.


There is NO evidence for a single, global flood, only local floods.  Sorry.  Since the Flood was a supernatural event, as you said, it would not be appropriate to include it in a science course.  Science is the study of nature, not the supernatural.  That is the province of religion.



james bond said:


> Let's talk about bacteria.  How does it breathe?  What does it breathe?  Can you see that a flood would kill bacteria, too?  I'm sick of explaining and showing proof to atheists, but they just can't believe it.  smh lol.


Would a flood kill bacteria?  I have no idea, bacteria live everywhere.  Would a flood kill a fish?   I have no idea.  



james bond said:


> You also mentioned the olive leaf.  Now, that takes more explanation, but how fast do olive trees grow?  Wouldn't there have been enough time for it to grow again?


Seems unlikely it would have time to grow since it would have had to happen in less than 7 days.  Another miracle?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> I have read the Bible but that is not relevant to my point.  You said there was nothing left alive after the flood yet there was a fresh olive leaf.
> 
> 
> If you actually read what I wrote you'd see I said 'bird'.  Both doves and ravens would qualify.
> 
> 
> I asked about bacteria since there was no mention of it in the Bible and there are no males or females.  Not surprising since the Bible doesn't mention any life not found in the Middle East.  You'd think kangaroos would be worth a mention at least.
> 
> 
> There is NO evidence for a single, global flood, only local floods.  Sorry.  Since the Flood was a supernatural event, as you said, it would not be appropriate to include it in a science course.  Science is the study of nature, not the supernatural.  That is the province of religion.
> 
> 
> Would a flood kill bacteria?  I have no idea, bacteria live everywhere.  Would a flood kill a fish?   I have no idea.
> 
> 
> Seems unlikely it would have time to grow since it would have had to happen in less than 7 days.  Another miracle?


The olive tree grew rapidly after the waters subsided.  Look up olive trees and ancient olives trees in Israel.

Since, we're being picky, there were ahem TWO birds -- a dove and a raven sent out.  Not a "bird."  Do you know why Noah would do that?

This goes to show atheists are usually wrong.  You claimed,

>>"*That's not true.* As I recall Noah saw a bird and knew that land had appeared because it found a fresh olive leaf. *Obviously some life survived.*"<<

It was Noah who sent the birds out, not that he saw a bird that survived.  The olive tree grew once the waters had subsided and land was above water again.  What do you know about olive trees in Israel?  The bird(s) and olive leaf doesn't mean that life had survived lol.

Lol about NO evidence for a global flood.  Just the geography in the US shows different and we find fossils on mountain tops.  Why do you think we do mining on moutain tops, too?

Flood killed bacteria as they breathe air.  I would think it killed the fish, too, from the force of the water or hot water rising up from beneath although there is debate about it among creation scientists.

Why are NASA scientists exploring for habitable planets and they are looking for planets that have subterranean oceans and magnetic fields surrounding it?  What were they looking for in the recent Mars exploration?

>>Seems unlikely it would have time to grow since it would have had to happen in less than 7 days.  Another miracle?<<

Lolwut?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I understand how desperate you are to force your religious view on others, especially in the public schools but that horse is not just dead, it’s a Montanan fossil.
> 
> Dover was perhaps the last gasp for fundamentalist Christians to force religion nto the public schools. Earlier attempts by fundie christians to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.


Atheists want to believe what they want to believe and are usually wrong.  What I said was a course for creation science vs evolution, not religious beliefs.  God created the universe, Earth, and everything in it (including natural selection) and science backs up the Bible.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> The olive tree grew rapidly after the waters subsided.  Look up olive trees and ancient olives trees in Israel.


You should try it, I did and I learned:
An olive seed takes *approximately 40 days or longer* to germinate, so keep the area watered and weeded while you wait. Whether seeds are in pots or in the ground, water them when the top 1 inch of soil dries out, applying enough water to moisten the seed.​Seems like a miracle that the first seed sprouted in less than 7 days.



james bond said:


> Lol about NO evidence for a global flood.  Just the geography in the US shows different and we find fossils on mountain tops.  Why do you think we do mining on moutain tops, too?


Weren't you the one who claimed the mountains were raised by the Flood?  Anyway, finding a seashell on a mountain top doesn't mean a global flood.  The whole Flood episode only lasted a few months at most, hardly enough time for an animal to grow, die, get buried, and then fossilize.



james bond said:


> Flood killed bacteria as they breathe air.


Some do some don't.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Atheists want to believe what they want to believe and are usually wrong.  What I said was a course for creation science vs evolution, not religious beliefs.  God created the universe, Earth, and everything in it (including natural selection) and science backs up the Bible.


You are simply hoping to convince the gullible that so-called "creation science" is anything more than Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of lies and deceit. The fundamentalist christian ministries have spent decades renaming their dogma in an effort to add scientific  credibility to religious tales and fables. It was a failure then and it's a failure now. It's terrible that people like you use fear and intimidation in your madrassah to emotionally and intellectually damage children. You cannot, however, do that to children in public schools.


----------



## rupol2000

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method


No, storytellers do not use the scientific method. In the strict sense, science itself does not use it now (see positivism)


----------



## Wuwei

alang1216 said:


> Weren't you the one who claimed the mountains were raised by the Flood? Anyway, finding a seashell on a mountain top doesn't mean a global flood. The whole Flood episode only lasted a few months at most, hardly enough time for an animal to grow, die, get buried, and then fossilize.


He did claim that mountains were raised by the flood, but he made that up. The Genesis refers to the flood waters being a number of cubits above the mountain tops. The tallest mountain is over 4 miles high.  That can only mean the sea creatures were pushed up by tectonic activity before any of the many historical floods. 

Some creationists say the shells were deposited on the mountain tops because of the flood. Four miles high from a rain? I don't think so. 

That whole thing is full of scientific contradictions. Science does not support the Bible.

.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> You should try it, I did and I learned:
> An olive seed takes *approximately 40 days or longer* to germinate, so keep the area watered and weeded while you wait. Whether seeds are in pots or in the ground, water them when the top 1 inch of soil dries out, applying enough water to moisten the seed.Seems like a miracle that the first seed sprouted in less than 7 days.


>>Seems like a miracle that the first seed sprouted in less than 7 days.<<

I don't disagree with reading.  It's no miracle, but possibly help God gave Noah or Noah knew about birds and their behavior.

We discussed the raven and the dove.  Noah's Ark landed on Mt. Ararat.  At the end of forty days when its mountain top was visible, what bird did Noah release first and what happened?  Next, he released the dove and what happened?  This is when the 7 days you mentioned comes in after which he releases the dove again and it finds the olive leaf.

That's enough time for the olive tree to grow and sprout its first leaves as you stated.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> I don't disagree with reading. It's no miracle, but possibly help God gave Noah or Noah knew about birds and their behavior.


Intervention from God is not science.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> >>Seems like a miracle that the first seed sprouted in less than 7 days.<<
> 
> I don't disagree with reading.  It's no miracle, but possibly help God gave Noah or Noah knew about birds and their behavior.


No miracle, just supernatural intervention.  Got it.



james bond said:


> We discussed the raven and the dove.  Noah's Ark landed on Mt. Ararat.  At the end of forty days when its mountain top was visible, what bird did Noah release first and what happened?  Next, he released the dove and what happened?  This is when the 7 days you mentioned comes in after which he releases the dove again and it finds the olive leaf.
> 
> That's enough time for the olive tree to grow and sprout its first leaves as you stated.


So you think 7 days is enough to grow and sprout leaves?  What is that based on, science or working backwards from the story?


----------



## alang1216

Wuwei said:


> He did claim that mountains were raised by the flood, but he made that up. The Genesis refers to the flood waters being a number of cubits above the mountain tops. The tallest mountain is over 4 miles high.  That can only mean the sea creatures were pushed up by tectonic activity before any of the many historical floods.
> 
> Some creationists say the shells were deposited on the mountain tops because of the flood. Four miles high from a rain? I don't think so.
> 
> That whole thing is full of scientific contradictions. Science does not support the Bible..


james bond is fun to talk to since I don't encounter many Bible literalists in real life.  I love how he tries to justify the flood story without knowing any geology or physics.  What I don't understand about such people is why does it matter to them if the Bible is 100% true or 50% true and 50% allegory or whatever?  Is their faith so flimsy that it is all or nothing to them?


----------



## Wuwei

alang1216 said:


> @james bond is fun to talk to since I don't encounter many Bible literalists in real life. I love how he tries to justify the flood story without knowing any geology or physics. What I don't understand about such people is why does it matter to them if the Bible is 100% true or 50% true and 50% allegory or whatever? Is their faith so flimsy that it is all or nothing to them?


Yes he's fun, but with all creation-scientists it's like playing whack-a-mole. It's impossible to change his mind, so it's fun to catch him in self-contradictions. I kept doing that so now he has me on ignore.

I think the reason is that they want to teach creationism in science classes to counter evolution in schools. It used to be called "intelligent design" but the courts saw through that because there was no doubt that God was presumably the designer. They don't want it to be an allegory because it then wouldn't be science.  So they upgraded the title of their quest to include "science" in it. 

.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I've already posted the youtube of what science backed up and we discussed fountains of the deep.  How would the ancient Bible know hydrothermal vents?
> 
> You can believe whatever atheist stuff you want.  I'm not trying to change you, but correct you as atheists are usually wrong.



Oh. Well.

If you dun’ seen it on the YouTube, it must be true.


----------



## braalian

Meh. Teach science in science classes and religion in history or philosophy classes.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> >>Seems like a miracle that the first seed sprouted in less than 7 days.<<
> 
> I don't disagree with reading.  It's no miracle, but possibly help God gave Noah or Noah knew about birds and their behavior.
> 
> We discussed the raven and the dove.  Noah's Ark landed on Mt. Ararat.  At the end of forty days when its mountain top was visible, what bird did Noah release first and what happened?  Next, he released the dove and what happened?  This is when the 7 days you mentioned comes in after which he releases the dove again and it finds the olive leaf.
> 
> That's enough time for the olive tree to grow and sprout its first leaves as you stated.


You have a need to invoke your gods to explain some rather glaring absurdities.

_the gods did it™_ is just a slogan used to side step any rational explanation for events that simply don’t occur in nature.


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.


Creation isn't a science, it's a myth. Science hasn't found a creator either. So no proof.


----------



## james bond

JoeBlow said:


> Creation isn't a science, it's a myth. Science hasn't found a creator either. So no proof.


Creation science gives us the origins.  The creator is easily found if one has faith.  It's evolution that is the lie, so the atheists have something to believe in.  The atheistic arguments are all one-sided and biased.  Creation science demonstrates the creator with the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

The single, un-caused, necessary, and unique First Cause would be God.

We find design and complexity in the universe and that cannot happen by chance.  We found there was a beginning with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background and the big bang theory.

Since atheists can't figure this out, I made my own little example:






You can see someone made this gif.  There is an intelligence behind it.  You can look at a blank screen until you die and it won't pop into existence.

Finally, I gave you the evidence while evolutionists have nothing observable nor testable.  I just lmao you and your kind off the board.

>>Creation isn't a science, it's a myth. Science hasn't found a creator either. So no proof.<<

LMAO, you hypocrite.  I got evidence while you got nothing observable nor testable.


----------



## james bond

How low can one go?

Here is the science of hypocrisy which the atheists practice religiously.

'
The Science of Hypocrisy​Why we seem to despise hypocrites more than outright liars*"*​
"If you want to destroy someone, call them a “hypocrite.”

Hypocrisy typically involves criticizing or condemning the immoral acts of others while engaging in those acts ourselves. This can make us look worse than if we engaged in those immoral acts but didn’t criticize them at all, which might sound odd. But would you rather someone engaged in immoral behavior and criticized it or engaged in immoral behavior and didn’t criticize it? Diving into the psychology of hypocrisy can make how we feel about it make more sense.

Testing for hypocrisy​An experiment in 2001 aimed to turn people into hypocrites in the lab. Participants were to assign a set of tasks to themselves and an unknown second participant. One type of task was exciting and offered rewards while the other was neutral with no rewards. A coin placed next to the participants had a written instruction explaining that most people believed flipping the coin would be a fair way to distribute the tasks. Indeed, practically all of the participants agreed that flipping the coin to assign tasks would be the most moral thing.

