• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Evolution isn't science"

Psiload said:
You consider the bible to be literal and true? Even this passage?...
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7)
Click to expand...


You're impressed by a book of "truths" which outlines the proper rules for selling one's own child into slavery? What kind of person are you? :eek:
Click to expand...

Still waiting for a response to this one...

:popcorn1
 
You were warned about quoting from creationist websites, weren't you. And WHO have you referred to? Ken Ham, and Dembski.

You will find that no-one in the civilised world nor the USA takes any notice of Ken Ham. His agenda is not spiritual enlightenment, nor education, nor bringing God to the unGodly. The only "enlightenment" Ken envisages is to enlighten your wallet while fattening his. I take it you are familiar with the term "con-artist"?

Incidentally, the journal you cite is Creation Ex Nihilo. It means literally "creation out of nothing". It's a totally accurate title for the scientific content it contains.

As for Dembski, you are in for some stiff argument here. At least Dembski has the intelligence to see reason, but his opus magnum has been fairly soundly refuted in most respects in recent times. You should really do a search here on ths forum first, to see the discussions we have already had, before trotting him out again.
 
jesus_freak said:
maybe this can help...
Click to expand...

FTA:

Perhaps the "gill slit" myth continues to be taught because there is no better "evidence" for evolution.
Click to expand...

No. I haven't heard that one but it's silly to say that the reason it persists is anything other than the general reasons such things persist - unlearning is harder than learning.

That conclusion is plain stupid - evolution doesn't stand on the appendix and gills in embryos. If it's being taught in American schools (I certainly never heard it myself) then you should be demanding that the quality of schooling is improved, not conclude the evolution is to be thrown out because debunked theories are being repeated.
 
You consider the bible to be literal and true? Even this passage?...
Quote:
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7)

You're impressed by a book of "truths" which outlines the proper rules for selling one's own child into slavery? What kind of person are you? :eek: Still waiting for a response to this one...

:popcorn1
Click to expand...
Ok here is my response. I BELIEVE IT IS TRUE! do you believe that slavery back then was different than say a few hundred years ago?
 
jesus_freak said:
ummm....I accept, do you accept that only scientific facts should be taught in public schools? do you accept that all proven lies should be removed from text books?
Click to expand...

It's plainly obvious where you're going with this. You seem to think that you'll bait someone into answering yes to the above question and then you'll proceed to show them that evolutionary theory is a "proved lie" based on things you've read on some creationist website. I assure you it won't go the way you think it will. There are many on this forum who are actual scientists working in the field of biology and they know what they're talking about.
 
jesus_freak said:
Ok...ummm...hold a bowling ball 20 feet above your head and have it droped. Thats a pretty weird analogy I think.
Click to expand...

I believe gravity is a scientific lie. You believe evolution is a scientific lie.

If it's all about what we believe rather than the actual science what's your problem?

I wonder when your bowling ball moment will come.

Now explain how nothing exploded and formed a rock, then how rain on a rock(no matter how long) can cause life.
Click to expand...

I cannot explain things that did not happen.

(Hint: this is what's commonly known as a strawman - that is to say you have quite a distorted view of what science actually teaches - oh, and it's got nothing to do with biological evolution, which is the only thing which is actually called evolution outside of the creationist set).
 
jesus_freak said:
ummm....I accept, do you accept that only scientific facts should be taught in public schools?
Click to expand...
Yes. The difference between us is, I know enough facts to assert with a very high degree of certainty that the biology taught in public schools IS composed of scientific facts, and you neither know enough to do so, nor know enough to prove it is not. I assert that if you take the trouble to find out what I know, then you too will accept that what is taught in public school biology is composed of scientific facts.

jesus_freak said:
do you accept that all proven lies should be removed from text books?
Click to expand...
This is a fallacious argument, because it assumes something that is not proven: that there are proven lies in text books. I do not accept that assumption, and in fact I know enough to assert with a high degree of certainty that it is untrue.
 
Loren G. Martin, professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University, replies: "For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals. OK is this better?
 
This is a fallacious argument, because it assumes something that is not proven: that there are proven lies in text books. I do not accept that assumption, and in fact I know enough to assert with a high degree of certainty that it is untrue.
Click to expand...
Nope I am just saying scientifically proven lies
 
(Hint: this is what's commonly known as a strawman - that is to say you have quite a distorted view of what science actually teaches - oh, and it's got nothing to do with biological evolution, which is the only thing which is actually called evolution outside of the creationist set).
Click to expand...
so how do you believe the earth was formed?
 
jesus_freak said:
So we can agree that there was a world wide flood even if you don't believe the same version as me?
Click to expand...

No, those weren't world-wide, though to people living in those ancient eras, they might have flooded all the world they knew.
 
OK is this better?
Click to expand...

No. The appendix is still a vestigial organ according to the given definition. Let it go. Learn something new today about the meaning of vestigial. It's not a cornerstone of evolutionary theory.

Nope I am just saying scientifically proven lies
Click to expand...

You should really stop calling them 'lies' BTW unless there is actual evidence that there has been an intent to mislead.

Otherwise you might as well start calling Newton a liar once Einstein showed how his laws of motion 'lied'.

BTW, any more thoughts on Noah? Any closer to understanding how stating different lengths of time for the flood counts as a contradiction?
 
You should really stop calling them 'lies' BTW unless there is actual evidence that there has been an intent to mislead.
Click to expand...
ok here are a few...give me some time and I can go look up the rest...The appendix has no function, gill slits in human embreos,comparitive anatomy provides EVIDENCE of evolution,the tailbone serves no function,snakes and whaleshave reduced hind legs,and so on.
 
Last edited:
No. The appendix is still a vestigial organ according to the given definition. Let it go. Learn something new today about the meaning of vestigial. It's not a cornerstone of evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...
OK I repeat should it be taught that the appendix has NO function
 
Dang I gotta go play basketball but I will be back later. I really do enjoy this even if we dont get anywhere!
 
jesus_freak said:
so how do you believe the earth was formed?
Click to expand...

Some basic chemistry and physics would be helpful. You need to understand that the stuff that makes up your body has no fundamental difference to the stuff that makes up stars. It contains protons, neutrons and electrons in various configurations.

You need to get over the idea that there's a magic 'life' and 'non-life' barrier (not barring the problems of defining such a barrier). Life and non-life operate with the same chemistry and physics.

A 'rock' refers to any number of specific chemical combinations of metals and non-metals generally forming in crystalline structures. Rocks did not come out of the big bang.

The particular elements required for such chemistry formed in stars under the extreme conditions that allow for nuclear fusion to occur. It is from stars that the Earth formed - you remember gravity right? Well it has a tendency to pull stuff together. Get a lot of stuff together and you can get an Earth sized thing.

That's the basics. Any actual scientific objections rather than the, "I just can't believe that because it sounds silly to me," type?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom