Science at its worst

[Jose Fly]

Nobody contests any other scientific term.

Again your ignorance is noted.

We know there are people who contest a spherical earth, heliocentrism, germ theory, medicine, vaccination, the holocaust, and just about anything you care to name.

Excellent. You don't have any authority, but perhaps a grassroots movement would help change from that sloppy inaccurate Darwinian word.

By the same logic we must also start "describing the process" rather than using the term "holocaust", since there are people who dispute it. Now of course most people understand how stupid that reasoning is. You however.....

I think it would.

Then do it. Start a thread where you attempt to convince the Christians here.

:nono: Hitler killed Christians in those camps too. Next you'll be telling me Jews influence him :noway:

Again your ignorance is noted. Germany had a long history of antisemitism from Christians, including Martin Luther, who authored the book "On the Jews and Their Lies".

It depends on how carefully you describe the relation. Plants have DNA, cells, and are alive so we have related similarity.

Then let's see you do it. Start a thread wherein you attempt to convince the Christians here that humans share a common ancestry with other primates.

You are being in-genuine. You acknowledge that it is a bin word yourself, and then complain in the next breath as if... lain: I hardly need to prove what you, yourself conceded already.

Again you're not making the slightest bit of sense.

You were guessing that they had no background AND it is not your background.

I said nothing about anyone's background.

You've a biology BA, right?

No. BS in biology, MS in ecology.

This thread.

Which post?

False delineation.

Not at all. I have named all sorts of contributions that evolutionary theory has made to the sciences in the last century. Yet when creationists are asked to name even one contribution from creationism, they can't come up with anything.

The one bringing his beliefs to the table is the contribution.

If that's all you can muster, I'll allow it to speak for itself.

Not only that, I told you that we've complained about the linear Darwin chart before scientists recognized or admitted it. You are welcome.

So you just ignore the facts (Darwin described evolution as a branching, non-linear process over 150 years ago) and repeat yourself. Such is the nature of denialism.

Where would I have seen them if not in classrooms?

So you are unable to support yet another claim of yours. Noted.

 

[Jose Fly]

You are being obtuse. Read it slower. It is not hard to understand.

Here, let's just re-post what you linked to (in its entirety)...

Evidence in the case of evolution versus creation generally better supports the creation account. However most people do not realize that. Most people have never been taught anything about the creation model. So evidence is always interpreted in light of the only model that they have been taught, the evolution model.

One example of the misunderstanding that most evolutionists have is regarding the ability of animals to quickly adapt to changing environments. Especially in the past, evolutionists thought change and speciation was a slow gradual process taking millions of years. The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation. Adaptation~ speciation usually happens when natural selection, 'selects' information that already exists in the genome. It is a process identified by a creationist (Edward Blyth) before Charles Darwin popularized the notion. It is a process similar to that of breeding animals... artificial selection. Selection is a process that usually eliminates unwanted information... It does not create new information.

As an example Darwin noted different species of finches in the Galapagos Islands. Evolutionists thought that these species have developed over the course of up to 5,000,000 years. That time frame was not based on science, but on the belief that everything evolved from a common ancestor over the course of millions and millions of years. Real science involving observation has now shown that these different species likely developed over the course of a few hundred years.

But even a few hundred years is a very long time. Speciation can happen over the course of just a few generations.... a matter of several years. Sticklefish have speciated / rapidly adapted in a very short time period.

Another example of rapid speciation (creationist model) comes from a study of guppies in Trinidad. One of the researchers speaking from the evolutionary perspective says " ‘The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years—a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record" IE. He says that the actual observed rate does not match the evolutionary assumptions of million of years in the fossil record.
science; Predator-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward (Morell)

Rapid changes are bewildering to evolutionists..... but make perfect sense in the creationist model. God created most things with a very polytypic genome ( programmed variation) . They can change and adapt to various situations because of the wide array of info in their DNA.