But when it came down to it, only half of them actually flipped the coin, with practically everybody in the non-coin-flipping half giving themselves the exciting tasks. Among the people who did flip the coin — which was labeled “self” on one side and “other” on the other — 85% to 90% still managed to assign the exciting task to themselves. Clearly, either the coin was a magical sycophant or the participants pretended the coin had landed in their favor when it really hadn’t.

People wanted to look fair by using a coin to make their decision, but behind the scenes, they were just as selfish as the people who did not use the coin at all (most of whom had agreed using the coin would be the most fair but didn’t do it). It’s all a perfect example of moral hypocrisy at work.'


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Oh. Well.
> 
> If you dun’ seen it on the YouTube, it must be true.


Your side don't have one because nothing is observable. I know where your desperate feelings for ranting  comes from.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You have a need to invoke your gods to explain some rather glaring absurdities.
> 
> _the gods did it™_ is just a slogan used to side step any rational explanation for events that simply don’t occur in nature.


No need for science as what happened after Noah's ark landed on Mt. Ararat was explained logically.  It was alang1216 who was wrong in trying to find a contradiction in the Bible as atheists are usually wrong.


----------



## james bond

braalian said:


> Meh. Teach science in science classes and religion in history or philosophy classes.


That's exactly what I am saying.  Teach creation science as a science course.  Evolution isn't science as nothing is observable nor testable, but atheists like to believe it is.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
> 
> 2. The universe began to exist.
> 
> 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.
> 
> The single, un-caused, necessary, and unique First Cause would be God.
> 
> We find design and complexity in the universe and that cannot happen by chance. We found there was a beginning with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background and the big bang theory.


The cause of the origin of the universe is unknown. Call it God if you want, but that doesn't edify anything.

.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> That's exactly what I am saying. Teach creation science as a science course. Evolution isn't science as nothing is observable nor testable, but atheists like to believe it is.


The major thrust of creation science is to discredit evolution. If it were in a science course it would be fair game for science to discredit creation science. That would be very easy. The opening chapters of the Genesis is severely out of order. An epic flood has no scientific rationalization. 

.


----------



## Colin norris

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.


Science cannot link itself to creationism.
One is based on fact, the other is fact.  

The irrelevance of religion is becoming obvious when the godbotherers attempt to link it to science. 

There is no such thing as creation science. It's an oxymoron. There was no creator and all the other rubbish associated with religion. There is no God nor is there a need for one.  It's all explained.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> That's exactly what I am saying.  Teach creation science as a science course.  Evolution isn't science as nothing is observable nor testable, but atheists like to believe it is.


Has anyone observed a 'creation'?  I thought it was done before there was any man to observe it?  How can we test creation science?

How do we teach creation science without being understanding the laws and mechanisms behind it and not being able to duplicate a creation in a lab?


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> Creation science gives us the origins.  The creator is easily found if one has faith.  It's evolution that is the lie, so the atheists have something to believe in.  The atheistic arguments are all one-sided and biased.  Creation science demonstrates the creator with the Kalam Cosmological Argument:
> 
> 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
> 
> 2. The universe began to exist.
> 
> 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.
> 
> The single, un-caused, necessary, and unique First Cause would be God.
> 
> We find design and complexity in the universe and that cannot happen by chance.  We found there was a beginning with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background and the big bang theory.
> 
> Since atheists can't figure this out, I made my own little example:
> 
> View attachment 566519
> 
> You can see someone made this gif.  There is an intelligence behind it.  You can look at a blank screen until you die and it won't pop into existence.
> 
> Finally, I gave you the evidence while evolutionists have nothing observable nor testable.  I just lmao you and your kind off the board.
> 
> >>Creation isn't a science, it's a myth. Science hasn't found a creator either. So no proof.<<
> 
> LMAO, you hypocrite.  I got evidence while you got nothing observable nor testable.


I saw no scientific evidence in your response. It was more philosophical.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Creation science gives us the origins.  The creator is easily found if one has faith.  It's evolution that is the lie, so the atheists have something to believe in.  The atheistic arguments are all one-sided and biased.  Creation science demonstrates the creator with the Kalam Cosmological Argument:
> 
> 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
> 
> 2. The universe began to exist.
> 
> 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.
> 
> The single, un-caused, necessary, and unique First Cause would be God.
> 
> We find design and complexity in the universe and that cannot happen by chance.  We found there was a beginning with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background and the big bang theory.
> 
> Since atheists can't figure this out, I made my own little example:
> 
> View attachment 566519
> 
> You can see someone made this gif.  There is an intelligence behind it.  You can look at a blank screen until you die and it won't pop into existence.
> 
> Finally, I gave you the evidence while evolutionists have nothing observable nor testable.  I just lmao you and your kind off the board.
> 
> >>Creation isn't a science, it's a myth. Science hasn't found a creator either. So no proof.<<
> 
> LMAO, you hypocrite.  I got evidence while you got nothing observable nor testable.


What you call “creationer science” is not in any way connected to science. Creationers simply put a burqa over their fundamentalist religious beliefs and add “science” with the hope of fooling the gullible.

What you fail to understand is that science is concerned with evidence. Creationer dogma is undeniably wedded to religious doctrine. The “statements of belief” required by various creationer ministries and the allegiance to Christianity made by individual creationers can’t be denied.

Creationer’ism is a matter of Biblical literalism. Facts from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. Authoritarian / totalitarian systems like creationism tend to instill in their adherents a rigid anti-science agenda.

The  Kalam Cosmological Argument is not an argument at all. Kalam’ism is a philosophical mess. The nonsense only had a short-lived emergence because of the religious extremist William Lane Craig. Kalam’ism argues that God exists because the universe must have a cause. There is never any indication of why this is and nothing other than “it’s true because I say so”. Kalam’ists simply use the same nonsense claim for Kalam’ism that religioners use for religion: “my gods exist because I say so”.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Your side don't have one because nothing is observable. I know where your desperate feelings for ranting  comes from.


