Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178696 comments on the www.scientificblogging.com story from Feb 24, 2008, titled Should evolution be taught in high school?. In it, www.scientificblogging.com reports that:

Microbiologist Carl Woese is well known as an iconoclast. At 79 years of age, Woese is still shaking things up. Most recently, he stated in an interview with Wired that...

"My feeling is that evolution shouldn't be taught at the lower grades. You don't teach quantum mechanics in the grade schools. One has to be quite educated to work with these concepts; what they pass on as evolution in high schools is nothing but repetitious tripe that teachers don't understand."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.scientificblogging.com.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#93372 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it's the truth?
And now for something completely different.

Please take a couple of minutes to read this, if only because its a viewpoint that is outside the two that we are arguing (and no, evolution is not mentioned).

http://www.jewishjournal.com/dennis_prager/ar...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#93373 May 31, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And now for something completely different.
Please take a couple of minutes to read this, if only because its a viewpoint that is outside the two that we are arguing (and no, evolution is not mentioned).
http://www.jewishjournal.com/dennis_prager/ar...
Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#93374 May 31, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And now for something completely different.
Please take a couple of minutes to read this, if only because its a viewpoint that is outside the two that we are arguing (and no, evolution is not mentioned).
http://www.jewishjournal.com/dennis_prager/ar...
OK - Thanks!

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#93375 May 31, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
What is it about evolution that makes you people so unable to discern the truth in it??
I don't think anyone on this forum is an actual evolutionary expert or biologists...so none of us are really qualified to examine it properly, although many non-theists understand enough to believe it.
The theists are just using predigested creationist arguments and putting up a smoke-screen...much like the right wing Republican does about global warming.
Everyone of the creationist "problems" with evolution can, and probably have been, answered a few thousand times...they just don't accept it because of stupidity and the hope that if they say it enough it might be true someday.
Creationists listen up...your religion has been falsified and we KNOW it's not true. Go away and argue among yourselves about which particular division (out of thousands) has the real true truth...hint, none of you do.
A Darwinist arguing theology. What a surprise!

Since: Apr 12

Havertown, PA

#93376 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
New lies on top of old lies. Ted, where it end?
Ted showed your own quote and proved that you mis-spoke. Honorable thing to do is to acknowledge your mistake.

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#93377 May 31, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Secular academic journals are peer reviewed by proven professionals in the discipline. These people are almost always full professors at research institutions. They have a proven track record of research and have contributed to their scientific discipline.
So do ours; we have brilliant researchers who come form the finest universities all over the world and have thousands of peer reviewed articles specifically creation science-based. Yes, we also reference secular research often as it usually (unwittingly) supports Creation! Try researching genetic mutations and if you read them with a creation world view, it will be obvious what the conclusion is.

Ours have the correct world view and not some false Darwinian ideology. Your secular researchers assume evolution true even though there is no evidence. Their beliefs require even more faith than Creationists since at least Creationists have thousands of years and millions of people that have scrutinized it and the Bible which is the most vetted set of books in history. And the latest advances in science prove this out; that is was right all along.

Darwinsism is just the latest speculation that has been around for the blink an eye compared to Creationism and it completely lacks any evidence. There is no mechanism that has ever been observed for neo-Darwinian evolution to happen. Just the opposite, everything in the physical world is running in the opposite direction. Entropy! Genetic entropy!

Neo-Darwinism cannot explain complex biological information or the DNA language-RNA trancription-protein transcription cycle; it can't explain super-tech biological motors such as the energy-producing ATP Synthase motors or other irreduclibly complex systems; it can't explain all the extreme fine tuning with the universe expansion rate fine tuned to a razor's edge or galaxy formation or star formation or solar systems or our water planet and how it is perfectly placed for life. No, your secular Darwinism is a massive effort simply to avoid God and make up fancy just-so stories but the more you try the worse it gets. And because of this, what a massive waste of time and energy! Instead of applying concepts of intelligent to design (like everything intelligently made in the word) to benefit mankind, you continue this fruitless search to eliminate God or validate a wish that never happened (evolution). Numerous cases where darwinism actually harmed mankind: removal of "vestigial organs" later determined to have important function!

Still no clear set of transitional fossils pointing to naturalistic vertical (macro) evolution. All the biological evidence including fossils and living organisms point clearly to a top-down evolution and against a bottom-up pattern. Microevolution or genetic adaptation/selection clear does not equate to neo-Darwinism and universal common ancestry; fruit flies were alway fruit flies!

No evidence of universal common ancestry even though your ideology assumes it true. And still not a trace of evidence that any mutation could ever result in a new, nascent gene that codes for a more advanced biological function or organ. What you've got is a church and an ideology with the primary axiom as your statement of faith.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#93378 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So do ours; we have brilliant researchers who come form the finest universities all over the world and have thousands of peer reviewed articles specifically creation science-based. Yes, we also reference secular research often as it usually (unwittingly) supports Creation! Try researching genetic mutations and if you read them with a creation world view, it will be obvious what the conclusion is.
Ours have the correct world view and not some false Darwinian ideology. Your secular researchers assume evolution true even though there is no evidence. Their beliefs require even more faith than Creationists since at least Creationists have thousands of years and millions of people that have scrutinized it and the Bible which is the most vetted set of books in history. And the latest advances in science prove this out; that is was right all along.
Darwinsism is just the latest speculation that has been around for the blink an eye compared to Creationism and it completely lacks any evidence. There is no mechanism that has ever been observed for neo-Darwinian evolution to happen. Just the opposite, everything in the physical world is running in the opposite direction. Entropy! Genetic entropy!
Neo-Darwinism cannot explain complex biological information or the DNA language-RNA trancription-protein transcription cycle; it can't explain super-tech biological motors such as the energy-producing ATP Synthase motors or other irreduclibly complex systems; it can't explain all the extreme fine tuning with the universe expansion rate fine tuned to a razor's edge or galaxy formation or star formation or solar systems or our water planet and how it is perfectly placed for life. No, your secular Darwinism is a massive effort simply to avoid God and make up fancy just-so stories but the more you try the worse it gets. And because of this, what a massive waste of time and energy! Instead of applying concepts of intelligent to design (like everything intelligently made in the word) to benefit mankind, you continue this fruitless search to eliminate God or validate a wish that never happened (evolution). Numerous cases where darwinism actually harmed mankind: removal of "vestigial organs" later determined to have important function!
Still no clear set of transitional fossils pointing to naturalistic vertical (macro) evolution. All the biological evidence including fossils and living organisms point clearly to a top-down evolution and against a bottom-up pattern. Microevolution or genetic adaptation/selection clear does not equate to neo-Darwinism and universal common ancestry; fruit flies were alway fruit flies!
No evidence of universal common ancestry even though your ideology assumes it true. And still not a trace of evidence that any mutation could ever result in a new, nascent gene that codes for a more advanced biological function or organ. What you've got is a church and an ideology with the primary axiom as your statement of faith.
What a load of hooey.