Other examples of the ability of animals to adapt quickly:
Fruit flies grow longer wings...
... evolutionists are 'alarmed'
New Scientist 165 wrote:
"Flying out of control—alien species can evolve at an alarming rate"


Frogs seemingly 'evolve' in 1 generation...
... Evolutionists are surprised.
Science Daily wrote:
"However, the results show that in many cases, species with eggs and tadpoles placed in water seem to give rise directly to species with direct development, without going through the many seemingly intermediate steps that were previously thought to be necessary "
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0910142632.htm


And the best one showing.....
... Evolutionists are unscientific.
Bird species changes fast but without genetic differences (species-specific DNA markers)...
"Rapid phenotypic evolution during incipient speciation in a continental avian radiation" Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
The researchers suggest that the lack of genetic markers may mean the changes in these birds happened so fast that the genes haven't had a chance to catch up yet!!!!

That's a few of the many examples of adaptation and speciation that support the Biblical model, contradicting the evolutionist model of slow gradual change over millions of years.​

Now where exactly in that post did you describe where or how the Bible describes rapid adaptation?

Use Stripes definition...

I did. "Kinds" are "all the organisms that are descended from a universal ancestor population". Try and keep up.

and use what I actually said "We see rapid adaptation within created kinds. We see bacteria changing into bacteria. We see breeding varieties within created kinds etc."

Here we go again...

First question: Is "bacteria" a kind?

 

[6days]

Now where exactly in that post did you describe where or how the Bible describes rapid adaptation?

Question for you.... Does obtuse and stupid mean the same thing?

(Stripes definition) "Kinds" are "all the organisms that are descended from a universal ancestor population". Try and keep up.

Yes... Good definition!

First question: Is "bacteria" a kind?

It seems you are trying your best to create a strawman. What I said was "We see rapid adaptation within created kinds. We see bacteria changing into bacteria. We see breeding varieties within created kinds etc."
So..... If you use Stripes definition... And what I said, then unless you are stupid, you would know that bacteria which change and adapt would be the same created kind as their ,grandparents'.

 

[Jose Fly]

Question for you.... Does obtuse and stupid mean the same thing?

You're dodging again. When I asked you where "rapid adaptation" is described in the Bible, you linked to that post. I just now re-posted the entire contents of that post, and nowhere in it do you describe where rapid adaptation is described in the Bible.

So again, where is "rapid adaptation" described in the Bible?

It seems you are trying your best to create a strawman. What I said was "We see rapid adaptation within created kinds. We see bacteria changing into bacteria. We see breeding varieties within created kinds etc."
So..... If you use Stripes definition... And what I said, then unless you are stupid, you would know that bacteria which change and adapt would be the same created kind as their ,grandparents'.

So "bacteria" are a kind. What methodology did you use to come to that conclusion?

 

[Greg Jennings]

6days was ignoring questions again

 

[Greg Jennings]

6days, I trust you removed that link because you realized how unreliable your source was finally? I searched for newgeology and the first link was an anti-evolution article. Just another creationist waste of webspace.

See here: https://sites.google.com/site/cabba...onism/debunking/bitesize001debunkingevolution

 

[6days]

6days, I trust you removed that link because you realized how unreliable your source was finally? I searched for newgeology and the first link was an anti-evolution article. Just another creationist waste of webspace.

See here: https://sites.google.com/site/cabba...onism/debunking/bitesize001debunkingevolution

I removed the link because The picture was too small.

Greg... I expect you to claim "unreliable" when any scientist says something that challenges your belief system/

 

[6days]

Explain to me how supposed 30,000 year old dinosaur tissue supports a 6000 year old Earth?]

