Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#94988 Jul 6, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me see, you type in Dino and Bible and you get X no. of links. Really tough for me to figure that you were gaming me DFS. I read the contrary liberal views also before I replied to you.
Suggesting I am a liar is over the top. You're mistaken.
So we began a couple of days back with your claims of scientists "admitting" things that are in fact quite openly discussed and not even controversial in modern science.

You then followed up with the claim that scientists were having "cold sweats" over empirical evidence when in fact they are perfectly comfortable with the empirical evidence. Asked to provide verified evidence of a single fossil appearing before its possible antecedents (a true falsification of evolution), you have provided nothing. You cannot, of course.

Strike three, you claim erroneously that evolution is a "liberal viewpoint". Its funny how you guys label evolution liberal when you are not claiming its fascist. You can't have it both ways.

Very telling slip up though.

You have claimed that radiometric dating is so bad that it's embarrassing to geologists. To back that up all you could offer are discredited RATE findings, while ignoring the vast majority of measurements which show concordance to within 10% using multiple methods.

You have claimed that "the" great unconformity shows the original Earth "that Adam stood on" while ignoring the fact the even the original so called Great ones were in two different places and geological periods, and many others have been since found. And that they are easily explained by periodic rises and falls in elevation leading to cycles of erosion and deposition.

In short, you give it your best shot but merely show how superficial the arguments you buy into really are. The progenitors of those arguments are charlatans. I followed one right through to the end, the silly controversy over magnetic reversals, through the thoroughly disingenuous twisting of the work of Coe and Prevot, and the continued lies even after their errors (was it Snelling? trying to remember the lying prick's name) were pointed out. But I bet its another one you bought into uncritically.

YEC is an utter crock. Its claims never stack up. End of story.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#94989 Jul 6, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Chimney1,
Here is a peer reviewed stmt on the trilobite eye
Even the earliest trilobites had complex, compound eyes with lenses made of calcite (a characteristic of all trilobite eyes), confirming that the eyes of arthropods and probably other animals could have developed before the Cambrian.[16]
Emphasis "could"
The article continues;
"The fossil record of trilobite eyes is complete enough that their evolution can be studied through time, which compensates to some extent the lack of preservation of soft internal parts".
"What!!??" Johnny's hand goes up, "don't worry" the teacher says, "brighter scientists have worked this all out, its evolution you know". Pretty soon Johnny gives up asking questions.
It's clear that the statements above contradict each other. Trilobites appear abruptly in the lower Cambrian WITH eyes. They can toss about the word 'evolution' to help the reader bridge the colossal gaps with mental games, but that doesn't make it real.
To make matters worse, this creature has been found preserved soft-body. Now that's another amazing ability of evolution, it can also defy the physics of decomposition over several hundred mil/yrs, in strata that would only survive 20 M/Y of erosion by know and observed uniform rates. Wow, Im surely delusional to not blindly follow this.
The 'could' stmt call for faith, if one get's into the complexiy and marvels of this creatures eye right from the start book's could be written. That's real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite
OK, the earliest known trilobites had eyes. Great. It logically means that eyes had already evolved by then. Do we know exactly how and in which creatures? Obviously not. Does that mean they could not have evolved? Equally obviously not.

It would suggest that eyes evolved in soft bodied creatures that became trilobites later. Its also a reasonable supposition that fossil evidence from half a billion years ago will be rare. So far we have only a very few sites like the Burgess Shale, that merely provide snapshots.

You then add a new twist, the idea that fossils should continue to decompose over millions of years after forming. Never heard that one before, and see absolutely no basis for it if you have covered, undisturbed rock. The amount available will diminish over geological timescales, as more rock gets raised, subjected to erosion, etc. But lucky for us, some has survived.

More recently...say 230 million years ago, we now have a very full fossil record of the extraordinary series of transitions that led to the 3-boned middle ear in mammals. What that tells us quite simply is that the kinds of transitions you guys claim are impossible can be seen in this case clearly. Meaning, in principle, there is no issue with the evolution of the trilobite eye or any other example you want to trot out.

