NationStates Jolt Archive

I can't believe that Bush finally gave the nod to teaching creation... I mean Intelligent Design in school. I'm really scared.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-bush-intelligent-design,1,2655180.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

That's stupid.
Intelligent Design is for the church. Are they going to teach every single religious theory of every single religion?

School is for the sciences. Science says Evolution is the way, and has much evidence to back it up. It doesn't ask you to accept it, it only presents it.

Then after school, kiddies can learn whatever they want from whoever they want.

Dammit. I'm just going into highschool right now, this bullshit will never end.

That's why I loved my Biology Teacher(who is also a Harvard professor). He taught us evolution and left out that religious hokey. Mind you, I'm also in Massachusetts, one of the more liberal states.

This country seemingly gets more whack on a daily basis... I wonder where this train will stop?

You'd think Bush would get better with experience, wouldn't you? With the Palmeiro comment and now this stuff... can you believe this guy has the same job that Abraham Lincoln did? :eek:

These political threads are depressing me... I'm gonna look for a thread about tits or something. :cool:

These political threads are depressing me... I'm gonna look for a thread about tits or something. :cool:

Amen

It isn't a surprise to me. Not that it matters what he thinks; the American people time and again have rallied strongly against attempts to force ID creationism in to schools, and will continue to do so.

Eh, this is hardly a shock. Bush has made it pretty clear for some time now that he cares much more about pandering to the religious right than about giving kids a good education.

I doubt I.D. will make it into national public school curricula anytime soon, though. Even most of the very religious Bush-loving types I know understand that you teach science in science classes and religion/philosophy in religion/philosophy classes.

I want to see them teach geocentrism.

Ahh, fuck...

Why not teach the flat earth theory.

I don't see the problem here.

Even if I was an atheist, I wouldn't see the problem.

If intelligent design is taught then I want intelligent decent to be taught as well. This says that the idea that all object attract others doesn't make sense as otherwise everything would be more clumped together, nor does it make sense that heavy things don't fall quicker than light things when they clearly do. What it is, is that a higher being or divine intelligence causes all object to be pushed towards the earth at a speed it feels like which for many objects is 9.8 m/s^2 but for others is less.

Ahh, fuck...

Why not teach the flat earth theory.

i demand that the stork theory of human reproduction be taught instead of the atheistic and sinful theory of sexual reproduction.

I demand we teach the TRUE manner in which human kind was created! All science teachers should relay to the class how a race of higher beings traveled to earth and created and changed life so as to create humans and other animals for an alien experiment, and tv show too!

I can't believe that Bush finally gave the nod to teaching creation... I mean Intelligent Design in school. I'm really scared.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-bush-intelligent-design,1,2655180.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines


Shit. My browser just crashed. Why did you have to use the words "intelligent" and "Bush" in the same sentence? This causes my system to have instability problems.

I don't see the problem here.

Even if I was an atheist, I wouldn't see the problem.
You don’t know that.

There is a simple and good reason for why "intelligent design" should not be taught in science classes- it has no scientific basis. If they're going to teach creationism, they might as well teach the creation theory of all religions. Students should be encouraged to think on their own, but they don't need to be presented with every creation theory. Only those with scientific evidence backing it up should be presented to them in school. There are other ways for them to learn about the other theories.

If I hear religious creation theories taught in my biology class next year, I will explode.

I think we should listen to what God has to say about all of this.

yeah, its all very scary that they are teaching creationism in school

i am an atheist, i beleive completely in logic and science

but us atheist will always (at least in out life times) be out numbered by religous peoples, so as long as you think a certain way, its hard to be swayed

yeah, its all very scary that they are teaching creationism in school

i am an atheist, i beleive completely in logic and science

but us atheist will always (at least in out life times) be out numbered by religous peoples, so as long as you think a certain way, its hard to be swayed



If you believe in logic, then how could you be an atheist? :p

If you believe in logic, then how could you be an atheist? :p
As opposed to being a faithful Christian?

As opposed to being a faithful Christian?



I weigh the evidence objectively. I'm seeing a lot more evidence for a metaphysical Being creating the universe than for the universe to have spontaneously generated. Maybe if the universe was eternal, then I would be agnostic. But, it has been proven not to be. A little too coincidental, don'tcha think?

As opposed to being a Raelian?



Hah! I beat you to the edit!

... Maybe if the universe was eternal, then I would be agnostic. But, it has been proven not to be. A little too coincidental, don'tcha think?

When was it proven that matter/Energy are not eternal?

Hah! I beat you to the edit!
Yeah, but I re-edited it. :p

I don't want to debate creationism VS evolution VS Fredism.

Let's agree to disagree.

If I have to learn about how DDT is "harmful" I demand to be taught something equally as insipid and controversial. Creationism is A-OK for me.

When was it proven that matter/Energy are not eternal?


Gah, I was hoping nobody would ask that. Can't you all just let me be lazy so I don't have to cite my sources, and concede the point? :(

Gah, I was hoping nobody would ask that. Can't you all just let me be lazy so I don't have to cite my sources, and concede the point? :(

Nope. I wanna see somebody try to use logic to refute the laws of my religion, Thermodynamia.

I think we should listen to what God has to say about all of this.
I agree, I demand a press interview!

Nope. I wanna see somebody try to use logic to refute the laws of my religion, Thermodynamia.



*sigh* Ok, I'll do the quick, sourceless method: In the physical universe, matter can neither be created nor destroyed without an external, metaphysical agent interfering. Even matter that phases in and out of existence (it is not known whether this material is abstract or concrete, either) in the vacuum fluctuation has its origins in energy. Generation within a true vacuum, that which contains no matter or energy, cannot occur. Now, if one of the laws of the physical universe is that everything must have an origin, how are we to explain this little conundrum?

*sigh* Ok, I'll do the quick, sourceless method: In the physical universe, matter can neither be created nor destroyed without an external, metaphysical agent interfering. Even matter that phases in and out of existence (it is not known whether this material is abstract or concrete, either) in the vacuum fluctuation has its origins in energy. Generation within a true vacuum, that which contains no matter or energy, cannot occur. Now, if one of the laws of the physical universe is that everything must have an origin, how are we to explain this little conundrum?
Never heard of that particular clause in the law before

There is a simple and good reason for why "intelligent design" should not be taught in science classes- it has no scientific basis. If they're going to teach creationism, they might as well teach the creation theory of all religions. Students should be encouraged to think on their own, but they don't need to be presented with every creation theory. Only those with scientific evidence backing it up should be presented to them in school. There are other ways for them to learn about the other theories.

If I hear religious creation theories taught in my biology class next year, I will explode.


First of all what they are teaching is not one god creationism it is a pluralistice you can think god or aliens created the world. THey simply want to present another theory and until evolution can be proven CONCLUSIVELY then why not present another opinion? the religion of evolution has been taught in schools for years why not try another one?

I. D. is only the beginning. http://www.venganza.org/

In the physical universe, matter can neither be created nor destroyed without an external, metaphysical agent interfering.

Where did you get that external metaphysical shit from? Matter can not be created or destroyed. Period.

Where did you get that external metaphysical shit from? Matter can not be created or destroyed. Period.



The laws of the physical do not apply to the metaphysical. Therefore, an external metaphysical agent is the only possible source for a violation of said laws.

First of all what they are teaching is not one god creationism it is a pluralistice you can think god or aliens created the world. THey simply want to present another theory and until evolution can be proven CONCLUSIVELY then why not present another opinion? the religion of evolution has been taught in schools for years why not try another one?

I believe it is a possibility that man was genetically engineered by extraterrestrials, but I am still opposed to the idea of teaching it in schools. Only theories with scientific evidence should be taught in school, but students should be encouraged to think on their own. Evolution isn't conclusively proven, and because of that it should not be taught as a "fact", but it still has a scientific basis.

I can't believe that Bush finally gave the nod to teaching creation... I mean Intelligent Design in school. I'm really scared.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-bush-intelligent-design,1,2655180.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines
I don't care if they teach "Intelligent Design" in school. So long as it is in a "World Religions" or "Comparitive Religions" class and not in a science class.

I. D. is only the beginning. http://www.venganza.org/


Wee, a website automatically reveals the full intentions of ID advocates :rolleyes:

The laws of the physical do not apply to the metaphysical. Therefore, an external metaphysical agent is the only possible source for a violation of said laws.

But the law was never violated. Your argument is entirely circular.

Wee, a website automatically reveals the full intentions of ID advocates :rolleyes:

That's a very sarcastic looking smiley. What are the full intentions of I. D. advocates?

I believe it is a possibility that man was genetically engineered by extraterrestrials, but I am still opposed to the idea of teaching it in schools. Only theories with scientific evidence should be taught in school, but students should be encouraged to think on their own. Evolution isn't conclusively proven, and because of that it should not be taught as a "fact", but it still has a scientific basis.



Evolution deserves a place in the classroom, however the implication that it eliminates the need for a God should not be taught. That would be pure speculation, as it still does not address the issue of universal origins.

That's a very sarcastic looking smiley. What are the full intentions of I. D. advocates?


Objectivity. If evolution is to be taught, then other theories should be as well. Nothing more, nothing less.

First of all what they are teaching is not one god creationism it is a pluralistice you can think god or aliens created the world. THey simply want to present another theory and until evolution can be proven CONCLUSIVELY then why not present another opinion? the religion of evolution has been taught in schools for years why not try another one?

Evolution is a scientific theory which has gone through the rigors necessary to be accepted as such. Intelligent design has gone through NONE of the tests necessary to be accepted as a scientific theory.

But the law was never violated. Your argument is entirely circular.



Prove that it wasn't. It had to have been, or else there would be no universe. The only thing that could possibly exist without external interference would be the Void.

The laws of the physical do not apply to the metaphysical. Therefore, an external metaphysical agent is the only possible source for a violation of said laws.

Very... umm.

How's about mine?

The metaphysical by very definition cannot be proven to exist.
Therefore any claim that uses the existence of the metaphysical as it's main and/or only support is bull.

But surely that includes Flying Spaghetti Monsterism?

Objectivity. If evolution is to be taught, then other theories should be as well. Nothing more, nothing less.
Theories with credible scientific backing should be taught in science classes.

Creationism or whatever the hell you prefer to refer to it as needs to be taught in theology classes (which more schools need).


(And in high school, and theological class should cover the three major world religions at the very least.. no less.)

Very... umm.

How's about mine?

The metaphysical by very definition cannot be proven to exist.
Therefore any claim that uses the existence of the metaphysical as it's main and/or only support is bull.



As I stated above, the origination of a physical entity without metaphysical causes is impossible. Therefore, it can be infered that the metaphysical exists.

Evolution deserves a place in the classroom, however the implication that it eliminates the need for a God should not be taught. That would be pure speculation, as it still does not address the issue of universal origins.

I never said I think it should implied that God is not needed. Again, students should be encouraged to think on their own.

Theories with credible scientific backing should be taught in science classes.

Creationism or whatever the hell you prefer to refer to it as needs to be taught in theology classes (which more schools need).

I agree.

The laws of the physical do not apply to the metaphysical. Therefore, an external metaphysical agent is the only possible source for a violation of said laws.
So you added the clause in? I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I still suggest we let scientists mend laws of science

As I stated above, the origination of a physical entity without metaphysical causes is impossible. Therefore, it can be infered that the metaphysical exists.
Your logic seems kind of flawed.

Who knows there was ever a time before the existence of the universe? Hell...how do we know that time existed before the universe even? Who is to say that the universe did not exist before time?

Time is simply another dimension to measure things in...and if before there was the universe, there was nothing, then in that, you must also include that there was no time....so nothing (not even metaphysical) existed before the universe, because there was no time period for it to even exist in....

Prove that it wasn't. It had to have been, or else there would be no universe. The only thing that could possibly exist without external interference would be the Void.

I don't have to prove anything. Thermodynamia explains that matter and energy cannot be destroyed - so they must have always existed. This is irrefutable. Your heathen religion claims a time prior to existence with no proof. My beautiful religion of Thermodynamia proves that there never was a time before existence. I believe your error is thinking that the current configuration of matter and energy that you call the "The Universe" needs some sort of external creator. You state this repeatedly, yet give no explanation of why you hold such a primitive belief.

So you added the clause in? I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I still suggest we let scientists mend laws of science



Well, thermodynamics only applies a physical universe so no creating/destroying matter is the only thing it should say. However, if we were to include the metaphysical, which I am doing since it is necessary, that clause would be appended to the law.

Well, thermodynamics only applies a physical universe so no creating/destroying matter is the only thing it should say. However, if we were to include the metaphysical, which I am doing since it is necessary, that clause would be appended to the law.

You have still given no reason for us to think it is necessary.

Well, thermodynamics only applies a physical universe so no creating/destroying matter is the only thing it should say. However, if we were to include the metaphysical, which I am doing since it is necessary, that clause would be appended to the law.
There is no evidence to support that matter can be created or destroyed though....therefore you can not ammend scientific law just because you have some leftfield theory about how science should work.

Well, thermodynamics only applies a physical universe so no creating/destroying matter is the only thing it should say. However, if we were to include the metaphysical, which I am doing since it is necessary, that clause would be appended to the law.
I like you, we should be friends because we both like circles!

I have heard referenced the "scientific backing" of evolution. Now please, would someone provide this 'credible' "scientific backing"?

A list would be nice. And greatly appreciated too. Can't make claims without "backing".

As I stated above, the origination of a physical entity without metaphysical causes is impossible. Therefore, it can be infered that the metaphysical exists.

The laws say that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So the lack of a plausible creator for matter cannot prove the existence of the metaphysical, because by the laws, matter cannot be created, period.