YouTube does have lots of videos on evolution


			https://www.google.com/search?q=evolution+videos&client=opera&hs=dyZ&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjhrf612Kf0AhWrRjABHeb1CPAQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1551&bih=1028&dpr=0.9


----------



## Wuwei

Hollie said:


> The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not an argument at all. Kalam’ism is a philosophical mess. The nonsense only had a short-lived emergence because of the religious extremist William Lane Craig. Kalam’ism argues that God exists because the universe must have a cause. There is never any indication of why this is and nothing other than “it’s true because I say so”. Kalam’ists simply use the same nonsense claim for Kalam’ism that religioners use for religion: “my gods exist because I say so”.


Creationists say you can't create something from nothing. 
One problem with the KCA is that they then go ahead and attempt to create an existential God out of nothing but words on a piece of paper. 

.


----------



## toobfreak

james bond said:


> Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?​



Simply, you can't.  You can teach creationism just fine, but not as a science for the simple reason that the very nature of science dictates that the theory of claims can be TESTED repeatedly by different people giving the same result every time, and there simply is no valid way to "test" creation because unlike science which seeks to measure the phenomenal world around us, creation is not something directly around us that can be empirically felt or measured.

That said, this does not necessarily invalidate creation neither because not being a science in the strict sense, it does not need to meet the definition of a science.


----------



## toobfreak

Wuwei said:


> they then go ahead and attempt to create an existential God out of nothing



That is wholly wrong because God was never "born."  God has neither beginning nor end.  He is his own cause existing wholly unto himself.


----------



## Wuwei

toobfreak said:


> That is wholly wrong because God was never "born."  God has neither beginning nor end.  He is his own cause existing wholly unto himself.


I wasn't arguing about the nature of God. I was arguing about the nature of the KCA.


----------



## alang1216

toobfreak said:


> That is wholly wrong because God was never "born."  God has neither beginning nor end.  He is his own cause existing wholly unto himself.


You say these things like they are facts.  In truth they are solely based on your faith.  Your scripture defines God and your faith allows you to accept it as truth.  That is fine but you can't say someone is wrong, only that they don't share your faith.


----------



## toobfreak

alang1216 said:


> You say these things like they are facts.


Without a doubt.



alang1216 said:


> In truth they are solely based on your faith.


In truth, your claims are based solely on your ignorance!


----------



## Baron Von Murderpaws

Why not teach it in schools?  They teach everything else now EXCEPT reading, writing, and arithmetic!!!


----------



## Stann

james bond said:


> Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.  Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is _natural_ in the physical world.  It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method.  What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence.  Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible.  It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world.  The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific.  One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe _began to exist_, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.
> 
> Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists!  Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang.  We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory.  Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning.  This is all part of epistemology.  We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.
> 
> I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com.  creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book.  Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.


Since god cannot be proven by science it has no place in science; maybe science fiction or mythology but not the sciences.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> >>Seems like a miracle that the first seed sprouted in less than 7 days.<<
> 
> I don't disagree with reading.  It's no miracle, but possibly help God gave Noah or Noah knew about birds and their behavior.
> 
> We discussed the raven and the dove.  Noah's Ark landed on Mt. Ararat.  At the end of forty days when its mountain top was visible, what bird did Noah release first and what happened?  Next, he released the dove and what happened?  This is when the 7 days you mentioned comes in after which he releases the dove again and it finds the olive leaf.
> 
> That's enough time for the olive tree to grow and sprout its first leaves as you stated..



When planted in fertile soil that gets full sun for at least 6 hours a day, you can expect your olive tree to bear fruit in 4 –5 years.


----------



## alang1216

toobfreak said:


> In truth, your claims are based solely on your ignorance!


"That is wholly wrong because God was never "born." God has neither beginning nor end. He is his own cause existing wholly unto himself."

If not faith, what 'knowledge' allows you to say any of this.


----------



## toobfreak

alang1216 said:


> If not faith, what 'knowledge' allows you to say any of this.


If I answered that question, you could no longer remain an atheist.


----------



## james bond

Colin norris said:


> Science cannot link itself to creationism.
> One is based on fact, the other is fact.
> 
> The irrelevance of religion is becoming obvious when the godbotherers attempt to link it to science.
> 
> There is no such thing as creation science. It's an oxymoron. There was no creator and all the other rubbish associated with religion. There is no God nor is there a need for one.  It's all explained.


Your post just goes to show you don't know at all about science.  I must've said a million times facts are something BOTH sides can use.  I've mentioned it several times, but you have poo poo in your ears and brains.  You don't even know what is true, i.e. facts, or not.  

Creation science shows what is true as it has been validated.  Evolution has not been validated nor has any hard evidence.  It's not observable nor testable.  It doesn't have any hard evidence of long time fossils.  Just assumption.  And assumption has made an ASS out of you, but not me .


----------



## james bond

JoeBlow said:


> I saw no scientific evidence in your response. It was more philosophical.


I provided you with a test gif.  It is a scientific test that shows something with intelligence behind it doesn't just pop into existence.  However, the non-scientific atheists believe that the universe, Earth, and everything in it did.  How can anyone who uses science believe that?  It's they who use philosophy and are stupid asf .


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> What you call “creationer science” is not in any way connected to science. Creationers simply put a burqa over their fundamentalist religious beliefs and add “science” with the hope of fooling the gullible.
> 
> What you fail to understand is that science is concerned with evidence. Creationer dogma is undeniably wedded to religious doctrine. The “statements of belief” required by various creationer ministries and the allegiance to Christianity made by individual creationers can’t be denied.
> 
> Creationer’ism is a matter of Biblical literalism. Facts from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. Authoritarian / totalitarian systems like creationism tend to instill in their adherents a rigid anti-science agenda.
> 
> The  Kalam Cosmological Argument is not an argument at all. Kalam’ism is a philosophical mess. The nonsense only had a short-lived emergence because of the religious extremist William Lane Craig. Kalam’ism argues that God exists because the universe must have a cause. There is never any indication of why this is and nothing other than “it’s true because I say so”. Kalam’ists simply use the same nonsense claim for Kalam’ism that religioners use for religion: “my gods exist because I say so”.


