Skip to comments.Using Religion to Suppress Debate on Evolution
Posted on 03/30/2009 8:31:35 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
“Board members also deleted a reference to the scientific consensus that the universe is nearly 14 billion years old. The board’s chairman has said he believes God created the universe fewer than 10,000 years ago.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123819751472561761.html
Idiots and morons. The people of Texas had better look to make some changes. I am astonished.
For those interested in GGG’s inextricable ties to the Islamic-Creationist hogwash perpetrated by Harun Yahya, see:
Of course it is. Then add a couple of weeks discussing what filthy heretics the kids' Catholic, Mormon, and Jewish neighbors are, and a week exploring the Islamic-Creationist "truth" that 9/11 was perpetrated by evolutionary biologists disguised as Muslims, and you have a complete "creation science" curriculum.
It doesn’t get much worse that what the Romans used to do to people who made them mad.
“WORSE THAN CRUCIFICTION?”
Your assumption about my “beef” is incorrect. My problem is that the theory of evolution is TAUGHT as fact and that it is not challenged with critical thought or contrary facts presented in the classroom.
“My problem is that the theory of evolution is TAUGHT as fact and that it is not challenged with critical thought or contrary facts presented in the classroom.”
OK—so far, so good. What contrary facts would you present to challenge evolution?
What other facts should be taught?
1) the reliance on the fosil record which has no transitional forms
2) the fact that there is no evidence to support variation leading to transformation
3) the fact that fosils are dated by their rock strata and rock is dated by their contained fosiles (circular logic)
4) the fact that recent DNA studies confirm that the “tree of life” does and could not exist
5) the fact that the fosil record / strata according to he tree of life is not correctly aligned in the vast majority of locations.
6) the fact that there are several instances where there are fosilized tree remains through many layers of sedimentry rock
7) the fact that there is no explanation for the origin of life
8) that according to the fosil record, insects grew wings and lost them several times
9) Anchient DNA shows that modern humans did NOT evolve from Nedanderthals
10) the fact that carbon dating has show that the same animal is several MILLIONS of years difference between different parts of it’s body.
I could go on but I think that is enough to make my point. And that is ... these examples of challenges to the theory are not being presented in school.
Where did you get that? C-14 has a half-life that makes it useless for determining the age of anything beyond 60-80,000 years.
Carbon dating is not accurate PERIOD that is the point and that is not what is being taught in schools.
The body of a seal that had been dead for 30 years was carbon dated, and the results stated that the seal had died 4,600 years ago! (”The Illustrated Origins Answer Book” by Paul Taylor)
Potassium Argon is not much better:
“Scientists got dates of 164 million and 3 billion years for two Hawaiian lava flows. But these lava flows happened only about 200 years ago in 1800 and 1801.
(”Dry bones and other fossils” by Dr. Gary Parker)
One thing at a time. Who told you that carbon dating has shown that the same animal is several MILLIONS of years difference between different parts of its body?
These can be each be categorized in at least one of three ways:
Either way, none rise to the scientific objection standard.
Very nicely done.
As an MD and History major (phi beta kappa and cum laude)-—I learned in school that evolution was fact and those who didn’t “get it” were idiots and flat earth types. I’ve now gone to the trouble to read the evidence—listen to the arguments (Berninski, “Expelled”, etc)-—and it boggles my mind like the elephant in the living room of how specious the theory of evolution is. Unbelievable—the garbage we are ordered to accept. Funny how the evolutionists don’t bat an eye at the miracle of existence out of nothing but suggest there may be some intelligent design at play in the highly complex forms of life we see or in the fine tuning of the Universe and they’re ready to skin you alive.
Stop talking about creation "scientists" that way.
Read post 40. You will find that the original poster’s submission qualifies as shameless out-of-context quote mining yet again.
To compare creds, I have multiple degrees in some very esoteric mathematical fields; additionally, I’m Phi Beta Kappa and SUMMA cum laude. I (and most people) have no scientific quibble with evolution, nor with its compatability with Christianity.
“There is no science in creationism, yet evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.
Fortunately, creationism is out of the classroom.”
So you’re saying that Christianity and Evolution are “compatible”. That comes from where??? So are you saying the Old Testament is invalid, thus rendering the New Testament the only “true” Christian scripture... if that’s so then the New Testament has no legs to stand on because it is filled with references to the Old Testament. Even Jesus said He was not here to do away with the law (Old Testament Law) but to fulfill it. He wasn’t so quick to throw it out. The Old Testament by definition discounts Evolution and specifically chronicles creation. So I guess I’m asking where anything in Christian doctrine taught by either the disciples or Jesus Himself is found to be remotely supportive of evolution?