I have heard referenced the "scientific backing" of evolution. Now please, would someone provide this 'credible' "scientific backing"?

A list would be nice. And greatly appreciated too. Can't make claims without "backing".
I hate people that are too lazy to Google something that is all over...especially in this case, as they're the same people who did not pay attention in 6th grade science class.

I don't have to prove anything. Thermodynamia explains that matter and energy cannot be destroyed - so they must have always existed. This is irrefutable. Your heathen religion claims a time prior to existence with no proof. My beautiful religion of Thermodynamia proves that there never was a time before existence. I believe your error is thinking that the current configuration of matter and energy that you call the "The Universe" needs some sort of external creator. You state this repeatedly, yet give no explanation of why you hold such a primitive belief.



Yet they haven't always existed. Your application of a field which is inherently applicable to the physical alone to the universe would mean that there is no matter. Yet there is matter. Time/space/matter reduce to a singularity, prior to which there can be no existence. The Big Bang explains how the universe is chronologically finite. Your primitive beliefs that the universe is eternal (disproven back in the early 20th century) need to be modified. What you believe is not science: it is pseudo-science, which, ironically, you're so quick to accuse ID of being.

*sigh* Ok, I'll do the quick, sourceless method: In the physical universe, matter can neither be created nor destroyed without an external, metaphysical agent interfering. Even matter that phases in and out of existence (it is not known whether this material is abstract or concrete, either) in the vacuum fluctuation has its origins in energy. Generation within a true vacuum, that which contains no matter or energy, cannot occur. Now, if one of the laws of the physical universe is that everything must have an origin, how are we to explain this little conundrum?

Actually, we're not exactly sure that's true anymore. Lots of theoretical physicists (yeah, I know, a lot of them are quacks) are looking into the concept of antimatter. Practical evidence remotely supports something similar to this. There are actually some reports of matter suddenly disappearing and of matter appearing seemingly out of thin air in atomic accelerators and the like.

The laws say that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So the lack of a plausible creator for matter cannot prove the existence of the metaphysical, because by the laws, matter cannot be created, period.
Your logic does not really refute what he is saying...even though what he is saying isn't really logical anyway...

Your logic seems kind of flawed.

Who knows there was ever a time before the existence of the universe? Hell...how do we know that time existed before the universe even? Who is to say that the universe did not exist before time?

Time is simply another dimension to measure things in...and if before there was the universe, there was nothing, then in that, you must also include that there was no time....so nothing (not even metaphysical) existed before the universe, because there was no time period for it to even exist in....



The flaw in your argument is that the metaphysical is not constrained by time, therefore an origin is not necessary.

Actually, we're not exactly sure that's true anymore. Lots of theoretical physicists (yeah, I know, a lot of them are quacks) are looking into the concept of antimatter. Practical evidence remotely supports something similar to this. There are actually some reports of matter suddenly disappearing and of matter appearing seemingly out of thin air in atomic accelerators and the like.


That's true, some theorize that matter can have an origin in energy. Still, even energy needs a cause itself.

Actually, we're not exactly sure that's true anymore. Lots of theoretical physicists (yeah, I know, a lot of them are quacks) are looking into the concept of antimatter. Practical evidence remotely supports something similar to this. There are actually some reports of matter suddenly disappearing and of matter appearing seemingly out of thin air in atomic accelerators and the like.
But that has to do with Einstein's matter-energy theories..

Like, how does a photon have momentum if momentum is a measure of mass and speed? A photon is supposed to be a beam of energy (massless), so it can't possibly have a mass...and yet it has momentum.

Your logic does not really refute what he is saying...even though what he is saying isn't really logical anyway...

Well she said a physical entity(matter) cannot have been created without the metaphysical and therefore the metaphyscial exists, and I said that that is fallicious because Matter cannot be created period, therefore her statement is incorrect, according to scientific law. It sounds logical to me, but stop me if I messed up.

I must withdraw from this debate for fear of flaming, I would suggest anyone of sense to do the same

I hate people that are too lazy to Google something that is all over...especially in this case, as they're the same people who did not pay attention in 6th grade science class.

Oh, but sir, I don't want that false information which is all over. I want facts, truth, and reality. Not

Fictional Fairy Tales Of Science!

Would someone be so kind as to provide evidence of evolution?

But that has to do with Einstein's matter-energy theories..

Like, how does a photon have momentum if momentum is a measure of mass and speed? A photon is supposed to be a beam of energy (massless), so it can't possibly have a mass...and yet it has momentum.

Actually a photon is supposed to be a packet of energy, not a beam. In some ways it's particle-like, in some ways it's wave-like. It's wierd.

I have heard referenced the "scientific backing" of evolution. Now please, would someone provide this 'credible' "scientific backing"?

A list would be nice. And greatly appreciated too. Can't make claims without "backing".

Good lord, man, there are stacks of textbooks written on evolutionary biology. That's a bit much to post here. Instead, how about you try reading one? Or, heck, read a simple high school biology textbook...

Yet they haven't always existed. Your application of a field which is inherently applicable to the physical alone to the universe would mean that there is no matter. Yet there is matter. Time/space/matter reduce to a singularity, prior to which there can be no existence. The Big Bang explains how the universe is chronologically finite. Your primitive beliefs that the universe is eternal (disproven back in the early 20th century) need to be modified. What you believe is not science: it is pseudo-science, which, ironically, you're so quick to accuse ID of being.

Yes they have always existed. Matter and Energy have always existed. The current configuration of this matter is the thing you quaintly call "The Universe". The big Bang is a possible and perhaps probable explanation of how this matter attained it's current shape. It is not an explanation of how that matter and energy were created. Why? Because the Big Bang did not create anything. It simply rearranged what always existed. Do you understand now? Embrace the Religion of Thermodynamia, NR, it explains all and gives peace.

The flaw in your argument is that the metaphysical is not constrained by time, therefore an origin is not necessary.
That's not the flaw in my argument. That's the flaw in your argument. You're arguing that something (metaphysical) had to exist before the universe otherwise, how would the universe be here.

I'm arguing that the word "before" is an argument of time, therefore, as time is simply a demension for measuring "stuff" in, if matter did not exist "before" the universe, then why would anything else ("time") exist "before" the universe? In fact, "before the universe" is a term that does not even make any sense...as there is no time to measure. It is like limiting your entire knowledge to the length of a football field and then referencing to something that is "before the goalpost." It is not something comprehensible. It simply does not exist.

Therefore, I am not arguing that the universe has an origin. Simply that nothing existed before it. And if nothing, not even time, existed before the universe, then the universe has always existed and never needed to be created. It just simply...was...

And I don't see why that has to have a metaphysical explanation. If I have to explain what created the universe even though I believe the universe has always existed and just simply was there...then I'm going to have to ask you to explain the coming to existence of your metaphysical being and what caused Him to come about.

I must withdraw from this debate for fear of flaming, I would suggest anyone of sense to do the same



Why? It's not that hard to control one's temper. After all, it's not as if your god is being insulted or blasphemed if you're an atheist ;)

Oh, but sir, I don't want that false information which is all over. I want facts, truth, and reality. Not

Fictional Fairy Tales Of Science!

Would someone be so kind as to provide evidence of evolution?

Sure. I have some literature for you. It's by this guy you might have heard of, names Charles Darwin.

I recommend "The Origin of Species," and "Scientific Evidence for the Origin of Man." Good reads. His scientific method is so well done that his conclusions, especially in Origin, stand virtually unchallengable.

You can of course just Google any of those titles, or just Darwin, or Evolution, and pick a link from a reputable source - colleges, encyclopedias, etc.

Oh, and no need for shouting.

Well she said a physical entity(matter) cannot have been created without the metaphysical and therefore the metaphyscial exists, and I said that that is fallicious because Matter cannot be created period, therefore her statement is incorrect, according to scientific law. It sounds logical to me, but stop me if I messed up.

Matter must have been created at some point, for, as the laws of Thermodynamics state, the universe would have long died the entropy death. Therefore, the universe, namely matter and energy as we know it, could not have existed always. So, the Creator is either not matter or energy, and/or He is not bound by this universe and it's laws (which would be necessary to create this universe in the first place).

Well she said a physical entity(matter) cannot have been created without the metaphysical and therefore the metaphyscial exists, and I said that that is fallicious because Matter cannot be created period, therefore her statement is incorrect, according to scientific law. It sounds logical to me, but stop me if I messed up.
Your logic is correct, and there is no evidence these days (aside from the anti-matter stuff and energy-matter stuff) that matter is really created or destroyed, but evidence of what goes on in the world today can not necessarily be applied to the supposed "creation" of the universe. He believes that before the universe there was nothing except the metaphysical and therefore the matter of the universe was willed into existence.

Yes they have always existed. Matter and Energy have always existed. The current configuration of this matter is the thing you quaintly call "The Universe". The big Bang is a possible and perhaps probable explanation of how this matter attained it's current shape. It is not an explanation of how that matter and energy were created. Why? Because the Big Bang did not create anything. It simply rearranged what always existed. Do you understand now? Embrace the Religion of Thermodynamia, NR, it explains all and gives peace.



Something which is constrained by time cannot be infinite. Nothing further.

Your logic is correct, and there is no evidence these days (aside from the anti-matter stuff and energy-matter stuff) that matter is really created or destroyed, but evidence of what goes on in the world today can not necessarily be applied to the supposed "creation" of the universe. He believes that before the universe there was nothing except the metaphysical and therefore the matter of the universe was willed into existence.



He? Look at the "location" part of my my profile on the left side of the screen :mad:

Something which is constrained by time cannot be infinite. Nothing further.
Again, who is to say that time has always existed? Remember, time isn't really anything beyond a measurement. Before the universe existed, there wasn't anything to measure, so there was no time. The universe, everything, time included, all starts at the same point, and because there is nothing before that point, that is the beginning, but again, there being nothing beyond that point, matter, and time, have always existed.

Your logic is correct, and there is no evidence these days (aside from the anti-matter stuff and energy-matter stuff) that matter is really created or destroyed, but evidence of what goes on in the world today can not necessarily be applied to the supposed "creation" of the universe. He believes that before the universe there was nothing except the metaphysical and therefore the matter of the universe was willed into existence.

Oh yea, I get what she's saying, I was just playing the logic game for some fun. In reality no matter what either of us say we will not be able to reconcile our beliefs.

He? Look at the "location" part of my my profile on the left side of the screen :mad:
That's an interesting city. I wonder what the high school mascot is at Female Birmingham High School..


Whatever, who cares. Call my a girl. I'm not going to throw a hissy fit. It's not like it matters.

Besides, ask any grammar teacher, it is perfectly acceptable to reference to a person as a "he" if the sex is unknown.

Something which is constrained by time cannot be infinite. Nothing further.

Who claimed that existence was constrained by time? Oh yeah, it was you. You did this to explain the need for the Metaphysical. Every argument you have made is completely circular. You don't need to practice logical trickery when you embrace the the Eternal Peace of Thermodynamia. Step towards the light, NR. Know the peace that embraceth all understanding.

Would someone be so kind as to provide evidence of evolution?

Why bother? You'll pull some ridiculous claim out of your colon to "refute" the evidence, and then you'll pretend like you've just won a gold medal in the decathalon for being so much wiser than all of us naive evolution-believers. It's like talking to a lamp post.

Something which is constrained by time cannot be infinite. Nothing further.

Time is a construct of the human mind.

Who claimed that existence was constrained by time? Oh yeah, it was you. You did this to explain the need for the Metaphysical. Every argument you have made is completely circular. You don't need to practice logical trickery when you embrace the the Eternal Peace of Thermodynamia. Step towards the light, NR. Know the peace that embraceth all understanding.


Thermodynamia is a product of science, and science states that all matter/time eventually reduces to a singularity. Wouldst thou fall into heresy, rejecting thine own master? Step towards the light, Gartref. Know the peace that passeth all understanding: Science. Yield not to the wiles and snares of of the Wicked One, embrace intellectual honesty and embrace the Truth: Physical eternity has been disproven.

Time is a construct of the human mind.



We recognize and measure time, yet it is not our construct: it is the way of the universe.

Why bother? You'll pull some ridiculous claim out of your colon to "refute" the evidence, and then you'll pretend like you've just won a gold medal in the decathalon for being so much wiser than all of us naive evolution-believers. It's like talking to a lamp post.


Did the man not ask a question? Answer it.

All the scientists do is confuse me. First, they tell me that everything exists all the time because nothing can be created or destroyed. Then they tell me that things stop existing for short periods of time. Then, they have the nerve to tell me that the universe was in a neat little package forever before the big bang. How can something be dormant for an unlimited amount of time, then explode? It makes no sense and science WAS my favorite subject in school. Now, it just confuses me because it contradicts itself and tells me that the tiny universe spec just happened to stimulate itself on its own with no external force. wth? If scientists can believe that everything has always existed, then I can believe that a deity always existed. After all, if evolution is a theory, then why teach it as if it were a fact? :confused: :mad:

That's true, some theorize that matter can have an origin in energy. Still, even energy needs a cause itself.

Matter and Energy are the same thing, only in different forms. Why do you say things like Energy needs a cause? This is nonsensical and blasphemous. You should really try to back these bizarre statements up with something more than primitive feelings. Thermodynamia plainly contradicts you on all points.

Sure. I have some literature for you. It's by this guy you might have heard of, names Charles Darwin.

I recommend "The Origin of Species," and "Scientific Evidence for the Origin of Man." Good reads. His scientific method is so well done that his conclusions, especially in Origin, stand virtually unchallengable.

