The creationists are BACK

[bigrebnc1775]

the DoI has no legal weight

Really? It was good enough to be the cause that broke the chains that would have kept you a subject of the crown.

 

[JBeukema]

the DoI has no legal weight

Really? It was good enough to be the cause that broke the chains that would have kept you a subject of the crown.

Wow... I'm not even sure how to respond to a post that stupid.

 

[Old Rocks]

The evidence for evolution rests on many foundations. The sequence of evolution found in fossils and the dating of the layers that contain the fossils. The observed relationships among living species and the confirmation of those relationships by modern genetic mapping. The fact that we can use that mapping to predict effects of inserting a gene at certain places in the DNA of a specie.

From Mendel, to Watson, Franklin, and Cricks, and the present Geneticists that are engaged in the mapping of the DNA of various species, the fact of evolution is continually being demonstrated.

Evolution happened, is happening today, and will continue to happen as long as there is life.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

the DoI has no legal weight

Really? It was good enough to be the cause that broke the chains that would have kept you a subject of the crown.

Wow... I'm not even sure how to respond to a post that stupid.

The words of a moron person^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[AllieBaba]

The evidence for evolution rests on many foundations. The sequence of evolution found in fossils and the dating of the layers that contain the fossils. The observed relationships among living species and the confirmation of those relationships by modern genetic mapping. The fact that we can use that mapping to predict effects of inserting a gene at certain places in the DNA of a specie.

From Mendel, to Watson, Franklin, and Cricks, and the present Geneticists that are engaged in the mapping of the DNA of various species, the fact of evolution is continually being demonstrated.

Evolution happened, is happening today, and will continue to happen as long as there is life.

What does that have to do with creation theory?

 

[Old Rocks]

It's on a government document called the Declaration of Independence. It's written in the bill of rights.

Uh, bigrebnc, the Bill of Rights is in the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. And if these rights are God given, how come so many men had to die to bring them into effect in just the areas of the world where they actually are part of the law?

The Bill of Rights is man created because of the hard lessons learned when men are not allowed these freedoms.

the Bill of Rights is in the Constitution not the Declaration of Independence.

Two seperate documents The bill of rights are rights that the government is supposed to protect.

Declaration of Independence was crated break away from the king who was tramppling on those God given rights.

According to the churches in Europe, and a great many in America at that time, it was the King's God given right to rule as he saw fit.

And, if our rights were God given, how come men had to die to obtain them? Was God looking the other way?

But none of this has to do with the subject of this thread, which is the scientific fact of evolution, and the scientific theory of how the chemistry, physics, and biology work to create that evolution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Uh, bigrebnc, the Bill of Rights is in the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. And if these rights are God given, how come so many men had to die to bring them into effect in just the areas of the world where they actually are part of the law?

The Bill of Rights is man created because of the hard lessons learned when men are not allowed these freedoms.

the Bill of Rights is in the Constitution not the Declaration of Independence.

Two seperate documents The bill of rights are rights that the government is supposed to protect.

Declaration of Independence was crated break away from the king who was tramppling on those God given rights.

According to the churches in Europe, and a great many in America at that time, it was the King's God given right to rule as he saw fit.

And, if our rights were God given, how come men had to die to obtain them? Was God looking the other way?

But none of this has to do with the subject of this thread, which is the scientific fact of evolution, and the scientific theory of how the chemistry, physics, and biology work to create that evolution.

According to the churches in Europe, and a great many in America at that time, it was the King's God given right to rule as he saw fit.

george was a tyrant

 

[JBeukema]

Tyrant's have the right to rule. God demands we obey Hitler's every order, for God put Hitler in power to execute God's plan.

Dan 2:21 "It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; He gives wisdom to wise men And knowledge to men of understanding.

Rom 13:1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

 

[Gadawg73]

That's funny. Counter to actual statistical evidence as well. The U.S. has it's highest academic success in, wait for it, religiously sponsored schools, even in urban areas. The U.S. has actually dropped like a stone academicly since religous studies and all mention of the potential of God has been prohibited in public schools.

Of course, even trying to make this cause and effect relationship does prove that education has left at least one child behind...In addition look at the top nations on the list, they all have a dominant religion that isn't atheism.

I went to a religous high school.
They taught evolution as FACT.
ALL religous universities and colleges teach it AS FACT except 3 in America.

You went to a religious school that didn't have any classes in religion? I find that ironic and difficult to believe. Of course I don't believe they teach it as "fact" as it is generally taught as accepted theory, which is not the same thing. Teaching it as fact is irresposible and inaccurate as well as it isn't proven, not even well enough to be complete as a theory. I can only assume you are misrepresenting the actual teachings by virtue of intentional or mistaken characterization, but either way, no responsible entity would teach evolution as fact as it isn't. Also, religious instruction has no appearant detrimental effect on academic proformance as asserted by the poster I was responding to. On the contrary, it appears to have a positive effect even when it is completely seperate from sciences as most religous education seems to prefer, as you pointed to.

As an aside, was the graduation, literacy and college placement rate higher in that school than the local public school? Did they offer a religious course of study? Just wondering...

Where did I claim that the religous school I went to had no classes in religion. In fact they did and it was an Army Captain that had just returned from the Nam that taught those classes. I attended Sewanee Academy and Sewanee Military Academy in the mid 1960s.
I took Biology 101 at the university. Evolution was taught at fact.
Emory University and Mercer University, 2 of the finest private RELIGOUS schools in the country teach evolution in Biology as FACT.
Name one university that does not teach it as fact other than the 3 religous schools that don't.
Again, where did I ever state at any time I never took any religion classes in high school.
Do you just make it up as you go?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Tyrant's have the right to rule. God demands we obey Hitler's every order, for God put Hitler in power to execute God's plan.

Dan 2:21 "It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; He gives wisdom to wise men And knowledge to men of understanding.

Rom 13:1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

Thats why God created me to kill tyrants so Christians won't have to.

 

[konradv]

the DoI has no legal weight

Neither do "God given rights". Without government your rights are whatever I say they are, if I'm stronger than you.

 

[geauxtohell]

What is the difference between a "belief" and a "hypothesis"? Appearantly it is the difference between what you seem to personally believe and what you don't, eh? Falling back on this type of rhetoric simply proves you don't have any reasoned response, doesn't it?

First, I saw "a-religious" and read "anti-religious". I apologize for that.

Second, this goes to the core of the scientific method. A valid hypothesis has to have a null hypothesis. Despite what people claim, a hypothesis is more than an "educated guess". A belief is a personal thing. There is no standard for it. Most people believe in God without holding that belief to the standard that there might not be a God (the null of the belief).

It's the difference between an organized and systemic method of asking questions and seeking answers and one that isn't.

Although I could say that as an engineer, I know design when I see it and that random occurances have a greater likelihood of undoing themselves than progressing in a readable pattern. Either way, science and scientific method are predicated on hypothetical conclusions based on observable facts and research, so if it is easily observed that random occurances are not as likely as a design, how is that not science as a hypothesis to work from? Oh, because you say so? So far that really is the only answer you seem capable of providing, right?

The overwhelming majority of scientists say so. It's a pretty basic and simple argument, which is why "design" lost in Dover.

Simply because you choose to see "design" doesn't make it a scientifically defensible position.

I fail to see any intelligence in a design of the human body that includes a multitude of "design flaws". If you dispute that, feel free to explain the intelligence behind autoimmune diseases and cancer.

 

[nraforlife]

the DoI has no legal weight

Neither do "God given rights". Without government your rights are whatever I say they are, if I'm stronger than you.

No the Rights STILL exist even if you usurp them for a time due to some temporary strength advantage. Thus I may destroy you and yours by any means open or covert and then sleep well that night knowing I have done the proper thing.

 

[nraforlife]

.............The overwhelming majority of scientists say so.................................

which only demonstrates that most 'scientists' are not very good at what they do.

 

[AllieBaba]

Scientists are often, spectacularly, wrong. And never so wrong as when they are wrong EN MASSE.

 

[eots]

the best scientist are often spiritual people the two are not in conflict that is simply a right/left -wing political sham



The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.

( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)

 

[Uncle Kenny]

I went to a religous high school.
They taught evolution as FACT.
ALL religous universities and colleges teach it AS FACT except 3 in America.

You went to a religious school that didn't have any classes in religion? I find that ironic and difficult to believe. Of course I don't believe they teach it as "fact" as it is generally taught as accepted theory, which is not the same thing. Teaching it as fact is irresposible and inaccurate as well as it isn't proven, not even well enough to be complete as a theory. I can only assume you are misrepresenting the actual teachings by virtue of intentional or mistaken characterization, but either way, no responsible entity would teach evolution as fact as it isn't. Also, religious instruction has no appearant detrimental effect on academic proformance as asserted by the poster I was responding to. On the contrary, it appears to have a positive effect even when it is completely seperate from sciences as most religous education seems to prefer, as you pointed to.

