The creationists are BACK

[Jack Fate]

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.

That is a statement of profound ignorance. Do you also believe in man-made climate change and that the earth is flat? I've got a news flash for ya.....the moon is not made of cheese.

 

[Jack Fate]

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.

There is absolutely zero evidence that you have a brain.

 

[Gadawg73]

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".

Is your religous faith so shallow that a scientific theory challenges it?
If it is your faith is weak to begin with.
And that has nothing to do with evolution.
You need to work on that yourself and quit blaming science for your shortcomings.

 

[logical4u]

I don't know that Newbie is anti-Christian.

I thought the debate was if I.D. (Creationism) should be taught in a science class as a scientific rebuttal to the theory of evolution?

Perhaps it is proof that the creationist simply do not understand what the Theory of Evolution actually is.

I know what the theory of evolution is. Which is why I'm confused that you and others argue it as if it puts the lie to creationism. You guys won't quit dragging it into discussions about the creation, or about the establishment of separate species.

What lie to creationism? I don't care about creationism. I don't care if you or anyone else believes in creationism. I believe creationism is based on faith not scientific observation, hypothesis, experimentation and conclusion (often starting another observation, hypothesis,.....). It has no business being taught in science class because it is simply not science anymore than the book of Genesis is a book of science.

It should be taught in the classroom. Genesis should be taught, at least up to the day the Lord rested. It should be pointed out that the "theory of evolution" has not disproved the stated order. It should be taught that Genesis was written thousands of years ago by people with no technology, no telescopes, no microscopes, that stated they were influenced by a superior being they called the Lord. It should also be taught that the order of creation has not been disproved by any scientific evidence. The evidence collected by science actually supports the order stated in Genesis. At that point the teacher can add all the slanted material they want to either side (as opinion, stated as opinion).

Then go ahead and teach the "theory of evolution". Let the students decide for themselves to look for truth.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

That is a statement of profound ignorance. Do you also believe in man-made climate change and that the earth is flat? I've got a news flash for ya.....the moon is not made of cheese.

I believe your religous faith is so pitifully weak a scientific theory challenges it.
Fear is in all of your posts. You are scared to death of science.
Weak.

 

[Gadawg73]

I know what the theory of evolution is. Which is why I'm confused that you and others argue it as if it puts the lie to creationism. You guys won't quit dragging it into discussions about the creation, or about the establishment of separate species.

What lie to creationism? I don't care about creationism. I don't care if you or anyone else believes in creationism. I believe creationism is based on faith not scientific observation, hypothesis, experimentation and conclusion (often starting another observation, hypothesis,.....). It has no business being taught in science class because it is simply not science anymore than the book of Genesis is a book of science.

It should be taught in the classroom. Genesis should be taught, at least up to the day the Lord rested. It should be pointed out that the "theory of evolution" has not disproved the stated order. It should be taught that Genesis was written thousands of years ago by people with no technology, no telescopes, no microscopes, that stated they were influenced by a superior being they called the Lord. It should also be taught that the order of creation has not been disproved by any scientific evidence. The evidence collected by science actually supports the order stated in Genesis. At that point the teacher can add all the slanted material they want to either side (as opinion, stated as opinion).

Then go ahead and teach the "theory of evolution". Let the students decide for themselves to look for truth.

Of course creationism should be taught in the classroom and I stand for that 100%.
In religion and philosophy class.
But not in science class. Religion is not science.
Get over it.

 

[Jack Fate]

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.

That is a statement of profound ignorance. Do you also believe in man-made climate change and that the earth is flat? I've got a news flash for ya.....the moon is not made of cheese.

I believe your religous faith is so pitifully weak a scientific theory challenges it.
Fear is in all of your posts. You are scared to death of science.
Weak.

Oh, for sure. I don't have "religious faith." Einstein was a scientist and he believed there is an intelligence to the universe. I think Einstein is a little bit smarter than you are.

 

[Gadawg73]

That is a statement of profound ignorance. Do you also believe in man-made climate change and that the earth is flat? I've got a news flash for ya.....the moon is not made of cheese.

I believe your religous faith is so pitifully weak a scientific theory challenges it.
Fear is in all of your posts. You are scared to death of science.
Weak.

Oh, for sure. I don't have "religious faith." Einstein was a scientist and he believed there is an intelligence to the universe. I think Einstein is a little bit smarter than you are.

I know every college and university Biology 101 teacher is smarter than you are.
And your claims that they teach it as fact is because of this and that scam conspiracy certify you as a KOOK.

 

[logical4u]

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.

Isn't the title of this thread, 'The Creationists are back'??? So, why are we talking about evolution then? When you can tell me what we evolved from and show the fossil that is the so called 'missing link' that proves that humans 'evolved' from some other animal, then perhaps you'll have my attention. Until then, your scientific theory is no better than any other. They have yet to prove ANY evolution from ANY animal into another animal, let alone a human being. Evolution within species, yes, evolution between species, NO.

Show us where evolutionists have claimed evolution between species. ALL evolution is within a species. You're creating a controversy where none exists and all you're doing is showing your ignorance of the theory. Like my HS bio teacher said, "you don't have to believe it, but you do have to understand it". I think you should take that advice before commenting and saying things that are patently untrue. Evolution is based on DIVERGENCE, so all along the evolutionary path an individual was of the same species as their parents and their offspring, but that may not be the case when going back or forth several thousand generations.

What is a "common ancestor"? I understood that it "evolved" into two or more species, ie men and apes. Would you explain it?

 

[Jack Fate]

I believe your religous faith is so pitifully weak a scientific theory challenges it.
Fear is in all of your posts. You are scared to death of science.
Weak.

Oh, for sure. I don't have "religious faith." Einstein was a scientist and he believed there is an intelligence to the universe. I think Einstein is a little bit smarter than you are.

I know every college and university Biology 101 teacher is smarter than you are.
And your claims that they teach it as fact is because of this and that scam conspiracy certify you as a KOOK.

Blah, blah, and more blah. You didn't address my point. Einstein was a scientist who believed there is an iintelligence to the universe. Are you smarter than Einstein?

 

[logical4u]

All that and talk of "kind" is just creationist sleight-of-hand and misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. Show me where an evolutionist says a dog turns into a cat. You can't, but creationistsw ill throw that out all the time. What about the word DIVERGENGE don't you understand. The achievement of a new species happens over time and is NOT because one "changes" into another.

Provide an example of one that has 'diverged' over time that is now considered a new species from the one it 'diverged' from?

Elephants and mantees seem to have had a common anscestor. I won't make a dogmatic statement on that particular example, however. That wouldn't be scientific, i.e. the creationists' area.

Doesn't "common ancestor" mean that one species "evolved" into two (or more) different species?

 

[logical4u]

Show us where evolutionists have claimed evolution between species. ALL evolution is within a species. You're creating a controversy where none exists and all you're doing is showing your ignorance of the theory. Like my HS bio teacher said, "you don't have to believe it, but you do have to understand it". I think you should take that advice before commenting and saying things that are patently untrue. Evolution is based on DIVERGENCE, so all along the evolutionary path an individual was of the same species as their parents and their offspring, but that may not be the case when going back or forth several thousand generations.

We have always been human, period. Every species has been shown to change throughout the millenium to adapt to different surroundings within their own species. I have said nothing that is untrue, I've simply uncovered the lie that's being perpetuated that it has been proven that man has supposedly evolved from some other animal. This is what is implied to supposedly debunk the existance of God and the truth of the Bible. So, many thanks for clearing that up for us all.

That's right we're doing all this to debunk God and the Bible!!! Then who gave us the brain that would look at the fossil record and come up with the theory? Is God playing with our heads? Where did the fossils that show changes over the eons come from? Why is the Bible considered a science text and not a book with allegories and moral lessons? I have said nothing about not believing in God. Why do you make that a basic assumption? It would seem to be fear, rather than proper use of the brain we were given.

Who ever said the Bible was a science book?????

