Since when is it okey to listen to criminals on how the schools should teach kids? Did i miss something or what?

on a side note: Evolution is not a religion because of this, "In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next." and i recon it's the kind of evolution he's arguing against even if he tries to blame it for more than it should.
(source: wikipedia)
>_< this is so god damn retarded! They're never gonna listen to anything he says when he get's out of prison. I mean evolution is an observed fact derived from scientific ideas and principles. I know this is a bit a fallacy, appeal to authority, but i watched a tv-program with Richard dawkins about darwin and his ideas the other day. Dawkins talked to Darwins grand grandson and he said Darwin was a man that was fascinated by odd facts. Data that didn't correlate with the established thoughts and i think that shows a good picture of Darwin. He found things that didn't match with what was said and did research on it. Unlike Creationist scientists, he did it by the scientific method. He was first to formulate a working theory for the observed facts. Creationism wasn't right 150 years ago, why would it be right now?


Question to creationist: Is there no change in the allelefrequency over time?

The comment I posted on the CSEblogs.com site, since it will probably be censored/removed there:

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

If you truly believe that an idea is only scientific if it can be proven, then you are stunningly-ignorant of the purpose and practice of science. There is only a single scientific field where theories can be conclusively proven: mathematics. So you're essentially suggesting that all science education should be scrapped, except for mathematics.

Your reasoning boils down to "either something can be proven, or it's a religious belief" - which is the fundamental flaw in your argument. Just because a theory hasn't been proven, that doesn't make it a religious belief; unlike religious beliefs, a theory needs to be supported by evidence (otherwise it's called a hypothesis).

That's why rationally-minded people reject supernatural claims and religious beliefs: claims unaccompanied by evidence are assumed to be false.


And, by your reasoning, science education should teach that astrology really works, the Earth doesn't take a year to orbit the sun, and lasers work by focusing sound waves. At least if you're intellectually-consistent - because those are also beliefs held by the majority of Americans.

Oh, and I see that you're resorting to the old trick of trying to muddy the waters by lumping evolution in with scientific fields that have next-to-nothing to do with evolution - like geology and cosmology.

"And, by your reasoning, science education should teach that astrology really works, the Earth doesn't take a year to orbit the sun, and lasers work by focusing sound waves. At least if you're intellectually-consistent - because those are also beliefs held by the majority of Americans."
- I usually say the fact that rick astelys "never gonna give you up" was voted the best of in the world on a poll. Or George bush, the best candidate doesnt alway win :D

 

Or the fact that Britney Spears' records have outsold The Beatles, Louis Armstrong, and Django Rheinhardt combined.

 

I'm personally fond of this quote (can't remember who said it, sadly):

 

"Billions of flies eat shit, but that doesn't make it Haute cuisine."

Or "bullshit spreads like wildfire in a crowd". I think it fits very well in this forum =)

Well lets get out the dictionary.  Let me see?  Yup Kents right.  We have a government enforced national religion supported by tax dollars enforcing unsubstanciated doctrines and if you step out of line you get to sit next to Kent.  By the way we had the same question last winter.  It was a religion then and Ill be dogoned it still is.  Wording is important.  Evolution is a natural process.  The theory is a religion. 

now where does he say that dear?

a life

 

Did you bother reading the page that was linked in the original post? As 30 seconds of effort is apparently too much for you, here's the quote:

 

 

Which would effectively limit science education to mathematics, since it's the only scientific discipline where anything is ever considered proven.

 

Riiiiiiight. That must be why Michael Behe, William Dembski, Ken Ham, etc, are all serving prison terms too.

 

...oh wait, they're not? Just Hovind? Huh. And I guess it must also be a coincidence that he's the only one of the bunch to have a long and public history of committing tax fraud.

"Evolution is a natural process.  The theory is a religion. "
- This is a bit of an oxymoron since the theory explains the fact. If you would accept evolution as a natural process you have to accept the theory. It's the map that shows how all the processes come together and work and what laws it follows.

The Theory of Evolution is the explanation for all relevant observations regarding the development of life, based on a model that explains all the available data and observations. Thus, evolution is not only a fact but also a theory, just as gravity is both a fact and a theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

Yeah it addresses one of your fine arguments and why they are the same.
And why would it be logical to resort to the creationist religion instead of the "evolutionist religion"?

Too bad you cant read.  What Kent is saying here is that according to his interpretation that is what the federal court ruling banning religion states.  Seems hes got a valid argument.   Take your time.  it will come to you. 

 

Your wrong a lot of science is demonstratable but theories are epistemic.  You cut out epistemic evaluations and you must remove all of them. 

Theories are very usefull to science.  To cling to one like a drowning man is not.  If Darwin had operated under this program he certainly would not have discovered anything new.  I cannot speak with authority on current research but in the past biology has clung stubbornly to outdated  theories that had already been discarded by other fields of science. 

 

I dont know who that last quote is from but my personal opinion is for an old earth.  When the Bible says in the beginning God created Heaven and Earth it certainly doesnt say the beginning was 6000 years ago nor does it say it coincided with the creation of man, plants and vegetation.

 

  This does not mean that the life we now know was created millions of years  ago or that it evolved or devolved greatly to its current state.  I am certainly not arguing against evolution .  some evolution is certainly apparent.  I am saying we should be carefull about what we teach that cannot be evidenced because impressionable minds swallow this as fact as evidenced by many of the answers here.  

 

Science is not a popularity contest.  If 90% of the population believed the earth was flat that would not change the shape of the earth so if these 2 quotes are from the same document I would think a lot more thought could have gone into it.  I wouldnt conclude with either statement. 

Evolution is demonstratable.  The entire theory is not and that fact is not clearly defined unless you can find some updated theory where this is made apparent?  I would certainly like to see that theory.  It would clear up a lot. 

I spent a few years as a bouncer in a bar.  When situations arose I didnt need to fight everyone in the bar, just make an example of one. 

 

So, as an answer to my question ("it must also be a coincidence that he's the only one of the bunch to have a long and public history of committing tax fraud"), that would be a "yes"?

 

And can you back that conclusion up with any actual evidence? Otherwise, you're just parotting the same old fundie conspiracy theories - which are nothing more than the adult equivalent of a belief that there are monsters hiding under your bed.

 

That's utter gibberish.

 

How can a process be demonstrable, but not the theory that describes said process?

 ¨ The entire theory is not¨

 

no, the entire theory explains WHY evolution is demonstrable.

 

have you even an idea what a theory is?

 

natural selection, THAT´s a theory. quantum mechanics, THAT´s a theory. cell theory, atomic theory. a theory explains fact. you´re trying to tell us that a theory is something which it´s not. itś not some holy doctrine, itś not some farfetched ¨i guess this happened¨ claim. itś a collection of proposed mechanics that are capable of explaining reality to the point that they can make accurate predictions.

 

EVERY scientific theory, is CONSTANTLY used, and subsequently CONSTANTLY updated.

pull your head out of your ass and follow soem evolutionary biology courses already. quit with this stupid ¨multiple ToE´s¨ crap.

Simple chart:

 

Evolution-----FACT

Why evolution happens------THEORY

 

an a similar vein:

 

Gravity-------FACT

Why we have gravity---------THEORY

If you're going to attempt insulting the literacy of other posters, you just might want to educate yourself on how to spell "can't" and the difference between "your" and "you're." Any reasonably-bright 6th grader should be able to explain it to you.

 

 

Only to science illiterates - which describes the vast majority of creationists, while also explaining most of Hovind's success.

 

Except that the ruling Hovind referred to specifically barred Santa Rosa County School staff and employees from "engag[ing] in prayer or endors[ing] religion." Sorry, nothing about "cut[ting] out epistemic evaluations" in there.

 

Hey, congratulations - you've finally realized a few of the things that most of us have been trying to get through your skull for the past 6 months now.

 

 

So.... why are you here defending a stridently anti-evolution young-Earth creationist like Kent Hovind, again?

 

Hanntonn,

 

Is evolution is taught as a science or a religion? What religious tenets are atrributed to evolution? Do you know the definition of survival of the fittest?

Problem: Evolution does not require nor exclude a god from the process.

 

 

 

What about humans, gorillas and chimpanzees? Are we not both apes?

 

Hitler never referred to evolution or Darwinism to what he was doing. Read Mein Kempf to see that he refers to God for his actions.

 

Evolution does not deal with the origins of life nor the Big Bang. It is obvious that you have been brianwashed by the Chick Tracts. REad an encyclopedia, do the research and get educated.

"molecular biology and physics and other theorical science courses might contain theories, but they are thought as such."

 

haha...hahahahahahaHAHAHA.

 

THEORETICAL SCIENCE?

please take that back. there is nothign theoretical about me spending 8 hours a day in a lab running enzyme analysis with PAGE gels.

 

nor is there anything "purely theoretical" about the LHC either.

 

btw, ALL sciences employ theories. they are the models which we use to explain our observations, and make predictions.

do not confuse the colloqual temr with the scientific one.

 

"these theories haven't been disproved and that is why they are still thought."

 

soo, if you want to disprove it. go ahead.

 

"Evolution is a belief that doesn't start from observation (because many facts contradict evolution)"

 

uch.

and these facts are?

 

hint* i can observe my bacteria mutating to the environment i expose em to. same with my fruitflies.

 

"that has been disproved"

 

?? when?

 

"and that is only in school to support atheism"

 

riiight, and that's why ken miler is a catholic.

 

"If we should get religions out of schools, then, evolution should get out."

 

you have yet to explain why

"3. Biology

"kinds'

ahem.

 

will you please brake the huge stalemate between a discussion of LONG ago and give us a taxanomical level or definition of the word "kind".

since we've been waitign for that for.....when was it that the question was posted? 6 months ago?

 

"why there are similarities ------- theory"

 

no, in science it's not just "why" but also "HOW".

 

"Evolution (kinds comes from one another) -------- belief"

 

hint*

gentic variation accumulating over large peroids of time under different environmental factors, gives different results.

 

for an easy example. see E. coli.

"They think that animals have changed since they have similarities."

 

no, we think they change because we can SEE EM CHANGE.

take a DNA sample from your parents and yourself.

compare.

see the difference? there. evolution at work.

now stick a 100 people in a malaria ridden country, denying them all the preventive measures we have nowadays.

and watch the sicklecell anemia allele frequency rise..

 

"Dr. Hovind pointed out that they could only have a common creator."

 

1) it's Mr. hovind.

his thesis wasn't varified by any respected institution. and he doesn't even allow us to read it.

 

2) how did he point this out? because as far as i know. he only pointed out his ignorance of molecular genetics and biology in general.

 

"(in fact, we should say that dogs and wolves are of the same specie as of horses and zebras, but they can no longer reproduce due to geographic isolation)."

 

NO.

 

DIFFERENT taxanomical classifications.

their (of all these 4) commen ancestor would have looked nothing (thought the lines of the commen ancestors of each close related species do tend to blurr into one another) like any of the 4, lacking hooves, and all the distinctive feature of what makes a canes a canes and a equus a equus and all....

please. let's keep the biology in the discussion man.

 

"atheists ---------------- common ancestor (faith in atheism)"

 

fossil record.

mutation rates backtracked coupled with conserved genesequences, viral markers,  distribution of the relatedness of the step by step metabolic processes in ALL living cells relative to their genetic difference.

 

really there is SO much data there.

 

"Some think that people become atheists because they see the logic of evolution. On the contrary, they become evolutionnist because they are atheists."

 

noo, im pretty sure you first look at the real world and THEN you consider what sorts of thinks you should believe based on what you see.

 

"that it puts egoism as the principle of action of animals and also of Man."

 

you should leanr a LOT more on this subject.

because the fittest doesn't mean the most egocentric and is altruism is actually quite egotistic in evolutionary terms.

 

"If evolution was true, we should think Hitler was not a bad man"

 

eeh, no.

he killed millions of people, was a deranged nut, and abondoned and spat on the very nation that had supported im till his last moments.

i do NOT call that a good man.

 

"he was only someone who wanted to be the best adapted to his environment."

 

where on earht did you get that idea?

hitler wanted power. and he wanted a pure german race. and a classical christianity inspired german empire.

 

he wasn't concearned with the long temr genetic effect of the humans species at all.

 

"He didn't achieve his ideal, but it was not something contradicting evolution."

 

that scentence makes no sense.. how can any organism "contradict" the environmental preassures that eh is subject to?

 

"Anyone should try to do what Hitler did if he has the power to try it."

 

no? because he'd be a complete jackass, and would probably doom a large part of the human population, not to mention all the social strife he would bring.

 

"Evolution leads to egoism and to think our own reality is the only one that is important."

 

the world reality is misplaced here.

and evolution works at the species level, not the induvidual level.

"you might try so hard to get your "white spot gene" passed on, but if your great grand son doesn't score any chicks with it, your genes are screwed."

 

"Evolution is a religion that has faith in coincidence."

 

since when is anythign that works via the natural laws "coincidance"?

 

" evolutionnists still have faith that matter can come out of the void."

 

!!!!!!!!!!strawman alert!!!!!!

dude. you just exposed us you ignorance on the big bang theory.

noone ever said all the energy just "poofed" into existance. and that's not what the big bang theory deals with anyway. it's deals with that energy condensign into matter and expamding the spacetime continuum.

 

ironically it's the creationists who opt for "creation ex nihilo".

 

"The beginning of life is something impossible without God."

 

noooo, just look at organic chemistry.

really there's nothing "miraculous" about the B-galactisodase working on ONPG, it's just chemestry.

 

"A cell cannot survive without a certain number of proteins and genes and proteins and genes are only formed in already existing cells."

 

eeeh, you do realise that all the unicellular organism we witness today have had at least a mere 7.7^13 generations to specialze into their current niches.

that's a whopping 2^99+ (my clac only goedt to E99) of genetic variaties from the simplest template.

and we are STILL researchign how basic we can get a functioning cell.

in fact.

smalles we got is

and that's STILL pretty compelx biochemically. you could probably function with a few less genes provided if you have the right substrates to use.

 

"Believing that life has formed accidentally in the past is the same than believing that a rock could appear in my hands instantly because proteins accidentally formed would have to form a cell rapidly in order to survive."

 

no it is NOT the same as "a rock.."

nothing in chemisrty happens by "accident" and neither does life.

you seam to know only the most superficial thing about microbiology and molecular genetics. please read up more on it.

i suggest "molecular biology of the cell vol5 (the one i currently use)"

for starters.

 

"The chances of that happening are too near of zero to be something other than a miracle even if the principle of that event is coincidence instead of God"

 

hehe.

if somehting can happen in nature it WILL happen.

but tha'ts besides the point.

near 0=/= god must have done it. and it's not even that "near 0" as you think it might be.

 

and from your source

 

"They prefer not to use the older name, "spontaneous generation.""

 

AUW THE IGNORANCE. this alone is enough to prove the point that the author has no blody idea what abiogenisis is, let alone the currecnt state of the research. we came a long way sicne Stanly Miller.

 

"Proteins could not get together with DNA in a primordial soup because DNA does not form outside of cells either. Scientists can't even make DNA in the laboratory."

 

because apparently a spontaniously formed fospholipid bilayer isn't where we claimed DNA or RNA was first formed...nor that we said that we started with RNA first...

 

ya, REAL well researched...

 

"that an infinit bibliotheca of DNA patterns"

 

what?

it IS possible, just keep linken them nucleatides and you can keep going untill you run out of em. question is: "will it stil contaitn initiator sequences?"

 

" Love in something we should teach instead of egoism"

 

and love wouldn't be one of those things that have a huge evolutionary advantage now would it./...

irony.

 

"if a miracle happens, we should not think coincidence could do such a thing, this is irrationnal."

 

a basic course in statistics would clear up a lot of so called "miracles".

 

"Finally, The sciences should not teach that every animals comes from one another if they are unable to find a way to prouve how this could happen naturally."

 

"He, we have a 0.5% variation between these two species.

he, this 0.5% could have hapened because of these environmental factors and the subsequent mutation of this gene that shut of the capacity to breed with these genotypes"

srly, it's not that dam hard. certainly not when we have the fossilized bones of things looking a hell of a lot like each other, but then diverging as you go forward in time.

