Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 7  Next >

Sad Sad Sad

Posted: 9/11/2013 6:55 AM

Sad Sad Sad 


Religious conservatives pan biology textbooks 


AUSTIN — Religious conservatives serving on state textbook review panels have criticized several proposed high school biology textbooks for not including arguments against Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
   The review panels include several creationists. They urge the State Board of Education to reject the books unless publishers include more disclaimers on key concepts of evolution.    One reviewer even suggested a rule requiring that each biology book cover “creation science.” That would run counter to a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The decision banned the teaching of creationism in public school science classes.    The evaluations will be presented at a board meeting next week. Publishers must consider them, along with testimony. They can make changes before the board votes on the texts in November.      “i understand the national academy of science’s strong support of the theory of evolution,” said texas a&m university nutritionist Karen Beathard, one of the biology textbook reviewers. “At the same time, this is a theory. As an educator, parent and grandparent, I feel very firmly that creation science based on biblical principles should be incorporated into every biology book that is up for adoption.”    Other reviewers objected to the books’ acceptance of key evolutionary principles. Among them is the fossil evidence for the evolution of humans and other life species.    Former State Board of Education Chairwoman Gail Lowe nominated nearly a third of the 28 reviewers for biology   books. A social conservative and creationist, Lowe was defeated in her reelection bid last year.    Texas Freedom Network president Kathy Miller said Monday that coverage of evolution and climate change in biology books from seven publishers has come under fire from social conservatives. Her group often spars with social conservative organizations over education issues.    “Once again, culture warriors on the state board are putting Texas at risk of becoming a national laughingstock on science education,” Miller said. “What our kids learn in their public schools should be based on mainstream, established science, not the personal views of ideologues, especially those who are grossly unqualified to evaluate a biology textbook in the first place.”    As one of the largest textbook purchasers in the nation, Texas wields strong influence on books marketed in other states.      In all, publishers have offered 14 high school biology books for adoption in Texas. That includes offerings from the three big textbook publishers: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill and Pearson.    Although school districts are not required to buy textbooks adopted by the board, most do. To get on the list, a book must cover at least half of the curriculum requirements in each subject area.    Social conservatives on the review panels also criticized the coverage of global warming in some books. They argued that questions remain about the impact of climate change.    The science books up for adoption reflect curriculum standards that the education board approved in 2009. The vote followed lengthy debate over evolution and how it should be taught in Texas schools.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/11/2013 7:38 AM

RE: Sad Sad Sad 


The intellectual retardation is baffling over there.

The retards dont even understand what the word "theory" defines in science, if they did, surely they would know the difference between that and a thesis.

Do the 'tards point out that in physic books, gravity is a theory from Newton ?

Probably not since it doesnt conflict with their retarded doctrin.

http://tommcmahon.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/18/cubscentury.gif
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/11/2013 9:19 AM

RE: Sad Sad Sad 


Ready to join us yet justa?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/11/2013 9:21 AM

Re: Sad Sad Sad 


Darwinism has been scientifically destroyed by many questioning scientists. The evidence is fairly overwhelming that life was designed.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/11/2013 10:39 AM

RE: Sad Sad Sad 



robillionaire wrote: Ready to join us yet justa?

I would prefer to not be stereotyped and pigeon holed into your convienent catagories.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/11/2013 11:08 AM

RE: Sad Sad Sad 



justa25thTA wrote:
robillionaire wrote: Ready to join us yet justa?

I would prefer to not be stereotyped and pigeon holed into your convienent catagories.

Respectable.


It is absurd that this is still going on in multiple states.
"We live in a society exquisitely dependant on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology" - Carl Sagan
Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/11/2013 11:18 AM

Re: Sad Sad Sad 



Katmandude wrote: Darwinism has been scientifically destroyed by many questioning scientists. The evidence is fairly overwhelming that life was designed.

Two things:

1) Define "many". The percentage of scientists who believe in creationism or its cousin "intelligent design" is miniscule. One number put forth recently had it at 0.01% of scientists globally. 

2) Care to illuminate us on what this evidence is?
"We live in a society exquisitely dependant on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology" - Carl Sagan
Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/11/2013 11:19 AM

Re: Sad Sad Sad 



JABier14 wrote:
Katmandude wrote: Darwinism has been scientifically destroyed by many questioning scientists. The evidence is fairly overwhelming that life was designed.