Please don’t start the allegory/myth thing with me. If it’s all a myth and, as you believe, evolution is true then Christianity cannot possibly support evolution. That would be the ultimate paradox.
Now if you’re saying neither the New or Old Testament are valid and Jesus was a myth as well then your premise that Christianity and evolution are compatible (considering your faith in evolution as “reality”) is beyond silly.
Are you followin’ me camera guy?
Well isn’t that special - another novel look into the mind of a stark raving ‘absolutist evolutionist.’ Categories schmatergories I SAY YOU PROVE IT!!!
Bucky boy I’ve never seen one shred of science in your threads - all I ever see is:
1. Smarmy over-confident pride-filled replies (possibly LIES)
2. Claims w/o data, nor details nor links (UNSUBSTANTIATED B.S.)
3. Punk a-s juvenile delinquent statements (can you say IRRELEVANT?)
There maybe an ultra slim hope for you if you had ever read anything delving into the rich science behind creation - truth might start to crystalize for you. You posts show zero knowledge of that which you so frequently criticize.
Start by reading creationscience.com if you have any gumption at all.
“Please dont start the allegory/myth thing with me. “
Allegory is not myth.
The bible is allegorical.
Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.
“Bucky boy Ive never seen one shred of science in your threads”
You wouldn’t recognize science if you sprinkled it with wheat germ and ate it for breakfast.
But right back at ya: I see no evidence of Christian confidence in your posts—just the outward signs of a perilously weak faith.
“Start by reading creationscience.com if you have any gumption at all.”
Ah, yes...one of the echo chamber sites for creation rationalization. The place to be if your Christian faith is on the fence!
“Allegory is not myth.
The bible is allegorical.
Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.”
Blah, blah, blah... repeat it enough times and somebody might buy it other than the Evo’s.
No disrespect intended but that’s bull. There is allegory in the Bible but I’m tired of arguing the extent with folks who pick and choose based on their predisposed belief in evolution. You didn’t answer the post anyway.
Typical. I’m trying to be Christian about this but your brand of Christianity doesn’t jibe with the Word of God and I hate heresy.
Not biting on that one... try another angle.
When you have to use footage of Hitler to prove a point you have already begun to lose.
I answered your post fully; my statement regarding allegory addressed all of your points.
Have any creationist links that do not insist the Universe/Earth are less than 10,000 years old?
Of course not. Any such conclusion would require at least a smattering of science, and science is forbidden.
“I answered your post fully; my statement regarding allegory addressed all of your points.”
Then I have to assume that evolution is allegory as well. Or can I mix my facts with my myths?
I guess when the rules are pliable you can do anything you like.
“Then I have to assume that evolution is allegory as well.”
You can assume anything you want. However, if science is allegory, you would have to explain the advancement of the human species since the time of the ancient Egyptians. Of course, you’d be off the hook for the period of religious oppression of science and reason during the dark ages.
Science is verifiable and falsifiable. Faith is neither. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. Faith is outside the domain of scientific inquiry. Faith and science therefore coexist. Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.
“You can assume anything you want. However, if science is allegory, you would have to explain the advancement...”
Dang it! Can’t evolutionists follow a line of logic past the first couple of words?
What I’m saying is if you:
A. Believe evolution is true
B. Believe all the Word of God is a myth
C. Believe Christianity is based on a myth
D. Believe Christianity and evolution are compatible
then evolution and the bible must both be allegory. Definitive “evidence” of evolution as science preaches it is in no way scientific. There are too many millions of holes in the evolutionary process for it to be anything more than theory... by definition theory does not = proven science.
I tried explaining this to another Evo the other day and he could not follow me either. Please just answer this one question for me.
If evolution is scientific fact then that would conclude there are literally millions of steps from one species to another. If the early species are most primitive and the remaining are more advanced there are millions of more advanced species between the most primitive and the most advanced... say man to monkey or any other range you want to specify. Where are the examples, the living examples... the fossil examples of this? I don’t care about some single missing link. I don’t even believe that would prove anything. Where are the millions of transitionary species?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I think you are arguing with the teleprompter reader.
Excellent point, GG! I had never thought of it that way. But you are spot on.
“I think you are arguing with the teleprompter reader.”
Yes... and everytime I post a reply to one of “them”.
I just love the way it raises my blood pressure. Makes me feel like I’m in a racecar.
LOL! TOTFR. LOL!
“I had never thought of it that way.”
I haven’t had one address the question directly... always some gobbledygook about “it’s just not that simple to answer” or “that’s not the way it works”.