 

"But this is impossible to prove because there are no different kind of species that has a similar DNA with another kind which would make it possible to study that process."

 

??

plasmids.

conserved genes.

genesplicing, insulin.

really. what's the problem?

 

"Since then, Evolution becomes an idealism because it is impossible to study anything about it."

 

yes i can study the phenotypical and genotypical variations in both unicellular and multicellular organisms. really, read up in the journals.

 

"These are the reasons (there are even more) why evolution is a religion."

well then list em, because this doesn't convince anyone with even a basic understanding of the relevent fields of science.

"the difference between gravity and evolution is that gravity happens all the time."

 

no, they both happen all the time.

grab a microscope, some gene sequencing equipment. and research.

 

"But evolution cannot be seen, it is not reproducable"

 

i just did it yesterday in my bachelor lab. i used the pAPRA plasmid in competent population.

we had a 0.0003% transformation rate.

and if you look at the agars....pretty observable if you ask me...

 

"and there are no fossils that shows evolution (transitionnal fossils)"

 

REALLY

do you REALLY think you are beign honest here?

WOW now that was hard.

 

"Therefore, evolution does not explain any facts."

 

no, it IS an observed fact.

the theory goes and explaisn this fact.

 

" It is a pure myth."

you haven't convinced me, nor any other scientifci literate.

sorry.

 

"Asking why kinds of animal are similar while they show no signs of evolution"

 

-_-

 

"is like asking "who created God?""

 

which wouldn't nullify the entire cosmolocial argument now would it?

why exempt god from the rules? why ad in another step while you might as well just draw a line at the energy?

 

" If mutations usually produce unhealthy creatures,"

 

USUALLY beign the keyword here, even though it's likelihood would refer more to "nothing happens" in eucaryotes (YAY, non coding DNA).

 

"I don't ask myself "why are there colors?""

 

you DON'T???

you really ought to wonder more about this universe we inhabit....

in this case it's the photons and the receptor protiens in out eyes, coupled with the neurological recognition of the synaptic signals released whena  photon exictes the protien.

 

"it is that way and it is simple."

 

well i, and the rest of the scientific comunity DO want to know "why".

and knowign "why" has generated some nice perks..like that "magic" box you are currently sitting in front of.

 

"There could not be a universe, I couldn't be there."

and so...

"But everything happened to be that way and it is fine."

=god?

no.

 

"Evolutionnists have a phobia of trying to explain everything as if everything is organised in such a way that the reality builds itself."

 

*well all those forces DO seem to be at work al the time you know..

 

"But at the end of their argument, they say that all this organisation came from a serie of accidents."

 

i wouldn't be callign the weak, strong nuclear forces, electromagnatism or gravity "accidents".

 

"Even if one accident of that kind could happen, to believe that every accident would be coordonated to make something well organised as this universe is completely irrationnal."

 

aaah, the statistical impossibility paradox.

think of it this way.

this universe is just one of those infinate posibilities. but since this is what it DID turn out like, these are the tings that happens (natural phenoma) and here's how we think they work (the scientific models).

 

"The universe would look like a chaos if evolution was true."

 

not sure why you are referring to evolution while you aren't referring to living things..

 

 

 

"evolution and the Big Bang comes both from atheism"

 

nope, they came from the scientific method, which came from natural philosophy.

 

"Hitler based his actions on the darwinism since he believed that the aryans were more evoluted and the jews almost animals."

 

lawl..

darwinism.

seems like we got another 9tails on the way here..

 

hitler apparently flunked his biology class if he thought "that the aryans were more evoluted and the jews almost animals."

 

carefull you are not only pissign on science here. you're pissing on all hitlers victems.

and i'm not sure i'm liking this seeign as i've been to Bergen Belsen and all.

 

"but it can't exclude God. That would be irrationnal."

 

indeed, and that's why science sais NOTHING about god. and can thus NEVER e used as any evidence for a god. because if we can explain it with natural means, we don't need supernatural.

 

"Humans are also apes, but the differences of DNA is too great so that both be of the same kind of animal."

 

i'm gonna ask this any way.

define "kind" please.

 

oh and taxanomically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate
and from there it pretty much shows itself..

 

 

"I must add that chimpanzees would need a mutation to become human."

 

?

w8

the would need a LOT of mutations in very specific places before they would genetically be a human.

 

"But mutations observed are never beneficial to an animal."

 

that is such an outright lie, i cannot beleive anyone who even the most rudementery understanding of biology can say that....

NYLONASE, pARPA (or any drug resistant bacteria or fungi)

 

"Most of the time, it is fatal."

 

and in eucaryots, most of the time, it does NOTHING.

we have loads of non coding DNA. so the muationts aren't even expressed at all....

 

"*K*Nowing that"

 

"falsely assuming that"

 

"We should ask ourselves if chimpanzees are not descending from humans since they are less evoluted."

 

1) the word is EVOLVED

2) had they been descendent from humans we would have found the viral markers that all humans have in chimps (+ some new ones they aquired on their own). turns out we share a lare portion of em. but they don't have all of ours, and neither do we have al of theirs.

mmm just what the branching process of evolution would predict...

 

 

"evolution and the Big Bang comes both from atheism. They follow the same processes of accidents. Hitler based his actions on the darwinism since he believed that the aryans were more evoluted and the jews almost animals."
- As 325 stated, it's based on natural philosophy. It does not say anything of a/or god/s. Also Hitler was a stern Catholic. There are a number of quotes from "mein kampf" where he clearly says he is doing gods work by extermination the jews. Also you know what was written on nazi beltbuckles? "Gott mit uns" = god with us . Yeah that's totally atheistic...
http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerFaithGod.htm
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1417,Hitler-Was-an-Atheist-Who-Killed-Millions-in-the-Name-of-Atheism-Secularism,Aboutcom


"Evolution could be true with God but it can't exclude God. That would be irrationnal. "
- It is irrational to choose the god card when we got a natural explanation. There's nothing substantial and valid evidence for god so why turn to an idea that is in no way proven or even got anything to back it up?

"I must add that chimpanzees would need a mutation to become human."
- A mutation? How about a large quantity accumulated over generations and generations. You yourself contain atleast 10 mutations in your genome apart from your parents.

"But mutations observed are never beneficial to an animal..."
- As i said, we all are mutants. 99 % (or something really high) of mutations are neutral and neither beneficial nor detremental. That's why we got the Neutral theory of molecular evolution. It's a theory that adds what the original evolution theory couldn't explain. Guess you didn't know that one did you?

"Most of the time, it is fatal."
- You have no clue do you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_mutation

"Nowing that, We should ask ourselves if chimpanzees are not descending from humans since they are less evoluted. "
- But you don't know... You've showed that so clearly. And nothing is more or less evolved. If we are all decendant from one common ancestor then we have all evolved equally as much. I mean bacteria isn't less evolved than us humans. In fact bacteria is by far the most well spread organism and with most adaptability it can survive on many locations that we cannot.
Examples of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barophile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithoautotroph


I have a feeling that you are just gonna spam your flawed arguments and then run off without acknowlede anything we've said. Please rebute our answers for your claims. Or you're just trolling like so many others.

"They follow what the world is thinking, they associate what the ignorant agressive believer is saying and doing with the belief in God so that when a person say that he believes in God and make a War right after, they will say that believing in God is bad because believers are so stupid."
- 1 sentence -.-'  Makes it rather hard to read tbh. No that would be a fallacy since it does not follow. We here on the other hand calls people stupid because they speak about something that they clearly have no knowledge of and think that they are right. Beliveing in creation because the bible says so is also stupid.

"positive mutations do not exist."
- Look, it does. That's a fact. It's a fact that Nylon can only be synthesized in industri and labs. It's a fact that there are bacteria who have mutated to be able to use nylon as a carbon source while no other can and never had since Nylon is not a naturally occuring molecul.
Examples of beneficial mutations:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

Also a mutation is not defined positive or negative towards you, but to the organism or population. You personally might concider antibiotic resistancy a bad thing, but for the bacteria its a good thing since it can survive despite a toxin.

"When a bacteria becomes resistant to an antibiotic, it is because it loses some permeability so that the molecules of antibiotic will not fit to the right proteins and won't kill the bacteria."
- You don't know what antibiotics does in the cell do you? No worries, I'll describe it for you.
All antibiotics that are derived from penicillin have an active group in it's molecul called beta-lactam. When a bacteria evolves a resistancy towards an antibiotic it will create an enzyme called beta-lactamase. Essentially it cuts away the lactam ring from the antibiotic and splits it form it's side groups and makes it useless. Now there is ofc other sorts of antibiotics  that work a bit differently. Like tetracycline, that in the cell inhibts protein synthesis. Ampicillin acts as a competitive inhibitor of the enzyme transpeptidase, which is needed by bacteria to make their cell walls. The sidegroups and molecular structure of the antibiotic is a factor that decides what sort of bacteria it can diffuse into. For example Ampicillin has an amino group that makes it pearmeable for some gram-neagtive and all gram-positive cells! There are some cases of bacteria lowering permeability for a drug, but it's not complete since it will always get in. In many cases of permeability we speak of bacteria who evolved a "pump" to pump out the harmful antibiotic and decrease intracellular concentration. Some binding sites for certain antibiotics (not the common ones) can be changed also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta-lactam


"Actually, the bacteria has a recessive mutation that is to is advantage. You will never see a mutation that will be both advantageous and positive."
- Oh you mean like resistancy to HIV and AIDS?
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=1635

"You are falsly assuming that chimps have a lot of genes in common with humans."
- 33% difference according to an article and experiment in 2005.
http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/report/2005/science2005/pdf/nature04000.pdf

"Only a little amount of genes have been compared between both species. "
- Yeah in 2003 it was 7600 genes. How many do you think it's now?
And i quote the article i gave you, "We applied the whole-genome shotgun sequence detection
(WSSD) strategy by mapping 23.7 million reads from chimpanzee
against the human genome reference".

"So, you are assuming something you don't know at all. "
- Look above? Do i assume it? You're the one with no sources for your claims. Don't ever call anyone out on "assuming" when you can't show your sources at all. You assume a lot man.

"Then, when I talk about mutation, I mean to change something or to add something to the DNA. I am different from my parents, but I took every information of my DNA from theirs. If I become too different from them even if it's through my children, I will die. I won't become a chimp. accidents do not build itself structures as if it had a thought. This is easy to understand."
- Yeah if you failed to grasp one of the most fundamental mechanisms behind evolution. Adaptability is gold. The more changes in the genome of an organism the greater the chance for it to survive in case of an environment change for example. But to much change and the genome will become very unstable and it wouldn't be to any advantage. For example, lets say you where born with a genetic mutation that makes you grow a lot bigger than others. Then you wouldn't survive and reproduce since the rest of your body wouldn't have had the time to adapt to that change. Your hearts size is not governed by the genes that makes your bones grow. So you will have trouble pumping up the right amount of blood to your head as a result of a heart with lower capabilities. You would have problem running and swimming etc. But if you get a slightly longer body than the regular people and you get offspring who inherit this longness and pass it on and on and on. If your mutation get's to accumulate in enough generations the rest of the body can adapt to it with slight changes. NO ONE MORPHS INTO A MONKEY!

If your parents had a mutation that gave them some advantage over others, say intelligence. You would get it as well and perhaps increase it. There are always mutations between generations and within families. That's just how our DNA works.

And no, mutations are not accidents. Our DNA are made in a way that makes it unstable. It makes us more prone to cancer, BUT we get mutations that can further our survivability. Our repair proteins in our nucleus are not perfect. And i guess you tried to sneak in the "irreducibly-complexity" argument there did you? Many structural changes can occur with one mutation in a gene.


"We are not all mutants."
- Yes we are. We are mutants in the sense that we have mutated the DNA we got from our parents.
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297

"Everyone is different from other people, but they stay within the range that their DNA permits them to go."
- You mean sexual isolation by hybridisation? Like this:
http://www.pnas.org/content/92/7/2519.full.pdf
They test what genes that are altered to stop hydbridization among fruitflys. Essentially how 1 species diverge into 2. That wasn't really what you wanted, but it's an indication of that we are fully aware that some mutations are limiting reproduction. Again the change you are talking about is to detremental for an individual to have happen in 1 generation.

"This is why before Today, the specie of the Dog could give birth to more diversified descendants. One could be like a wolf, another like a dog, another like a hyena. But because of geographic isolation, animals lost infos in their DNA and this is why a chinese is not born from an european and vice-versa."
- You do know that dogs and wolfs are considered sub-species because they can interbreed? A perfect example of how larger morphological changes can occur during a large number of generations.

Oh and did you get it before? I hope so since i don't wanna write the same thing over and over and over...

"The DNA doesn't diversify itself through time, it gets less and less diversified. This could explain the races and species instead of evolution."
- But it doesn't. I don't really know if you can say that the DNA "diversified". You can say that a species or life diversified, but the common elements of DNA in any animal is the same. Funny thing came to my mind right now. We share a gene with the common fruitfly that, when inactivated or mutated, does the same thing in us as in them. Alter the eye in colour and function. Guess how long we have to go back to find a common ancestor for that one?

Oh and you can't back up that claim =)

"But I won't discuss more with you guys, because you are "no-life people" always in front of their computers and losing the time of others because you don't search for the Truth, but your truths."
- We use google instead. great tool to find knowledge and information. You should try it sometime ;)

"I know that... I've discussed with other evolutionnists on other forums and it always comes to insults and attacks to the intelligence of others."
- Way to go! Trolling AND a hypocrite. First you insult us ("no-life people") and then you whine and tells us that the reason you woun't stay is becuase it always ends in insults and attacks on the intelligence of others? good job man, good job...

"I've studied a bit of the theory of evolution before (don't think I'm stupid), I know that evolutionnists will make another theory each time they meet another problem to their theory, but they actually have so many theories that it's impossible in a whole life to understand them all."
- Actually that's how science works. We make a theory that explains how a set of facts work or how it's possible. If we find some fact that doesn't add up with our theory, we either discard it or change it. Like with ToE, we added the theory of molecular neutral selection because it supplimented on what was missing from the original theory. It is by no mean perfect, BUT it describes the facts best. If you where a scientist in that field and came up with a better one, well then you'l probably get the nobel prize for disproving one of the most well tested theory in the scientific world.

And yes it's impossible to know all theories in the world. That's why we have certain fields of study. A biologist couldn't tell you much about the big bang since it's not his field of research.

"I understood soon enough in my life that the more a theory is complicated, the more it is false. "
- So by that logic the atom theory must be false. You go google it and schrödingers equation ;)

"That's why I stopped to study evolution when someone proved me in 5 minutes that that theory was false."
- Let me guess? Mr. Hovind the elderly? yeah.... My little brother knows more about evolution by natural selection than Mr. Hovind does.

"But my hearth was open to the alternatives."
- yet you are not willing to hear us out and listen and read what we give you? I mean you might as well hold your hands over your ears, close your eyes and sing "LALALALALALALALALA". If you really want to find out, purely informal ofc, me and 325 would gladly answer all your questions and things that you find to be a problem with ToE. We're not gonna convince you of anything, just give you more info on the subject to make a better understanding of what it really is. As you said "search for the truth".

"The real problem of evolutionnists is that they do not want to accept a God as their master and savior."
- No that's not the problem. How many american scientists do you think is christian? The god question is something creationists dragged into the discussion. We who you call "evolutionists" says that, "god might exists, he might not". Because science is a natural philosophy we cannot include a super-natural entity of whatever form. We just can't test it, falsifiy it, use it in calculations and theories. All the chrisitian scientists have the mentality that god might be the one starting it all up and uppholding the rules that is our natural laws, but no one belives that a global flood shaped the earth since there is no natural evidence for it. They've seen the evidence for evolution, accepted it as the best describer for all of life as a naturally occuring event. I myself have christian friends, but the god issue is not a problem. It doesn't exclude one or another.

"In the other cases, they are ignorant confident in their teachers and won't accept to question their beliefs."
- Here's a thought: Maybe it's because we can back all our statements up with studies and links and pictures and calculations etc. While you (or any other for that matter) have not been able to even supply a single link. In this case google is your enemy since every single creation argument you can get out of google has been debunked the way i adressed your arguemnts. Try it sometimes ;)

"As I said, I just posted once to give my idea, but it's impossible to discuss with an evolutionnist and not to be considered stupid and with some culture. Bye Bye."
- And we thank you for it. You can discuss what you want, we aren't the one running. Bye Bye, tell your friends! ;)

" making mankind the intellectual superior being therefore being his own god."

 

how in the world does beign an intelectually superiour beign to all other forms of life make you a "god"?

 

if anything, we should be whorshipping all those microbes and plants keeping us alive by providing us with metabolic pathways that we lack.

 

oh and you do know that "knowing good and evil" is a poor charactarsitic for defining something as god.

what about omnipotence? wouldn't that be a better key charactaristic?

"because evolutionists are just innocently ignorant intellectuals and that they will not usually understand anything to what is nature."

 

innocently ignorant induviduals ey?

explain to me protien synthesis and the signifigance of using pyrimidine and purine bases in DNA.

 

lets see who the innocently ignorant person is here.

 

"They follow what the world is thinking,"

 

and that mode of thinking (scientific method) has provided us with the very medium we are using now, along with so many othe rmodern conviences.

 

"ignorant agressive believer is saying and doing with the belief in God so that when a person say that he believes in God and make a War right after, they will say that believing in God is bad because believers are so stupid."

 

right there you outline the dangers of basing any action on an beign that is outside of our realm of perception. i can validate any action by claiming it was gods will, and you wouldn't have any way to prove it wasn't. since...he works in mysterious ways doesn't he?

 

" But atheists are so stupid also to think that God is as stupid as those who believe in him."

 

i don't think god would be stupid. from his description in the bible i'd think he was quite the saditic hypocrit though.

 

"positive mutations do not exist."

 

nylonase.

the environment doesn't care what mutation happens. if it's beneficial in the niche the orgnism enhabits it's positive for the survival of the species.

 

"When a bacteria becomes resistant to an antibiotic, it is because it loses some permeability so that the molecules of antibiotic will not fit to the right proteins and won't kill the bacteria."

 

....no they do not lose permeability.

yes the mutations that cause resistance do indeed affect the pore protiens. but that is only one form of resitance. another form would be where the bacteria secretes soemthign that neutralized the antibiotics.

another form is where the cellmembrane is modified so that any antibiotics binding won't kill the cell, or that it can't bind at all.

 

"Actually, the bacteria has a recessive mutation that is to is advantage."

 

you're talking about unexpressed genes in bacteria right? well those are rare. very rare. since when it comes to procaryotes, they usually follow the most economic path genome lengthwise.

 

ofc you could also be talkign about a plasmid that resides somewhere in the population but that is only activated when a certain exhibitor is introduced into the cell.

normally plasmids are transcripted just like the rest genes and produce protien in sufficient quantities. and the plasmids get shared around by bacterial transduction.

 

really...you should learn more on antibiotics before you make such half informed statements. like i said. read "molecular biology of the cell, vol5". that wil lcure a lot of your ignorance.

 

"You will never see a mutation that will be both advantageous and positive."

 

? if it's advantages it IS positive.

what exactly do you mean by this statement?

perhpas you do not understand what "recessive" means in terms of genetics?

 

"Only a little amount of genes have been compared between both species."

 

nooo, the ENTIRE GENOME has been sequenced.

how do you think we know of all those viral pieces of DNA that are litered all throughout our and their genomes.

really you're like 9 years out of date now.

 

"only 40 genes over 100000 have been compared."

 

HAHAHAHA don't play with numbers.

 the human genome only has about 23 000 genes. you're off by a factor of 4 here. not only that, would you mind listenign to how many genes we have in commen with "lowely" microbes?

 

"So, you are assuming something you don't know at all."

 

coming from the man who made a monstorously false claim.

 

" mean to change something or to add something to the DNA."

 

you are forgetting deletions, homologous and nonhomologous recombination....that and duplication.

really, basic biology man...

 

"but I took every information of my DNA from theirs."

 

except for those 50 or so mutations which make you unique from the 50% of all the genetic material you inherited form your parents.

 

"If I become too different from them even if it's through my children"now you will not.

if you're taking morphologically, probably, but then you're probably talking about deformities.

if you're talking about genetics. there's quite a bit that can eb mutated (long live heterochromatin) without you sufferign any affects at all.

oh and, how different from you and your parents do you think i am? and i'm alive.

 

"I won't become a chimp"

no one ever claimed that.

and that would probably never happen anyway seeing as we would somehow need to splice your 2nd chromosone, intorduce all that new viral DNA and mutate a few expession factors. the chances of which happening by human reproduction are virtually nihil.

but then again, this isn't what evolution would predict.

 

"accidents do not build itself structures as if it had a thought."

 

again, WTF are you callign accidents.

i do not call the physical forces, like electromagnatism, accidents.

and you DO realize cells don't think do you? their just chemical compounds acting on one another throught the propertiesd they poses. tha'ts one of the first things you learn in any orgnaic biology class. and one of the basics behind how protiesn work. "This is easy to understand."

 

"We are not all mutants"

 

no everyone IS.

if you even accumulated 1 mutation from your parent's geneome you ARE a mutant.

 

"Everyone is different from other people, but they stay within the range that their DNA permits them to go"

 

???ehm DNA changes accumulate in generations, not lifetimes.

and what do you think are the limits this DNA has when given an infinate amount of time to replicate with a 1 in 10^7 mutation rate in replication?

 

"This is why before Today, the specie of the Dog could give birth to more diversified descendants."

 

Dog is not a species. it's a qoloccial term for the the subspecies C. l. familiaris

 

"One could be like a wolf, another like a dog, another like a hyena."

 

nooo, you need quite a bit of selective breeding from wolves before you can even reach something we would qollocually call a "dog". and a hyena is so far removes forma  dog your entire claim is laughable.

 

" But because of geographic isolation, animals lost infos in their DNA"

 

lost the info's?

as in...the chances that these different environments selected for accumulated untill the point where the animals could not interbreed and started to differe morphologically?

 

"and this is why a chinese is not born from an european and vice-versa."

 

no, they are born chineese, because their parents belong to that ethnical group of humans. there are still differences between the europeans and aisan peoples which when expressed produce different morphology.

please...learn more before you make such half assed claims.

 

"In the past, this could happen."

 

??what? cite source. or are you suggestign they had a commen ancestor? if so, then then the "europeans" and "asians" wouldn't look so dam different from each other.

since...we all seem to take after our parents.

 

"The DNA doesn't diversify itself through time,"

 

observation sais it does. modeling sais it does. simple reasoning sais it does. really now...WHY doesn't it?

 

"|it gets less and less diversified." exibit A, test animals, exibt B, replication, mutation and accumulation.

 

"But I won't discuss more with you guys, because you are "no-life people" always in front of their computers and losing the time of others because you don't search for the Truth,"

 

 

coming from a  guy who's knowledge of biology appears extremely superficial. i would advice you not to discuss with us atm, since we got the articles to back up what we say. and you clearly do not even have a good understanding of what you are talking about.

 

"I've discussed with other evolutionnists on other forums and it always comes to insults and attacks to the intelligence of others."

 

if this is the level of your responses...i can't blame them for insultign your intelligence. really...you're not that much more special then 9tails or kent.

 

"I've studied a bit of the theory of evolution before (don't think I'm stupid),"

 

your posts strongly suggest otherwise. since no one with a basic comprehension of ToE would even think of saying "One could be like a wolf, another like a dog, another like a hyena. But because of geographic isolation, animals lost infos in their DNA and this is why a chinese is not born from an european and vice-versa."

 

especially not worded like that.

 

" I know that evolutionnists will make another theory each time they meet another problem to their theory,"

 

??when your theory can be modified to better fit the fact you SHOULD do it in science..you seme to be confusing modification of a scientific theory with the non sequitering of apologists.

 

"but they actually have so many theories that it's impossible in a whole life to understand them all."

 

no it's not. it'll take you 1.5 years if you're willing to spend 4 hours a day attending college. you are extremelt pporly informed on the scientific method and the term "theory" in science.

 

"I understood soon enough in my life that the more a theory is complicated, the more it is false. That"

 

just asinine.

 

"why I stopped to study evolution when someone proved me in 5 minutes that that theory was false."

 

now for the sake of intrest. HOW did he do that?

oh an i think you stopped studying way to early if what you're basing all your statements on is what you think ToE would predict.

 

"But my hearth was open to the alternatives. The real problem of evolutionnists is that they do not want to accept a God as their master and savior."

 

somehow i think you should change the word "alternatives" to "god"...

 

"In the other cases, they are ignorant confident in their teachers and won't accept to question their beliefs."

 

you have no idea of the scientific caliber of the people lecturing in universities do you?

 

"but it's impossible to discuss with an evolutionnist and not to be considered stupid and with some culture."

 

from your responses alon i can tel it's useless to argue with you on ToE because you are so dam pporly educated on large chunks of biology and genetics, let alone what the theory would use to explain em.

 

read up, and skype me. this lack of education can be removed.

 

"Bye Bye."

 

"run away, run away!"

 

 

"I know that there is always a way to rationalize a false idea when you don't want to see the truth."

 

i see...with detectors uncovered.

 

"As I said, the more a philosophy is complicated, the more it is false."

 

??

 

"Every question in science might be answered by evolutionnists even if they are wrong because they are always searching for an answer that won't recognize God as the master cause."

 

oooooooh, THIS line of reasoning.

dude, we want natural explinatiopns because

1) we cannot test for god

2) no one can even define god consistantly

3) saying "goddunit" explain anything, let alone allow you to make a model capable of predicting things.

 

"Even if there is some evidence of the creation as finding an unfossilized bone of a dino,"

no WHERE did we find that?

are you talking about the antartica misquote?

really...you should learn to read more into sources.

 

"So, I won't lose my time sending you links."

 

avoiding the proof of burden ey? why is this not suprising...

what evidence? If you got a claim, back it up or gtfo. Fine if you want a intellectually honest discussion, but you better back up your claims man.

ok, you seem honest. I found multiples links about unfossilized dinos bones.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/dinosaurbones.asp

 

http://creationwiki.org/Unfossilized_dinosaur_bones

 

These two links refer to bones from Alaska

 

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i7n.htm

 

This one is from another source.

 

 

But As I said, there is always the evolutionnist way of view. They invented a new type of fossilization on the Dawkins forum. As if blood cells would survive 65 millions years. If you don't have registered there, you won't see the topic.

 

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=94400

 

Anyways, I've just found that. That doesn't proove I'm right, but that does prove on my sense that evolution is a religion. Evolutionnists have no clues how this new type of fossilization is occuring, but they still believe it happens. And this is for every facet of the theory. They have no clue how evolution could work, but they still believe it. So, for me, that theory is a religion because you must believe in it in order to think it make sense.

"http://www.jstor.org/pss/1305145?cookieSet=1"

 

no where in that paper does it suggest that the bones are younger then the strata they where uncovered.

 

all it says is "stained dark brown with little permineralization".

 

wow, did you even read the dawkins. net links?

do you even know how fossolization works?

 

now THIS is the paper the entire thing hinges on and the article quoted by creation wiki was written by

"Laurie Appleton"

who isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to paleontology.

 

this is perfect case of people who have no good understanding of paleontology interpreting somehtign in an entirely wrogn way.

 

and from you other site.

"Other researchers might find similarly preserved soft tissues if they split open the bones in their collections"

 

again, astonishing ignorance.

 

soft tissue CAN be preserved, but it isn't perserved as soft tissue, it's the minerals that perserve the cellular structure of the soft tissue."

 

damm...and that took so little time to look up.

 

 

 

but to be safe.

can any geologist or palentologist here explain it to hanntton?

I'm sorry Hannton, creationwiki is not a valid source and tbh neither is regular wikipedia. If i source something from wikipedia it's meant to use the links and sources for that wikipage. Problem is creationwiki has almost no sources. Like this from the page you supplied:
"Both the dinosaur and woody materials have been dated by Carbon-14, and the dates obtained are between 9,800 and 50,000 years. "
There is no source to this claim at all. No calculations, no studies, nothing. How are we suppose to know that it's true and not what someone random who wrote it thought it sounded good.

"http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i7n.htm"
I suppose this is the source of the other link you gave:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4379577.stm

Very interesting reading, BUT it never said anything of actual blood cells surviving. They spoke about a lot of proteins and macromolecules that could surive or leave remnants. The DNA is a very unstable molecule beucase of mutation rate and adaptability.

Also the bone is dated to 65 million years.
From one of the links:
"Nowhere in the article did she ever mention that the presence of soft tissue in these dinosaur bones might be evidence that dinosaurs lived much more recently than 65 million years ago.

Since unfossilized dinosaur bones are being found more commonly, and frozen mammoths with flesh still on the bones are well-known, it has become impossible for evolutionists to deny the discoveries. So, they see without seeing. That is, they proclaim it to be a previously unknown form of fossilization, or simply accept the fact that organic material can survive for millions of years given the proper conditions."
If the bones where dated to that time why would the tissue date any younger? It's like he searches for things he doesn't understand and then use it in his evolutionistic conspiracy theory.

All the other links is gone from that site. so we cannot verify any of them. Also its an argumentation. A discussion and conclusion. There's no numbers to aid the argumentation. No calculations etc. Some appeal to authority and quptemining. And some non-sequiters because some line of thought from the auther is just incredible hard to follow if not impossible.

I can't get into the Dawkins site and frankly i don't care since Dawkins don't mean shit to me. It's true some advocates of evolution are assholes. I personally think it comes from them not really knowing so much about it, but just want to ridicule people for believing in something (in their eys) very stupid and different.

Well our whole life doesn't become different if the ToE was disproven as in your case.  We don't have to worship anything or anyone. We don't believe in something invisible and undetectable. So i don't understand your reasoning behind that conclusion.

I'm very happy of all your answers. I'm learning a bit with you guys because of your hard work. I actually didn't look very much at the fossile dino problem. I just sent these links to see your reaction in order to prove something else. I seems that it worked out. I'll tell you wath it is at the end of my answer.

 

First, Someone's ass has been kicked by...., the link you sent was not the source of the other one because your link was from an evolutionnist as i can see on how the text is written. On the other hand, the person that made the link I sent said that she has talked to Dr Mary Schweitzer. The link your sent present only the evolutionnist position (this is an other way of fossilization, but you see through the text that the scientist is improvising an answer). He doesn't know what was found. He didn't even see and tested the fossil.

 

 

 

 

      As I said earlier, The evolution is a religion by the fact that people that believe in it are commited to it like someone that is commited to his religion. For sure, I won't question my beliefs unless I see something irrefutable against them. But it is not the case for now. You might win on some points, but it is mostly because all the evolutionnist science is full of probabilities and suppositions. creationnists cannot contradict evolutionnist beliefs because there is a little place that you may be right (if your assumptions are true) 'cause evolution is an idealism.

 

     being committed to a theory and not trying to prove the opposite theory is the fact of fondamentalist religious people. So, for now on, I will call people that believe in and do not question evolution (the fondamentalist ultra-religious evolutionnists).

 

And you, Molecular biology brain, I must tell you that if the theory of evolution is wrong and that you don't matter, you are right that theory is not your religion. But it not so for other evolutionnists. And also, if the theory is wrong, how will you explain the existence of life without the God explanation (you might not get into a religion, but you might have to chose theism as your personal religion). Anyways, for most evolutionnists, it does matter if the theory is wrong because they cannot accept the God explanation (or as Dawkins said: the God delusion). That is what makes the evolution a religion. If it was not a religion, teachers would have to prouve the theory to the students to teach them the evolution. If they are unable, they should not fail them for not believing the evolution theory. It is often the case. So, the evolution is a political religion (everyone must accept it in the courses) (but it might not be your personal religion).

 

I surely missed some points, but anyways.

 

 

I can barely make heads or tails of this posts, it reads like it was originally written in English... then translated into another language using Babelfish... then translated back into English

 

But, sweet merciful crap:

 

 

 

 

Hey, it's a religious version of the "you have no life and live in your mother's basement" flame. Also known as the last resort of uncreative people when trying to come up with an insult in an online argument.

