So apparently this happened...

[Kilgore Trout]

Was that you giving up? it would be wise

By now, you should know better than that.

Stuff writes itself.

 

[johnhanks]

The ToE is touted as a theory but that is not true, it really is a model. It is called a theory to trick people...

Again with the evil tricksters, eh, MoF?

If I remember your previous reasoning, we in the education business are the brainless dupes of the evil textbook writers, who in turn are clearly in the pay of the evil university professors, who are orchestrating the whole diabolical deception so that ... er, sorry, I think I lost you there. What was the reason again?

 

[camanintx]

Again with the evil tricksters, eh, MoF?

If I remember your previous reasoning, we in the education business are the brainless dupes of the evil textbook writers, who in turn are clearly in the pay of the evil university professors, who are orchestrating the whole diabolical deception so that ... er, sorry, I think I lost you there. What was the reason again?

It's so all of those rich biologists can keep living off their research grants.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Ah, I was wondering what the oppressive 1% actually did to keep themselves rolling in cash and yachts. It's biology!

 

[Krok]

It's so all of those rich biologists can keep living off their research grants.

Those billionare biologists do research by diving off their private yachts somewhere off the coast of Florida. Green Sea Slug Is Part Animal, Part Plant | Wired Science | Wired.com

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Creationism isn't science? Then how come the creation model allows for apes and humans to have 96% similar DNA? Doesn't the evolution model also allow that? So the evolution model isn't science either?

How do you suggest you test the Creationism model? Many studies have shown if God is there he doesn't answer prayers during controlled research, so it's not likely we can ask him to get an answer. So you are left with attempting to demonstrate that the earth was created 6 to 10 thousand years ago and all life forms were created as-is.
And you also are against solid evidence contributed from biology, psychology, anthropology, paleontology, chemistry, primatology, archeology, and sociology that adds merit to evolution and natural selection. Creationism does not explain why chimpanzee and bonobo cultures have very many similar elements to human culture, and it does not explain why we see that even behavioral characteristics can be passed from one generation to the next. And you have to provide how Creationism explains for the 96% DNA similarity between humans and chimps, and saying "that is how God done it" is not a valid scientific answer.
For something to be valid science, you first make an observation about the natural world. You then do some research and gather information about your observation. You then state a hypothesis, which is an educated guess about the reasons and whys behind your observation. Then you test your hypothesis, record the results, and let others review and replicate your experiment (assuming your hypothesis is true). After a hypothesis has been successfully repeated and replicated many, many times, and has been found to be true beyond what can be attributed to chance, the hypothesis becomes a theory. Evolution is a theory because there is so much evidence that supports it, and it has been demonstrated to be true time and time again both in the lab, in the fossil record, what we see happening today, and from even our knowledge of DNA and our currently limited knowledge of the overall structure and function all support evolution. Actually all the evidence points away from a YEC model.

 

[Photonic]

How do you suggest you test the Creationism model? Many studies have shown if God is there he doesn't answer prayers during controlled research, so it's not likely we can ask him to get an answer. So you are left with attempting to demonstrate that the earth was created 6 to 10 thousand years ago and all life forms were created as-is.
And you also are against solid evidence contributed from biology, psychology, anthropology, paleontology, chemistry, primatology, archeology, and sociology that adds merit to evolution and natural selection. Creationism does not explain why chimpanzee and bonobo cultures have very many similar elements to human culture, and it does not explain why we see that even behavioral characteristics can be passed from one generation to the next. And you have to provide how Creationism explains for the 96% DNA similarity between humans and chimps, and saying "that is how God done it" is not a valid scientific answer.
For something to be valid science, you first make an observation about the natural world. You then do some research and gather information about your observation. You then state a hypothesis, which is an educated guess about the reasons and whys behind your observation. Then you test your hypothesis, record the results, and let others review and replicate your experiment (assuming your hypothesis is true). After a hypothesis has been successfully repeated and replicated many, many times, and has been found to be true beyond what can be attributed to chance, the hypothesis becomes a theory. Evolution is a theory because there is so much evidence that supports it, and it has been demonstrated to be true time and time again both in the lab, in the fossil record, what we see happening today, and from even our knowledge of DNA and our currently limited knowledge of the overall structure and function all support evolution. Actually all the evidence points away from a YEC model.

Thought it was 98% genetic similarity?

 

[cablescavenger]

The state of science in the US has not gone unnoticed.

First there is a decline in science:
[youtube]NXIR9ve0JU0[/youtube]
America's Science Decline - Neil deGrasse Tyson - YouTube

Then there is talent leaving:
[youtube]d70KhYzBhT4[/youtube]
Michio Kaku Drops Knowledge Bombs - YouTube

 

[britagainststupidity]

come to Britain my friend we do not condemn people who would choose a rational scientific explanation based on evidence over choosing to believe something on faith alone, also prince phillip (the queens husband) is against creationism

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It pains me to know I live in this state, where about 100 years ago legislatures tried to legally define pi as 3.2. Apparently time does not heal stupidity.

