The Creationism Museum

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Corbett

Your argument thet evoultion is just a theory proves that you know little about modern science.

Once upon a time, scientists assigned the term "law" to explanations that seemed to be complete and foolproof. The "laws" of physics and thermodynamics are good examples. Then along came relativity, quantum mechanics, cryogenics, etc.. These showed that there were things happening outside of the human senses ability to detect that didn't quite fit the old laws. The old laws were still perfectly good for the calculating duration of a fall from 100 meters, a mortar shell trajectory, or how dry ice will react.

But scientists learned a lesson, and they stopped naming things "laws". They decided that the word "theory" was a much better term. They use the word "hypothesis" for what you consider "theory" to mean. After compiling enough evidence to prove the hypothesis to be correct and functional, they refer to it as a theory, as in "theory of evolution". And it is perfectly acceptable to refine the theory in light of any new evidence that may be forthcoming.

Once you understand the correct definition of terms as used in science, you can see how ludicrous the argument is that evolution is just a theory. It is very easy to consider you ignorant of the subject when you argue like that.

Your contention that there should be untold millions of fossil records also highlights your ignorance of plate tectonics, geology, erosion, sea level change, fossil formation, etc..

When you use obviously invalid arguments to bolster your case, is it any wonder that you are so easily dismissed?

Science does not understand how a species' gives birth to another species' with different DNA.

Beneficial genetic mutations have never been found, yet harmful ones are everywhere. Current species can adapt to an enviornment, sure, but that information is already present in their DNA.

Modern science cannot even begin to predict what type of offspring a Walleye fish will have. It can't even predict it will have any different offspring other than more walleye in billions of years.

There should be millions or at least 1 transitional fossil, yet we have none today.

Evolution as a theory is a good theory, for what it's worth, but to call it proven is just a lie. The notion that evolution is scientific proven fact is nothing but a mantra, repeated enough by godless men who want nothing more than to believe they will have nobody to account their lives to.

A little hint, if you want to be taken more seriously leave out the religious stuff when debating evolution. If you believe it is just a bench of guys who want to disprove god then you should be able to rip their arguments to bloody shreds with good science.

As for your reference to no transitional fossils, what would make you say "yep, this is a transitional fossil"?

 

[jackschmittusa]

Duwelon

Your comment "The notion that evolution is scientific proven fact is nothing but a mantra, repeated enough by godless men who want nothing more than to believe they will have nobody to account their lives to." is beyond idiotic. You are a fool of the first order to contend that the science of evolution is a conspiratorial fabrication to attack religion.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Science does not understand how a species' gives birth to another species' with different DNA.

Beneficial genetic mutations have never been found, yet harmful ones are everywhere. Current species can adapt to an enviornment, sure, but that information is already present in their DNA.

Wow, you are blind. Bacteria develop resistance to drugs, which are simply toxins to them. That's quite beneficial, and it's due to mutations in their basic genetic structure.

Modern science cannot even begin to predict what type of offspring a Walleye fish will have. It can't even predict it will have any different offspring other than more walleye in billions of years.
There should be millions or at least 1 transitional fossil, yet we have none today.

Archaeopteryx? What are you looking for exactly?
I think they've even found evidence that a relative of T-Rex had feathers. No doubt made up evidence by evil godless scientists, working for the Dark Lord himself.
We have fossils of the predecessors of homo sapiens - different species, and they show a gradual transition to what we are today. Hmm, transitional species. Nope, they don't count because they don't have "Made by God" inscribed on them.

Evolution as a theory is a good theory, for what it's worth, but to call it proven is just a lie. The notion that evolution is scientific proven fact is nothing but a mantra, repeated enough by godless men who want nothing more than to believe they will have nobody to account their lives to.

See jackschmittusa's post on theory vs proof. Though you'll likely just ignore it, since it's been said before and yet you keep spouting off your own "just a theory" mantra.


I also find it sad that you seem to operate under the notion that people do good things because they have someone to "account their lives" to. It's a rather petty way of going about life. "I'm not doing good because it helps people, I'm doing good so I get brownie points with God, and making God proud of me." (Oops, pride is a sin.)

