PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Creationism in schools
       Why creationism will never be taught in public schools

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Schism

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of The Bill of Rights of the Constitution of The United States of America:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

This means the federal and state governments may not establish an official religion or favor a religion.

Guess who runs the public schools? The federal and state governments! WHAT A SURPRISE! Not really since they are called "public schools" and all their funding is from the US government. The idea is so that, you know, an education is free.

Creationism is a Judeo-Christian (and Islamic I suppose) idea. Not every faith believes in the Biblical story of creation.

Evolution will and can be taught because science is not a religion.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 08:56 AM on August 12, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution will and can be taught because science is not a religion.


Science is not a religion, evolution is. Evolution should be taught in comparative religion class.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 2:07 PM on August 12, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Science is not a religion, evolution is. Evolution should be taught in comparative religion class.


Utter nonsense.  Lester, once again you show you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:50 PM on August 12, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ha ha, very funny Lester, lets se what real scientist say about it, from here:
Real Science

"The Commission on Science Education of the American Association for the Advancement of Science is vigorously opposed to attempts by some boards of education and other groups to require that religious accounts of creation be taught in science classes.
During the past century and a half, the earth's crust and the fossils preserved in it have been intensively studied by geologists and paleontologists. Biologists have intensively studied the origin, structure, physiology, and genetics of living organisms. The conclusion of these studies is that the living species of animals and plants have evolved from different species that lived in the past. The scientists involved in these studies have built up the body of knowledge known as the biological theory of the origin and evolution of life. There is no currently acceptable alternative scientific theory to explain the phenomena."

Accept no substitutes!


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:52 PM on August 12, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 2:07 PM on August 12, 2009 :
Evolution will and can be taught because science is not a religion.


Science is not a religion, evolution is. Evolution should be taught in comparative religion class.


It's hilarious, because you say this a lot, but you've never once supported this claim.

And repeating it, doesn't make something true.

 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 4:00 PM on August 12, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is it not puzzling that a professed Christian would think that it was derogatory to call something a "religion?"

Dig in there, and I think you'll find the real reason he doesn't like science.


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 8:21 PM on August 12, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Utter nonsense.  Lester, once again you show you don't have a clue what you're talking about.


No, actually it is you that doesn't know what you're talking about Orion. I'll bet you weren't listening when I explained why evolution is a religion and not science. You see it is an unobservable, unrepeatable story about the origin of our planet and us and as such is history. The evidence exists now and has to be interpreted according to a worldview or a bias (EVERYBODY has one). We all take a leap of faith in accepting the story we have accepted because none of us was there.

The evidence is clearly in favour of creation however, so your faith is a delusional kind of wishful thinking while ours is based on a intellectually solid and well supported interpretation of what exists here and now as well as historical evidence from the past.

So get evolution out of the biology classroom and we won't insist that creation should be offered as the alternative. Alternatively, offer evolution and creation stories in comparative religion classes and then everybody will know where they stand and precisely what their choices are.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:33 AM on August 13, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:33 PM on August 13, 2009 :

You see it is an unobservable, unrepeatable story about the origin of our planet and us and as such is history.

Do you do this deliberately? It has been pointed out several times to you that evolution does not describe the origins of the planet, yet you continue to peddle the lie. Why? Genuinely, I want to know why you do this. If you are doing it deliberately, then you are dishonest,  if it is not deliberate, then your cognitive capabilities come into question. So Lester, which one is it?


The evidence is clearly in favour of creation

This is laughable. You have yet to point out any evidence that supports the YEC standpoint. You come out with lies, half truths and mis-representations to stand against ToE but I have never seen you put forward any scientific evidence to support YEC. Just a hint for you here, quoting a book written over several centuries, telling stories about how a great big masterful being came down and made us all, Is NOT evidence.
so your faith is a delusional kind of wishful thinking while ours is based on a intellectually solid and well supported interpretation of what exists here and now as well as historical evidence from the past.

Utter nonsense. Intellectually solid? Intellectually stunted!





-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 07:37 AM on August 13, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok Demon38 lets rewrite this to better reflect reality:

"The Commission on Science Education of the American Association for the Advancement of Science is vigorously opposed to attempts by some boards of education and other groups to require that religious accounts of creation be taught in science classes.



The Commission on Evolution Education of the American Association for the Advancement of Evolution is vigorously opposed to attempts by some boards of education and other groups to require that other religious accounts of creation apart from that of evolution be taught in science classes.

During the past century and a half, the earth's crust and the fossils preserved in it have been intensively studied by geologists and paleontologists. Biologists have intensively studied the origin, structure, physiology, and genetics of living organisms. The conclusion of these studies is that the living species of animals and plants have evolved from different species that lived in the past .The scientists involved in these studies have built up the body of knowledge known as the biological theory of the origin and evolution of life. There is no currently acceptable alternative scientific theory to explain the phenomena."


During the past century and a half, the earth's crust and the fossils preserved in it have been intensively studied by geologists and paleontologists. Biologists have intensively studied the origin, structure, physiology, and genetics of living organisms. The conclusion of these studies is that, no matter what the evidence actually tells us, the living species of animals and plants must have evolved from different species that lived in the past. The scientists involved in these studies have built up the body of knowledge known as the biological theory of the origin and evolution of life. Since naturalism is all we're prepared to accept and since there is no other currently acceptable alternative naturalistic theory to explain the phenomena, evolution is by default the truth as we see it and all that we are prepared to allow people of this earth to be taught and to believe."

Please repeat after me "Evolution is science, Evolution is a fact!!" (Preferably 20 times before breakfast and in the lotus position 20 times before retiring at night.)




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:04 AM on August 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Still can't make a point without distortion can you?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:08 AM on August 13, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's hilarious, because you say this a lot, but you've never once supported this claim.