The tissue is not 30,000 years old. C14 testing of dino tissue has ranged from 22,00 to about 50,000. Those dates are consistent with the creation flood model. They are not consistent with your 70 MILLION year date. (No matter how much iron you add)

And why would a flood change C-14 levels?[/QUOTE]
With C14 dating, there are some unknown conditions in the past can't be calibrated for...
(Strength / weakness of solar rays, earths magnetic field, global floods etc)

The global flood would have drastically effected the ratio....
-With all vegetation dead...much buried starting to form coal and oil...
The C14 would increase at this time relative to the C12.
Also effecting the ratio at this time would be volcanic activity around the earth emitting lots of CO2 without the normal C14

Creationist researchers figure that Preflood oganisms although only 4500 years old would C14 date somewhere near 40,000 years.*
(Brown, R.H./ Creation Research Society Quarterly/ 'Correlation of C-14 age with real time')"

 

[Caino]

Caino.... You were asked to provide a clear example of a contradiction. After asking you 4 times for the best example possible..... You did give your best shot at it. Thanks.
However, as I showed you, your very best example is certainly not clear. There is a good logical explanation to the verses you suggested.
As a follower of Christ, I believe His Word is God breathed... divinely inspired.... inerrant. Almost always, as in your example, His Word is not difficult to understand. His Word is not contradictory.

I understand and agree that Gods Word is trustworthy, the writings of holy men are not. The bible contradicts the facts of science from the beginning of its garbled creation myth. The Hebrews redid their history into science fiction. The early followers of Jesus were Jews who unfortunately contaminated the original gospel by connecting Jesus to the conflicted theology of the Old re-Testament.

 

[Greg Jennings]

The tissue is not 30,000 years old. C14 testing of dino tissue has ranged from 22,00 to about 50,000. Those dates are consistent with the creation flood model. They are not consistent with your 70 MILLION year date. (No matter how much iron you add)

What the hell? You believe that the world was created 6000 years ago. How in the world can you claim a 30,000 year old anything to support your model? Even if the dinosaur really is from just 30,000 (or 22,000 or 50,000 or whatever) years ago, that re-confirms the Earth is older than 6000 years and contradicts your "creation flood model"!

With C14 dating, there are some unknown conditions in the past can't be calibrated for...
(Strength / weakness of solar rays, earths magnetic field, global floods etc)

The global flood would have drastically effected the ratio....
-With all vegetation dead...much buried starting to form coal and oil...
The C14 would increase at this time relative to the C12.
Also effecting the ratio at this time would be volcanic activity around the earth emitting lots of CO2 without the normal C14
[ researchers figure that Preflood oganisms although only 4500 years old would C14 date somewhere near 40,000 years.*
(Brown, R.H./ Creation Research Society Quarterly/ 'Correlation of C-14 age with real time')"

If there was this massive deposition of vegetation, we should see coal seams in sediment deposits worldwide at the exact same level: the "flood level" which must be between 4500-6500 years ago. Correct?

 

[Greg Jennings]

I removed the link because The picture was too small.

Greg... I expect you to claim "unreliable" when any scientist says something that challenges your belief system/

Read the link. Read it all

 

[6days]

What the hell? You believe that the world was created 6000 years ago. How in the world can you claim a 30,000 year old anything to support your model? Even if the dinosaur really is from just 30,000 (or 22,000 or 50,000 or whatever) years ago, that re-confirms the Earth is older than 6000 years and contradicts your "creation flood model"!

Read again what I said.
If you can't understand it.... Ah, never mind. I don't think you can.....because you are entrenched.
Anyways... your question was answered. (And answered well)

If there was this massive deposition of vegetation, we should see coal seams in sediment deposits worldwide at the exact same level: the "flood level" which must be between 4500-6500 years ago. Correct?

No.... Not correct. However coal seams which sometimes are hundreds of feet thick is strong evidence for the flood model.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Read again what I said.
If you can't understand it.... Ah, never mind. I don't think you can.....because you are entrenched.
Anyways... your question was answered. (And answered well)

You said that a 30,000 year old fossil was evidence of a 6000 year old earth and a 5000 year old worldwide flood. You never connected the dots. Feel free to, or to have a friend explain your complicated creationist hypothesis

No.... Not correct.

Yes....Yes it was, actually. Just as we see the Carboniferous period coal layer in reality, a massive vegetation deposition caused by a massive flood would produce coal seams worldwide at the same strata.

However coal seams which sometimes are hundreds of feet thick is strong evidence for the flood model.