 

[rusra02]

Do you realize how idiotic the "conspiracy" argument sounds? Really. That you and others need to believe there is this worldwide "conspiracy" involving teachers, biologists, paleontologists, geologists, textbooks, testing procedures, dating methods, DNA testing, and so on and so forth, yadda yadda yadda, only shows how desperate one is to NOT accept facts so that they can continue to blissfully believe myths are real. That one would have to argue that the whole world is duped by a "conspiracy" except them is truly beyond absurd and really, quite sad.

According to the dictionary, to conspire means to act or work together toward the same result or goal. To the extent that "teachers, biologists, paleontologists, geologists, textbooks" present only one side of the argument with no critical evaluation of alternatives, one could say they are conspiring to ignore to what the facts point. Michael Behe's comments are appropriate: "If a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people...Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside." Many scientists and academics disagree with the ToE, but how often are their views even mentioned, much less considered? I think the answer is obvious to any thinking person.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

According to the dictionary, to conspire means to act or work together toward the same result or goal. To the extent that "teachers, biologists, paleontologists, geologists, textbooks" present only one side of the argument with no critical evaluation of alternatives, one could say they are conspiring to ignore to what the facts point. Michael Behe's comments are appropriate: "If a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people...Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside." Many scientists and academics disagree with the ToE, but how often are their views even mentioned, much less considered? I think the answer is obvious to any thinking person.

Please present a single fact that contradicts evolutionary theory.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

According to the dictionary, to conspire means to act or work together toward the same result or goal. To the extent that "teachers, biologists, paleontologists, geologists, textbooks" present only one side of the argument with no critical evaluation of alternatives, one could say they are conspiring to ignore to what the facts point. Michael Behe's comments are appropriate: "If a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people...Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside." Many scientists and academics disagree with the ToE, but how often are their views even mentioned, much less considered? I think the answer is obvious to any thinking person.

The earliest known mentioning of evolution come from the ancient Greeks. The only thing Darwin done was essentially rearrange the pieces of a puzzle into a way that works. This conspiracy would have had to have survived for thousands of years.
But not only that, it would be to say the observations of several branches of science as well as what makes since of how reproduction works is a conspiracy.
And the reason it is not challenged is because there are no other alternatives that can compete. If you take a class on biology, biochemistry, psychology, sociology, anthropology, paleontology, anatomy, neurosciences, primatology, or a number of other sub-sciences they will mention evolution because it universally applies to all aspects of the development of life on this planet. We even know that behavioral characteristics can be inherited. But it also helps to understand more complicated things, such as the skeletal structure of whale which is not typical for a sea creature; and why in the fossil record we will only find certain creatures in certain time frames.
And really, the scientist who oppose evolution are a very small minority. There are people who still believe the world is flat, but we pay attention to their claims because we know the claim is absurd.

 

[Krok]

According to the dictionary, to conspire means to act or work together toward the same result or goal. To the extent that "teachers, biologists, paleontologists, geologists, textbooks" present only one side of the argument with no critical evaluation of alternatives......,

I take exception to that. In my area of expertise, geology, I looked at the rocks in the lower part of the Karoo Sequence.

There is absolutely no way any of those formations or members of formations could have been formed during a global flood. I studied them. In the field. I looked at rocks under microscopes. Everything. We have members formed by glacial action; we have members of formations formed on delta fronts, we have members of formations formed in every which way possible. No evidence for a global flood at all. Everything published for everyone else to read. Yet you try to tell us that it is a conspiracy.

Together with other evidence, such as fossils, etc., my conclusion is that you are not telling the truth, but follow religious propaganda, while you don't have a basic idea of how geology works. Just crazy.

You've never touched a rock from the Karoo Sequence in your life. Yet you pretend to know it all. You pretend to know more than all those professionals who've worked on those rocks. My conclusion is that you are deluded. Crazy. Yet you actually accuse those hundreds of professionals who have worked on those rocks that they all are part of some conspiracy. You belong in some institution. Or in gaol for slandering all those professionals.

 

[fishy]

i take exception to that. In my area of expertise, geology, i looked at the rocks in the lower part of the karoo sequence.

There is absolutely no way any of those formations or members of formations could have been formed during a global flood. I studied them. In the field. I looked at rocks under microscopes. Everything. We have members formed by glacial action; we have members of formations formed on delta fronts, we have members of formations formed in every which way possible. No evidence for a global flood at all. Everything published for everyone else to read. Yet you try to tell us that it is a conspiracy.

Together with other evidence, such as fossils, etc., my conclusion is that you are not telling the truth, but follow religious propaganda, while you don't have a basic idea of how geology works. Just crazy.

You've never touched a rock from the karoo sequence in your life. Yet you pretend to know it all. You pretend to know more than all those professionals who've worked on those rocks. My conclusion is that you are deluded. Crazy. Yet you actually accuse those hundreds of professionals who have worked on those rocks that they all are part of some conspiracy. You belong in some institution. Or in gaol for slandering all those professionals.

HUZZAH :yes::clap

 

[rusra02]

Please present a single fact that contradicts evolutionary theory.