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#93379 May 31, 2012
rpk58 wrote:
<quoted text>Ted showed your own quote and proved that you mis-spoke. Honorable thing to do is to acknowledge your mistake.
Prove it.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#93380 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So do ours; we have brilliant researchers who come form the finest universities all over the world and have thousands of peer reviewed articles specifically creation science-based. Yes, we also reference secular research often as it usually (unwittingly) supports Creation! Try researching genetic mutations and if you read them with a creation world view, it will be obvious what the conclusion is.
Ours have the correct world view and not some false Darwinian ideology. Your secular researchers assume evolution true even though there is no evidence. Their beliefs require even more faith than Creationists since at least Creationists have thousands of years and millions of people that have scrutinized it and the Bible which is the most vetted set of books in history. And the latest advances in science prove this out; that is was right all along.
Darwinsism is just the latest speculation that has been around for the blink an eye compared to Creationism and it completely lacks any evidence. There is no mechanism that has ever been observed for neo-Darwinian evolution to happen. Just the opposite, everything in the physical world is running in the opposite direction. Entropy! Genetic entropy!
Neo-Darwinism cannot explain complex biological information or the DNA language-RNA trancription-protein transcription cycle; it can't explain super-tech biological motors such as the energy-producing ATP Synthase motors or other irreduclibly complex systems; it can't explain all the extreme fine tuning with the universe expansion rate fine tuned to a razor's edge or galaxy formation or star formation or solar systems or our water planet and how it is perfectly placed for life. No, your secular Darwinism is a massive effort simply to avoid God and make up fancy just-so stories but the more you try the worse it gets. And because of this, what a massive waste of time and energy! Instead of applying concepts of intelligent to design (like everything intelligently made in the word) to benefit mankind, you continue this fruitless search to eliminate God or validate a wish that never happened (evolution). Numerous cases where darwinism actually harmed mankind: removal of "vestigial organs" later determined to have important function!
Still no clear set of transitional fossils pointing to naturalistic vertical (macro) evolution. All the biological evidence including fossils and living organisms point clearly to a top-down evolution and against a bottom-up pattern. Microevolution or genetic adaptation/selection clear does not equate to neo-Darwinism and universal common ancestry; fruit flies were alway fruit flies!
No evidence of universal common ancestry even though your ideology assumes it true. And still not a trace of evidence that any mutation could ever result in a new, nascent gene that codes for a more advanced biological function or organ. What you've got is a church and an ideology with the primary axiom as your statement of faith.
The ONLY true statement in there that I could find was:

Neo-Darwinism cannot explain...all the extreme fine tuning with the universe expansion rate fine tuned to a razor's edge or galaxy formation or star formation or solar systems or our water planet..."

Correct. And it was never supposed to.

The rest is just a pocket-book version of your self-deceptions.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#93381 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it.
Well ... back in your post of http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT... you claimed I said you were uneducated and unemployed -- which is another lie.

A couple of posts later I corrected you. I never said you were uneducated, I did say that you haven't displayed anything that demonstrated the education you claim to have.

I also never said you were unemployed. I did say that I would find it hard to believe you could keep a job because of the way you treat people here in Topix.

You, typically, tried to wave your education and annual earnings -- which you should realize means little here. Not only can you write whatever you want, but in your case no one believes you.

You, of course ignored my correction, as is your habit. But the bottom line is you lied about what I said. You know there are some habits that you really should stop.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#93382 May 31, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.
One of my favorite verses in which struggling with God yeilds fruit.

Ezekiel 4:15, the Sovereign Lord capitulates:
“Very well,” He said,“I will let you bake your bread over cow manure instead of human excrement.”

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#93383 May 31, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
Well ... back in your post of http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT... you claimed I said you were uneducated and unemployed -- which is another lie.
A couple of posts later I corrected you. I never said you were uneducated, I did say that you haven't displayed anything that demonstrated the education you claim to have.
I also never said you were unemployed. I did say that I would find it hard to believe you could keep a job because of the way you treat people here in Topix.
You, typically, tried to wave your education and annual earnings -- which you should realize means little here. Not only can you write whatever you want, but in your case no one believes you.
You, of course ignored my correction, as is your habit. But the bottom line is you lied about what I said. You know there are some habits that you really should stop.
Boy, that was dumb. You just incriminated yourself again! Did you not say you'd be surprised if I could even hold a job? Did you not say I have showed no education? I told the truth the whole time. And I even told you my background. And for some reason, you have not told yours, perhaps because it would be too embarassing or shameful. Ted - you're nothing but a small-time trouble-maker and a liar. For some ideological reason, all you are interested is justifying your own irrational beliefs.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#93384 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Boy, that was dumb. You just incriminated yourself again! Did you not say you'd be surprised if I could even hold a job? Did you not say I have showed no education? I told the truth the whole time. And I even told you my background. And for some reason, you have not told yours, perhaps because it would be too embarassing or shameful. Ted - you're nothing but a small-time trouble-maker and a liar. For some ideological reason, all you are interested is justifying your own irrational beliefs.
LOL, You have yet to show a shred of education, particular about science and scientific methodology. One example of your lack is shown when you put forth the Journal of Creation as an example of peer-reviewed scientific literature -- patently false.