You can of course just Google any of those titles, or just Darwin, or Evolution, and pick a link from a reputable source - colleges, encyclopedias, etc.

Oh, and no need for shouting.



I wouldn't recommend original Darwinism to answer that question, since many of his claims have been modified or disregarded. Try contemporary evolutionary literature.

Did the man not ask a question? Answer it.

"The man" has asked that question in over a half dozen threads that I can remember, and consistently refuses to acknowledge even the basest of evidence, such as Charles Darwin's works, as legitimate. I have not the will nor desire to find him evidence to casually dismiss without even considering.

Sure. I have some literature for you. It's by this guy you might have heard of, names Charles Darwin.

I recommend "The Origin of Species," and "Scientific Evidence for the Origin of Man." Good reads. His scientific method is so well done that his conclusions, especially in Origin, stand virtually unchallengable.

You can of course just Google any of those titles, or just Darwin, or Evolution, and pick a link from a reputable source - colleges, encyclopedias, etc.

Oh, and no need for shouting.

Charles Darwin was a racist and a sexist. He believed that women lacked the mental prowess of men, and the physical capabilities too. We know that the former is completely idiotic, and the latter is not always true. There are cases of women being much, much stronger than any man.

He also claimed that a day would be realized when, "The civilized races of Europe would overcome that of the Negro," to paraphrase.

For his model to be correct, those who are unfit must die to ensure the survival of the fittest. For if those who are unfit survive to contaminate the genepool further, this would create terrible problems. However, we see in nature the opposite of this. Dolphins and Elephants, among other mammals and avian species, protect their old and young. Humans care for their children and grandparents, and those with disabilities and genetic 'defects' (I shudder at the use of this term, as it is so callous I believe. They simply have been given their lot in life by God, to use it to His glory and honor and praise).

If Evolution were the case, then our species must no longer exist. For we would be required to leave our young on their own, and those who survived earned the right to live. However, no infant can survive. They cannot feed nor protect themselves. Nor can Embryos. As an embryo, a human cannot produce anything for the community, but serves as a drain on the mother's bodily resources. Thus, the Embryo must be aborted, as it is not a boon, but a demand on the mother and community.

Evolution also reduces human life to the condition of being valueless. If we are nothing but the products of random chance, then there is no intrinsic value to our life, and value lies in our status and that which is credited or attatched to our name.

If Evolution were the case, our society never would have survived. America would not have continued in its founding values, and it never would have become what it is today (Or was 40 years ago). We likely would have allied with Hitler, or even before that, never freed the slaves. Or, even preceding that, we would have simply wiped out the Indian tribes, rather than even bother with relocation or reservations.

Evolution would have demanded that women be subjected to men, as they are the weaker physically of the sexes, and, according to Darwin, the dimwits of the species also. Evolution would have demanded that those who are of black skin be subjegated, for, according to Darwin, those of the "Negro races" were barbaric, and would see "The supremacy of the higher races [Europeans]."

And, the critical evolutionary "evidence" is that of fossils. The Flood, told of in Genesis, covered the earth with water in a matter of days. In a matter of minutes, it had risen high enough to lift the ark from the ground, and likely high enough to drown most living creatures. This would adequately explain the fossilization of creatures, as evolutionary scientists have said that it would have taken a quick submersion in water and mud to have preserved the creatures.

It is also a fact that a layer of soil world-wide shows a flood. And, were Carbon Dating to truly work, it would require astronomical amounts of carbon to survive from creatures which were truly millions upon millions of years old.

And, were the Theocracy of Evolution correct, it would have been quite astronomical odds indeed that the first amino acids overcame to be created (whoops, 'overcame to happen into existence).

However, it is all well and good to say "lighting through early gases created amino acid chains which formed proteins and then DNA and then cells and then complex body systems and whole creatures," but the sheer number of amino acids in a chain needed to form a protein, and that these amino acids be in the correct order, and that this occur again and again to form more proteins, and eventually DNA, and that all this would survive, is as much a leap of faith as any that "religious nutcakes" make, though we Christians have God and Evidence on our side.

Matter and Energy are the same thing, only in different forms. Why do you say things like Energy needs a cause? This is nonsensical and blasphemous. You should really try to back these bizarre statements up with something more than primitive feelings. Thermodynamia plainly contradicts you on all points.



Seems to me that you need to have a good look at your Holy Book of Physics, as Thermodynamia clearly states that energy has an cause.

Thermodynamia is a product of science, and science states that all matter/time eventually reduces to a singularity. Wouldst thou fall into heresy, rejecting thine own master? Step towards the light, Gartref. Know the peace that passeth all understanding: Science. Yield not to the wiles and snares of of the Wicked One, embrace intellectual honesty and embrace the Truth: Physical eternity has been disproven.

I didn't say that science was my religion. I said Thermodynamia is. It may well be true that all matter and Energy get reduced to a singularity. It is this singularity that is probably responsible for the "Big Bang" you spoke of earlier. Matter and Energy, eternally existing, pass through the holy and cleansing cycle of singularity and expansion. They do this free of external metaphysical interference, thus producing universes of unimaginable beauty. Your arguments, NR, have done nothing but increase my Thermodynamic fervor. Thank you.

First of all what they are teaching is not one god creationism it is a pluralistice you can think god or aliens created the world. THey simply want to present another theory and until evolution can be proven CONCLUSIVELY then why not present another opinion? the religion of evolution has been taught in schools for years why not try another one?

But see, that's the crux of empirical science; nothing can be proved conclusively. Theories are only accepted as scientific "fact" after they've been tested to the point where people give up trying to prove them wrong, and even then, someone sometimes finds a fault sooner or later. In the end, you can't be right in science; only less wrong.

And that's why intelligent design shouldn't be taught in science class; you can't prove it wrong. Evolution is a theory that can be tested, revised, and perhaps even debunked (though when that might ever happen is anyone's guess). However, there's no way to test intelligent design, so while it can't be proven right, it can't be proven wrong either. For that reason, it doesn't belong in empirical science, and I'm fairly sure for that same reason, it shouldn't belong in a class teaching an empirical science like biology....but that's just my opinion.

Seems to me that you need to have a good look at your Holy Book of Physics, as Thermodynamia clearly states that energy has an cause.

Explain in detail, wicked temptress.

To The Evolutionist:

Charles Darwin is god.
The Origin of Species is the bible.
The ACLU, The Democrats, College Professors, and certain Biology books are the evangelists.
The classroom is the church.
And brainwashing is the saving message.

It's like talking to a lamp post.

Except lamp posts are bright. :p

Just a reminder:
[size=+1][color=red][b]Evolution is a theory. Creationism/I.D. is not.

That is all at this time.

Except lamp posts are bright. :p

Just a reminder. Evolution is a theory. Creationism/I.D. is not a theory.
Light bulbs are bright. Lamp posts aren't.

Except lamp posts are bright. :p

Just a reminder. Evolution is a theory. Creationism/I.D. is not a theory.

Haha, punny.

Why bother? You'll pull some ridiculous claim out of your colon to "refute" the evidence, and then you'll pretend like you've just won a gold medal in the decathalon for being so much wiser than all of us naive evolution-believers. It's like talking to a lamp post.

The same could be said of you. You blame us for being closed-minded. You just do it in a more subversive, dishonest way; like the above.

I didn't say that science was my religion. I said Thermodynamia is. It may well be true that all matter and Energy get reduced to a singularity. It is this singularity that is probably responsible for the "Big Bang" you spoke of earlier. Matter and Energy, eternally existing, pass through the holy and cleansing cycle of singularity and expansion. They do this free of external metaphysical interference, thus producing universes of unimaginable beauty. Your arguments, NR, have done nothing but increase my Thermodynamic fervor. Thank you.


The expansion/contraction theory is no longer accepted by most scientists. Even if it were, they would recognize that it still needs an origin somewhere along the line. You're just moving the goalposts and avoiding the question. Many scientists had originally thought that the universe might be infinite and eternal. However, there was a major problem with the theory. If the universe were infinite, the amount of light falling on the earth would also be infinite (assuming an approximately uniform density of galaxies throughout the universe. The reason for this is that the volume of the universe increases 8-fold with doubling of distance, while the decrease of light is only 4-fold with the doubling of the distance. The result is that the amount of light falling in the earth would double every time the size of the universe is doubled. Therefore, if the universe were infinite, we would not expect the sky to be dark at night. Since the night sky is dark, we know that the universe could not be infinite.

oye yoy yoy

*shakes head*

I believe in ID but I don't think it belongs in the science class. There's no way to reconcile the two ideas at present.

Light bulbs are bright. Lamp posts aren't.

Oh Jesus, get off it, will you? Just trying to add levity.

http://images.google.com/images?q=lamp+post&btnG=Search+Images

Except lamp posts are bright. :p

Just a reminder. Evolution is a theory. Creationism/I.D. is not a theory.

That is all at this time.

Hear Hear!

I bow to thy cunning mastery of thy opponent's words!

The same could be said of you. You blame us for being closed-minded. You just do it in a more subversive, dishonest way; like the above.
I know I'm close minded. When faced with a "theory" that not only defies sceintific analysis but shits in its lap and tries to pretend it is the equal of a theory that has been tested for decades with results that only support it, yes, you will find my mind quite closed to this tripe.

Oh Jesus, get off it, will you? Just trying to add levity.

http://images.google.com/images?q=lamp+post&btnG=Search+Images

You see, lamposts and light go hand-in-hand. Just like God, Creation, and Evidence.

I know I'm close minded. When faced with a theory that not only defies sceintific analysis but shits in its lap and tries to pretend it is the equal of a theory that has been tested for decades with results that only support it, yes, you will find my mind quite closed to this tripe.

You mean, you too hate Evolution?

To The Evolutionist:

Charles Darwin is god.
The Origin of Species is the bible.
The ACLU, The Democrats, College Professors, and certain Biology books are the evangelists.
The classroom is the church.
And brainwashing is the saving message.

I hate to break it to you, but saying things in REALLY BIG LETTERS doesn't make them true.

Seriously, go read a biology textbook before you argue against evolution. You've misunderstood almost everything about it, from what I read of your post before my head started hurting too much to continue.

Also, Gartref, more on the oscillatory universe theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillating_universe


(I know, Wiki isn't entirely peer-reviewed, but this article is very accurate)

It's silly really - I can see both sides of the argument. True I do get annoyed though with others stick so vehemently to their one side and can't seem to even acknowledge the other side at all. It's really a waste of energy to try to convince anyone on the other side of the fence that your ideas might have at least a little credence.

The same could be said of you. You blame us for being closed-minded. You just do it in a more subversive, dishonest way; like the above.

Once intelligent design can submit enough unbiased evidence to pass the scrutiny of the scientific method and honestly call itself a scientific theory, then I will give it as much credence as evolution. Until then, I will call it what it is: dressed-up Creationism.

I hate to break it to you, but saying things in REALLY BIG LETTERS doesn't make them true.

Seriously, go read a biology textbook before you argue against evolution. You've misunderstood almost everything about it, from what I read of your post before my head started hurting too much to continue.

No, you misunderstand your own far-fetched beliefs. I have logically deduced from what Charles Darwin originally wrote. And even if you claim that modern science has changed much the theory of evolution, it all goes back to him, and it is all the same at heart.

I only said the title in big letters. That's conventional in contemporary English Writing.

Oh Jesus, get off it, will you? Just trying to add levity.

http://images.google.com/images?q=lamp+post&btnG=Search+Images
...uhm, sweet. Looky there, I'm Jesus.

The eternal expansion/contraction theory is no longer accepted by most scientists.

You don't seem to understand. Science is not my Religion. I am a Thermodynamite. My true-blood name is "Kid Thermodynamite". Why do you care what the opinion of scientists are anyway? You have rejected all science by clinging to your primitive tribal beliefs. To cherry-pick only those bits of science that you can twist to "prove" your point is dishonest and heretical. You must abandon your trickery, vile temptress. Quit trying to pull the mote from my eye and concentrate on extracting the bone from your own nose.

You may ask "How has Kid Thermodynamite acheived so much Peace and Wisdom?" I will tell you. I read of the Dynamic principles in a large book. These laws gave me Peace. I believed them. That is my proof. You must have faith.

You see, lamposts and light go hand-in-hand. Just like God, Creation, and Evidence.

What the hell are you rambling about? Are you purposely trying to be an idiot?
If I didn't know any better, between the spelling and grammar errors and the crackpot theories, I'd say you were a satire puppet.

Sadly, I know that's probably not true. So let's lay it out slowly for the broken lamp post:

You are in no position to posit ideas of how the world works (nor am I).
To categorize "evilutionists" and write them off as evil leftists is childish.
Evolution is a theory, backed by several centuries of research and revision.
Creationism/I.D. is watered down religion, a last ditch effort at reclaiming what science has left to prove definitively beyond resonable doubt.
Creationism/I.D. is not a theory, it is not science.
Creationism/I.D. is blatantly random crap (much like Scientology) that makes absolutely no sense to an objective observer.
As is such, Creationism should not be taught in public schools by a government that is supposed to have no religious favoritism.

The End

I don't see the need to explain what I don't know by the influence of some possibly non-existent being/force.

At this point we don't even know if/where other life exists. I highly doubt our scientist can at this point accurately determine how the parts of the universe came to exist.

We still don't understand our world. However, the case for evolution is probably the strongest it's ever been, and it can only get stronger.

The Greeks believed the Sun was a God riding on a chariot to bring light to the world.

I'd say modern existence began 3000 years ago. Compared to the estimated age of the earth, 4 billion years, I don't expect answers to come quickly nor fully.

I'm happy to say we don't know shit about anything. I won't however fill in the blanks with fantastic stories of higher beings and guided progression. Is it really that hard to believe over 3.85 billion years our weak incompetent selves came to be?

Once intelligent design can submit enough unbiased evidence to pass the scrutiny of the scientific method and honestly call itself a scientific theory, then I will give it as much credence as evolution. Until then, I will call it what it is: dressed-up Creationism.

If there were no Intelligent Design to the universe, would all known life have only four base-pairs in its DNA?

When a building is built, someone asks, "Who designed it?"

When a painting is unveiled, someone asks, "Who painted it?"

When a sculpture is chiseled, someone asks, "Who carved it?"

When a book is written, someone asks, "Who wrote it?"

The same is said for all things of this nature. There is always a designer or creator assumed to these products. Why not so with the infinately more complex Universe?

Would someone be so kind as to provide evidence of evolution?

sure. would you care for an overview or a solid look at some specific aspect?

What the hell are you rambling about? Are you purposely trying to be an idiot?
If I didn't know any better, between the spelling and grammar errors and the crackpot theories, I'd say you were a satire puppet.

Sadly, I know that's probably not true. So let's lay it out slowly for the broken lamp post:

You are in no position to posit ideas of how the world works (nor am I).
To categorize "evilutionists" and write them off as evil leftists is childish.
Evolution is a theory, backed by several centuries of research and revision.
Creationism/I.D. is watered down religion, a last ditch effort at reclaiming what science has left to prove definitively beyond resonable doubt.
Creationism/I.D. is not a theory, it is not science.
Creationism/I.D. is blatantly random crap (much like Scientology) that makes absolutely no sense to an objective observer.
As is such, Creationism should not be taught in public schools by a government that is supposed to have no religious favoritism.

The End

Macro evolution, as this entire argument is centered about, is not science either. It is not reproducible, or testable under lab conditions. I rest my case (for the moment).

If there were no Intelligent Design to the universe, would all known life have only four base-pairs in its DNA?

When a building is built, someone asks, "Who designed it?"

When a painting is unveiled, someone asks, "Who painted it?"

When a sculpture is chiseled, someone asks, "Who carved it?"

When a book is written, someone asks, "Who wrote it?"

The same is said for all things of this nature. There is always a designer or creator assumed to these products. Why not so with the infinately more complex Universe?

And yet there are more things that the average person doesn't ask is designed. Chrystaline structures are every bit as complex and yet there is nothing to suggest anyone designed them.

sure. would you care for an overview or a solid look at some specific aspect?

A specific aspect can prove anything. But one flaw, and all crumbles. How about an overview?

Macro evolution, as this entire argument is centered about, is not science either. It is not reproducible, or testable under lab conditions. I rest my case (for the moment).
Micro and macro evolution are bullshit terms created by opponents of the theory as a means of discounting the indisputable evidence accumulated in lab experiments showing changes in species over time. There is only evolution and it is real.

If there were no Intelligent Design to the universe, would all known life have only four base-pairs in its DNA?

When a building is built, someone asks, "Who designed it?"

When a painting is unveiled, someone asks, "Who painted it?"

When a sculpture is chiseled, someone asks, "Who carved it?"

When a book is written, someone asks, "Who wrote it?"

The same is said for all things of this nature. There is always a designer or creator assumed to these products. Why not so with the infinately more complex Universe?

Good point. Whenever you see a man made artifact, you wonder what man made it. Makes sense, but how does that apply to the rest of this thread?

If there were no Intelligent Design to the universe, would all known life have only four base-pairs in its DNA?

When a building is built, someone asks, "Who designed it?"

When a painting is unveiled, someone asks, "Who painted it?"

When a sculpture is chiseled, someone asks, "Who carved it?"

When a book is written, someone asks, "Who wrote it?"

The same is said for all things of this nature. There is always a designer or creator assumed to these products. Why not so with the infinately more complex Universe?

Yeah, but sometimes they also ask, "How was it painted/carved/written?"

Whether or not God started the process is entirely irrelevant. You're welcome to believe that God said "boom" and that's how life began. (Hell, you're welcome to believe that magical pink elephants from the tenth dimension pooped and that's how life began, although most people would probably think you're a little nuts for doing so.) Evolution, however, is the process by which life changed into the forms we know today. If you want to think of it as God's paintbrush, fine, but that's philosophy, not science. Okay?

You don't seem to understand. Science is not my Religion. I am a Thermodynamite. My true-blood name is "Kid Thermodynamite". Why do you care what the opinion of scientists are anyway? You have rejected all science by clinging to your primitive tribal beliefs. To cherry-pick only those bits of science that you can twist to "prove" your point is dishonest and heretical. You must abandon your trickery, vile temptress. Quit trying to pull the mote from my eye and concentrate on extracting the bone from your own nose.

You may ask "How has Kid Thermodynamite acheived so much Peace and Wisdom?" I will tell you. I read of the Dynamic principles in a large book. These laws gave me Peace. I believed them. That is my proof. You must have faith.


Nay, I embrace science because it tends to reinforce my "primitive tribal" beliefs ;)

Macro evolution, as this entire argument is centered about, is not science either. It is not reproducible, or testable under lab conditions. I rest my case (for the moment).

Yes, but it stands up to general scientific scrutiny. And since it is a work in progress, it is presented as such.

The simply fact is that presenting Creationism/I.D. in public schools violates the separation of church and state. It favors a particular religious belief in a government institution, and that is not (nor should it be) allowed.

If you have any problems with my last point, there is nothing more that can be said between us.

Oh, and as for the same base pairs of DNA, considering odds are pretty damn good all life on this planet would eventually trace back to a single, common ancestor, it is not a great mystery the building block types are the same throughout.

Nay, I embrace science because it tends to reinforce my "primitive tribal" beliefs ;)

Cool, could you post some examples of this?

Micro and macro evolution are bullshit terms created by opponents of the theory as a means of discounting the indisputable evidence accumulated in lab experiments showing changes in species over time. There is only evolution and it is real.

No, they are not "Bull S***". Micro evolution is the change in color of a rabbit over a period of four hundred years.

Macro evolution is "Shrimp to Chimp".

There is a big difference. You see, that rabbit that changed colours didn't sprout wings and gills and learn to fly underwater.

that's philosophy, not science

That's theology/mythology. Not philosophy.

Cool, could you post some examples of this?



Mmm, wish I had the time. I'm not doing hit-and-run but I have a 6:30-6:30 shift starting in less than 6 hours and I really need to get some sleep.

Yes, but it stands up to general scientific scrutiny. And since it is a work in progress, it is presented as such.

The simply fact is that presenting Creationism/I.D. in public schools violates the separation of church and state. It favors a particular religious belief in a government institution, and that is not (nor should it be) allowed.

If you have any problems with my last point, there is nothing more that can be said between us.

The Separation of Church and State is not a law. It is an idea first presented by Thomas Jefferson, in a letter where one line stated, "We must preserve the garden of the Church from the wasteland of the state."

I believe this statement truthfully. However, we must not allow the state to continue to be a wasteland by allowing our generations to be brainwashed into believing falsehoods and fables.

No, they are not "Bull S***". Micro evolution is the change in color of a rabbit over a period of four hundred years.

Macro evolution is "Shrimp to Chimp".

There is a big difference. You see, that rabbit that changed colours didn't sprout wings and gills and learn to fly underwater.
They are not difference in type, they are differences in degree. That's like saying there is a different laws of motion governing planets than stars just because of the size difference.

If there were no Intelligent Design to the universe, would all known life have only four base-pairs in its DNA?

When a building is built, someone asks, "Who designed it?"

When a painting is unveiled, someone asks, "Who painted it?"

When a sculpture is chiseled, someone asks, "Who carved it?"

When a book is written, someone asks, "Who wrote it?"

The same is said for all things of this nature. There is always a designer or creator assumed to these products. Why not so with the infinately more complex Universe?

If I found an unsigned painting in my attic, do you believe it's fair I just randomly guess how it came to be?

Your analogy is flawed. It's like Mona Lisa asking David how they came to be, then just making shit up as they saw fit.

Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology, and every other world religion has had a basis similar to Christianity. A base of stories intertwined with history. Why should we now accept these contemporary religions as fact when we easily dismiss past religions as laughable?

That's theology/mythology. Not philosophy.

One can make a case for philosophy - an awful lot of philosophers have argued about the existence and nature of God/gods. I don't particularly mind I.D. being taught in a philosophy class focused on the discussion of gods.

Evolution. If a new creature suddenly sprang into existance, as would have had to occur, seeing as nearly no transitional species exist, there would not be any of its kind to allow its existance. And, if by some means more than one were produced with DNA like enough as to be able to foster progeny, that would require a strikingly similar DNA, and the existance of both male and female creatures, to produce any creatures with the DNA capable of sustaining a population without genetic defects which would lead to destruciton.

Evolution simply does not work.

The Separation of Church and State is not a law. It is an idea first presented by Thomas Jefferson, in a letter where one line stated, "We must preserve the garden of the Church from the wasteland of the state."

I believe this statement truthfully. However, we must not allow the state to continue to be a wasteland by allowing our generations to be brainwashed into believing falsehoods and fables.
...

Okay...we're going from allowing theology to be taught in science classes to now having a theology class and calling it science...and then banning the teaching of anything not taught in the bible?

You guys want to turn America into its own antithesis.

Mmm, wish I had the time. I'm not doing hit-and-run but I have a 6:30-6:30 shift starting in less than 6 hours and I really need to get some sleep.

Then we shall meet again, you Hot-Blooded Pagan Wench. Sucks you have to work on a Saturday. I plan on sleeping till noon.

If I found an unsigned painting in my attic, do you believe it's fair I just randomly guess how it came to be?

Your analogy is flawed. It's like Mona Lisa asking David how they came to be, then just making shit up as they saw fit.

Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology, and every other world religion has had a basis similar to Christianity. A base of stories intertwined with history. Why should we now accept these contemporary religions as fact when we easily dismiss past religions as laughable?

If Mona Lisa saw paintbrushes, paint, an easil, and a stool, she might think that there was someone who Created her.

If David saw a block of marble, a chisel, he might think that there was someone who Created him.

You see, the Bible and Jesus and all of Creation are like those paintbrushes, that stool, that chisel.

The Separation of Church and State is not a law. It is an idea first presented by Thomas Jefferson, in a letter where one line stated, "We must preserve the garden of the Church from the wasteland of the state."

I believe this statement truthfully. However, we must not allow the state to continue to be a wasteland by allowing our generations to be brainwashed into believing falsehoods and fables.

I have an entire thread devoted to that. And even if it isn't an "established" law, never mind the case precedents and 1st amendment, in a democracy it damn well should be, now shouldn't it?

As for your remaining comments, they could be said about your beliefs as well. (Though that comparison is allowing you to maintain that scientific theorems and individual spiritual beliefs are on the same level, which they aren't.)

I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I am pissed that his creation of our dear Earth isn't taught in school!

All praise Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!

If Mona Lisa saw paintbrushes, paint, an easil, and a stool, she might think that there was someone who Created her.

If David saw a block of marble, a chisel, he might think that there was someone who Created him.

You see, the Bible and Jesus and all of Creation are like those paintbrushes, that stool, that chisel.

LOL! Good stuff!

Evolution. If a new creature suddenly sprang into existance, as would have had to occur, seeing as nearly no transitional species exist,

This is completely and utterly false. Not only do we have transitional fossils out the wazoo, in some sense, every species is a transitional species. Evolution has no "goal," and species cannot simply stop evolving. The process may accelerate or slow, but just as the human race today looks slightly different than it did 500 years ago, the human race in 100,000 years may no longer even be recognizable to us as human.

there would not be any of its kind to allow its existance....

Do you have any idea how slow and gradual a process evolution is? We're talking thousands to millions of years, and you're suggesting radical mutations to the point of speciation in a single generation? Please, please, go read ANYTHING on evolutionary biology before you say these things. Please?

LOL! Good stuff!

I feel that this is stinging sarcasm, and mortid mocking.

This is completely and utterly false. Not only do we have transitional fossils out the wazoo, in some sense, every species is a transitional species. Evolution has no "goal," and species cannot simply stop evolving. The process may accelerate or slow, but just as the human race today looks slightly different than it did 500 years ago, the human race in 100,000 years may no longer even be recognizable to us as human.



Do you have any idea how slow and gradual a process evolution is? We're talking thousands to millions of years, and you're suggesting radical mutations to the point of speciation in a single generation? Please, please, go read ANYTHING on evolutionary biology before you say these things. Please?

There are no fossils of a raptor-like creature becoming a tyrannisaurus-type creature. Evolution does not have transitional species up the wazoo, because there are not fossils for every single genetic and physical permutation which would have been required to cause life to be the way it is today.

Okay, if you get three strikes, you have to go read a biology book, you get one thing right, a hit, and I'll go read the bible, agreed?

Evolution. If a new creature suddenly sprang into existance, as would have had to occur, seeing as nearly no transitional species exist, Strike one. First, every bloody species out there is either a transitional species or doomed to extinction without evolving. there would not be any of its kind to allow its existance. Strike two. Invalid inference from a refuted argument. It can breed with the slightly different members of the species it is evolving from. And, if by some means more than one were produced with DNA like enough as to be able to foster progeny, that would require a strikingly similar DNA, and the existance of both male and female creatures, to produce any creatures with the DNA capable of sustaining a population without genetic defects which would lead to destruciton. Strike three, you're out. They will be able to continue breeding with local populations until the whole species no longer resembles what it once was.

Evolution simply does not work.
Go read a biology book.

I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I am pissed that his creation of our dear Earth isn't taught in school!

All praise Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!

