Please pardon the heavy sarcasm.
Noooooooo … the “academic freedom act” bills filed recently in the state House and Senate are not about religion at all! They’re about education! Never mind the fact that these bills address evolution and only evolution. This is about education! If we repeat that enough times, it may even come true. Florida Baptists seem to be leading the charge to insert religion into the classroom … er … um … no, I mean make education better. Just because they all seem to be Baptists and the Florida Baptist Witness wants to make sure you know they are all Baptists doesn’t mean a thing. It’s about education, I tell ya! Education!
Sen. Ronda Storms, R-Brandon, has filed SB 2692, the “Academic Freedom Act,†which provides public school teachers and students rights regarding scientific views about chemical and biological evolution. Storms is a member of First Baptist Church in Brandon.
“The purpose of education is to train our students how to think and to develop in our students higher level critical thinking skills,†Storms told the Witness. “This bill is necessary in order to protect scientific inquiry and academic freedom for everyone. Every scientific theory should be subject to the full rigors of intellectual inquiry and critical thinking skills, and teachers should be fully protected in their presentation of legitimate debate to the student.â€
Storms said Sen. Stephen Wise, R-Jacksonville, a member of First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, will co-sponsor the bill, and Rep. D. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, a member of First Baptist Church in Umatilla, will ponsor (sic) a companion bill in the Florida House.
“Every scientific theory should be subject to the full rigors of intellectual inquiry and critical thinking skills, and teachers should be fully protected in their presentation of legitimate debate to the student.â€
I agree! And where the origins of life are concerned, evolution is the only scientific explanation that has passed peer review for decades. Of course, “intelligent design” and “creation science” have…wait, let me count, it’s been a little while since I checked…ZERO peer-reviewed research papers. Thus, they’re not part of legitimate scientific debate.
Sorry, academic freedom doesn’t translate to introducing unscientific concepts based on political and religious ideology in a science classroom. You want to discuss it, require all students to learn about Kitzmiller v. Dover in social studies class. Oh, and read over the First Amendment and the Lemon Test very carefully.
Wonder what the Pastafarians are going to say about this one….
I think academic freedom is a great idea,teachers should have academic freedom to teach children how science proves the exsistence of gods,
or,the non exsistence of gods.It could be used to show how science can prove one god to be false (say Jesus) and another to be true (say Allah).
We could teach alchemy along with chemistry,or astrology right there with astronomy, give the kids a real education.
The Baptist bunch would faint in the pews if a teacher had the academic freedom to do that!!!
I had a science teacher in grade school who drug in a bunch of really off-the-wall stuff. He was saying that the calendar was going to change soon and much worse although I can’t now remember details. Anyway, when the word got out, he was fired. If some controversy in science is to be presented to students, it should not come in off-the-street in a teacher’s head; it should be included in the standard.
They should at least get rid of that statement in the new Florida science standards that says that evolution is “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology.” That is just plain wrong.
Name something else ,Larry, that meets the definition of biology then –
From Wikipedia:
Biology (from Greek: βίος, bio, “life”; and λόγος, logos, “speech” lit. “to talk about life”), also referred to as the biological sciences, is the scientific study of life. Biology examines the structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution of living things. It classifies and describes organisms, their functions, how species come into existence, and the interactions they have with each other and with the natural environment. Four unifying principles form the foundation of modern biology: cell theory, evolution, genetics and homeostasis.
Biology as a separate science was developed in the nineteenth century, as scientists discovered that organisms shared fundamental characteristics. Biology is now a standard subject of instruction at schools and universities around the world, and over a million papers are published annually in a wide array of biology and medicine journals.[1]
Most biological sciences are specialized disciplines. Traditionally, they are grouped by the type of organism being studied: botany, the study of plants; zoology, the study of animals; and microbiology, the study of microorganisms. The fields within biology are further divided based on the scale at which organisms are studied and the methods used to study them: biochemistry examines the fundamental chemistry of life; molecular biology studies the complex interactions of systems of biological molecules; cellular biology examines the basic building block of all life, the cell; physiology examines the physical and chemical functions of the tissues and organ systems of an organism; and ecology examines how various organisms and their environment interrelate.
How’s that, Larry?
I’m sorry Larry, you must not have noticed that there is now an IQ test required before posting here, and you didn’t pass it.
Believing in, or repetition of bullshit will not make it come true. So sorry about that you Christian Taliban wannabes.
The only problem with Baptists is, they don’t hold ’em under long enough.
Religions are just cults with more members.
Just to paraphrase a few popular bumper stickers.
Good anti-Islam comic book here: http://www.faithfreedom.org/comics/comics.htm
Larry
What you are witnessing is the ramifications of the faith based teachings spawned by the Prophet Charles Darwin and his apostles. The true follower will laugh at the story of a talking snake but will call you a fool if you don’t except them as the descendants of mutated monkeys. Much like the sacred cow of the bible, these folks have sacred monkeys like Lucy or Nebraska Man which are worshiped as ancestors. Regardless of reality they press on into the realm of imagination striving to acquire a global blackout of any contradicting faith. With insult and intimidation they claim to by the epitome of intellectualism. However, even with government funding and the guise of science the faith still struggles. With common sense and rational minds lurking, natural selection continues to chip away at the core of this religious order.
S.Scott Says,
–“From Wikipedia:”–
For starters, Wickedpedia sucks. A lot of schools and teachers do not allow students to use Wickedpedia as a primary reference. At least one school district even blocks Wickedpedia on all the district’s computers. Also, Wickedpedia is rabidly pro-Darwinist and is completely untrustworthy on anything related to evolution.
–“(Wickedpedia says) “Four unifying principles form the foundation of modern biology: cell theory, evolution, genetics and homeostasis.””–
Here again is exactly what the new Florida science standards say:
“Evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology.” (emphasis added)
So the standards say that evolution is “the” fundamental concept, not “a” fundamental concept, and say that evolution underlies “all” of biology, not just some of biology. That is different from what Wickedpedia says. That statement in the standards is just plain wrong even by Wickedpedia’s abysmal standards.
Dave B drivels,
–“I’m sorry Larry, you must not have noticed that there is now an IQ test required before posting here, and you didn’t pass it.”–
You’re the one who flunked, bozo.
@Larry
I think that the sentence “Evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology”. Evolution is a well understood scientific concept that provides the best scientific explanation for the basis for life (ie. Biology).
You say that wikipedia is wrong; change it. I would suggest that the parts of biology mentioned cell theory, genetics, etc. are views, at different levels, into different areas of biology.
From my point of view having the deepest level (evolution) being described as the underlying concept is appropriately* accurate. This does not mean that all biological study is evolutionary. Just that all other areas of study use it as a basis.
To give you a view from a different point of science; not all maths is proving that 1+1 = 2. But if it wasn’t lots of maths would be very very shaky.
kind regards,
Joel
ps.
I would not presume to know your or Dave B’s IQs. It would be politer of both of you to steer clear of insults. This is an emotive topic; but one best discussed rationally.
* as accurate as possible. All science follows a hypothesis, correct until proved wrong approach, one day we may well find that are view of evolution may be subtly or radically altered. For now it is widely regarded as the best possible explanation for the facts at hand. In fact, it has probably been tested more than any other scientific theory.
You say that wikipedia is wrong; change it.
Larry can’t change anything in wikipedia. He got banned for attempting to post paranoid rants, to promote his worthless blog on wikipedia, and for threatening to start an anti-wikipedia socket puppet jihad.
Larry is just another internet crank, not even worthy of mention in an encyclopedia that has a notability threshold so low it admits the “Star Wars Kid”.
Apparently, from time to time his brother shows up on his blog to tell him to start taking his meds again. I’m not sure if it is actually his brother, or just someone claiming to be his brother, but it gets a chuckle out of me. Are you back on your meds, Larry?
I should just ignore both Larry and ABO. Neither of them have brought anything to the table.
Here is what I’ve asked both of them: provide evidence discrediting evolution. Provide evidence supporting creationism. They are completely incapable of doing either.
Here’s my prediction: Larry will rant about co-evolution, showing that he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. ABO will mutter something about evolution requiring “faith”, and then start linking Darwin to Hitler.
Oh… somewhere in the conversation, Larry will either call be a dunghill or a bozo. Instead of saying “PC-Bash said” he will say “PC-Bash driveled”. Somewhere along the line, he will give a quote he attributes to Schwarzenegger.
That should be “call me“, not “call be”.
Hopefully that quote won’t be, “I’ll be back.”
Good news, folks: both creationist school board candidates lost in the Texas primaries! Pat Hardy defeated Barney Maddox in the GOP State Board of Education, District 11 primary contest 58,867 to 40,761, winning three out of four counties (she only lost Johnson county, which went for Huckabee, go figure), while in the Democrat SBOE District race, Mary Helen Berlanga beat Lupe A. Gonzalez 93,965 to 66,965. Since there is no Democrat in the District 11 race, Pat Hardy has effectively been reelected.
Go to http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/ to look up the individual races.
That’s great news, though I don’t know if it says more about Texans in general, or just that the Democratic primary is still contested, boosting turnout, while the Republican one was pretty much a foregone conclusion.
PC-Trash is a worthless sack of shit. I wouldn’t piss on the jerk if he was on fire.
My main purpose in linking to my blog is not to “promote” it — I link to it to avoid cluttering up other websites with long discussions and comment threads. And what about the other personal blogs on Wickedpedia — according to your reasoning, they are being “promoted,” too.
As for co-evolution, Darwinists are the ones who have shown that they don’t understand it — they just talk in vague terms like “mutual evolutionary pressure.” I have correctly pointed out that in co-evolution of total co-dependence — unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., water, land, and air — there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism is likely to be locally absent.
ABO and Larry,
Will you two never stop? You dont have to like it, you just have to accept it. ABO your asinine statements to the effect that evolution is a religion show just how bad YOUR education was.
Larry, your an outright asshole. This ought to hurt doubly since I am an “evolutionist” and my grandfather escaped from the Gestapo while the rest of his family was sent to a concentration camp.
Your are an ill informed dolt who never has anything new to say, just the same old shit . You attack evolution all you want. it doesn’t change the fact that it is TRUE.
Until your god and yours too ABO, makes some huge bight neon sign on the moon that says “Bow down bitches, I am God!” You can keep your fairy tales to yourself.
Brandon,PC, et. al.
I suggest we go on the offensive, and let everyone know just how whacked out Rubio and his ilk are.
My predictions are coming true already. Larry may be a crank, but at least he’s a predictable crank.
Evolution defined, just for you Larry
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/an_exercise_for_the_readers.php
I and a diverse group of people got a question in email, one that we are supposed to answer in a single sentence. The question is,
What is evolution?
You know, Ernst Mayr wrote a whole book to answer that question on a simple level, and I’m supposed to have the hubris to answer that in one sentence? OK, knowing full well that it is grossly inadequate, here’s my short answer:
Evolution is a well-confirmed process of biological change that produces diversity and coherent functionality by a variety of natural mechanisms.
I have correctly pointed out that in co-evolution of total co-dependence
Correctly? According to whom? Where’s the evidence that you use to support that your nonsense is correct? How many studies have you done on this? How many others have reviewed your findings? Do you have an article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that you could cite on this?
I didn’t think so.
Folks, I know that emotions can run high, and the frustration gets to a boiling point when you feel like you are talking to a brick wall. But could you folks desist the personal attacks and name calling, please? If this keeps up, I will have to start more active comments moderating.
Thanks.
Larry –
Your arguments are so inane that I think an analogy is in order.
We understand that life evolves. We also understand that gravity attracts objects together. Let’s expand your inane reasoning to “disprove” gravity, shall we?
Theoretical physicists don’t yet understand what happens inside of a black hole, nor do they understand completely how the event horizon works. Since this is the case, gravity does not exist, because we cannot yet explain every detail involving how black holes work.
Obviously, since you don’t understand how co-evolution works, then evolution doesn’t exist either, right? If we cannot explain every possible detail, every possible nuance, then we cannot claim anything else, correct?
So, we should throw chemistry out the door, because we don’t yet understand how quarks interact to form matter. We shouldn’t mess around with metallurgy, because we don’t completely understand how annealing works at the subatomic level.
Go troll somewhere else, Larry.
Larry and ABO you are both jerks.
It’s easy to see through your tired old arguments and your inane rants. You are both ignorant and dishonest. You have never made a clear argument even once on these threads.
If you have to lie to support your argument then you don’t even believe your own crap.
James F,
Fantastic news from Texas! Best of all is the vote margins; wow!! I’m heading off to read more.
Hey! – Do you (anyone) think that we should let Storm, Hays, Wise, and Rubio know about the Texas election?
If they are concerned about their jobs, they might want to take heed.
But then again … why should we give them any warning?
Well, I’d rather get them to stop before they jam a bill like this down their throat than after. It is far easier to prevent a law from being passed than it is to repeal it afterward.
“down our throat”, I mean.
True. 🙂
Once again, Larry just can’t let this go. Between his anti-semitic Holocaust denial to his vendetta against wikipedia for actually standing up to his bullsh*t, it’s almost as if he is a parody of the worst aspects of the fundamentalist religious lobby. We have bigotry(both religious and racial), willful ignorance, pride, deception, and persistence all rolled up into one.
ABO, once again you spout the same “LOL we descended from monkeys” catchphrase that only shows you are entirely ignorant of what evolution actually is, but that’s alright. You can go on hating it and trying to destroy it anyways, even though you don’t actually know what it is you are trying to hate and destroy.
Question? Is JLO’s comprehension level an example of evolution or devolution?
Karl
Your sharp. Ok, you got me. I’ll try to stop using monkeys as the contact entity between you all and your ancestors. However, monkeys are much more friendly than ape like creatures. And monkeys are real not just artist renderings. I was trying to provide some form of realism to the faith, but I guess it’s not to be.