I do try but in your religious fervor for your preferred view, you probably don't listen very attentively.
What's hilarious to me (though somewhat tragic too, I have to admit) is how you can look at life and see evolution, how you can look at the fossils and see evolution, how you can look at the magnificence of everything that exists in the cosmos and still see evolution.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:24 AM on August 13, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester writes:
Ok Demon38 lets rewrite this to better reflect reality:

What they really advocated:
"The Commission on Science Education of the American Association for the Advancement of Science is vigorously opposed to attempts by some boards of education and other groups to require that religious accounts of creation be taught in science classes.

Lester's rewrite of reality:
The Commission on Evolution Education of the American Association for the Advancement of Evolution is vigorously opposed to attempts by some boards of education and other groups to require that other religious accounts of creation apart from that of evolution be taught in science classes.


If he's willing to rewrite the Bible, I guess it's not surprising that he's willing to rewrite the statements of other people.


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 08:32 AM on August 13, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester writes:
What's hilarious to me (though somewhat tragic too, I have to admit) is how you can look at life and see evolution, how you can look at the fossils and see evolution, how you can look at the magnificence of everything that exists in the cosmos and still see evolution.


Evolution is about the way living populations change, Lester.   And those of us willing to let God do it His way, acknowledge that evolution is consistent with His creation.




 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 08:34 AM on August 13, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is it not puzzling that a professed Christian would think that it was derogatory to call something a "religion?"


Well I think I got over worrying to dissect Christianity from religion in general so I just accept the term and get on with it -no point in splitting hairs.
What I mean by calling evolution a religion in the same sense that creation is a religion is that both are stories about where we came from. They are once off, not observable, not repeatable but believed to be factual accounts of what happened from the beginning of time and how we came to be here to discuss it.

We infer from our evidence that exists here and now and according to that evidence evolution is clearly the invented story and creation is clearly what actually happened.

It stands to reason since the Bible is a history book while evolution is a man made invention, a story designed specifically to replace the Biblical story of creation.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:37 AM on August 13, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And those of us willing to let God do it His way, acknowledge that evolution is consistent with His creation.


Actually Yehren, that is a joke right? Theistic evolutionists are the ones that insist that God did it their way, via evolution. The Word of God not good enough for you, huh? Evolution is not consistent with the Biblical account of creation, you deceive yourself for the sake of political correctness and finding favor with men. If God didn't do it the way He said He did and precisely in the order He said He did, then we may just as well hurl the Bible out with its stories. Non- christian evolutionists understand this concept far better than you do, they know that to believe in theistic evolution is the ultimate most ridiculous contrivance but they'll put up with the insertion of God, who knows where, in order to keep evolution in as the ultimate truth.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:49 AM on August 13, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
If God didn't do it the way He said He did and precisely in the order He said He did, then we may just as well hurl the Bible out with its stories.


Lester, you hit the nail right on the head, I think.  A literal interpetation of the stories in the Bible is totally contradicted by what science shows us.  The Creationist dilemna is that when presented with evidence that if one literal interpetation of the Bible is proved wrong, what makes any other portion of it true - including the NT?  

So naturally your only defense is to automatically reject anything that contradicts your literal view - and this is not just limited to ToE.  You reject radiometric dating results - techniques that have their basis in atomic theory and nuclear physics.  You reject geology - unless it's the geology presented by Henry Morris and Steve Austin (of course).  

But evolution is the BIG bad boggie man and it must be defeated at all costs.  If evolution is true, then a literal interpetation of the Bible is wrong.  So it is the ultimate threat.  You have no other course than to reject it and ignore any, and all, evidence presented to you.  And that's exactly what we have seen from you.  

Of course, you can't present any evidence supporting your literal views of Genesis because it doesn't exist.  All you can say is 'We look at the same evidence as evolutionists do.  We just have a different interpetation."

Unfortunately for you, your interpetation isn't worth anything at all because it doesn't pass the rigorious criteria of the scientific method.  Perhaps that's why no Creation Science articles ever appear in peer review scientific journals.  Meanwhile thousands of evolutionary related articles get published in peer reviewed journals every year.  They present very compelling evidence for ToE.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 09:38 AM on August 13, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 08:38 AM on August 13, 2009 :
Lester
If God didn't do it the way He said He did and precisely in the order He said He did, then we may just as well hurl the Bible out with its stories.


Lester, you hit the nail right on the head, I think.  A literal interpetation of the stories in the Bible is totally contradicted by what science shows us.


Yep, Lester it is not the Bible itself that's the point of discussion.  It is the creationist interpretation.  What you are doing is arguing that God's creation is all a lie.  

In other words, your argument rests on the assumption that God is a liar.  Instead of accepting the evidence of creation itself, you reject it and substitute your own interpretation of the Bible in it's place, and then insist that God follow your narrow, simplistic rules.  



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 09:54 AM on August 13, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:37 AM on August 13, 2009 :It stands to reason since the Bible is a history book while evolution is a man made invention, a story designed specifically to replace the Biblical story of creation.


You seem to totally miss the point for why both the individual stories in the Bible were created and why the Bible was put together as a single book at a later point.  

Let's be clear, every word of the Bible was written by a person.  Each individual had a historical context and an agenda when writing down of one the stories.  The essential point of the what Christians call the OT was written, and served remarkably well, as a means for maintaining Jewish cultural identity.  

The NT was written to spread the Christian variation of the Jewish religion.  What we call the Bible was not put together as a single book for hundred of years.  It was then done so in order to promote a single variety of Christianity.

Literal history was not the objective of the writers, and, of course, science was not even invented at the time these stories were written down, so there is no way the stories were intended to teach science.

To be blunt, you and your fellow creationists are misusing the Bible for your own ends.  All the while you are ignoring and misrepresenting the actual creation that is all around you.  



(Edited by Mustrum 8/13/2009 at 10:09 AM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 10:08 AM on August 13, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester is a typical creationist, trying to rewrite the world to conform to his superstitious nonsnse.  He's already proved he doesn't know what he's talking about, so let him  have his fun, he isn't fooling anybody.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:43 PM on August 13, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Barbarian asks:
Is it not puzzling that a professed Christian would think that it was derogatory to call something a "religion?"

