Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Believers often 'debunk' evolution as a theory without evidence. Do they do this by scientific methods?
Of those who believe that creationism is true, how much science education do they have to put forth a reasonable argument?
what we think about god ? He is topmost scientist. Whom has created sun isn't scientist?...... we must go nearer and look well to understand what is sun? All physicians confess they don't recognize many mysteries of human's body so how we are sure about Darvin's theory. This is a low thinking about human we imagine there is a relationship between human and a race of monkeys. we must don't busy our intellect to human's apparent, body and shape. Human and animals almost are similar in physiology , body activity ,eating,drinking,sleeping,reproduction , emotions and other.But whatever is main and great difference between human and animals is " human soul", the masterpiece of creation. A great existence which has located human upon the angels' height.The capacity and capability of human's soul is unimaginable but sorrily Darvin wasn't aware about it and he only compared human and animals based on physical body and apparent shape.
what we think about god ? He is topmost scientist. Whom has created sun isn't scientist?...... we must go nearer and look well to understand what is sun? All physicians confess they don't recognize many mysteries of human's body so how we are sure about Darvin's theory. This is a low thinking about human we imagine there is a relationship between human and a race of monkeys. we must don't busy our intellect to human's apparent, body and shape. Human and animals almost are similar in physiology , body activity ,eating,drinking,sleeping,reproduction , emotions and other.But whatever is main and great difference between human and animals is " human soul", the masterpiece of creation. A great existence which has located human upon the angels' height.The capacity and capability of human's soul is unimaginable but sorrily Darvin wasn't aware about it and he only compared human and animals based on physical body and apparent shape.
Clay depossits? You do realize that clays are depositied in very very low energy environments.
I certainly am. I'm also aware that to get clay deposits near the mountain tops, the water had to be that high. In order to pick up the clay, it had to be rushing, turbulent water, not what you get from rain, even with a flash flood. It was enough water to stay there a while and allow the clay to settle out.
I'm also aware that if you were to put every molecule of water, in existence on the earth, into the oceans, you might make the Statue of Liberty wade about waist deep. Certainly not enough to cover any mountains.
I certainly am. I'm also aware that to get clay deposits near the mountain tops, the water had to be that high. In order to pick up the clay, it had to be rushing, turbulent water, not what you get from rain, even with a flash flood. It was enough water to stay there a while and allow the clay to settle out.
I'm also aware that if you were to put every molecule of water, in existence on the earth, into the oceans, you might make the Statue of Liberty wade about waist deep. Certainly not enough to cover any mountains.
You say you certainly are but then in the next breath, you ignore it - inconsistancy noted. So did the clay get washed up on top of the mountain, or is the clay within the mountain as actually part of it? Do you know what the profile is of a flood deposit? More likely, with what has been observed in orogenic processes, clays, even laminar clays were deposited in extremely low energy environments, not possible in high energy environments as you claim, being washed up onto mountain tops, but a former seabed, fossils and all, uplifted after being burried and lithification. It would be great if you would go to your local university book store and look for this book.
I certainly am. I'm also aware that to get clay deposits near the mountain tops, the water had to be that high. In order to pick up the clay, it had to be rushing, turbulent water, not what you get from rain, even with a flash flood. It was enough water to stay there a while and allow the clay to settle out.
I'm also aware that if you were to put every molecule of water, in existence on the earth, into the oceans, you might make the Statue of Liberty wade about waist deep. Certainly not enough to cover any mountains.
Uhm, maybe you do not know what a low energy environment is?
It is basically the OPPOSITE of "rushing, turbulent water". That means clay will not be deposited in such and environment. Therefore that rushing turbulent water could not have deposited clay, anywhere let alone on a mountain top.
You cannot choose to be uncreated....if you believe that humans were once fish, what's the difference. We're still here all the same.
Genesis was "borrowed" by the ancient Hebrews from a much earlier religion. But, since they did not borrow the complete text, it's not all there to begin with. Then add in all the errors introduced in translation from one language to the next, and what you read today is a bit removed from the original.
Just as you have evolved from an infant, to a child, to a teenager, to an adult, so too, did life evolve upon the earth, according to which was most fit to survive.
Let me explain a little more about my angle. I do so by also explaining my views on the issue.
First of all, I do beleive in the existtence of God. However, I will also say I do not beleive in the Bible being of divine origin or that of Jesus being the son of God. It is not my goal to prove evolution is or not a fact. I am not trying to prove God created things as described in the Bible.
Actually, I think that is the major problem with people that support evolution. As soon as someone even dear question evolution, many jump into the conclusion that it is to prove the god of the Bible and how the Bible describes how the universe was started.
Personnaly? I could care less how be became into existence. I probably fall in line more like Jefferson on this issue. As he said I say the same in the sense that it does not matter whether anyone believes in one or twenty gods. It does not break my leg or affect my packet. I will add that it does not hurt me whether any oneone does not believe in god also.
I am for people to be able to have an open debate on issues of this nature in schools. I have no problem wants to try to have in schools a debate whether there was an intelligence out there that may have had something to do with how we came into existence. If anyone wants to prove such things, prove it! Put it to the test by discussion, test, latest scientific information, logic, scientific method, etc.
What I do not agree with is how some do talk about evolution and god as it is is a done deal. I can understand people believing such just as others believe in God and how things came to be. What I do speak against is for people on both sides of the issue going to extremes and doing whatever they can to ban, shun, or quiet those of the opposite view by pushing for laws.
If a local school district approves to include in the science class considering the views of the possiblities of an intelligence being a factor in how we came to be, let them! If that is not the case, guess what? It will surface as not true.
Just as many atheists complain of religious zealots that push for laws againts atheism, I am against atheist pushing for ID points being banned by also going to the government to create laws against it.
To me it is what the community decides to do and let their kids discuss and debate those issues. Open and unrestricted debate is what makes us better. Stupidity will be shown and facts will stand.
Because I support debate on the issue does not mean I am pushing for religion. Not at all. That is how many atheists and evolutionists think. Well, to be fair to them, I understand that because there are religioius people that do have that in mind.
Is a school comes up with a curriculum that would cover points that ID theory proposes and starts by saying "God did...". I would say throw it out. No, simply state the questions and proposed supporting evidence for test and debate.
My views I simply base on the principle that The Constitution set forth. For the states to allow what is and what they want to accept in their schools.
As much as many atheists and scientist claim it is not the case, they have their own "inquisition" like methods. They have pushed for banning people that even dears make a comment of the possibility of ID.
Do you think scientists and atheists do not have their zealots that will go out there, just as religious zealots, and proselyte their views and try to ban others from expressing the opposite? In my opinion they do.
Scientists as in any other group do have their members that have a close mind and in their opinion the case is settle and it is the end of discussion.
They can be influence by trying to make sure they get research money. They can be pressured by the community to stay in line with the rest of the group. They are just as human as anybody else. The few that dare question something, do so knowing they will pay the consequences.
A while ago I read of a high school teacher that wrote a curriculum that simply included questions about evolution to put them to the test and discuss with the students. Nothing was said about ID or creation. However, the mere fact that he wanted to ask questions on evolution got the wrath of some scientists and ended up without a job.
That is my poin. Take care.
Ok. The fact is that God and Creation theories can be discussed in the religion class but not as an equally valid theory in the science class because they are not valid science and that is a 'Done Deal'. The debate has been long over with even Behe's Irreducable complexity (the best effort to make ID scientifically valid) shown to be a theory unsupported by the evidence.
If you accept the validity of science that is a done deal. In fact, the scientific theories about the claims made by religion have a better case for being discussed in the religion class. But in fact, science doesn't ask for that. religion can be left alone. But religion does not want to leave science alone because of this idea that Evolution denies God.
The body of science is regarded as some sort of God - denying conspiracy. The requirement that papers and articles match up to the requirements of science is presented as some for of closed Shop to prevent discussion.
The discussion is welcomed, but the ongoing refusal to accept science as valid, the findings of science as valid and the already long done and dusted discussion on the claims of creationism being ignored (in favour of presenting yet again the same half - baked claims with screams of bias when it is pointed out that it isn't science, it's been discussed at length and is often presented by people with little understanding of the subject or desire to learn anything about it,) simply deserves no better response than: 'For Pete's sake, shut up'.
Aside the bland denial that there is any religious agenda in your appeal to the Constitutional right of States to set the curriculum, it is not the state legislation's right to teach the students non- science in the science class any more than they are entitled to teach flat - earthism in the Geography class.
I certainly am. I'm also aware that to get clay deposits near the mountain tops, the water had to be that high. In order to pick up the clay, it had to be rushing, turbulent water, not what you get from rain, even with a flash flood. It was enough water to stay there a while and allow the clay to settle out.
I'm also aware that if you were to put every molecule of water, in existence on the earth, into the oceans, you might make the Statue of Liberty wade about waist deep. Certainly not enough to cover any mountains.
Clays form from the decay of limestones, and also granites and other igneous rocks rich in potassium feldspar to produce clay soils. Clay sediments form in slack water/low velocity current environments such as deep ocean/lake settings, and certain overbank deposits. Neither clays nor clay sediments form in high energy environments.
Clays remain suspended in high energy currents. Currents can only drop their sediment loads under increasingly low energy conditions. Clay only drops out under the lowest energy conditions.
By the way, if the water got that high (and there is no evidence that it did), where did it go?
Excuse me. Yes as you pointed I noticed some incorrect words and grammars in my comment, among "whom ". I had to use "who ". I hurried while I was writing it. so hereafter I will pay attention more
Believers often 'debunk' evolution as a theory without evidence. Do they do this by scientific methods?
Of those who believe that creationism is true, how much science education do they have to put forth a reasonable argument?
You really can't paint all creationists with one broad brush. Sure there are the literal 6,000 year old earth creationists, but there are also old earth creationists, gap theory believers, theistic evolutionists, etc. As long as a Christian believes God created the heavens and the earth, how he did it is a non-essential to the Christian faith.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