My surprise at you keeping a job is called an opinion ... I am entitled to my opinions, even if you don't like them. My opinion is based on the way you treat people here online. When people say things you disagree with, you tend to call them names. When they back up what they say -- something you seem allergic too -- you call them even worse things. Based on that why would anyone in their right mind hire you? And if they made that mistake, they certainly are compunding it by keeping you.

As for your supposed background, I don't really care. You can say anything and claim it's the truth. I don't believe anything you say. Plus only a braggart would claim SCUBA certification, since there isn't an real certification agencies, you can even get SCUBA certified online.

If you wish to know my background, you could always ask. But no, you thought I would trot out something in response to your list. but if you really want to know:

-20 years USAF, retired
-AS, BS, and MS degrees
-Industry Certified in a number of IT fields
-Working as a Java Programmer for the same company for the past 16 years -- through 6 mergers and now it's a public company and I have stock!
-Also working as as adjunct IT teacher at a local college for the past 14 years. They don't pay much, but it's fun
-With my wife, we also own a local business
-Annual compensation has exceeded 6 figures for a long time, then you can add in my military retirement and the business income -- I smile a lot
-Married for well over 30 years, 2 kids, one grandchild
-Hobbies include cooking and pissing in your wheaties as often as possible

You could have found most of this out by googling 'TedHOhio' since I use that moniker in many places. You will even find my blog and facebook page, which list my full name. Of course then research isn't your strong suit, is it?

Of course now I expect you to claim I am ... what did you call me a couple of days ago .. oh yea, a scumbag liar. But unlike you, my bio is listed in a number of places online and you couldn't probably find one easy enough. You won't even admit doing so, but you could.

Satisfied, pimple?

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#93385 May 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, thanks. But the arguments were destroyed long before they got here. Then they were again when they got here. Then they started lying and it all snowballed downwards from there. Unfortunately you appeared far too along into the uh, "debate".
I tend to be nicerer to new fundies, until they start lying in which case the kid gloves come off. Some (like Urb and Nerd) are beyond saving.
Yes, but still. And yes, it is sometimes necessary to be harsh, but it's so much more satisfying when you beat their argument and ego into a corner without resulting to direct/obvious insults.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#93386 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a Bachelor's (Honors) from Saint Leo University, a Master's degree from Florida Atlantic University; I'm a Certified Public Account; pilot's license, scuba certified; and I make well into the 6 figures. That ought to shut your hubris trap for awhile. Isn't that right Ted?
And, yet, no formal education in biology, biochemistry, genetics, immunology, geology, astronomy, cosmology, or anything that would inform anything you claim about creationism. So, you don't know jack about what you're talking about.

You're using the argument from authority with yourself as the authority. It's a logical fallacy AND an ego trip. Your penis is surely a tiny tiny thing.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#93387 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So do ours; we have brilliant researchers who come form the finest universities all over the world and have thousands of peer reviewed articles specifically creation science-based. Yes, we also reference secular research often as it usually (unwittingly) supports Creation! Try researching genetic mutations and if you read them with a creation world view, it will be obvious what the conclusion is.
Ours have the correct world view and not some false Darwinian ideology. Your secular researchers assume evolution true even though there is no evidence. Their beliefs require even more faith than Creationists since at least Creationists have thousands of years and millions of people that have scrutinized it and the Bible which is the most vetted set of books in history. And the latest advances in science prove this out; that is was right all along.
Darwinsism is just the latest speculation that has been around for the blink an eye compared to Creationism and it completely lacks any evidence. There is no mechanism that has ever been observed for neo-Darwinian evolution to happen. Just the opposite, everything in the physical world is running in the opposite direction. Entropy! Genetic entropy!
Neo-Darwinism cannot explain complex biological information or the DNA language-RNA trancription-protein transcription cycle; it can't explain super-tech biological motors such as the energy-producing ATP Synthase motors or other irreduclibly complex systems; it can't explain all the extreme fine tuning with the universe expansion rate fine tuned to a razor's edge or galaxy formation or star formation or solar systems or our water planet and how it is perfectly placed for life. No, your secular Darwinism is a massive effort simply to avoid God and make up fancy just-so stories but the more you try the worse it gets. And because of this, what a massive waste of time and energy! Instead of applying concepts of intelligent to design (like everything intelligently made in the word) to benefit mankind, you continue this fruitless search to eliminate God or validate a wish that never happened (evolution). Numerous cases where darwinism actually harmed mankind: removal of "vestigial organs" later determined to have important function!
Still no clear set of transitional fossils pointing to naturalistic vertical (macro) evolution. All the biological evidence including fossils and living organisms point clearly to a top-down evolution and against a bottom-up pattern. Microevolution or genetic adaptation/selection clear does not equate to neo-Darwinism and universal common ancestry; fruit flies were alway fruit flies!
No evidence of universal common ancestry even though your ideology assumes it true. And still not a trace of evidence that any mutation could ever result in a new, nascent gene that codes for a more advanced biological function or organ. What you've got is a church and an ideology with the primary axiom as your statement of faith.
You want a tissue to wipe the jizz out of your pants? All that mental masturbation has got to make a big mess.