Many posts in this forum have presented facts that contradict the evolution theory.
To mention just one, the evidence from the fossil record. The Bible states that vast numbers of different kinds of animals and birds appeared in specific time periods or "days" as a result of God creating them. Evolution claims a gradual chain of slow and progressive evolution. What do the facts show? Paleontologists speak of the Cambrian period as the Cambrian "explosion", since so many forms of diverse life appeared suddenly in the fossil record. As to the gradual unfolding of life by evolution, this is a quote (underline added) from evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup: "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, "Conflict Between Darwin and Paleontology.") Carl Sagan
in his book Cosmos stated: "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer." p.29

How often are these facts presented to the public or even in academia?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Um, yeah, that's what you'd expect.

 

[rusra02]

I take exception to that. In my area of expertise, geology, I looked at the rocks in the lower part of the Karoo Sequence.

There is absolutely no way any of those formations or members of formations could have been formed during a global flood. I studied them. In the field. I looked at rocks under microscopes. Everything. We have members formed by glacial action; we have members of formations formed on delta fronts, we have members of formations formed in every which way possible. No evidence for a global flood at all. Everything published for everyone else to read. Yet you try to tell us that it is a conspiracy.

Together with other evidence, such as fossils, etc., my conclusion is that you are not telling the truth, but follow religious propaganda, while you don't have a basic idea of how geology works. Just crazy.

You've never touched a rock from the Karoo Sequence in your life. Yet you pretend to know it all. You pretend to know more than all those professionals who've worked on those rocks. My conclusion is that you are deluded. Crazy. Yet you actually accuse those hundreds of professionals who have worked on those rocks that they all are part of some conspiracy. You belong in some institution. Or in gaol for slandering all those professionals.

The tone of your criticism of those who do not share your belief is consistent with the propaganda common to ToE believers. Expressions such as "you pretend to know it all", "you are not telling the truth", "you are deluded. Crazy." 'You belong in some institution." "Or in gaol" are all meant to intimidate anyone who doesn't drink the ToE Kool-Aid, or dares question this theory. Such abusive personal attacks are contemptible and do you no credit.

Geology professor John Campbell writes: "The essential differences between Biblical catastrophism and evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the factual data of geology but over the interpretations of those data. The interpretation preferred will depend largely upon the background and presuppositions of the individual student."
(The Genesis Flood, 1967 p.xvii) Concerning scientists who were ice age prone, is this quote from Scientific American, 5/1960 p.71: Scientists "were finding ice ages at every stage of the geologic history, in keeping with the philosophy of uniformity. Careful reexamination of the evidence in recent years, however, has rejected many of these ice ages."

Put more succinctly, geologist have frequently been wrong about their theories. In many parts of the earth, evidence for flood waters is abundant.

 

[Agnostic75]

The tone of your criticism of those who do not share your belief is consistent with the propaganda common to ToE believers. Expressions such as "you pretend to know it all", "you are not telling the truth", "you are deluded. Crazy." 'You belong in some institution." "Or in gaol" are all meant to intimidate anyone who doesn't drink the ToE Kool-Aid, or dares question this theory. Such abusive personal attacks are contemptible and do you no credit.

Geology professor John Campbell writes: "The essential differences between Biblical catastrophism and evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the factual data of geology but over the interpretations of those data. The interpretation preferred will depend largely upon the background and presuppositions of the individual student."
(The Genesis Flood, 1967 p.xvii) Concerning scientists who were ice age prone, is this quote from Scientific American, 5/1960 p.71: Scientists "were finding ice ages at every stage of the geologic history, in keeping with the philosophy of uniformity. Careful reexamination of the evidence in recent years, however, has rejected many of these ice ages."

Put more succinctly, geologist have frequently been wrong about their theories. In many parts of the earth, evidence for flood waters is abundant.

Please reply to my most recent post in my thread on presuppositionalism at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...127895-presuppositionalism-5.html#post2802634.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Many posts in this forum have presented facts that contradict the evolution theory.
To mention just one, the evidence from the fossil record. The Bible states that vast numbers of different kinds of animals and birds appeared in specific time periods or "days" as a result of God creating them. Evolution claims a gradual chain of slow and progressive evolution. What do the facts show? Paleontologists speak of the Cambrian period as the Cambrian "explosion", since so many forms of diverse life appeared suddenly in the fossil record. As to the gradual unfolding of life by evolution, this is a quote (underline added) from evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup: "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, "Conflict Between Darwin and Paleontology.") Carl Sagan
in his book Cosmos stated: "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer." p.29

How often are these facts presented to the public or even in academia?

There's a lot of misrepresentations there. Let's go through them:

1- Evolution does not predict that all changes are "slow and gradual" or even remain at a constant speed, but that in areas of high environmental attrition, speciation happens comparatively more rapidly. That is all that Dr. Raup is saying.

2- The Cambrian explosion did not happen overnight. It was a period of around 70-80 million years. The reason it is referred to as "sudden" or "rapid" is because 70-80 million years was a comparatively rapid time for the number of species to develop through evolution compared with before and afterward.

3- All of the new species that occurred during the Cambrian explosion did not appear "suddenly". Their evolution can very clearly be traced from the fossils left behind during the Cambrian explosion.

So, that fact turns out to not be a "fact" at all, but a deliberate attempt to distort an actual scientific event. Now, present another one.