As usual, you and your side have no answers for how the universe, Earth, and everything in it started nor in what order.  A few scientists "believe" in multiverses as they just pop into existence.  That is stupid asf.  We only have evidence for ONE universe.  I'm talking science with ridiculous people who believe non-science and has an atheist _philosophy_ which is stupid asf.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Has anyone observed a 'creation'?  I thought it was done before there was any man to observe it?  How can we test creation science?
> 
> How do we teach creation science without being understanding the laws and mechanisms behind it and not being able to duplicate a creation in a lab?


I already showed thru the Bible that God stopped creation on the sixth day.  We don't have creation of life anymore, but observation and reproduction (another gift from God).

The observation shows scientifically that creation is valid and the DNA evidence is observable.


----------



## alang1216

toobfreak said:


> If I answered that question, you could no longer remain an atheist.


In that case, please answer.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> I already showed thru the Bible that God stopped creation on the sixth day.  We don't have creation of life anymore, but observation and reproduction (another gift from God).
> 
> The observation shows scientifically that creation is valid and the DNA evidence is observable.


It was a lifetime of observation that convinced Darwin but I doubt you have spent much time observing anything but your Bible.


----------



## toobfreak

alang1216 said:


> In that case, please answer.



I'll tell you this much now that I have a little time:  Everyone is at different points along the path to full God Realization, much like a physical development-- you wouldn't give a load of bricks to a child to carry up a ladder, same as people who are not yet ready for God should be left to develop in their own time.  Some people develop very quickly while others need many lifetimes, yet others are falling backwards the other way!

Atheists are always waiting for someone to "prove" God to them while standing on one foot, and someday you may find him or not, that is really up to you and God, but the cardinal mistake way too many Christians make is trying to beat atheists or agnostics over the head with their religion which many themselves really poorly understand, when these people neither want nor are ready for it!  So it just becomes a major turn off.  And it is an offense against God that a person actually drive another person farther from him by forcing stuff on them they are not yet ready to hear, and that is exactly what a lot of people do. They actually further drive people away from God by trying to beat them into believing, like it is some kind of personal affront to their ego that someone else does not share their faith, but true belief in God only comes from direct experience with him which happens entirely under his control and not because someone "preached" to them.

So you go right on believing or not believing whatever it is you believe.  If someday you are ready for God, he will reveal some of himself to you then you will not have to ask or wonder or listen to others, you will have no doubts.

There is no mistaking God when you meet Him.


----------



## toobfreak

alang1216 said:


> It was a lifetime of observation that convinced Darwin



Yes, that, and a lot of letters and conversations from and with Alfred Wallace, who really PROVED his theories, but got none of the credit.


----------



## alang1216

toobfreak said:


> I'll tell you this much now that I have a little time:  Everyone is at different points along the path to full God Realization, much like a physical development-- you wouldn't give a load of bricks to a child to carry up a ladder, same as people who are not yet ready for God should be left to develop in their own time.  Some people develop very quickly while others need many lifetimes, yet others are falling backwards the other way!
> 
> Atheists are always waiting for someone to "prove" God to them while standing on one foot, and someday you may find him or not, that is really up to you and God, but the cardinal mistake way too many Christians make is trying to beat atheists or agnostics over the head with their religion which many themselves really poorly understand, when these people neither want nor are ready for it!  So it just becomes a major turn off.  And it is an offense against God that a person actually drive another person farther from him by forcing stuff on them they are not yet ready to hear, and that is exactly what a lot of people do. They actually further drive people away from God by trying to beat them into believing, like it is some kind of personal affront to their ego that someone else does not share their faith, but true belief in God only comes from direct experience with him which happens entirely under his control and not because someone "preached" to them.
> 
> So you go right on believing or not believing whatever it is you believe.  If someday you are ready for God, he will reveal some of himself to you then you will not have to ask or wonder or listen to others, you will have no doubts.
> 
> There is no mistaking God when you meet Him.


Well, I'm still an atheist (with a touch of the agnostic) but thanks for your views.  

I guess like most atheists I can't believe in God BEFORE I believe in God, that takes a faith I don't have and am not searching for.  If God wants me he knows where to reach me, I don't feel I have that same option.


----------



## toobfreak

alang1216 said:


> Well, I'm still an atheist (with a touch of the agnostic) but thanks for your views.  I guess like most atheists I can't believe in God BEFORE I believe in God, that takes a faith I don't have and am not searching for.  If God wants me he knows where to reach me, I don't feel I have that same option.



If it helps, I grew up very much an atheist as a kid, pure science and all that, major skeptic, then one day something happened, not sure how, I met a man, I got a sudden interest, an inner hunger, a need, and without going into details, it all just fell into place.  It was the greatest experience of my life.  But I neither expect nor fault anyone else for having different experiences and beliefs!


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> As usual, you and your side have no answers for how the universe, Earth, and everything in it started nor in what order.  A few scientists "believe" in multiverses as they just pop into existence.  That is stupid asf.  We only have evidence for ONE universe.  I'm talking science with ridiculous people who believe non-science and has an atheist _philosophy_ which is stupid asf.


As usual, you don't understand that various disciplines of science are seeking answers to the 'origins' question. Unfortunately, you have dead-ended at the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah. You accept magic and supernaturalism at the hands of three gods as an answer.

You choose to vilify the human quest for knowledge and the desire to explore. That presents a problem for you because the church will never again have the power to inflict their fear and ignorance on humanity. There are not a lot of people being brutalized and tortured for proposing the earth is spherical. As much as you may disagree with a spherical planet, believing its flat will not change the facts,


----------



## alang1216

toobfreak said:


> Yes, that, and a lot of letters and conversations from and with Alfred Wallace, who really PROVED his theories, but got none of the credit.


Not how I recall it.  Wallace wrote to Darwin, but Darwin had been formulating he theories for decades by then.  The only thing Darwin got from Wallace was the push to publish.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> I already showed thru the Bible that God stopped creation on the sixth day. We don't have creation of life anymore, but observation and reproduction (another gift from God).
> 
> The observation shows scientifically that creation is valid and the DNA evidence is observable.


It seems that you are not interested in creation science in the way that an outsider would be. The major thrust is to dismiss evolution in every way possible. 

To me that is not creation science. It should focus equally on the science of creation rather than so fully on an attempt to dissemble evolution. But of course that is not possible because science cannot explain the flood nor the timeline of the opening chapters of the Genesis. So "creation science" is actually "anti-evolution science", but that would not sell to public school texts.