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#93388 May 31, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
LOL, You have yet to show a shred of education, particular about science and scientific methodology. One example of your lack is shown when you put forth the Journal of Creation as an example of peer-reviewed scientific literature --patently false.
A new lie! The Journal of Creation is peer-reviewed you bigoted stupid moron.
TedHOhio wrote:
My surprise at you keeping a job is called an opinion ... I am entitled to my opinions, even if you don't like them. My opinion is based on the way you treat people here online. When people say things you disagree with, you tend to call them names.
You mean, like "Pimple"? Mr. Hypocrite? You insinuated that I was unemployable and uneducated. I have not lied to you about anything. You are the only liar around here.
TedHOhio wrote:
When they back up what they say -- something you seem allergic too -- you call them even worse things. Based on that why would anyone in their right mind hire you? And if they made that mistake, they certainly are compunding it by keeping you.
As for your supposed background, I don't really care. You can say anything and claim it's the truth. I don't believe anything you say. Plus only a braggart would claim SCUBA certification, since there isn't an real certification agencies, you can even get SCUBA certified online.
Wrong again moron! How can you possibly be this stupid?(I guess you thing they give out pilot's licenses online too eh Teddy Boy?) You dumb@$$!

"What else is required to complete the course?
Prior to certification as a PADI Open Water Diver, you'll visit your PADI Dive Center or Resort to complete your training. You'll take a short eLearning Quick Review to confirm your understanding of safety-related material from the course, and you must successfully complete five confined water dives and four open water training dives with your PADI Instructor. You learn and master each of the required skills in confined water (swimming pool-like conditions) first before moving on and showing your instructor that you can comfortably repeat those skills in open water. As a PADI Open Water Diver, you will be a certified entry-level diver able to rent dive gear, get air fills and dive anywhere in the world in better or similar conditions to those you've trained in."

http://www.padi.com/elearning-scuba-registrat...
TedHOhio wrote:
If you wish to know my background, you could always ask. But no, you thought I would trot out something in response to your list. but if you really want to know:
-20 years USAF, retired
-AS, BS, and MS degrees
-Industry Certified in a number of IT fields
-Working as a Java Programmer for the same company for the past 16 years -- through 6 mergers and now it's a public company and I have stock!
-Also working as as adjunct IT teacher at a local college for the past 14 years. They don't pay much, but it's fun
-With my wife, we also own a local business
-Annual compensation has exceeded 6 figures for a long time, then you can add in my military retirement and the business income -- I smile a lot
-Married for well over 30 years, 2 kids, one grandchild
-Hobbies include cooking and pissing in your wheaties as often as possible
You could have found most of this out by googling 'TedHOhio' since I use that moniker in many places. You will even find my blog and facebook page, which list my full name. Of course then research isn't your strong suit, is it?
Of course now I expect you to claim I am ... what did you call me a couple of days ago .. oh yea, a scumbag liar. But unlike you, my bio is listed in a number of places online and you couldn't probably find one easy enough. You won't even admit doing so, but you could.
Satisfied, pimple?
That nice.....but you're still a loser because you're such a liar. Interesting you didn't mention you IT certifications. I also happen to be a Certified Information Systems Auditor.