So accepting that large scale evolution is possible is not a faith based position, and little Johnny should keep asking questions. If the hunger for knowledge is what got Johnny's ancestors kicked out of the Garden of Eden, so be it. Good for us.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#94990 Jul 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So we began a couple of days back with your claims of scientists "admitting" things that are in fact quite openly discussed and not even controversial in modern science.
You then followed up with the claim that scientists were having "cold sweats" over empirical evidence when in fact they are perfectly comfortable with the empirical evidence. Asked to provide verified evidence of a single fossil appearing before its possible antecedents (a true falsification of evolution), you have provided nothing.
Strike three, you claim erroneously that evolution is a "liberal viewpoint". Its funny how you guys label evolution liberal when you are not claiming its fascist. You can't have it both ways.
Very telling slip up though.
You have claimed that radiometric dating is so bad that it's embarrassing to geologists. To back that up all you could offer are discredited RATE findings, while ignoring the vast majority of measurements which show concordance to within 10% using multiple methods.
You have claimed that "the" great unconformity shows the original Earth "that Adam stood on" while ignoring the fact the even the original so called Great ones were in two different places and geological periods, and many others have been since found. And that they are easily explained by periodic rises and falls in elevation leading to cycles of erosion and deposition.
In short, the thoroughly disingenuous twisting of the work of Coe and Prevot, and the continued lies even after their errors (was it Snelling? trying to remember the lying prick's name) were pointed out. But I bet its another one you bought into uncritically.
YEC is an utter crock. Its claims never stack up. End of story.
I guess the 160 mile long Lewis range was not enough for you. Jurassic on the bottom, Cambrian on the top. Evolutionists have been trying the get the Lewis turned 180 degrees for years. They finally devised a method - ignore it and remove t from the textbooks.
I suppose the Pleioesaur found in strata ABOVE the mammals here also were not enough. There are many other examples. The horse series is another. I could go on. Most get tossed out, if they can toss a billion tons of the Lewis they can do the same with isolated finds, many exist. Anomalies they call them.
I provided you with evidence that Trilobites are at the bottom of the Cambrian, and that the Column sequence is far better understood from the perspective of ecosystem and specie mobility in flood deposits rather than evolution.
Sorry, the Supergroup shows no signs of erosion inter-layer, and are planier, just like the Canyon.
This type of sorting has been proven in the lab where minerals of differing specific gravities are perfectly sorted when eroded and then moved by water current. You are out of date there. St Helens is a real-life model of this phenomenon. In almost no time at all, horizontal stratification identical to the Grand Canyon layers, taught to have been layed down over eons - were deposited in days. The contact zone's is as thin or thinner than paper all over the Canyon, again, field observations and the lab work agree.
Noah recorded the events in days in Genesis, an eye witness account. The whole thing was laid down is a single massive event and subsequently eroded by a subsequent natural dam breakout in the GC, thats obvious. You should spend some time studying bubble CO2 water erosion science. Its fairly new and revolutionized thinking about how water can erode major rock features and even hardened steel over short time periods, like what happened to the Glen Canyon dam and in the Missoula flood. No one got that hint.
Coe and Prevot, twisitng, no way, their work in the Steens caused a prof I know to toss uniformism and jump to catastrophism. He has 35 years on his PhD and really knows his stuff on sedimentation.
My friend, I hate to say this but all those fancy drawings and diagrams they taught you are biased, in error and now disproven.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#94992 Jul 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So we began a couple of days back with your claims of scientists "admitting" things that are in fact quite openly discussed and not even controversial in modern science.

Strike three, you claim erroneously that evolution is a "liberal viewpoint". Its funny how you guys label evolution liberal when you are not claiming its fascist. You can't have it both ways.
Very telling slip up though.
You have claimed that radiometric dating is so bad that it's embarrassing to geologists. To back that up all you could offer are discredited RATE findings, while ignoring the vast majority of measurements which show concordance to within 10% using multiple methods.
You have claimed that "the" great unconformity shows the original Earth "that Adam stood on" while ignoring the fact the even the original so called Great ones were in two different places and geological periods, and many others have been since found. And that they are easily explained by periodic rises and falls in elevation leading to cycles of erosion and deposition.
In short, you give it your best shot but merely show how superficial the arguments you buy into really are. The progenitors of those arguments are charlatans. I followed one right through to the end, the silly controversy over magnetic reversals, through the thoroughly disingenuous twisting of the work of Coe and Prevot,
I guess the 160 mile long Lewis range was not enough for you. Jurassic on the bottom, Cambrian on the top. Evolutionists have been trying the get the Lewis turned 180 degrees for years. They finally devised a method - ignore it and remove from the textbooks

I suppose the Pleioesaur found in strata ABOVE the mammals here also were not enough. There are many other examples. The horse series is another. I could go on. Most get tossed out, if they can toss a billion tons of Lewis they can do the same with isolated finds, many exist. Anomalies they call them.

