Creation vs. Evolution

[Soggy]

I must missed that post - he's a science teacher?

Bryan

yep...

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/3624054-post5365.html

 

[Warthaug]

yep...

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/3624054-post5365.html

Scary. :eek5:

Bryan

 

[sheck33]

Thanks! Yeah, a few doses of vancomycin put me well on the way to recovery and they discharged me the next day with some oral antibiotics. Tough stuff, that MRSA.

Glad you feel better.

 

[Theunis]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thalassamania
With all due respect, you're falling into exactly the trap that the religionists want you to. It's not a question of religion vs. atheism as two competing belief systems. What the religionists want most is to define their crapola as science, thus ID and to define a "religion" of secular humanism / atheism that they can be in conflict with and they can have excluded (along with such secular humanistic beliefs as evolution) in much the way that they have been excluded by the courts. You play right into their hands. The Georgia courts slapped them down for this approach, as did the Kansas courts and the Delaware courts ... don't you go crediting them.

Posted by Theunis:

Sorry, you are wrong about this one. I don't set traps for anybody. I was merely making a point. Why are you so suspicious?

So you're just a tool and you don't even know what you are a tool of. Figures.

I guess you've never seen the position papers, and lists of talking point that the IDers and their fellow travelers put out, the pamphlets on how to take over local school boards in the name of Christ? Or the "calls to arms" to stop godless secular humanism?

Stop wasting our time and take us to your leader.

Figures what Thalassamania? I am not just a tool Thalassamania. Are you feeling threatened by the position papers, and lists of talking points that the Iders and the fellow travelers put out? Are you threatened by the believers of Christ? In my country we don't have the luxury of spreading pamphlets on how to take over local school boards in the name of Christ. In my country we are fighting xenofobia, day to day crime, etc. We can call to arm, but what then?

You are free to think that I am wasting your time. I think you feel that everybody not sharing your point is wasting your precious time. If you don't have time, why bother in posting here?

I have introduced you to my leader. My leader is God.

But still, you haven't answer my question... Why are you so suspicious???

 

[Theunis]

Given that there have been quite a few Christians in and out of this thread, including several who are ministers and/or teachers, and no such correction has been offered, I think we can take that as an indication that they are of the opinion that I have accurately represented Christian doctine.

In my view, you have indeed!!

 

[gary-ramey]

'Thus the timeframe for the formation of the petrified wood within the geological record is totally compatible with the biblical time-scale of a recent creation and a subsequent devastating global Flood.'

Yup, except, in order to conclude from this data that creation and a flood took place, you will have to ignore all other data that is in perfect agreement with evolutionary theory.

This is so typical, one scientific fact 'supports' creation, innumerable facts totally contradict creation, conclusion: creation is valid

You obviously didn't read my post which doesn't surprise me. If God created the world as you see it about 10,000 years ago you would see some evidence of a young earth and some evidence of an ancient one. But its more convenient for science today to only take into account the evidence that supports their theory, and discard that which doesn't.

 

[coachpill]

What statement?

The one I quoted from Soggy's post about how he answered his own question

"The only way to be sure what happened is to look at numerous species which we assume are all descended from a recent common ancestor, and then assume that the most common chromosome number was the same in the ancestral species, from which all the others are descended."

Re: How can genetic mutations change the n chromosome number of a species?

 

[gary-ramey]

I'm still waiting for you creationists to come up with something, anything. You've had a couple of days now and still nothing. Shall I give up expecting something from you?

What does your failure prove? It proves, at least, that you've not a creative bone in your body. If the answer is not pre-chewed or pre-digested for you on the web of from the pulpit you can't deal with the question. I pose a new question that your puppeteers have not pre-recorded a stupid answer for and when your string is pulled ... all we get is Simon and Garfunkel:
And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon God they made.
And the sign flashed out its warning,
In the words that it was forming.
And the sign said, the words of the prophets

Are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls.
And whispered in the sounds of silence.

One has to wonder if your rejection as a teacher wasn't more to do with your crass nature. I posed several questions you've failed to answer adequately...oh that's right you linked your answer to atheistic websites because you couldn't answer the questions without the help of your puppet master.

 

[gary-ramey]

Holy!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a thread, politics and religon. Both topics can burn. It does'nt matter how old the earth is. You have rocks in your yard older than 6000 years. Have you ever heard of the grand canyon? Or as a Canadian...Niagra falls? It all comes down to a simple statment. Existence just exists, here and all threw the universe, it just is. Why look to a creator? Existence has always.....well existed. To take the opposite conclusion is just unacceptable. We all exist yes? and so does the rest of the universe. Just accept it. How can you not?

Fine then. If you believe the Universe is self-replicating and perpetual. That flies in the face of measurable science.

 

[gary-ramey]

The validity of the application of total salt in the ocean in the determination of age turned out to have a very simple answer in the fact shown by Goldschmidt (1954) that it is in steady state and therefore useless as a means of determining the age of the oceans. [Cook, 1966, p.73]

Steady state in the oceans isn't due to its ability to get rid of the salts. Moreover, it has more to do with the tides, currents, winds, and pure vastness of the bodies of water. As one of your website stated, it takes up to 200million years for it to "get rid" of some of the dissolved substances. The bottom line is the dead sea obviously didn't follow this line of reasoning. The oceans are very dynamic and I'll be the first to say you can't put them into a static model but its quite obvious that some bodies of water have reached a level as to be considered "dead".