If the creation science of dissembling evolution is in the textbooks, then it would be fair game for the textbooks to dissemble Genesis science and promote it as allegory. It is a lose-lose situation for your quest.


----------



## Wuwei

alang1216 said:


> Not how I recall it.  Wallace wrote to Darwin, but Darwin had been formulating he theories for decades by then.  The only thing Darwin got from Wallace was the push to publish.


Yes I remember reading that Wallace was hot on the tail of Darwin. But really Darwin did all the field work.


----------



## toobfreak

alang1216 said:


> Not how I recall it.  Wallace wrote to Darwin, but Darwin had been formulating he theories for decades by then.  The only thing Darwin got from Wallace was the push to publish.



Nah.  Darwin sat on his theories for years unable to prove them and fearful of ridicule over them until Wallace came along freely telling him everything while out afoot amongst the islands of Malaysia doing the actual dirty leg work, until a friend of Darwin's reading Wallace's letters told Darwin that Wallace could publish at any time beating him to the punchline taking all the credit and that spurred Darwin to go forth and finaslly publish his theories.  Of course, he made no mention of Wallace.

At some point later, for about ten years, Wallace got almost equal recognition for the theories from the general community, but as time went on, Wallace slowly got rubbed out of collective memory because Darwin was a silver spooned elite university trained scholar from a rich family and Wallace was basically just some highly motivated boob amateur with as butterfly net.


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> I provided you with a test gif.  It is a scientific test that shows something with intelligence behind it doesn't just pop into existence.  However, the non-scientific atheists believe that the universe, Earth, and everything in it did.  How can anyone who uses science believe that?  It's they who use philosophy and are stupid asf .


I admit that we don't know how or why the universe happened. Scientists speculate because science can't yet see all the way back to the Big Bang.

Your proof rests on "a test gif". Like seriously brah! That's ridiculously not scientific. You realize that, right?


----------



## Wuwei

toobfreak said:


> Nah.  Darwin sat on his theories for years unable to prove them and fearful of ridicule over them until Wallace came along freely telling him everything while out afoot amongst the islands of Malaysia doing the actual dirty leg work, until a friend of Darwin's reading Wallace's letters told Darwin that Wallace could publish at any time beating him to the punchline taking all the credit and that spurred Darwin to go forth and finaslly publish his theories.  Of course, he made no mention of Wallace.
> 
> At some point later, for about ten years, Wallace got almost equal recognition for the theories from the general community, but as time went on, Wallace slowly got rubbed out of collective memory because Darwin was a silver spooned elite university trained scholar from a rich family and Wallace was basically just some highly motivated boob amateur with as butterfly net.


Sort of the opposite of Crick and Watson getting all the publicity and Rosalind Franklin who did the grunt work fading out of the picture.
.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> It was a lifetime of observation that convinced Darwin but I doubt you have spent much time observing anything but your Bible.


I wish.  I'm the one who observes, tests, and uses science, but would love to know and quote the Bible.  The atheist side was proven to believe w/o all three I mentioned first.


----------



## james bond

JoeBlow said:


> Your proof rests on "a test gif". Like seriously brah! That's ridiculously not scientific. You realize that, right?


It goes to show you're not very _observant_ lmao.  What else did I have?  The KCA, the start of space time, and the CMB which showed there was a beginning.  It _forced_ atheist scientists to stop believing in an eternal universe, another lie. The atheist scientists somehow rule science today without a cosmological argument, but it's the stupidest thing ever.


----------



## Colin norris

james bond said:


> Your post just goes to show you don't know at all about science.  I must've said a million times facts are something BOTH sides can use.  I've mentioned it several times, but you have poo poo in your ears and brains.  You don't even know what is true, i.e. facts, or not.
> 
> Creation science shows what is true as it has been validated.  Evolution has not been validated nor has any hard evidence.  It's not observable nor testable.  It doesn't have any hard evidence of long time fossils.  Just assumption.  And assumption has made an ASS out of you, but not me .



You don't believe in evolution, has no evidence or validated yet it's me who me who's  got no brains? 
You're just and brain dead delusional God botherer.


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> It goes to show you're not very _observant_ lmao.  What else did I have?  The KCA, the start of space time, and the CMB which showed there was a beginning.  It _forced_ atheist scientists to stop believing in an eternal universe, another lie. The atheist scientists somehow rule science today without a cosmological argument, but it's the stupidest thing ever.


You say stuff, but you don't back it up with science, just your opinion. EPIC FAIL!


----------



## Wuwei

Colin norris said:


> You don't believe in evolution, has no evidence or validated yet it's me who me who's got no brains?
> You're just and brain dead delusional God botherer.


He attacked your character with a laughing emoji. That means his argument must have a profound merit.


----------



## james bond

Colin norris said:


> You don't believe in evolution, has no evidence or validated yet it's me who me who's  got no brains?
> You're just and brain dead delusional God botherer.


I'm smart enough to know it's a lie if it's not observable nor testable.  Observable and testable are what we have on Earth that is real.  Even a person who claims they've "seen" a ghost has observed something.  Evos claim a bipedal ape and nobody has seen one lol.  This proves you are stupid as abu afak .


----------



## james bond

JoeBlow said:


> You say stuff, but you don't back it up with science, just your opinion. EPIC FAIL!


Man, you are dumb as abu afak .  The CMB which I just stated is observable and testable.

Get off the science board and stay on the dumb as abu afak board lol.


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> Man, you are dumb as abu afak .  The CMB which I just stated is observable and testable.
> 
> Get off the science board and stay on the dumb as abu afak board lol.


Then you should be able to link whatever the fuck you're talking about to a real science site.


----------



## Wuwei

JoeBlow said:


> Then you should be able to link whatever the fuck you're talking about to a real science site.


You have got him on the run. When he is boxed in he starts insults. He can't talk about real science because you will crush him. You are right in keeping the topic on the lack of science in creationism. He wants to control the conversation and keep it on evolution which has nothing to do with the bible.
.


----------



## Wuwei

JoeBlow I can't talk to him because he got so frustrated that he put me on ignore. The coward.


