The creationists are BACK

[Robert]

I think you've got it backwards. Religion is about assumption, science is about fact. You have to assume a lot in order to believe the Bible, even assume things are totally impossible. Science has to test itself, over and over and over again in a million different ways.

Again, evolution is a fact. There is no doubt in the scientific community that evolution happens, they're way beyond that.

Creationism taught in a religion class is fine, until there's any shred of scientific evidence backing creationism it can't be taught in a science class.

Again, evolution is a fact

LOL Evolution is a theory as is Creation both are based upon assumptions both claim to be fact's yet neither have any fact's to back them up.

Science sport is not a condition of consensus Evolution has not been proven Evolution is a theory.

You're not paying attention both Creation and Evolution are both wrong and right for the moment this will change when one or the other becomes a proven fact and not just a theory.

As far as Evolution being taught in the Class room it also has not a Shred of Scientific evidence to support its claims, so as far as I can see either both are taught or neither are taught as competing........Pay attention (THEORY'S)

Evolution is a fact and a theory. Evolution happening is a fact, just like gravity is a fact, both are obvservable. And there's also the theory of evolution and gravity, to put it in an overly basic way, they describe how and why evolution and gravity happen.

Evolution has been proven, in many different ways.

Neither evolution or creation have been proven wrong. Evolution has been proven right, creationism is unproven.

If you want to deny the Theory of Evolution and say God has a guiding hand or the Theory of Gravity and say God is shoving everything towards the earth that's fine, but if you deny that evolution or gravity happens you're denying facts, not theories.

If you'd like I can provide links with proof of evolution, but I'm not going to waste time getting them if you won't click on them. Just let me know.

Evolution is a fact and a theory

I don't even know where to start with this. Its either a "Proven" Scientific Fact or it isn't it can't be both. The absurdity of your statements made my eye's water. Look I get it you're a Believer in Evolution its an orthodoxy for you I get that but that doesn't make it a Scientific Fact your statements are as pathetic as those used by Creationists.

I happen not to believe in either for one reason and one reason only neither have been proven.

Try to be honest both are theories neither have been proven to prove the existence of either will be the herald of a new understanding for Man.

You can throw up all the link's you would like you and I both know those links point to a Theory of what happened or how it happened. Have you ever pondered the question "Of which came first the Chicken or the egg"

 

[peach174]

Life has never been proven to come from anything that was dead.
The origins of life had to be started from something that was already alive.

 

[Dr.Drock]

LOL Evolution is a theory as is Creation both are based upon assumptions both claim to be fact's yet neither have any fact's to back them up.

Science sport is not a condition of consensus Evolution has not been proven Evolution is a theory.

You're not paying attention both Creation and Evolution are both wrong and right for the moment this will change when one or the other becomes a proven fact and not just a theory.

As far as Evolution being taught in the Class room it also has not a Shred of Scientific evidence to support its claims, so as far as I can see either both are taught or neither are taught as competing........Pay attention (THEORY'S)

Evolution is a fact and a theory. Evolution happening is a fact, just like gravity is a fact, both are obvservable. And there's also the theory of evolution and gravity, to put it in an overly basic way, they describe how and why evolution and gravity happen.

Evolution has been proven, in many different ways.

Neither evolution or creation have been proven wrong. Evolution has been proven right, creationism is unproven.

If you want to deny the Theory of Evolution and say God has a guiding hand or the Theory of Gravity and say God is shoving everything towards the earth that's fine, but if you deny that evolution or gravity happens you're denying facts, not theories.

If you'd like I can provide links with proof of evolution, but I'm not going to waste time getting them if you won't click on them. Just let me know.

Evolution is a fact and a theory

I don't even know where to start with this. Its either a "Proven" Scientific Fact or it isn't it can't be both. The absurdity of your statements made my eye's water. Look I get it you're a Believer in Evolution its an orthodoxy for you I get that but that doesn't make it a Scientific Fact your statements are as pathetic as those used by Creationists.

I happen not to believe in either for one reason and one reason only neither have been proven.

Try to be honest both are theories neither have been proven to prove the existence of either will be the herald of a new understanding for Man.

You can throw up all the link's you would like you and I both know those links point to a Theory of what happened or how it happened. Have you ever pondered the question "Of which came first the Chicken or the egg"

Evolution is a proven fact, why evolution happens hasn't been proven, it's really not that difficult that it should make your eyes water. It's the exact same situation for gravity, but there isn't a religious push to deny gravity as there is with evolution.

I don't have to "believe" in facts, facts are known.