 

 

Whereas you just compare people to Hitler and Nazism. Much, much more mature and civil.

 

BTW, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

 

 

That statement is so stupid that it's physically painful. See that glowing thing in front of you? Do you have any notion of the complexity of the theories responsible for the existence of any given component in it?

 

 

Oh yes, my hearth is open to them too. Creationist and ID literature makes excellent kindling, since it's usually printed on such cheap paper.

 

 

...except for the fact that the majority of Christians are "evolutionists." Whoops!

 

1. Premise...

 

 

2. Argument.

 

 

Uh, argument?

 

 

3. ...conclusion? Profit?

You guys are very funny so I like to answer you.

 

It is strange that you make the rules then you judge others of not knowing something. There are no creation scientists in the relevant level because of censorship, man. How could they ever possibly express creationnist views if they will lose their job.

 

Then, you criticize my comment about the article. You should have seen by yourself that the scientist comment was reported only to support the RoE. This scientist had not seen the fossil so how could he be relevant for that research. Fossilizations happen differently, I am not against that, but I am against the idea that they are million years. They could fossilize in few centuries.

 

I said that evolutionnist scientists need to provide sources that come from neutral sources only because they are liers. On of the last books that came out trying to prove evolution was actually not proving evolution, but criticizing christianity. So, it was meanless.

 

the guys making the vaccines are actually liers also because vaccines are bad for your health, but this is an  other topic.

 

You cannot provide links other than evolutionnist to prove your points, but I can prove at least that your theory is wrong by citing only evolutionnists. But I will not here because I am just chatting superficially Ha ha.

 

Bones could be fossilized even if dinos had died only during the Middle Age. How do you know it would not be fossilized?. No scientists has ever waited enough to see if bones can or cannot fossilize in 1500 years.

 

You said also that scientists date the strata and they then date the fossil knowing the strata they are in. This is pure ideology. They do that because when they date the fossils, it often gives another date then the strata they are in. But you did not think about stratigraphy before believing those liers. Stratigraphy is based on the principle of superposition. This is pure bullshit. How can it be that during million of years or thousands, anyways, the deposits in a strata would be always of the same mineral. It's because they could not think that these stratas could all have been formed during a flood 2900 BC. They did not know that the stratas are formed based on the principle of density where the densier particle gets on the oceanic floor first and then other particles. That would give the same age for every strata, so they do not like that.

 

Refering back to the comment I made about the nazis, I would say that evolutionnists often suggest that he believed in God. I'd say that he believed in the Gods (maybe of the Greeks or the Egyptians), but not of the christian God for killing people like that. But it is not a Godwin argument to say that evolution causes nazism. This is true. If I believed in evolution, I would surely do like Hitler to speed up the process of evolution. Killing the inferior races is certainly the solution to make our specie evolute. I would kill people with profond genetic deseases, the weakest, the ugly people also maybe. This would help reinforce our genetic. I'm certain no-one of your can convince me that I can't do that because there is no God, so I make the rules.

 

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

 

YAKBCB sent this link some time ago.. I've seen it just a bit. It's only showing examples of mutations made with human help (which is not evolution, it's intelligent design). It gives two types of mutations if I've seen them all (which are not mutations) they are : Duplication of segments or Translocations. These are reproduction of existing information, not mutations. I don't know why also evolutionnists try to understand how evolution works if it should be caused by accidents. If this is true, why are there rules. Accidents do not happen according to a rule. This is pathetic. Also, the second rule of Thermodynamic shows that the universe is breaking apart into disorder. How could evolution be true if it works against the second rule of Thermodynamic.

 

I'm also coming back to the bacteria resistance to antibiotics thing which I didn't have much time to look. how in the world should a acquired resistance to deseases should be considered evolution. These are no mutations. It's a process that is possible in an organism to make him survive. The creator thought knew what he was doing when he created the world, that's all. There are no new caracteristics that are added to the bacteria that makes it better or more intelligent. That won't happen, no danger. Acquiring resistance is still a natural process that doesn't not depend on evolution.

 

Ok, now, I will define Kind if you want. I do not know what were the original kinds. What is possible to know at least would be as example that every spiders come from two original spiders, every ants come from two ants, every flyes come from two flyes, etc... Evolutionnists often laugh about that, but they believe we all come from a rock, so who is the most stupid?

 

The Kinds of animals are defined by the possibility of a reproduction with other animals of their kind at their creation. Since time and geographic isolation created races, some of them cannot reproduce with other animals of their kind and we call that a new specie. There is no mutation there, but limitation of information.

 

The link ahead also said that a very high percentage of the DNA of a human doesn't code anything. But it doesn't mean that because you don't know the purpose of something that is doesn't code anything. You just don't understand it. At least, it doesn't say that it is useless.

 

One last point, I said before that evolutionnists don't know how evolution works and this is true. If not, why scientists are always getting a new version of the RoE out.

 

writing

"natural selction
sexual selction
genetic drift"

 

is no proof for evolution. These are just words. And also, I don't understand why evolutionnists are only studying cells for mutations. If there is a mutation created by them the cell will more surely survive because it has more capacity, but animals can't be so much manipulated. This is an other reason why evolution won't work. Mutations are either neutral or harmful. So, you don't prove that evolution works here, on the contrary, it proves that it don't work when you can't study it on bigger animals.

 

Evolution will never be proved. If it had, they would have made sensation of it in the news during many months to celebrate their win against creationnists. It won't happen.

 

 

¨It is strange that you make the rules then you judge others of not knowing something. There are no creation scientists in the relevant level because of censorship, man¨

 

noo, even in thier OWN journals you cannot find any scientifci papers that pass peer review. really..do you think we DON´T actually read your sides arguments?

you must think  we are

 

¨They could fossilize in few centuries.¨

 

auw...i feel the hovind crap here.

listen you cannot cherry pick those few cases wher e it has happend quickly (for reasons we know) and then claim ALL fossils take that long to form.

 

¨I said that evolutionnist scientists need to provide sources that come from neutral sources only because they are liers.¨

 

ok, so youŕe callign scientist liers, how about you back up that claim by showign us a source where it is clear to see we are lying?

 

""On of the last books that came out trying to prove evolution was actually not proving evolution, but criticizing christianity. So, it was meanless.""

 

that's because we don't publish books to support science, we publish researhc paper in journals, my little creationist.

 

"the guys making the vaccines are actually liers also because vaccines are bad for your health, but this is an  other topic."

 

ok, go get smallpox and die then.

really i would have expected this much from creationists.

you have no idea how the immune system works do you? nor how viral pathegens work...

 

"You cannot provide links other than evolutionnist to prove your points,"

 

you're "science consiracy" thinking at work.

really get a science education.

 

"but I can prove at least that your theory is wrong by citing only evolutionnists. But I will not here because I am just chatting superficially Ha ha."

 

makign grand claims and then walkign away from the proof of burden...why am i not suprised...

 

"Bones could be fossilized even if dinos had died only during the Middle Age. How do you know it would not be fossilized?."

 

because it take specific circumstances for soemthgin to fossilize in the first place.

but that's irrelivent to the point. the main problem that you are dealign with is the strata layers we keep findign dino's in.

 

"No scientists has ever waited enough to see if bones can or cannot fossilize in 1500 years."

we find bones that are 25 000 years and older, yet we do not find any consistant amount of natural fossils that are that old...

mmmmmmm

 

"They do that because when they date the fossils, it often gives another date then the strata they are in"

 

cite source for claim?

and no, we date fossils by their strata or by any markers we find on em. like pollen.

 

"How can it be that during million of years or thousands, anyways, the deposits in a strata would be always of the same mineral."

 

-_- because you don't even seem to understand their formation, not geoprahpy...i'll not even answer this one.

frivers don't suddenly dissapear you know, and not all strata are from millions of years of deposition.

 

't's because they could not think that these stratas could all have been formed during a flood 2900 BC."

 

if they WHERE, it would be one huge layer that was hydrolically sorted and we should find all kinds of fossils in random order....and that's not what we see when we actuaklly start digging. precambrian bunnies...

"They did not know that the stratas are formed based on the principle of density where the densier particle gets on the oceanic floor first and then other particles."

 

you've never strata before have you?

 

" I would say that evolutionnists often suggest that he believed in God."

 

Well... Hhitler WAS a catholic..."GOTT MITT UNS!" remember? or just read "mein kampf"

 

"I'd say that he believed in the Gods (maybe of the Greeks or the Egyptians), but not of the christian God for killing people like that.""

 

i think Hitler and a large part of the Nazi party (and Martin Luther himself) would beg to differ..

 

"But it is not a Godwin argument to say that evolution causes nazism. This is true. If I believed in evolution, I would surely do like Hitler to speed up the process of evolution."

 

if hitelr would have based his actions on ToE, he wouldn't have dona  dam thing and let nature run it's course. but then again...that response isn't suprising comign form someone who has no idea what evolution actually is.

 

"Killing the inferior races is certainly the solution to make our specie evolute."

 

removing genetic material form the genepool.

ya..REAL SMART EVOLUTION-WISE>.....

 

" I would kill people with profond genetic deseases, the weakest, the ugly people also maybe."

 

great that your such a homicidal and cruel person.

 

'This would help reinforce our genetic."

 

and remove all the felxibility from the species....causign us to die of real fast to some new virus...YAY...

 

"I'm certain no-one of your can convince me that I can't do that because there is no God, so I make the rules."

 

to bad the rest of societ does aswell, and if you even think about laying a finger in anger on another human being we'll hunt you down on lock you up.

 

freaking "you have no morality" always pisses me off..

 

"mutations made with human help (which is not evolution, it's intelligent design)"

 

nooob..

we didn't mutate the genes.

the genes did that themselves, we mearly created the the selective preassure, just like the sun does withthe climate, or other species do via co-evolution.

 

"Duplication of segments or Translocations"

 

which ARE mutations. as in biology anythign that alters the nucleotide sequence IS a mutation, this includes point mutatiosn AND recombination.

WAY TO KNOW YOUR BIOLOGY!

 

"These are reproduction of existing information, not mutations."

 

no, the genenome sequence was chagnges, new information was produced.

i splice up the word in this scentence and i make an ENTIRELY diffent scentence.

GJ AT KNOWING YOU GENETICS!

 

"I don't know why also evolutionnists try to understand how evolution works if it should be caused by accidents."

 

because selecting preassures select for things.

GJ AT KNOWING YOUR ECOLOGY!

 

" If this is true, why are there rules."

 

above

 

"Accidents do not happen according to a rule"

 

ya they do, they are the mutaitons, the ENVIRONMENT is the thign that defines the "rules".

 

"This is pathetic."

 

indeed your attempt to do biology is pathetic.

 "How could evolution be true if it works against the second rule of Thermodynamic."

 

1) disorder there is used to indicate the homogenous spreadign of energy (the energy distributes itself evenly)

2) because all the enrgy life uses on earth, is lost by the SUN. via photosynthesis plant and cycanobacteria put this energy into organic compounds, which are then introduced into the foodchain via predetation.

GJ AT KNOWING YOUR ECOLOGY AND PHYSICS!

 

"I'm also coming back to the bacteria resistance to antibiotics thing which I didn't have much time to look."

 

aparently from your remarks at the time you didn't. whcih doesn't suprise me in the least.

 

"how in the world should a acquired resistance to deseases should be considered evolution."

 

because it help the bacteria straisn survive...DUH!

 

"These are no mutations."

 

those drug resistant strains of staph and TBC beg to differt.

 

" It's a process that is possible in an organism to make him survive."

 

which is....changes in the nucleotide sequence via mutations, which produce a mechanism to better deal with antibiotics, this genetic information is then spread throughout the population because most of the non resistant bacteria die off, until finally only the drug resistant bacterias survive.

 

POW! you have evolution via natural selection.

 

"The creator thought knew what he was doing when he created the world, that's all."

 

apparently he did when he came up with a mechanism to have the bacteria do it all by themselves. killing his precious humans of in the process.

 

"There are no new caracteristics that are added to the bacteria that makes it better or more intelligent."

 

1) antibiotic resistance was a newly added characteristic

2) antibiotic ressitance is clearly beneficial to the bacterium in an environment where the antibiotic is prevelent.

3) "more intelligent" isn't always better.

bacteria pwn all all the other living things by far.and evolution is NOT A LADDER. it's a bush.

 

"Acquiring resistance is still a natural process that doesn't not depend on evolution."

 

evolution IS the natural proces that allowed for that trait to come into existance. how you can even debate this is INSANE...

 

"What is possible to know at least would be as example that every spiders come from two original spiders, every ants come from two ants, every flyes come from two flyes"

 

...so you intent not to defien them at all.

the indian and african elephant could not have speciated in 6000 years. does that mean there where 2 "kinds" of elephant on the ark?

 

"Evolutionnists often laugh about that, but they believe we all come from a rock,"

 

no we do not you. not my fault you don't feel the need to educate yourself, and are stuck making such a rediculus jackass of yourself.

 

"so who is the most stupid?"

 

mmm...lets have the lurkers decide that shall we?

 

"The Kinds of animals are defined by the possibility of a reproduction with other animals of their kind at their creation."

 

i take it then that you are definifn "kind" as species.

which means Noah had nowhere near enough space for all the animals, let alone for the food, on his ark.

 

"Since time and geographic isolation created races, some of them cannot reproduce with other animals of their kind and we call that a new specie."

 

the problem is that you are now opting for "hyperevolution" as we can backtrack the genes via mutation rates and we coem up with huge amount of generations for seemingly similar species.

 

"There is no mutation there, but limitation of information."

 

the mechanism you are proposign here for speciation makes NO SENSE genetics wise.

 

since that would mean an insane amount of muation in the chromatin structure genes in the descendant of the "original kinds".

 

'The link ahead also said that a very high percentage of the DNA of a human doesn't code anything. But it doesn't mean that because you don't know the purpose of something that is doesn't code anything."

 

no, i'm saying  it doesn't code for anythign because it DOESN'T CODE FOR ANYTHING.

there are no start sequences, there are no promotors, there are no marker binidng sites, the RNA it codes for is spliced out of the mRNA. it doesn't code for ANYTHING.

it DOES however have clear functions, seperation of genes, buffer for mutations, neutral DNA in which mutations can accumulate for a new trait (via point mutations and recombinations).

 

"You just don't understand it."

 

apparently form the above, i understand it way better then you.

 

"At least, it doesn't say that it is useless."

 

fortunately we "evolutionists" aren't claiming that.

 

"If not, why scientists are always getting a new version of the RoE out."

 

first fo all, it's ToE (Theory of Evolution), second, they aren't comign us with "new theories", they keep augmented the main explanatory model with new mechanisms when new data comes available (neutral mutations, sexual selection, genetic drift, ect) the main model is beign refined to better explain the data.

 

and on the evolution of the clades. as more data comes in, we are capable of refining our models on when and why traits started emerging in organism as they branch out further into newer species.

like how we still haven't a 100% model on how birsd evolved, or are we a 100% sure exactly from which species of dinosaur. what we DO know however, is that birds ARE dscendent of dinosaurs, and so STILL belogn to the clade of dinosaurs (they still are dinosaurs).

 

"And also, I don't understand why evolutionnists are only studying cells for mutations."

 

AAAAUUUUW M Y SKULL.

that actually hurt my brain. this is an EXTREMELY ignorant thign to say to anyone with a basic idea of biology.

BECAUSE MUTATIONS ONLY HAPPEN IN CELLS! and the expression of those mutations determine the phenotype of the animal.

 

" If there is a mutation created by them the cell will more surely survive because it has more capacity,"

 

f the cell dies, the animal dies.

and it's the cell's capacity (in a complex organism) to keep itself and it's surrounding cells stable that determines, the survival rate of the animal.

you're right about that. fortunatly it's agian all in the expressions of these mutations.

 

"but animals can't be so much manipulated."

 

the animals survial rate rest entirely on how well it's cells function. this isn't really a problem with evolution tho...

 

"This is an other reason why evolution won't work. Mutations are either neutral or harmful."

 

NYLONASE,

SICKLE CELL (yes homzygot it's acripplign disease, but heterozygote it greatly increases resistanc eto maleria)

LACTOSE TOLERANCE IN european and indo european peoples.

an the list goes ooon.

 

"So, you don't prove that evolution works here, on the contrary, it proves that it don't work when you can't study it on bigger animals."

 

fortunatly we DO study it in animals, hence the reason we have all those test animals.

 

"Evolution will never be proved"

 

it's an observable fact....

 

"f it had, they would have made sensation of it in the news during many months to celebrate their win against creationnists."

 

sensationalis media in a country with religious fundementalists...

noo, this is a really shitty arguemnt you put up here.

 

if you even are the least bit familiar with the scientific community you'd know that the entire conflict was political, NOT scientific.

 

'It won't happen."

 

it already happened, 150 years ago. all that's left is to educate those last patches of ignorance on earht.

 

slry,.,SKYPE ME!

i can help you learn this ignorance away.

 

 

That's ridiculous. You're trying to redefine "religion" so that ANY strongly-held, personal conviction becomes religion - do you have any idea how many things would be considered religions if that definition was accepted by anyone?

 

People who strongly prefer one brand/make of car? That would be a religion. People who take LOST a little too seriously? Religion. People who strongly dislike brocoli? Yep, that would also be a religion under your definition.

 

 

Yeahhhhh, not really - you might want to consider picking up a decent dictionary.

 

 

Works for me. If you want to advertise the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, that just saves everyone else from the effort of pointing it out.

 

 

That is one of the most painfully-stupid claims I have ever read - that definition would make every single topic taught by public educators into a religion.

 

Aside from that, there's the absurdity of requiring teachers to prove a subject before they begin teaching it. Who determines whether an idea has been successfully "proven" - the students? Do you seriously believe that the typical high school student has the knowledge and expertise to evaluate the validity of a scientific theory - before he/she has even studied it? Or sufficient maturity not to abuse such a system - "I'm flunking calculus, so I'll just say the teacher hasn't proven it, then she can't fail me."

 

 

Bull - that's like saying that you have to be a communist in order to pass a political science course on socialism. I would wager that, in most examples where a creationist has failed a biology class, it wasn't because they didn't personally "believe" in evolution - but probably because they went out of their way to be obnoxious, quarrelsome pains-in-the-ass, tried to "save" classmates/the teacher, and other similar idiocy.

 

Believe it or not, it is possible to objectively consider an idea that you don't personally accept - but not for creationists, evidently.

 

 

Understatement of the century.

 

I guess we'll have to take your word for it.

 

 

Translation: you're unable to grasp any complex ideas, so you just assume that they're false.

 

 

Yes, those evil scientists with their bias towards things that can be measured, tested, and impirically-investigated. The nerve!

 

 

Translation: you are incapable of offering any specific objections to the scientific explanation for the so-called "unfossilized" dinosaur bones, so you're resorting to a lazy assumption of bias.

 

 

How convenient. On a completely unrelated note, what was it that you were talking about at the start of your post? Something about rationalizing a false idea when you don't want to see the truth, wasn't it?

 

 

Translation: you actually CAN'T prove what you claim, and you're just providing a lazy excuse for that fact.

 

 

If nothing else, Hitler at least wasn't dumb enough to think that he was "speeding up evolution." So in that scenario, you would be an even bigger idiot than Hitler - an admirable feat, I suppose you deserve congratulations.

 

Oh, since you've now posted another set of rambling, barely-coherent 1,100 words, doesn't that make you one of those "no-life people" who are "always in front of their computers and losing the time of other"?

 

Ha ha ha!!

 

I'm happy that you commented on my Joke about Hitler, you understand well enough that when we eliminate members of a specie or kind, that specie get weaker.

 

Ok, the problem with the weakening of the specie the way I said is that it's working against evolution. I mean, natural selection work against evolution since usually in nature, the strongest males will get the females and the other ones won't reproduce. The variety that the other males possess is lost. So, on the natural selection perspective, variety is always lost through time. If you are telling me that the way Hitler did goes against evolution, why aren't you telling bulls not to keep away other males from their females. They are going against evolution also.And Hitler was not catholic, he had been excommunicated before the war (look the Zenith web site: article of last week).

 

"we find bones that are 25 000 years and older, yet we do not find any consistant amount of natural fossils that are that old"

 

you assume they are 25000 years and older. You have never seen a bone fossilize, so you can't tell if it did not fossilize in few centuries.

 

"How can it be that during million of years or thousands, anyways, the deposits in a strata would be always of the same mineral."

 

You don't want to answer because you don't know either. I know layers are not made of millions of years. Maybe weeks or months no more. If layers were made during thousand of years, every kinds of minerals would be mixed in the same layers. But it is not the case. So that does prouve that these layers were formed very fast because the stratas are large.

 

"if they WHERE, it would be one huge layer that was hydrolically sorted and we should find all kinds of fossils in random order....and that's not what we see when we actuaklly start digging. precambrian bunnies..."

 

 

A huge flood would instead, I think, make multiple layers of layers hydrolically sorted because the moon would move the dirt during some months. The fossils that would have been buried first because they would be slower would stay at their first place. Then, the other dead animals would be rearranged in some way by the tides, but the deepest animals would certainly remain there. Humans, because they are more intelligent would certainly remain alive after other animals. This would explain all the arrangement we see in the geological colomn. The period after 2900 BC would produce other layers, but much smaller ones, with lesser fossils if any, because catastrophic events wouldn't happen anymore.

 

Again, datations won't work if you want to date a layer because when radioactive atoms are mixed with water, their half-life is somehow shortened. If we deal with a flood, every datation on the planet would be falsified. So, every dates or period that you tell me might be false. You cannot be certain about them... You assume them because you believe the RoE (religion of Evolution) in the first place.

 

The RoE is telling you that a big manufacture exist on Mars and that it built itself and You believe that. The only difference is that you say that it took a lot of time. At least, tell me that you believe that God made evolution possible, but don't tell me you believe that the leaves falling from trees could write down the message ( I went down the street and someone told me I love you) if we gave chance enough time. There are no chance of that happening by chance. Intelligent design is necessary here. It is the same for evolution. If there was oxygen on the earth when the first proteins were built, it would have been wiped out. But without oxygen, sun rays would have burned the proteins. After that, proteins had to assemble themselves in a certain way in order to make a minimum of genes required to sustain life... etc... etc.... every question an evolutionnist can't answer and he tells us he knows everything he is talking about. Bravo!!!

 

If there are no God, Would you let me at least steal the rich people that are around me. You said that it would not help evolution to kill other people, but if I steal them, they won't die and I will live a better life. Why should I care for morality. I don't care if you have morality. I want to have no morality if I don't get caught, Why should you be against these principles? Because you have some morality ? ha ha ha... what is that? is that a principle that evoluted by chance. There is no God, there is no morality. And why should I care for evolution also. I might try to make some trouble to humanity. I might want to make a specie suicide. Without God I could rape women. You know, this is true. Even atheists are against rape, but that principle comes from their ancestors which believed in God. This is only a belief... but beliefs are useless. They are not science. Women won't die if I rape them. This is even good for our specie because I will transmit my DNA to my and her descendants (and my DNA is a superior one... I decided so).

 

If you don't see the problem of atheism here, you are blind or you agree that it is fine to rape women if we don't get caught.

 

 

 

...okay.

 

You know those anti-psychotic meds that your doctor prescribed to you? You might want to start taking them again.

I didn't take them, I put them inside your back to prevent you from pouring to much shit all around your house.

 

Hey Sci-bird, I don't know if you've followed all of our conversation, but wou might want to convince me not to rape women if I start not believing in God? Or to steal? Good luck!!!

Actually, Sky-Bird, you are quite a fool. You are making fun of me about the thing I said about the manufacture on Mars arousing by chance, but it is the same as if two extra-terrestrial were saying that the buildings and life on Earth arose by chance. The RoE suppose exactly that... so you are laughing at yourself.

Sorry my comment about the medications was not very nice, but the preceding comment was neither.

You guys might want to debate this man on how you could ever possibly know anything and how you can believe in absolute logic if you don't believe in the one who made this absolute logic.

 

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1864580848966525577&postID=5227612589049295132&page=1

"I actually didn't look very much at the fossile dino problem."
- And I'm not a paleontologist/geologist. My knowledge in that area of study is very limited but the few answers i can give are somewhat hypothetical in a sence that it will be derived from ym science education in general.

"First, Someone's ass has been kicked by...., the link you sent was not the source of the other one because your link was from an evolutionnist as i can see on how the text is written. On the other hand, the person that made the link I sent said that she has talked to Dr Mary Schweitzer. The link your sent present only the evolutionnist position (this is an other way of fossilization, but you see through the text that the scientist is improvising an answer). He doesn't know what was found. He didn't even see and tested the fossil."
- The link you supplied is first rewritten by me above the new link i supplied. The problem is i didn't get that link from google or something. I went into your link, read it and found the only working source to be jsut that link i gave you. Do you get it?
If it was an "evolutionistic" viewed article then the article you supplied has quotemined the one i supplied. And there's not really any evolutionist way, a way better name for it would be scientific. If you're getting interviewed YOU ARE improvising what you say, not what you should talk about.

"Next, about the sources, I've often seen a scientist not providing a source other then himself. Should he provide a source if everyone has to provide a source. Evolutionnists only provide evolutionnists sources. These sources are not valuable, because they do not come from neutral sources."
- source to support your claim or it's a personal belief/prejudice.
And have a look at the document i sent you. Last page. What do you see?

"Evolution is a religion, pro-evolution scientists often lie to prouve the evolution."
- What? You ever heard about peer-reviewing? It's the part where other scientists get to test and critique the work of other scientists. One of the most fun part of being a scientist since you get to rip apart someones work if they did it wrong or with the bias that something was true before they did the test. The scientific method is constructed so that we always try to falsify already know knowledge. Like if i where to do an experiment to test evolution, i would make a test that would if made correctly would rule evolution false or right.

from wikipedia that would illustrate it perfectly:
"There is no one scientific method, but in general it is usually written as a number of steps:

1. Come up with a question about the world. All scientific work begins with having a question to ask. Sometimes just coming up with the right question is the hardest part for a scientist. The question should be answerable by means of an experiment.
2. Create a hypothesis — one possible answer to the question. A hypothesis is a word meaning "An educated statement about how something works", and it should be able to be proven right or wrong. For example, a statement like "Blue is a better color than green" is not a scientific hypothesis. It cannot be proven right or wrong. "More people like the color blue than green" could be a scientific hypothesis, though, because one could ask many people whether they like blue more than green and come up with an answer one way or the other.
3. Design an experiment. If the hypothesis is truly scientific, it should be possible to design an experiment to test it. An experiment should be able to tell the scientist if the hypothesis is wrong; it may not tell him or her if the hypothesis is right. In the example above, an experiment might involve asking many people what their favorite colors are. Making an experiment can be very difficult though. What if the key question to ask people is not what colors they like, but what colors they hate? How many people need to be asked? Are there ways of asking the question that could change the result in ways that were not expected? These are all the types of questions that scientists have to ask, before they make an experiment and do it. Usually scientists want to test only one thing at a time. To do this, they try to make every part of an experiment the same for everything, except for the thing they want to test.
4. Experiment and collect the data. Here the scientist tries to run the experiment they have designed before. Sometimes the scientist gets new ideas as the experiment is going on. Sometimes it is difficult to know when an experiment is finally over. Sometimes experimenting will be very difficult. Some scientists spend most of their lives learning how to do good experiments.
5. Draw conclusions from the experiment. Sometimes results are not easy to understand. Sometimes the experiments themselves open up new questions. Sometimes results from an experiment can mean many different things. All of these need to be thought about carefully.
6. Communicate them to others. A key element of science is sharing the results of experiments, so that other scientists can then use the knowledge themselves and all of science can benefit. Usually scientists do not trust a new claim unless other scientists have looked it over first to make sure it sounds like real science. This is called peer review ("peer" here means "other scientists").

Not all scientists use the above "scientific method" in their day to day work. Sometimes the actual work of science looks nothing like the above. But on the whole it is thought to be a good method for finding out things about the world which are reliable, and is the model for thinking about scientific knowledge usually used by scientists.

"

I will get back to this part in later answers.

"Evolutionnists scientists are often liers."
- That is a prejudice and a personal belief. Can you support it? And btw, it's a very very large portion of people you are calling liars and their work lies. If you think they lie, show it!

"So, even citing a scientist is not a proof."
- OFC not, that would be appeal to authority.

"Evolutionnists will say the same thing for creationnists scientists."
- Maybe becuase some of them lie about their credentials? Evidence that would support that claim:
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm
Also i would call creation scientist an oxymoron. It's like an atheist priest. It doesn't exist and is directly conflicting in it's name. The one thing that would make it scientific would be if someone found out how to trace and detect god, but since this is not the case creation science/scientists are oxymorons.

"I am challenging evolutionnists to provide non-evolutionnists sources to prove their points in the future. This might be hard... Ha ha."
- As i said evolutionist = scientist. It's a bad challenge cuz anyway someone tries to fix it you can have alteast 2 ways to tell "nope it's not valid". All biological scientists are evolutionists, even mr. Behe who only believes god started it all. There's no scientific work in that subject by non-evolutionists except if you go back 150 years... ha ha

And as i stated before an article and work and study by some scientists are reviewed so that bias and false conclucions can be made. It's the 2d step in the scientifc method that no "creation scientist" can get past since his claim is untestable. That's basically the reason why no one listens to people who advocate it since it's useless if we cannot prove gods existance. Is it so hard for you to understand or do you just belive in him so much that he has to be true?

"If you are right, rush and tell other evolutionnist scientists because they do not know. You will be acclaimed by them... BRAVO!!! Again, You just posted words, that's not a proof... it's a theory, also a religion since you don't question that belief. "
- Now this is childish. He should run to you since i bet you cannot explain it properly. So please, what do science say about what evolution is and how it works? I'll bet 50 bucks that you're gonna strawman and/or miss fundamental parts of the theory.

"Then, as I said, I didn't mean to prove that the bones are unfossilized bones, because dinos are dead since at least the middle age (the last period talking about dragons), but bones can fossilize also in few centuries."
- Yeah like myths and legends are soooo usefull in scientific work!
Sure in some conditions i guess it can be fossilized, but they don't mesure age by how much something is fossilized... So tbh it doesn't really matter how far gone it is. It wouldn't change the age a bit.

"As anyone should know, absolute datation are not absolute and most datations are supposed and not even based on the radioactive tests.They base their radioactive tests on the date they give to the strata they are in, and then they date the strata by the fossil. Or it might also be the reverse."
- As anyone DO know, absolute datation is impossible because of the standard deviation. And a number of other factors i guess.

"But what I proved is that your brains didn't even try to prove the contrary of your positions as people that think they search only what is scientific should do. I didn't try to prove that the fossils are million years because I have enough proofs against that so I won't lose my time in a problems that I have already a solution in other fields. I didn't want neither to know if the bone was recent.This was a trick to know if you would make the hypothesis wheater it could be a recent dino bone. But neither of you guys did. You only made the hypothesis that they were old (this scientist tells that, the other that)."
- We have no reason to believe otherwise tbh. When It was a bone, tested and re-tested for age. So why would we even consider it to be young when we got evidence that says it's old? And now i don't mean that one scientist did the tests, but did it really scientifically and sent the same sample to seperate labs to confirm it. With blind tests ofc etc. The same methods, the same critizism and the extensive use of it makes it very reliable. We accept what they say becuase it may not be the best answer or the most correct, but it's the most accurate. As i said, we have no reason to disregard the data and we cannot really make a valid statement of it since we lack the knowledge about it. Very hard to do that from an article that isn't scientific in itself.

"The evolution is a religion by the fact that people that believe in it are commited to it like someone that is commited to his religion."
- So by that logic you are a "computerist" and its a religion in your eyes since you are commited to it that it should work but you have no idea how it does. About the same.

"For sure, I won't question my beliefs unless I see something irrefutable against them."
- Have you any reason to doubt that your comp is gonna not gonna start when you push the start button? Exactly the same.