I’ll keep asking until one of them finally says there is something they do not know. Then I’ll die a happy man. That way I’ll never have to die.
First, take a deep breath and have a cup of decaf.
I did answer your question—you just didn’t like the answer. Furthermore, you continue to ust the word “myth”. I specifically noted that allegory is not myth, but yet you persist.
Bottom line: I really don’t care.
You use the term “scientific fact”:
“If evolution is scientific fact then that would conclude there are...”
Evolution is not scientific fact. It is a scientific theory that is supported by substantial observational evidence and which has morphed significantly over the past 150 years. Moreover, if credible evidence is uncovered, verified, and presented (preferably in that order) that contradicts the theory in its entirety, it will be abandoned.
Can you say the same about creationism?
Really, creationism is not science. It is rationalization.
You will never die anyway. I think that’s another reason why the Evos hate us!
“One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000. —Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30.
“One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the “wood immediately around the carcass” was 9-10,000. —Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30
“The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. —In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124
The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 670 and 16,150 230 years respectively.” —In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124
“A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, [Carl] Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans.” —Kaufman, Leslie, “Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us?” Newsweek (December 23, 1996), p. 52.
Ok, error on my part thousands not millions. That still does not change the FACT that carbon dating is wildly inacurate and that FACT has not and is not presented during the teaching of evolution theory.
“First, take a deep breath and have a cup of decaf.”
Number one... I NEVER drink decaf. It’s against my religion.
Number two... You’d be surprised how calm I am. I just write that way... it’s my little pressure relief valve.
However... that’s the answer I expect. “I did answer your questionyou just didnt like the answer. “
Have you answered the question as to where all the millions of gaps are? I don’t expect that you will answer it or even think through it much as you would have to abandon your faith... and we all know how hard that is.
==Really, creationism is not science. It is rationalization.
Is that why the Evos keep telling us the Universe, our solar system, the Earth, and all life merely give the illusion of design, but are really just the product of blind processes that did not have us in mind?
Regarding the Vollosovitch mammoth, the first site my web search turned up was this:
If it’s this easy to call BS on you evidence, I won’t bother with the rest of the claims.
Faith is outside the domain of scientific inquiry. Science does not analyze the mind of God. Why does a minority of Christians persist in this line of attack on reason?
How is inferring that the fine-tuning of the universe, our galaxy, our solar system, the Earth, and all life is in fact what it appears to be an attack on reason?
Substitute the name of any FR YEC for Luther!
Thanks for posting the carbon dating thing... that’s what I was discussing with someone the other day.
Let’s say for instance I have a level on a refrigerator. The front is about a 16th of an inch off at the back of the level. Not a big problem, huh? Well let’s say that the level and the refrigerator are two miles long. What would be the distance between the level and the refrigerator at the end of the level then?
If something carbon dated to be 100 years old was off by say, a minute, a day and a half or even a week that would not be such a big deal. However, how far off does that put it at 200 years... 500 years... 1000 years... 100,000 years... 10 million years.
I’m far from a scientist, but how do they square that kind of innacuracy and still call it reliable? And I think the rate in carbon dating grows exponentially.
And what we cannot know or take into account is how the environment and the “evolutionary process” (to use their language) might have affected the deterioration of carbon over the millenia.
Can you tell me if I’m misunderstanding something about carbon dating?
I’m not supprised. Zelots are often not willing to accept any contrary evidence as it threatens their religion.
“There’s nothing “proven” in science (outside mathematics). “
Hey, friend... I have no problem following logic in factual, tangible evidence. But there is not enough of a body of evidence to prop up evolution as fact or even as plausible theory. It’s just been used as an educational tool to explain something none of us have physical “proof” of. Bones and fossils... theories and suppositions. There is still no one who seems to be able to tell me where even a few hundred of the millions of transitional species are. Dog - wolf... I get it. But I want to see some of those subtle changes in living beings. Show me a line of 30 subtly related fossils. There are just way too many holes to justify the evolution religion that exists.
At least we as Christians have the good graces to call our reliance on God “faith”.
“Where are the millions of transitionary species?”
The claim of a lack of transitional forms is a red herring, which is itself, of course, a transitional form between yellow herrings and purple herrings.
There are many ways to look at the progression of life’s evolution. Although the complete article requires a payment, you can start here and then go the the library:
There are other possible explanations as well—you can do your own research.
Oh, and as the above link is to New Scientist, your soulmate GGG ought to be in complete alignment with the article. Just make sure that his quotes accurately reflect the meaning of the author.
Horrors! Is nothing sacred?