Originally posted by: Duwelon
On the converse you have a world that logically screams "designed by x". A world that has laws, which our logical brains can't even begin to comprehend how exactly they even exist or why the speed of light is the speed it is.

Our bodies are full of organs, each with a function, every square inch of our bodies has a use, whether functional, aesthetic, or both. We have no lumps as a species that have no use. No vestigial organs of any kind. Some have more important, yet all are beneficial. All we've observed in all our years studying "evolutioN" is things breaking down. Loss of information, not gaining of new.

Your first assumption is that everything requires a designer. It's all downhill from there.
Why the speed of light is what it is? Must there be a "why" in the first place? It just is that way. It's a product of spacetime. It just IS that way. A chemical reaction has no motivation for doing what it does, it's merely a function of the subatomic makeup of each substance. God's not sitting there making sure each oxygen atom matches up with two hydrogen atoms to form water.


No vestigial organs? Ok then.
My nipples definitely serve an important purpose. Where else could I clamp battery cables?
Granted, they are not organs per se, though "organ" is another somewhat arbitrary term, similar to "species."

Coccyx - hmm, a tailbone. Yes, it's even called a tailbone. Evidence of where ancestors may have had tails.
Other species have vestigial organs. Pythons have remnants of a pelvis, and they even have two small claws near their cloacal vent - seems to me that pythons once had legs.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Wow, you are blind. Bacteria develop resistance to drugs, which are simply toxins to them. That's quite beneficial, and it's due to mutations in their basic genetic structure.

Bacteria can develop all kinds of mutations. When I was a kid used to think that medicine was like a police force, it goes into the body, stops all the "bad guys" and takes them to jail. Drugs don't work that way though. A bacteria can become resistant to a drug that target's a charactaristic of the bacteria when the bacteria mutates and loses the information in it's DNA that gave it it's vulnerability in the first place. This isn't evolution, this is de-evolution, loss of information, not gaining of new. Saying that bacteria "evolve" to be resistant to drugs is plain false, because it would be like me saying if you cut my hands off I become immune to arthritis of the hands.

Archaeopteryx? What are you looking for exactly?
We have fossils of the predecessors of homo sapiens - different species, and they show a gradual transition to what we are today. Hmm, transitional species. Nope, they don't count because they don't have "Made by God" inscribed on them.

No, we think we have fossils of predecessors. The aboriganies of Australia, tribes in the amazon, africa, etc, have some crazy deformed skulls that are a result of their culture. We have found bones that can easily be explained as intentially deformed humans. Some of the evidence used as support of evolution are simply a bad joke, see Lucy.

See jackschmittusa's post on theory vs proof. Though you'll likely just ignore it, since it's been said before and yet you keep spouting off your own "just a theory" mantra.


I also find it sad that you seem to operate under the notion that people do good things because they have someone to "account their lives" to. It's a rather petty way of going about life. "I'm not doing good because it helps people, I'm doing good so I get brownie points with God, and making God proud of me." (Oops, pride is a sin.)

[/quote]

Well, i'm glad you said "seem" because it also "seems" to me you don't understand Christianity very well. I do good because I want to do good, though i'll be the first to tell you i'm a miserable failure sometimes. My motivation to do good is partly to please God, but also because I *want* to on another level.

Before I became a Christian, I had this notion that I would have to give up a few things in my life, and it took a huge blow to my pride before I came to the point where I really thought repenting and accepting forgiveness from God was possible. What I found was that all my notions of what a Christian was was incorrect. God could raise up untold numbers of robots that do ntohing but do his will. One thing I know though, God loves us and it is evidenced by the fact that not only does he expect us to do his will, but he allows us, yes allows us to enjoy doing his will. If you accept that God is soverein, he could put us into bodies and make us do all kinds of things we hate to do, but had no choice in the matter. Anything I do that is good, is not from myself, but God who gives me the pleasure of enjoying doing his will.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Bacteria can develop all kinds of mutations. When I was a kid used to think that medicine was like a police force, it goes into the body, stops all the "bad guys" and takes them to jail. Drugs don't work that way though. A bacteria can become resistant to a drug that target's a charactaristic of the bacteria when the bacteria mutates and loses the information in it's DNA that gave it it's vulnerability in the first place. This isn't evolution, this is de-evolution, loss of information, not gaining of new. Saying that bacteria "evolve" to be resistant to drugs is plain false, because it would be like me saying if you cut my hands off I become immune to arthritis of the hands.