"You might win on some points, but it is mostly because all the evolutionnist science is full of probabilities and suppositions."
- okey, if that is the case, name 5.

"creationnists cannot contradict evolutionnist beliefs because there is a little place that you may be right (if your assumptions are true) 'cause evolution is an idealism."
- Or they just don't understand it so they cannot make a valid contridicting evidence?

"So, for now on, I will call people that believe in and do not question evolution (the fondamentalist ultra-religious evolutionnists)."
- What you are refering to is general people who don't have much knowledge in the area who still believe in it. This is however not the thought among scientist and students alike.

" And you, Molecular biology brain, I must tell you that if the theory of evolution is wrong and that you don't matter, you are right that theory is not your religion. "
- Could be wrong, could be right. As of now it's leaning towards right. If there however came new info about this that force us to change it or discard it because it doesn't explain what we observe, this is a possability. But it wouldn't validate creation in any way.

"And also, if the theory is wrong, how will you explain the existence of life without the God explanation (you might not get into a religion, but you might have to chose theism as your personal religion)."
- IF the theory turns out to be wrong, we will have to forge a new theory that would explain that what the ToE couldn't. We would only discard ToE if we could find a new theory that would be much better and accurate in describing how life diversified.

And also it's a very tricky question i mean, it would be like if i asked you "what would you believe if someone came and disproved the existance of your god?" this however the way you think of evolution as a religion.

"Anyways, for most evolutionnists, it does matter if the theory is wrong because they cannot accept the God explanation (or as Dawkins said: the God delusion)."
- But this is not the case since there are christians on both sides and actually, i think there's more christians on our side then yours since catholics have accepted that evolution doesn't disprove god or attack god in any way.

Oh and Dawkins don't mean shit to me. He's to fanatic tbh. As if he really want's to abuse anyone who doesn't believe like him.

"That is what makes the evolution a religion. "
- No what you describe sounds more like atheism...

"If it was not a religion, teachers would have to prouve the theory to the students to teach them the evolution."
- Oh yeah i forgot, in religion you don't have to prove a thing and it still is as true as it is spoken!

"If they are unable, they should not fail them for not believing the evolution theory."
- Again you cannot cherrypick what in science you like and dislike. If you don't get it it's either because you're to stupid to get it, you don't want to get it OR you got a really bad teacher... In any case, it shouldn't be happening.

"So, the evolution is a political religion (everyone must accept it in the courses) (but it might not be your personal religion)."
- No you don't have to believe in it, just understand it and know how it works. Hardly any creationist I've come across knows how evolutio neven work. I mean how can you discard an idea and train of thought when you haven't even understood what it really does and how it works? It's like you are so full with the prejudice bs you heard from hovind that you cannot accept the explanation from a scientist! Or even want to get it and use strawmens instead to validate your stance in the question or it would be ridicoules!

"There are no creation scientists in the relevant level because of censorship, man."
- There are non since there is no research in that field and never will be. Never can. I'll give you a hint on WHY no one wants to have anything to do with "creation scientists".
Imagine some random dude came up to you and said "I saw a ghost!" would you belive him? Problably not. If now a scientists said he researched ghosts and telekinesis. Same thing here, it's untestable and unprovable. Its pseudo-science. No one take anyone serious if they propose things that are myths, impossible and just plain stupid ideas are vaild and requires research in it.

"How could they ever possibly express creationnist views if they will lose their job. "
- There are actually some who reviewed some "creationist scientist" work. One professor made a review of Hovinds thesis. And in all (very few) cases the ideas and line of thought was useless as science.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm

A good example fro manother fiel of research would be if a geologist or a astrophysicist would advocate gencentrism despite of all the tons of evidence that is aquired over the years that the earth orbits the sun and not the other way around. Those people would be thrown out of any job they had that had anything to do with the earth... For obvous reasons ofc.

"You should have seen by yourself that the scientist comment was reported only to support the RoE."
- I dont understand how you could come to that conclusion after reading that article...

"This scientist had not seen the fossil so how could he be relevant for that research. Fossilizations happen differently, I am not against that, but I am against the idea that they are million years."
- The researcher you spoke of had examined the fossil, it says so in the article atleast.

"They could fossilize in few centuries."
- Yes they could, but that doesn't mean they are a few centuries old. I can still be fossilized during that time and lay hidden for a much longer period. Testing and calibrating told us the age of 68 million years.

"I said that evolutionnist scientists need to provide sources that come from neutral sources only because they are liers."
- Neutral sources? Well look no furhter :
http://scholar.google.com

As the reviewing and testing is there to take away bias and changing of the evidence for the experiment etc. It's as close to neutral as possible.

"On of the last books that came out trying to prove evolution was actually not proving evolution, but criticizing christianity. So, it was meanless."
- And that is why i don't give a shit about those books. If you want to read about evidence for evolution go pick up "the origin of the species" by Charles Darwin and read his illustrations and arguments. Remember, before he wrote that book everyone was creationists, but that book made people change their mind.

"the guys making the vaccines are actually liers also because vaccines are bad for your health, but this is an  other topic. "
- You better not go to the hospital since every doctor are "evolutionists" and every drug there is derived from evolutionists doing research.

"You cannot provide links other than evolutionnist to prove your points, but I can prove at least that your theory is wrong by citing only evolutionnists. But I will not here because I am just chatting superficially Ha ha."
- So i cannot provide my evidence and others work on the subject because they are scientists? Instead of understanding what it is and check it to find lies and problems, your just gonna claim invalidity of all work made by any biologist during the past 150 years?
And quotemining is not ok man.

"You said also that scientists date the strata and they then date the fossil knowing the strata they are in. "
- NOt gonna answer it since i have no idea.

"Refering back to the comment I made about the nazis, I would say that evolutionnists often suggest that he believed in God."
- Read the damn book! It says that he's doing the work of god and such. How the hell could you quotemine that?!
He was a Roman Catholic.

"If I believed in evolution, I would surely do like Hitler to speed up the process of evolution. Killing the inferior races is certainly the solution to make our specie evolute. I would kill people with profond genetic deseases, the weakest, the ugly people also maybe. This would help reinforce our genetic. I'm certain no-one of your can convince me that I can't do that because there is no God, so I make the rules."

- If that is the case, you must have some serious psychotic problems, better go to a psychologist to check it out!
And it wouldn't be evolution since it would be human selection and not natural selection.

"It's only showing examples of mutations made with human help (which is not evolution, it's intelligent design)."
- Some may be selected for, but it wasn't to prove evolution. It was made to prove that you can select for new allels that doesn't exist and that new data gets created within the genome without human or intelligen inteverntion. Intelligen design would be to create the whole genome or gene from scratch and insert it in an organism created from scratch as well.

We didn't create the gene we had bacteria who evolved to be able to metabolize Nylon. It's still aquiring new features and information from mutations and selection. If it can happen in a labb with bacteria growing on a plate why can't it happen in the wild?

"It gives two types of mutations if I've seen them all (which are not mutations) they are : Duplication of segments or Translocations."
- You forgot, frameshift, insertions, deletions, inversions and probably some more that i can't think of right now.

"These are reproduction of existing information, not mutations."
- A mutation is a change from the original, even if it's a neutral change it's still a mutation.

"I don't know why also evolutionnists try to understand how evolution works if it should be caused by accidents."
- If the meaning of having a low instability in the genome for mutations to occur it's hardly an "accident". If it's meant to happen it's not an accident is it? It's a fact that mutations happen and it's a fact that it changes between generations. Therefore evolution is a fact since it's defined as change in allele frequency over generations.

"Also, the second rule of Thermodynamic shows that the universe is breaking apart into disorder. How could evolution be true if it works against the second rule of Thermodynamic."
- For the last time EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS! The universe and everything is a closed system, the earth however is not a closed system. And nature tends to strive for equilibrium. In mass, concentration, energy etc. It doesn't rule out life.

"how in the world should a acquired resistance to deseases should be considered evolution."
- Because those with the gene could surive better and reproduce healthy offspring. If the gene didn't help that it would be selected away and no offspring would inherit it.

"These are no mutations. It's a process that is possible in an organism to make him survive. The creator thought knew what he was doing when he created the world, that's all."
- What the hell are you talking about?! There's no such thing. If this where the case then everyone on earth would have equally as much resitancy towards certain diseases.

"There are no new caracteristics that are added to the bacteria that makes it better or more intelligent."
- Intelligence is just a feature that can be selected for in evolution. When some intelligence have been established it will be selected for very much. It doesn't matter if an organism get more intelligent or complex. as long as the genome helps it survive and reproduce it will be considered positive. Nylona degrading enzyme in bacteria is a new characteristic.

"Acquiring resistance is still a natural process that doesn't not depend on evolution. "
- Face--->palm
EVOLUTION IS A NATURAL PROCESS
What the hell di you think it was? something pure speculative?

"Ok, now, I will define Kind if you want. I do not know what were the original kinds. What is possible to know at least would be as example that every spiders come from two original spiders, every ants come from two ants, every flyes come from two flyes, etc..."
- SO you say that one evidence against evolution is that there was a flood with only 2 of each animal "kind" and after the flood it have to have been some super evolution to explain all diveristy of all animals within "kinds"? It doesn't make sense as the onyl way you could explain this would be with evolution.

"Evolutionnists often laugh about that, but they believe we all come from a rock, so who is the most stupid?"
- Alright who's more laughable? The people who honestly believe evolution says we come from rocks or the people who believe that we come from mud? Your choice man.

"Since time and geographic isolation created races, some of them cannot reproduce with other animals of their kind and we call that a new specie. There is no mutation there, but limitation of information."
- Then what do you suppose make this change in the animals so that they cannot interbreed?
Evolutions answer:
http://www.pnas.org/content/92/7/2519.full.pdf
Full report on how a specie can become 2 within the same geographical area.

"The link ahead also said that a very high percentage of the DNA of a human doesn't code anything. But it doesn't mean that because you don't know the purpose of something that is doesn't code anything. You just don't understand it. At least, it doesn't say that it is useless."
- And what was the explanation for this accoring to creation?
I think i know the answer from evolution.

"If not, why scientists are always getting a new version of the RoE out."
- That's how science works. We fine tune change and rework theories and hypothesis and models etc. according to how much we know and learn. If i stopped and said "no it's perfect" we would stop doing science. And i hardly think they've changed it much since Darwins time.

" is no proof for evolution."
- 6 words that describe what's part of evolution. Not proof or evidence. You can google the meanings of the words yourself.

"And also, I don't understand why evolutionnists are only studying cells for mutations. If there is a mutation created by them the cell will more surely survive because it has more capacity, but animals can't be so much manipulated."
- Problem isn't the manipulation, we can manipulate a lot in animals. Like making cows flouroscent and glow green in the dark. The problem is that the required generations needed to do evolution tests are so many that cows or dogs cannot be used to test. Their reproductive cycle is way to big. The most used animal for this kind of test is the common fruitfly (drosophila Melanogaster) since you can get a new generation in 7 days or so and you can accumulate a lot of generations over a rather low time frame.

"This is an other reason why evolution won't work. Mutations are either neutral or harmful. So, you don't prove that evolution works here, on the contrary, it proves that it don't work when you can't study it on bigger animals."
- Sickle-cell anemia. Considered a bad mutation, but with the selection posed by malaria evolution still favors it. All about suriviving and reproducing. If you got it, survive better then it's positive according to evolution. That is a fact.

we don't have to convince you. Morality doesn't come from religion and therefore no mentally healthy atheist would go rape and kill etc.

A study on how it evolved:
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/3723/1/rutherford3723.pdf

You are wrong. That guy was not into a corner, he was asking why the question was pertinent. Contrarily to him that had showed the pertinence of his questions, the atheists didn't want ro show the pertinence of theirs because the reason of their question was only to try to attack his beliefs and to judge them without having any fondation for truth. The guy could have answered the question, but this would only have had changed the focus of the discussion with a question unanswered which was: How can an atheist judge the irrationnality of the belief in God (and I don't care which God; made up one if you want) if he has no absolute fondation to know something for certain? The atheists didn't answer that question. Why would they want to know something from Sye if they don't have any base for Truth...

¨How can an atheist judge the irrationnality of the belief in God (and I don't care which God; made up one if you want) if he has no absolute fondation to know something for certain?¨

 

wich ended up real fast with the atheists admitting to the problem of deduction. the only difference is we can demonstrate that this deduction works, time and time again with experementation, whereas the christian still had to demonstrate that he had any evidence for god.

 

or in the way the atheists asked it ¨prove that the voices in your head are god, and not some figment of your imagination¨.

 

which is the entire hypocracy of sye, he keeps saying we can never know things for certain when he has an even lower degree of certainty to claim.

 

and when pinned down he revert to nthe EXACT same question ¨how can you know for sure?¨ when the answer is really simple: we don´t know a 100% for sure, but so far it´s always worked and we got science to show for it.¨ but then comes the counter question

¨we got science, what do you have?¨ and the answer to that question is always lacking from the christians side.

 

because then you ARE forced to go for the bible, since any other claim to god might just aswell be use for any other god. and then it all starts to hinge on whether the bible is indeed the word of god or not.

for example, the cosmological argument, even IF it was sound, it would only end up ¨proving¨ deism, and nothing more.

 

 

I know that what he said that there is only the God of christian is not justified by the fact that we need an absolute base for truth. But the fact is that The Bible is the only Text that declares itself to come from God and contains no real contradiction in it gives a lot of authority to that text. The fact that no other religion (I do not compt the religion that are Bible-based) are declaring themselves originating from the Revelation of an absolute God (or absolute cause) and that do not contain known scientifical errors put other people on a position where they do not know for certain that they know something. The Christian only have to accept God's revelation and then everything is explained why it works perfectly. Others have to accept everything they see as known because it seems to work for now. But they can't be certain that everything will stay so because they don't know any absolute cause to what they think is absolutly true. So, they have to accept every moment they live as certain by blind faith. That gives a lot more beliefs to atheists and other religions that try to explain the Universe through their own knowledge (which they can't be certain). Anyways, I just wanted to show you why the other blog was a worthwhile question for you atheists.

The problem stays for you atheists. You need to have an absolute cause to have absolute knowledge. How can you know that this world didn't appear 500 years ago (and looked like if it was existing before and people would have memory of the past etc...) by chance. If the Big Bang could appear by chance Billions of years ago by chance, it could do that even right now or even disappears at any moment. The real thing is you can't do science without an absolute cause (which is God and his revelation).Oh... must go.

seriously, i wrote a long ass replay to you and you haven't even adressed a single point i made. Go up the thread and read my 2 latest posts as answers to your posts.

And chance =/= spontaneus.

 

Anyone else notice that, literally without exeception, the creationists here seem to have real trouble figuring out how to reply to the comment they're responding to - not to unable to quote the specific points they're referring to?

 

 

For starters, you might want to look up the concept of "Social contract," an idea that anyone who has taken a first year undergrad-level philosophy course would be familiar with.

 

And from a purely practical standpoint, I would think that *NOT* going to prison would be a fairly good icentive too.

Ok, I didn't answer all your objections because I had posted my reply before I had seen yours appear and then I had to go.

 

About the fact that I do have a hearth, It's true that I'm often impolite with you guys just because we have different thinking and I realize I shouldn't do that. I should have remembered the passage of the Gospel where Jesus tells to love even our ennemies (because we are often not really ennemies).

But about the fact that I said that without God anyone could do immoral things as raping someone else and not fear anything if he don't get caught, I was not impolite because this is true. There is not way you can tell what is right and what is wrong without God. It's the law of the strongest. I only said that to make you wonder if atheism is something acceptable in a society that want Justice and Freedom.

 

I'll answer your objections in a separate answer because it doesn't concern the same subject.

 

For some reason, I'm remembering an old quote all of a sudden... something about how the disdain of the simple-minded is the highest compliment one can receive.

 

 

Actually, I was mocking the rambling, barely-coherent nature of your post - not the content. The content is equally-deserving of mockery, though, as it's little more an awkwardly-expressed argument from ignorance/personal incredulity ("I don't know/can't how it could have happened, so I"m going to assume that it didn't happen").

 

No need to apologize, as I can't make heads or tails out of what you were trying to say.

 

I suspect that most of us realize that logic is an intellectual construct, something we created and which wouldn't exist if we hadn't been around to think it up. So the question is nonsensical, unless you find someone here who doesn't believe in the existence of human beings.

 

The question is ridiculous, it looks like he's trying to imply that the only possible choices are theism or nihilism. And the most obvious problem is that he's assuming atheists believe there are absolute criteria that rationality can be judged by - which is typically not the case.

 

Newsflash: rationality is an abstract concept that we (human beings) created, it means what we agree it to mean. So of course it's possible to evaluate the rationality or irrationality of an idea, regardless of whether or not God exists.

 

Frankly, you'd have a much more compelling argument if you were contesting that rationality is not a valid or useful concept for evaluating religious or spiritual beliefs.

 

Are you high? That's exactly what almost EVERY OTHER religion and religious text does.

 

 

There are plenty of scientific errors in the Bible, which apoligists usually try to dismiss off with excuses like "Oh, I mean that the Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God - except for the parts that are actually verifiable, those are all just allegories."

 

Off the top of my head: Jonah and the whale. There is no existing whale (or fish) with a throat large enough to swallow a full-grown man whole.

 

 

The expression "ignorance is bliss" comes to mind.

 

 

No, and the reality is the exact opposite - being an atheist (or an intellectually-honest one, at least) requires accepting the fact that many things are still unknown or uncertain. And not only that, but we also have to accept that many things will probably never be known or certain (essentially what Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was about) - we can't just resort to some cheap cop-out like "oh it's part of God's plan, it's not for us to know because He works in mysterious ways yada yada yada."

Sorry Molecular Biology, I thought You were the other guy, I'll go see back your posts.

 

"wich ended up real fast with the atheists admitting to the problem of deduction. the only difference is we can demonstrate that this deduction works, time and time again with experementation, whereas the christian still had to demonstrate that he had any evidence for God."

 

Actually, they admitted the problem of intuition. They said that we accept intuition by blind faith, but that aften that, everything they believe is not by blind faith and they tought it was better to have only one blind faith instead of many for the christian.

 

But they mistaked. When the christian start believing in God and in his revelation, he knows after that everything is possible to God, so he has no difficulties to recognize the rest of what he has to believe. Actually, he only has one faith that is built all in one block. You accept one thing and the rest becomes clear. Even more, everything becomes logical.

 

For the one that has a blind faith that his intuition works, he still don't know if his intuition will continue to work in the future. He must also have a blind faith that God does not exist. As you said for the Christian, the atheist still have to demonstrate that there is no God. Also, it his not to be mature to not recognize that everyone has some blind faith. No one is questionning everything. As for you, you are not questionning the works of pro-evolution scientists and when they say something, you will tend to believe them. And this is also a blind faith. Man cannot live without some blind faith. What could you do if you would doubt that there could be some poison in your food every time you are going to eat. You have a blind faith too that your food is always healthy. So to say that believers have more blind faith then non-believers is just ridiculous. The central point is that believers have faith in God and non-believers have faith in non-God (which is Chance).

 

"or in the way the atheists asked it ¨prove that the voices in your head are god, and not some figment of your imagination¨."

 

The question of the atheists to Sye was not pertinent and meanless because first: Sye do not think he ears voices in his head. But I could tell you right the same thing: How can you know I am not a voice in your head and a product of your imagination. Maybe you don't even come on this web site. But you believe in your intuition and this is why you don't question I am writing to you... Or maybe. But the question to Sye should have been: How can you tell that the faith you put in the Bible could reward you in some way? That question he could have answered and that would have been a worthwhile question (and a long question). He doesn't hear voices in his head, that's why the question was meanless.

 

 

It's true that nobody can be a 100% sure. But I'll answer the question you asked. You do not have science, believers have science.

    How can you tell science something that reverse the laws of nature. In your worldview, Chance is supposed to have created something that do not obey to the laws of chance. If Chance (it looks like a God) had created or was the key of the existence of the universe, everything in the universe would obey to chance and not to the laws of nature. Everything would be confused and not coherent. The EXEPTION would be the RULE. If you have studied a little bit of the definition of chance you will understand that you can't have a regularity from chance. Try to get a certain law on the numbers you will get if you trow the die. That's impossible. Now, you are telling me that in deciding wheter an apple will fall down or go up by trowing the die that I will always get the apple to fall (ARE YOU SERIOUS?) How can you accuse believers of blind faith and believe that we got so much luck during Billions of years and that the universe didn't break apart? How can you think that chance could build man (a creature that don't obey neither to Nature nor to chance). Freedom is something that chance cannot afford (to believe that is a strange religion and certainly a really blind faith).

 

I will answer now your question: How can we be for sure? Because it would be impossible the other way. If I would see a house in the Jungle, I would say: A man was here to build it. I would not say: that building built itself through a process that needed to create an organism capable of assembling piece of wood into a house. Why don't you tell that the house built itself so that we could laugh a bit?

     It's the same for the Universe. Many things in this universe (even if they are natural are a way lot more complicated than buildings and you  still believe that all these complicated things built themselves according to the throw of a die and that it always fell on the same number (meaning that the Universe never disappeared during the process of creating itself).

 

 

Indeed, The cosmological argument proves deism at least. Because the only other alternative is Chance (and Chance is never the rule and the exeption do not create a rule; this is a simple probability calculation not hard to understand). Believing that chance would fall always on the same number wouldn't make you wonder if there is not somebody that is cheating the die and is making it fall on that number???

 

Last thing of all, don't you think "TheBiblewas..." that taking an answer to a question like the existence of God on Blind Faith is foolish?

   I'll tell you what Blaise Pascal said in his famous bet about the possibilities of the existence of God. First, If you make a choice, you get 4 possibilities. If God doesn't exist and you chosed to believe in him, you lose nothing because you'll be dead and won't know the rest of the story. If he doesn't and you didn't believe, you gain nothing, because you'll be dead also and you won't bring your pleasure into your death. If God exist and you chose to act as if he doesn't exist, you lose everything (but I know that not all atheists are acting as if God doesn't exist even if they say he doesn't exist, so they might still be forgiven). If he exist and you chose to act as he demands it, you gain everything. So, there is much logic into chosing Theism instead of atheism.

 

To resume, If you're an atheist, you can't prove you need to act morally.

second, you have to think the universe was there by chance, but this is absurd because the Universe do not obey Chance.

Third, It's impossible to judge any others' beliefs because you don't believe in absolute rules.

Fourth, even if you think you don't have many blind faiths, you still have a lot of them (in chance especially which belief is totally absurd).

 

I regret, I won't answer every posts, because It's too long you have 6 hands to write, I only have two and they are slow.

 

I know I won't convince you of the truth of the Bible, even objections to the Bible are usually very poor, but I'm tired to write in this blog in all my free time. Anyways, I wrote my arguments, I've heard yours, I was just trying to learn a bit more about evolutionnism and atheism arguments and make my hand on the subject, but this takes too much of my time. I'll keep studying the subject anyways. The best pro-evolution argument might be on the drift thing about mutation, but it still doesn't prove that mutations could create an evolutionnary process that would improve greatly an organism through time. Mutations could even work and evolution be true and that still the Bible be right about the genesis. There is no real way how we can tell unless we see all the evidences at the same time.

 

Anyways, for me, it stays in my head that evolution promotes racism by the fact that it puts man on the same level than animals. I also keep in mind that it's impossible to prove that we need to be moral if God doesn't exist. I keep also in mind that Chance (which is the base for atheism goes against the regularity of the laws of the universe). Without calculating that the theory of evolution contradict the second law of thermodynamics which shows that the universe it going towards disorder. Even known species are following that law by going extinct one after another. Ok, I think this was enough discussed, I want to look at other things. I might write at some other times, but I want a break now.

 

And can you show me a single example of someone here who claims to have absolute knowledge? I don't mean some statement that deliberately misinterpret because it doesn't contain disclaimers every two or three words. I mean an instance where an atheist here literally said "...and I know this with absolute, 100% certainty."

 

 

We don't know, and most atheists will freely admit that - it's certainly possible, but there's absolutely no reason to think that's likely. There's a quote from Galileo that nicely sums up my objections to your reasoning: "I refuse to believe in a God who would give us rational faculties, and then expect for us not to use them."

 

 

But no one really expects any of those things to happen - because there's no reason to.

 

 

Bullshit. That's like saying you can't investigate an explosion (or even conclude that there was an explosion at all) unless you already know exactly what happened - even if you have a smoking crater in the ground with a bunch of debris lying around it.

 

 

Wow. Even if I suspended reason for a moment and imagine that any of your premises were actually valid, there's still one huge question. How is allowing atheism (as if you have any say in the matter) more dangerous than allowing people who are convinced that the world will end in their lifetime, and who have no problem with war-mongering as long they think it will help realize their apocalyptic fantasies?

 

You can't even answer the problems I showed about atheism and you think you are going to educate me. I'm sorry, it will be useless to skype during a thousand years. Go search for the Truth, it's out there.

     You won't learn anything by trying to convince someone. Nether will you learn by listening to someone that has no answer. So, Truth is out there.

¨You can't even answer the problems I showed about atheism and you think you are going to educate me.¨

 

thatś because these ¨problems" with atheism all follow from you increadable ignorance on out actual beliefs and your christian indoctrination keeps you from even getting the simple points.

 

really skyp would make this so much easier to understand AND ie noticed form previous conversations, it makes you a lot more intelectually honest....apparently people put a lot more attatchment in spoken then written exchanges...why that is i have a pretty good idea, but thatś another topic.

 

but the skype wasn even concernign this, the skype invitation was meant to get you aquinted with some basic scientific concepts and especially biology and chemisrty, since you so horrible lack a good education on ToE in relation to these subjects.

 

¨You won't learn anything by trying to convince someone.i would care less if i could ¨convert¨you. all i care about is that you treat science and other humans with a bit more intelectual honesty. because what you´ŕe doing now is not only disrepectfull, itś making yourself look foolish and ignorant.

 

¨Nether will you learn by listening to someone that has no answer.¨

 

? when did we not have an answer to your objection?

 

¨So, Truth is out there.¨

please don laod the word by writing it with a capital T, i know youŕe referring to the capital letter importance of G_od. which takes some of itś integrity away sinc eyou haven even expressed the least bit of interest in accurately explaining observable reality.

 

Not without any evidence, you won't.

 

 

Call me crazy, but what you've posted so far indicates that your mind was already made up LONNNG before you signed up here.

 

 

I'd say the fossil record is the strongest piece of evidence - or at least the most easily-understood. There are several animals whose evolution we have a thorough record of (horses and whales, for example) - showing a progression from basal forms to forms that increasingly resemble the modern animals.

 

And, on top of that, the discoveries also verified predictions that were contingent on the theory of evolution being accurate (E.g., hind limbs becoming vestigial in fossils of the ancestors of whales).

 

 

Two things to note:

 

1) You've basically just described Theistic evolution - something significantlly different from young-Earth creationism. I certainly don't deny that it's possible - for that matter, I think it's a much more sensible position than young-Earth creationism.

 

2) While I don't deny that what you've described is POSSIBLE that doesn't mean that it's LIKELY - it's no more likely to have happened than the creation story of ANY religion.

 

 

Wrong again. It was a Christian (Carolus Linnaeus) who originally classified homo sapiens as a primate - and last I checked, the order Primates belongs to the kingdom Animalia.

 

So, tell you what: either you can retract that claim, or we can conclude that you're saying Christianity promotes racism.

 

 

Incorrect, and I've answered that claim twice now. Instead of spouting the same unsubstantiated claims over and over again, how about you try actually adressing some of the responses you've received?

 

 

You're arguing against a claim that no one here has actually made. Chance is not the same thing as a natural process - ever hear (E.g.) a geologist talking about erosion occurring "by chance"?

 

 

Quoi? Species don't go extinct because of the laws of thermodynamics (not directly, anyway). Species go extinct because their environments change and they are not sufficiently well-adapted to the new conditions.

 

 

My, my - you are a hypocritical little twit, aren't you? You haven't addressed even a TENTH of the objections, questions, and challenges that have been posed in response to your idiotic claims.

 

At this point, you've used up all reasonable benefit-of-the-doubt. When replying to you, I've made an effort to restrain the "flame this clueless, semi-literate retard to a crisp" impulse - but it's become abundantly clear that civility and rationality are utterly wasted on you.

 

 

Oh don't worry, I don't think anyone here still believes you're capable of being educated. As you've demonstrated, ignorance is curable - but willful stupidity? That lasts a lifetime.

 

"Also, it his not to be mature to not recognize that everyone has some blind faith. No one is questionning everything. As for you, you are not questionning the works of pro-evolution scientists and when they say something, you will tend to believe them. And this is also a blind faith. Man cannot live without some blind faith. What could you do if you would doubt that there could be some poison in your food every time you are going to eat. You have a blind faith too that your food is always healthy. So to say that believers have more blind faith then non-believers is just ridiculous. The central point is that believers have faith in God and non-believers have faith in non-God (which is Chance)."
- The blind faith we have is in science where we have no reason to not believe in it since it has been proven right so many times even if we don't know the evidence for it or even understand the mechanisms behind it. As i said in an earlier post, you have faith in a medicine would work even tho you have no idea how it works. But you have faith in that it will work since it's derived from well done science. It's exactly the same with evolution. Most people doesn't understand it (definitly not creationists) and those who believe in it that doesn't understand it just have to have faith in science. And peer-reviewing, re-testing and blind testing isn't questioning? It vital parts of science and testing evolution. If you don't believe me go ask a scientist how it works personally.

Oh and chance is not equal spontaneus or selection. Not even close.

"It's true that nobody can be a 100% sure. "
- And that's the reason why absolutes are a very bad word to use in any case.

"You do not have science, believers have science."
- Not true and you know it. All your "scientific" arguments are just arguments from credulity.

"How can you tell science something that reverse the laws of nature. In your worldview, Chance is supposed to have created something that do not obey to the laws of chance."
- We can't, that's why creationism can never be science or even the bible to be scientifically valid. Jesus walks on water anyone wanna prove that scientifically? Still chance is a bad word since it's not representing anything of what we advocate. Except the random mutations, but the mutation rate itself is not by chance and the selection is not chance or random as well.
I will come back to this later and describe it for you.

"If Chance (it looks like a God) had created or was the key of the existence of the universe, everything in the universe would obey to chance and not to the laws of nature."
- No it looks awesome and spectacular, but awesome does not = god. Chance does not = evolution or even god. Spectacular does not = god either. It's just another form of the "It's so incredible and complex so god must have done it"-argument. This is a felony in science since you give up trying to find the answer and just end up with an answer that doesn't explain anything or have any value to further studies or such.

Parts of chance:
Probability is a way of expressing knowledge or belief that an event will occur or has occurred. In mathematics the concept has been given an exact meaning in probability theory, that is used extensively in such areas of study as mathematics, statistics, finance, gambling, science, and philosophy to draw conclusions about the likelihood of potential events and the underlying mechanics of complex systems.

Luck is a belief in good or bad fortune in life caused by accident or chance which happens beyond a person's control.  Luck is significant in everyday life, as well as Morality, Epistemology, Business and other endeavors. Luck is pervasive in common speech. Typical use includes "Good Luck!" to wish a blessing on someone, or describing a misfortune, as in "it was just bad luck." There are many expressions and quotes about Luck.Cultural views of Luck vary from faith to superstition.

Randomness is a concept with somewhat disparate meanings in several fields. It also has common meanings which may have loose connections with some of those more definite meanings. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "random" thus:

Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard.

Also, in statistics, as:

Governed by or involving equal chances for each of the actual or hypothetical members of a population; (also) produced or obtained by such a process, and therefore unpredictable in detail.

Closely connected, therefore, with the concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy, randomness implies a lack of predictability. More formally, in statistics, a random process is a repeating process whose outcomes follow no describable deterministic pattern, but follow a probability distribution, such that the relative probability of the occurrence of each outcome can be approximated or calculated. For example, the rolling of a fair six-sided die in neutral conditions may be said to produce random results, because one cannot compute, before a roll, what number will show up. However, the probability of rolling any one of the six rollable numbers can be calculated, assuming that each is equally likely.