Hail, F.S.M.! The Earth is His meatball!

I think it's pretty evident that dinosaurs either suck at evolution, or are the absolute best at it...as there are many dinosaur-esque creatures around these days...

I think it's pretty evident that dinosaurs either suck at evolution, or are the absolute best at it...as there are many dinosaur-esque creatures around these days...
Birds.

There are no fossils of a raptor-like creature becoming a tyrannisaurus-type creature.

This might possibly be because raptor-like creatures did not evolve into tyrannosaur-type creatures. Oddly enough, we also lack evidence of you turning into your cousin.

(I also have no idea what a fossil of something "becoming" something else would look like. Sounds like a painful process... :p )

One can make a case for philosophy - an awful lot of philosophers have argued about the existence and nature of God/gods. I don't particularly mind I.D. being taught in a philosophy class focused on the discussion of gods.

Descartes gets a get-into-Philosophy-101-free-card simply because he was brilliant. Besides that, no. Religion/mythology, whatever you'd like to call it, does not belong in a philosophy class, simply because it can't be argued with (as is apparent by this thread or any other encounter with a religious person.)

If the course were allowed to go into exploring and interpreting/reinterpreting religious texts and interpretations, it could arguably be called "philosophy", though really it would be best kept in the sub-category of theology.

I feel that this is stinging sarcasm, and mortid mocking.

Mortid?? Ik shpreka nikt doych.

Sorry. I really was genuinely amused and give you my thanks. Laughter is a gift.

Hey, look at it this way: Horses and Donkeys can breed. When they do, it produces a mule. This mule can't reproduce.

If a creature with a genetic mutation called 'evolution' appears, this may cause it to be incompatible. If it is compatible, it may spread through the population. However, conditions change much faster than organisms. For instance, no creature can evolve to survive a volcano two seconds before it erupts.

Anyway, I've had my practice, and I'm going to leave the presence of you hopeless people whose only hope lies in the faith that their rebellion against God can win more people to Hell.

I shall pray for your souls.

Good day.

Birds.

Yup.

Isn't it fun to have therapods fluttering around your backyard? :)

Birds.

Haha!

Oh my dear. That's right. Scales turned into feathers. That's why birds are coldblooded, have narrow, slitted pupils, and shed their skin, feathers and all. I completely forgot.

Descartes gets a get-into-Philosophy-101-free-card simply because he was brilliant. Besides that, no. Religion/mythology, whatever you'd like to call it, does not belong in a philosophy class, simply because it can't be argued with (as is apparent by this thread or any other encounter with a religious person.)

If the course were allowed to go into exploring and interpreting/reinterpreting religious texts and interpretations, it could arguably be called "philosophy", though really it would be best kept in the sub-category of theology.

Well, I took a philosophy course which was essentially "various philosophers attempt and fail to prove that God exists, but make all sorts of interesting statements about ethics, the nature of existence, and the 'thinginess' of things in the process." It was pretty fun stuff. I could see a more intelligent and less hysterical version of creationism fitting in fairly well in a class like that.

Hey, look at it this way: Horses and Donkeys can breed. When they do, it produces a mule. This mule can't reproduce.

If a creature with a genetic mutation called 'evolution' appears, this may cause it to be incompatible. If it is compatible, it may spread through the population. However, conditions change much faster than organisms. For instance, no creature can evolve to survive a volcano two seconds before it erupts.

Anyway, I've had my practice, and I'm going to leave the presence of you hopeless people whose only hope lies in the faith that their rebellion against God can win more people to Hell.

I shall pray for your souls.

Good day.

First, not all mules are sterile. While the vast majority are it is not true of all of them. Second, there is a huge gap between Donkeys and Horses and they can still produce offspring. Third, things around the volcano for the most part die. Anything that lived is likely to have traits that make it resistant to extreme heat and sulfur emmissions, meaning creatures that descend from it too are likely to have those resistances.

Oh, and concession accepted.

Haha!

Oh my dear. That's right. Scales turned into feathers. That's why birds are coldblooded, have narrow, slitted pupils, and shed their skin, feathers and all. I completely forgot.

...because...that...describes...dinosaurs...so...well....

Please, please, please read a book before you talk. Evidence suggests dinosaurs were warm-blooded, and there is no reason whatsoever to believe they had slitted pupils or shed their skin.

Dinosaurs /= reptiles. Literacy and some measure of knowledge = helpful in debates.

If Mona Lisa saw paintbrushes, paint, an easil, and a stool, she might think that there was someone who Created her.

If David saw a block of marble, a chisel, he might think that there was someone who Created him.

You see, the Bible and Jesus and all of Creation are like those paintbrushes, that stool, that chisel.

The problem is the bible was compiled by the hand of a man. A man chose which books to include and leave out. You can't say they had the idea of existence figured out back when people believed the Earth was flat, the Earth was the centre of the universe, and women were lesser.

You can't say there would be a shred of evidence you'd ever believe. I could have time lapse video of the first algae growing into trees and you'd call shenanigans. Whereas I'm willing to say, "I don't know," you're more than willing to shout an answer with no more backing than a single couple of sentences written more than 3000 years.

When it comes to years of study verses all the ideas of religions - both past and present - I will always believe a good man over the unknown hand of repeated revision of centuries and millennia.

Haha!

Oh my dear. That's right. Scales turned into feathers. That's why birds are coldblooded, have narrow, slitted pupils, and shed their skin, feathers and all. I completely forgot.

Wrong. Scales on dinosaurs did not "turn into" feathers. Their scales did not grow longer and turn into feathers.

The evidence of first feathers were more of downy type feathers, they weren't capable of flight.

Evolution is a scientific theory which has gone through the rigors necessary to be accepted as such. Intelligent design has gone through NONE of the tests necessary to be accepted as a scientific theory.

Bravo brother! Bravo...
might I ask, has any I.D. advocate ever submitted a research paper to a respected scientific journal or professional institution? if anyone can find one, let me know

Bravo brother! Bravo...
might I ask, has any I.D. advocate ever submitted a research paper to a respected scientific journal or professional institution? if anyone can find one, let me know

I didn't submit mine for peer review because it was unnecessary. I found mine embossed on gold tablets in the heart of a thousand year old Oak tree. I transcribed the I.D. revelation from the tablets using my PDA. I then ported it over to my PC. During the data transfer, I felt the presence of Angels amplifying the bit transfer rate. The holy document appeared on my desktop fully pre-verified and proven. Why would I bother with peer review?

Bravo brother! Bravo...
might I ask, has any I.D. advocate ever submitted a research paper to a respected scientific journal or professional institution? if anyone can find one, let me know

I know it's been attempted, but they can't pass muster. Eventually, all of the theses of ID fall back upon "because God did it".

What's all this happy crappy about dinosaurs turning into birds? For your information:

Dinosaurs = very large

Birds = very small

The Laws of Size prevent such a crazy thing!

What's all this happy crappy about dinosaurs turning into birds? For your information:

Dinosaurs = very large

Birds = very small

The Laws of Size prevent such a crazy thing!
Not all dinosaurs are very large, not all birds are very small. And there is no law of size, stop talking nonsense.

What's all this happy crappy about dinosaurs turning into birds? For your information:

Dinosaurs = very large

Birds = very small

The Laws of Size prevent such a crazy thing!

Just wait - in the next creation/evolution thread, someone will actually make that argument...

*sigh*

How about an overview?

ok. well, down to the basics i suppose.

the first thing to notice is that every species of life contains a great deal of diversity within it. this can be observed just by looking, as ol' chuckie d and pals did, and (more recently) by examining the actual genetic variation between individuals. the second thing to notice is that traits are inherited across generations. the third important aspect to notice is that this copying of traits from one generation to the next is not perfect, causing slightly new variations to occur. and the fourth is to notice that not all traits are equally favorable in terms of allowing an individual to survive and reproduce, and that the conditions an individual finds itself in have a strong say in how favorable or unfavorable some trait is.

each of these statements are objective facts about the world and are easily observable. when you combine them, the inescapable conclusion is that over time populations will vary in such a way as to keep them relatively 'fit' for the conditions they find themselves in. so basically, population containing variations + reproduction + selection of some traits over others + a source of new variation = evolution. unless you see a way where each of those things could be true (as they are) and yet it could still be the case that populations do not evolve? if so, feel free to explain how.

and now on to common descent. i find the most interesting place to start here is the tree of life idea. when we look at all of the species of life, we find that various species have various things in common. if we group species together based on the relative similarity of their morphology, we can wind up putting things fairly neatly into a sort of bushy diagram, with a nested hierarchical structure - species grouped into genuses, into families, orders, all the way up to superkingdoms. all life on earth shares certain fundamental aspects, and the various species all seem to diverge from each other in a very patterned sort of way. this fact is interesting enough on its own, and i find it hard to think of a non-evolutionary explanation for the pattern beyond "just because". but it doesn't stop there. when we look at the genetic makeup of the various species and group them according to the degree of genetic difference between them, we draw exactly the same bushy diagram.

the twin nested hierarchies drawn in this process therefore must objectively exist - we arrived at the same picture using two completely different methods and starting points when there is no a priori reason to think that we should have. there would seem to be no explanation for this fact at all other than one relying on the evolutionary idea as outlined above. in fact, a gradual evolutionary process is mathematically the only way to form an objective nested hierarchy.

without going into the math of it, we can just think through this part with an analogy. natural languages also form a nested hierarchy - french and spanish and italian all go closely together, while being slightly more distantly related to other european languages, and even more distantly to other indo-european languages, all the way out to the click languages like !kung. we also happen to know that the reason spanish and italian go together better than spanish and german is because spanish and italian actually originated from the same earlier language in the fairly recent past, while the split that led to spanish and german is further back in history. other things that might be organized into hierarchies, such as cars, can not be consistently organized into nested hierarchies. each person organizing the hierarchy can do so on any number of criteria; for example, cars could be done by 1) manufacturer, model, year, and color, or 2) gas milage, color, shape, and number of speakers. the hierarchy in either case is completely subjective.

if something forms an objective nested hierarchy, that thing is the product of a gradual evolutionary process of groups dividing into more and more groups. there is no other way to get an objective nested hierarchy. the fact that we have one for life on earth very strongly implies common descent from some original ancestor.

and here we move on to the wonderful world of fossils. common descent through evolution predicts that given good enough fossilization rates we should be able to organize fossil species into the same tree based on their morphologies. we also should be able to find 'intermediate species' that contain traits that are also found in two (or more) groups that split off on seperate evolutionary paths later, as well as transitions between earlier and later species on the same branch. the fossils record passes both of these tests quite fantastically. the tree of life gets much more interesting with all the fossil forms, but it is still the same tree. and the intermediates and the transitions! truly spectacular, some of them. reptiles to mammals, dinosaurs to modern birds, early apes to modern humans, land mammals to whales. they are all great and they are all available for your viewing pleasure a various museums around the globe. there's even pictures online for many of them. the fossil record makes no sense without evolution and common descent. none whatsoever.

anything else?

Not all dinosaurs are very large, not all birds are very small. And there is no law of size, stop talking nonsense.

If there is no Law of Size, then how come my pants don't fit?

If there is no Law of Size, then how come my pants don't fit?
Newton's third law of motion.

Wow, Bush has been out of this debate since page 1.

It's slightly irritating that people will claim to know that evolution cannot work. Common sense says otherwise. So does mountains of data, I might add. Just read up on genetics. We've verified that the necessary processes that need to happen for large-scale evolution to take place, exist- and they happen on the appropriate timescale. There's quite little left to prove.

(On a side note, I should say that there's loads and loads and loads and loads and loads and loads and loads and loads and loads and loads and loads and loads and loads and loads and loads and loads and loads and loads and loads
of stuff we don't know yet, but we've got the processes down, if not all of the specifics pertaining to each case.)

*snip*


Well summarized. You get an evolving pair of cookies. (Over successive generations, their descendents become more or less chocolaty in keeping with their environment and/or your chocolate preferences.) :)

Good point. Whenever you see a man made artifact, you wonder what man made it. Makes sense, but how does that apply to the rest of this thread?

easy. when walking along the heath, if i find a watch, i reason that it must have a watchmaker. this is because it is so obviously different from the other stuff laying around on the ground next to it, like the rocks and grass and such. therefore the rocks and grass and such must obviously have a "rock and grass and such" maker.

oh, wait...

Newton's third law of motion.

You got me. My pants do contain a force of nature. But it's the equal and opposite reaction that results in them being tight.

At the end of the day, nobody is going to budge. But one single fact remains--

The religious crowd will use science to try and prove ( :p ) the existence of God. They will try their best to sound rational, and well informed concerning what is possible, and what is not.

But come Sunday, they're still buying stories about a guy who fits a pair of every animal on the planet into one boat. :p

You've gotta admit it's funny to watch them play-act at being rational.

anything else?


oh, i thought of another easy one. common descent predicts that the common ancestors of various groups should occur in a chronological order laid out by their position in the nested hierarchy - ie, the common ancestor of all birds should occur earlier in the fossil record than the common ancestor of darwin's finch species on the galapagos. and this is in fact the case and has always been the case every single time we check.

what possible explanation could be offered for this fact other than evolution and common descent? if these fossil forms didn't evolve, why wouldn't the order be random? why wouldn't the order be completely reversed? the chronological order of fossils is a fact of the world. we have an explanation for it. what's yours?

oh, i thought of another easy one. common descent predicts that the common ancestors of various groups should occur in a chronological order laid out by their position in the nested hierarchy - ie, the common ancestor of all birds should occur earlier in the fossil record than the common ancestor of darwin's finch species on the galapagos. and this is in fact the case and has always been the case every single time we check.

what possible explanation could be offered for this fact other than evolution and common descent? if these fossil forms didn't evolve, why wouldn't the order be random? why wouldn't the order be completely reversed? the chronological order of fossils is a fact of the world. we have an explanation for it. what's yours?