What I mean by calling evolution a religion in the same sense that creation is a religion is that both are stories about where we came from.


If you have private definitions for words, you will be always misunderstood.

They are once off, not observable


We can learn about things that have happened in the past, but looking at the evidence they leave.   No honest person would deny science does that.

not repeatable


Undergraduates do that every year in biology classes.

We infer from our evidence that exists here and now and according to that evidence evolution is clearly the invented story and creation is clearly what actually happened.


I know you want us to believe it, but as you know, most Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with His creation.

It stands to reason since the Bible is a history book


No.  It contains some history, some parables and allegory, and other things.  It is not a history book; it is about God and man and our relationship.   No wonder you've been led so far astray from Christianity.

while evolution is a man made invention, a story designed specifically to replace the Biblical story of creation.


Odd then, that evolutionary theory was proposed by two men who believed in the Christian God.   Darwin even opined that God created the first organisms.

You've got a lot to learn about being a Christian.  You've got some of the words, but the spirit eludes you.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 3:06 PM on August 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:49 AM on August 13, 2009 :
If God didn't do it the way He said He did and precisely in the order He said He did, then we may just as well hurl the Bible out with its stories.



So clearly, your faith is in the Bible, not Christ.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 01:31 AM on August 14, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 01:31 AM on August 14, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 08:49 AM on August 13, 2009 :
If God didn't do it the way He said He did and precisely in the order He said He did, then we may just as well hurl the Bible out with its stories.



So clearly, your faith is in the Bible, not Christ.


I might add that kind of 'faith' is a form of idolatry, isn't there something about that in the Bible.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 04:13 AM on August 14, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Creationist dilemna is that when presented with evidence that if one literal interpetation of the Bible is proved wrong


Well let’s get on with it and prove one literal historical part of the Bible wrong, then we’ll have to think again. The problem is that it’s history but you’re welcome to try.

what makes any other portion of it true - including the NT?


The NT parts seem to correlate well with accounts of other historians of that time so I don’t think you’ll get much right there but, again, you can try.

So naturally your only defense is to automatically reject anything that contradicts your literal view


No it’s not actually automatic –I’m always interested to hear what the next plan is to prove the Bible wrong. It seems to be the knee jerk reaction of the evolutionist to insist that pretty much everything in the Bible has to be wrong. That’s why it’s always back to front and upside down compared to evolution. That’s why they don’t mind local catastrophes but one big catastrophe is out of the question. They don’t even realize what they’re running from.

You reject radiometric dating results - techniques that have their basis in atomic theory and nuclear physics.


….As well as a good number of unprovable presuppositions. It doesn’t work with known dates, it’s always orders of magnitudes out with those dates so why should I accept that it is correct for unknown dates? Evolutionists and especially scientists of the atheist and agnostic persuasion love radiometric dating results because it confirms their prejudice. It helps enormously to make evolution feasible if not evidentially obvious.

You reject geology - unless it's the geology presented by Henry Morris and Steve Austin (of course).  


Nobody that I know rejects geology per se, only the interpretations preferred by evolutionists in order to make their long age bias hang together and appear credible.

But evolution is the BIG bad boggie man and it must be defeated at all costs.  


Evolution is a big human invention and should be exposed for the storytelling that it is.

You have no other course than to reject it and ignore any, and all, evidence presented to you.  


Precisely what I accuse the evolutionist of. They don’t want to hear any evidence that stymies their preferred view of history. Mostly they don’t even know where the science ends and the stories begin.

Of course, you can't present any evidence supporting your literal views of Genesis because it doesn't exist.  


We both present our interpretations of the evidence –the evidence is the same but the interpretations are different. For example where there are no transitional forms between invertebrates and fish, evolutionists will say assuredly they will be found someday. Creationists say there are so many billions of invertebrate fossils and so many billions of fish fossils so how come are these transitional forms (of which there should be countless examples) non-existent? Why do evolutionists continue to grab at straws and insist that gradual evolution via mutation and natural selection must be true in the light of the contradictory evidence? Our interpretations are consistent with the evidence, yours are contradictory. You think we’re deceived, we think you are living in a complete fog of what you prefer to believe. For evolutionists, creation is the big boggie man that must be defeated at all costs.

your interpetation isn't worth anything at all because it doesn't pass the rigorious criteria of the scientific method.  


Ha! Ha! Don’t make me laugh.

Perhaps that's why no Creation Science articles ever appear in peer review scientific journals.  Meanwhile thousands of evolutionary related articles get published in peer reviewed journals every year.


Scientists that do not believe that evolution is true publish scientific papers in your peer reviewed journals all the time, but if they have anything contrary to evolution to say (even if it smells like it), those articles won’t be published so they don’t bother to submit them to your religious journals anymore. They have their own scientific journals documenting the evidence for creation so don’t go patting yourselves on the back for your journal’s intolerance and suppression of the truth –it just doesn’t wash.

They present very compelling evidence for ToE.


…in your dreams.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:20 AM on August 14, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:20 AM on August 14, 2009 :Well let’s get on with it and prove one literal historical part of the Bible wrong, then we’ll have to think again.


Actually, it's up to you to show that all the events in the Bible are historically accurate.  You could start with the supposed massacre of infants by Herod.  

After that...oh, never mind, you'll never be able to demonstrate that event ever happened.



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 07:51 AM on August 14, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:20 AM on August 14, 2009 :
You reject radiometric dating results - techniques that have their basis in atomic theory and nuclear physics.


….As well as a good number of unprovable presuppositions. It doesn’t work with known dates, it’s always orders of magnitudes out with those dates so why should I accept that it is correct for unknown dates?


What sources do you base this opinion on?  Do you include all techniques such as argon-argon dating?  Do you have any idea about the underlying physics of how radiometric dating works?  




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 07:55 AM on August 14, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mustrum

The essential point of the what Christians call the OT was written, and served remarkably well, as a means for maintaining Jewish cultural identity.


And recording their history -how about that for a possibility?

The NT was written to spread the Christian variation of the Jewish religion.