I provided you with evidence that Trilobites are at the bottom of the Cambrian, and that the Column sequence is far better understood from the perspective of ecosystem and specie mobility in flood sediments rather than evolution.

Sorry, the Supergroup shows no signs of erosion inter-layer, and are planier, showing no inter-layer erosion just like the Canyon.

This type of sorting has been proven in the lab where minerals of differing specific gravities are perfectly sorted when eroded and then moved by water current. You are out of date there. St Helens is a real-life model of this phenomenon. In almost no time at all, horizontal stratification identical to the Grand Canyon layers, taught to have been layed down over eons - were deposited in days. The contact zone's is as thin or thinner than paper all over the Canyon, again, field observations and lab work agree.

Noah recorded the events and times in days in Genesis, an eye witness account. The whole thing was laid down is a single massive event and subsequently eroded by a subsequent natural dam breakout. You should spend some time studying bubble CO2 water erosion science. Its fairly new and revolutionized thinking about how water can erode major rock features and even hardened steel, like what happened to the Glen Canyon dam and in the Missoula flood. No one got that hint.

Coe and Prevot, twisitng, no way, their work in the Steens caused a prof I know to toss uniformism and jump to catastrophism. He has 35 years on his PhD and really knows his stuff on sedimentation.

My friend, I hate to say this but all those fancy drawings and diagrams they taught you are biased, in error and now disproven.

Level 1

Since: Apr 07

TERRA AUSTRALIS

#94993 Jul 6, 2013
Creation VIA Evolution works for me.

If we dare to think "interdimensionally" ,

time

is

irrelevant!

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#94994 Jul 6, 2013
SBT wrote:
To make matters worse, this creature has been found preserved soft-body.
Either you are being deliberately dense or you honestly think that someone has found an INTACT trilobite.

That has never happened.

What _MAY_ have happened is a _FOSSIL_ find which such clarity that it allows people to see the IMPRESSION left by soft body parts. That does happen, rarely. It doesn't require some fluke of physics. It just requires extremely fine grained material in which the creature is fossilized.

Having not read all your posts, I'm going to make the assumption that you are trying to argue that evolution is false.

Here's the problem with your argument:

- The dating methods which confirm evolution are based in _OTHER_ sciences which are INDEPENDENT of evolution.

In other words, for evolution to be wrong the fossil record has to be wrong. For the fossil record to be wrong, the DATING methods which confirm the fossil record must be wrong.

However, since the fossil record is confirmed by the following sciences:
- Geology, Nuclear Physics, Chemistry, Volcanology, etc.

Then EACH of these sciences must LIKEWISE be wrong, not just partially but IN THEIR ENTIRETY.

And since other dates provided by these sciences have been confirmed by:

- BOTANY, METEROLOGY, ASTRONOMY, LINGUISTICS, HYDROLOGY...

Then these sciences must LIKEWISE be false _IN THEIR ENTIRETY_

So, basically this whole argument comes down to this:

Either a story made up by goat herders 4000+ years ago is ABSOLUTELY !00% TRUE and therefore ALL OF SCIENCE is wrong.(meaning nothing you own actually exists, etc).

- OR -

The goat herders 4000+ years ago were writing ALLEGORICALLY and their story is supposed to convey MEANING not FACTS, And the rest of science is right (meaning everything you own actually exists.)

Which of these seems more likely to you?

Which of these would seem more likely to a rational person?

“River of tears flowing out of ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

West Plains

#94995 Jul 6, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Edited to allow for space.
So faulting, upthrust and overthrust can't occur and result in newer rocks being under older rocks? I don't think so. The basics of this have been understood for a long time. You must have missed that during your cherry picking.

The Lake Missoula floods show evidence of the erosion of steel?

