The creationists are BACK

[Dr.Drock]

Tolerating is when others endorse their religion and being ok with it, government isn't supposed to endorse religion, but yes it is supposed to tolerate it.

Do you think it's constitutional for the Federal Building in Downtown Los Angeles to endorse ficus? How will the Kentucky Blue Grass feel? Yet they have ficus growing out front, clearly an endorsement of ficus over all other grass and the establishment of ficus as the official grass of the United States.....

It'd be a huge deal in this country if the government put up a bunch of muslim or hindu artifacts because we wouldn't want them to endorse those religions,

They already put up Islamic displays. It's only Christianity which is outlawed. You know this.

Wrong on the first count because that's not religion.

I have no idea what you're talking about on the second count, religious art at a museum? I've seen instances of all religion's art at those places.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Hence why I told you to click on the other one, there's no reason for us to be discussing ur issue with one of the links when 2 were provided.

You called me lazy. I'm not lazy. You're lazy for using Wikipedia. A lot of dumb shits are still using Wikipedia. That doesn't make me lazy.

I knew the hypersensitive type would throw a fit about the wiki link, so i provided another one, if you didn't like it you should've ignored and clicked on the other one rather than desperately attempting to derail this thread once proof of evolution is put on it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wrong on the first count because that's not religion.

Irrelevant - the mere display of something is not an endorsement, as my example demonstrates.

I have no idea what you're talking about on the second count, religious art at a museum? I've seen instances of all religion's art at those places.

Obama and Bush both put up Islamic displays to honor Ramadan.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Wrong on the first count because that's not religion.

Irrelevant - the mere display of something is not an endorsement, as my example demonstrates.

I have no idea what you're talking about on the second count, religious art at a museum? I've seen instances of all religion's art at those places.

Obama and Bush both put up Islamic displays to honor Ramadan.

Yes it is.

They shouldn't have.

 

[BlindBoo]

Correction, one thing we agree on. Scientific theories are not scientific facts.

Scientific theories are facts to laymen.

Gravity is a clear example. Prior to 1906, it was a generally accepted idea in physics that bodies had attraction. That gravity was a force exerted by large bodies on smaller ones.

Einstein demonstrated that this simply isn't the case, that there is no attractive force and that gravity is an EFFECT of the distortion of the fabric of space caused by a body. Thus, gravity as a theory was altered.

So, was Newton wrong? Did gravity not function? No, and no. Scientific knowledge is classified as theory because in real science, falsification and refinement are part of the process. (The religion of AGW is exempt from this process.)

Gravity was a fact before 1906 and remained a fact afterwards. The alteration of the mechanics of gravity didn't alter the factual nature of it.

Evolution is a fact. Details will be challenged and changed, but evolution will remain a fact.

Gravity is a force that we understand through the theory of Gravity. Theories change as you have pointed out.

We exist in the here and now. The theory of Evolution is sciences best explaination of how we evolved from a common ancestor.

 

[Jack Fate]

You called me lazy. I'm not lazy. You're lazy for using Wikipedia. A lot of dumb shits are still using Wikipedia. That doesn't make me lazy.

I knew the hypersensitive type would throw a fit about the wiki link, so i provided another one, if you didn't like it you should've ignored and clicked on the other one rather than desperately attempting to derail this thread once proof of evolution is put on it.

Where is the proof? In a book? The bible is a book. Why the double standard?

 

[Ringel05]

Wrong on the first count because that's not religion.

Irrelevant - the mere display of something is not an endorsement, as my example demonstrates.

I have no idea what you're talking about on the second count, religious art at a museum? I've seen instances of all religion's art at those places.

Obama and Bush both put up Islamic displays to honor Ramadan.

Yes it is.

They shouldn't have.

No it's not unless you're actively trying to sell something. Last time I checked the US government wasn't involved in the sale of religion, indulgences maybe but not the sale of religion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes it is.

That is absurd. Ficus growing as a lawn is not an endorsement nor establishment, nor are the display of roses an establishment of that plant.

 

[Jack Fate]

Correction, one thing we agree on. Scientific theories are not scientific facts.

Scientific theories are facts to laymen.

Gravity is a clear example. Prior to 1906, it was a generally accepted idea in physics that bodies had attraction. That gravity was a force exerted by large bodies on smaller ones.

Einstein demonstrated that this simply isn't the case, that there is no attractive force and that gravity is an EFFECT of the distortion of the fabric of space caused by a body. Thus, gravity as a theory was altered.

So, was Newton wrong? Did gravity not function? No, and no. Scientific knowledge is classified as theory because in real science, falsification and refinement are part of the process. (The religion of AGW is exempt from this process.)

Gravity was a fact before 1906 and remained a fact afterwards. The alteration of the mechanics of gravity didn't alter the factual nature of it.

Evolution is a fact. Details will be challenged and changed, but evolution will remain a fact.

Gravity is a force that we understand through the theory of Gravity. Theories change as you have pointed out.

We exist in the here and now. The theory of Evolution is sciences best explaination of how we evolved from a common ancestor.

So you say the theory of evolution is the best explanation to the theory of evolution.

Pricelss.

 

[Gadawg73]

There are volumes and volumes of evidence that support the theory of evolution. I suggest you take a course in it.

Those are books. The bible is also a book.

I want to see the evidence that Dr. Crock wants to see.

I suggest you kiss my ass.

And the Bible has been tested by the scientific method.

 

[AllieBaba]

Correction, one thing we agree on. Scientific theories are not scientific facts.

Scientific theories are facts to laymen.

Gravity is a clear example. Prior to 1906, it was a generally accepted idea in physics that bodies had attraction. That gravity was a force exerted by large bodies on smaller ones.

Einstein demonstrated that this simply isn't the case, that there is no attractive force and that gravity is an EFFECT of the distortion of the fabric of space caused by a body. Thus, gravity as a theory was altered.

So, was Newton wrong? Did gravity not function? No, and no. Scientific knowledge is classified as theory because in real science, falsification and refinement are part of the process. (The religion of AGW is exempt from this process.)

Gravity was a fact before 1906 and remained a fact afterwards. The alteration of the mechanics of gravity didn't alter the factual nature of it.

Evolution is a fact. Details will be challenged and changed, but evolution will remain a fact.

Gravity is a force that we understand through the theory of Gravity. Theories change as you have pointed out.

We exist in the here and now. The theory of Evolution is sciences best explaination of how we evolved from a common ancestor.

Except it in no way proves that we did evolve from a common ancestor. In fact, it doesn't address how multiple species come into being at ALL. While we can all see how genetics work in any given gene pool, and see creatures within the same gene pool change....we cannot see how that applies to the creation of life, or the creation of different SPECIES.

If evolution leads to different species, then why on earth are mules sterile for the most part? Isn't that sort of weird? Where is the evidence that one species can change into...another species?

 

[Gadawg73]

Correction, one thing we agree on. Scientific theories are not scientific facts.

Scientific theories are facts to laymen.

Gravity is a clear example. Prior to 1906, it was a generally accepted idea in physics that bodies had attraction. That gravity was a force exerted by large bodies on smaller ones.

Einstein demonstrated that this simply isn't the case, that there is no attractive force and that gravity is an EFFECT of the distortion of the fabric of space caused by a body. Thus, gravity as a theory was altered.

So, was Newton wrong? Did gravity not function? No, and no. Scientific knowledge is classified as theory because in real science, falsification and refinement are part of the process. (The religion of AGW is exempt from this process.)

Gravity was a fact before 1906 and remained a fact afterwards. The alteration of the mechanics of gravity didn't alter the factual nature of it.

Evolution is a fact. Details will be challenged and changed, but evolution will remain a fact.

Gravity is a force that we understand through the theory of Gravity. Theories change as you have pointed out.

We exist in the here and now. The theory of Evolution is sciences best explaination of how we evolved from a common ancestor.

You are wasting your time. Their religous ideology and lack of personal faith forces them to discredit all science that conflicts with the little faith they do have.
Fear is what motivates them. Fear that God will punish them for accepting scientific fact.

 

[Gadawg73]

Scientific theories are facts to laymen.

Gravity is a clear example. Prior to 1906, it was a generally accepted idea in physics that bodies had attraction. That gravity was a force exerted by large bodies on smaller ones.

Einstein demonstrated that this simply isn't the case, that there is no attractive force and that gravity is an EFFECT of the distortion of the fabric of space caused by a body. Thus, gravity as a theory was altered.

So, was Newton wrong? Did gravity not function? No, and no. Scientific knowledge is classified as theory because in real science, falsification and refinement are part of the process. (The religion of AGW is exempt from this process.)

Gravity was a fact before 1906 and remained a fact afterwards. The alteration of the mechanics of gravity didn't alter the factual nature of it.

Evolution is a fact. Details will be challenged and changed, but evolution will remain a fact.

Gravity is a force that we understand through the theory of Gravity. Theories change as you have pointed out.

We exist in the here and now. The theory of Evolution is sciences best explaination of how we evolved from a common ancestor.

Except it in no way proves that we did evolve from a common ancestor. In fact, it doesn't address how multiple species come into being at ALL. While we can all see how genetics work in any given gene pool, and see creatures within the same gene pool change....we cannot see how that applies to the creation of life, or the creation of different SPECIES.

If evolution leads to different species, then why on earth are mules sterile for the most part? Isn't that sort of weird? Where is the evidence that one species can change into...another species?

How long has the earth been here and how long did it take the human species to develop into what we are now?
And how long did it take us to go from hunter gatherers to putting a man on the moon?
Tens of thousands of years. And that was ONLY a brain change, so imagine how many millions of years the evolutionary process takes in many areas.
Unless you believe the Mickey Mouse Adam and Eve myth. If that is the case then you will never learn a damn thing.

 

[AllieBaba]

Not from a know-nothing like you, at any rate.

 

[logical4u]

Are you serious?
Do you really believe man walked with dinosaurs? Is that your standard?
We can all just make up what we want and the other guy has to prove you wrong.
As long as it fits your religous beliefs that is your standard.
But when science is tested and proven correct you change from the standard you use to fit your religous beliefs and create another one for everyone else.
How convenient but fraudulent.
Where is any evidence he did. News flash there my man: YOU have to prove your theories. To date you are an Ofer.

Isn't that how "evolution" came about? Some people found some fossils and made up a story, without ever connecting the dots. Science has not proved that a species changes into another species. Yet that is exactly what evolution states. All you "believers" put spin on it, claiming mutations and common ancestor (another term for species change), but have no hard evidence it ever happened. Seriously, if everything evolved from a one-celled animal, why do we STILL have one-celled animals?

No, that is not how the scientific method works logical.
If you want to open your eyes and learn tell us how the scientific method is used.
Tell us. Do you know what that is? How is the scientific method used in testing?
Nothing about making anything up. Just the opposite. But let us know if you have a clue about how EVERYTHING is tested.
Explain the scientific method that all scientists use worldwide.

Was Darwin testing with carbon dating and radioactive decay?
He found some fossils and figured out how to get 'sponsors' to send him on trips. After he worked this great scam for 'research', others joined him in his theory (similar to the scientific grants for global warming, no grants to prove it isn't happening), so they could get some of that money too. It is amazing how many people want to prove the Lord doesn't exist, and when rational in most areas of their lives will go to great expense to 'prove' they don't have to live according to His plan (they don't want to deal with His punishments).
Anyway, now 'scientists' focus on Darwin's "theory", and try to support it with scientific experiments. There is no money in showing that evolution can't work (species changing into different species). So, it goes back to a great scam that still works and the suckers that are willing to support it for very "unscientific" reasons. They are not interested in the truth.

 

[logical4u]

Are you serious?
Do you really believe man walked with dinosaurs? Is that your standard?
We can all just make up what we want and the other guy has to prove you wrong.
As long as it fits your religous beliefs that is your standard.
But when science is tested and proven correct you change from the standard you use to fit your religous beliefs and create another one for everyone else.
How convenient but fraudulent.
Where is any evidence he did. News flash there my man: YOU have to prove your theories. To date you are an Ofer.

Isn't that how "evolution" came about? Some people found some fossils and made up a story, without ever connecting the dots. Science has not proved that a species changes into another species. Yet that is exactly what evolution states. All you "believers" put spin on it, claiming mutations and common ancestor (another term for species change), but have no hard evidence it ever happened. Seriously, if everything evolved from a one-celled animal, why do we STILL have one-celled animals?

You have no idea how evolution works.

That is very true. Why don't you explain it, all knowledgeable?

 

[logical4u]

WTF does "mentioning" have to do with MAN WALKING WITH DINOSAURS 6000 YEARS AGO?
Are you that stupid? Do you believe man walked with dinosaurs 6000 years ago or not?
Which is it? All you do is beat around the bush with BS.
The creation/ID side AND YOU fully support the teaching school kids that man walked with dinosaurs 6000 years ago. And that is FRAUD.
You may support fraud but stay STAY AWAY from any children with your fraud.

What "scientific" evidence or any evidence do you have that man did not walk with dinosaurs?

There's plenty of scientific evidence. The oldest human skeleton found........

Israeli archaeologists have discovered human remains dating from 400,000 years ago, challenging conventional wisdom that Homo sapiens originated in Africa, the leader of excavations in Israel said on Tuesday.

Avi Gopher, of Tel Aviv University's Institute of Archaeology, said testing of stalagmites, stalactites and other material found in a cave east of Tel Aviv indicates that eight teeth uncovered there could be the earliest traces so far of our species.

"Our cave was used for a period of about 250,000 years -- from about 400,000 years ago to about 200,000 years ago," he told AFP.

"The teeth are scattered through the layers of the cave, some in the deeper part, that is to say from 400,000 years and through all kinds of other layers that can be up to 200,000 years. The oldest are 400,000 years old," he added."

World's Oldest Human Remains? : Discovery News

Combine that with the carbon dating of the fossils of dinosaurs, and you'd see that mankind DID NOT walk with dinosaurs.

Would that be: discovered to this date?

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are volumes and volumes of evidence that support the theory of evolution. I suggest you take a course in it.

Those are books. The bible is also a book.

I want to see the evidence that Dr. Crock wants to see.

I suggest you kiss my ass.

There is absolutely zero evidence that supports the Biblical version of Creation. Therefore the Biblical version of Creation does not qualify as a scientific theory.

 

[Gadawg73]

Isn't that how "evolution" came about? Some people found some fossils and made up a story, without ever connecting the dots. Science has not proved that a species changes into another species. Yet that is exactly what evolution states. All you "believers" put spin on it, claiming mutations and common ancestor (another term for species change), but have no hard evidence it ever happened. Seriously, if everything evolved from a one-celled animal, why do we STILL have one-celled animals?

No, that is not how the scientific method works logical.
If you want to open your eyes and learn tell us how the scientific method is used.
Tell us. Do you know what that is? How is the scientific method used in testing?
Nothing about making anything up. Just the opposite. But let us know if you have a clue about how EVERYTHING is tested.
Explain the scientific method that all scientists use worldwide.

Was Darwin testing with carbon dating and radioactive decay?
He found some fossils and figured out how to get 'sponsors' to send him on trips. After he worked this great scam for 'research', others joined him in his theory (similar to the scientific grants for global warming, no grants to prove it isn't happening), so they could get some of that money too. It is amazing how many people want to prove the Lord doesn't exist, and when rational in most areas of their lives will go to great expense to 'prove' they don't have to live according to His plan (they don't want to deal with His punishments).
Anyway, now 'scientists' focus on Darwin's "theory", and try to support it with scientific experiments. There is no money in showing that evolution can't work (species changing into different species). So, it goes back to a great scam that still works and the suckers that are willing to support it for very "unscientific" reasons. They are not interested in the truth.

So every Biology teacher in high schools, universities and colleges world wide teach evolution as fact "for the money"?
All a great scam to make $$$.
You have it backwards. Many on your side use RELIGION as a great scam for the $$$.
That is why facts scare the hell out them and you buy it HOOK, LINE AND SINKER.
Science is a threat to organized religion and always has been.
You are the one not interested in the truth.

 

[logical4u]

Because the theory is itself evolving. With each new hypothesis, experiment, conclusion it grows. The problem with ID is there very little in the way of hypothesis, experimentation and conclusion. Creationists begin with a preferred explanation and attempt to create a defense around it.

Debate Between Evolution And Creationism | iNewp.com

When you can explain to me with proof and facts where and how life first started, maybe I'll listen to you, until then your theory is no different than any other out there.

Evolution isn't about how life started.

This is an instance where the creationists who believe in God's guiding hand in evolution sound so much smarter than the creationists who just scoff their nose at all basic science like evolution.

Then why are we taught that the "ancestors" of men crawled out of a swamp? Why are we taught that an ape-like missing link is the ancestor of men and apes? Evolution is a theory put forward to put doubt into those that believe in the Lord. There is not concrete proof or it would not be a "theory".