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.
Com'on sans...I've seen that sooooooo many times.
MOF, YOU just challenged creationists to "rough it" without science derived advantages for a month.
All someone has to do is voice the least criticism of science, the Scientific Method, or scientific concepts...and I can just about count on stuff like:
~~~You don't like science? Get your lazy bums off the computer, turn off your heat/A/C, stop using any form of telecommunication, lose your doctors, grow your own food, and buy a horse. When your mortality is in your face take it like a grown up, pray, and be at peace.~~~
HUNDREDS of statements similar to that...and you know it. It's an Atheist staple.
I wanna know why that argument is so prolific?
What is the logic behind a, "If you don't like greed...then get rid of all your money and possessions!", type argument?
It does not prove evolution in any way. You cannot prove something that did not happen. End of story.
Every so-called "scientific" evidence use to support the false religion of evolution rest upon unprovable assumptions to achieve the desired outcome.
So, you've personally witnessed Adam and Eve getting kicked out? You can prove it actually happened? You can produce, for example, a piece of wood that can reliably be dated to the moment of Creation?
It's ridiculous that we're even having this debate here in the 21st Century surrounded as we are by science and technology.
Why we have to pander to primitive god concepts and ancient and irrelevant religious practices is beyond me, but the legal protections that the government has offered religion has made religion believe it is equal to science - perhaps even superior. ]
What a load of unmitigated crap. Religion has yet to prove itself correct about anything yet we still debate over evolution vs. creationism as if creationism actually had validity.
And while other nations have populations that accept evolution in the 90th percentile, America still languishes like a 3rd World nation in its intellectual darkness. Notice how so many "American" scientists are actually from India, China, Japan, Korea, even some Middle Eastern nations - we have to import our brainpower because America teaches our children to believe in supernatural fairy tales over science. Thus only 40 to 50 percent of Americans accept evolution - a complete embarrassment.
While religious fanatics bleat and rant about how inaccurate science is, or how it's been wrong in the past, or how it's all about indoctrination, there they sit using science to do everything from post on the internet to enjoying the light that is most likely shining in their rooms. Unfortunately, American culture is not advancing as fast as its technology thereby placing extremely dangerous weapons into the hands of a people that becomes increasingly primitive, xenophobic, isolated, and ignorant with each tick of the clock.
The fact that there is still even a question about whether we should teach creationism in the science classroom is proof positive of everything I've said in this post. No other industrialized nation even has this debate anymore. It was resolved decades ago.
I'm not sure that we have. Some evolutionary changes are going on in our bodies all the time. Adaptation to disease and diet and conditions are ongoing. While over time 9we are talking of hundreds of thousands of years, here) changes that would be regarded as evolutionary change would occur, but it must be remembered that we now adapt conditions to us, rather than adapt to conditions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
Why has evolution ceased?...
Of course, while changes in species is accepted (micro -evolution) even by Creationists, Real Evolutionary change, such as cats developing gliding membranes, or seals becoming more fish -like (not that cats from dogs nonsense That is ignorant jibing) would be a nice thing thing to have. I would certainly be happy if some real undeniable speciation occurred. That said, the evidence indicates that it did occur, constantly from pre- cambrian blob to the bod in the street.
"Science" books still contain the Pitdown man, Lucy, Nebraska man and all the other mythical missing links. If they were worried about not teaching what is false, the evolution chapter would be empty.
It's about teaching what they think people should know. AKA indoctrination.
Piltwown man was a fake by an amateur, desperate to match the Germans in their Heidelburg man. SCIENCE, eventually detected the fake. Lesson learned. Nebraska man, was a non event and overdone in the journals. Science was not fooled, And the science books certainly don't contain either unless as a reminder to be cautious.
Lucy on the other hand is fact. The evidence is there, the accusation of scattered bones or just a few bits is false. The skeleton is remarkably complete. The evidence of bipedalism is compelling. Your equating of this with the two frauds is either ignorance or dishonesty. I suspect that you have simply lifted this misrepresentation from some half -assed creationist polemics site. I trust that you have learned something.
That's a new on me. What is this "God of the Gaps" you speak of?
You are a refreshing arrival, 'believer' with your uncomplicated approach to the subject.
The 'God of the Gaps' type of argument is a fallacy, - argument from ignorance, which is to say, if you don't know the answer to how or why something happened, it must be God dunnit. This is, should you fail to see it, is not a justified assumption. Yet it is is stock in trade of some aspects of religion.
I lost my keys and God found them for me. My Auntie was near to death and then, after 12 hours of medical treatment, got better 'God be thanked!'
Who made volcanoes erupt? yes, yes yes, I know, but who made the molten core? and so so on right back to what we don't know. Who made the big bang.
Science has yet to prove scientifically that the half life of isotopes is constant over millions or billions of years.
Why should it not be? What evidence have you that there is any reason why it should change? You may know that 'Argument from silence' is regarded by religion as no argument at all.
In fact, I believe there is corroborative evidence that supports a constant isotopic decay rate..anyone?
That's far too broad a generalization to even criticize. That would be like claiming that all music promotes peace or all cuisine promotes health. Some do, sure. Others are very much the opposite.
Religious viewson the sancity of human life depends very much on the religion in question.
Point taken. If religion argues that this life is what matters rather than directing one's efforts towards the next one, then I would have less quarrel with it. In fact I would argue that they don't believe in the Christian god any more than I do, and their religious belief was a hobby or habit.
I don't have this Evolution vs Creation problem .... I believe God created evolution through billions of years, which would be a meaningless time frame for God.
I'm ok with that. I mean I don't know whether there was a god behind it or not. I don't see a convincing reason to suppose their was, so I am atheist.
I suppose you would not see Genesis as literal fact, either. Just as symbolic or metaphorical, which I would say is 'myth'. We can agree to differ on that.
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.
