12 votes

Dead Horse. Die!

.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

There is the argument which

There is the argument which says that we don't know evolution because we have not witnessed it. I say that's wrong. Every being has traits which it inherits from its parents while simultaneously exhibiting a uniqueness unto itself which has been never before seen in the known history of the universe. Reproduction IS evolution. You have evolved from your parents and your child evolves from you. And it is not only reproduction which gives rise to evolution--evolution can be observed in a single organism throughout the course of its life; we call this "growing" and it is a result of an infinite number of factors, the least of which are not inputs and outputs from and to the organism's environment. A child--its being and its unique characteristics--is not only a result of the choices and nature of its parents, but also of its parents' parents, and also the choices and happenstance of itself. It is the drawing out of this process over long periods of time (ad infinitum) which leads to changes so drastic that we say that new species have formed.

To deny evolution is to deny the obvious characteristics of your being.

None of this is to say that I think government should make it illegal to teach children that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Teach your children what you will, but I will call it absurd if it is.

I don't deny evolution.

I point out that religionists like you who claim that evolution is "scientific" or "scientifically proven" are deniers of science.

Personally, I acknowledge evolution as possible.

That said, and I'm very sorry about this, it simply cannot be scientifically proven. It is IMPOSSIBLE to scientifically prove (fish-> ape -> man) evolution.

If you do not understand this, you do not understand science. Any science. Even Darwin acknowledged this fact that his theory is not scientific and can never, ever be proven. He understood why as he understood science.

I know that's hard for religionists who believe in scientism. But scientism is not science. Science is science and it has rigorous requirements for proofs that have no exceptions.

One's BELIEFS or FEELINGS on the matter are irrelevant.

My feelings and beliefs are

My feelings and beliefs are quite relevant. Not only to me, but also to you, considering that you replied to what I wrote. And regarding, in general, the way by which science and feelings relate: I'd go so far as to say that science has its origin in feeling.

More to the point--I made no claim that "fish-> ape -> man" evolution is scientifically provable. I did not even use the word "science", yet you have acted as though I had.

My point, simply, is that evolution is observable--not only in the process of reproduction, but also over the course of one's life. To say this, though, is not to imply that I think that it is provable that humans evolved from an aquatic animal. Like you, I think that such a kind of human origin is possible (I might go so far as to say it's probable), but I said nothing about certainty regarding this particular theory of human evolution. Why is it that you accuse me of holding a religious belief which I did not at all represent?

If your assertion is that....

....non-repeatable results are observable, I'd agree with that.

But that speaks directly to the fact that cross-specie evolution is NOT scientifically provable.

according to evolution

Much is in the fossil?

This is a strong argument? To me it is like finding a dead animal frozen or something and claiming it as evidence of evolution.

donvino

Many want to ridicule the creationist

model, but we really don't have a clue how old the earth really is, when humans first walked the earth, nor how old the dinosaurs are? All we know is what has been hypothsized by some federal funded university scientist who benefits from the continuous long dating of various models. The empirical facts have proven carbon dating is extremely inaccurate. I saw were a scientist took two lab created rocks, one was 5yrs old and the other was 10yrs old. They were sent to be carbon dated by the latest technology we have, and the 5 year old rock came back dated at 1.2 million years old and the 10 year old rock came back dated 4.2 million years old. There has been human and dinosaur footprints found together in the crustation in the Puluxy river in N. Texas. Also, they tell us the Wooley Mammouth and the Mastedon lived thousands of years apart, but both have been found by archeologists embedded together in the same depth of earth covering. So, in conclusion we really don't know who has the accurate age of our planetary enviroment, it's really only left for speculation by the university scientist's who are greedy to get federal funding for their 'created' projects. I'm not saying the creation model is correct, but there isn't any more accuracy in the told model. All I know is, I don't believe I came from the evolution of a rock nor did I come from a monkey! There is way to much sophistication in the Earth's operations and especially the human and animal species to have formed from some Big Bang theory. There has to have been some type of Creator(s) to achieve life as we know it. As long as there is money, power, and greed involved we may never know the truth.

I have no ridicule...

for people who believe that there is a being or force that is beyond the comprehension of our limited brains. I understand the skepticism in the Big Bang theory. It's those that believe the stories of Adam & Eve, Noah's Ark, etc. literally that I cannot understand.

It's not that we "don't have a clue" how old the earth is. There may be a margin of error, and it could be substantial, but it's probably in the ballpark. The mechanisms of geology are probably the same throughout the history of the earth, and from these mechanisms that we can measure today, we can extrapolate ages of things within a pretty good time frame.

If the margin of error is even a billion years, then still the age of the earth is maybe 2 or 4 billion, instead of 3.5. It's so clear that it's not thousands, that this is what causes the ridicule that you're getting.

Money, power, and greed are what is keeping the truth from coming out? If anything is keeping the truth from coming out, it's fear... fear of learning that the things you've believed in all of your life will be shown to be fables.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

There Are Creationists

Who believe in an old earth.
I've given links here at the DP, but I don't know if they have been looked at or read.
Geology has not proven the Bible wrong, but it has proven a long standing "tradition" wrong. That the earth is only 6000 years old. Nowhere in the Bible is the age of the earth given.
A careful reading of the Bible reveals that the earth was here before the six days of "creation".
If you are interested, try these two: www.kjvbible.org and http://www.gaptheory.net

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

Sorry, you have erred

The Bible is quite clear on the age of the Earth. Here is one of many articles on the subject at Answers in Genesis.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/how-old-is-the...

Jesus said God's word is truth. He doesn't lie.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

Yes I

have been there. I have read the same stuff at different sites.
We agree. The Bible is God's word. Without error.
I read your links. Please read mine. http://www.kjvbible.org/exwords.html
I agree that true man, (us), were created 6000 years ago in six literal days. That is the beginning of THIS world. Sin entered this world by the sin of Adam and death by sin.

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

Seen it before

I've seen it before many times - the bogus gap theory that is not scriptural, but is simply a compromise with men who want to explain everything without God.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

"I don't believe I came from

"I don't believe I came from the evolution of a rock nor did I come from a monkey! "

This is good, because no scientist believes that either. Our nearest relative is the bonobo.

You're also confusing a theory of the origin of the universe with abiogenesis. sigh

You are wrong, too

""I don't believe I came from the evolution of a rock nor did I come from a monkey! "

"This is good, because no scientist believes that either."

Actually, lots of scientists believe that. They believe that it rained on the rocks for millions of years and turned them into soup and then we eventually came from that primordial ooze.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

No, they don't believe that

No, they don't believe that we came from monkeys. Do you even know what a bonobo is? Man you people are ridiculous.

Your Ignorant

They (Scientific community) say we humans and apes both came from a common ancestor, so logically that means were related right? can you understand that logic?

rocks

Evidently many prefer this idea.

Origin of the universe has everything to do with it imo.

Definitely there are adaptations, but evolution this is something like out of a science fiction film imo. There has to be more to it.

donvino

" I saw were a scientist took

" I saw were a scientist took two lab created rocks, one was 5yrs old and the other was 10yrs old. They were sent to be carbon dated by the latest technology we have, and the 5 year old rock came back dated at 1.2 million years old and the 10 year old rock came back dated 4.2 million years old."

This is particularly interesting because carbon dating doesn't date that far. Potassium argon dating is used. Sorry. BS.

Your preconceptions are showing

This may put many of the comments here into perspective

http://www.dailypaul.com/288246/religion-science-philosophy-...

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

What is the purpose

of this forum topic? would you like to outlaw christian education? what's your point pal?

I think it's to showcase how

I think it's to showcase how absurd fundamentalism/creationism/ID/etc can be and how some people with a serious confirmation bias won't hesitate or experience remorse when indoctrinating children.

It was a pretty effective post that pretty clearly did not call for outlawing so-called "christian education."

Good to see the kid aced the test

.

My kids are being taught the same way. We home school.

Oh, and by the way, modern science (which is mostly about religion rather than science) has also shoved down our throats that vaccines are "safe and effective". (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!)

If some of you want to still believe those religious beliefs, more power to you. Just don't try to force them down my child's throat by force of law.

.
.

www.vaclib.org

Your comment reads:

"My children are being homeschooled and taught religious creationism, instead of factual science; modern [public school] science is mostly about religion. My children are going to be scholastically dumber than the contradiction illustrated in my comment. Yay."

Homeschool is good when your students are taught smarter than the general public school curriculum. When you teach them easily disprovable lies as truth, that's when I question your ability to properly teach them. Well, "at least Obama-bots'll be smarter."

ok i have a few questions

question 3: on what day did god make dinosaurs? 6th ...WTF?

question 15: the average size of a dinosaur was a? sheep?

The biggest dinosaur is probably ultrasauros. We only have a few bones of this late Jurassic (140 million years ago) plant-eater from Colorado but they show an animal that was six stories high and may have weighed more than 50 tons. Recently, a four-legged plant-eating dinosaur was found in Argentina, Argentinasaurus which may have been even heavier. If it was a brachiosaur like ultrasauros, it probably was the biggest. But if it was a titanosaur, another kind of big plant-eater common in South America, it wouldn't have been so bulky.

anyways i like learning the real thing and experiencing hands on in order to have a realistic bond with my brain ... those who rather teach other peoples thoughts without bothering doing the slightest work in research/homework also feet on the ground with visual evidence is an epic idiot imo!

I love that, 'only I get to

I love that, 'only I get to force things down my children's throats' attitude. There's that inevitable assumption of ownership that just gels so well with the rest of liberty theory amirite?

For the record, you can both:
(1) find creationism absurd and counterproductive to teach children
(2) not favor a government run solution like compulsory state education

You make this weird assumption that if you take away one form of indoctrination you have to replace it with another. I can see why you'd think that, but under even minor review it's clearly revealed false.

Actually, pharmaceutical

Actually, pharmaceutical companies "shoved down our throats" that vaccines are safe. The reason people resist taking vaccines is because of the science that shows they are not safe nor effective.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

I hope you're kidding.

Please be kidding. For your sake, not to mention that of your children.


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

Kidding?

who the heck are you to tell us how to raise our kids? by the way that is very anti-libertarian of you, your entitled to your opinion, but that's it.

People here seem to think libertarianism means shutting up

Wrong. It means not initiating force to compel you to act in accordance with my beliefs. Forcing you to raise your kids in a certain manner is the initiation of force, but even that's acceptable sometimes. If you whip them with a cat'o'nine tails for answering "incorrectly" that the earth wasn't created by vague magical processes described in section 2 paragraph 3 sentence 1 of the Magic Book, society has a right to intervene. Why? Because your children also have rights under the Constitution.

But you need to distinguish between the two, instead of conflating libertarianism with inaction. Dialog isn't force. Mocking isn't force. You may find it unpleasant, but thou shalt not find it forceful.

all idiot Atheists

when they die will be creationists because you'll meet the Creator for Judgment but then it will be to late for you.

Nobody is telling you how to raise your kids...

that's up to you. I'm not for forcing people to wear seat belts either, but I personally think it dumb not to. Same thing...

'Cause there's a monster on the loose