Who says that evolution is all about adding features? Look what I said about snakes - it looks like pythons once had limbs, and now they do not. Limbs were not especially helpful to them in their environmental niche; large limbs required expenditure of energy which was not necessary. Excessive energy expenditure in an environment of scarcity equals death by starvation. If you have something that is detrimental, and you lose it, it enhances your chances for survival. Survival of the fittest. Look at our muscles - maintaining muscle mass requires greater intake of food. If you don't use them, they waste away, so as to save energy. It's an evolved adaptation, acquired in a world of scarcity.

Simply put, if a bacteria has some aspect of its DNA that makes it vulnerable to a toxin, those bacteria which happen to lack this aspect are going to survive. Evolution at work.
Simple as that.
Next!

No, we think we have fossils of predecessors. The aboriganies of Australia, tribes in the amazon, africa, etc, have some crazy deformed skulls that are a result of their culture. We have found bones that can easily be explained as intentially deformed humans. Some of the evidence used as support of evolution are simply a bad joke, see Lucy.

I'm glad to see that you can more accurately evaluate fossil evidence than those who have made paleontology and archaeology their life's work.
Transitional fossils are fake or invalid, therefore they effectively don't exist to you. The evidence is available which you claim to seek, yet your mind protects itself from conflicting evidence by invalidating it immediately.

Well, i'm glad you said "seem" because it also "seems" to me you don't understand Christianity very well. I do good because I want to do good, though i'll be the first to tell you i'm a miserable failure sometimes. My motivation to do good is partly to please God, but also because I *want* to on another level.

Before I became a Christian, I had this notion that I would have to give up a few things in my life, and it took a huge blow to my pride before I came to the point where I really thought repenting and accepting forgiveness from God was possible. What I found was that all my notions of what a Christian was was incorrect. God could raise up untold numbers of robots that do ntohing but do his will. One thing I know though, God loves us and it is evidenced by the fact that not only does he expect us to do his will, but he allows us, yes allows us to enjoy doing his will. If you accept that God is soverein, he could put us into bodies and make us do all kinds of things we hate to do, but had no choice in the matter. Anything I do that is good, is not from myself, but God who gives me the pleasure of enjoying doing his will.

Maybe that's true for you then. I know people who do things because they "hope it makes God proud," and place God as their #1 priority, even above family.


God gives you the pleasure of doing his will? So is God sovereign or not?

How do you know that you're really doing his will anyway? Do you profess to know what God wants?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Science does not understand how a species' gives birth to another species' with different DNA.

Yes it does. Mutation and natural selection. Please do not project your own ignorance onto the people who actually study this science for a living.

Beneficial genetic mutations have never been found, yet harmful ones are everywhere.

Absolutely false, and again simply you talking out of your ass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

Current species can adapt to an enviornment, sure, but that information is already present in their DNA.

Oh really? And by what measure of information can you qualify that claim?

Modern science cannot even begin to predict what type of offspring a Walleye fish will have.

Nobody ever claimed that they should be able, fucknut.

It can't even predict it will have any different offspring other than more walleye in billions of years.

Learn something about a nested hierarchy before you try to spout off on topics far beyond your depth.

There should be millions or at least 1 transitional fossil, yet we have none today.

All fossils are transitional fossils, you blabbering jackass, and fossilization is an incredibly rare event. Nothing of what you've said bears any resemblance to reality whatsoever.

Evolution as a theory is a good theory, for what it's worth, but to call it proven is just a lie.

Nothing in science is ever proven. You need to strike any word related to "proof" from your vocabulary, because it is useless when discussing any claims about objective reality. That you continue to speak about proof as though it has some meaning in a scientific context only servers to spotlight your incredible stupidity with regard to scientific topics.

The notion that evolution is scientific proven fact is nothing but a mantra, repeated enough by godless men who want nothing more than to believe they will have nobody to account their lives to.