Two things:

1) Define "many". The percentage of scientists who believe in creationism or its cousin "intelligent design" is miniscule. One number put forth recently had it at 0.01% of scientists globally. 

2) Care to illuminate us on what this evidence is?

I would prefer that Kat stay out of my threads.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/11/2013 11:30 AM

Re: Sad Sad Sad 


Honestly, people, this is getting ridiculous.

It is clear that the majority of people in the United States have taken at face value what "scientists" have told them about Darwinism, and these people haven't.

Darwinism has been disproven many times over. It is not science, it is a false theory that literally defies mathematics, physics, and genetics.

Even if you aren't religious at all, not wanting an outdated textbook that relies on a false theory is perfectly reasonable.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/11/2013 11:32 AM

Re: Sad Sad Sad 



JABier14 wrote:
Katmandude wrote: Darwinism has been scientifically destroyed by many questioning scientists. The evidence is fairly overwhelming that life was designed.

2) Care to illuminate us on what this evidence is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtBz1roiQR8

look up all the stuff Trey Smith says in this video. You will find that it is all verifiable and correct.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/11/2013 11:32 AM

Re: Sad Sad Sad 


Were you on the panel?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/11/2013 11:34 AM

Re: Sad Sad Sad 


OF COURSE the world was designed.
This world SCREAMS of design at every single level.

Here is just a very basic and very quick evolution question:

Does the process that a caterpillar goes through to become a butterfly seem like Darwinism to you?
Since the caterpillar literally turns into a black goop - breaking down the entirety of its physical body - doesn't his ultimate goal have to be pre-designed?

Last edited 9/11/2013 11:34 AM by beempty

Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/11/2013 11:40 AM

Re: Sad Sad Sad 



beempty wrote: OF COURSE the world was designed.
This world SCREAMS of design at every single level.

Here is just a very basic and very quick evolution question:

Does the process that a caterpillar goes through to become a butterfly seem like Darwinism to you?
Since the caterpillar literally turns into a black goop - breaking down the entirety of its physical body - doesn't his ultimate goal have to be pre-designed?
Nature designs itself through natural selection. It is a realtively simple concept. Animals possess characteristics that help them survive in their environment. This occurs due to the fact that over long periods of time, animals who are not adapted to their environments die off. This gives off an impression of some sort of design when it is quite simply natural selection.

You are absolutely wrong in your previous post. Darwinism has stood the test of time, and while it has been expanded, has never been refuted.
"We live in a society exquisitely dependant on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology" - Carl Sagan
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/11/2013 11:43 AM

Re: Sad Sad Sad 



JABier14 wrote:
beempty wrote: OF COURSE the world was designed.
This world SCREAMS of design at every single level.

Here is just a very basic and very quick evolution question:

Does the process that a caterpillar goes through to become a butterfly seem like Darwinism to you?
Since the caterpillar literally turns into a black goop - breaking down the entirety of its physical body - doesn't his ultimate goal have to be pre-designed?
Nature designs itself through natural selection. It is a realtively simple concept. Animals possess characteristics that help them survive in their environment. This occurs due to the fact that over long periods of time, animals who are not adapted to their environments die off. This gives off an impression of some sort of design when it is quite simply natural selection.

You are absolutely wrong in your previous post. Darwinism has stood the test of time, and while it has been expanded, has never been refuted.

LOL ok bud, whatever you say.
Keep spouting out generalities, but I'm telling you right now, the caterpillar that turns into goop without a plan beforeband isn't going to survive and continue procreating.

This is an example of OBVIOUS design in the world, and this is just a very simple and very basic example off the top of my head.

Darwinism has been disproven many ways, watch the above video and see for yourself.

Honestly, believing in Darwinism and not in intelligent design is as foolish and stupid as it gets.
It is adorable that you believe that a butterfly just RANDOMLY went into a cocoon one day and happened to come out as a butterfly and then over time the whole species (which started from one caterpillar/butterfly with a genetic mutation) eventually started doing that all the time because it survived.
Lol

Last edited 9/11/2013 11:45 AM by beempty

Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/11/2013 11:48 AM

Re: Sad Sad Sad 



beempty wrote:
JABier14 wrote:
beempty wrote: OF COURSE the world was designed.
This world SCREAMS of design at every single level.