Now, why would I hate evolution? Would the Florida Citizens for Science even exist, with out evolution. And what would the descendents of m o nk(ape like creatures)e ys oops, believe in.
So I ask you now, how can I destroy evolution? My purpose is not to destroy evolution, but to enjoy it. Does that concern you are you unhappy with your faith? Just think, evolution has provided for you the very highest height of imagination.
You should cheer up. Why not make a ape like creature in your back yard tonight. It would be good therapy and help get you back on track.
You are a very strange person, ABO.
Realize that these were primaries for the Board of Education, in Texas. It is a 15 member board and the districting demographics would make for a different situation.
I live in a relatively liberal area in East Central Florida. I have written (about the academic freedom act) to the State Senator from my district (Democrat but Baptist) and my district House member.
I would assume that the only threats to the jobs of Storm, Hays, Wise, and Rubio, would come from the constituents of their respective districts, and they are probably being hailed as saviors by them. How can we really be influential, to any degree?
Sorry Brandon, you’re right about the venomous attacks.
I promise to bite my lip.
Does that concern you are you unhappy with your faith?
See, I told you that both Larry and ABO are perfectly predictable. 😉
S.Scott
You are a very strange person, ABO
I take that as a complement, Thank You. But just remember, without me you would be bored to death listing to this foolishness.
ABO –
I take that as a complement, Thank You. But just remember, without me you would be bored to death listing to this foolishness.
I don’t know. I bored reading the same inanity that you post over and over again. Certainly, you must have something more to say than “evolution is faith”? You don’t seem to want to provide evidence against evolution, or evidence for your own beliefs. You just want to repeat the same thing over and over again, hoping that eventually it will be true.
ABO
Well, you certainly have a funny way of “enjoying” evolution. Again with the whole evolution=faith thing. You see, that’s where you and I differ. Hypothetically, if some new biology research produces a theory that debunks evolution, and whose results are found to be experimentally sound and consistent through independent testing, then this new theory will be accepted by the scientific community. There may be some intense scrutiny first, but if the experimental results are consistent, then acceptance is an inevitability. Whereas in your case, ABO, whenever evidence is produced that debunks something from the bible, eyes will be closed, hands will cover ears, and mouths will continue to proclaim the evidence of being lies, or in case of physical evidence like fossils, accused of being placed there by the devil. That’s faith for you. The question is, are you smart enough to see the difference?
Indeed, Karl.
It is difficult to have “faith” in something which could be refined as more evidence is found.
‘Social Darwinism’ is a logical progression from one point to another. It is evident in such people’s lives as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, and exported by such journals as Psychology Today. It informs such practices as abortion, eguenics and euthanasia. You should read a little more. It is also a huge support plank of the pathetic atheism of Richard Dawkins and others. Read up Johnny!
There is no such thing as evolution (except in the theoretical, philosophical, or social sense.) So whether you understand how it works or not is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I understand how animation works, this does not mean cartoon characters are real. (For the record, I’m quite well aware of ‘how’ evolution ‘works.’ This is a serious reason why I reject it out of hand as hogwash, balderdash, and irrelevance.)
If you are truly interested in learning about all the errors of Darwinism, I’ll supply you with a modest list of resources. You could try uncommondescent.com which argues for ID of which I am not a proponent. Nevertheless, their arguments work well and are based on good scientific research and logic. You could read Michael Denton’s book Nature’s Destiny, Michael Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box or Philip Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial. Also, try the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis online. The best resource is, however, the Bible–especially Genesis & the latter chapters of Job.
Let’s take your giraffe example to task. If the giraffe did not ‘consciously stretch its neck to reach the leaves on the trees’ then how, praytell, did the giraffe know there were leaves to stretch for in the first place? Even if the giraffe saw the leaves it would have had to make a conscious decision to reach for them, unless, of course, you are suggesting that DNA has a ‘mind of its own’ and that it saw the leaves and decided to grow a longer neck for the giraffe quite apart from the poor animal’s will. Maybe the DNA molecules were hungry for leaves. Is that what you are suggesting? Sure sounds like it to me. Learn it well because that sounds a lot hokier than simply saying, “God made giraffe’s the way they are.â€
If the giraffe spent all its time (when it had a ’shorter neck’) looking down instead of up and there was food when it had a shorter neck, then what compelled it to ‘grow’ a longer neck? Please don’t suggest that it must have run out ground food because Acacia leaves don’t grow on the ground. If it ran out of food when it had a short neck it seems to me it would have died off before it had enough time to develop a long neck–long enough to reach the leaves at the top. Then, too, there’s that small issue of giraffes eating mostly acacia leaves–I wonder why they didn’t die off before they ‘adapted’ well enough to avoid dying from the poison.
IN short, first, if it didn’t consciously happen, then how did the giraffe know it needed it (a longer neck)? Second, where did the information come from to make the neck grow longer? Third, why didn’t they die off before they adapted properly? Fourth, what exactly is natural selection supposed to prove again? Fifth, what does this have to do with giraffes?
This is why I believe that in the beginning God made the heavens, the earth, and all creatures–including the giraffe with an already extended neck.
Can you reproduce several intermediate fossils showing a progression from a short neck giraffe to a long neck giraffe within a short enough period of time that the giraffe wouldn’t first die off before it ran out of the food it gained when it grew the longer neck (I doubt it)? What exactly is the common ancestry of the giraffe?
You are not going to win this argument with me because Darwinism is a lie for people who cannot and will not accept the fact that God is real. Furthermore, it is a theoretical joke, a philosophical waste of time, and an intellectual dead-end. It is meaningless.
If you wish to talk about Jesus Christ dying for your sins, and resurrecting to ensure the defeat of death, and His soon return to redeem us, I will be happy to enjoin you in conversation. We can talk about theology, Christology, or Spiritual formation. We can talk about grace, salvation, sin, redemption, or a particular book of the Bible. But I’m done talking about evolution. You are deluded and you have been lied to and you have believed the lie so deeply that you now think it is truth. It doesn’t even make you an intellectually satisfied atheist because it is so full of holes and lies. (Check resource list above.)
This is the hard reality of your life. Learn it well.
ABO –
There is no such thing as evolution
So, I guess you have never had the flu more than once? You have never had a cold? You can still use amoxocylin and don’t need cipro?
Nevertheless, their arguments work well and are based on good scientific research and logic.
Not really, no. If you consider uncommondescent to be good science, then you really should have no input in what children are taught in the science classroom.
The best resource is, however, the Bible–especially Genesis & the latter chapters of Job.
You want us to read your bible for insight into science? What does your bible say about bacteria? About yeast? About immunization, pasteurization, botulism, and infectious disease?
This is why I believe that in the beginning God made the heavens, the earth, and all creatures–including the giraffe with an already extended neck.