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#93389 May 31, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And, yet, no formal education in biology, biochemistry, genetics, immunology, geology, astronomy, cosmology, or anything that would inform anything you claim about creationism. So, you don't know jack about what you're talking about.
You're using the argument from authority with yourself as the authority. It's a logical fallacy AND an ego trip. Your penis is surely a tiny tiny thing.
I see. So f I were to go back to college and take these few courses and get my ticket punched by the "authorities", then you would listen to me and become convinced that I am right?

Since: Apr 12

Hightstown, NJ

#93390 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The overwhelming evidence would dispute your claim. Living fossils, genetic entropy, no mutations have ever resulted in any new, nascent biological function, no transitional fossils, etc. Not to mention the obvious intelligent design, irreducible complex biological functions, motors, DNA language, complex information, etc. In contrast, you don't have any evidence to support your claims.
Actually, overwhelming evidence will dispute your claim. Each of the points that you mentioned here have been already refuted.

Living fossils: What of them? Although evolution predicts that species can change, it does not require that species must change. Moreover, we cannot say that the living fossils that are alive today are exactly identical to the ones whose fossils we discovered – there may be variations, but not enough to show difference in fossil record.

Genetic entropy: This is nonsense. When people talk about "information" in a DNA, what many forget is that this is a analogy; DNA is really a complex chemical. Carrying an analogy too far is not going to help. "Entropy" also doesn’t make sense in this context. What about gene duplication – doesn’t that add new "information"? Also deleterious mutations will be selected against, and will decrease in the genome.

" no mutations have ever resulted in any new, nascent biological function": Not true. Simple example – bacteria evolving ability to digest nylon. New functions evolve by modifying old function and/or by gene duplication.

" no transitional fossils" – Wrong. Plenty of them. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transiti...

:Intelligent design?: Not quite. One example – blind spot in human eye.

"irreducible complex biological functions": No, these have been refuted

"DNA Language, information": Like I said before, when you say language, code, etc, you forget that these are just complex chemical molecules. This is an analogy carried too far. Language is symbolic in nature. "Water" means what it means because we all agree that that is what it should mean in English language. The actual physical object "water" and the symbolic representation in English, are linked only by this common understanding. In Latin or Sanskrit, you would be using different symbols to refer to the same physical object. In contrast, for DNA, it is its physical structure – the way the molecules are arranged – that gives it its unique properties. Comparing it to a language is only an analogy.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
There is good evidence to support common ancestry from within the original created kinds but none at all to support universal common descent, i.e., from a single cell or whatever, also known as naturalistic vertical (macro) evolution. Furthermore, every thing points to a top-down adaptation with genetic entropy type of evolution - and nothing to indicate that it was bottom-up. Get over it.
There is no evidence to support your religion's creation story – in fact there is ample evidence against it. For some one who diligently demands evidence for evolution, it is ironic to see you disregarding the mountain of evidence that supports a universal common descent, and putting all your faith in a religious scripture. Where goes your supposed scientific rigor when you approach your scripture? Do you just refuse to apply the scientific method to your own scripture? That is hypocrisy. That is what I find difficult to get over.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#93391 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
A new lie! The Journal of Creation is peer-reviewed you bigoted stupid moron.
By other creationists. Hardly an unbiased review. Hardly impartial.

And you know that.

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.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Nitrogen Powered Hybrid Automobile (Dec '11) 7 hr Sea D it sss 273
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 7 hr ozzmayis 7,438
News New Horizons completed fly-by of Pluto 14 hr Kid_Tomorrow 2
News JRE 1.8.0_60 Certified with Oracle E-Business S... 17 hr arthur 1
Outlook Express 6 - Address book failed to load Sun 13Olivar 2
News NASA is developing 3-D Camera that can take ima... Sun SpaceBlues 1
action replay codes for the new super mario bros. (Jan '08) Sat BurgerBoy127 927
More from around the web