That's an easy question to answer, dinosaurs were laying eggs before chickens existed, thus the egg came before the chicken.

 

[Robert]

Evolution is a fact and a theory. Evolution happening is a fact, just like gravity is a fact, both are obvservable. And there's also the theory of evolution and gravity, to put it in an overly basic way, they describe how and why evolution and gravity happen.

Evolution has been proven, in many different ways.

Neither evolution or creation have been proven wrong. Evolution has been proven right, creationism is unproven.

If you want to deny the Theory of Evolution and say God has a guiding hand or the Theory of Gravity and say God is shoving everything towards the earth that's fine, but if you deny that evolution or gravity happens you're denying facts, not theories.

If you'd like I can provide links with proof of evolution, but I'm not going to waste time getting them if you won't click on them. Just let me know.

Evolution is a fact and a theory

I don't even know where to start with this. Its either a "Proven" Scientific Fact or it isn't it can't be both. The absurdity of your statements made my eye's water. Look I get it you're a Believer in Evolution its an orthodoxy for you I get that but that doesn't make it a Scientific Fact your statements are as pathetic as those used by Creationists.

I happen not to believe in either for one reason and one reason only neither have been proven.

Try to be honest both are theories neither have been proven to prove the existence of either will be the herald of a new understanding for Man.

You can throw up all the link's you would like you and I both know those links point to a Theory of what happened or how it happened. Have you ever pondered the question "Of which came first the Chicken or the egg"

Evolution is a proven fact, why evolution happens hasn't been proven, it's really not that difficult that it should make your eyes water. It's the exact same situation for gravity, but there isn't a religious push to deny gravity as there is with evolution.

I don't have to "believe" in facts, facts are known.

That's an easy question to answer, dinosaurs were laying eggs before chickens existed, thus the egg came before the chicken.

That's an easy question to answer, dinosaurs were laying eggs before chickens existed, thus the egg came before the chicken

If dinosaurs come from egg's where did the first egg's come from?

 

[Dr.Drock]

I don't even know where to start with this. Its either a "Proven" Scientific Fact or it isn't it can't be both. The absurdity of your statements made my eye's water. Look I get it you're a Believer in Evolution its an orthodoxy for you I get that but that doesn't make it a Scientific Fact your statements are as pathetic as those used by Creationists.

I happen not to believe in either for one reason and one reason only neither have been proven.

Try to be honest both are theories neither have been proven to prove the existence of either will be the herald of a new understanding for Man.

You can throw up all the link's you would like you and I both know those links point to a Theory of what happened or how it happened. Have you ever pondered the question "Of which came first the Chicken or the egg"

Evolution is a proven fact, why evolution happens hasn't been proven, it's really not that difficult that it should make your eyes water. It's the exact same situation for gravity, but there isn't a religious push to deny gravity as there is with evolution.

I don't have to "believe" in facts, facts are known.

That's an easy question to answer, dinosaurs were laying eggs before chickens existed, thus the egg came before the chicken.

That's an easy question to answer, dinosaurs were laying eggs before chickens existed, thus the egg came before the chicken

If dinosaurs come from egg's where did the first egg's come from?

Well that's a different question .

Who Laid The First Egg? Scientists Move A Step Closer To Linking Embryos Of Earth's First Animals To Adult Form

Here's what I found, this stuff is really quite fascinating, that's why it's sad so many people prefer to put their fingers in their ears and just deny evolution.

 

[Gadawg73]

This creationism being taught as science argument is like a knuckleball.
The only way to hit a knuckleball is do not miss the fastball.
The only way to catch a knuckleball is wait to the ball stops rolling.
I favor creationism and ID taught in school and fully support it.
In religion and philosophy class. It is not science.

 

[Robert]

Evolution is a proven fact, why evolution happens hasn't been proven, it's really not that difficult that it should make your eyes water. It's the exact same situation for gravity, but there isn't a religious push to deny gravity as there is with evolution.

I don't have to "believe" in facts, facts are known.

That's an easy question to answer, dinosaurs were laying eggs before chickens existed, thus the egg came before the chicken.

That's an easy question to answer, dinosaurs were laying eggs before chickens existed, thus the egg came before the chicken

If dinosaurs come from egg's where did the first egg's come from?

Well that's a different question .

Who Laid The First Egg? Scientists Move A Step Closer To Linking Embryos Of Earth's First Animals To Adult Form

Here's what I found, this stuff is really quite fascinating, that's why it's sad so many people prefer to put their fingers in their ears and just deny evolution.