Two words: Zany Coincidence.

oh, i thought of another easy one. common descent predicts that the common ancestors of various groups should occur in a chronological order laid out by their position in the nested hierarchy - ie, the common ancestor of all birds should occur earlier in the fossil record than the common ancestor of darwin's finch species on the galapagos. and this is in fact the case and has always been the case every single time we check.

what possible explanation could be offered for this fact other than evolution and common descent? if these fossil forms didn't evolve, why wouldn't the order be random? why wouldn't the order be completely reversed? the chronological order of fossils is a fact of the world. we have an explanation for it. what's yours?
Satan is teh tricksy.

Charles Darwin was a racist and a sexist. He believed that women lacked the mental prowess of men, and the physical capabilities too. We know that the former is completely idiotic, and the latter is not always true. There are cases of women being much, much stronger than any man.

He also claimed that a day would be realized when, "The civilized races of Europe would overcome that of the Negro," to paraphrase.

For his model to be correct, those who are unfit must die to ensure the survival of the fittest. For if those who are unfit survive to contaminate the genepool further, this would create terrible problems. However, we see in nature the opposite of this. Dolphins and Elephants, among other mammals and avian species, protect their old and young. Humans care for their children and grandparents, and those with disabilities and genetic 'defects' (I shudder at the use of this term, as it is so callous I believe. They simply have been given their lot in life by God, to use it to His glory and honor and praise).

If Evolution were the case, then our species must no longer exist. For we would be required to leave our young on their own, and those who survived earned the right to live. However, no infant can survive. They cannot feed nor protect themselves. Nor can Embryos. As an embryo, a human cannot produce anything for the community, but serves as a drain on the mother's bodily resources. Thus, the Embryo must be aborted, as it is not a boon, but a demand on the mother and community.

Evolution also reduces human life to the condition of being valueless. If we are nothing but the products of random chance, then there is no intrinsic value to our life, and value lies in our status and that which is credited or attatched to our name.

If Evolution were the case, our society never would have survived. America would not have continued in its founding values, and it never would have become what it is today (Or was 40 years ago). We likely would have allied with Hitler, or even before that, never freed the slaves. Or, even preceding that, we would have simply wiped out the Indian tribes, rather than even bother with relocation or reservations.

Evolution would have demanded that women be subjected to men, as they are the weaker physically of the sexes, and, according to Darwin, the dimwits of the species also. Evolution would have demanded that those who are of black skin be subjegated, for, according to Darwin, those of the "Negro races" were barbaric, and would see "The supremacy of the higher races [Europeans]."

And, the critical evolutionary "evidence" is that of fossils. The Flood, told of in Genesis, covered the earth with water in a matter of days. In a matter of minutes, it had risen high enough to lift the ark from the ground, and likely high enough to drown most living creatures. This would adequately explain the fossilization of creatures, as evolutionary scientists have said that it would have taken a quick submersion in water and mud to have preserved the creatures.

It is also a fact that a layer of soil world-wide shows a flood. And, were Carbon Dating to truly work, it would require astronomical amounts of carbon to survive from creatures which were truly millions upon millions of years old.

And, were the Theocracy of Evolution correct, it would have been quite astronomical odds indeed that the first amino acids overcame to be created (whoops, 'overcame to happen into existence).

However, it is all well and good to say "lighting through early gases created amino acid chains which formed proteins and then DNA and then cells and then complex body systems and whole creatures," but the sheer number of amino acids in a chain needed to form a protein, and that these amino acids be in the correct order, and that this occur again and again to form more proteins, and eventually DNA, and that all this would survive, is as much a leap of faith as any that "religious nutcakes" make, though we Christians have God and Evidence on our side.

I wonder why it is that every single other post of mine has been critiqued, but not this one. No one wants to bring it up. Wonder why. Soviets, I'll get to your post in a minute.

Objectivity. If evolution is to be taught, then other theories should be as well. Nothing more, nothing less.
I believe a big pile of cr*p created the universe. Why, in the name of cr*p, isn't that taught in the schools?

Two words: Zany Coincidence.

now there is an alternative theory i could get behind. i want to see them 'teach the controversy' between the theory of evolution and the theory of zany coincidences

we have an explanation for it. what's yours?

I don't know, but I'm guessing it will involve refuting the law of superposition on the basis of it not being in the Bible.

Or maybe just yelling "evolutionists hate baby Jesus" really loud.

I wonder why it is that every single other post of mine has been critiqued, but not this one. No one wants to bring it up. Wonder why. Soviets, I'll get to your post in a minute.

I didn't criticize it because it was too long to read. I have the attention span of a circus monkey.

At the end of the day, nobody is going to budge. But one single fact remains--

The religious crowd will use science to try and prove ( :p ) the existence of God. They will try their best to sound rational, and well informed concerning what is possible, and what is not.

But come Sunday, they're still buying stories about a guy who fits a pair of every animal on the planet into one boat. :p

You've gotta admit it's funny to watch them play-act at being rational.

And you're still buying stories that, somehow, evolution evolved the mind.

you can believe in intelligent design and evolution..

evolution doesnt explain the first cause of everything.

intelligent design is not a scientific theory.. however. its more like a logical argument.

Satan is teh tricksy.

LOL! I nearly spit up my Starbucks when I read that!

What's all this happy crappy about dinosaurs turning into birds? For your information:

Dinosaurs = very large

Birds = very small

The Laws of Size prevent such a crazy thing!

Hello?!! There were much smaller Dinosaurs, too, down to the size of a chicken. And many some feathered too. Birds evolved for certain from theropod dinosaurs. And look at anatomic features such as the mesotarsal joints and the pierced acetabulum...

I wonder why it is that every single other post of mine has been critiqued, but not this one. No one wants to bring it up. Wonder why. Soviets, I'll get to your post in a minute.

Actually, I did critique it. I said that you'd completely failed to understand even the basics of evolutionary theory and suggested you read at least an entry-level textbook. You said, in essence, "nuh-uh!" Does someone really need to go through point-by-point and explain why unscientific nonsense is unscientific nonsense? It's late where I am and I don't think I have the energy for it...

I wonder why it is that every single other post of mine has been critiqued, but not this one. No one wants to bring it up. Wonder why.

because it is so daft that we can't even figure out where to begin, and how to do it without laughing, perhaps?

starts off with an ill-concieved ad hominem attack, moves on to a swell demonstration that you don't actually understand the subject at hand, then on to making up random bullshit, another swell demonstration of your personal misconceptions, and several more iterations for good measure.

Hello?!! There were much smaller Dinosaurs, too, down to the size of a chicken. And many some feathered too. Birds evolved for certain from theropod dinosaurs. And look at anatomic features such as the mesotarsal joints and the pierced acetabulum...

pssst...he/she's kidding.

Yes, I know it's hard to tell, since it doesn't sound much more ridiculous than many of the other arguments on here... :rolleyes:

intelligent design is not a scientific theory.. however. its more like a logical argument.

One minor correction

intelligent design is not a scientific theory.. however. its more like a philosophical argument.

Or maybe just yelling "evolutionists hate baby Jesus" really loud.

which will shortly evolve into "evolutionists ate baby jesus"

and boy, was he delicious.

One minor correction

intelligent design is not a scientific theory.. however. its more like a philosophical argument.

and not a particularly good one

I wonder why it is that every single other post of mine has been critiqued, but not this one. No one wants to bring it up. Wonder why. Soviets, I'll get to your post in a minute.

Okay... Now I remember why I didn't reply. The entire post was a smear of Darwin as a person. It did nothing to address the topic of Evolution. I don't know if anything you said in that post was actually correct, but even if it was it has no bearing on the topic.

Who cares what Darwin's personal beliefs were? How does that affect anything. What if he was a total jerk in real life - how does that discredit anything.

Ad Hominem attacks are usually the last resort of someone who is badly losing an argument.

intelligent design is not a scientific theory.. however. its more like a logical argument.

Whaaaaa? I'm tempted to compare the conclusion you jumped to with the "logical argument" I.D. uses, but I'm not sure I want to spend the time typing something someone won't read.

Deux ex stecor != logical argument

shit i mixed intelligene design with augustine 's argument about the first "mover" ..forget it.

theres no proof behind intelligence design. blah.

I don't know about all this... I'm an Irish Catholic boy, but I was taught evolutionary theory in high school, and to me it just seems right. On the premise that if one theory must be taught, all must be, then why not none? Seriously folks, it is impossible to teach every single theory of religious creationism... there's simply too many. I know this is a touchy subject for most, but even I see that evolutionism should be taught at school, and creationism at Mass...or whatever it is you go to. I am disgusted more and more by the Americas as the days go by. In these days of great social equality, in which homosexuals are allowed to live in the open, women go to work, and young intellectuals wave black flags in public, instead of in secret, there are still so many problems left to be solved, and I personally hate seeing our president create more.


(Note: I've hated Bush since the get-go, such an uneducated corporate pig as head of the nation scares me...)

I wonder why it is that every single other post of mine has been critiqued, but not this one. No one wants to bring it up. Wonder why. Soviets, I'll get to your post in a minute.

Because large concentrated piles of BS hurt my brain.

Alright, you want a critique of your post, fine.

Your attacks on Darwin are irrelevant to the theory of evolution, any scientific theory stands independently of who started it, who continued it, and who believes it so long as the data continues to match the theory.

No, not all those who are unfit must die, they just aren't likely to live. Furthermore, protecting their young is a desirable trait in evolution because it lends itself to more of your descendance surviving.

Evolution is not random chance. It is genetic drift and survival of the fittest, among other mechanisms. These are guiding forces, not randomness as you would claim.

Value of life, human or otherwise, is unquantifiable and thus scientifically irrelevant to a theory. And loosely guided geological forces produce things of value to humans through nature all the time, such as diamonds, gold, iron, oil, and pretty much everything else we use.

All your talk about what America would have done is unsupported tripe.

There is nothing in evolution about subjugation. Nice try though. See the first post about Darwin himself too.

The Geological record does at no point support a global flood and conservation of energy prevents one. Nice try though. Further, the geological record shows that different creatures were fossilized tens to hundreds millions of years apart, the flood lasted not quite six weeks according to the bible? Or a year. Whatever.

Carbon dating is not used for dating that far back, other methods are and are quite accurate.

Amino acids exist in the interstellar medium, not just on earth.

Given billions of years accross billions of stars with their own planets accross billions of galaxies and the odds against lower dramatically.

There, your post has been thumped.

and boy, was he delicious.

Tasted just like chicken.... Once you evolved those scales into feathers and plucked them off the mesotarsal joints and the pierced acetabulum.

One minor correction

intelligent design is not a scientific theory.. however. its more like a philosophical argument.

Aaargh! This calls for new and improved B.R.O. (bold, red, and obvious):
Creationism/I.D. is not a theory, nor is it a philosophical argument.

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not going to allow them the luxury of deluding themselves to this extent either.

intelligence design can apply to all sort of religions or even for people who are agnostic right?


i mean..how can it be only that the christian god is intelligent? the intelligent entity that creates everything could be from any religions or none.

pssst...he/she's kidding.

Yes, I know it's hard to tell, since it doesn't sound much more ridiculous than many of the other arguments on here... :rolleyes:
He is? Damn, he does a spot on impression...

shit i mixed intelligene design with augustine 's argument about the first "mover" ..forget it.

theres no proof behind intelligence design. blah.

Ok then. That's better. That's philosophy (theology).

And, the critical evolutionary "evidence" is that of fossils. The Flood, told of in Genesis, covered the earth with water in a matter of days. In a matter of minutes, it had risen high enough to lift the ark from the ground, and likely high enough to drown most living creatures. This would adequately explain the fossilization of creatures, as evolutionary scientists have said that it would have taken a quick submersion in water and mud to have preserved the creatures.

It is also a fact that a layer of soil world-wide shows a flood. And, were Carbon Dating to truly work, it would require astronomical amounts of carbon to survive from creatures which were truly millions upon millions of years old.

I'm sorry but you seem to have no understanding of geology and palaeontology there.

Also, there would be such a huge number of subtle and useless wonders required to make a Deluge scenario work, because otherwise we should be seeing somthing else. For example the stratigraphic order, how could it exist in a Deluge scenario? (How could mammoths possibly ever outswim ichthyosaurs?). And don't forget all the inconsistencies with building an ark and getting all the animals there (and feeding them during an entire year, and prevent them from feeding each other?). Don't you think that's just impossible?

Regarding radiometric dating via C-14, you seem to be entirely unaware about the way this method works and the way it is used. It is only used for bones which are of an age of 50,000 years at most (approximately ten times the halflife of c-14), it's never used for stuff that's older.

Also, my impression is that Creationism is a form of historic revisionism, since you insist that all the prehistory (and parts of actual history) would never have happened.

well i heard about the intelligent design theory from a philosphy class..i dont know why anyone would think its a science topic.

i really dont get it...what are they going to teach other than that "god creates everything because how could everything be so perfect blah blah blah"

He is? Damn, he does a spot on impression...

Oh come on. Admit. You just like showing off your knowledge of biology.

Oh come on. Admit. You just like showing off your knowledge of biology.
I'm certainly not adverse to it but I would rather be shooting down Aquinas. :p

pssst...he/she's kidding.



Don't call me a he/she you friggin sicko!

Don't call me a he/she you friggin sicko!

My most humble apologies. You shall henceforth be an it. ;)

I’m a creationist, in an admittedly uncompromising sense, but I don’t want to learn creationism in biology class. What if I don’t happen to agree with the particular brand of Intelligent Design presented?
Bush just knocked himself down even lower in my eyes.

Evolution. If a new creature suddenly sprang into existance, as would have had to occur, seeing as nearly no transitional species exist,the transitional species don't exist because they have gone extinct. They used to exist. If you say there is no present evidence of the existence of every transitional species, I could agree with that. Some scientist may find your fossilized skull a million years from now, 'Germanic One'. It would be a highly unlikely coincidence for them to find fossilized remains of your mother. Some creationist could create an argument from that 'evidence' that you were a motherless... something or other...

Evolution simply does not work.

Who was Cain's effing wife?

The creation myth simply does not work.

I'm a Christian, I just think stupid literalist interpretation of scripture against the evidence of reality makes Christianity look stupid. We're not all ignorant hicks.

intelligence design can apply to all sort of religions or even for people who are agnostic right?

i mean..how can it be only that the christian god is intelligent? the intelligent entity that creates everything could be from any religions or none.

I.D. is watered down Creationism used as a last ditch effort to force Christian views on American children via government institutions (that are supposed to be non-favoritist about religions) by shrouding creation myth in a bunch of jargon that's supposed to sound sophisticated, and by extension, scientific or philosophical.

EDIT: Wow, the first half of that long winded sentence sure sounded like a conspiracy theory. :(

I’m a creationist, in an admittedly uncompromising sense, but I don’t want to learn creationism in biology class. What if I don’t happen to agree with the particular brand of Intelligent Design presented?
Bush just knocked himself down even lower in my eyes.
Oops.
Posted with puppet on accident.
Ihrentan=Undelia

Oops.
Posted with puppet on accident.
Ihrentan=Undelia

According to the Pope, posting your puppet is a sin.

ok. well, down to the basics i suppose.

the first thing to notice is that every species of life contains a great deal of diversity within it. this can be observed just by looking, as ol' chuckie d and pals did, and (more recently) by examining the actual genetic variation between individuals. the second thing to notice is that traits are inherited across generations. the third important aspect to notice is that this copying of traits from one generation to the next is not perfect, causing slightly new variations to occur. and the fourth is to notice that not all traits are equally favorable in terms of allowing an individual to survive and reproduce, and that the conditions an individual finds itself in have a strong say in how favorable or unfavorable some trait is.

each of these statements are objective facts about the world and are easily observable. when you combine them, the inescapable conclusion is that over time populations will vary in such a way as to keep them relatively 'fit' for the conditions they find themselves in. so basically, population containing variations + reproduction + selection of some traits over others + a source of new variation = evolution. unless you see a way where each of those things could be true (as they are) and yet it could still be the case that populations do not evolve? if so, feel free to explain how.

and now on to common descent. i find the most interesting place to start here is the tree of life idea. when we look at all of the species of life, we find that various species have various things in common. if we group species together based on the relative similarity of their morphology, we can wind up putting things fairly neatly into a sort of bushy diagram, with a nested hierarchical structure - species grouped into genuses, into families, orders, all the way up to superkingdoms. all life on earth shares certain fundamental aspects, and the various species all seem to diverge from each other in a very patterned sort of way. this fact is interesting enough on its own, and i find it hard to think of a non-evolutionary explanation for the pattern beyond "just because". but it doesn't stop there. when we look at the genetic makeup of the various species and group them according to the degree of genetic difference between them, we draw exactly the same bushy diagram.

the twin nested hierarchies drawn in this process therefore must objectively exist - we arrived at the same picture using two completely different methods and starting points when there is no a priori reason to think that we should have. there would seem to be no explanation for this fact at all other than one relying on the evolutionary idea as outlined above. in fact, a gradual evolutionary process is mathematically the only way to form an objective nested hierarchy.

without going into the math of it, we can just think through this part with an analogy. natural languages also form a nested hierarchy - french and spanish and italian all go closely together, while being slightly more distantly related to other european languages, and even more distantly to other indo-european languages, all the way out to the click languages like !kung. we also happen to know that the reason spanish and italian go together better than spanish and german is because spanish and italian actually originated from the same earlier language in the fairly recent past, while the split that led to spanish and german is further back in history. other things that might be organized into hierarchies, such as cars, can not be consistently organized into nested hierarchies. each person organizing the hierarchy can do so on any number of criteria; for example, cars could be done by 1) manufacturer, model, year, and color, or 2) gas milage, color, shape, and number of speakers. the hierarchy in either case is completely subjective.

if something forms an objective nested hierarchy, that thing is the product of a gradual evolutionary process of groups dividing into more and more groups. there is no other way to get an objective nested hierarchy. the fact that we have one for life on earth very strongly implies common descent from some original ancestor.

and here we move on to the wonderful world of fossils. common descent through evolution predicts that given good enough fossilization rates we should be able to organize fossil species into the same tree based on their morphologies. we also should be able to find 'intermediate species' that contain traits that are also found in two (or more) groups that split off on seperate evolutionary paths later, as well as transitions between earlier and later species on the same branch. the fossils record passes both of these tests quite fantastically. the tree of life gets much more interesting with all the fossil forms, but it is still the same tree. and the intermediates and the transitions! truly spectacular, some of them. reptiles to mammals, dinosaurs to modern birds, early apes to modern humans, land mammals to whales. they are all great and they are all available for your viewing pleasure a various museums around the globe. there's even pictures online for many of them. the fossil record makes no sense without evolution and common descent. none whatsoever.

anything else?

"In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth."

Disclaimer: I don't have my organism information at hand right now.

There are elements known to man which are radioactive. These substances emit Alpha particles, Beta Particles, and Gamma Waves. These correspondingly produce lower-mass and sometimes non-radioactive elements. However, the radiation which is released can cause cellular damage and beyond.

Fossils are dated via the amount of a given radioactive substance in the fossil, as this is our only means by which to guess age (Rock strata can count, but that requires knowledge of extenuating circumstances).

However, that we can detect radioactive signatures from organisms long dead shows that there must have been an enormous amount of radioactive material in the universe millions of years ago, if indeed the universe existed then.

Now, how would this be possible, that the unstable has become stable? For does not Entropy increase? And I doubt the Laws of Thermodynamics 'evolved' along with the snake.

Secondly, with the amounts of uranium and other radioactive elements found in our Earth, and in the depths of other worlds and stars, 500 million years ago, in the Pre-Cambrian era, There must have indeed been an extremely large amount of radiation. Going back to the first formation of the Amino Acids, there would have been still more radiation, as it would have taken the most time from Acid to Ameoba, if at any stage of the supposed 'evolution'.

This radiation would have most definately interfered with the development of organisms. Secondly, the elements required for the creation of Amino Acids were not present in the atmosphere of the early earth, and no number of electic discharges could have created an amino acid, much less a chain, and then a complex protein.

Then we have evidence within our own solar system. If a comet had indeed stricken the earth with the force required to decimate the face of our world, it would most certainly have knocked the Earth's rotation and/or orbit 'out of whack,' so to speak. This would have had any of many effects upon the Earth's ecology. One, a severe shift in polar rotation, two, a severe shift in climate, three, a shift in the position of solar orbit, four, a shockwave which would disrupt the static inertial rest of the seas, which would in effect shift the pole position, etc. This would have inevitably led to the cessation of any life then found on earth.

As for Saturn's Rings, the many moons of Saturn constantly wave through the delicate fields of ice and rock. Tidal forces from these moons disrupt the rings. The Cassinni Probe captured images of said tidal forces literally destroying vast swaths of the rings. If the universe were indeed fourteen billion years old, and our solar system only five, Saturn's rings would have been long gone, and would have had as likely a chance of reforming in such beauty and grandeur, as Humans evolving from the random existence of amino acids which miraculously formed perfect chains which could result in proteins, and somehow this miraculous event occured enough times to provide sufficient numbers of protiens to form organisms, nevermind the formation of DNA.

Anyway. Then, a moon of Jupiter, Io, expels a great amount of its mass in the form of lava each year. Yet, it is still a 'hot' body. However, it radiates heat faster than the enormous tidal forces of Jupiter can create it. If this is so, should not Io have long ago cooled? And yet again, Jupiter strips thousands upon thousands of tons of material from Io's surface.

These are just two examples of the young-solarsystem/earth theory.

I really could go on and on. Soviets, I've to be off to bed now, but I'll get to your common descent thing eventually.

*snip*

Where do you get that weird stuff from? You seem to be talking about a different universe that i live in...

I wonder why it is that every single other post of mine has been critiqued, but not this one. No one wants to bring it up. Wonder why. Soviets, I'll get to your post in a minute.


Probably because there is not much value in it. But since you want the attention.....

Here we go:

"Charles Darwin was a racist and a sexist. He believed that women lacked the mental prowess of men, and the physical capabilities too. We know that the former is completely idiotic, and the latter is not always true. There are cases of women being much, much stronger than any man."

And you base this on what?

By the way; this has absolutely nothing to do with evolution's validity.

Newton spoke of the music of planets so do we toss his laws?

"He also claimed that a day would be realized when, "The civilized races of Europe would overcome that of the Negro," to paraphrase."

Oh come on now. Use the full quote and it's context.

Again this has nothing to do with the validity of evolution.

"For his model to be correct, those who are unfit must die to ensure the survival of the fittest."

No that is not what he said at all. Some will be better equipped to handle a situation or exploit their surroundings. For example, if monkeys were allowed to Madagasgar, the lemurs would go extinct.

"For if those who are unfit survive to contaminate the genepool further, this would create terrible problems."

Now don't be telling fibs. You know that's not what the theory said.

"However, we see in nature the opposite of this. Dolphins and Elephants, among other mammals and avian species, protect their old and young. Humans care for their children and grandparents, and those with disabilities and genetic 'defects' (I shudder at the use of this term, as it is so callous I believe. They simply have been given their lot in life by God, to use it to His glory and honor and praise)."

Evolution never said kill the defects.

Hmmm then how do you explain infantcide that exists so prevelent in the wild?

"If Evolution were the case, then our species must no longer exist. For we would be required to leave our young on their own, and those who survived earned the right to live. However, no infant can survive. They cannot feed nor protect themselves. Nor can Embryos. As an embryo, a human cannot produce anything for the community, but serves as a drain on the mother's bodily resources. Thus, the Embryo must be aborted, as it is not a boon, but a demand on the mother and community."

*blinks* Have you even read the two books?

Nice linking of abortion by the way.

"Evolution also reduces human life to the condition of being valueless."

Evolution never assigned value. Just explains why something did better then the other.

"If we are nothing but the products of random chance, then there is no intrinsic value to our life, and value lies in our status and that which is credited or attatched to our name."

I guess you never read random gene mutation.....

"If Evolution were the case, our society never would have survived. America would not have continued in its founding values, and it never would have become what it is today (Or was 40 years ago)."

*blinks* Ooooookaayyy.

"We likely would have allied with Hitler, or even before that, never freed the slaves. Or, even preceding that, we would have simply wiped out the Indian tribes, rather than even bother with relocation or reservations."

You like tangents don't you.

We did a pretty good effort at wiping out the tribes. Most of the reservations were crap holes so that pretty much says what we thought of them.

By the way; evolution had nothing to do with it.

"Evolution would have demanded that women be subjected to men,"

Wow missed that in my readings :rolleyes: Didn't know evolution was an individual.

" as they are the weaker physically of the sexes, and, according to Darwin,"

Evolution comes into play by the way we pick our mates. Not every man picks a woman because of the size of her muscles.

"the dimwits of the species also."

:rolleyes:

"Evolution would have demanded that those who are of black skin be subjegated, for, according to Darwin, those of the "Negro races" were barbaric, and would see "The supremacy of the higher races [Europeans]."

Evolution never said anything about that.

"And, the critical evolutionary "evidence" is that of fossils. The Flood, told of in Genesis, covered the earth with water in a matter of days. In a matter of minutes, it had risen high enough to lift the ark from the ground, and likely high enough to drown most living creatures."

:rolleyes:

Oh there are so many things wrong with that

So how do you test for that?

Opps. Many fossils are old then the story.

"This would adequately explain the fossilization of creatures, as evolutionary scientists have said that it would have taken a quick submersion in water and mud to have preserved the creatures."

Opps you don't understand the fossilization process.

"It is also a fact that a layer of soil world-wide shows a flood. And, were Carbon Dating to truly work, it would require astronomical amounts of carbon to survive from creatures which were truly millions upon millions of years old."

Yep you really don't understand the process.

"And, were the Theocracy of Evolution correct, it would have been quite astronomical odds indeed that the first amino acids overcame to be created (whoops, 'overcame to happen into existence)."

:rolleyes:

"However, it is all well and good to say "lighting through early gases created amino acid chains which formed proteins and then DNA and then cells and then complex body systems and whole creatures,"

Psssssstt DNA was unknown then.

" but the sheer number of amino acids in a chain needed to form a protein, and that these amino acids be in the correct order, and that this occur again and again to form more proteins, and eventually DNA, and that all this would survive, is as much a leap of faith as any that "religious nutcakes" make, though we Christians have God and Evidence on our side."

Problem: You can test stuff in evolution. You take the religous stuff on faith. ID has no place in the science class room.

See. Nobody wanted to comment because you had nothing really worth commenting on.

I was bored so I figured what the hell......

Finally, if Darwin was such the misogynist, what did his daughters defend him?

Where do you get that weird stuff from? You seem to be talking about a different universe that i live in... Some are speculating it is a parody but it is really hard to tell.

Some are speculating it is a parody but it is really hard to tell.