----------



## alang1216

toobfreak said:


> Nah.  Darwin sat on his theories for years unable to prove them


Evolution is not something you can prove, it isn't math.  What Darwin did was amass an overwhelming mountain of evidence that support ToE.



toobfreak said:


> and fearful of ridicule over them


As I recall, his was was deeply religious and Darwin was in no hurry to hurt her.



toobfreak said:


> until Wallace came along freely telling him everything while out afoot amongst the islands of Malaysia doing the actual dirty leg work,


work that Darwin had already done decades before.



toobfreak said:


> until a friend of Darwin's reading Wallace's letters told Darwin that Wallace could publish at any time beating him to the punchline taking all the credit and that spurred Darwin to go forth and finaslly publish his theories.  Of course, he made no mention of Wallace.


True but I don't believe he stole any of Wallace's work.  He had enough of his own.



toobfreak said:


> At some point later, for about ten years, Wallace got almost equal recognition for the theories from the general community, but as time went on, Wallace slowly got rubbed out of collective memory because Darwin was a silver spooned elite university trained scholar from a rich family and Wallace was basically just some highly motivated boob amateur with as butterfly net.


Darwin also had evidence to back him up, Wallace did not.


----------



## alang1216

toobfreak said:


> There is no mistaking God when you meet Him.


Alas, the majority of people on this planet would not agree, that is why there are so many religions.


----------



## toobfreak

alang1216 said:


> Evolution is not something you can prove, it isn't math.  Darwin also had evidence to back him up, Wallace did not.



Wrong on all counts.  Wallace PROVED evolution, Darwin could not.  Wallace had such proof they named the Wallace Line after him.








David Attenborough did a 1-2 hour special on Wallace years ago you should watch.  He was so compelled by Wallace's contributions he personally set forth to correct the situation and got a statue or painting of Wallace commissioned to give Wallace the recognition he deserved right next to Darwin!









						Alfred Russel Wallace: Evolution’s unsung hero
					

Why do we airbrush out some of history’s most important scientists, wonders Quentin Cooper.




					www.bbc.com


----------



## toobfreak

alang1216 said:


> Alas, the majority of people on this planet would not agree, that is why there are so many religions.



You totally misunderstand.  Quite the exact opposite is true.  Please stick to things you know something about.


----------



## alang1216

toobfreak said:


> Wrong on all counts.  Wallace PROVED evolution, Darwin could not.  Wallace had such proof they named the Wallace Line after him.
> 
> View attachment 567412
> 
> 
> 
> David Attenborough did a 1-2 hour special on Wallace years ago you should watch.  He was so compelled by Wallace's contributions he personally set forth to correct the situation and got a statue or painting of Wallace commissioned to give Wallace the recognition he deserved right next to Darwin!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alfred Russel Wallace: Evolution’s unsung hero
> 
> 
> Why do we airbrush out some of history’s most important scientists, wonders Quentin Cooper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com


I'm not trying to take anything away from Wallace.  They both independently stumbled on the ToE.  Darwin was first and had the most evidence.  Non-scientists to this day still doubt evolution despite all the evidence.  Wallace would never have had the impact in his day that Darwin did.


----------



## alang1216

toobfreak said:


> You totally misunderstand.  Quite the exact opposite is true.  Please stick to things you know something about.


Did Mohammed met God's messenger?  Did he understand?  

Don't think that because you have faith, you have knowledge.


----------



## toobfreak

alang1216 said:


> I'm not trying to take anything away from Wallace.  They both independently stumbled on the ToE.  Darwin was first and had the most evidence.  Non-scientists to this day still doubt evolution despite all the evidence.  Wallace would never have had the impact in his day that Darwin did.



Darwin was spurred to publish his findings because Wallace had so proven everything through direct field research and was sending all his findings to Darwin.  Darwin was a schmuck.  He knew Wallace was a vital part of the research and proof yet did not include him in his papers nor even told Wallace he was going to publish.  So I piss on Darwin.


----------



## toobfreak

alang1216 said:


> Don't think that because you have faith, you have knowledge.



Wrong again.  I have no faith.  Do I need faith in the Sun being warm and yellow?  No.


----------



## alang1216

toobfreak said:


> Wrong again.  I have no faith.  Do I need faith in the Sun being warm and yellow?  No.


My bad, I didn't realize you were an atheist since you wrote:
"God was never "born." God has neither beginning nor end. He is his own cause existing wholly unto himself."

Or do you have empirical or experimental evidence for a God with these characteristics?


----------



## toobfreak

alang1216 said:


> I'm not trying to take anything away from Wallace.  They both independently stumbled on the ToE.  Darwin was first and had the most evidence.  Non-scientists to this day still doubt evolution despite all the evidence.  Wallace would never have had the impact in his day that Darwin did.



Sorry Alang, but my statement above you disagree with is not MY opinion, that was the opinion of David Attenborough who is an expert on the matter and did extensive research on it as detailed in his two hour long BBC special on Wallace and Darwin.  He was the force behind having a statue made giving Wallace official recognition right alongside Darwin.  If you want to argue, argue with him.


----------



## Colin norris

james bond said:


> I'm smart enough to know it's a lie if it's not observable nor testable.  Observable and testable are what we have on Earth that is real.  Even a person who claims they've "seen" a ghost has observed something.  Evos claim a bipedal ape and nobody has seen one lol.  This proves you are stupid as abu afak .



And your a mountain of knowledge.  
No evidence.. what was our appendix and tail bone used for if There's no evolution


----------



## james bond

JoeBlow said:


> Then you should be able to link whatever the fuck you're talking about to a real science site.


Lol, nobody believes in the atheist eternal universe lie anymore.  Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.

You don't sound like the science type, so will link it for the ones who are -- The Discovery of the Microwave Background Radiation | Shortform Books.


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> Lol, nobody believes in the atheist eternal universe lie anymore.  Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.
> 
> You don't sound like the science type, so will link it for the ones who are -- The Discovery of the Microwave Background Radiation | Shortform Books.


So what does the MBR have to do with proving god? We don't know yet how and why the universe was created.


----------



## Wuwei

JoeBlow said:


> So what does the MBR have to do with proving god? We don't know yet how and why the universe was created.