Surprisingly an equal number of people do the same with evolution not surprising I suppose its a competing argument about the other side of the coin.

 

[Dr.Drock]

If dinosaurs come from egg's where did the first egg's come from?

Well that's a different question .

Who Laid The First Egg? Scientists Move A Step Closer To Linking Embryos Of Earth's First Animals To Adult Form

Here's what I found, this stuff is really quite fascinating, that's why it's sad so many people prefer to put their fingers in their ears and just deny evolution.

Surprisingly an equal number of people do the same with evolution not surprising I suppose its a competing argument about the other side of the coin.

This is a perfect example of me not putting my fingers in my ears, I'm reading and finding out more.

 

[Skynet]

a question for creationists....

there have been quite a few people on here who talk about testing the theory of evolution through the scientific process, and that evolution has been observed in nature.

what is the test that can help prove creationism? or the test that has helped prove creationism? it seems to me that the only mention or supporting evidence is the bible. the same bible that says the earth is only 6000 year old.....

 

[peach174]

This creationism being taught as science argument is like a knuckleball.
The only way to hit a knuckleball is do not miss the fastball.
The only way to catch a knuckleball is wait to the ball stops rolling.
I favor creationism and ID taught in school and fully support it.
In religion and philosophy class. It is not science.

It is about science.

Spontaneous Generation - organic life developing from inorganic matter (a rock). The sadly comical result is that some modern day textbooks devote a chapter to the work of Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur, and their success in disproving Spontaneous Generation. Then, a few chapters later, school kids are taught that Spontaneous Generation is the Origin of Life.

Life can not come dead material. It had to some from something or someone who was already alive.

 

[Dr.Drock]

This creationism being taught as science argument is like a knuckleball.
The only way to hit a knuckleball is do not miss the fastball.
The only way to catch a knuckleball is wait to the ball stops rolling.
I favor creationism and ID taught in school and fully support it.
In religion and philosophy class. It is not science.

It is about science.

Spontaneous Generation - organic life developing from inorganic matter (a rock). The sadly comical result is that some modern day textbooks devote a chapter to the work of Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur, and their success in disproving Spontaneous Generation. Then, a few chapters later, school kids are taught that Spontaneous Generation is the Origin of Life.

Life can not come dead material. It had to some from something or someone who was already alive.

The origin of life is still being studied, science doesn't have a conclusive answer and they're working with amino acids, proteins, bacteria, etc. To just say "God did it" without scientific evidence doesn't work in science.

But science not having figured out how life originated isn't a reason to deny basic science like evolution,

 

[peach174]

a question for creationists....

there have been quite a few people on here who talk about testing the theory of evolution through the scientific process, and that evolution has been observed in nature.

what is the test that can help prove creationism? or the test that has helped prove creationism? it seems to me that the only mention or supporting evidence is the bible. the same bible that says the earth is only 6000 year old.....

No the Bible does not teach that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Some are teaching that and it is not right. If they read their bible they would get this correct.
The bible says that Gods years of one day is equivalent to 1,000 years of mankind.
It took God 6,000 years to create life of everything here on earth.
To him it was 6 days, to us it was 6,000 years.
And we have no real idea of how old the earth really was before he stared life here. And we have no idea of how long life has been since his creation.
I support that earth maybe billions of years old.
And science has proved that life had to come from something or someone who started it.
Life does not come from dead material.

 

[peach174]

This creationism being taught as science argument is like a knuckleball.
The only way to hit a knuckleball is do not miss the fastball.
The only way to catch a knuckleball is wait to the ball stops rolling.
I favor creationism and ID taught in school and fully support it.
In religion and philosophy class. It is not science.

It is about science.

Spontaneous Generation - organic life developing from inorganic matter (a rock). The sadly comical result is that some modern day textbooks devote a chapter to the work of Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur, and their success in disproving Spontaneous Generation. Then, a few chapters later, school kids are taught that Spontaneous Generation is the Origin of Life.

Life can not come dead material. It had to some from something or someone who was already alive.

The origin of life is still being studied, science doesn't have a conclusive answer and they're working with amino acids, proteins, bacteria, etc. To just say "God did it" without scientific evidence doesn't work in science.

But science not having figured out how life originated isn't a reason to deny basic science like evolution,

Yes and even after a hundred and fifty years scientists still can not produce life from dead material let alone duplicate the complexities of one celled organisms.

 

[Skynet]

a question for creationists....

there have been quite a few people on here who talk about testing the theory of evolution through the scientific process, and that evolution has been observed in nature.

what is the test that can help prove creationism? or the test that has helped prove creationism? it seems to me that the only mention or supporting evidence is the bible. the same bible that says the earth is only 6000 year old.....

No the Bible does not teach that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Some are teaching that and it is not right. If they read their bible they would get this correct.
The bible says that Gods years of one day is equivalent to 1,000 years of mankind.
It took God 6,000 years to create life of everything here on earth.
To him it was 6 days, to us it was 6,000 years.
And we have no real idea of how old the earth really was before he stared life here. And we have no idea of how long life has been since his creation.
I support that earth maybe billions of years old.
And science has proved that life had to come from something or someone who started it.
Life does not come from dead material.

wow for a bible thumper you sure dont know much about it

The Bible is clear that Adam, the first man, lived only 6000 years ago. Adam was created on the sixth day of God's Creation Week, so according to the Bible the earth must be only 6000 years old too.How old is the earth according to the Bible?

Radiometric dating has not been applied to just a few selected rocks from the geologic record. Literally many tens of thousands of radiometric age measurements are documented in the scientific literature. Since beginning operation in the early 1960s, the Geochronology laboratories of the U. S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California, have alone produced more than 20,000 K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and 14C ages. Add to this number the age measurements made by from 50 to 100 other laboratories worldwide, and it is easy to see that the number of radiometric ages produced over the past two to three decades and published in the scientific literature must easily exceed 100,000. Taken as a whole, these data clearly prove that the Earth’s history extends backward from the present to at least 3.8 billion years into the past.

How Old is the Earth: Scientific Age of the Earth

i find it extremely funny that you believe the bible when it says creationism is the truth, but not that the earth is only 6000 years old.

and to counter your argument, nothing has proven there is a god nor that he created the universe. i challenge you to prove this statement wrong.

 

[Jack Fate]

I'm pretty hard core conservative and I fuckin hate all this religious crap. I actually avoid people that are active "god believers" if I can. Religious nuts attached themselves to a party and can't grasp the concept that Religion has no place in how Government works.

This is where they claim "morals!" Yes, because without God I can't have morals... I like it when soldiers say they believe in God then go kill people in other countries, I'm sure God appreciates their hard work.

Lets keep fighting about how to get more God involved in schools for the reason of, well who the fuck knows....

You would have avoided the founding fathers?

"...the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State - James Madison

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" - James Madison

I totally agree. Keep government away from religious freedom.

 

[Jack Fate]

a question for creationists....

there have been quite a few people on here who talk about testing the theory of evolution through the scientific process, and that evolution has been observed in nature.

what is the test that can help prove creationism? or the test that has helped prove creationism? it seems to me that the only mention or supporting evidence is the bible. the same bible that says the earth is only 6000 year old.....

No the Bible does not teach that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Some are teaching that and it is not right. If they read their bible they would get this correct.
The bible says that Gods years of one day is equivalent to 1,000 years of mankind.
It took God 6,000 years to create life of everything here on earth.
To him it was 6 days, to us it was 6,000 years.
And we have no real idea of how old the earth really was before he stared life here. And we have no idea of how long life has been since his creation.
I support that earth maybe billions of years old.
And science has proved that life had to come from something or someone who started it.
Life does not come from dead material.

wow for a bible thumper you sure dont know much about it

The Bible is clear that Adam, the first man, lived only 6000 years ago. Adam was created on the sixth day of God's Creation Week, so according to the Bible the earth must be only 6000 years old too.How old is the earth according to the Bible?

Radiometric dating has not been applied to just a few selected rocks from the geologic record. Literally many tens of thousands of radiometric age measurements are documented in the scientific literature. Since beginning operation in the early 1960s, the Geochronology laboratories of the U. S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California, have alone produced more than 20,000 K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and 14C ages. Add to this number the age measurements made by from 50 to 100 other laboratories worldwide, and it is easy to see that the number of radiometric ages produced over the past two to three decades and published in the scientific literature must easily exceed 100,000. Taken as a whole, these data clearly prove that the Earth’s history extends backward from the present to at least 3.8 billion years into the past.

How Old is the Earth: Scientific Age of the Earth

i find it extremely funny that you believe the bible when it says creationism is the truth, but not that the earth is only 6000 years old.

and to counter your argument, nothing has proven there is a god nor that he created the universe. i challenge you to prove this statement wrong.

Are you serious? I thought you believed in science.

 

[Skynet]

No the Bible does not teach that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Some are teaching that and it is not right. If they read their bible they would get this correct.
The bible says that Gods years of one day is equivalent to 1,000 years of mankind.
It took God 6,000 years to create life of everything here on earth.
To him it was 6 days, to us it was 6,000 years.
And we have no real idea of how old the earth really was before he stared life here. And we have no idea of how long life has been since his creation.
I support that earth maybe billions of years old.
And science has proved that life had to come from something or someone who started it.
Life does not come from dead material.

wow for a bible thumper you sure dont know much about it

The Bible is clear that Adam, the first man, lived only 6000 years ago. Adam was created on the sixth day of God's Creation Week, so according to the Bible the earth must be only 6000 years old too.How old is the earth according to the Bible?

Radiometric dating has not been applied to just a few selected rocks from the geologic record. Literally many tens of thousands of radiometric age measurements are documented in the scientific literature. Since beginning operation in the early 1960s, the Geochronology laboratories of the U. S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California, have alone produced more than 20,000 K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and 14C ages. Add to this number the age measurements made by from 50 to 100 other laboratories worldwide, and it is easy to see that the number of radiometric ages produced over the past two to three decades and published in the scientific literature must easily exceed 100,000. Taken as a whole, these data clearly prove that the Earth’s history extends backward from the present to at least 3.8 billion years into the past.

How Old is the Earth: Scientific Age of the Earth

i find it extremely funny that you believe the bible when it says creationism is the truth, but not that the earth is only 6000 years old.

and to counter your argument, nothing has proven there is a god nor that he created the universe. i challenge you to prove this statement wrong.

Are you serious? I thought you believed in science.

you are misreading my argument. i do believe in science. i am trying to show her the "evidence" for her side of the argument. (which there isnt any outside the bible) vs. what science has been able to prove about the age of the earth.

 

[Skynet]

It is about science.

Spontaneous Generation - organic life developing from inorganic matter (a rock). The sadly comical result is that some modern day textbooks devote a chapter to the work of Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur, and their success in disproving Spontaneous Generation. Then, a few chapters later, school kids are taught that Spontaneous Generation is the Origin of Life.

Life can not come dead material. It had to some from something or someone who was already alive.

The origin of life is still being studied, science doesn't have a conclusive answer and they're working with amino acids, proteins, bacteria, etc. To just say "God did it" without scientific evidence doesn't work in science.

But science not having figured out how life originated isn't a reason to deny basic science like evolution,

Yes and even after a hundred and fifty years scientists still can not produce life from dead material let alone duplicate the complexities of one celled organisms.

but we have been able to create antimatter. which if you know anything about it, it actually the creation of something out of nothing.

 

[Jack Fate]

wow for a bible thumper you sure dont know much about it

The Bible is clear that Adam, the first man, lived only 6000 years ago. Adam was created on the sixth day of God's Creation Week, so according to the Bible the earth must be only 6000 years old too.How old is the earth according to the Bible?

Radiometric dating has not been applied to just a few selected rocks from the geologic record. Literally many tens of thousands of radiometric age measurements are documented in the scientific literature. Since beginning operation in the early 1960s, the Geochronology laboratories of the U. S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California, have alone produced more than 20,000 K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and 14C ages. Add to this number the age measurements made by from 50 to 100 other laboratories worldwide, and it is easy to see that the number of radiometric ages produced over the past two to three decades and published in the scientific literature must easily exceed 100,000. Taken as a whole, these data clearly prove that the Earth’s history extends backward from the present to at least 3.8 billion years into the past.

How Old is the Earth: Scientific Age of the Earth

i find it extremely funny that you believe the bible when it says creationism is the truth, but not that the earth is only 6000 years old.

and to counter your argument, nothing has proven there is a god nor that he created the universe. i challenge you to prove this statement wrong.

Are you serious? I thought you believed in science.

you are misreading my argument. i do believe in science. i am trying to show her the "evidence" for her side of the argument. (which there isnt any outside the bible) vs. what science has been able to prove about the age of the earth.

That site is not representative of Christian belief. There is no Christian doctrine on how old the earth is. You cant tar and feather us with that brush.

 

[Skynet]

Are you serious? I thought you believed in science.

you are misreading my argument. i do believe in science. i am trying to show her the "evidence" for her side of the argument. (which there isnt any outside the bible) vs. what science has been able to prove about the age of the earth.

That site is not representative of Christian belief. There is no Christian doctrine on how old the earth is. You cant tar and feather us with that brush.

how many sites would you like me to point out that agree on the idea that the bible shows the earth is only 6,000 year old?

and im not tar and feathering you. i could care less what the bible says about how old the earth is. but im showing that the bible is not an accurate scientific document.