The NT was written to show the fulfillment of the OT prophecies concerning the coming of the messiah and to record Jesus' life and death on earth.

It was then done so in order to promote a single variety of Christianity.


No, this was the original story. Afterwards people invented variations.

To be blunt, you and your fellow creationists are misusing the Bible for your own ends.


No you are reinterpreting it to contain an account of something called evolution -you are the one misusing it for your own ends.

All the while you are ignoring and misrepresenting the actual creation that is all around you.


Now you're really getting inventive.








-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:03 AM on August 14, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:20 AM on August 14, 2009 :Scientists that do not believe that evolution is true publish scientific papers in your peer reviewed journals all the time, but if they have anything contrary to evolution to say (even if it smells like it), those articles won’t be published so they don’t bother to submit them to your religious journals anymore. They have their own scientific journals documenting the evidence for creation so don’t go patting yourselves on the back for your journal’s intolerance and suppression of the truth –it just doesn’t wash.


Can you provide the text for a single paper that was rejected from a mainstream, scientific journal purely on the grounds that it questioned evolution?  I don't think so.  

You make all sorts of claims, but you can't back most of them up.  Do you really think anyone doesn't notice that?


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 08:09 AM on August 14, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mustrum

Can you provide the text for a single paper that was rejected from a mainstream, scientific journal purely on the grounds that it questioned evolution?  I don't think so.


Mustrum you really are living on a cloud if you don't realize what's happening out there. It's far more than just refusal to publish their papers, it's out and out war with intellectual freedom as the casualty. Not just papers but entire careers are ruined by the injustice of the elitist evolutionary establishment. They are deeply afraid of the challenge to their world view because their 'science' can't take a reality check. Intellectual freedom will bring the demise of evolution as the dominating religion of academia so out with intellectual freedom say the evolutionists. If you don't believe me, try all the documentation provided in Jerry Bergman's book "Slaughter of the Dissidents."



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:26 AM on August 14, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

(Re:radiometric dating)What sources do you base this opinion on?


Not my opinion at all. Lots of different sources that have looked into results obtained via radiometric dating.

Do you include all techniques such as argon-argon dating?


Yes, same presuppositions are used.

Do you have any idea about the underlying physics of how radiometric dating works?


Yes I do. Do you know the presuppositions that are used in radiometric dating?  



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:43 AM on August 14, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis

So clearly, your faith is in the Bible, not Christ.


The Bible is the Word of God and the Word of God is Jesus Christ.
Try this:

"In the beginning was THE WORD and THE WORD was WITH God and THE WORD WAS GOD. He was with God in the beginning.
Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. "

It continues in John 1:
"He was in the world and though the world was MADE BY HIM, the world did not recognize him."
And shortly thereafter:
"The WORD became flesh, and made his dwelling among us."

Who was THE WORD? The one who became flesh and made his dwelling among us. Jesus Christ aka God aka The WORD. Who created everything? The WORD.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:02 AM on August 14, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I might add that kind of 'faith' is a form of idolatry, isn't there something about that in the Bible.


Fencer, you're always saying things like "isn't there something about that in the Bible?" Why don't you just read it and find out. Idolatry is making God in the image you prefer and I'm sure it extends to pretending that the clear words of God mean something else to what they appear to mean -ie. making up your own story and pressing it into the given words vigorously and without apology.  



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:13 AM on August 14, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:26 AM on August 14, 2009 :
Mustrum

Can you provide the text for a single paper that was rejected from a mainstream, scientific journal purely on the grounds that it questioned evolution?  I don't think so.


Mustrum you really are living on a cloud if you don't realize what's happening out there. It's far more than just refusal to publish their papers, it's out and out war with intellectual freedom as the casualty. Not just papers but entire careers are ruined by the injustice of the elitist evolutionary establishment. They are deeply afraid of the challenge to their world view because their 'science' can't take a reality check. Intellectual freedom will bring the demise of evolution as the dominating religion of academia so out with intellectual freedom say the evolutionists. If you don't believe me, try all the documentation provided in Jerry Bergman's book "Slaughter of the Dissidents."



My question was, can you provide the text for a single paper that was rejected from a mainstream, scientific journal purely on the grounds that it questioned evolution?  Evidently, you can't.




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 11:48 AM on August 14, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:43 AM on August 14, 2009 :
(Re:radiometric dating)What sources do you base this opinion on?


Not my opinion at all. Lots of different sources that have looked into results obtained via radiometric dating.


Ok, that's what I'm asking, what are your sources?





-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 11:50 AM on August 14, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:43 AM on August 14, 2009 :
Do you include all techniques such as argon-argon dating?


Yes, same presuppositions are used.




What are the presuppositions, and why are they not valid?




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 11:56 AM on August 14, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Orion

You reject radiometric dating results - techniques that have their basis in atomic theory and nuclear physics.




….As well as a good number of unprovable presuppositions. It doesn’t work with known dates, it’s always orders of magnitudes out with those dates so why should I accept that it is correct for unknown dates? Evolutionists and especially scientists of the atheist and agnostic persuasion love radiometric dating results because it confirms their prejudice. It helps enormously to make evolution feasible if not evidentially obvious.


Nonsense.  Lester, I submit that you don't understand the material you're talking about.

From Here:
Radiometric Dating - A Christian's Perspective


Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements-
-has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a
different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that
these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which
the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between
radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many
Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of
laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Biblebelieving
Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.


I won't cut & paste the rest of Dr Wiens article - you can read it for yourself.  The entire article is shown here:

Radiometric Dating


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:15 PM on August 14, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mustrum you really are living on a cloud if you don't realize what's happening out there. It's far more than just refusal to publish their papers, it's out and out war with intellectual freedom as the casualty. Not just papers but entire careers are ruined by the injustice of the elitist evolutionary establishment.


You mean like Kurt Wise, who as a YE creationist got a doctorate at Harvard under Stephen Gould?  Like John Baumgartner, whose job is quite secure, and who has even published papers in scientific journals?

