I said the earth could be billions of years old,
I wasn't supporting the Blanco museum's stance on the "young earth".
I was saying that dinosaurs may have survived much later than scientific dogma allows.
I was also attempting to show you something about the creation of man that religious dogma won't allow...
Because it's too controversial. Neither side wants to see this. Both are filled with dogma.
You didn't want to see it either, because you might need to reconsider your ideas about both the bible and science.
Try being a little more open minded.
You might learn something new.
You are rather missing the point that whatever we may correctly call it, it was not called that, nor referenced in any direct way in the Biblical record.If He didn't create the genes in the womb of Mary for the body of Jesus, what would you call it then? Chromosomes?
It was created genetic material no matter what you choose to call it.
I do not know but bet this is false. All materials have some dimagnetism (that follows for Len's law - apply a B field and the electrons will cause a partially canceling field.)...Because it contains iron, heme reacts to magnetic fields differently from other proteins...
"Any one would think that being an adherent of the theory of evolution was a religion going by the way they foam at the mouth if any one dares to doubt it"
I do not know but bet this is false. All materials have some dimagnetism (that follows for Len's law - apply a B field and the electrons will cause a partially canceling field.)
i, gustav, solemnly declare this thread to be flamebait
as consequence of this declaration (solemn), i demand its closure
/demands
You misinterpret our reaction to these doubts. We are merely practicing the scientific method, specifically the Rule of Laplace: Extraordinary assertions must be accompanied by extraordinary substantiation before we are obliged to treat them with respect. Evolution has achieved the status of a canonical scientific theory because it is supported by a mountain of evidence from two sciences (the fossils of paleontology and the DNA of biology), it has been tested and peer-reviewed exhaustively and never come close to falsification, and in fact no respectable challenges have been mounted against it in at least three-quarters of a century. Evolution is "true beyond a reasonable doubt," the highest status any scientific theory can attain. Therefore, to gainsay evolution is a textbook case of advancing an extraordinary assertion. The only (occasionally) coherent denials of evolution come from a certain extremist branch of the religionists, and their alleged substantiation always boils down to religious arguments (when it's not simply fraudulent). Since religion (at least fundamentalist Christianity, which is where all the noise is coming from these days) is based on irrational faith, it is at best unscientific and at worst antiscientific.any one would think that being an adherent of the theory of revolution was a religion going by the way they foam at the mouth if any one dares to doubt it, not that i do, big time, only have some slight reservations but don't anathematise me
I doubt that there's a single member of Sciforums who participates in the evolution denial discussion who does not thoroughly understand the science behind the theory of evolution, except perhaps some kids who just tuned in. No one here accepts evolution as dogma or a matter of faith.Good point! No doubt it is like a religion, and science has become their god. Look at the way it's followers blindly believe whatever their told....even if this week's survey is the opposite of last week's. No questioning it, no independent thought, just all toting the party line in here... How predictable. I obviously have touched a nerve here, seeing how all the thoroughly indoctrinated have got in line to come after me and "prove me wrong". Even after I offered them a solution that answers the dogma in both religion and science. But oh I forgot, science has no dogma.. I'm not here to "flame" up a reaction from the mediocrity. Let them believe what they will. Most are beyond help, and my last post explains why. It was entirely to be expected.
Thank you. I believe in keeping the cockroaches on top of the linoleum where we can keep track of them. But it's nice to restrict them to just one or two squares.I see no reason to close the "50 reasons why I reject evolution" thread, yet. I merged it into the new ‘Denial of Evolution II’ thread. This seems like an appropriate place for the content. I hope this is an acceptable resolution to your “demands”.
That's not very original.
Tell me something you didn't read out of a book, something you personally witnessed that proves "all species are the product of evolution".
Then you've got something to say.
Since religion (at least fundamentalist Christianity, which is where all the noise is coming from these days) is based on irrational faith, it is at best unscientific and at worst antiscientific.
We'd much rather be advancing science by explaining the theory of relativity to precocious high school students...
When an explanation is submitted to answer an issue of debate, but the authority remains committed to the same position...I doubt that there's a single member of Sciforums who participates in the evolution denial discussion who does not thoroughly understand the science behind the theory of evolution, except perhaps some kids who just tuned in. No one here accepts evolution as dogma or a matter of faith.
The "Religious Redneck Retard Revival"...?
"I believe in keeping the cockroaches on top of the linoleum"
No. The bible isn't attempting to account for all observable data. Science will eventually do that.Visitor do you really propose that the bible accounts for observable data more effectively than the theory of evolution?
In your imaginary world you have the authority to do that don't you?Conjecture and opinion. Overruled.
There is a qualittive difference between teaching a methdology that is inherently self correcting, and one which relies upon ancient texts.I'll bet you would.
Indoctrination isn't limited to religion is it now?
You continue to display your ignorance beneath a cloak of grammatically correct verbiage that is quite bereft of logic. The submitted explanation has failed to answer the issue of debate. It is an irrelevant submission. Rejecting nonsense and remaining with the current position is not dogma, it is is good sense and good science.[/QUOTE]When an explanation is submitted to answer an issue of debate, but the authority remains committed to the same position...
That is the definition of "Dogma".
Visitor, you make some great points on the fact that yes the bible is somewhat vague and ambiguous and it is plausible to 'open' interpretations of it that have not been disproved by solid evidence.
No. In common with every single assertion or suggestion you have made on this forum that I can check, that one is false.visitor said:Didn't Einstein say; "without faith it is impossible to comprehend reality"?
I guess that early humans were feral children.
I guess that early humans were feral children.
early humans were mentally and physically superior to us in every way.
Man couldn't build the Great Pyramid with all our modern technology yet today.
learning to use only about one tenth of our brain.
In spite of what science would have us believe, early humans were mentally and physically superior to us in every way.
We are a watered down hybrid of two parent species.
What has been done to us is similar to making a house cat out of a mountain lion.
We have one tenth the physical ability and size of one of our parent species.
A twelve foot tall man that was solid muscle weighed in at about one ton.
We have one tenth the mental and spiritual abilities of the other parent species.
One tenth the mental capacity learning to use only about one tenth of our brain.
No wonder because we live less than one tenth of their lifespan.
Take a 200 pound mountain lion, breed it down to twenty pounds, declaw it and put it in somebody's house as a pet.
That is modern man compared to our ancestors.
Of course modern science would have you believe otherwise, bragging about all of our new discoveries and unequaled achievements.
Man couldn't build the Great Pyramid with all our modern technology yet today.
That should have been your first clue.