You are arguing from personal incredulity. You don’t seem to know of the existence of animals both extinct and currently alive that have an intermediate length neck. Your analogy is complete hogwash, because you have omitted the existence of the okapi, which has a neck longer than other species in the same family as the giraffe, but not as long as the giraffe’s neck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okapi
Can you reproduce several intermediate fossils showing a progression from a short neck giraffe to a long neck giraffe within a short enough period of time that the giraffe wouldn’t first die off before it ran out of the food it gained when it grew the longer neck (I doubt it)? What exactly is the common ancestry of the giraffe?
I did even better. I found a living relative of the giraffe with a shorter neck than the giraffe. If you were more well read, you wouldn’t post such inane garbage as this.
Just because you don’t understand how the giraffe evolved doesn’t mean that a fairy tale created it.
But I’m done talking about evolution.
It’s probably best that you don’t talk about things that you know absolutely nothing about.
ABO said:
” You could try uncommondescent.com which argues for ID of which I am not a proponent. Nevertheless, their arguments work well and are based on good scientific research and logic. You could read Michael Denton’s book Nature’s Destiny, Michael Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box or Philip Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial. Also, try the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis online. ”
ROTFL – LMAO!!!
P.S. – Did you know that this whole “cult” of fundeMENTAL religionists have only been around since 1970 ?
The Baptist Church “split” at that time. That’s when the phrase “Inerrant Bible” came to pass.
Before then – EVERY CHRISTIAN was taught that the bible was like a guideline.
Just FYI
S. Scott –
How about ABO’s inane rant about giraffes? Apparently, he likes to talk about things that he’s never bothered to research. Heh.
Well, you caught me! And here all this time I thought I was hiding my Christianity so well. But you, ahh, you are a trained sleuth, skilled in the art of interpretation and reading between the lines.
Can I tell you a secret? Of course there is something else going on: Evolution is only the fiction of one man’s imagination. (I’m still waiting on all that fossil evidence that a short necked giraffe ever existed.) The truth is this: Genesis and Darwin cannot both be right. So those Christians who compromise and say that both can be right have been deceived. (I have begun a series of essays here where I point out why the two cannot be compatible and why they are not compatible.)
The theory of evolution poses no threat, as such, to my religious beliefs which are well grounded and secure in the knowledge that Genesis is, in fact, an accurate presentation of the origins of this world. In fact, the physical universe cannot be understood apart from God’s will, God’s Word, and God’s good pleasure. If Genesis isn’t true, then neither is Colossians, John’s Gospel, Revelation, Isaiah, Job, the Psalms, Mark’s Gospel, Romans–in fact, not much of the Bible is true if Genesis 1 is not since nearly every single book of the Bible (all Scripture) refers in some way to God being the Creator (even the Proverbs!)
So, yes, I believe Genesis literally explains creation, but I also believe Colossians literally explains it and Isaiah and Jeremiah and Ezekiel and Peter and Paul and Jesus himself who took the book of Genesis literally–for example, when speaking of marriage.
The age of the earth is a deceptive argument because you don’t understand how sin has cursed this world, this universe, and all that is in it. Nor, it appears do you understand that this world was made subject to decay since sin entered this world (see Romans 8.) Nor do you understand how empty and deceptive philosophies, taught by godless men and women, hold people captive to lies. Look, your greatest champion, Richard Dawkins, will affirm everything I am saying. The atheist needs Darwin because it gives him or her meaning and substance–only because they have rejected God in the first place. Darwinism fills a vaccum in the atheists’ life, but even that does not make Darwinism or evolution true.
So, frankly, I don’t know how old the earth is, but it doesn’t change the fact that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and that on the sixth day he made man and woman in his image. So the question of how old the earth is is irrelevant to the discussion–except that the Darwinist needs many, many years in order for their inept theory to even have a chance. Some subscribe to a very young earth between 6,000-10,000 years. I don’t have enough expertise to make such a judgment; there are others who can. Still, it is beside the point that Genesis 1-2 accurately reflect what happened ‘in the Beginning.’
This is the shorter version, but here it is. Thanks for helping me to probe deep into my psyche and uncover the real, hidden truth about myself. I do appreciate that you are concerned about whatever else might be going on in my life. Yes, what’s going on is that I believe Jesus Christ died and resurrected. That he ascended to the Father’s right hand and that He will return to judge the quick and the dead. My theology, my beliefs, my life depend on the truthfulness of Genesis 1. If it is ever proven false–which it won’t be–my faith, and that of many others, will be prove quite meaningless.
As it is, the Scripture begins in a specific place for a specific reason (Genesis 1:1.) I accept that by faith. I trust that God will not lie. Can you have such confidence in your ‘evidence’, in your ’scripture’ (Darwin), and in your prophets (Dawkins, Hitchens, et al)? My evidence is the empty tomb. It is irrefutable. But if I cannot trust the first words, I’ll never be able to accept the last words which promise that He will someday recreate a new heavens and a new earth. Nor, for that matter will I be able to trust anything in between. And this is just the theology.
If you desire other evidence, go to answersingenesis.com and/or uncommondescent.com. These are most helpful sites to visit.
Have a good day.
Wow, it appears I hit a nerve or something… Once again, we see the attempt at linking Darwin’s theories to Hitler and the like. Did you know that the main justification for Hitler singling out the Jews for his Holocaust was from your precious bible itself? Say it ain’t so, Jesus! Even if you were to gloss over this, once you get down to kill-counts, religion itself is historically responsible for deaths several orders of magnitude greater than Darwin’s theories.
All of the so-called “sources” of criticism for Darwinism have been largely debunked, since like most religiously fabricated materials, they fail spectacularly when trying to make the leap from the inconsistencies evolution to the supernatural.
Regarding your giraffe example…. wow… DNA with a consciousness of its own? You seem to be implying that ALL giraffes started out with short necks which is not how it evolution works. Variations in neck length existed back then, and still do now. Just like two parents with blond hair will most likely produce children with blond hair, ancestors of giraffes with longer necks would most likely produce longer-necked offspring with each other, but WHY?, you may say, would longer-necked giraffes mate with each other exclusively? Because the longer necked specimens had a higher survival rate due to better access to food growing in higher places, allowing them to stay alive long enough to reproduce and raise offspring. There is no conscious decisions by the giraffe or its DNA to willfully “grow” a longer neck. The environment simply gave the longer-necked specimens a clear advantage over others, and after thousands of years, we arrive to a giraffe with modern neck proportions. Regarding acacia poisoning, you do know that not all acacia species give off cyanide, right? And most of them are found in the Americas… and giraffes live where? Oops! There are just so many things wrong with your “interpretation” which is not uncommon among reactionary religious zealots such as yourself. You fear what you don’t understand and that is a very common human characteristic.
Unfortunately, it is YOU who have been deluded; whose fears are been exploited by those who stand to gain power by keeping you under the illusion of a world watched over by a mythical deity, where misfortune and danger can be remedied with knees on the ground, eyes closed, and a short mumble of words with both hands stuck together. You can deny yourself evolution but when you think about it, medical innovations such as antibacterials and vaccines were developed from the principles of evolution. Be sure to thank Darwin with a tithe when you get your next flu shot.
“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”
A must see movie. Will show the biased bigotry of the closed minded and the gestapo tactics of evolutionists
Genesis and Darwin cannot both be right.
That depends on your interpretation of Genesis. You don’t take all of your bible literally, but you have decided to take Genesis literally. Interesting, as there is no mechanism built into the bible for deciding what to take literally and what not to take literally. In other words, your interpretation of your bible is the problem, not evolution.
I’m still waiting on all that fossil evidence that a short necked giraffe ever existed.
I did even better. I got you a living fossil. Your claim from personal incredulity was that an animal such as the giraffe could not exist with an intermediate size neck. You are obviously wrong, and your entire position on the matter has been dashed to pieces. Like everything else you write here, it cannot stand up to a second of actual research. Do you even bother to google the nonsense you dream up?
If Genesis isn’t true (paraphrasing) then none of my bible can be true.
Why must your bible be literal? Do you also handle snakes and drink poison to prove your faith? That’s in your bible too, you know?
If your bible is 100% accurate and literal, then when was Jesus actually born? Was he born during the census, or during Herod’s reign? You do realize that Herod died before the census, right? That the different gospels contradict themselves on this point.
The age of the earth is a deceptive argument because you don’t understand how sin has cursed this world
Are you honestly going to claim that “sin” is prematurely aging the world? Where in your bible is this gem of knowledge, or are you making it up?
My evidence is the empty tomb.
Have you seen this empty tomb? Can we verify its existence outside of your bible? No. You have faith in something that has absolutely no evidence to back it up. This is fine, if you want to believe this, but this is not science, and should not be taught as science.
If you desire other evidence, go to answersingenesis.com and/or uncommondescent.com. These are most helpful sites to visit.
I have visited both sites, and they both contain the same sorts of pseudo-scientific (read non-scientific) nonsense. This is not science, it is a desperate attempt by apologists to rectify the differences between reality and fairy tales.
See you at the movies LOL
“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowedâ€
A must see movie. Will show the biased bigotry of the closed minded and the gestapo tactics of evolutionists
This movie used very dishonest tactics and creative editing of interviews in order to cobble together pro-creationism propaganda. Don’t take my word for it:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php
If you are hoping for this to be any sort of salvation for your untenable position, then you will be sorely disappointed. It is a movie meant to exploit people like you, by getting you to pay for a movie. It is brilliant really, fundies are willing to spend a lot of money on nonsense, after all, this has led to a cottage industry of pseudo-scientific text books.
A USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll reveals that 88% of the US population believes that God had at least some hand in the creation of life. The poll also shows a distinct educational bias towards the atheistic view that God could have had nothing to do with the creation of life. This supports complaints by many that most institutions of higher learning are heavily biased against any religious understanding of the origins of life.
The poll says that although only 12% believe in the “random selection†theory of extreme Darwinism, college graduates are twice as likely as those with only a high school diploma to accept the natural-selection theory of evolution.
The poll was made public at a moment in the US where proponents of Intelligent Design theory – one that proposes the great complexity of the order of creation as evidence for an intelligent mind behind it – have been fighting for a reasonable footing in a public school system dedicated to the atheistic bias of pure Darwinism.
The fight is pinpointed in a Philadelphia federal trial which could decide that Intelligent Design (ID) could be presented alongside Darwinian evolution in public school science classes. The Dover Area School Board is defending its decision a year ago to require students to hear a statement on Intelligent Design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin’s theory is “not a fact,†has inexplicable “gaps,†and refers students to a textbook, “Of Pandas and People,” for more information.
Testifying for the board is biochemistry professor, Dr. Michael Behe, a leading scientific proponent of ID, and author of the 1996 best-seller, “Darwin’s Black Box.†Behe, a professor at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa., says that of course students should be taught evolution because it’s widely used in science and that “any well-educated student should understand it.â€
Behe wrote in an online article, “How can we decide whether Darwinian natural selection can account for the amazing complexity that exists at the molecular level?â€
“Many scientists frankly admit their bewilderment about how (complex molecular systems) may have originated, but refuse to entertain the obvious hypothesis: that perhaps molecular machines appear to look designed because they really are designed.â€
Behe wrote that he is “optimistic†that science will begin to consider ID, even if the support is “muted.†“My reason for optimism is the advance of science itself, which almost every day uncovers new intricacies in nature, fresh reasons for recognizing the design inherent in life and the universe.â€
You think you are in the majority ? LOL You need to get out more often.
A USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll reveals that 88% of the US population…
You think you are in the majority ? LOL You need to get out more often.
So, should reality be dictated by the majority of people? I think not. If you believe that, then you are a fool. Most people believe very inane things about politics, most people don’t understand constitutional law or science for that matter. That doesn’t mean that we should teach to the common denominator. Science should be taught based on facts, not faith.
As far as your quotes on Behe, the guy is completely off his rocker. The only reason he has a job is because he has tenure. Even the university that foolishly accepted his tenure makes him put a disclaimer on his website:
In other words, the guy is so extreme that even his own employer is trying to differentiate themselves from him. I bet when his next review comes up, he won’t get tenure again.
Behe is evidence that just because someone has a degree doesn’t make them smart or correct.
Another example of bigotry ? Your hilarious.
You would make Hitler proud.
How, precisely, could anything that I said be interpreted as bigotry?
Nice invocation of Godwin’s law, by the way. Go ahead, compare me to Hitler. Obviously, you are incapable of refuting a single thing I said, so you have to resort to additional inanity.
What about the okapi? Or, have you wisely decided that your giraffe rant is complete nonsense?
Every example of “irreducible complexity” that Behe has dreamed up has been discredited and ridiculed. He continues to fish for examples of his literal interpretation of his bible, and he continues to fail.
Hitler thought he was doing God’s work in persecuting the Jews… How ironic of you to bring him up again.
THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
AS REVISED IN 1968 AND SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED
The Constitution of the State of Florida as revised in 1968 consisted of certain revised articles as proposed by three joint resolutions which were adopted during the special session of June 24-July 3, 1968, and ratified by the electorate on November 5, 1968, together with one article carried forward from the Constitution of 1885, as amended. The articles proposed in House Joint Resolution 1-2X constituted the entire revised constitution with the exception of Articles V, VI, and VIII. Senate Joint Resolution 4-2X proposed Article VI, relating to suffrage and elections. Senate Joint Resolution 5-2X proposed a new Article VIII, relating to local government. Article V, relating to the judiciary, was carried forward from the Constitution of 1885, as amended.
Sections composing the 1968 revision have no history notes. Subsequent changes are indicated by notes appended to the affected sections. The indexes appearing at the beginning of each article, notes appearing at the end of various sections, and section and subsection headings are added editorially and are not to be considered as part of the constitution.
PREAMBLE
We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to ALMIGHTY GOD for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this constitution.
Hmmm “ALMIGHTY GOD” even the Florida Constitution acknowledges that we are to be grateful to our maker.