Also who cares about the "eternal universe" of Fred Hoyle? That was abandoned 50 years ago. 
.


----------



## james bond

JoeBlow said:


> So what does the MBR have to do with proving god? We don't know yet how and why the universe was created.


The creation scientists and I know how and why the universe, Earth, and everything in it was created.  At least, you got the creation part right.  The CMB shows that there was a beginning and with KCA, it proves there is a God.  We are created in the image of God.


----------



## james bond

Colin norris said:


> And your a mountain of knowledge.
> No evidence.. what was our appendix and tail bone used for if There's no evolution


We do not have any vestigial organs as every organ was found to be useful.  You're behind the times.  See how much I know over you?

People need to die.  Why is it that people _need_ to die?


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> The creation scientists and I know how and why the universe, Earth, and everything in it was created.  At least, you got the creation part right.  The CMB shows that there was a beginning and with KCA, it proves there is a God.  We are created in the image of God.


Nobody disputes that there was a beginning of this universe. So creation people didn't invent anything there. What is KCA?


----------



## Wuwei

JoeBlow said:


> Nobody disputes that there was a beginning of this universe. So creation people didn't invent anything there. What is KCA?


Kalam Cosmological Argument is the thing that roughly says there must be a first cause. And that is god.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> The creation scientists and I know how and why the universe, Earth, and everything in it was created.  At least, you got the creation part right.  The CMB shows that there was a beginning and with KCA, it proves there is a God.  We are created in the image of God.


The KCA only defines the word "God" as a first cause. It doesn't prove anything else. Neither the CMB nor the KCA show that we are created in god's image. That is not science.


----------



## james bond

JoeBlow said:


> Nobody disputes that there was a beginning of this universe. So creation people didn't invent anything there. What is KCA?


>>Nobody disputes that there was a beginning of this universe.<<

It means the atheists and their scientists were wrong about an infinite universe.  Just based on that creationists win.

KCA is Kalam's Cosmological Argument.  Since you don't know, we can stop here.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> It means the atheists and their scientists were wrong about an infinite universe. Just based on that creationists win.
> 
> KCA is Kalam's Cosmological Argument. Since you don't know, we can stop here.


Hubble et al discredited Fred Hoyle many decades ago. Why are you bringing that up now? 
Scientists don't give a toot about the KCA. It is not science.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> KCA is Kalam's Cosmological Argument. Since you don't know, we can stop here.


JoeBlow 
james wants to give up because he doesn't know how to argue against science. He will probably put you on ignore like he did with others that have a better understanding of science. It is quite consistent with creation "science" which ignores science that doesn't support their lost cause.
.


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> >>Nobody disputes that there was a beginning of this universe.<<
> 
> It means the atheists and their scientists were wrong about an infinite universe.  Just based on that creationists win.
> 
> KCA is Kalam's Cosmological Argument.  Since you don't know, we can stop here.


Science is about observing and updated knowledge. Theists used to think the world was flat until science definitely proved otherwise.
Now, for the KCA, "1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is not proven, and then there's the catch-22 part of it. Then if god exists, it had to have a creator... And if god had no creator, then the KCA premise is wrong.


----------



## james bond

JoeBlow said:


> Science is about observing and updated knowledge. Theists used to think the world was flat until science definitely proved otherwise.
> Now, for the KCA, "1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is not proven, and then there's the catch-22 part of it. Then if god exists, it had to have a creator... And if god had no creator, then the KCA premise is wrong.


>>Theists used to think the world was flat until science definitely proved otherwise.<<

LMAO.  You are wrong again and a _loser_.  The Bible was the first to explain the Earth was spherical.  I think it was the atheists who thought it was flat since they contradict the Bible so often.  We had Flattie Hollie who changed her false beliefs when I pointed it out.

I'm sick of explaining it to people who don't understand, so I started to dub them _losers_.  It doesn't matter how much evidence that I have, but they still won't understand.

>>Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is not proven,Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is not proven,<<

LMAO on LMAO.  You are still wrong and continue to be a loser lol.  Name one thing that began to exist and didn't have a cause.  Go ahead show a contraction and everyone will be convinced you are right and not a loser lmao.  I'm wasting my time with losers as I'm a winner.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> The Bible was the first to explain the Earth was spherical.


Nowhere in the bible does it say the earth is spherical. NOWHERE. Circular like a pancake, yes. Spherical No.


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> >>Theists used to think the world was flat until science definitely proved otherwise.<<
> 
> LMAO.  You are wrong again and a _loser_.  The Bible was the first to explain the Earth was spherical.  I think it was the atheists who thought it was flat since they contradict the Bible so often.  We had Flattie Hollie who changed her false beliefs when I pointed it out.
> 
> I'm sick of explaining it to people who don't understand, so I started to dub them _losers_.  It doesn't matter how much evidence that I have, but they still won't understand.
> 
> >>Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is not proven,Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is not proven,<<
> 
> LMAO on LMAO.  You are still wrong and continue to be a loser lol.  Name one thing that began to exist and didn't have a cause.  Go ahead show a contraction and everyone will be convinced you are right and not a loser lmao.  I'm wasting my time with losers as I'm a winner.


"Name one thing that began to exist and didn't have a cause."  = god, or does god have a creator?

Theists thought the world was the center of the universe until proven by science that it wasn't. Theists are a dumb lot.


----------



## Wuwei

JoeBlow said:


> "Name one thing that began to exist and didn't have a cause." = god, or does god have a creator?


If god was created by another god, that god also must have been created. It leads to an infinite number of gods creating each other in turn. The question is why did the god who created our universe not create another god to continue the pattern. Why was he satisfied in creating a bunch of crappy people that he had to destroy in a flood?

.


----------



## james bond

Colin norris said:


> And your a mountain of knowledge.
> No evidence.. what was our appendix and tail bone used for if There's no evolution


Lol.  Compared to you, mine is Mt. Everest.  Newer studies have shown the appendix is to store beneficial bacteria used to re-populate the digestive system after illness.  Scientists know the tailbone serves as the point of connection for various tendons and muscles.  One usually learns about the myth of the tailbone in elementary school playgrounds since most kids fall on their butts a lot.  It explains why it really hurts when you fall on your tailbone.


----------