Here is just a very basic and very quick evolution question:

Does the process that a caterpillar goes through to become a butterfly seem like Darwinism to you?
Since the caterpillar literally turns into a black goop - breaking down the entirety of its physical body - doesn't his ultimate goal have to be pre-designed?
Nature designs itself through natural selection. It is a realtively simple concept. Animals possess characteristics that help them survive in their environment. This occurs due to the fact that over long periods of time, animals who are not adapted to their environments die off. This gives off an impression of some sort of design when it is quite simply natural selection.

You are absolutely wrong in your previous post. Darwinism has stood the test of time, and while it has been expanded, has never been refuted.

LOL ok bud, whatever you say.
Keep spouting out generalities, but I'm telling you right now, the caterpillar that turns into goop without a plan beforeband isn't going to survive and continue procreating.

This is an example of OBVIOUS design in the world, and this is just a very simple and very basic example off the top of my head.

Darwinism has been disproven many ways, watch the above video and see for yourself.

Honestly, believing in Darwinism and not in intelligent design is as foolish and stupid as it gets.


Simple minds need simple explanations, and generalities serve this purpose.
"We live in a society exquisitely dependant on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology" - Carl Sagan
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/11/2013 11:50 AM

Re: Sad Sad Sad 


It is adorable that you believe that a butterfly just RANDOMLY went into a cocoon one day and happened to come out as a butterfly and then over time the whole species (which started from one caterpillar/butterfly with a genetic mutation) eventually started doing that all the time because it survived.
Lol
Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/11/2013 12:05 PM

Re: Sad Sad Sad 



beempty wrote: It is adorable that you believe that a butterfly just RANDOMLY went into a cocoon one day and happened to come out as a butterfly and then over time the whole species (which started from one caterpillar/butterfly with a genetic mutation) eventually started doing that all the time because it survived.
Lol

It's particularly sad you are stuck on your rather simplistic reasoning in the case of the caterpillar (which by the way, you likely have just taken from answers from genesis or some other religious group). Macro evolution takes place over a very long span of time, significantly longer than human history. You assume simply because science does not currently know specifically how caterpillars evolved to metamorphose into a butterfly that this somehow means there was some being designing it. This is a logical fallacy. Information that is unkown does not discredit information that is known.
"We live in a society exquisitely dependant on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology" - Carl Sagan

Last edited 9/11/2013 12:06 PM by JABier14

Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/11/2013 12:14 PM

Re: Sad Sad Sad 



justa25thTA wrote:
JABier14 wrote:
Katmandude wrote: Darwinism has been scientifically destroyed by many questioning scientists. The evidence is fairly overwhelming that life was designed.

Two things:

1) Define "many". The percentage of scientists who believe in creationism or its cousin "intelligent design" is miniscule. One number put forth recently had it at 0.01% of scientists globally. 

2) Care to illuminate us on what this evidence is?

I would prefer that Kat stay out of my threads.

Definitely appreciated the Mak smack on Kat.
"We live in a society exquisitely dependant on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology" - Carl Sagan
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/11/2013 12:16 PM

Re: Sad Sad Sad 



JABier14 wrote:
beempty wrote: It is adorable that you believe that a butterfly just RANDOMLY went into a cocoon one day and happened to come out as a butterfly and then over time the whole species (which started from one caterpillar/butterfly with a genetic mutation) eventually started doing that all the time because it survived.
Lol

It's particularly sad you are stuck on your rather simplistic reasoning in the case of the caterpillar (which by the way, you likely have just taken from answers from genesis or some other religious group). Macro evolution takes place over a very long span of time, significantly longer than human history. You assume simply because science does not currently know specifically how caterpillars evolved to metamorphose into a butterfly that this somehow means there was some being designing it. This is a logical fallacy. Information that is unkown does not discredit information that is known.
Again, you can speak in generalities about logic all you want, but the fact of the matter is, this was CLEARLY designed.

The caterpillar is a very basic answer that everyone knows, because evolutionists have no answer for it.

"But, but - we'll find out later!"

When you're looking at the universe on a micro or macro level, when you're looking at the solar system, when you're looking at the Earth and the creatures on it, it has all been clearly and obviously designed.

There is no such thing as macro evolution. There are strict limits to variation that are never, ever, ever, ever, ever crossed. Breeders know this.

^This is why we have never, ever, ever, ever, observed macro evolution, only speculated upon it, even in experiments that have been designed to test it. The odds against this kind of beneficial mutation occurring on so many levels simultaneously makes it a mathematical impossibility. 
Micro-evolutionary changes do not ever lead to changes that go beyond the DNA that has already been programmed into the animal.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/11/2013 12:33 PM

Re: Sad Sad Sad 



beempty wrote:
JABier14 wrote:
beempty wrote: It is adorable that you believe that a butterfly just RANDOMLY went into a cocoon one day and happened to come out as a butterfly and then over time the whole species (which started from one caterpillar/butterfly with a genetic mutation) eventually started doing that all the time because it survived.
Lol

It's particularly sad you are stuck on your rather simplistic reasoning in the case of the caterpillar (which by the way, you likely have just taken from answers from genesis or some other religious group). Macro evolution takes place over a very long span of time, significantly longer than human history. You assume simply because science does not currently know specifically how caterpillars evolved to metamorphose into a butterfly that this somehow means there was some being designing it. This is a logical fallacy. Information that is unkown does not discredit information that is known.
Again, you can speak in generalities about logic all you want, but the fact of the matter is, this was CLEARLY designed.

The caterpillar is a very basic answer that everyone knows, because evolutionists have no answer for it.

"But, but - we'll find out later!"

When you're looking at the universe on a micro or macro level, when you're looking at the solar system, when you're looking at the Earth and the creatures on it, it has all been clearly and obviously designed.

There is no such thing as macro evolution. There are strict limits to variation that are never, ever, ever, ever, ever crossed. Breeders know this.

^This is why we have never, ever, ever, ever, observed macro evolution, only speculated upon it, even in experiments that have been designed to test it. The odds against this kind of beneficial mutation occurring on so many levels simultaneously makes it a mathematical impossibility. 
Micro-evolutionary changes do not ever lead to changes that go beyond the DNA that has already been programmed into the animal.

1) "We'll find it out later" - Well, probably not...no one is invested enough to do genetic research into the development of caterpillars, unlike for human evolution.

2) Macro evoltution does indeed exists, and there are no known limits to variations (beyond physics laws). Breeders only witness micro evolution since it requires much much more than a few generations to significantly change characteristics. Human beings havent been recording history long enough to witness large scale changes in person. Again, the unkown does not discredit the known.
"We live in a society exquisitely dependant on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology" - Carl Sagan
Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/11/2013 12:35 PM

Re: Sad Sad Sad 



beempty wrote:
JABier14 wrote:
beempty wrote: It is adorable that you believe that a butterfly just RANDOMLY went into a cocoon one day and happened to come out as a butterfly and then over time the whole species (which started from one caterpillar/butterfly with a genetic mutation) eventually started doing that all the time because it survived.
Lol

It's particularly sad you are stuck on your rather simplistic reasoning in the case of the caterpillar (which by the way, you likely have just taken from answers from genesis or some other religious group). Macro evolution takes place over a very long span of time, significantly longer than human history. You assume simply because science does not currently know specifically how caterpillars evolved to metamorphose into a butterfly that this somehow means there was some being designing it. This is a logical fallacy. Information that is unkown does not discredit information that is known.
Again, you can speak in generalities about logic all you want, but the fact of the matter is, this was CLEARLY designed.

The caterpillar is a very basic answer that everyone knows, because evolutionists have no answer for it.

"But, but - we'll find out later!"

When you're looking at the universe on a micro or macro level, when you're looking at the solar system, when you're looking at the Earth and the creatures on it, it has all been clearly and obviously designed.

There is no such thing as macro evolution. There are strict limits to variation that are never, ever, ever, ever, ever crossed. Breeders know this.

^This is why we have never, ever, ever, ever, observed macro evolution, only speculated upon it, even in experiments that have been designed to test it. The odds against this kind of beneficial mutation occurring on so many levels simultaneously makes it a mathematical impossibility. 
Micro-evolutionary changes do not ever lead to changes that go beyond the DNA that has already been programmed into the animal.
Noone has adequately explained how a single-celled organism which propogates itself by splitting in half, could evolve into two separate organisms, of opposite sexes, with anatomically compatible sexual parts, and continue to propogate the species while it makes this conversion. 

Explain how birds were able to adapt to flight, when knowledge of science, high and low pressure, lift, thrust, drag, weight, etc. are absolutely essential to flight. 

How humans continued to survive while our blood learned how to clot after an injury.

How the proper foods with the proper nutrients evolved on this planet to feed all of us.  How we "evolved" our teeth to be able to eat them.  How long did we have to survive until our taste buds were able to distinguish between harmful and healthy foods.  

How did we evolve to have fear without all of us dying without it? Walking off a cliff, getting eaten by animals we weren't afraid of.  

Creation is an obvious possibility and was what 100% of the world believed (including every scientist in existence) until believing in a deity was too much for human ego to digest, and we became to focused on doing what we wanted, instead of following the laws of God. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings.  The inherent blessing of socialism, is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/11/2013 12:43 PM

Re: Sad Sad Sad 



JABier14 wrote: 

1) "We'll find it out later" - Well, probably not...no one is invested enough to do genetic research into the development of caterpillars, unlike for human evolution.

2) Macro evoltution does indeed exists, and there are no known limits to variations (beyond physics laws). Breeders only witness micro evolution since it requires much much more than a few generations to significantly change characteristics. Human beings havent been recording history long enough to witness large scale changes in person. Again, the unkown does not discredit the known.
1) Oops, wrong again. Where do you think the information on caterpillars we have now comes from? Of course people have been invested enough to do research on caterpillars, it's how we know that they can't be explained by Darwinism lol

Just think about it for a minute, but this time, do it with some intellectual honesty:
One day, a caterpillar is born with a genetic mutation. At this point, he is just a caterpillar, since the "butterfly" transition is also a GIGANTIC evolutionary jump when you think about the difference between caterpillars and butterflies.
This genetic mutation has to allow the caterpillar the capacity to:
a) Have the physical property to FORM a cocoon AND encase himself in it
b) Have the physical property to TURN HIMSELF INTO BLACK GOO
c) Have the physical property to REMAIN FUNCTIONING AS GOO and transition into an ENTIRELY NEW CREATURE
d) Have the physical property to break out of that cocoon AND KNOW HOW TO FUNCTION AS A BUTTERFLY

On top of all that, the caterpillar in the cocoon has to survive long enough to not get eaten in the cocoon and pass this genetic information on to his progeny.
THEN, who does the butterfly mate with? Another caterpillar? Does there happen to be ANOTHER FEMALE butterfly around for him to mate with??

Yea, sounds pretty random to me...

2) Macro evolution absolutely does not exist, and that is why it has never been observed in experiments that account for rapid passing of genetic generations, and it never, ever, ever will. Sorry, but science, observation, and common sense are not on your side on this one.

Let's not even get into irreducible complexity or the formation of the universe and the Earth lol

Last edited 9/11/2013 12:50 PM by beempty

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/11/2013 12:44 PM

Re: Sad Sad Sad 



JameyDB wrote: 

Noone has adequately explained how a single-celled organism which propogates itself by splitting in half, could evolve into two separate organisms, of opposite sexes, with anatomically compatible sexual parts, and continue to propogate the species while it makes this conversion. 

Explain how birds were able to adapt to flight, when knowledge of science, high and low pressure, lift, thrust, drag, weight, etc. are absolutely essential to flight. 

How humans continued to survive while our blood learned how to clot after an injury.

How the proper foods with the proper nutrients evolved on this planet to feed all of us.  How we "evolved" our teeth to be able to eat them.  How long did we have to survive until our taste buds were able to distinguish between harmful and healthy foods.  

How did we evolve to have fear without all of us dying without it? Walking off a cliff, getting eaten by animals we weren't afraid of.  

Creation is an obvious possibility and was what 100% of the world believed (including every scientist in existence) until believing in a deity was too much for human ego to digest, and we became to focused on doing what we wanted, instead of following the laws of God. 
Jordan fades back, SWISH, and THAT'S THE GAME!

POTFD^

/thread

Last edited 9/11/2013 12:44 PM by beempty

Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/11/2013 1:03 PM

Re: Sad Sad Sad 



beempty wrote:
JABier14 wrote: 

1) "We'll find it out later" - Well, probably not...no one is invested enough to do genetic research into the development of caterpillars, unlike for human evolution.

2) Macro evoltution does indeed exists, and there are no known limits to variations (beyond physics laws). Breeders only witness micro evolution since it requires much much more than a few generations to significantly change characteristics. Human beings havent been recording history long enough to witness large scale changes in person. Again, the unkown does not discredit the known.
1) Oops, wrong again. Where do you think the information on caterpillars we have now comes from? Of course people have been invested enough to do research on caterpillars, it's how we know that they can't be explained by Darwinism lol

Just think about it for a minute, but this time, do it with some intellectual honesty:
One day, a caterpillar is born with a genetic mutation. At this point, he is just a caterpillar, since the "butterfly" transition is also a GIGANTIC evolutionary jump when you think about the difference between caterpillars and butterflies.
This genetic mutation has to allow the caterpillar the capacity to:
a) Have the physical property to FORM a cocoon AND encase himself in it
b) Have the physical property to TURN HIMSELF INTO BLACK GOO
c) Have the physical property to REMAIN FUNCTIONING AS GOO and transition into an ENTIRELY NEW CREATURE
d) Have the physical property to break out of that cocoon AND KNOW HOW TO FUNCTION AS A BUTTERFLY

On top of all that, the caterpillar in the cocoon has to survive long enough to not get eaten in the cocoon and pass this genetic information on to his progeny.

Yea, sounds pretty random to me...

2) Macro evolution absolutely does not exist, and that is why it has never been observed in experiments that account for rapid passing of genetic generations, and it never, ever, ever will. Sorry, but science, observation, and common sense are not on your side on this one.

Let's not even get into irreducible complexity or the formation of the universe and the Earth lol
Reading comprehension clearly is your strong suit. Macro evolution does exist, as has been observed in fossil history. It hasn't be observed directly BECAUSE IT TAKES LONGER THAN THE TIME HUMAN HISTORY SPANS TO OCCUR (said this multiple times, still being ignored). Secondly, in the case of the caterpillar...no, one day one was not just born with a mutation that allows it to metamorphose, not a single evolutionary biologist would claim this...it developed though TINY GENETIC VARIATIONS OVER A VERY LONG PERIOD OF TIME...to claim it suddenly popped up with a genetic mutation that miraculously caused the whole process is along the same ridiculously absurd lines to say that an omnipotent being designed it (would have the same amount of evidence for it).

PS: (For the bolded) All credible scientific EVIDENCE points to evolution being correct. What you are referring to are philosophic thought experiments brought by creationists to attempt to attack points of which science has not arrived at an answer yet. This is not scientific evidence. Clearly you are lacking in common sense.

One point I hope you manage to catch on to is the difference between scientific evidence, and philosophic though experiments. Scientific evidence is obtained through observation. What do you observe during a caterpillars metamorphosis that directly shows there is an omnipotent being that designed it?
"We live in a society exquisitely dependant on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology" - Carl Sagan

Last edited 9/11/2013 1:11 PM by JABier14

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/11/2013 2:07 PM

RE: Sad Sad Sad 


Those that are uncomfortable with evolution are that way because they have not evolved far enough.

______________________________________________
Chaos, disorder, confusion, and panic. My work here is done. Follow me on Facebook and Twitter

Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/11/2013 2:11 PM

Re: Sad Sad Sad 


DNA is being proven to operate in a way that indicates it is operating with instructions stored in the aether sort of like set of instructions on the cloud if you know what I mean.

That is indicative of a higher level of design at work and then you add in the effect that the consciousness of the observer creates in the slit experiments with particles and then holographic universe theory and your seeing the beginnings of a theory of everything that easily proves God exists and that the entire universe is just a holographic projection.

Science is well on the way to proving this is the reality we live in and despite the religious fervor of atheists it will happen. Of course the fundamentalists won't like this outcome either so they can all cry in their beer together about being wrong because those who have it right are not extremist absolutists declaring one thing is just this way or that.

The guys who most likely have it right are saying what if more often and using the scientific method along with their imagination far more while being way more open minded than most scientists who have to fall in with the status quo pack to have funding and a career and in that atmosphere the status quo scientists just become another form of religion as far as I am concerned looking to lord over others as being the authority on all that is.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/11/2013 2:17 PM

Re: Sad Sad Sad 



JABier14 wrote: 
Reading comprehension clearly is your strong suit. Macro evolution does exist, as has been observed in fossil history. It hasn't be observed directly BECAUSE IT TAKES LONGER THAN THE TIME HUMAN HISTORY SPANS TO OCCUR (said this multiple times, still being ignored). Secondly, in the case of the caterpillar...no, one day one was not just born with a mutation that allows it to metamorphose, not a single evolutionary biologist would claim this...it developed though TINY GENETIC VARIATIONS OVER A VERY LONG PERIOD OF TIME...to claim it suddenly popped up with a genetic mutation that miraculously caused the whole process is along the same ridiculously absurd lines to say that an omnipotent being designed it (would have the same amount of evidence for it).

PS: (For the bolded) All credible scientific EVIDENCE points to evolution being correct. What you are referring to are philosophic thought experiments brought by creationists to attempt to attack points of which science has not arrived at an answer yet. This is not scientific evidence. Clearly you are lacking in common sense.

One point I hope you manage to catch on to is the difference between scientific evidence, and philosophic though experiments. Scientific evidence is obtained through observation. What do you observe during a caterpillars metamorphosis that directly shows there is an omnipotent being that designed it?
The ironic thing about you attacking my comprehension is that you don't understand that whether this supposed genetic mutation happened over millions of years or a single day doesn't make a lick of difference.
Now pay attention and comprehend: In the case of the butterfly, regardless of how long this "mutation" or "series of mutations" took, they STILL HAVE TO HAVE AN ULTIMATE END IN MIND. They still have to have a goal that they are working towards in the future, since it turns into an entirely new, functioning creature lol. It is incredible to me that you can't understand this.
Evolutionary biologists claim ALL THE TIME that this happens, because they lack the capacity comprehend that this type of mutation, regardless of how long it takes, must have a definitive end game that it is progressing towards, or the butterfly would never have happened.

Word definition is not your strong suit, because there has never been a single shred of credible "evidence" to suggest that macro evolution actually occurs.
Again, it is actually philosophy that suggests that it does, since the fossil record and contemporary experiments that deal with generations that DON'T SPAN OVER CENTURIES HAVE NEVER OBSERVED MACRO EVOLUTION. Bacteria, fruit flies, etc... the list goes on.
Never happened, never will.

The mathematical odds of all of these tiny genetic mutations happening over time is a MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. Please, please, please do yourself a favor and do the research yourself instead of listening to these people feed you false information.

Evolution gets absolutely destroyed not only on a species level (irreducible complexity, etc.), but when you take it back to the time when life started to initially develop (and not even taking the formation of the universe/world into consideration), even Richard Dawkins himself wouldn't dare claim that Darwinism holds any water.

*throws grenade into junkyard*
*perfectly working airplane complete with engine, stewardesses, and cocktail napkins forms out of the explosion*

Last edited 9/11/2013 2:24 PM by beempty

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/11/2013 2:18 PM

Re: Sad Sad Sad 



JameyDB wrote:

Noone has adequately explained how a single-celled organism which propogates itself by splitting in half, could evolve into two separate organisms, of opposite sexes, with anatomically compatible sexual parts, and continue to propogate the species while it makes this conversion. 

Explain how birds were able to adapt to flight, when knowledge of science, high and low pressure, lift, thrust, drag, weight, etc. are absolutely essential to flight. 

How humans continued to survive while our blood learned how to clot after an injury.

How the proper foods with the proper nutrients evolved on this planet to feed all of us.  How we "evolved" our teeth to be able to eat them.  How long did we have to survive until our taste buds were able to distinguish between harmful and healthy foods.  

How did we evolve to have fear without all of us dying without it? Walking off a cliff, getting eaten by animals we weren't afraid of.  

Creation is an obvious possibility and was what 100% of the world believed (including every scientist in existence) until believing in a deity was too much for human ego to digest, and we became to focused on doing what we wanted, instead of following the laws of God. 
Just thought I'd quote this again lol
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/11/2013 2:20 PM

RE: Sad Sad Sad 



1Techsan wrote: Those that are uncomfortable with evolution are that way because they have not evolved far enough.
Those who are uncomfortable with God are that way because they don't have the fortitude to accept responsibility for their lives and their actions.
We will all be judged for our intentional arrogance, unbelief, and cowardice.
Get right my friend.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/11/2013 2:31 PM

RE: Sad Sad Sad 


Bee, please refrain from posting to any of my threads.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 7  Next >