As an aside, was the graduation, literacy and college placement rate higher in that school than the local public school? Did they offer a religious course of study? Just wondering...

Where did I claim that the religous school I went to had no classes in religion. In fact they did and it was an Army Captain that had just returned from the Nam that taught those classes. I attended Sewanee Academy and Sewanee Military Academy in the mid 1960s.
I took Biology 101 at the university. Evolution was taught at fact.
Emory University and Mercer University, 2 of the finest private RELIGOUS schools in the country teach evolution in Biology as FACT.
Name one university that does not teach it as fact other than the 3 religous schools that don't.
Again, where did I ever state at any time I never took any religion classes in high school.
Do you just make it up as you go?

After all the questions and comment I have made, you solely respond to what is an obviously sarcastic comment and ignore all else? As to teaching evolution as fact, that is irresponsible as it isn't fact, nor is it supported by complete or proven reliable data. This isn't my opinion, it is the admitted liability of current science, it requires absolute proof for hypothesis to be "fact".

Evolution is the accepted hypothesis as it hasn't been disproven and has substantiation that is compelling while still incomplete and inadequate to be fact. The fact that the theory has changed drasticly, but is still in some way intact is what makes it the dominant hypothesis.

 

[NYcarbineer]

God given rights?

What about the divine right of kings? The justification for absolutism.

Who decided that God doesn't give kings rights, he gives the people rights?

(Clue: it wasn't God who decided that...)

 

[NYcarbineer]

Simple question who gives rights
God
or
the government?

God is an unproven idea believed in on faith. The government is real. If rights come from an entity that cannot even be demonstrated to exist,

the rights don't exist.

The government cannot give you rights they can only protect the rights you have.
Life Liberty and the pursuit of happniess

That is merely a theory some Men concocted.

Where do you go when someone violates your rights? Do you go to God? Or do you go to the Government?

 

[Uncle Kenny]

What is the difference between a "belief" and a "hypothesis"? Appearantly it is the difference between what you seem to personally believe and what you don't, eh? Falling back on this type of rhetoric simply proves you don't have any reasoned response, doesn't it?

First, I saw "a-religious" and read "anti-religious". I apologize for that.

Second, this goes to the core of the scientific method. A valid hypothesis has to have a null hypothesis. Despite what people claim, a hypothesis is more than an "educated guess". A belief is a personal thing. There is no standard for it. Most people believe in God without holding that belief to the standard that there might not be a God (the null of the belief).

It's the difference between an organized and systemic method of asking questions and seeking answers and one that isn't.

Although I could say that as an engineer, I know design when I see it and that random occurances have a greater likelihood of undoing themselves than progressing in a readable pattern. Either way, science and scientific method are predicated on hypothetical conclusions based on observable facts and research, so if it is easily observed that random occurances are not as likely as a design, how is that not science as a hypothesis to work from? Oh, because you say so? So far that really is the only answer you seem capable of providing, right?

The overwhelming majority of scientists say so. It's a pretty basic and simple argument, which is why "design" lost in Dover.

Simply because you choose to see "design" doesn't make it a scientifically defensible position.

I fail to see any intelligence in a design of the human body that includes a multitude of "design flaws". If you dispute that, feel free to explain the intelligence behind autoimmune diseases and cancer.

Actually, most scientists I know agree that an aspect of engineering and design is the most obvious explanation of the universe and more specifically animated life and the Earth's ability to support it. Barring the multi-verse theory a single universe would still have the most incredible unrealistic odds of random occurrence imaginable.

Occam's Razor would suggest that be the first hypothesis employed by virtue of its intuitive and statistical likelihood, especially when compared with all other hypothesis which to this point is not well supported in objective terms. There are more gaps and unanswered questions than supported aspects of observation and speculation in many commonly supported theories.

O.K. Short and limited version...The existence of a place (the Earth) that is capable of sustaining life and has numerous mechanisms to preserve and enhance said life is in and of itself virtually impossible without some forethought and engineering, even if it isn't flawless. The existence of life, something that we don't even have a coherent hypothesis for the origination of, and its interdependence is further evidence of engineering.

As to design flaws, show me a perfect design in anything. I can't ignore the multitude of things that work exceptionally well because some things have flaws in them. Considering we don't even appreciate the full scope of the variables in play, bashing the design is pretty arrogant, in my opinion. Even that animals and plants die is a necessity as it turns out if they are capable of reproduction, so what appears to be flaws might be required imperfections.