How many evolutionists are at the ICR graduate school, Lester?  

 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 1:16 PM on August 14, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I love how creationists can bark about the injustice of the system against creationist.

But at the same time, most of their companies, their schools, etc. They all have this disclaimer you have to sign, you HAVE to be a creationist to teach there or be part of the company.

While they are feeling bad about some creationists losing their jobs for being stupid.
They meanwhile don't find it a bad idea to simply not allow non-creationists in their operation.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 2:41 PM on August 14, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Mustrum at 11:50 AM on August 14, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 07:43 AM on August 14, 2009 :
(Re:radiometric dating)What sources do you base this opinion on?


Not my opinion at all. Lots of different sources that have looked into results obtained via radiometric dating.


Ok, that's what I'm asking, what are your sources?


He is no doubt referring to the RATE project, which was the failure of "scientific" YEC:

The conclusions of the RATE project are being billed as “groundbreaking results.” This is a fairly accurate description since a group of creation scientists acknowledge that hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactivity have occurred. They attempt to explain how this massive radioactivity could have occurred in a few thousand years but admit that consistent solutions have not yet been found.  The vast majority of the book is devoted to providing technical details that the authors believe prove that the earth is young and that radioisotope decay has not always been constant.  All of these areas of investigation have been addressed elsewhere by the scientific community and have been shown to be without merit.  The only new data provided in this book are in the category of additional details and there are no significantly new claims.
       In this book, the authors admit that a young-earth position cannot be reconciled with the scientific data without assuming that exotic solutions will be discovered in the future.  No known thermodynamic process could account for the required rate of heat removal nor is there any known way to protect organisms from radiation damage.  The young-earth advocate is therefore left with two positions.  Either God created the earth with the appearance of age (thought by many to be inconsistent with the character of God) or else there are radical scientific laws yet to be discovered that would revolutionize science in the future.  The authors acknowledge that no current scientific understanding is consistent with a young earth.  Yet they are so confident that these problems will be resolved that they encourage a message that the reliability of the Bible has been confirmed.


Assessing the RATE Project


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:53 PM on August 14, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Schism at 08:56 AM on August 12, 2009 :
This is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of The Bill of Rights of the Constitution of The United States of America:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

This means the federal and state governments may not establish an official religion or favor a religion.

Guess who runs the public schools? The federal and state governments! WHAT A SURPRISE! Not really since they are called "public schools" and all their funding is from the US government. The idea is so that, you know, an education is free.

Creationism is a Judeo-Christian (and Islamic I suppose) idea. Not every faith believes in the Biblical story of creation.

Evolution will and can be taught because science is not a religion.


No. 1--If it could ever be shown legally that evolution was atheistic in foundation, because it does not acknowledge design and hence the Designer--you guys would be out too--because atheism has achieved the legal privileges of religion.  Hope you enjoy the double standard while it lasts.

No. 2--The interpretation of the first amendment has indeed evolved in the courts since the writing of the constitution.  There was a time when it was written legally that America was a "Christian nation."  Most people were at the very least deist, and many were devout.  Look at the Declaration of Independence from 1776.  "We hold these truths to be self evident" (they didn't need confirmation from scientists), "that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

No. 3  It is reasonable to teach, rather than creationism, intelligent design without elaboration to any religious faith or denomination.   No one is asking for sermons or Bible teaching in school.

The reason being is there are 1)problems with evolution--it has not answered many questions--just given us a story or speculation and then just shove us off on our way. 2) There are qualified Phd's and many school teachers who do not agree with evolution.


 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 01:30 AM on August 15, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No. 1--If it could ever be shown legally that evolution was atheistic in foundation, because it does not acknowledge design and hence the Designer--you guys would be out too--because atheism has achieved the legal privileges of religion.  Hope you enjoy the double standard while it lasts.

Atheism is not a religion, hence, no double standard.  Science must always be agnostic.

No. 2--The interpretation of the first amendment has indeed evolved in the courts since the writing of the constitution.  There was a time when it was written legally that America was a "Christian nation."  Most people were at the very least deist, and many were devout.

Yet deism is not christianity.  Show us evidence that the founders of america intended it to be a christian nation.  From here:
Jefferson

""Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814."

No. 3  It is reasonable to teach, rather than creationism, intelligent design without elaboration to any religious faith or denomination.   No one is asking for sermons or Bible teaching in school.

It is preposterous to teach intelligent design, it is not science, it has no evidence, it presents no scientific theory.  The Kitzmiller et al vs. Dover Area School District court case clearly shows that ID is not science and should not be taught, from here:
Dover

"Judge Jones clearly grasped the weight of scientific evidence behind evolution, and properly pointed out that it serves as the central organizing principle of the biological sciences. The trial was especially significant because it afforded the proponents of ID, including such prominent advocates as Michael Behe and Scott Minnich, the opportunity to present a scientific case for ID over several days of wide-open testimony. What took place, as the trial record makes clear, is that the pseudo-scientific claims of ID collapsed upon inspection. A series of expert witnesses for the parents who objected to the district's ID policy were able to demonstrate conclusively that ID is not science. They further showed that ID has no factual grounding, and that it represents a thinly-veiled attempt to insert a religious doctrine into schools under the guise of science."

Intelligent design is a waste of time and no student should be put at such a disadvantage when they are taught it.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:07 AM on August 15, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon--we have evidence.  It is the same evidence you have.  You're interpretation is different because your starting worldview is different.  So you reach different conclusions.

What evidence do you have?  Rocks that have Uranium and lead in them--strontium and rhubidium in them.   That proves it is there --it does not prove that that is all
a result of nuclear decay.  These rocks have other minerals in them too.  

There is also helium in ancient rocks and it should not be in them.  Helium is very small and slippery, it should have dissipated from "ancient" rocks by now.

If you need me to cite this I can.  

Rocks are not closed systems.  Water can contaminate them.  You don't know how much mother and daughter element you had to start with and rocks are subject to weather, water, and heat.  How can you calculate this without knowing the variables.