No, Hitler was acting out the natural selection of the Darwinian Theory.
ABO –
What does this have to do with teaching evolution in the science classroom, precisely?
Or, are you trying to get us to ignore the fact that you cannot actually answer any of the questions we have asked you, or that you are unable to refute anything that any of us have said?
The god of evolution is smaller than the God of the Bible.
No, Hitler was acting out the natural selection of the Darwinian Theory.
That is so inane, it is unworthy of a response. But, I’ll respond to it anyway.
Nothing about what Hitler did was “natural”, nor could it be attributed to “natural selection”. Natural selection deals with environmental pressures for an organism to adapt to in order to best survive in its environment. It rewards organisms that have beneficial mutations, and it punishes organisms with non-beneficial mutations or that do not adapt with respect to organisms that do.
Hitler’s philosophy was based on one of your heroes, Martin Luther, and had little of anything to do with evolution or natural selection. Eugenics was an excuse that he crafted, but not the goal of what he did. To imply otherwise is only to show your ignorance of history.
The god of evolution is smaller than the God of the Bible.
If by smaller, you mean non-existent, then you are correct. Evolution does not require faith, despite your inane rantings to the contrary.
Do you not have anything new to say? If you are going to continue posting the same drivel over and over again, then perhaps you should be banned. You are adding nothing more than line noise, cut-and-paste talking points, and inane arguments.
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.”
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922
ABO, both you and Hitler share the same God, and both of you do what you do based on your interpretation of His will. Bless you both.
You can nake up all you want. Jesus himself was Jewish. It’s a contadiction in terms saying that Hitler was a Christian. He had nothing to do with Christianity. But I must have hit a nerve for you to make up that he was a Christian.
Jesus was God in the flesh. Hitler was Satan in the flesh. He carried out the Darwinian theory by what he did – saying that the Jewish race was an inferior race because of the evolutionary process and they needed to be eliminated becase the arryian race had evolved into a superior race.
Hitler was Christian, and ironically for you, he was a staunch opponent against atheism. In his book, Mein Kampf, there are several dozen biblical references to why he hates the Jews.
Go see
http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm
for more fun filled God-inspired insanity from your favorite mono-testicled dictator. Don’t believe it? Check out Mein Kampf yourself and find the passages listed by the website. Listen to historical audio recordings of Hitler proclaiming himself to be a Christian warrior fighting the Jews in the name of God. Call him “brother” because to you, he is!
ABO, you and him are more similar then you know. Hitler was fighting an ethnicity for God, and you are fighting an idea for God.
What we are seeing here is the “fingers in ears lalalala I can’t hear you” reaction you get when a zealot’s faith suffers a humiliating blow.
Lol poor try. Look at the teachings of Christ and you wouldn’t talk the way you do. Hitler may say anything. He couldsay he was a woman … doesnt make it so. His action show what he was – he used the evolutionary model to try an explain his belief he was in a superior race.
The Jewish faith teached creationism not evolution. Go read and do your homework Johnny.
It’s funny who puts their fingers in their ears. Its those like you who havent read the Scriptures and goes about saying you don’t want to hear anything that is spernatural. LOL
The Jewish faith teached creationism not evolution.
That was the best they had at the time. At one point, your bible was probably close to being “cutting edge” when it came to science and philosophy… three thousand years ago. Unfortunately, strictly adhering to something that may have been in vogue three thousand years ago makes you look like a Luddite, not like an intellectual. What has changed in 3000 years? We know much much more about the world and the universe than we did back then. When we apply this knowledge to understanding why life is the way it is now, we don’t see that life has always been the way it is now, we see that life has evolved, species have adapted, new species have evolved, and old species have gone extinct or have evolved to the point where they no longer resemble the fossils.
In all of (your) brother Hitler’s written and spoken works, Darwin OR his theories were never mentioned, and no written works by Darwin and his theories were ever found among his possessions. Lots of bibles and other Christian texts though. Did you know he and best pal Heinrich Himmler were involved in a Nazi expedition to find the fabled spear of Longinus, which supposedly pierced Jesus’ side at his crucifixion? His notion that the Aryan race was superior to Jews was based on his interpretation biblical “bloodlines” and not Darwin’s theories, which, again, do not appear in any of his written works.
We pro-evolutionists don’t shut our eyes and ears at everything supernatural. In fact, we investigate it, scrutinize it, pick it apart piece by piece until the true answer is found. If we did just shut it out, then all we can say for evolution is that God didn’t do it, end of story, omitting the parts about natural selection, mutations, fossils, and so on. Then you creationists would have something to laugh at.
Your arguments and counterpoints are becoming more weak and off-topic, old man. Are you ready to embrace brother Hitler as your own, or are you just stalling for time?
Yawn … You have your alter of evolution – it is obvious. The Bible speaks to the heart. If you harden your heart you will not hear. All the great minds have come to this conclusion: William Buckley, Pascal, Faraday, Pasteur, Newton etc. Your heart has to be the receptor of true wisdom. The mind can fool anyone if the heart is determined to be self centered. You have your refuge of selfishness – which is evolution. God is the genius in all of this – he realizes that the proud in heart (like satan) cannot understand true love. The heart that is receptive to the cross of Christ will understand all things as they really are. You are totally selfish in your pride. Until you humble yourself and admit that God does exist and submit yourself to him you will never have true peace or joy. Some have brighter minds than others – God gives us differing abilities – but the same understanding through the heart – its a choice that God in his wisdom weeds out those who are hard hearted and those who are soft hearted. What wisdom he has. He chooses the foolish things to confound the “wise” of this world. people think they can outthink God. He will confound all that refuse his rightful position.
It is amazing to see how one can believe a theory that cannot be proven in a laboratory or have any conclusive physical evidence. All the evidence changes as each pillar in your theory dissolves with time. You have no understanding that the things that appear to us were made by what we cannot see. You cannot even see the entire spectrum of light. You are limited with your hearing to a very fine spectrum. So you grope about looking at “evidence through your limited perspective. You don’t want to think outside your little schoolyard. You can call us what you want – it only causes sadness to see your blindness through your hard heart. When you hit difficult times call on your god of evolution and see what he does.
Its interesting the blindness of Karl. He says that Bibles were found around Hitler. But no evidence he followed anything the Bible says. There is plenty of evidence if you look that God is real. Many have been healed some raised form the dead (well documented), but you will refuse to believe it because of your hardness of heart.
Hitler demonstrates your theory by trying to eliminate a member of a race that is inferior. Since you dont believe man is created in God’s image -Then man has no value to you unless they can satisfy your own lusts.
You believe or you have been deceieved into thinking that the theory of evolution is true. This brings a cloak for your sin. If you can completely lean on that theory you can justify your own sin. Then you must conclude that since we evolved then there is no maker to be accountable to. Well if you keep that belief you will be shocked one day. Pray your heart will be softened then you will understand.
I think your own pride has clouded your judgment when you decided to paint all of us supporters of evolution as being selfish. The self-proclaimed faithful ones who fight us with such tenacity are the most arrogant; they believe that their own beliefs are “right” and seek to deny all other thoughts which challenge this, by violence or deception (actions which are contrary to their own beliefs might I add), because in their minds, and historically throughout Christianity’s time line, the ends justify the means. You assume that only those of your own faith have the monopoly on morality and virtue and proclaim that even good people of moral character without your faith shall burn in hell. You are not humble.
Evolution doesn’t deny God. However, it does deny him credit for shaping how life developed on Earth, if He exists. However, this wouldn’t be the first time in the course of history in case you forget.
As for Hitler being “our brother.” Nope Hitler was a God hater – and any true Christian would count it absolutley horrible what he had done. But you wont disavow the one that your is kin – the father of lies – the one cast out of heaven to come to earth to deceive ones like you and others into believing falshoods. I once was like you I argued against the Christian faith – but finally when I honestly sought to see if it were true, I then understood and believed. Then every thing started to make sense to me and I saw how God himself will give widom to those who call on his name. Give it a try and you may be surprised.
No violence here – just sadness for you. As to painting with a broad brush – It’s what God says that all men are selfish including – yes me. When we realise it then we can be helped. Then we can understand that it was our selfishnes that cause him to be crucified. But He was raised from the dead. Yes you do deny God by inferring that he didnt create life here in short order.
True humility gives credit to whom it is due. Pride is thinking we are smarter than God and chose our own way. Pride is the downfall of satan. He wanted to go his own way. Man does the same thing – he wants to do his own thing. But humility must admit something is greater than us and we must submit to it. Pride hardens our heart to truth and we become our own gods.
Oh look, back on the Hitler wagon again…
Aside from constantly quoting the Bible in his written works, proclaiming himself to be Christian, promoting Germany’s Christian communities, and setting up Jewish oppression programs that mirrored historical Catholic persecution policies on Jews, what more do you need? And still trying to link Hitler to Darwin/evolution despite no evidence that Hitler even knew about Darwin (Hitler was fiercely nationalistic so I don’t think he would be caught studying the works of an English naturalist)?
There is a certain hypocrisy calling me blind when it is you who closes your eyes when trying to find wisdom.
Hmm the proof of a man’s belief are in his actions. Hitler’s action were contrary to all Christian doctrine. It was however consistent with the underlying principles of evolution which promotes one species as superior than another. The proof is not in what a man says but what he does. His actions were consistent with the principles of thought that promote evolution and the opposite of those that promote true Christian faith. You can wear a dress and make believe you are a girl but that doesnt prove so once you start to walk.
The true Christian leader at the time was :
Dietrich Bonhoeffer–along with his twin sister, Sabine–was born on February 4, 1906, in Breslau, Germany. He studied in student in Tubingen, Berlin, and at Union Theological Seminary in New York. He became a college professor, a noted writer on theology, poet, musician and a Lutheran pastor. Although he was safe in London at the outbreak of the war, her returned to Germany to resist Nazism.
Bonhoeffer’s theologically rooted opposition to National Socialism first made him a leader, along with Martin Niemueller and Karl Barth, in the Confessing Church (bekennende Kirche), and an advocate on behalf of the Jews. His leadership in the anti-Nazi Confessing Church and his participation in the Abwehr resistance circle make his works a unique source for understanding the interaction of religion, politics, and culture among those few Christians who actively opposed National Socialism.
Bonhoeffer was condemned for his involvement in “Operation 7,” a rescue mission that had helped a small group of Jews over the German border and into Switzerland. He had also been involved in planning an unsuccessful assassination attempt on the life of Adolf Hitler. His participation in the murder plot conflicted with Bonhoeffer’s position as a pacifist. He explained: “If I see a madman driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders, then I can’t, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe and then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver.” He was hanged in the concentration camp at Flossenb? April 9, 1945, at the age of 39, one month before the end of the war. He was one of four members of his immediate family to die at the hands of the Nazi regime for their participation in the small Protestant resistance movement. The letters he wrote during these final two years of his life were posthumously published by his student and friend, Eberhard Bethge, as Letters and Papers from Prison.
Doesnt sound like they were good brohters does it ?
“Bam Bam” –
It is amazing to see how one can believe a theory that cannot be proven in a laboratory or have any conclusive physical evidence.
Bzzt! Wrong.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
You have no understanding that the things that appear to us were made by what we cannot see.
What empirical evidence do you have your this dubious claim? Your word, the word of someone who died 3000 years ago? 2000 years ago?
You cannot even see the entire spectrum of light. You are limited with your hearing to a very fine spectrum. So you grope about looking at “evidence through your limited perspective.
We can build machines that can see better and hear better than us. Within the realm of what science can study, that being that which is not supernatural, there is no better explanation as to the current variety of life that we observe than that of evolution. None.
That evolution works so well outside of your box makes you afraid that your literalist creationist views are wrong. Hence your desperate need to try to discredit evolution. If your faith was not tied to your literalist beliefs, and if you weren’t so arrogant to believe that you are right, you would see the folly of your ways.
ts interesting the blindness of Karl. He says that Bibles were found around Hitler. But no evidence he followed anything the Bible says.
As long as you discredit that pesky part of the New Testament blaming the Jews for Jesus’s crucifixion, which is the whole justification of Hitler’s antisemitism that he gave in his speeches. “Look, Jews are bad… don’t take my word for it, read the Bible.” Yeah. Fail.
The whole idea of bringing up Hitler, which was ABO‘s bullshit from the start, was to discredit evolution by linking it to Hitler. The delicious irony of this inanity is that Hitler was much more strongly connected to your bible than he ever was to Darwin. That you fail to grasp this is evidence of your ignorance of history. Fail.
You believe or you have been deceieved into thinking that the theory of evolution is true. This brings a cloak for your sin. If you can completely lean on that theory you can justify your own sin. Then you must conclude that since we evolved then there is no maker to be accountable to.
Wow. You’re really just going to go down the list of inane creationist talking points, aren’t you? So, let me boil this down. You believe that “If you came from monkeys, then you are going to justify acting like monkeys.” This inane argument does not say anything about the validity of evolution, but rather attempts to tie morality to evolution, which is asinine. Evolution is about how species evolve, not about morality. Morality can be found in philosophy, or liberal interpretations of your bible. Liberal, because your bible is rather contradictory about morals, and many of the morals that you call “Christian” aren’t explicitly stated in your bible.
As for Hitler being “our brother.†Nope Hitler was a God hater – and any true Christian would count it absolutley horrible what he had done.
What you fail to see is that he used your bible to justify his actions, much like you use your bible to justify your anti-science and anti-intellectual position. In that much, interpreting your bible in a very specific way to justify your actions, you and he are the same.
Can we please drop the Hitler comparisons? ABO started it, we showed that it was ridiculous by turning it around on him, and now you are continuing it in ignorance. Drop it. Move on. You’re wrong.