Evolution is as "proven" as any scientific theory has ever been. You're simply too retarded to know the difference.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
On the converse you have a world that logically screams "designed by x". A world that has laws, which our logical brains can't even begin to comprehend how exactly they even exist or why the speed of light is the speed it is.

Is that so, Poindexter? And how would you know? Do you know what an undesigned world should look like? How many worlds have you observed which you know were undesigned? I bet you don't even realize the significance of this point.

Our bodies are full of organs, each with a function, every square inch of our bodies has a use, whether functional, aesthetic, or both. We have no lumps as a species that have no use. No vestigial organs of any kind.

What in the name of fucking Ann Heche are you blathering about? Do you know what the coccyx is?

Some have more important, yet all are beneficial. All we've observed in all our years studying "evolutioN" is things breaking down. Loss of information, not gaining of new.

If you knew anything about genetic mutation and information theory you would know that your statement is patently false. Consider an ordinary duplication. You go from ABCD to ABCCD. Guess what, Einstein? That's new information.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

There should be millions or at least 1 transitional fossil, yet we have none today.

your denial of reality is beyond my comprehension. i suppose you think Archaeopteryx is fake or a tool of the devil?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Somebody please retitle this topic as; "My mind is made up and no fact will change it."

 

[Mr. Lennon]

This thread has really made me question how Corbett and Duwelon were ever able to get through a basic biology course. Did your parents write a note or pull you out of class when the evolution lecture came up? Maybe you two went through private Christian schools your entire life...I just don't understand where you guys developed such strong ignorance because there are plenty of Christians and Catholics that believe in evolution.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Science does not understand how a species' gives birth to another species' with different DNA.

Are you saying that your DNA is identical to your parents'?

Beneficial genetic mutations have never been found, yet harmful ones are everywhere. Current species can adapt to an enviornment, sure, but that information is already present in their DNA.

Wrong.

Modern science cannot even begin to predict what type of offspring a Walleye fish will have. It can't even predict it will have any different offspring other than more walleye in billions of years.

Science can't predict the next hand in a game of poker either, what's your point?

There should be millions or at least 1 transitional fossil, yet we have none today.

You're a moron.

Evolution as a theory is a good theory, for what it's worth, but to call it proven is just a lie. The notion that evolution is scientific proven fact is nothing but a mantra, repeated enough by godless men who want nothing more than to believe they will have nobody to account their lives to.

... and an uneducated one to boot.

I pushed you earlier, pal, and you ignored me. If God's reality tells us one thing, and some book -- words on paper -- tells us another, why is it that you hold that book to be infallible, and God's reality before your eyes to be fallible? Answer this.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corbett

WTF, get real. You actually believe a random explosion created everything and we evolved from Apes?

I don't know if the Big Bang theory is correct but common sense tells me that the myth those Bronze Age Sheep Herders came up with for our origins is laughable. Hey believe what you want, your beliefs are meant to give you comfort, obviously you need it

And you obviously need the comfort in knowing you know more than we mere Christians.

Know moire? I wouldn't say I know more but I'm not fooling myself by pretending to know more like you guys are.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Corbett

Your argument that evolution is just a theory proves that you know little about modern science.

Once upon a time, scientists assigned the term "law" to explanations that seemed to be complete and foolproof. The "laws" of physics and thermodynamics are good examples. Then along came relativity, quantum mechanics, cryogenics, etc.. These showed that there were things happening outside of the human senses ability to detect that didn't quite fit the old laws. The old laws were still perfectly good for the calculating duration of a fall from 100 meters, a mortar shell trajectory, or how dry ice will react.

But scientists learned a lesson, and they stopped naming things "laws". They decided that the word "theory" was a much better term. They use the word "hypothesis" for what you consider "theory" to mean. After compiling enough evidence to prove the hypothesis to be correct and functional, they refer to it as a theory, as in "theory of evolution". And it is perfectly acceptable to refine the theory in light of any new evidence that may be forthcoming.

Once you understand the correct definition of terms as used in science, you can see how ludicrous the argument is that evolution is just a theory. It is very easy to consider you ignorant of the subject when you argue like that.

Your contention that there should be untold millions of fossil records also highlights your ignorance of plate tectonics, geology, erosion, sea level change, fossil formation, etc..

When you use obviously invalid arguments to bolster your case, is it any wonder that you are so easily dismissed?

Science does not understand how a species' gives birth to another species' with different DNA.

Beneficial genetic mutations have never been found, yet harmful ones are everywhere. Current species can adapt to an enviornment, sure, but that information is already present in their DNA.

Modern science cannot even begin to predict what type of offspring a Walleye fish will have. It can't even predict it will have any different offspring other than more walleye in billions of years.

There should be millions or at least 1 transitional fossil, yet we have none today.

Evolution as a theory is a good theory, for what it's worth, but to call it proven is just a lie. The notion that evolution is scientific proven fact is nothing but a mantra, repeated enough by godless men who want nothing more than to believe they will have nobody to account their lives to.

OMG everything you just said is false except the walleye one.

Science DOES understand how a new species arises, its through specific mutations and often limited gene pools. The galapagos islands are a good example of that.

Hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils have been found. Even in just the human arena, there have been everything from apes to modern humans and dozens of interim steps in between. They have been found, named, categorized. Australopithicus (several variants) Homo erectus, homo habilis, homo neandertholensis, heidelbergensis etc etc, Dont even say "missing link" because it has been found long long ago. There is no one "link" missing we have found every step from Ape to man and categorized them.

And evolution is proven.... proven by DNA, proven by fossils and proven by geologic evidence, and watching current bacterial mutations beneficailly (beneficial to them anyhow) mutating immunity to penecillin variants.... Your understanding of science is ZERO so you should stop commenting on it, your embarrasing yourself. Its really sad how uneducated you are.... But the saddest thing is you keep posting as if you know - LOL. its like watching a train wreck. Ms South Carolina anyone? Such as religion, and evolution and such and the Iraq and such as proving such...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Corbett

Your argument thet evoultion is just a theory proves that you know little about modern science.

Once upon a time, scientists assigned the term "law" to explanations that seemed to be complete and foolproof. The "laws" of physics and thermodynamics are good examples. Then along came relativity, quantum mechanics, cryogenics, etc.. These showed that there were things happening outside of the human senses ability to detect that didn't quite fit the old laws. The old laws were still perfectly good for the calculating duration of a fall from 100 meters, a mortar shell trajectory, or how dry ice will react.

But scientists learned a lesson, and they stopped naming things "laws". They decided that the word "theory" was a much better term. They use the word "hypothesis" for what you consider "theory" to mean. After compiling enough evidence to prove the hypothesis to be correct and functional, they refer to it as a theory, as in "theory of evolution". And it is perfectly acceptable to refine the theory in light of any new evidence that may be forthcoming.

Once you understand the correct definition of terms as used in science, you can see how ludicrous the argument is that evolution is just a theory. It is very easy to consider you ignorant of the subject when you argue like that.

Your contention that there should be untold millions of fossil records also highlights your ignorance of plate tectonics, geology, erosion, sea level change, fossil formation, etc..

When you use obviously invalid arguments to bolster your case, is it any wonder that you are so easily dismissed?

Science does not understand how a species' gives birth to another species' with different DNA.

Beneficial genetic mutations have never been found, yet harmful ones are everywhere. Current species can adapt to an enviornment, sure, but that information is already present in their DNA.

Modern science cannot even begin to predict what type of offspring a Walleye fish will have. It can't even predict it will have any different offspring other than more walleye in billions of years.

There should be millions or at least 1 transitional fossil, yet we have none today.

Evolution as a theory is a good theory, for what it's worth, but to call it proven is just a lie. The notion that evolution is scientific proven fact is nothing but a mantra, repeated enough by godless men who want nothing more than to believe they will have nobody to account their lives to.