Unless the seams are all in the same strata, then they were from different events and eras.

 

[Lon]

Again your ignorance is noted.

By you? Who cares what two anonymous people say, Jose? What possible reason would you want to note this for? I'm not sure the following qualifies.

We know there are people who contest a spherical earth, heliocentrism, germ theory, medicine, vaccination, the holocaust, and just about anything you care to name.

You might be making me feel sorry for you and perhaps even a bit more empathetic. How often do you see these contested anymore?

By the same logic we must also start "describing the process" rather than using the term "holocaust", since there are people who dispute it. Now of course most people understand how stupid that reasoning is. You however.....

Ah, couldn't resist the jab at the end. Good for you, Jose. Thanks, I was starting to feel empathetic and sorry for the science community. This snapped me out of it :up:

Then do it. Start a thread where you attempt to convince the Christians here.

Even the science community has peer review. Sure, you will still have problems passing people off as ancestors with the rest of the animal kingdom. There are no intelligent lizards driving cars, afterall. We are incredibly far removed from every animal, without exception. In order for science to convince, (and they are 'incredibly' jumping the gun ahead of what science actually 'can' assert) they would have to explain a lot more than they have. The jump is assertion. No scientist has (or can) explain that incredibly long jump and assertion to the general public. Maybe you guys in science have a magic bean or are doing insider trader or something, but you've (as a whole, not you persay) been inept at convincing the public. Evolution, as you describe it is taught unqualified in 100% of public schools yet the Huffington Post reports that only 25% of Americans believe in Evolution and less than that believe we are related to apes. That's a science nightmare. That means, literally, you guys can't explain something that is supposed to be so cut and dried as to not be controversial, and yet 80% of Americans don't believe it. As you know, Only 60% of us are evangelicals. Granted some of that number may be our more liberal cousins, but like Purex, they tend to embrace evolution, including common ancestry. That means that it fundamentalists aren't your only detractors, just the larger portion of them by 3 to 1. One in four, you can't blame their religion "if" that were the thing you thought was the only reason science isn't making headway. It isn't. You don't have to respond to this section, I'm just giving noncontroversial information. There is nothing to argue with. Your comments are welcome or you can argue with the Huffington Post if you like.

Again your ignorance is noted. Germany had a long history of antisemitism from Christians, including Martin Luther, who authored the book "On the Jews and Their Lies".

I've read it. It isn't that long. It hardly calls for thier genecide, but for the Christian to guard against proselytizing. I'm not sure Hitler would have cared or even read the book concerning the practice of Christianity. On top of that, as I said, he killed Christians in those camps too and it is well documented. On this, it is important and I'd ask you to rethink inane accusation of ignorance simply because on this, I don't think it is a luxury for either you or I to be ignorant of anything regarding the Holocaust and WW2. Realize as well, Hitler was attacking primarily Christian countries, lest this become 'atheist' or antichristian propoganda. It is my sentiment, that we all need to be more unified when regarding those attrocities than using them to bash one another to oblivion. I would drop out of any conversation that tried to press another into the camp of these attrocities.

Then let's see you do it. Start a thread wherein you attempt to convince the Christians here that humans share a common ancestry with other primates.

I'm not sure it'd satisfy you. I'd only say that in the same way plants have similarities to us in that we all have the same/similar building blocks, that of course we share a lot in common with all life on this planet. To me, it isn't unexpected but that doesn't necessitate derivative (my observation). I'm not sure how God did it, but I think there are good points. A wolf/dog hybrid is possible. A chimp/human one is not. Science and religion would explain that differently. It is only when our kids are hearing both explanations that friction continues to occur in America. Can we do it in a way that capitulates? I don't know. We haven't been able to so far. I do think part of it must be layed on the sensitive explanations of educators making the science books. I think they could tone down the friction without compromising either religion or science. There is some stubborness going on that doesn't allow that in these educator's minds, but they forget, I think, that they are supposed to be listening to parents as well as putting in their own thoughts. Like I said, you and I are anonymous. Maybe a grassroots movement, but it is a bit of a pie-in-the-sky pipe-dream that we'd come up with anything but perhaps a pause in our own thoughts and opinions.

