Posted on 05/01/2006 8:29:14 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
I don't use the term "heathen". I prefer atheist.
Thanks for the ping! Fascinating...
LOL. There is no lie you won't promote if it opposes evolution. Even after Ken Ham throws in the towel.
It appears that claims of 'misrepresentation' are clearly overstated and irrelevant to the issue at hand. No misrepresentation of the relevant facts has occurred, merely people's opinions of what AIG meant by their article.
Just an excuse to make the claim 'misrepresentation'(!) so that the peeps will go back to sleep.
Who decides what a lie is? You? Scientists disagree about all sorts of things so I guess that makes some of them liars. Therefore, some scientists are liars.
Well said.. Can a "scientist" spin data as much as an ACLU lawyer?.. perish the thought..
The answer is NO, an ACLU lawyer is much better at it..
And there never will be. Because *anything* is compatable with a "created biology". That's one of the reasons it's not science - there's no way to test it.
When an anti-evolution claim is discarded by Ken Ham, it must smell pretty bad. I could give you arguments by evilutionists, but you would dismiss them out of hand.
So I gave you the conclusions of creationists that have studied the footprints.
There comes a time when you need to give it up.
They're just upset because they've been found wrong about something. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG....like all the other times, they will simply develop a list of excuses and yell curses at IDers and creationists. I'm beginning to really appreciate their nasty ways because it is so unpersuasive. LOL! WHAAAAA...and so much of the public still doesn't believe them. LOL! I have an idea. Maybe they can ridicule everyone some more. That should help. Oh, and especially ridicule their faith. That's especially effective.
It is interesting to note that on these threads those of science think themselves different from others of the population by slight changes and differences that occur by reproduction and nature and that change is ongoing while those of creation still think that evolution, change, and differences do not occur and they are clones. How are clones able to know one clone apart from the other clones or do they?
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Winston Churchill
ID is not a cult
Sure it is. Check its history.
Typical answer from evolutionist b/c we say so - ID simply says that life is too complex too 'evolve' out of nothing.
And astrologers say that the stars influence the daily events of our lives.
Can’t answer the above so you divert to another subject?
I agree.
Lots of people agree with astrology too -- and for very similar "reasons", including gross ignorance of the actual processes, wishful thinking, and being snowed by the propaganda of the practitioners who have something to gain by suckering people.
Sorry, but I don’t fail in line with any of the above.
The YEC make the most sense to me when you apply true scientific methods to each.
ROFL!!!!!!! Gosh, then why do actual scientists overwhelmingly reject the YEC's conclusions?
I can agree that those who believe in evolutions theories outnumber ID, YEC, and creation by something approaching 100 to 1 (scientists esp. so). Might does not make right with science though.
Sorry, but Young-Earth Creationism is based on gross distortions of the actual evidence. But hey, feel free to "enlighten" us and show us how "true scientific methods" actually lead to a YEC conclusion. This should be fun! Gross distortions seems to abound most with evolution. When I review the scientific method and weigh each piece of evolution evidence, I begin to see many far-reaching conclusions w/o data to back them up. In fact, they often conclude the opposite of what the data portrays.
I've studied all 3 - creation, evolution, and intelligent design as well as criticisms of each.
Translation: You've read the YEC propaganda on all 3, and made the mistake of believing it.
No but here’s another assumption by an evolutionist - right?
You can drive a truck through most of the holes in the evolution theory.
Gosh! Such as? Take your best shot.
Answer anything you wish from www.creationscience.com part I. I’ve never seen an adequate scientific explanation from TOE for these.
The more evolutionists have 'learned' the more time and complexity the theory needs to be even remotely plausible.
Ah, *another* YEC propaganda misrepresentation! Nope, sorry. But feel free to "support" your falsehood with citations to any peer-reviewed science journal article which actually supports your assertion. Go for it! Historical evidence for TOE speaks for itself here.
Sorry, but you're spewing a blatant falsehood. The age of the Earth hasn't been revised appreciably in more than half a century, and back when it *was* being revised, it was revised due to discoveries in physics which allowed the age to be more accurately measured, and in no way due to any considerations from or for biology or in order to accomodate any aspect of evolutionary biology. Even from the time of Darwin, evolutionary biology has worked to fit the theory to the facts (including the best estimates of the age of the Earth at the time), and not vice versa. Well excuse me then – don’t bother reviewing the mathematical assumptions in these dating methods then. Where does the scientific method allow for blatant (normally non-stated by TOE) assumptions when drawing conclusions?
Please try to learn something about science before you make any more false claims about it. Oh, wait, you're a YEC -- you don't *need* no education before you spout off on a topic!
I have an education and have no need to question ones background or ability to review the information presented. It’s called critical thinking. Try applying it to TOE.
In the 1700's many lines of evidence led to widespread doubt about the Bible's 6000-year chronology for the age of the Earth. By the mid 1850's estimates of millions of years were suggested, and the Earth has been known to be on the order of a billion or more years old since at least 1911. Calculations of the age of the Earth were converging on the true age as long ago as the 1920's -- for example: 4.0 billion years (Russell, 1921), 3.4 billion years (Rutherford 1929); 4.6 billion years (Meyer 1937); and 3 to 4 billion years (Starik 1937). The number hasn't changed appreciably since the 1940's, when it converged to 4.5 +/- 0.1 billion years due to advances in analytical equipment (thanks to the Manhattan project).
Well then I guess mankind will re-solve all the world’s mysteries before their own extinction. Just remember - “Pride goes before the fall.”
Maybe your time would be better spent reviewing the holes in the evolution theory.
Been there, done that, found the vast majority of them to be false creationist claims, and the rest to be just areas where research is continuing -- not any kind of "problem" for evolutionary biology.
No problems appear when you can draw conclusion while ignoring true scientific methods.
or even better disproving the Bible.
Why? Do you think it needs disproving?
No, but some very well known and highly educated atheists have tried before they succumbed to Biblical truth.
Two very simple questions from John MacArthur.
1.) How did the rule of law evolve w/o the Bible?
Because people living in groups had to devise ways to get along. Duh!
OK – but Biblical scholars contend it is b/c all of mankind is w/o excuse and understands Godly morals.
2.) How did the 7-day week evolve w/o the Bible?
Because the lunar cycle is roughly 28 days, and that number is most handily divided into 7-day segments. Duh!
I have already heard much better secular explanations than this – interesting point to me it how mankind has come full-circle the world over back to the Genesis 7 day week.
And *both* of your "examples" existed in pre-Biblical cultures. OOPS!
Sorry, pre-Biblical does not compute for me. But thanks for playing…
You YECs just don't bother thinking anything through at all, do you? You just *presume* that everything "must" have roots in the Bible, and that nothing could possibly have come about by non-Biblical means -- and you never bother to actually learn anything at all about the real roots of the things you wave around as "proof". You guys are funny!
No actually I started out following man’s earthly thinking (and rejected my catholic upbringing) before concluding that the Bible is true – maybe you could start w/ Biblical prophesies concerning Jesus. (Also I’m a christian now not a catholic).
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Winston Churchill
ID is not a cult
Sure it is. Check its history.
Typical answer from evolutionist b/c we say so - ID simply says that life is too complex too 'evolve' out of nothing.
And astrologers say that the stars influence the daily events of our lives.
Can’t answer the above so you divert to another subject?
I agree.
Lots of people agree with astrology too -- and for very similar "reasons", including gross ignorance of the actual processes, wishful thinking, and being snowed by the propaganda of the practitioners who have something to gain by suckering people.
Sorry, but I don’t fail in line with any of the above.
The YEC make the most sense to me when you apply true scientific methods to each.
ROFL!!!!!!! Gosh, then why do actual scientists overwhelmingly reject the YEC's conclusions?
I can agree that those who believe in evolutions theories outnumber ID, YEC, and creation by something approaching 100 to 1 (scientists esp. so). Might does not make right with science though.
Sorry, but Young-Earth Creationism is based on gross distortions of the actual evidence. But hey, feel free to "enlighten" us and show us how "true scientific methods" actually lead to a YEC conclusion. This should be fun! Gross distortions seems to abound most with evolution. When I review the scientific method and weigh each piece of evolution evidence, I begin to see many far-reaching conclusions w/o data to back them up. In fact, they often conclude the opposite of what the data portrays.
I've studied all 3 - creation, evolution, and intelligent design as well as criticisms of each.
Translation: You've read the YEC propaganda on all 3, and made the mistake of believing it.
No but here’s another assumption by an evolutionist - right?
You can drive a truck through most of the holes in the evolution theory.
Gosh! Such as? Take your best shot.
Answer anything you wish from www.creationscience.com part I. I’ve never seen an adequate scientific explanation from TOE for these.
The more evolutionists have 'learned' the more time and complexity the theory needs to be even remotely plausible.
Ah, *another* YEC propaganda misrepresentation! Nope, sorry. But feel free to "support" your falsehood with citations to any peer-reviewed science journal article which actually supports your assertion. Go for it! Historical evidence for TOE speaks for itself here.
Sorry, but you're spewing a blatant falsehood. The age of the Earth hasn't been revised appreciably in more than half a century, and back when it *was* being revised, it was revised due to discoveries in physics which allowed the age to be more accurately measured, and in no way due to any considerations from or for biology or in order to accomodate any aspect of evolutionary biology. Even from the time of Darwin, evolutionary biology has worked to fit the theory to the facts (including the best estimates of the age of the Earth at the time), and not vice versa. Well excuse me then – don’t bother reviewing the mathematical assumptions in these dating methods then. Where does the scientific method allow for blatant (normally non-stated by TOE) assumptions when drawing conclusions?
Please try to learn something about science before you make any more false claims about it. Oh, wait, you're a YEC -- you don't *need* no education before you spout off on a topic!
I have an education and have no need to question ones background or ability to review the information presented. It’s called critical thinking. Try applying it to TOE.
In the 1700's many lines of evidence led to widespread doubt about the Bible's 6000-year chronology for the age of the Earth. By the mid 1850's estimates of millions of years were suggested, and the Earth has been known to be on the order of a billion or more years old since at least 1911. Calculations of the age of the Earth were converging on the true age as long ago as the 1920's -- for example: 4.0 billion years (Russell, 1921), 3.4 billion years (Rutherford 1929); 4.6 billion years (Meyer 1937); and 3 to 4 billion years (Starik 1937). The number hasn't changed appreciably since the 1940's, when it converged to 4.5 +/- 0.1 billion years due to advances in analytical equipment (thanks to the Manhattan project).
Well then I guess mankind will re-solve all the world’s mysteries before their own extinction. Just remember - “Pride goes before the fall.”
Maybe your time would be better spent reviewing the holes in the evolution theory.
Been there, done that, found the vast majority of them to be false creationist claims, and the rest to be just areas where research is continuing -- not any kind of "problem" for evolutionary biology.
No problems appear when you can draw conclusion while ignoring true scientific methods.
or even better disproving the Bible.
Why? Do you think it needs disproving?
No, but some very well known and highly educated atheists have tried before they succumbed to Biblical truth.
Two very simple questions from John MacArthur.
1.) How did the rule of law evolve w/o the Bible?
Because people living in groups had to devise ways to get along. Duh!
OK – but Biblical scholars contend it is b/c all of mankind is w/o excuse and understands Godly morals.
2.) How did the 7-day week evolve w/o the Bible?
Because the lunar cycle is roughly 28 days, and that number is most handily divided into 7-day segments. Duh!
I have already heard much better secular explanations than this – interesting point to me it how mankind has come full-circle the world over back to the Genesis 7 day week.
And *both* of your "examples" existed in pre-Biblical cultures. OOPS!
Sorry, pre-Biblical does not compute for me. But thanks for playing…
You YECs just don't bother thinking anything through at all, do you? You just *presume* that everything "must" have roots in the Bible, and that nothing could possibly have come about by non-Biblical means -- and you never bother to actually learn anything at all about the real roots of the things you wave around as "proof". You guys are funny!
No actually I started out following man’s earthly thinking (and rejected my catholic upbringing) before concluding that the Bible is true – maybe you could start w/ Biblical prophesies concerning Jesus. (Also I’m a christian now not a catholic).
Like what? Name one datum that has been "automatically rejected."
Almost all Americans believe in TToE.
cEM = the electromagnetism constant (speed of light in a vacuum)
cST = the spacetime constant (the actual c in E = mc^2)
cGW = the speed of gravitational waves in a vacuum--typically cGW = cST according to general relativity, and if we change the value of c this relationship may change.
cE = the Einstein space-matter constant, which is equal to cST by general relativity, but will not be if c is changed.
Setterfield is changing cEM, but he hasn't derived new functions to determine how this effects the other c's.
Setterfield addresses c in E=mc2 and the gravitational wave propagation must be instantaneous or the planetary orbits are disturbed (you do realize that the earth orbits the instantaneous center of gravity of the sun, right?)
As for cE, Setterfield has addressed E with hc and cST is addressed with his discussion of problems with spacetime expansion in general.
Other whacky problems that can occur with VSL cosmologies are particles or primordial black holes with horizons that balloon to become their own universes or universes in which entropy runs backwards. Setterfield has not done the calculations to make sure that his cosmology does not contain these anomalies.
Well, we have supposed singularities ballooning into universes under current models and you don't see that as 'whacky'? I sure do. IMO, what is 'whacky' is purely in the eye of the beholder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.