A spontaneous process is the time-evolution of a system in which it releases free energy (most often as heat) and moves to a lower, more thermodynamically stable, energy state.

Now from this we  can deduct that if we say look at the reactions one could expect of newly formed life, we can see that luck or chance is not a good describing word. However spontaneous processes is a good word to describe them. Many reactions and events in both our bodies and the universe follows the well documented natural laws. We test them over and over and over again to establish that they do not change and what factors that could alter them hasn't happened. For example the gravity pull would be the same since the mass of the earth hasn't changed (or not enough to make any difference on the data). Now there are some laws, like gravity that we cannot explain why. They just have that effect and act like that. You could give god the credit for it, but we can never prove it nor disprove it and i don't mind because of it. We don't know why a proton has a positive value and an electron has a negative. It's just an observed fact that they have just like it's observed fact that large enough masses get a gravitational pull.

"How can you accuse believers of blind faith and believe that we got so much luck during Billions of years and that the universe didn't break apart? How can you think that chance could build man (a creature that don't obey neither to Nature nor to chance). Freedom is something that chance cannot afford (to believe that is a strange religion and certainly a really blind faith)."
- Stil missuse of the word luck and chance.

"How can we be for sure? Because it would be impossible the other way. If I would see a house in the Jungle, I would say: A man was here to build it. I would not say: that building built itself through a process that needed to create an organism capable of assembling piece of wood into a house. Why don't you tell that the house built itself so that we could laugh a bit?"
- Just like houses over time changes and "evolves" if you may, the animals do the same thing. Even with a designer for the first one of both examples they both evolved over time and that's a fact.
You are assuming that a human built it cuz of many thoughts.
1. you don't know of any other intelligent animal who could have done it.
2. You know that humans build houses becaseu you've seen it.
3. You know how humans build houses.
Based on these 3 thoughts you assume that humans made the house. These assumptions you do the same way but contribute it to god even though you haven't actually seen him do anything. You just discard anything cuz it's impossible (in your eyes atleast) and tend to the unlogical god-card.
Yet again you have failed to grasp the most basic concept of evolution theory.
It's irrelevant to the theory HOW life came to be as the theory ONLY EXPLAINS HOW life diversified and changed over the course of time. And it might be a false analogy since last time i checked houses can't replicate and the house itself doesn't contain the blueprints. wanna prove me wrong? =)

"It's the same for the Universe. Many things in this universe (even if they are natural are a way lot more complicated than buildings and you  still believe that all these complicated things built themselves according to the throw of a die and that it always fell on the same number (meaning that the Universe never disappeared during the process of creating itself)."
- Now I'll get back to that what i wrote i would. A die is a VERY bad analogy. A better one would be say 1000 dices. If the good result comes with the nr 6 and we throw all 1000 dices and only save those with a 6. Now the 6 would be organisms that had a mutation to benefit from and survive as the rest didn't. It's not like we threw the same die again and again and again til we get 6. That would be a wrong analogy.

"Indeed, The cosmological argument proves deism at least. Because the only other alternative is Chance (and Chance is never the rule and the exeption do not create a rule; this is a simple probability calculation not hard to understand)."
- The other turning out wrong doesn't validate the other. Like IF evolution theory turned out to be wrong (but probably woun't ever) it wouldn't validate creationism at all.

"To resume, If you're an atheist, you can't prove you need to act morally."
- No but we can prove WHY we act morally without your damn bible. We can also prove why we acted morally BEFORE christianity came into the picture.
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/3723/1/rutherford3723.pdf

"second, you have to think the universe was there by chance, but this is absurd because the Universe do not obey Chance."
- Right and god didn't happen to be here by chance? Or it was chance that he was created?

"Anyways, I wrote my arguments, I've heard yours, I was just trying to learn a bit more about evolutionnism and atheism arguments and make my hand on the subject, but this takes too much of my time. I'll keep studying the subject anyways."
- I don't discuss atheism. It's not a part of ToE. First thing you could do is to aknowledge what we say about it. Attacking strawmans is not learning. It's attacking claims that no one holds and aren't true.

"The best pro-evolution argument might be on the drift thing about mutation, but it still doesn't prove that mutations could create an evolutionnary process that would improve greatly an organism through time. Mutations could even work and evolution be true and that still the Bible be right about the genesis."
- It's totally unfounded to claim that genesis could be true. If it where we would carry a lot more genetic disorders that everyone on earth would have because of the incredible incest needed by Eves and Adams children.

"Anyways, for me, it stays in my head that evolution promotes racism by the fact that it puts man on the same level than animals."
- Personal prejudice, not an argument. It's all in your head. It may put us on the same level, but that only makes us more responsible for them and our environment.

"I also keep in mind that it's impossible to prove that we need to be moral if God doesn't exist."
- Don't you get it?! I've said over and over again that there is studies (that i linked) and evidence that supports the idea that morals are evolved. That would explain why indians had morals before they met christians. How do you explain that?

"I keep also in mind that Chance (which is the base for atheism goes against the regularity of the laws of the universe)."
- Strawman, this is not what we say or even claim. You're attacking a fake claim.

"Without calculating that the theory of evolution contradict the second law of thermodynamics which shows that the universe it going towards disorder."
- It doesn't say anything about the second law of thermodynamics! If you want to learn then learn the real things!
How does this :
"The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium, and that the entropy change dS of a system undergoing any infinitesimal reversible process is given by δq / T, where δq is the heat supplied to the system and T is the absolute temperature of the system. In classical thermodynamics, the second law is taken to be a basic postulate, while in statistical thermodynamics, the second law is a consequence of applying the equal prior probability postulate to the future while empirically accepting that the past was low entropy, for reasons not yet well understood."
 Contradict this:
"In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though changes produced in any one generation are normally small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species. The similarities among species suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence."

And no it doesn't show that the universe goes towards disorder. It goes to equilibrium. If you really want to learn something get your facts right.

"Ok, I think this was enough discussed, I want to look at other things. I might write at some other times, but I want a break now."
- Fine if the information was to big for your brain to comprehend.

sooo much you missed to even adress by my posts and you do what every creationist here do. Don't correct their picture about what we advocate. Using strawmens is only shows you don't want to learn and be corrected.

In order to provide a freedom of religion and be non-religious, schools would have to be agnostic, not atheist. Agnostics acknowledge that anything proven is fact, and anything not proven to be true or false is still possible. Therefore, an agnostic school would teach all theories (to an extent), teach theories as theories and categorized as theories, and teach proven things as facts.

"In order to provide a freedom of religion and be non-religious, schools would have to be agnostic, not atheist."

 

ehm, no.

they would have te be SECULAR

in simple terms.

ENDORSE NO RELIGION WHATSOEVER.

 

it has nothing with agnosticism or atheism.

 

"Agnostics acknowledge that anything proven is fact, and anything not proven to be true or false is still possible.""

 

yo probably haven''t heard the erm ""weak atheism" or understood that most "strong atheism" is aimed at very specific versions of god.

 

""Therefore, an agnostic school would teach all theories (to an extent), teach theories as theories and categorized as theories, and teach proven things as facts.""

 

not this garbage again.

 

science in science classes. that''s all the anti- ID and creationism lobby sias.

 

oh, and evolution is a fact, the theory just explains how it happens.

again, grab yourselves some microbes and look for yourself.

 

oh and don't bring the asinine ""BUT THEY ARE STILL X"" response.

im sick and tired of explaining that fallacy to you.

Firstly, he (Hovind) argues against the changes in Genetic Material from one kind of Organism to another Kind of Organism. [Kind(s) : a group of Species of animals who can breed with each other.]

 

Secondly, I find nothing wrong with Darwin nor his Theory, I feel it enabled people to think differently about our ancestry and our origin. 

What I do find something wrong with is Scientists who uses Fraud/False evidence (only some) to support the theory. I don't think that Darwin ever intended to have his theory misused in such a way. I don't think Darwin would be very proud to see what his Theory has become...

 

PS: I'm a Creationist.  

"[Kind(s) : a group of Species of animals who can breed with each other.]""

 

YAY we have a definition!

 

now if hovind uses the same definition, he knows he can't interpret the noachian flood as literal.

so i hope you know that.

 

"What I do find something wr"ong with is Scientists who uses Fraud/False evidence (only some) to support the theory. I don't think that Darwin ever intended to have his theory misused in such a way. I don't think Darwin would be very proud to see what his Theory has become..."

 

woudl you mind elaborating on that.

because i would LOVE to see this "false and fraud" evidence that is of vital importance to ToE. because as far as i can reason, (putting myself into darwins shoes) i think darwin would be overjoyed to see that his initial theory has been so well worked out to explain such a large data set. and actually was used to make prediction in the fossil record (tiktaalik).

 

but i'm open to evaluate all the "fraud" you can bring.

 

also i would like ou to explain what ToE has "become""

 

(ps: theory doesn't need a capital letter)

you do know that a speice is defined as a closely a large group of animals that can produce fertile offspring. Hence the wolf being a subspecie of dogs since they can  reproduce freely. So what you mean is Kind of organism= species and sub-species.


What Darwin would have thought is completely irrelevant. And not like it's really become something we dislike. I bet you're talking about social darwinism. Well its useless in that area. You cannot explain ecology without the theory of evolution. You can however explain our social issues without it. And if your claim has any validity at all you might wanna enlighten us to what it is that was "fraud/false".

"you do know that a speice is defined as a closely a large group of animals that can produce fertile offspring. Hence the wolf being a subspecie of dogs since they can  reproduce freely."

 

that not really the correct wording.

canis lupus familiaris (domestic dogs) would actually be a subset of canis lupus (wolves), they were there first.

 

"So what you mean is Kind of organism= species and sub-species."

 

ergo. and that would still pose the same problem. as the sheer volume of all the species, would still be larger then the volume of noachs ark, therefore destroying any capacity for a literal interpretation. this is only the problem when you look at what species meant in the bible. this isn't even remotely close to all the other reasons why noachs flood could never have happend like it said in the bible.

 

"What Darwin would have thought is completely irrelevant."

ergo. science is science, regarless of personal opinions.

like newton still being valid eventhough he was an alchemist or howa creationist can still do perfectly well chemistry (as long as it doesn't deal with ToE, or anything else connected to the origins questions).

 

"I bet you're talking about social darwinism"

 

i doubt that's what is going through his mind. i think it's moire of the "evolution became a religion" argumentation. hence his reason to post on this thread.

" Well its useless in that area."

or to be more precise.

humans have trensended most of natural selection when they started farming.

 

Cute, I see what you did there - a (not really) subtle attempt to imply that atheism is a religion.

 

That's untrue, however - even just from the standpoint of basic English etymology. The "a" prefix can mean either "abstaining from" or "opposed to" and many of us use the word in the former sense. I'd be extremely curious how "abstaining from a belief in God or gods" could be considered a form of religion, much less a formal/organized religion.

 

The very idea is absurd - it's like saying that being apolotical is actually a political position.

 

 

But some agnostics do eventually learn enough about science to realize that NOTHING is ever considered proven in a scientific sense ("No amount of observation of white swans can prove the thesis that all swans are white, but just a single black swan is sufficient to disprove it" - aka, the "white swan fallacy"). And some agnostics even gain enough intellectual maturity to realize that, just because something is possible from a philosophical standpoint, that doesn't make it likely.

 

And when happens, typically they become atheists. Well, except for those agnostics who are former follower of a organized religion, and choose agnosticism because they're too wishy-washy to go all the way to atheism.

 

 

I see you've found a new twist for the old "teach the controversy" meme. The simple fact of the matter is that science is complex and even most adults can't properly grasp scientific topics without some specialized training. In order to convey those ideas to elementary school students without simplyfing them, and there aren't even many high school students equipped to understand the full complexity and ambiguity of scientific knowledge.

 

Of course, even what you suggest actually happened, that still wouldn't let creationism into the public classroom. Creation "science" hasn't even contributed anything that could properly be called a hypothesis, much less any actual theories.

 

And if you were able to lower the standards of science education enough to include creationism, then you would also be letting in just about any other crazy idea - homeopathy, crystal healing, UFOlogy. As Michael Behe admitted in the Dover trial: if Intelligent Design is scientific, then so is Astrology.

"Evolution is a religion just like any other, You either believe in it or you don't."
- Do you believe in atoms then? Cuz Atoms have way way little evidence to support it and no one have ever seen an atom. To those who don't understand it it's a religion, but to those wHo fully understand the theory. It's another matter.
Or is it because the founder was a theologian?

Anyway you're just calling all scientific work religion like it was some mumbo-jumbo with no credability at all or faulty work.

"It doesn't matter how much evidence any one can come up with, it still boils down to if you believe the theory or not."
- nice train of thought. You made it very clear that you stubbornly refuse to accept any evidence for it since you've already made up your mind and in your mind you are right no matter what.

"The same as with creation science. "
- Incase you haven't noticed. "creation science" is an oxymoron. Just like an atheist priest or an evil angel etc.

"It doesn't matter what we do to convince you, if you don't believe in creation science its all for nothing. "
- Oh yeah i got to the purely speculative and hypothetical "hell". You haven't supplied anything to even question what I've written how the hell are you gonna be able to convince us of anything else? Arguments is NOT proof of anything and that's why creation can never be proven. Except if you take away the divine intervention, but then it would just be a really really bad version of evolution. So until you've managed to convince us of god existing and that it was the judeo-christian one AND evidence to support that he was the one who did all the work and not Thor. Then you're right. There's nothing you can say tbh if you can't do what i just wrote.

GL HF!

go to the forum of 'submit Proof not B.S'. At the end i have a post on something you just might want.

Considering that we have Scientific Proof for Creation Science and you have Scientific Proof for Evolution, as well as there being an Absolute Science. I think that we should have a break in Science, into three major parts.

 

1. being Absolute Science

2. being Creation/Evolution

3. being Evolution/Creation

 

Only Absolute Science should be taught in schools, the other two, should be up to the choice of the people. whichever one a person feels fits best to them.

1. WTF is absolute science?
2. Science is not a democracy. We don't chose what theory that sounds best in our ears. The most valid answer is not always the one we want to hear.

"Evolution is a religion just like any other, You either believe in it or you don't. It doesn't matter how much evidence any one can come up with, it still boils down to if you believe the theory or not. The same as with creation science."

 

this has already been explained.

please stop making this false assurtion.

 

"It doesn't matter what we do to convince you, if you don't believe in creation science its all for nothing."

 

there is NO "creation science" as a scientific process.

we've already explained this.

"I think that considering the fact that we have proof for creation science and you have proof for evolution as well as there being an absolute science.

Therefor we should have a break in science, into three major parts:

1. Being Absolute Science
2. Being Creation/Evolution
3. Being Evolution/Creation

only Absolute Science should be taught in schools. The other two should be a choice."

 

i will have to ask you now,

what is your background in science?

because i have a sneaking feeling about this.

 

you can actually change how you view the forum...

yeah he did the job so you wouldn't. Most of them are about 20 years old and says wrong things. of course he's gonna say its lies in them! He never post the full source of his claims when he actually writes a "source". Like when he minequote a study on ficticious results on when carbon dating doesnt show the right age, he doesn't tell that the article explains why and how you should use the method to not give a wrong age.

"The idea of "big thinkers" is a joke, of course, I understand that. Big thinkers believe in molecules to man evolution, fossils taking millions of year to form, and gas collapsing into a star."

 

you should cure your ignorance with some suplementary science classes.

 

this shit has been dealt with before.

repeating strawmen and flaunting your increadible ignorance isn't going to get you anywhere

 

nebula don't form stars?...O RLY?

 

"The thing I appreciated most about Hovind was that he took the time to go through the text books and pointed out the lies that were there on purpose."

 

then you also notied he was pointing to a picture of nebula's when he was discussing the big bang right? or how he picked on heckles embryo's without actually showing the more modern pictures.

 

 

and yes, that is from an evengelical organisation.

 

now all you need is some simple embryological knowledge to examine the similarities.

 

"They also believe in suppressing data, that doesn't fit their agenda."

 

or rly? how about you provide said repressed data?