You've probably never even heard of polonium radiohalos.  Or of the nautiloid mass kill in the redwall limestone of the grand canyon which stretches as far Las Vegas.  Nor of the many animal graveyards where mangled fossils are found.  Probably all you ever heard is nice clean order --just like in your text book.

If dinosaurs have been dead 65 million years then why do they find many of them so close to the surface?

Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence which I quoted.  He was a deist.

When officials (1700-1800s) said that America was Christian--they meant that the official (majority) religion was Christian. Just like if you look up nations in an encyclopedia it gives you their majority religion. Of course not everyone was a Christian back then--that's sure.


 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 03:15 AM on August 15, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon,

Atheism is not a religion, hence, no double standard.  


Atheism is a religion. It is a belief system that asserts that there is no God and hence everything that exists came into being by naturalistic means with no external agent involvement ie. no creator allowed. That is a belief system and, like every other religion, not something that can be ‘scientifically’ proven.

Science must always be agnostic.


Yes, science should be, but evolution isn’t, hence my problem with evolution.

""Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."


How does this small and selective quote by one man show that the US is/was not a Christian nation?

It is preposterous to teach intelligent design, it is not science, it has no evidence, it presents no scientific theory.  


Yes it does and I agree, ID should be taught in school, not creation as such. The evidence for a designer vs the evidence that there is no designer. No Bible reading and no specific religion should be espoused but the atheist interpretation of the evidence should not be forced down everybody’s throat as the only possibility for our origins since it is only one possibility out of two. ID has endless evidence and it is the same as the atheist evolutionist’s evidence only interpreted according to different presuppositions from the ones you prefer.

The Kitzmiller et al vs. Dover Area School District court case clearly shows that ID is not science and should not be taught


Judge Jones had a clear bias however as he thought to speak for everyone by taking a restricted sociological view of ‘science’ as what the consensus of practicing scientists declares it to be. Since prominent ‘science’ organizations declared ID not to be science, thus Judge Jones declared it not to be science. Consensus however has often been shown to have been wrong and truth is not decided by consensus.

"Judge Jones clearly grasped the weight of scientific evidence behind evolution, and properly pointed out that it serves as the central organizing principle of the biological sciences.


….causing every evolutionist to thrill at his agreement with them while at the same time causing abject disbelief in the ID camp at his attempt to conflate the presumptions and prejudices of the current group of practitioners with the way physical reality must be understood.
The broader view of science taken by ID supporters and most of the public is ‘science’ is an unrestricted search for the truth about nature based on reasoning from physical evidence. By that reasoning, ID is indeed science.

What took place, as the trial record makes clear, is that the pseudo-scientific claims of ID collapsed upon inspection.


…according to Judge Jones and his evolutionist supporters everywhere.They never collapsed nor will they ever. The truth will out despite atheist prejudice.

They further showed that ID has no factual grounding, and that it represents a thinly-veiled attempt to insert a religious doctrine into schools under the guise of science."


Creationists want the evidence for and against evolution to be allowed in the classroom. They want the evidence for design to be discussed. Evolutionists are scared that that will be the end of their power trip. They want nothing but naturalistic evolution to be allowed in the science classroom. They want only their religion to be taught and no evidence against their religion to be aired in the public domain.
They want children to think that evolution is science and truth, when it actually isn’t.

Intelligent design is a waste of time and no student should be put at such a disadvantage when they are taught it.


Well if evolution is so obvious and so clearly supported by the evidence, let ID in and the obviousness of it should be evident to all. That way there will be no suppression of freedom of information, no more argument and opposition and evolution will win in the hearts and minds of the world because when they are allowed to think about it critically with all the evidence allowed to be on the table, evolution will win hands down….

It’s never a waste of time to be allowed to think critically. Just like the Roman Catholic church tried to keep the Bible in latin and away from the people since they believed that the commoners were not qualified to draw the correct conclusions by reading it themselves, evolutionists think the common people need them to interpret the evidence.

You know it’s not true and that’s why you’re scared.

 
 



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:45 AM on August 15, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Zucadragon

I love how creationists can bark about the injustice of the system against creationist.

But at the same time, most of their companies, their schools, etc. They all have this disclaimer you have to sign, you HAVE to be a creationist to teach there or be part of the company.


Would you like to have creationists write blogs for your evolutionist organization? Would you like their creationist opinions blurting forth as representative of your particular evolutionary mission? All privately funded companies and schools have that freedom surely? When you send your child to a muslim school, you need to be warned that they may end up believing what muslims believe. Your children might end up believing in the Biblical creator if you sent them to a professing Christian school so you get to choose. I've never known a Christian school to turn away a non-believer but let it be known that that is what they teach and that's not your choice. If you don't like it, take your child elsewhere.

The difference with evolution is that evolutionists teach their belief system or religious preference at tax payer's expense.

While they are feeling bad about some creationists losing their jobs for being stupid.
They meanwhile don't find it a bad idea to simply not allow non-creationists in their operation.


Again, your religion over theirs -at tax payer's expense.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:06 AM on August 15, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon--we have evidence.  It is the same evidence you have.  You're interpretation is different because your starting worldview is different.  So you reach different conclusions.

Yet the original theory was that God created everything, all scientists believed that.  Yet, this conclusion was overturned over 200 years ago by christian scientists by the sheer weight of the evidence.  Their worldview was creationism but they were objective and the evidence fully supported naturalism.  Creationists have no been able to rebutt this evidence, especially  for evolution.  It's obvious that your conclusions are wrong.

What evidence do you have?  Rocks that have Uranium and lead in them--strontium and rhubidium in them.   That proves it is there --it does not prove that that is all
a result of nuclear decay.


What are you saying, uranium doesn't radioactively decay????  Why don't you learn a little about radiometric dating and how it is in concordance with other dating methods.  There are something like 40 different methods of radiometric dating, and they all agree.  How is that possible if your right???

These rocks have other minerals in them too.

What do other minerals have to do with radiometric dating?

There is also helium in ancient rocks and it should not be in them.  Helium is very small and slippery, it should have dissipated from "ancient" rocks by now.

Nope, this was just creationist bullcrap, from here:
HeliumFraud

"Despite enthusiastic endorsements by numerous YECs, the "helium diffusion studies" in Humphreys et al. (2003a,b; 2004) and Humphreys (2003) are based on many flawed arguments, ad hoc miracles, bad assumptions, untrustworthy equations, and questionable data. For example, the relatively high Q/Q0 values of some of the zircons, which are important in deriving many of the YEC helium diffusion "dates," may be due to extraneous helium or artifacts of grossly underestimating the Q0 values of uranium- and thorium-rich zircons."

If you need me to cite this I can.

YOu do that, and let's hope you don't site Humphreys work because that has already been demolished by real scientists.

Rocks are not closed systems.

After they have been massively heated and then cooled, yes they are a closed system.
From here:
Radiodating

"Some doubters have tried to dismiss geologic dating with a sleight of hand by saying that no rocks are completely closed systems (that is, that no rocks are so isolated from their surroundings that they have not lost or gained some of the isotopes used for dating). Speaking from an extreme technical viewpoint this might be true--perhaps 1 atom out of 1,000,000,000,000 of a certain isotope has leaked out of nearly all rocks, but such a change would make an immeasurably small change in the result. The real question to ask is, "is the rock sufficiently close to a closed system that the results will be same as a really closed system?" Since the early 1960s many books have been written on this subject. These books detail experiments showing, for a given dating system, which minerals work all of the time, which minerals work under some certain conditions, and which minerals are likely to lose atoms and give incorrect results. Understanding these conditions is part of the science of geology. Geologists are careful to use the most reliable methods whenever possible, and as discussed above, to test for agreement between different methods."

Water can contaminate them.

Explain how, if you can.  No, water can NOT contaminate rocks and affect radiometric dating.

You don't know how much mother and daughter element you had to start with

This is determined by counting the number of daugther atoms and the number of remaining parent atoms and calculating the ratio of the two.  So we can know how much parent and daughter atoms you had to start with because we know what their decay rate is.

and rocks are subject to weather, water, and heat.

Weather and water don't affect radiometric dating and heat is evident, geologists know what they are looking at.  Radiometric dating dates when the system closed, and this is apparent.

How can you calculate this without knowing the variables.

When the sample was last heated and cooled, the parent and daughter atoms were trapped in the rock.  By measuring the parent and daughter atoms and calculating the ratio between them, you know this.  What variables are you talking about?

You've probably never even heard of polonium radiohalos.

Yep, they were disproven long decades ago, from here:
Polonium Halos

"Critics of Gentry, including Thomas A. Baillieul (Baillieul 2005) and John Brawley (Brawley 1992), have pointed out that Po-218 is a decay product of radon, which as a gas can be given off by a grain of uranium in one part of the rock and migrate to another part of the rock to form a uraniumless halo. Apparently a large number of radon atoms are caught or adsorbed at a particular point. This has not been proved experimentally, but is supported by the fact that Gentry's "polonium halos" are found along microscopic cracks in rocks that also contain uranium halos (Wakefield 1988).

Gentry's work has been continued and expanded by the creationist Radioactivity and the Age of the Earth (R.A.T.E.) project that was operating between 1997 and 2005 (Wieland 2003). However, Collins (1997), Wakefield (1988) and others have repeatedly and soundly rebutted the radiohalo evidence for a young Earth in peer-reviewed publications."

Or of the nautiloid mass kill in the redwall limestone of the grand canyon which stretches as far Las Vegas.

How does this support a young earth?!?!
From here:
Redwall

"The next formation in the Grand Canyon geologic column is the cliff-forming Redwall Limestone, which is 450 to 525 feet (140 to 160 m) thick (see 4b in figure 1). The Redwall is composed of thick-bedded, dark brown to bluish gray limestone and dolomite with white chert nodules mixed in and was laid down in a retreating shallow tropical sea near the equator in early to middle Mississippian time (about 330 million years ago).[15] Many fossilized crinoids, brachiopods, bryozoans, horn corals, nautiloids, and sponges, along with other marine organisms such as large and complex trilobites have been found in the Redwall.[15] Caves and natural arches are also found.[15] After this formation was deposited the Grand Canyon region was slowly uplifted, and part of the upper Redwall was eroded away in late Mississippian. The exposed surface of the Redwall gets its characteristic color from rainwater dripping from the redbeds of the Supai and Hermit shale that lie above.[15]"

It's a natural formation, with a lot of dead animals that is very old, how does this support a young earth?

Nor of the many animal graveyards where mangled fossils are found.  Probably all you ever heard is nice clean order --just like in your text book.

Fossilized organisms are found in a strict chronological order that is explained by evolution and disproves creationism.  You creationists are unable to rebutt this fact.

If dinosaurs have been dead 65 million years then why do they find many of them so close to the surface?

You kidding me...You don't understand geology either?!?!  How about errosion for one.  

Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence which I quoted.  He was a
deist.


Yes he was, not a christian and he states that this country was not intended to be a "Christian country".

When officials (1700-1800s) said that America was Christian--they meant that the official (majority) religion was Christian.

The United States has never been officially christian, period.

Just like if you look up nations in an encyclopedia it gives you their majority religion. Of course not everyone was a Christian back then--that's sure.

Yes the majority is christian, but the United States was founded to never have an official religion.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:43 AM on August 15, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Atheism is a religion. It is a belief system that asserts that there is no God and hence everything that exists came into being by naturalistic means with no external agent involvement ie. no creator allowed. That is a belief system and, like every other religion, not something that can be ‘scientifically’ proven.

Yes but the main definition of a religion isn't just a "belief system".  It is a belief in a supernatural deity and a belief in a personal relationship with that deity.  So no, atheism is not a religion.  

Yes, science should be, but evolution isn’t, hence my problem with evolution.

What deity does evolution worship?  If there is no deity involved, then evolution, as a recognized, fully supported theory of science is agnostic.