Again you're not making the slightest bit of sense.

Try "I'm not getting you, Lon." The gist is that you did a good job of just explaining a scientific observation 'without' using the word evolution. All I'm saying is that you didn't need it and I got the science idea just fine and even appreciated it. That tends to happen when/if friction can be removed.

No. BS in biology, MS in ecology.

:up: Thanks.

Which post?

I'll look it up if it is important, but you did respond to his quotes. Some of them were from a reporter, I think.

Not at all. I have named all sorts of contributions that evolutionary theory has made to the sciences in the last century. Yet when creationists are asked to name even one contribution from creationism, they can't come up with anything.

I'm trying to think of any one contribution that specifically couldn't or wouldn't have happened without Evolution and can't think of one. I certainly can think of scientist who hold to the theory contributing, but thats the same as a Christian scientist contributing in my mind.

So you just ignore the facts (Darwin described evolution as a branching, non-linear process over 150 years ago) and repeat yourself. Such is the nature of denialism.

He did, but that chart hung on science classroom walls in middle school, high school and a lot more of them in college in about every science classroom I was in. Why a linear chart? :idunno:

 

[Greg Jennings]

Yes... Good definition!

There is a kingdom of eukaryotic organisms known as Protista. They are essentially misfits from the other eukaryotic kingdoms. I know you're highly familiar with biology, so you'll be able to tell me what "kind" these protists fall under?

And on the subject, what do you do with Domain Archaea? Are they a separate "kind" from bacteria? And if so, why?

Where in the official "Biblical creation model" do they fit?

 

[SonOfCaleb]

Explain to me how supposed 30,000 year old dinosaur tissue supports a 6000 year old Earth? Even if there was no explanation for the soft tissue (which there is I trust you know), how does a dinosaur from 24,000 years before the creation of the universe support you?

And why would a flood change C-14 levels?

It doesnt. Because the 6000 year old Earth stance by Creationists A)Doesnt accord with the Bible and B)Is certainly not Scientific. In other words neither the Bible or current known scientific evidence support this theory.

The Bible describes creative 'days'. Essentially periods of time or creative epochs as it were which logically delinate each creative period. The Bible provides no guidance at all on how long each one of those epochs/days were which were likely for an indefinite period of time. So it is plausible using current dating methods that the earth is millions or possibly billions of years old. But Science cannot provide definitive guidance on the age of the Earth outside of radioactive dating assumptions and logical deduction. A million years depending on who you speak to is obviously a very large tolerance...

Interestingly Genesis 1:1-2 does actually support the scientifc theory that the Earth is possibly millions or billions of years old as the creative days only describe the creation on Earth and its preparation for mans habitation. Infact Genesis 1:1 tells us that the Earth was created before the first creative day. In essence by the time the first creative day begun the Earth had already existed for an indefinite period of time along with the Universe/Heavens.

To your lata question any contammination to a carbon organism can disturb the rate of decay. That could be literally be anything from water, to gas, magma, lava etc. Its illogical to presume that any carbon based organism has remained in the Earth in a completely undisturbed state, unaltered with respect to its content, biologic or otherwise or any other activity. And yet thats exactly what C14 dating presumes as the rate of decay of radio carbons is constant until all carbon is depleted.

Intertestingly experiments have proven that diamonds purported to be billions of years old contained significant levels of C14. But C14 only has a half life of just under 6000 years. So at best the diamonds could only be 45-50000 years old, or 70,000 year old depending on what method was used for dating, but regardless diamonds are supposed to be radio carbon dead. Thus its clear radio active dating is not and cannot be an empircal technique as fossils in the Earths crust can and will be subject to contamination which can invalidate dating.

 

[6days]

the 6000 year old Earth stance by Creationists A)Doesnt accord with the Bible

From the straight forward reading of Gods Word, how can Christians fit epochs of time into the Bible? Here are a few answers as to why theistic evolution and long ages contradicts scripture.

A Theologian Answers
Dr Peter Barnes, lecturer in church history at the Presbyterian Theological Centre in Sydney. He wrote: “…if God wanted us to understand the creation week as a literal week, He could hardly have made the point any clearer…. The theological argument is also compelling. According to the Bible, there was no death until there was sin. The creation is cursed only after Adam sinned (cf. Genesis 3; Romans 5:12–21; 8:19–25). This implies that all the fossils of dead animals must date from after Adam’s fall. If there was blood and violence in the creation before Adam sinned, the theological structure of the biblical message would appear to suffer considerable dislocation"

An Atheist Answers
From atheists.org/atheism
"if Adam and Eve and the Talking Snake are myths, then Original Sin is also a myth, right? Well, think about it.

Jesus’ major purpose was to save mankind from Original Sin.Original Sin makes believers unworthy of salvation, but you get it anyway, so you should be grateful for being saved (from that which does not exist)Without Original Sin, the marketing that all people are sinners and therefore need to accept Jesus falls moot.

All we are asking is that you take what*you know*into serious consideration, even if it means taking a hard look at all you’ve been taught for your whole life. No Adam and Eve means no need for a savior. It also means that the Bible cannot be trusted as a source of unambiguous, literal truth. It is completely unreliable, because it all begins with a myth, and builds on that as a basis. No Fall of Man means no need for atonement and no need for a redeemer. You know it.

A Hebrew Scholar Answers (who does not believe Genesis)
James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".


A Christian Apologist Answers
Joe Boot, President of Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

“Since the doctrines of Creation, the Fall and Redemption stand in an absolute historical continuum, we get a distorted worldview when we play games with Genesis.

“The apologist seeks to present biblical truth with coherence. In my experience, one cannot even formulate a compelling response to classic questions like the problem of evil and pain without a clear stand with Scripture on the creation issue.

“I have never been able to see how anyone who wants to defend the faith and proclaim the Gospel can compromise the foundation stones of that defence and then expect clear-thinking people to find a proclamation of salvation in Christ compelling.”


A Prof / PhD Biblical Studies Answers
Dr. Tom Wang says "Often, people will use the old argument that we should concentrate on preaching the Gospel, rather than get distracted by ‘side-issues’ such as Creation. But if we cannot believe the record of Creation, then why believe the record of the New Creation (‘if anyone is in Christ, he is a New Creation; the old is gone, the new has come’—2 Corinthians 5:17)?”


An Historian Answers (Prof with 2 PhD's)
Dr Benno Zuiddam“God created this world in a very short period of time, under ten thousand years ago. Whether you read Irenaeus in the 2nd*century, Basil in the 4th, Augustine in the 5th, Thomas Aquinas in the 13th, the Reformers of the 16th*century, or Pope Pius X in the 19th, they all teach this. They all believed in a good creation and God’s curse striking the earth—and the whole creation—after the disobedience of a literal Adam and Eve.”

A Biologist Answers
Dr Georgia Purdom says "many Christians have compromised on the historical and theological importance of Genesis. If Adam and Eve aren’t real people who sinned in the Garden of Eden, and as a result we are all not sinners, then Jesus Christ’s death on the cross was useless. ...the*literal truth of Genesis is so important to the authority and truthfulness of Scripture. It is the very foundation of the Gospel."

Our Creator Answers
JESUS speaking*"Haven't you read the Scriptures? They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.'"


So, again the question is, how can you (why would you?) squeeze millions of years into Gods Word without compromising the Gospel?

 

[Caino]

Jesus liberated the children of God from the limitations of religion, from the limitations of the world view of Holy men of past ages. That was one of the main reason the right wing hated Jesus, he was a threat to their religious pride.


From my religious philosophy:

"Belief has attained the level of faith when it motivates life and shapes the mode of living. The acceptance of a teaching as true is not faith; that is mere belief. Neither is certainty nor conviction faith. A state of mind attains to faith levels only when it actually dominates the mode of living. Faith is a living attribute of genuine personal religious experience. One believes truth, admires beauty, and reverences goodness, but does not worship them; such an attitude of saving faith is centered on God alone, who is all of these personified and infinitely more.

Belief is always limiting and binding; faith is expanding and releasing. Belief fixates, faith liberates. But living religious faith is more than the association of noble beliefs; it is more than an exalted system of philosophy; it is a living experience concerned with spiritual meanings, divine ideals, and supreme values; it is God-knowing and man-serving. Beliefs may become group possessions, but faith must be personal. Theologic beliefs can be suggested to a group, but faith can rise up only in the heart of the individual religionist.

Faith has falsified its trust when it presumes to deny realities and to confer upon its devotees assumed knowledge. Faith is a traitor when it fosters betrayal of intellectual integrity and belittles loyalty to supreme values and divine ideals. Faith never shuns the problem-solving duty of mortal living. Living faith does not foster bigotry, persecution, or intolerance.

Faith does not shackle the creative imagination, neither does it maintain an unreasoning prejudice toward the discoveries of scientific investigation. Faith vitalizes religion and constrains the religionist heroically to live the golden rule. The zeal of faith is according to knowledge, and its strivings are the preludes to sublime peace." UB 1955

 

[Jose Fly]

6days was ignoring questions again

Well yeah...that's what creationists do. It's also why they have lost in both the legal system and the scientific realm. In internet forums they can ignore all the questions they like and there aren't any real consequences, except perhaps the damage it does to their reputations. But in court you can't ignore questions, nor can you do so in science.

I mean, can you imagine 6days presenting his belief that bacteria are a "kind" at a scientific conference and during the Q&A when he's asked "What methodology did you use to determine that bacteria are a kind", he just says "Next question"?

I'm pretty sure the next question he'd get would be, "Why don't you answer the last question?" :chuckle:

 

[Jose Fly]

By you? Who cares what two anonymous people say, Jose?

Now you're getting it! Entertainment....:thumb:

How often do you see these contested anymore?

That's why I posted the links. As they show, those things are currently contested, and in some cases by quite a few people. So according to the logic you tried to apply to evolution, we must no longer use those other terms.

But it looks like you recognize the silliness of that logic, so we'll just leave it at that.

I've read it. It isn't that long. It hardly calls for thier genecide, but for the Christian to guard against proselytizing.

Nah, it just says...

to burn down Jewish synagogues and schools and warn people against them;

to refuse to let Jews own houses among Christians;

for Jewish religious writings to be taken away;

for rabbis to be forbidden to preach;

to offer no protection to Jews on highways;

for usury to be prohibited and for all silver and gold to be removed, put aside

for safekeeping and given back to Jews who truly convert; and

to give young, strong Jews flail, axe, spade, spindle, and let them earn their bread in the sweat of their noses.​

That's all.

It is my sentiment, that we all need to be more unified when regarding those attrocities than using them to bash one another to oblivion. I would drop out of any conversation that tried to press another into the camp of these attrocities.

Now there's a good idea. Maybe you could tell 6days?

I'm not sure it'd satisfy you.

So that's a no? Can't say I'm surprised.

The gist is that you did a good job of just explaining a scientific observation 'without' using the word evolution. All I'm saying is that you didn't need it and I got the science idea just fine and even appreciated it. That tends to happen when/if friction can be removed.

I'd say if the "friction" is merely over the term "evolution", then you need to do some soul-searching.

I'm trying to think of any one contribution that specifically couldn't or wouldn't have happened without Evolution and can't think of one.

Then you haven't been paying attention. As I posted before, the field of comparative genomics, which is how geneticists figure out the functions of genetic sequences, is entirely based on evolutionary relationships between organisms. Only with the understanding of evolution are they able to figure out which genomes to compare, where to look, and what to look for.

He did, but that chart hung on science classroom walls in middle school, high school and a lot more of them in college in about every science classroom I was in. Why a linear chart? :idunno:

Because apparently your educators weren't very well informed.