No, no, I'm pretty sure Germanwhatever is real, unfortunately. He/she/it of the "Law of Size" is kidding.

There are elements known to man which are radioactive. These substances emit Alpha particles, Beta Particles, and Gamma Waves. These correspondingly produce lower-mass and sometimes non-radioactive elements. However, the radiation which is released can cause cellular damage and beyond.

Fossils are dated via the amount of a given radioactive substance in the fossil, as this is our only means by which to guess age (Rock strata can count, but that requires knowledge of extenuating circumstances).

However, that we can detect radioactive signatures from organisms long dead shows that there must have been an enormous amount of radioactive material in the universe millions of years ago, if indeed the universe existed then.

Now, how would this be possible, that the unstable has become stable? For does not Entropy increase? And I doubt the Laws of Thermodynamics 'evolved' along with the snake.

Secondly, with the amounts of uranium and other radioactive elements found in our Earth, and in the depths of other worlds and stars, 500 million years ago, in the Pre-Cambrian era, There must have indeed been an extremely large amount of radiation. Going back to the first formation of the Amino Acids, there would have been still more radiation, as it would have taken the most time from Acid to Ameoba, if at any stage of the supposed 'evolution'.

You seem to be totally aware that different isotopes have different halflifes, and that we prettymuch only have the ones with long halflifes occuring in larger quantities in rocks on Earth (uranium, thoriu, and their short-lived decay products such as radium, radon, polonium etc.),

There is no technetium and no promethium occuring naturally on Earth... take a guess why?

No, no, I'm pretty sure Germanwhatever is real, unfortunately. He/she/it of the "Law of Size" is kidding.
Oops. I just saw the post and assumed it came from Germanwhatever without checking the name. It fit him so well. :p

According to the Pope, posting your puppet is a sin.
Good thing I’m Protestant. :D

Some are speculating it is a parody but it is really hard to tell.

Well, it's somebody who (apparently) has little understanding of science, just incredible amounts of pseudoscientific nonsense...

I.D. is watered down Creationism used as a last ditch effort to force Christian views on American children via government institutions (that are supposed to be non-favoritist about religions) by shrouding creation myth in a bunch of jargon that's supposed to sound sophisticated, and by extension, scientific or philosophical.

EDIT: Wow, the first half of that long winded sentence sure sounded like a conspiracy theory. :(

Hey, just remember, without Judeo-Christian Values, we wouldn't be here talking about this.

"And the Word was God..."

The Christian God created the universe because the Christian God actually exists.

You see, the deterioration of society that we see today can be traced to the evolutionary movement, removal of prayer from schools, the free-love movement, Roe v. Wade, etc.

With the removal of God from Man's mind, Man has come to believe that he is accountable only by man. That there is no absolute right or wrong. That all is subjective and determined by the whims of men, who are nothing but products of a random event.

In fact, as much as evolutionists love to point to the faith in which Christians believe, they themselves have taken such a 'leap of faith' in believing that unsuitable conditions somehow produced an infinately complex organization of molecules to form Amino Acids, Proteins, DNA, Cellular Structures, etc.

They also must believe that there is no metaphysical world, for that would mean Evolution could not have evolved the mind, and something must have created it.

Yet there is a true discrepancy between the physical and the metaphysical. Science knows that the brain and the Mind are separate entities. Science does not know how the mind causes the physical synapses of the brain to fire. You see, physical evolution could not have produced a metaphysical mind.

We know that the mind is separate from the brain through many truly scientific studies. However, here is an example:

Imagine a pink elephant. You 'see' it in your mind, however, there is no pink elephant in front of you, in your eye, your nerve, or in your brain. How can this be?

Simple. There is something which cannot be evolved, yet exists as part of an organism.

But, how? It must have evolved?

No. It did not. Because the physical evolutions of organisms could not create something not of this dimension.

And, for any complex organism to survive, a myriad of bodily systems would have had to spontaneously and concurrently 'exist.' Circulatory, Digestive, Respiratory, Reproductive, etc. Without these systems working in conjunction, no complex organism could survive. And it is impossible to believe that all these systems could have evolved within a period of time as to allow the creature to develop into something else.

Anyway, it is just plain idiotic to believe that complexity has no design, and that it can merely occur. There are wonders that we do not understand, will not understand, and cannot understand. This is because we did not evolve.

There is a Creator. There is a God. There is a right and a wrong.

And Evolution is the latter. A rebellion unto God.

Okay, you've said you were going to leave twice now.

You seem to be totally aware that different isotopes have different halflifes, and that we prettymuch only have the ones with long halflifes occuring in larger quantities in rocks on Earth (uranium, thoriu, and their short-lived decay products such as radium, radon, polonium etc.),

There is no technetium and no promethium occuring naturally on Earth... take a guess why?

I am fully aware of the different halflifes. However, if anything, things should be becoming more radioactive, according to the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Okay, you've said you were going to leave twice now.

Eh.

I will soon.

Hey, just remember, without Judeo-Christian Values, we wouldn't be here talking about this.

*snip*

Are you typing this in THAT fast or do you copy/paste from some file?!

This thread makes me sad in the pants. Where's Reformentia when you need him?

Pink Elephants not of this dimension? LOL Oh man, this is great.

I am fully aware of the different halflifes. However, if anything, things should be becoming more radioactive, according to the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Why should things become more radioactive? Once an isotope is decayed, it's it's not radioactive anymore (unless the decay product is radioactive as well). And what have the law of Thermodynamics to do with this?

Btw, something else, have you ever actually dealt with the fossil record, with concepts such as palaeo-ecology and taphonomy? You'll soon realize that there is no evidence for a Deluge scenario...

*assorted bizarre accusations interspersed with pseudoscience and just a touch of damning us to hell*

1. Evolution and Christianity are not in any way incompatible.

2. Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with morality.

3. Judge not, lest ye be judged. Stop telling people they're evil for disagreeing with you.

4. I'm too tired to read any more of this nonsense tonight. I'm off to either sleep or eat baby Jesus. Somehow I know which one of those you'll choose to believe...

Pink Elephants not of this dimension? LOL Oh man, this is great.

Hey, this reminds me of the Pink Invisible Unicorn!

the transitional species don't exist because they have gone extinct. They used to exist. If you say there is no present evidence of the existence of every transitional species, I could agree with that. Some scientist may find your fossilized skull a million years from now, 'Germanic One'. It would be a highly unlikely coincidence for them to find fossilized remains of your mother. Some creationist could create an argument from that 'evidence' that you were a motherless... something or other...



Who was Cain's effing wife?

The creation myth simply does not work.

I'm a Christian, I just think stupid literalist interpretation of scripture against the evidence of reality makes Christianity look stupid. We're not all ignorant hicks.

You're right. I'm not an ignorant hick.

You see, God created Adam and Eve perfect. That means genetically perfect. In other words, they lived 900+ years, and there would have been no genetic difficulties between the offspring being married. There would have been no genetic defects, as the parent genes were perfect. However, over time, and due to sin and surroundings, genetics deteriorated. But by that time, there were enough humans to have a large and stable gene pool.

Same with the other animals. They had their offspring, and their genetics degenerated, but produced a stable breeding population before the genetic discrepancies became to great. This is also how we get such a wide variety of related species, but which are different in some small manner.

You see, all animals had their common ancestor, but this ancestor was of the creature's own type. All gorillas came from one original species of gorilla, created by God. And so on and so forth.

Hey, this reminds me of the Pink Invisible Unicorn!

And my giant superpowered imaginary friend in the sky who burns people forever for not believing in him. :mad:

:p

Well, it's somebody who (apparently) has little understanding of science, just incredible amounts of pseudoscientific nonsense...

It's called cutting and pasting from a creationist site. Any child can do it, and they frequently do.

Why should things become more radioactive? Once an isotope is decayed, it's it's not radioactive anymore (unless the decay product is radioactive as well). And what have the law of Thermodynamics to do with this?

Btw, something else, have you ever actually dealt with the fossil record, with concepts such as palaeo-ecology and taphonomy? You'll soon realize that there is no evidence for a Deluge scenario...

Oh, as much as you evolutionists use your rock strata to prove conditions and time periods, we've got our proof of the flood in that same rock strata, and, indeed, nearly all fossils.

And, things should become more radioactive as entropy does its work. Things break apart, become more chaotic, and radiation has a nasty habit of making things more chaotic, as well as irradiating everything it hits...

No, no, I'm pretty sure Germanwhatever is real, unfortunately. He/she/it of the "Law of Size" is kidding.

Quit trying to blow my cover, that's a federal crime.

Are you typing this in THAT fast or do you copy/paste from some file?!

I type very fast.

You're right. I'm not an ignorant hick.

You see, God created Adam and Eve perfect. That means genetically perfect. In other words, they lived 900+ years, and there would have been no genetic difficulties between the offspring being married. There would have been no genetic defects, as the parent genes were perfect. However, over time, and due to sin and surroundings, genetics deteriorated. But by that time, there were enough humans to have a large and stable gene pool.

Same with the other animals. They had their offspring, and their genetics degenerated, but produced a stable breeding population before the genetic discrepancies became to great. This is also how we get such a wide variety of related species, but which are different in some small manner.

You see, all animals had their common ancestor, but this ancestor was of the creature's own type. All gorillas came from one original species of gorilla, created by God. And so on and so forth.

Heh, sounds like "admitting evolution to have taken place to the degree it does support Creationism". Now that's what i call inconsistent... :D

There's no evidence whatsoever that humans in earlier times lived to those ludicrously old ages... look at the mummies of the egyptian pharaos, look at Oetzi the iceman... none of them lived to become 900 years old...

It's called cutting and pasting from a creationist site. Any child can do it, and they frequently do.

I am quite insulted. I am more intelligent than that ('that' being the majority of brainwashed psuedo-scientific anti-religion in-rebellion-against-God people).

Oh, as much as you evolutionists use your rock strata to prove conditions and time periods, we've got our proof of the flood in that same rock strata, and, indeed, nearly all fossils.

And, things should become more radioactive as entropy does its work. Things break apart, become more chaotic, and radiation has a nasty habit of making things more chaotic, as well as irradiating everything it hits...

Ahhh the flood geology argument.

Ok now I think you are joking. Nobody makes that claim anymore.

II am more intelligent than that ('that' being the majority of brainwashed psuedo-scientific anti-religion in-rebellion-against-God people).

So where did you cut and paste that from?

Heh, sounds like "admitting evolution to have taken place to the degree it does support Creationism". Now that's what i call inconsistent... :D

There's no evidence whatsoever that humans in earlier times lived to those ludicrously old ages... look at the mummies of the egyptian pharaos, look at Oetzi the iceman... none of them lived to become 900 years old...

A minimalist case:

Christians should, and I do, believe in micro evolution. Heck, the different ethnicities of Humans are a micro evolutionary trait. Adam wasn't black, and Eve wasn't white. Well, suffice to say, we don't know what color they were.

However, Macro evolution could not have taken place. God created man; man did not descend from apes.

So where did you cut and paste that from?

My mind (created of God, not ape), which fired my synapes through some metaphysical process which could not have been created through evolution, and caused me to type the words onto this screen. I copied and pasted nothing from another web or text-based source.

However, Macro evolution could not have taken place. God created man; man did not descend from apes.

Eww I have to ask. So why do chimps and man share 98 % of the same DNA?

Oh, as much as you evolutionists use your rock strata to prove conditions and time periods, we've got our proof of the flood in that same rock strata, and, indeed, nearly all fossils.

I don't see where you can get the evidence for Deluge from the fossil record. Ancient ecosystems that couldn't have existed contemporary, in-situ preserved coral reefs on what is now land (which certainly couldn't have grown within that one year of deluge with kilometers of water column above them). The fact alone that we have pole caps is totally inconsistent with the Deluge.

And, things should become more radioactive as entropy does its work. Things break apart, become more chaotic, and radiation has a nasty habit of making things more chaotic, as well as irradiating everything it hits...

Somehow you seem to exagerate things quite a bit there... you know how (un)likely it is that a nearby isotope turns into a radioactive one from the decay product of a decaying radioactive isotope? Via beta-decay, perhaps, but alpha-decay (helium nuclei) is pretty unlikely...

Problem: You can test stuff in evolution. You take the religous stuff on faith. ID has no place in the science class room.


See, really, this is the only argument worth reading. That's all there is to this discussion, this "problem" regarding teaching the "evil" of evolution in schools.

You can believe whatever the fuck you want. You are allowed to indoctrinate your children with whatever fantastic bullshit you want when they aren't in school. You're allowed to force them into private schools so that dogma can be impressed upon them 24/7. You can drag them off to church or cause them immense psychological damage by calling whatever you find wrong with them "sinful" and "abominable". You can even home school them and live without electricity.

The bottom line is, however, you teach science in science class. And you do not, absolutely cannot, preach Christian doctrine in a government institution.

A minimalist case:

Christians should, and I do, believe in micro evolution. Heck, the different ethnicities of Humans are a micro evolutionary trait. Adam wasn't black, and Eve wasn't white. Well, suffice to say, we don't know what color they were.

Well, let me tell you something, there is virtually no difference between micro evolution and macro evolution except the time scales. Also, evolution has nothing to do with believe and not believe (from my perspective), it's more about understand and not understand (or, in the case of Creationists NOT WANT to understand).

However, Macro evolution could not have taken place. God created man; man did not descend from apes.

That's not correct. You, as a Creationist state (against all evidence) that macro evolution *must not* have taken place because it would disturb your religious dogma, because you believe that an anthropomorphic god would have created humans in it's image. And regarding humans and apes, we prettymuch evolved from a common ancestor (again, look at the fossil record).