Still persisting that the Grand Canyon is flood formed even though you haven't answered one question put to you so far. Where is the evidence of these alleged lakes that the bionic, young earth, geologist proposes supplied the water? Evidence for a lake that could have supplied the water shows it was too shallow to hold the volume necessary and any water from it would not have gotten past the Kaibab uplift. Again, why only the one canyon? Again, if flood-formed, why is the canyon not straighter. Again, wind formed strata in between marine-formed strata sort of eliminates the possibility of a flood formation right off. How about all the side canyons that enter the Grand Canyon at river level rather than a hanging valleys you see in the Scablands from the Missoula Lake flooding? What about the fact that Grand Canyon does not appear as a flood drainage basin? Finally, there are numerous structures within the Grand Canyon that show no evidence of water erosion from a catastrophic event. They are not oriented in the direction of flow or water-polished and scrubbed as would be expected if a single flood had formed them. The fact that they are present at all after having been hit by a massive volume of water with a huge abrasive load leaves one in doubt of this model.

This is just another example where science doesn't know the complete story of how it formed so it opens it up for all sorts of fictional accounts.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#94996 Jul 6, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess the 160 mile long Lewis range was not enough for you. Jurassic on the bottom, Cambrian on the top. Evolutionists have been trying the get the Lewis turned 180 degrees for years. They finally devised a method - ignore it and remove t from the textbooks.
I suppose the Pleioesaur found in strata ABOVE the mammals here also were not enough. There are many other examples. The horse series is another. I could go on. Most get tossed out, if they can toss a billion tons of the Lewis they can do the same with isolated finds, many exist. Anomalies they call them.
I provided you with evidence that Trilobites are at the bottom of the Cambrian, and that the Column sequence is far better understood from the perspective of ecosystem and specie mobility in flood deposits rather than evolution.
Sorry, the Supergroup shows no signs of erosion inter-layer, and are planier, just like the Canyon.
This type of sorting has been proven in the lab where minerals of differing specific gravities are perfectly sorted when eroded and then moved by water current. You are out of date there. St Helens is a real-life model of this phenomenon. In almost no time at all, horizontal stratification identical to the Grand Canyon layers, taught to have been layed down over eons - were deposited in days. The contact zone's is as thin or thinner than paper all over the Canyon, again, field observations and the lab work agree.
Noah recorded the events in days in Genesis, an eye witness account. The whole thing was laid down is a single massive event and subsequently eroded by a subsequent natural dam breakout in the GC, thats obvious. You should spend some time studying bubble CO2 water erosion science. Its fairly new and revolutionized thinking about how water can erode major rock features and even hardened steel over short time periods, like what happened to the Glen Canyon dam and in the Missoula flood. No one got that hint.
Coe and Prevot, twisitng, no way, their work in the Steens caused a prof I know to toss uniformism and jump to catastrophism. He has 35 years on his PhD and really knows his stuff on sedimentation.
My friend, I hate to say this but all those fancy drawings and diagrams they taught you are biased, in error and now disproven.
Usually when the first line is bullshit it's all bullshit,
and with this it's pretty easy to see what has happened , and it is a textbook example of how the plates shift, bend, break, and get tossed is spots ...completely upside down. You can believe what you want but no matter how much you wish it was true, it simply isn't true. There never was a global flood.
I suggest you read this to get an idea how the forces that create mountains, is the force that jumbles up and tosses parts of the crust upside down.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1603/report.pdf