 

[Jack Fate]

Right in the very first verse....."In the beginning". Is that the "big bang"?

 

[Gadawg73]

Oh, for sure. I don't have "religious faith." Einstein was a scientist and he believed there is an intelligence to the universe. I think Einstein is a little bit smarter than you are.

I know every college and university Biology 101 teacher is smarter than you are.
And your claims that they teach it as fact is because of this and that scam conspiracy certify you as a KOOK.

Blah, blah, and more blah. You didn't address my point. Einstein was a scientist who believed there is an iintelligence to the universe. Are you smarter than Einstein?

I BELIEVE THERE IS AN INTELLIGENCE TO THE UNIVERSE.
My faith in God is so strong that I do not have to deny science to practice and live it.
Maybe you do but don't force that on those of us educated in fact.
Are you that STUPID Jack?
Seems that way. Everything we post goes 20 feet over your pin head.
Show me Einstein's thesis, tests, study and research on ID.
Uh, well DUH JACK, there isn't any.

 

[logical4u]

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.

Is that "imagine" part of the theory of evolution?

 

[Jack Fate]

I know every college and university Biology 101 teacher is smarter than you are.
And your claims that they teach it as fact is because of this and that scam conspiracy certify you as a KOOK.

Blah, blah, and more blah. You didn't address my point. Einstein was a scientist who believed there is an iintelligence to the universe. Are you smarter than Einstein?

I BELIEVE THERE IS AN INTELLIGENCE TO THE UNIVERSE.
My faith in God is so strong that I do not have to deny science to practice and live it.
Maybe you do but don't force that on those of us educated in fact.
Are you that STUPID Jack?
Seems that way. Everything we post goes 20 feet over your pin head.
Show me Einstein's thesis, tests, study and research on ID.
Uh, well DUH JACK, there isn't any.

You really are way too easy.


In the past few years numerous scientists, scientific journals, and popular authors have published a slew of articles and books ripping the concept of Intelligent Design. While not specifically denying the theory of evolution, the theory of Intelligent Design postulates that the incomprehensible vastness and complexity of the Cosmos are the result of design on the part of an inconceivably intelligent being.

Many scientists dismiss any concept of an intelligent designer as unscientific, and claim that any recognition of or belief in such a designer does harm to the scientific method. However, the greatest scientist who ever lived, Albert Einstein, did not share this outlook. His years of studying the universe not only led him to come up with the Theory of Relativity, but also led him to believe, in his own words, in a "spirit manifest in the laws of the universe," in a "God who reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists" (Isaacson 2007: 44). He once wrote:
The religious inclination lies in the dim consciousness that dwells in humans that all nature, including the humans in it, is in no way an accidental game, but a work of lawfulness that there is a fundamental cause of all existence (ibid. 46).
In a 1930 essay entitled "What I Believe," Einstein wrote:
To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man (ibid. 47).
He also made the following statement in an essay entitled "The Religiousness of Science," which appeared in a collection of his essays published in English under the title "The World As I See It":
The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire (Updike 2007: 77 [emphasis added]). These statements are highly significant, considering that no scientist of any worth would dismiss Einstein as superstitious or unscientific. Moreover, the above quotes can't be dismissed as the product of a religious bias on Einstein's part, because, except for a brief period of "deep religiousness" when he was twelve, Einstein rejected organized religion (ibid.).

According to the April 16 2007 issue of Time magazine, in his youth Einstein "rejected at first his parents' secularism and later the concepts of religious ritual and of a personal God who intercedes in the daily workings of the world (Isaacson 2007: 44)." The magazine further reported:
Einstein's parents...were "entirely irreligious." They did not keep kosher or attend synagogue, and his father Hermann referred to Jewish rituals as "ancient superstitions," according to a relative (ibid.).

As mentioned, the 12-year-old Albert briefly embraced strict Judaism, but he later wrote: "Through the reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true" (ibid. 46).

Einstein's belief in an intelligent designer thus derived not from a pre-conceived religious bias, but from the phenomenal insights into the Universe that he possessed as the most brilliant scientist who ever lived. His recognition of a creator refutes the recent claims by atheists that belief in any sort of god is unscientific.

Einstein and Intelligent Design

 

[logical4u]

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.

Do teachers get paid? They teach what the gov't tells them to teach (the same gov't paying grants for those scientists interested in 'proving' evolution). If you want to provide facts (other than "imagine"), I will listen. If you want to declare that a species adapting is evolution, I really don't want to hear it.

 

[NoNukes]

There is much in Wikipedia that is simply not true.

Bullshit.

Wiki is more accurate than the NY Times - not that this is saying much...

There is information is Wikipedia that is simply made up, and the opposite of the truth. This is pointed out constantly in the news media over here, but perhaps not in the American media.

 

[FA_Q2]

Blah, blah, and more blah. You didn't address my point. Einstein was a scientist who believed there is an iintelligence to the universe. Are you smarter than Einstein?

I BELIEVE THERE IS AN INTELLIGENCE TO THE UNIVERSE.
My faith in God is so strong that I do not have to deny science to practice and live it.
Maybe you do but don't force that on those of us educated in fact.
Are you that STUPID Jack?
Seems that way. Everything we post goes 20 feet over your pin head.
Show me Einstein's thesis, tests, study and research on ID.
Uh, well DUH JACK, there isn't any.

You really are way too easy.


In the past few years numerous scientists, scientific journals, and popular authors have published a slew of articles and books ripping the concept of Intelligent Design. While not specifically denying the theory of evolution, the theory of Intelligent Design postulates that the incomprehensible vastness and complexity of the Cosmos are the result of design on the part of an inconceivably intelligent being.

Many scientists dismiss any concept of an intelligent designer as unscientific, and claim that any recognition of or belief in such a designer does harm to the scientific method. However, the greatest scientist who ever lived, Albert Einstein, did not share this outlook. His years of studying the universe not only led him to come up with the Theory of Relativity, but also led him to believe, in his own words, in a "spirit manifest in the laws of the universe," in a "God who reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists" (Isaacson 2007: 44). He once wrote:
The religious inclination lies in the dim consciousness that dwells in humans that all nature, including the humans in it, is in no way an accidental game, but a work of lawfulness that there is a fundamental cause of all existence (ibid. 46).
In a 1930 essay entitled "What I Believe," Einstein wrote:
To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man (ibid. 47).
He also made the following statement in an essay entitled "The Religiousness of Science," which appeared in a collection of his essays published in English under the title "The World As I See It":
The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire (Updike 2007: 77 [emphasis added]). These statements are highly significant, considering that no scientist of any worth would dismiss Einstein as superstitious or unscientific. Moreover, the above quotes can't be dismissed as the product of a religious bias on Einstein's part, because, except for a brief period of "deep religiousness" when he was twelve, Einstein rejected organized religion (ibid.).

According to the April 16 2007 issue of Time magazine, in his youth Einstein "rejected at first his parents' secularism and later the concepts of religious ritual and of a personal God who intercedes in the daily workings of the world (Isaacson 2007: 44)." The magazine further reported:
Einstein's parents...were "entirely irreligious." They did not keep kosher or attend synagogue, and his father Hermann referred to Jewish rituals as "ancient superstitions," according to a relative (ibid.).

As mentioned, the 12-year-old Albert briefly embraced strict Judaism, but he later wrote: "Through the reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true" (ibid. 46).

Einstein's belief in an intelligent designer thus derived not from a pre-conceived religious bias, but from the phenomenal insights into the Universe that he possessed as the most brilliant scientist who ever lived. His recognition of a creator refutes the recent claims by atheists that belief in any sort of god is unscientific.

Einstein and Intelligent Design

Einstein also denied quantum theory because of that belief. Massive strides in science have also been discovered since Einstein’s time period. Your whole argument is an appeal to authority and rather pointless. The fact that Einstein believed in god means nothing as to whether or not that view is scientific.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

There is absolutely zero evidence that you have a brain.

You've lost the debate. Statements like that only underline the fact that you have nothing.