Yes it does and I agree, ID should be taught in school, not creation as such. The evidence for a designer vs the evidence that there is no designer.

There is no evidence for a designer and much to falsify it.

No Bible reading and no specific religion should be espoused but the atheist interpretation of the evidence should not be forced down everybody’s throat as the only possibility for our origins since it is only one possibility out of two.

It's the only unfalsified scientific theory for our origins, ID is not scientific, as has been repeatedly proven.

ID has endless evidence and it is the same as the atheist evolutionist’s evidence only interpreted according to different presuppositions from the ones you prefer.

AS has been shown in the Dover trial, among other places and definitively shown, ID is not science and it has no evidence.

Judge Jones had a clear bias however as he thought to speak for everyone by taking a restricted sociological view of ‘science’ as what the consensus of practicing scientists declares it to be. Since prominent ‘science’ organizations declared ID not to be science, thus Judge Jones declared it not to be science. Consensus however has often been shown to have been wrong and truth is not decided by consensus.

And yet, the ID supporters who testified at the trial could not support the claim that ID is science.  ID had it's day in court and lost (thank God!)

Well if evolution is so obvious and so clearly supported by the evidence, let ID in and the obviousness of it should be evident to all.

As shown in the scientific world, it is obvious, virtually all biologists agree, evolution is valid, common descent is valid, it's a fact.  Only the fundamentalist loonies like you deny it based on your silly superstitions.

You know it’s not true and that’s why you’re scared.

Ha ha, if you showed me any evidence of an intelligent designer, anything more than your ignorance, I would apologize to you and shout to the heavens that you, Lester, were right all along!  Heck, I WANT to believe in an intelligent, allpowerful God.  But what I want and what is real are two different things.  No creationist has ever shown any compelling evidence for any kind of a god and no creationist has ever shown any evidence that falsifies evolution.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 06:25 AM on August 15, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 03:15 AM on August 15, 2009 :
Demon--we have evidence.  It is the same evidence you have.  You're interpretation is different because your starting worldview is different.  So you reach different conclusions.

What evidence do you have?  Rocks that have Uranium and lead in them--strontium and rhubidium in them.   That proves it is there --it does not prove that that is all
a result of nuclear decay.  These rocks have other minerals in them too.  


Then you are contradicting the Institute for Creation Research.  Since you are more expert than they are, I'm surprised they didn't call you to be a member of the RATE study.

RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:29 AM on August 15, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Demon

Intelligent design is a waste of time and no student should be put at such a disadvantage when they are taught it.


Well if evolution is so obvious and so clearly supported by the evidence, let ID in and the obviousness of it should be evident to all. That way there will be no suppression of freedom of information, no more argument and opposition and evolution will win in the hearts and minds of the world because when they are allowed to think about it critically with all the evidence allowed to be on the table, evolution will win hands down….



Lester, there's a few flaws to you suggestion of teaching ID in a science classroom:

1.  first, and foremost, ID is not a supportable scientific hypothesis.  Science cannont prove, nor disprove, God - or any other supernatural entity.  Science can only deal with what can be measured and observed in Nature.  If you can provide definite proof of a Biblical God, then I'll take my words back.

2.  Creationists have an agenda of only allowing one Creation myth into the classroom, and that Creation myth is from Genesis of the Holy Bible.  There are hundreds of other creation myths from almost every culture in history - but Creationists aren't interested in them, are they?  Of course not.  Their actual agenda is to push their Christian religion in any way they can.  That's the 'intellectual freedom' Lester is talking about.

Evolutionists want to keep religion out of the science classroom.  Science has nothing to do with religion.    
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:09 PM on August 15, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon
AF3

Water can contaminate them.

Explain how, if you can.  No, water can NOT contaminate rocks and affect radiometric dating.


I might add, rocks from the moon have been dated to about 4.5 billion years.  No water on the moon.

Demon
AF3

You don't know how much mother and daughter element you had to start with


This is determined by counting the number of daugther atoms and the number of remaining parent atoms and calculating the ratio of the two.  So we can know how much parent and daughter atoms you had to start with because we know what their decay rate is.


Again, Demon is correct.  Every student taking General Chemistry in college (or even high school) goes through those calculations in their tests.

Once again, the delimna that Creationists find themselves in is this:  in trying to disprove evolution, they must at the same time try to disprove and reject basic scientific fundamental principles in other fields as well - chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy, etc.

I read about Humphreys - he is a YEC at Los Alamos.  The flaws in his ideas were directly pointed out by his own collegues at the Lab.  He routinely pushed his YEC ideas on people at the lab.  I'm afraid he let his religious beliefs cloud what scientific objectivity he should have had.  

Sort of like the situation Michael Behe finds himself at Lehigh University.  Lehigh's department of Biological Science has posted this disclaimer regarding Behe:

Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.


From here:
Lehigh University Behe Disclaimer
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:02 PM on August 15, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 02:15 AM on August 15, 2009 :
What evidence do you have?  Rocks that have Uranium and lead in them--strontium and rhubidium in them.   That proves it is there --it does not prove that that is all
a result of nuclear decay.  These rocks have other minerals in them too.  

There is also helium in ancient rocks and it should not be in them.  Helium is very small and slippery, it should have dissipated from "ancient" rocks by now.



There is another instance where creationists ignore basic science.  Many atoms are unstable and hence decay via radioactivity.   If you have the unstable form of rubidium it will decay, and we can measure the rate of this decay.  This is an observable phenomena.  

BTW, I don't know where you got the idea that helium can't be in old rocks.  That's an especially silly notion since helium is emitted during radioactive decay by some elements.




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 4:20 PM on August 15, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Mustrum at 10:56 AM on August 14, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 07:43 AM on August 14, 2009 :
Do you include all techniques such as argon-argon dating?


Yes, same presuppositions are used.




What are the presuppositions, and why are they not valid?




Hey Lester, any comments?  Were you basing your notions on the RATE stuff?  



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 4:22 PM on August 15, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.