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#94997 Jul 6, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess the 160 mile long Lewis range was not enough for you. Jurassic on the bottom, Cambrian on the top. Evolutionists have been trying the get the Lewis turned 180 degrees for years. They finally devised a method - ignore it and remove from the textbooks
I suppose the Pleioesaur found in strata ABOVE the mammals here also were not enough. There are many other examples. The horse series is another. I could go on. Most get tossed out, if they can toss a billion tons of Lewis they can do the same with isolated finds, many exist. Anomalies they call them.
I provided you with evidence that Trilobites are at the bottom of the Cambrian, and that the Column sequence is far better understood from the perspective of ecosystem and specie mobility in flood sediments rather than evolution.
Sorry, the Supergroup shows no signs of erosion inter-layer, and are planier, showing no inter-layer erosion just like the Canyon.
This type of sorting has been proven in the lab where minerals of differing specific gravities are perfectly sorted when eroded and then moved by water current. You are out of date there. St Helens is a real-life model of this phenomenon. In almost no time at all, horizontal stratification identical to the Grand Canyon layers, taught to have been layed down over eons - were deposited in days. The contact zone's is as thin or thinner than paper all over the Canyon, again, field observations and lab work agree.
Noah recorded the events and times in days in Genesis, an eye witness account. The whole thing was laid down is a single massive event and subsequently eroded by a subsequent natural dam breakout. You should spend some time studying bubble CO2 water erosion science. Its fairly new and revolutionized thinking about how water can erode major rock features and even hardened steel, like what happened to the Glen Canyon dam and in the Missoula flood. No one got that hint.
Coe and Prevot, twisitng, no way, their work in the Steens caused a prof I know to toss uniformism and jump to catastrophism. He has 35 years on his PhD and really knows his stuff on sedimentation.
My friend, I hate to say this but all those fancy drawings and diagrams they taught you are biased, in error and now disproven.
Learn some basic geology, which is, ironically, what explained all this long before we even postulated the fact that species evolve.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#94998 Jul 6, 2013
Oh... This discussion is still ongoing. I find this rather silly. Perhaps some mediation is required.

What is this creation business anyway? Creation of what? The definition of the Universe is *everything that exists". So what is the definition "the creation" if you don't mind me asking? It is not logically possible to create "everything that exists".

On a side note:
Everything that exist is by definition omnipresent.
Something to ponder:
Is not the universe also omnipotent?
Can anyone make a claim that there is something the Universe could not do without producing a logically contradictory statement?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94999 Jul 6, 2013
SBT, there are two ways to get older beds over younger beds. They both involve wide scale compression. Something that is not all that uncommon in orogeny, or mountain building. The case you referred to is that of a thrust fault where an older bed is pushed up and over a younger bed. The boundary where the two layers slid over each other is usually fairly obvious to even neophytes.

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

Another way that layers can be locally reversed is with a recumbent fold.

http://blogs.agu.org/mountainbeltway/2012/02/...

These are again fairly obvious since very often when rocks are deposited there are signs that show which way is up. Also the total reverse order of strata is a bit of a hint.

I do believe that the mountains that you referred to was due to a major thrust fault. It is not a problem for geology at all.
One way or another

United States

#95000 Jul 6, 2013
Mugwump | 46 min ago
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
So you refuse to speak to the subject, because you have nothing of value. You're offensive to American care or intelligence. Go back to your foreign country. Americans aren't taught like you foreign idiots.

How does this become an issue of being anti American ?

People disagree with you for reasons unrelated to your nationality e.g.

You post your nonsense science, insist it is supported by evidence but refuse to discuss the lack of evidence.

You insist that no one can refute you - but ignore any posts that do

You blame everyone else for your shortcomings , Jews, congress, banks, foreigners, women

You act like a 5 year old child and call every morons when you don't get your way.

As I say - its not that you are an American , its because you are an uneducated, lying , racist , mysogistic loon who doesn't take responsibilty for his own failings and try to educate himself.

Unless you are saying you are a typical yank - in which case it is you who is being anti-American.

One way or another | 10 min ago
All the American moms and dads I was exposed too, said that only cowards work in groups, against individuals.

American moms and dads don't teach the Anti-American tactics that your group of Evo morons do. Hence, you are anti-American cowards, unable to stand on your own two feet.

That's just the American way!
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#95001 Jul 6, 2013
humble brother wrote:
Oh... This discussion is still ongoing. I find this rather silly. Perhaps some mediation is required.
What is this creation business anyway? Creation of what? The definition of the Universe is *everything that exists". So what is the definition "the creation" if you don't mind me asking? It is not logically possible to create "everything that exists".
On a side note:
Everything that exist is by definition omnipresent.
Something to ponder:
Is not the universe also omnipotent?
Can anyone make a claim that there is something the Universe could not do without producing a logically contradictory statement?
Do you think the universe had a Creator who wanted it to be here?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#95002 Jul 6, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Mugwump | 46 min ago
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
So you refuse to speak to the subject, because you have nothing of value. You're offensive to American care or intelligence. Go back to your foreign country. Americans aren't taught like you foreign idiots.
How does this become an issue of being anti American ?
People disagree with you for reasons unrelated to your nationality e.g.
You post your nonsense science, insist it is supported by evidence but refuse to discuss the lack of evidence.
You insist that no one can refute you - but ignore any posts that do
You blame everyone else for your shortcomings , Jews, congress, banks, foreigners, women
You act like a 5 year old child and call every morons when you don't get your way.
As I say - its not that you are an American , its because you are an uneducated, lying , racist , mysogistic loon who doesn't take responsibilty for his own failings and try to educate himself.
Unless you are saying you are a typical yank - in which case it is you who is being anti-American.
One way or another | 10 min ago
All the American moms and dads I was exposed too, said that only cowards work in groups, against individuals.
American moms and dads don't teach the Anti-American tactics that your group of Evo morons do. Hence, you are anti-American cowards, unable to stand on your own two feet.
That's just the American way!
Since I'm an American, and you do not speak for me. Indeed you weren't asked to speak for anyone. WTF makes you think you can, or even have any right to do so?

Absolutely you speak for JIM and JIM alone, and America is not JIM alone. So quit proselytizing like all America is marching to Jim's agenda.
One way or another

United States

#95004 Jul 6, 2013
Its difficult enough for any individual to speak in the forums, much less speak against a group of people, hell bent on the name calling and childish innuendo, just for having a different opinion.

Any new thinking and your anti-American cowardly group, does everything it can to use name calling and worse, to stop any new thinking, instead of offering intelligent rebuttal.

By your actions and that of your group, you seek to stop anyone from talking, that doesn't agree with your cowardly clique.
One way or another

United States

#95005 Jul 6, 2013
American moms and dads teach that only cowards work in groups.
One way or another

United States

#95006 Jul 6, 2013
I must admit that America's cowardly and fully bribed congress act like foreign cowards, just as they teach repubs and dems.

What our parents teach us lasts a lifetime. What the gov demands is tyranny or submit, because Americans will not speak up and out.
Drink The HivE

Anonymous Proxy

#95007 Jul 6, 2013
There Was A Massive Spiritual Struggle Last Summer And Its Still Ongoing And Getting Worse..



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IUYlNU10BMY/Si4hkuW...

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#95008 Jul 6, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Its difficult enough for any individual to speak in the forums, much less speak against a group of people, hell bent on the name calling and childish innuendo, just for having a different opinion.
The problem is not a difference of opinion.

You and I can have a difference of opinion about whether a 4% or a 6% sales tax is appropriate.

However, we would both agree on what a sales tax is, how it works, who benefits and who pays, etc.

In the case of Creationism, these people are rejecting the basic FACTS.

We can not have a difference of opinion about facts.

Facts are what they are.

Science has them, religion doesn't. That's why science has replaced religion in so many areas and also why religion has _NEVER_ and will _NEVER_ replace science as the answer to anything.

Honestly, do you think that the Jews have some better answer for why a lightbulb works than a physicist?

Would you fly on a plane designed based on the Quran rather than the laws of aerodynamics?

Of course not.
One way or another

United States

#95009 Jul 6, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is not a difference of opinion.
You and I can have a difference of opinion about whether a 4% or a 6% sales tax is appropriate.
However, we would both agree on what a sales tax is, how it works, who benefits and who pays, etc.
In the case of Creationism, these people are rejecting the basic FACTS.
We can not have a difference of opinion about facts.
Facts are what they are.
Science has them, religion doesn't. That's why science has replaced religion in so many areas and also why religion has _NEVER_ and will _NEVER_ replace science as the answer to anything.
Honestly, do you think that the Jews have some better answer for why a lightbulb works than a physicist?
Would you fly on a plane designed based on the Quran rather than the laws of aerodynamics?
Of course not.
I don't agree with your tax, its not a fair tax. Since the rich make the laws, they don't want a fair tax, but idiots don't care.

As to science, science could lay to rest the speed of light, but science refuses, because some in science know its a lie.

Science has the ability to prove or disprove speed of light and it refuses. Some know the kind of people science uses to lie, others don't, but the fact that science does not allow individual scientists to speak, unless the controllers say so, is the same as congress taking bribes from the richest, not allowing the regular man to have a say.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 1 hr The Dude 359
Darwin on the rocks 3 hr The Dude 350
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Dogen 138,169
Monkey VS Man 16 hr Bluenose 14
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism Sun Chimney1 692
Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution Sun TurkanaBoy 204
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for ... Oct 17 Discord 431

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE