Evolution is no more science than Creationism is.

[Willamena]

Are you crazy? It is most definitely relevant to atheistic evolution-how did the universe com to be if there's no God.

The theory of evolution does not predict nor assume a beginning of the universe.

 

[painted wolf]

Are you crazy? It is most definitely relevant to atheistic evolution-how did the universe com to be if there's no God.

or it could have been the instance that "God" did the deed. Physics doesn't say what was before the Big Bang, just that it happined.

Not quite. Radiometric dating has been shown to be flawed.

Not quite, most of those 'flaws' are the results of deliberate misapplication of the methods.... like trying to use C14 to date things too young or too old.

It's enough to show that the moon whould have been within the Roche limit (11,500 miles) at one time if it was as old as you say.

or using the ridgid number 5900 miles rather than the fluid number of 11,346 miles.
its all about cherry picking your numbers.
And you still have the fact that at 4.5 billion years old there is plenty of room for the moon to have formed quite happily outside the Roche limit.

If you don't understand, then you're beyond hope.

quite contrary... next you will be saying that Germ theory is falce because it discounts evil spirits causing disease. Science explains the meccanisms by which the world works... Religion explains our place in it.

Not only life, but it would be too close after a while to survive itself-even your math (no better than mine) doesn't provide for it.

your argument is deeply flawed or at least the extrapolation of your ideas from the numbers. 4.5 billion years for the origin of the Earth leaves more than enough room for the moon and the speed of the Earth to still be very comfortable for life.
You are trying to exaggerate the effects. The moon remains within the Roche limit, the Earth still spins on its axis at a safe speed.

I understand that they're flawed.

Your ideas about radiometric dating are flawed. Anyone who clames that C14 is used on dinosaurs is either lying or mistaken.

the earth's soil would have to be gas-based, and not mineral based

your kidding right?

wa:do

 

[PyroPathos]

Kind of reverting randomly to the question from the first post:

I guess the thing that I have a problem with is that I don't see it as Evolution vs. Creationism... because essentially, Creationism explains the religious beliefs of Christianity, not any of the other religious beliefs of any other religions out there. If we taught Creationism in classrooms, wouldn't it also be fair to teach other forms of educational religion that explains how humans and life came to be? Or is it kind of like the way we teach English because it's the main spoken language in the U.S.? Would we only teach Creationism because Christianity is the main religion? I don't necessarily agree if that's the mentality, since it would be giving one religion's views educational preference over others. I really don't see the Theory of Evolution as a religion.

I think maybe this should be taken case-by-case. Not everyone will want evolution taught to their kids, but not everyone will want creationism taught. It might be nice to make it available to those who do want their kids to learn it in class, but I don't think either subject should be forcably taught to kids.

In my biology class in freshman year we wasted many an hour on religious vs. evolutionary debates when we were supposed to be learning about the solar system. We fell behind on learning about tides and moon cycles and it was overall a very uncomfortable situation for those of us who did not wish to pick sides or get involved in a "you're wrong I'm right" debate between students. Our teacher tried to remain fair and impartial, but he was paid to teach us evolution, so he had to plow on even as our Christian students became uncomfortable/offended. Totally not their fault that his science went against their religion... but not his fault that he was told to teach us something.

I think students/parents should (ideally) be able to pick which course they want to study, or have one where they learn both sides objectively. This would cause staffing problems I'm sure, but otherwise there will be a large group of unhappy people.

 

[rocketman]

.. because essentially, Creationism explains the religious beliefs of Christianity, not any of the other religious beliefs of any other religions out there.

If you are talking about young earth creationism then there are also plenty of Muslims and also some Jews who subscribe to a literal Genesis type view.

 

[PyroPathos]

Agreed certainly. I moreso meant other types of religions outside of the Genesis branch... such as eastern religions, etc. Although the rest of my post sort of wandered off into a "if you teach it, let the kids decide what they want to do" direction and I got side-tracked ^__^;; whoops.

 

[fantome profane]

Kind of reverting randomly to the question from the first post:

I guess the thing that I have a problem with is that I don't see it as Evolution vs. Creationism... because essentially, Creationism explains the religious beliefs of Christianity, not any of the other religious beliefs of any other religions out there. If we taught Creationism in classrooms, wouldn't it also be fair to teach other forms of educational religion that explains how humans and life came to be? Or is it kind of like the way we teach English because it's the main spoken language in the U.S.? Would we only teach Creationism because Christianity is the main religion? I don't necessarily agree if that's the mentality, since it would be giving one religion's views educational preference over others. I really don't see the Theory of Evolution as a religion.

I think maybe this should be taken case-by-case. Not everyone will want evolution taught to their kids, but not everyone will want creationism taught. It might be nice to make it available to those who do want their kids to learn it in class, but I don't think either subject should be forcably taught to kids.

In my biology class in freshman year we wasted many an hour on religious vs. evolutionary debates when we were supposed to be learning about the solar system. We fell behind on learning about tides and moon cycles and it was overall a very uncomfortable situation for those of us who did not wish to pick sides or get involved in a "you're wrong I'm right" debate between students. Our teacher tried to remain fair and impartial, but he was paid to teach us evolution, so he had to plow on even as our Christian students became uncomfortable/offended. Totally not their fault that his science went against their religion... but not his fault that he was told to teach us something.

I think students/parents should (ideally) be able to pick which course they want to study, or have one where they learn both sides objectively. This would cause staffing problems I'm sure, but otherwise there will be a large group of unhappy people.

The “two sides” you are talking about here are (1)scientific education or (2)religious indoctrination.

I believe that parents have the right to indoctrinate their children into any religion they choose. But that doesn’t mean that it is up to the public schools system to provide religious indoctrination for them, and it certainly doesn’t mean it should be done in a science classroom.

 

[Iasion]

Greetings Luke,

1. Where did the matter come from that caused the big bang?

This is cosmology, evolution is biology.
Evolution has NOTHING to do with the Big Bang.

You can't even tell them apart.
This shows you have no understanding of basic science at all. The only people who make this mistake are creationists who try to attack evolution.

2. Why do 3 planets, and 6 moons spin in the opposite direction of the sun?

This is astronomy, not evolution.
This shows you have no understanding of basic science at all.

3. How do you explain the half-life of 1400 years?

Explain WHAT?
You question does not make any sense at all.
You don't appear to know any science at all.

4. How do you explain that 80 million years ago, at the rate that it is currently moving away, the moon would have been at tree top level?

This is completely false.
Now you are just spouting nonsense.

5. How do explain the relatively small amount of moon dust on the moon's surface?

Explain WHAT?
You made no point at all.
And this is astronomy, not evolution.
This shows you have no understanding of basic science at all.

6. How do you explain the fact that no missing links have been found? There are around 30,000 missing links, so you'd expect to find some: why haven't we?

Many 1000s of "missing links" have been found.
You just don't know the facts at all.
And, you appear to have MADE UP this 30,000 figure out of thin air.
You don't know seem to know anything about evolution - you are just repeating creationist nonsense.

7. Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?

Exactly where you would expect :
1. in the ground, or
2. in museums and collections
Every single fossil is a transitional form.
But of course, you have no idea what a transitional form is, and you won't even look at the evidence .

There is some detailed EVIDENCE of transitional fossils at Talk Origins.

We all know you will not even read that page, instead you will IGNORE the evidence of transitional fossils and continue to LIE that are none.

8. Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?

From nuclear reactions in the sun - basic science, but of course you don't know any basic science, and refuse to study any. And - this has nothing to do with evolution.
Once again, Luke, you show you can't even tell completely different fields apart; and you never bother to read or learn anyhing.

9. How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?

Go read some physics.
But, this has nothing to do with evolution.

10. Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?

Once again, this has NOTHING to do with evolution. It is crystal clear from your posts that you have NO idea what evolution is. You clearly have never read a single book on the subject - instead you repeat creationists lies without EVER checking them first.

11. How did life develop from non-life?

This is abiogenesis, not evolution.

12. Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate, and jealousy come from?

Nothing to do with evolution at all.

So, Luke - that's 12 questions -
10 of them had NOTHING to do with evolution.
the other 2 show you have never studied ANYTHING about evolution at all.

Luke -
you are an ignorant child spouting religious lies fed to you by con-artists.

I suggest you try learning something about evolution before spouting crap like this.

 

[Iasion]

Hi all,

That's my point. If we don't know where the matter that caused the explosion, that brought forth galaxies, that formed the stars and planets, and then formed us came from, then we have a very bad theory.

WHAT theory, Luke?

Do you STILL NOT realise that evolution has nothing to do with the formation of galaxies etc.?

Are you even CAPABLE of learning, Luke?

CAN you learn that evolution is about BIOLOGY?
NOTHING to do with the Big Bang etc.

Yes or No, Luke?

Are you capable of grasping that evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang?


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Actually, Hovind has repeatedly in his seminars told those who deate define at the beginning of the debate which evolution we're talking about. I forgot, and so we quiblled about the meaning of evolution. I was referring to all of them (excepting Micro, and Macro), but you were referring specifically to Macro and organic.

Hovind's idiotic list of several types of "evolution" is nonsense.

Complete and butter bollocks.

Evolution has a clear and specific meaning, but neither you nor Hovind understands it.

And, you refuse to even study the subject.
Shameful.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

You can't convert matter into energy.

Wrong again.
Nuclear reactions do EXACTLY that.

This is basic science.

But you don't seem to know anything about the most basic things in science.

It doesn't take millions of years to petrify. And large amounts of forest around Mt. St. Helens was petrified by the lava. I have my very own petrified pickles. If you go to a Creation Science museum, you'll find many examples of petrification that obviously happened recently.

So what?
Evolution does not claim otherwise.

Another question, the Earth is slowing down; how do you explain the fact that the Earth would have been travelling to fast to have life if dinasour life was around 70 million years ago?

Wrong again.
SCience does not support this nonsense.

But then, you never support your claims either, you just preach creationists crap without ever backing it up with evidence.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

How so? The magnetic field is obviously decaying, so what do they put forward?gg

The field goes up and down.
Basic science.

Why don't you EVER look ANYTHING up, Luke?

Do you LIKE looking so ignorant?


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

I'm sure. But it doesn't take millions of years to petrify.

So?
What on earth is your point?

Petrification varies enormously.

It appears you have swallowed more Hovind nonsense, but once again, it NEVER even OCCURED to you to go look up the facts first, before preaching this crap.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Not quite. That formula is the basis of adding energy to matter,

Bollocks.
It's the formula relating how matter and energy can be converted.

Exactly what you said could NOT happen.
You were wrong.

But, surprise surprise, you can't reven admit you were wrong.

and overcoming the I Law of Thermodynamics. The problem is, we need something to contain the energy. The two instances being a nuclear reactor, and an atom bomb. An atom bomb causes nothing but destruction; a nuclear reactor produces electricity by containing nuclear reactions. The Big Bang would apply to the first instance; there was no harness, so it would be impossible to create a well-ordered universe as the result of a massive exposion of energy.

Meaningless word salad.
You know nothing about the Big Bang, nor evolution, nor indeed ANYTHING about science.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Bull. In text books it's called an explosion of matter, and energy.

Bollocks.
Complete and utter dingoes' kidneys.

No text book says this.
It is clear you have NEVER read such a text book.

It is clear you have NO IDEA what the Big bang is about.

And why do you think it's called the Big Bang?

You have no idea, do you?
It was originally called that as a matter of derision by a sceptic, and the phrase took hold.

And what do you mean an expansion of space?

That's what the Big Bang was all about Luke - the expansion of SPACE.

But sadly, you don't grasp this.
And, when people try to educate you, you just ignore the facts.

You refuse point blank to learn anything.
Except from fraudster Kent Hovind, who you swallow every word from.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

I'm not going back over all of them! :areyoucra

Of coures not.
Because they show you are wrong.

You will do the usual creationist dance and ignore the evidence against you, while still preaching the same ol' crap that's been disproven a million times.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

So the most recent explanation is that a gas cloud formed the planets? Where did this gas cloud come from? A theory that changes its very foundations so often like this would normally be dismissed as unviable.

Changes so often?
What are you talking about?
This is the standard theory.

Of course, this is not what is taught in text books.

That's EXACTLY what is taught in textbooks.
But, you've never read one.


Iasion

 

[Storm]

Dude, that's 10 posts in a row bashing the same guy. Chill out a bit.

 

[Iasion]

This is where we are-
You can't explain how the universe came to be.

So?
Nothing to do with evolution.

You have no definitive proof about the age of the earth-all methods of dating are flawed if you get to a certain time limit.

False.
Go read the facts before preaching more of this crap.

And Carbon Dating is flawed from the beginning.

A standard creationist lie.
Carbon dating works fine and is tested to be reliable.

You can't explain why the planets in the Solar Sysyem, stars, or galaxies violate the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum assuming they were formed according to the Uniformitarian (evolutionist) theory.

They violate no such law.
This has NOTHING to do with evolution.

You can't refute my evidence that the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate that would have put it at tree-top level 80 million years ago. You accused me of using false data, but you couldn't prove it, offer me any new data, nor prove to me that your data was more credible.

This HAS been refuted.
It has NOTHING to do with evolution.

You can't disprove the existence of God.

So what?
You can't prove the existence of God.
This has NOTHING to do with evolution.

You can't explain the fact that at the rate the Earth is currently slowing down, it would have been going to fast for life if it were as old as you claim.

It has been explained.
This has NOTHING to do with evolution.

You can't prove the age of fossils.

We CAN determine the age of fossils.
We have done so.
You just deny the facts.

These are just some things. But it's fundemental to the uniformitarian belief system, and you can't refute it.

What?
Evolution has NOTHING to do with "the uniformitarian belief system".

Luke,
you don't even know what evolution is.
Most of your posts have NOTHING to do with evolution.

You have failed to post ANYTHING that challenges what evolution REALLY claims.

Even worse -
you have no idea about basic science and keep making simple errors.

Why do you bother?
Dozens of posts have proved you wrong on many issues.
Do you like looking stupid?


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Are you crazy? It is most definitely relevant to atheistic evolution-how did the universe com to be if there's no God.

Sadly,
I don't think Luke will EVER grasp the basic facts :

The Big bang has NOTHING to do with evolution.

The BB happened ONCE, 15 billion years ago, and created space, matter, energy and time.

Evolution has happened continuously to change LIVING things on earth for the last 4 billion years or so.

Completely and utterly different.
As different as chalk and gravity.

But creationists like Luke will NEVER grasp this.

They just don't seem capable of learning anything.
Luke doesn't even grasp the most basic concepts and terms in science - sad really.

Not quite. Radiometric dating has been shown to be flawed.

False.
It has been shown accurate.
Creationists just deny the facts and keep right on preaching...


Iasion

 

[Scott C.]

The Bible is a great place to learn why God created the earth. Science class is a great place to learn how God created the earth.