One species does not actually give birth to another species. When members of a single species are geographically isolated for a long enough period of time they diversify genetically and over a period of hundreds of thousands or millions of years, through a slow mutation process, they become genetically distinct. It's not as if one day a duck suddenly popped out of a chicken. As for transitional fossils, there is copious evidence of transitional forms. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

There are examples of beneficial mutations as well, even in our own human DNA. The mutation for sickle-cell anemia is one well known example since it provides protection against malaria. There's another that confers HIV resistance to certain European groups. It's theorized that that mutation arose and spread in the 14th century because it provided those Europeans resistance against the Bubonic plague and/or mallpox virus. Here are a few others as well:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

The evidence for evolution, for those who actually care to delve into the subject and don't automatically dismiss it out of hand because it's an affront to their religious belifes, is overwhelming. Just about everything points to evolution being a fact while there is zero evidence for ID or creationism.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Is that why evolution is still considered a THEORY?
.
.
And evolution IS a theory. Therefore, Evolution has not PROVEN anything.

< sigh... >

You are using the common understanding of the word, theory, not the scientific definition:

the·o·ry

n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

It takes only one demonstrable contradiction to disprove a theory. Got one to disprove evolution?

Neither does anyone else.

The same cannot be said for "creationism," "creation science" or "intelligent design." The only "intelligence" in a speculative Trojan horse like in "Intelligent Design" is the directed, intentional effort by its proponents to cloud the definition of the word, theory with the more colloquial, less precise usage. The concepts presented by "creationism," "creation science" or "intelligent design" are contradicted by the physical evidence of the history of this planet and the observed universe. They fail out of the gate as a scientific hypotheses or propositions.

Sigh. The Bible was written by men, and inspired by God. It's the infallable Word of God.
'
'
It's not my argument, it's God's argument. You see, its written in His Word.
'
'
What I meant, and you seem to have missed is that God's Word says its entirety is infallable.

The "infallibility" of the "word" of your "god" are your beliefs, not fact, not even viable theory. When it comes to proving anything, they and a dollar bill are worth only the price of a single item in a 99 Cents Store.

 

[ruu]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
This thread has really made me question how Corbett and Duwelon were ever able to get through a basic biology course. Did your parents write a note or pull you out of class when the evolution lecture came up? Maybe you two went through private Christian schools your entire life...I just don't understand where you guys developed such strong ignorance because there are plenty of Christians and Catholics that believe in evolution.

My college roommate was a biochemistry major, and she believes in the infallibility of the Bible and the absolute word of God. She's currently in med school.

I talked to her about evolution; she doesn't know anything about it and doesn't want to learn anything about it because she thinks it's "boring."

Evolution is a complicated concept. If your mind is already primed to reject it, chances are you won't ever understand what it's about.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: ruu

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
This thread has really made me question how Corbett and Duwelon were ever able to get through a basic biology course. Did your parents write a note or pull you out of class when the evolution lecture came up? Maybe you two went through private Christian schools your entire life...I just don't understand where you guys developed such strong ignorance because there are plenty of Christians and Catholics that believe in evolution.

My college roommate was a biochemistry major, and she believes in the infallibility of the Bible and the absolute word of God. She's currently in med school.

I talked to her about evolution; she doesn't know anything about it and doesn't want to learn anything about it because she thinks it's "boring."

Evolution is a complicated concept. If your mind is already primed to reject it, chances are you won't ever understand what it's about.

Yup, metaphorcally speaking, they both clearly practice the "lalalalalalalalalala" learning concept. Its really sad to think there are still people like that in this day and age. Someday we will overcome it, someday.

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: ruu
Well, I took three classes with an Old Testament scholar who was a rabbi.

He told me that the Bible shouldn't be interpreted as "infallible" because it was full of contradictions, and any honest person would agree to that.

So... now what do I do?

Also, please don't just brush aside my inquiries. For all you know, I'm struggling with my faith, here.

Let me correct myself, I would suggest you go speak with an Old Testament Scholar that believe in the entire Bible, not just the Old Testament.

Translation: Don't listen to anyone who's beliefs contradict my own. Don't seek out objective scholars. Don't question inconsistencies or direct contradictions the bible. The only truth is to blindly follow "the word" and never questions its infallibility. BA-AH-AH-AH-AH!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ruu

My college roommate was a biochemistry major, and she believes in the infallibility of the Bible and the absolute word of God. She's currently in med school.

I talked to her about evolution; she doesn't know anything about it and doesn't want to learn anything about it because she thinks it's "boring."

Evolution is a complicated concept. If your mind is already primed to reject it, chances are you won't ever understand what it's about.

Remember her name and that you never want her to be YOUR physician. People who think they can reject the way biology works and still be competent at the practice of medicine are a couple of frejoles short of a combination plate. :roll:

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ruu

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
This thread has really made me question how Corbett and Duwelon were ever able to get through a basic biology course. Did your parents write a note or pull you out of class when the evolution lecture came up? Maybe you two went through private Christian schools your entire life...I just don't understand where you guys developed such strong ignorance because there are plenty of Christians and Catholics that believe in evolution.

My college roommate was a biochemistry major, and she believes in the infallibility of the Bible and the absolute word of God. She's currently in med school.

I talked to her about evolution; she doesn't know anything about it and doesn't want to learn anything about it because she thinks it's "boring."

Evolution is a complicated concept. If your mind is already primed to reject it, chances are you won't ever understand what it's about.

*shrug* Ive known Christians like this (although most arent), and I know many more "anti-creationist's" whose mind is just as closed. BOTH sides are wrong.

Creationism and, for lack of better word, evolution, leave room for a meld between the two. Unfortunately most people cant get their mind around THAT concept, so you get what we have in these threads: finger pointing and link-fests.

The fact is, as I said, both sides leave room for somewhere in between. If youre wise enough to see it that is.

 

[Zebo]

Christians are a bunch of pussies after the Reformation I'll watch for old school burn unbelievers at stake or muslim mujahadeen any day over these new hypocrites. In a sense they only way they can make people believe is by force or threat of force. That's where the real conflict lies and what we should be concerned with these days - not some silly museum.

 

[poohbear]

wow. i see atheists here that are just as extreme in their defence of evolutionism as fundamentalist christians/muslims are in their defence of the bible/quran. scary.:0

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: poohbear
wow. i see atheists here that are just as extreme in their defence of evolutionism as fundamentalist christians/muslims are in their defence of the bible/quran. scary.:0

What's so scary about it?

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Intelligent Design theories are a disservice to religion and an insult to God...

Science has shown through objective, empirical genetic testing that humans and chimpanzees share 98% of the same genetic make up, that in fact all creatures on earth share nearly 80% of the same genetic makeup, from slugs to rats to dogs.

IF Intelligent design is a reality, then this implies several things about the designer. It implies that the 'designer' used a 'template' for the creation of life and all life forms. Using a template requires no intelligence or creativity. It implies that that the 'designer' was not concerned about the end result of this creation process and that one basic design was good enough. It implies that the 'designer' gave only about 20% more thought to the design of the alleged 'higher beings'. It implies that the 'designer' was far from intelligent, and was simply using a single mold to produce life forms on a quick and easy assembly line.

I am insulted that that 'Intelligent Design' includes the word 'intelligent' and that the 'Designer' is equated with God. I am certain that God's plan was much more complex than a simple cuttie cutter template. It is so complex, that humans cannot possibly grasp it. Intelligent Design offers no empirical data and then further goes on to insult God by explaining away his divine plan as a simple matter of mass production. If 'Intelligent Design' is correct, then God is less a an all powerful divine being and more likely Henry Ford.

Intelligent design is nothing more than a means by which religious moralists are trying, once again, to get into our public schools because their churches aren't big enough for them. The folks behind it have certainly succeeded in penetrating our public schools. They've been working for years to do it, and they'll continue to do so. It's just that now the political climate is favorable for them. So they're taking advantage of it. Their goal is to get American public schools teaching religious material. They believe in theocracy. They don't believe in free thought or freedom, period. They believe in a free will that must be suppressed. I would love to see a science teacher try to explain to his teacher why the earth must have been designed, but God must not have been. This is why the I.D. theory is a joke and falls apart immediately if subjected to the rigors of logic. If we teach it to young students, then we are degrading their education.

 

[jackschmittusa]

poohbear

I would defend our scientific understanding of gravity just as quickly if someone were to claim that the effect is just "god pushing stuff together".

Would you consider that extreme too?