But you wont disavow the one that your is kin – the father of lies – the one cast out of heaven to come to earth to deceive ones like you and others into believing falshoods.
Yes… because if we follow facts and reality, then we are Satan worshipers? How did you come to this brain-damaged conclusion, I wonder? Next, are you going to recommend that we have our fingers clamped, or that we should be burned at the stake? Sheesh.
Yes you do deny God by inferring that he didnt create life here in short order.
So, then are you saying that the majority of Christians also deny your god, because they do not take to your literalist interpretation of your bible? Are the majority of Christians also brethren with Satan, as you call us? Wow. That’s a rather extreme position to take…
True humility gives credit to whom it is due. Pride is thinking we are smarter than God and chose our own way.
You mean… like interpreting your bible in the literal sense, and calling the majority of Christians Satanists? I think you may be the most prideful one here.
—
None of anything you have brought up answers any of the following, which you must do for me to take you seriously:
1. Provide for me evidence discrediting evolution.
2. Provide for me evidence that your god created life on this planet, or that your god even exists.
3. State for me your thesis for explaining all of the overwhelming evidence that we have supporting evolution, and how your explanation incorporates this and expands upon it. Such a thesis must be stated in terms of a valid scientific hypothesis. In simple terms, it must be stated in such a way as it can be falsified (if evidence can be found to falsify it) or verified (if evidence can be found to verify it).
4. Provide for me evidence that supports your hypothesis. Note that evidence must be objective and verifiable by an independent third party. Quotes from scripture cannot count as evidence, as scripture is nothing more than hearsay, with no external evidence to back up each and every one of its claims.
If you cannot do all four, then you need to admit that your creationist nonsense does not belong in the science classroom. Here’s your opportunity, “Bam Bam”. Put up, or shut up. Otherwise, don’t waste all of our time with your inanity.
You want me to disprove a speculation based on a closed system of thought. Nothing I show you would change your mind or would it ? You would come up with a different theory that promotes your assumption – right ? or wrong ?. Its merely a theory based on carefully discriminate “facts’. You have no evidence of any link between any species except by speculation of a group of pictures of skulls that links neither ape to man. For example: If you would look at other evidence of the Aztecs and Incas you would see that there was a custom that they used to bind the heads of the children to grossly distort the skull of the little ones. Would you leap for joy that you found exculpatory evidence?
Or would anything change your mind ? What proof would convince you that evolution is not true ?
You want me to disprove a speculation based on a closed system of thought. Nothing I show you would change your mind or would it ?
If you showed me evidence supporting your position, I’d recommend you for a Nobel Peace Prize.
You would come up with a different theory that promotes your assumption – right ? or wrong ?
Wrong. If you can do all four, then you would have the better theory already.
Its merely a theory based on carefully discriminate “facts’.
Wrong.
You have no evidence of any link between any species except by speculation of a group of pictures of skulls that links neither ape to man.
Wrong. You should seriously consider reading the links I posted for you.
For example: If you would look at other evidence of the Aztecs and Incas you would see that there was a custom that they used to bind the heads of the children to grossly distort the skull of the little ones. Would you leap for joy that you found exculpatory evidence?
…except this practice results in stress lines in the skull, which can be detected. Please research your conjectures more thoroughly before attempting to present them as facts.
Would you leap for joy that you found exculpatory evidence?
Yes, because I would have discredited something that was wrong. True scientists care about finding answers, not relying on faith. Only creationists rely on faith.
What proof would convince you that evolution is not true ?
Any proof that conclusively shuts the door on evolution. I should warn you, “irreducible complexity” or other arguments from partial knowledge or personal incredulity is not evidence against evolution, and would never be considered conclusive evidence against any scientific theory. You must play by the rules of science if you are to convince me.
Sorry, damn spell checker. I meant to say, “If you showed me evidence supporting your position, I’d recommend you for a Nobel Prize.”
Looking at your weblinks to facts proving evolution. There is a list of conjectures. If you google each area in the webpage you will no doubt see the evidence used to show that each conjecture is not conclusive in its specutlations. Actually many are laughable.
Looking at your weblinks to facts proving evolution. There is a list of conjectures. If you google each area in the webpage you will no doubt see the evidence used to show that each conjecture is not conclusive in its specutlations. Actually many are laughable.
Specific examples?
For one thing, the second link conclusively proves that speciation can be reproduced in the lab.
Where is Karl ? Did he give up ?
I highly doubt that Karl gave up. He probably has a life outside of posting comments here.
Also, merely claiming that there are google “refutations” does not mean that these refutations have withstood the same scrutiny that the actual evidence for evolution has, or that evolution itself has. Many of the more common “refutations” are nothing more than creationist arguments from scripture, arguments from personal incredulity, or hand-waving such as “irreducible complexity”. Refutations must stand up to the same rigorous testing as that which the refutations attempt to refute.
The second website shows a form of mutations. So ?
Many in the field of evolution, it says, don’t even think that line of thinking is important to even discuss.
The second website shows a form of mutations. So ?
Many in the field of evolution, it says, don’t even think that line of thinking is important to even discuss.
No. The second link shows speciation. Re-read it if you don’t get it.
Speciation shows that new species can arise through evolution. Over time, this lead to the variety of life that we see today. There is conclusive evidence for speciation, and it can be reproduced in the lab.
No the refutations use a better logic when coming to conclusions to what these guys “observe”.
No mutations not speciation.
No the refutations use a better logic when coming to conclusions to what these guys “observeâ€.
As before, please provide specific examples. For one thing, you must provide a specific example that properly discredits speciation. Good luck with that. It isn’t as obvious as your creationist friends would have you think.
No mutations not speciation.
If you aren’t even going to bother explaining how these mutations aren’t speciation, then why even say something this inane.
A species is a group of organisms that can interbreed. If a mutation occurs that prevents half of the group from inter-breeding with the other half of the group, then that gives rise to a new species. Period. Full stop.
This can be, and has been, reproduced in the lab.
Common neo-creationist claims:
Mutations are the reduction of genetic information. Bzzt! Wrong.
New species cannot be created. Bzzt! Wrong.
Speciation events have never been observed. Bzzt! Wrong.
Mutations cannot lead to new species. Bzzt! Wrong.
…and if you bother to read the links I have posted, you will understand why. Furthermore, you will have all of the information required to reproduce these studies or experiments on your own, if you want to further validate the claims.
Oh, did you miss me that much? Apparently, I now have a fan. So what are we on now? Mutations? We can go on and on about the finer points of evolution and still you would just dismiss these as baseless conjectures without reason. You said it yourself, Bam Bam, that you are against evolution due to your own SPIRITUAL beliefs on how evolution as a concept would impact man’s behavior and perception (make us selfish, prideful, believing that we are our own gods as you put it), and NOT whether is was scientifically sound. There is point arguing against you using empirical evidence because you are against it for SPIRITUAL and NOT FACTUAL/LOGICAL reasons. You are broken.
Yawn
It’s sad that this is the best response you can come up with.