"Evolution isn't science"

[Belz...]

No since Christ came we are under a new covenant.

I think the word you're looking for is "convenient".

Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution.

I'm not sure that science is a contest of popularity, especially with the laymen.

It does make me realize that no matter how hard science tries to push their lies in schools people grow up and think for them selves!

How could blindly accepting a 2000 year-old dogma under threat of eternal damnation be considered "thinking for yourself" is beyond me.

Again not that it matters but about 1 Billion more people believe in the God of the bible than any other religion. Making it by far the most common religion in the world, that does not make it a minority!

Then you don't know what the word "minority" means.

Not if they were covered by water...the seal proved that!

Even if you were right, which you aren't, that would not invalidate other forms of radiometric dating.

but as there was no flood 4000 years ago it isn't worth much.

Source?

Coming from you that's very funny.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Thank you Skeptigirl, and you add something great whenever you post as well.

Thanks for the link, you've kept me up 'til 2AM with that

One of the biggest questions it raised with me is how can it be so easy to become a professor while seemingly lacking serious ability in your chosen field. Dembski* in particular came across as having not even thought about his proposals properly.

OK having done a quick check, I'm not surprised how easy it is.



*the spell checker tried to change it to Dumbs.

Thank you for making me giggle in a quiet room at school, where I'm not supposed to be accessing the internet

 

[kmortis]

Well, since his last post was on Saturday eve, I think he's gone....



Hey, I can hope, can't I?

 

[flume]

He may have taken Sunday off, and he may be busy all day today at work. My guess is that he'll be back tonight.

 

[Belz...]

And of course the Bible....

No, that doesn't count when looking for corroboration.

Even though only these three males are mentioned by name, Adam and Eve had other children. In Genesis 5:4 a statement sums up the life of Adam and Eve—‘And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were eight hundred years. And he fathered sons and daughters.’ This does not say when they were born. Many could have been born in the 130 years (Genesis 5:3) before Seth was born.

Uh-huh. But the Bibble is silent when it comes to CAIN. If it is to be taken litterally, then there was litterally no female on Earth except Eve at that time.

sure...you got some of it with the "kind" instead of species, and the seven pairs of clean animals and birds, and the fact that all things that lived in the water did not die and all insects did not die.

No, in one of the chapters God clearly says TWO of each, not seven.

Over 270 ancient civilizations have stories and historic records of The Great Flood...

I'm going to have to ask you to name them, now.

I wonder why that would be?...hmmm.....ummmmm....maybe because there was one

Non sequitur. These civilisations didn't know how large the world was. Therefore, it is ridiculous to claim that what they thought was the whole world really was. Do you acknowledge this ?

Im not sure what this means but Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son yes! but then told not to, you know kinda like a test of faith.

A cruel, malignant test of faith. Abe didn't expect God to stop him. He was fully ready to kill his own offspring just because he was ASKED to do it. The exact opposite of "thinking for yourself".

 

[Belz...]

That is why females are the pretty ones among humans (to attract males), while males are prettier in much of the rest of the animal kingdom (to attract females).

I suppose women would disagree with that statement.

 

[kmortis]

He may have taken Sunday off, and he may be busy all day today at work. My guess is that he'll be back tonight.

I did say that it was just a hope, right?

 

[aggle-rithm]

I suppose women would disagree with that statement.

Well, that's what they do best.

 

[switchtech]

They are valid scientific terms.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

I guess I'm guilty of simplifying it too far. Creationists deny that microevolution can result in macroevolution. So I tried to imply that macroevolution is the result of microevolution and that macroevolution can influence, to a degree, microevolution. While specific change to specific change they aren't the same, they are interrelated. But I don't have the symbol for that on my keyboard

 

[Jeff Corey]

No, that doesn't count when looking for corroboration.



Uh-huh. But the Bibble is silent when it comes to CAIN. If it is to be taken litterally, then there was litterally no female on Earth except Eve at that time.



No, in one of the chapters God clearly says TWO of each, not seven.



I'm going to have to ask you to name them, now.



Non sequitur. These civilisations didn't know how large the world was. Therefore, it is ridiculous to claim that what they thought was the whole world really was. Do you acknowledge this ?



A cruel, malignant test of faith. Abe didn't expect God to stop him. He was fully ready to kill his own offspring just because he was ASKED to do it. The exact opposite of "thinking for yourself".

Bob Dylan song here. And I'm glad to to see someone spell non sequitur correctly.

 

[CapelDodger]

A cruel, malignant test of faith. Abe didn't expect God to stop him. He was fully ready to kill his own offspring just because he was ASKED to do it. The exact opposite of "thinking for yourself".

What about Isaac? Will nobody think about Isaac? He's written as a bit-part, but from his point-of-view he must have had a leading role. Did that screw him up for life or what? (Thanks to Jenny Diski http://www.jennydiski.co.uk/fiction.htm for bringing that aspect to my notice.)

 

[SimonD]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7947864133148073999&q=A+WAR+ON+SCIENCE

Watch it! Dawkins uninterrupted:
This video is cool, since it starts out with the creationist arguments. All of them, in detail, and then at the end they disprove them, one by one. That is why they lost the dover case.

Fantastic - thanks Eos

 

[CapelDodger]

I suppose women would disagree with that statement.

So would I, I was damn' pretty in my day, as was my father in his, and it did us no harm. One of my nephews has it; as my mother says, if you want to find him look for a swirl of girls.

 

[flume]

for anyone not following the thread in the religion forum, there's a new creationist supporter who has joined that discussion, and the discussion there has turned to evolution.

 

[kmortis]

for anyone not following the thread in the religion forum, there's a new creationist supporter who has joined that discussion, and the discussion there has turned to evolution.

flume,
Which thread would that be?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

As someone who probably spends a lot more time dealing with Creationists on a day to day basis let me offer some advice. If we're in the Science forum, cut with crap and stop attacking any theology or apologetics they toss out. Just ignore it and go after their bad science. Some Creationists are intransigents, trolls or Hovind wannbes and we're not going to make any progress with them anyway, but attacking their faith and using assinine bon mots like "Jebus" and "Bile" aren't going to help if any lurkers are perusing the thread.

That sort of crap will be all the more detrimental if we ever get any open minded Creationists in here who want to look at the issue honestly. As soon as you start insulting them and their faith, you're not going to make any progress at all in the science front. Stick to the science. Everything Creationists say can be debunked or shown to not be an issue and leave the "telling xians how stupid they are" for the Religion forum.

 

[flume]

flume,
Which thread would that be?

It is in the religion forum, started by Jesus_Freak: "The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally". He started it when we asked that this topic here be reserved for science.

 

[Buckaroo]

Some Creationists are intransigents, trolls or Hovind wannbes and we're not going to make any progress with them anyway, but attacking their faith and using assinine bon mots like "Jebus" and "Bile" aren't going to help if any lurkers are perusing the thread.

That sort of crap will be all the more detrimental if we ever get any open minded Creationists in here who want to look at the issue honestly. As soon as you start insulting them and their faith, you're not going to make any progress at all in the science front.

Yeah, you're right, and mea culpa. I probably shouldn't have said Jesus sucks.

But gosh darn it, he just makes me sooo angry.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
The only mystery in human sexuality is that, contrary to most other animals, humans treat the males, not the females, as if they were "commodities" to be won. That is why females are the pretty ones among humans (to attract males), while males are prettier in much of the rest of the animal kingdom (to attract females).

Not to sidetrack the thread but you may overgeneralizing and missing things here. Many males in the animal world attract mates by flaunting colors, building skills, dances and whatnot. But other males win mates by sheer brute force fighting off other males. Some animals mate for life others mate and split, still others have harems, and the bonobos have pedophilia.

And while human women in some cultures don jewels and fancy clothes, in other cultures they are covered in public. In many cultures mates are chosen for both men and women by the parents. In all cultures a good share of men are not monogamous even when married. Women may wander as well but there are very few women who pay for sex.

So I don't think your generalization is a very accurate one. Sex and mating rituals are complex throughout the animal kingdom.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Quote: BTW - it was real nice of god to create cancer

And send is only begotten Son to die for out sins for that we may inherit everlasting life.

Oh, my favorite Bible story. (Sorry believers who feel skeptics attack religion, but it has to be said.)

The story:

God creates Adam and Eve and while claiming to only want obedience and worship, makes sure there are a couple rules that will be hard not to break. Behold, the tempting fruit is eaten. Which God claims was by their free choice but God also claims he knew all along they would break the rule.

So, later, God sends Jesus. We are all supposed to be God's children but for some reason Jesus is God's ONLY BEGOTTEN son (as opposed to making them out of dirt, I guess). This is supposed to be a greater sacrifice for some reason. Guess we really aren't God's children after all. But I digress.

So the sinful people beat and torture Jesus to death. Which makes God forgive the fact that 4,000 years earlier Adam and Eve ate some fruit. Now of course, the people are supposed to think God made some great sacrifice of his ONLY son, but no one thinks about the fact God could have forgiven anyone at any time. How is it that sacrificing your ONLY son is the only way you can forgive people whose ancestors ate some fruit?

Now to add to the nonsensical nature of this story, consider people have sinned before and after Jesus. People are supposedly forgiven before and after, but eating the fruit was just too much, God had to kick his son around for that one.

And God punished 'man' by sending him out to toil for a living. Well some atheists toil and some don't, some theists toil and some don't.

God punished 'woman' by making childbirth painful. Asking Jesus' or God's forgiveness has no impact on the pain of childbirth. But anesthesia sure does. Of course that invention had nothing to do with Jesus and came ~2,000 years later.

I think, this might have started out as a more logical myth when the storytellers were passing it on, but you know how it goes when you play the telephone game and pass a story round a circle. Somewhere along the way the story lost something in translation.