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.
Sanspeur, you have mentioned the Bible more than anyone else. Why do you peruse these discussions since the Bible and Christianity intimidates you so much?
Boy, do you have that wrong! You fundies get all your truths from the bible, but hey that's your choice...I just do not understand why you reject what science has proven. Let me guess. You reject anything that conflicts with your biblical beliefs, and that is the only reason. Evolution is a fact that has been proven many time over but you insist on keeping your head in the sand cause it doesn't fit with the dark age beliefs you hold so dear. Half the world prefers to maintain their ignorance because of books like the bible, torah and koran....Like I said I do not get why this is.
Consensus, in the context in which you are referring to it, is not a function of the scientific method.
The truth is that consensus does not establish fact it simply establishes popularity. Contrary to popular belief popularity isn’t always correct and it has the potential to make bad ideas worse by stifling innovation based on genuine honest inquiry.
I never said consensus established fact. I said we should teach our children based on our best established ideas so that they and further generations can further refine/reject these ideas.
Let me ask you this. What do you suggest be taught and how do you believe we can further scientific progress without teaching modern scientific theories?
Consensus, in the context in which you are referring to it, is not a function of the scientific method.
The truth is that consensus does not establish fact it simply establishes popularity. Contrary to popular belief popularity isn’t always correct and it has the potential to make bad ideas worse by stifling innovation based on genuine honest inquiry.
I hope you are not implying that literal reading and interpreting of the bible is a form of genuine honest inquiry . . . are you?
I hope you are not implying that literal reading and interpreting of the bible is a form of genuine honest inquiry . . . are you?
Please point to any of my comments that would serve as evidence to support this “implication” you are suggesting. At that time I will address your ill-gotten preconceived concerns in context.
I'm joining this one a bit late, and only read the first page, but here it goes:
Fossilization:
The process by which the once-functioning organic parts of an otherwise potentially open mind become totally infiltrated with mineral or dogmatic residues, thereby eliminating the original form's utility and value.
Creates a false weighty presence, but preserves some identifiable characteristics of the now lost but original form. In some cases, can be reliably ID'd as to probable species, and also can usually be traced back in time for up to hundreds of millions of years unless the owner doesn't want to participate in order to hide from his true origins.
Once fossilized, a mind so distorted is mostly useful only as a paperweight or as a "yes man" icon.
Please point to any of my comments that would serve as evidence to support this “implication” you are suggesting. At that time I will address your ill-gotten preconceived concerns in context.
Whoa . . . how did I offend? It was a sincere question. I do not know enough about you to know if you are a literalist, creationist, or atheist. I apologize if I offended you with my question. You seem to be questioning evolution . . . which has solid cross-disciplinary support among the scientific community and is consistent with everything we know about the processes of our reality . . . everything evolves.
Whoa . . . how did I offend? It was a sincere question. I do not know enough about you to know if you are a literalist, creationist, or atheist. I apologize if I offended you with my question.
No my friend, you haven’t offended me in the least. I simply strive for clarity in discussion.
Something leads you to ask the question in the way it was asked. Can you point to any of my comments that would serve as evidence to support the “implication” you were suggesting in your post #53?
Boy, do you have that wrong! You fundies get all your truths from the bible, but hey that's your choice...I just do not understand why you reject what science has proven. Let me guess. You reject anything that conflicts with your biblical beliefs, and that is the only reason. Evolution is a fact that has been proven many time over but you insist on keeping your head in the sand cause it doesn't fit with the dark age beliefs you hold so dear. Half the world prefers to maintain their ignorance because of books like the bible, torah and koran....Like I said I do not get why this is.
evolution is ever changing, God isn't. which proves that science is never right, since it uses simple logics i explained earlier. About a thermal heat sink cannot recycle heat as energy, but in simple terms heart is energy but once dissipated this cancels out the cycle. meaning i can use that as a cheat because i am an engineer, i am right with a simple scientific explaination, i would be proven wrong once experimented. Thats why science is easy to understand even a 5yr old would know that, simple logics are not true facts.
Neandethals are made up, these are methods of trying prove evolution. Yet they never sure and they are always coming up with changes to perfect there science.
here is a problem, evolution is not exactly proven theory until proven. At most times we hear extensive use of simple logic, such as monkeys and human have a thing in common, the similarities of hands and the cleverness of a monkey. In the end they just animals and we humans , God created every animal in a unique manner, an animal uses intelligence to survive. I mean a viscous looking tiger without a brain would definitely not survive.
the was an article i read when i was surfing the net, even youtube may have some videos; Fossils can be complicate, if you find a bone of a baby boys leg and a jaw of a chimpanzee a few yards away, then it is easy to cheat the world. That is not observed experiment, but a build up ever changing theory.
Monkeys have not evolved and will never evolve. Neanderthals are actually meant to be a lot clever than chimpanzees, yet these ape like humans could not hung on to there survival tool, which is the brain. This sounds obscure with no observed proof of evolution, then you have nothing but forgery.
Go on further research to discover the myth of Neanderthals. Tall features and long slender faces, i am sure still certain races that possess that description resemble eastern African Kenyan tribes. don't forget prehistoric animals where alot larger including insects such as dragon flies.
i read an article from a scientist
i mean that sounds a myth, because evolution sounds like it is being controlled. if herbivores get larger for protection, then predators will even be larger. which means herbivores should have continued to evolve into larger beings, after all it is the survival of the fittest
here is another myth copied and pasted from an evolutionist site.
'another answer comes from one of several evolution theories. over time, larger and smaller animals faded because larger ones were bigger targets (and of course not many carnivores were subject to this but when their food source dies off-large herbivores, so do they) and smaller ones were not adept at getting food easily. so you have a median-today's average size animals.'
don't you think the Siberian tiger should have extinct since it faces smaller herbivores to satisfy itself. Should the African lion be bigger than the Siberian tiger since its dominion consists of larger prey much bigger than Sika Deer in Asia?. The logic explained is too simple to prove evolution, evolution should be observed not explained in simple terms and they are know records of observed evolution.
Whoa . . . how did I offend? It was a sincere question. I do not know enough about you to know if you are a literalist, creationist, or atheist. I apologize if I offended you with my question. You seem to be questioning evolution . . . which has solid cross-disciplinary support among the scientific community and is consistent with everything we know about the processes of our reality . . . everything evolves.
nothing has been observed evolving. the only excuse i get is 'it takes millions of years to evolve' that's a simple logic, not an observed evolution
nothing has been observed evolving. the only excuse i get is 'it takes millions of years to evolve' that's a simple logic, not an observed evolution
I love the smell of ignorance in the morning!
More seriously...you have absolutely no clue what "evolution" means, as it is BOTH observable AND testable. Not all evolution takes millions of years. Please do a little more learning on the subject before making sweeping statements about its validity.
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.
"Don't drop it; it'll shatter!"
