Evolution or Creationism?

[SkyWriting]

Most of the Earth will kill you. 71% of it is salt water. Less than half of its land is arable. If it was 'created for humans', the being that did it was either stupid, lazy or incompetent.

Seems perfectly suited for our occupation. If you travel at light speed, you'll likely
not find another suitable planet before our sun burns out.

Your "welcome back" will be a lonely parade of one. And you miss what you missed.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Seems perfectly suited for our occupation. If you travel at light speed, you'll likely
not find another suitable planet before our sun burns out.

Your "welcome back" will be a lonely parade.

We've found dozens of planets so earth-like it is eerie. Apparently, planets like ours aren't that rare, which shouldn't be shocking since Earth is a glorified water-covered rock.

 

[SkyWriting]

When I went to college a millennium ago my major was geology.

That's when space and the moon was covered with germs that eat your flesh!

 

[SkyWriting]

We've found dozens of planets so earth-like it is eerie. Apparently, planets like ours aren't that rare, which shouldn't be shocking since Earth is a glorified water-covered rock.

Note the lack of supporting data for that claim. What we've found is that the wobble of some stars changes the light enough for us to measure that something is orbiting it. Of the 800 or so, one is believed to be in an orbit that would result in moderate temperatures.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's when space and the moon was covered with germs that eat your flesh!

That was probably done to calm the public that was very ignorant about space at that time. I seriously doubt that scientists thought that that step was needed.

 

[SkyWriting]

That was probably done to calm the public that was very ignorant about space at that time. I seriously doubt that scientists thought that that step was needed.

I suppose we could check into it..?




Robert Frost, Developed a training program on the Apollo program for NASA Constellation employees
45 upvotes by Anne K. Halsall, Yair Livne, John Clover, (more)

"The crews for Apollo 11, 12, and 14 were quarantined for 3 weeks. Apollo 13 wasn't quarantined since they never reached the moon. By the time Apollo 15 flew, the doctors were convinced the crew were not bringing any pathogens back, so they didn't quarantine the remaining flights."
Written 14 Dec, 2012. 2,365 views.


Steven Cowart, Manager for Visual Display Systems
1 upvote by James H. Kelly.


"As Robert Frost wrote, the Apollo Astronauts were quarantined for three weeks. The policy was 21 days, minimum. But many more than just astronauts were quarantined. Along with the astronauts, crew surgeons, medical lab technicians, cooks, stewards and a recovery engineer were also quarantined."

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suppose we could check into it..?




Robert Frost, Developed a training program on the Apollo program for NASA Constellation employees
45 upvotes by Anne K. Halsall, Yair Livne, John Clover, (more)

"The crews for Apollo 11, 12, and 14 were quarantined for 3 weeks. Apollo 13 wasn't quarantined since they never reached the moon. By the time Apollo 15 flew, the doctors were convinced the crew were not bringing any pathogens back, so they didn't quarantine the remaining flights."
Written 14 Dec, 2012. 2,365 views.


Steven Cowart, Manager for Visual Display Systems
1 upvote by James H. Kelly.


"As Robert Frost wrote, the Apollo Astronauts were quarantined for three weeks. The policy was 21 days, minimum. But many more than just astronauts were quarantined. Along with the astronauts, crew surgeons, medical lab technicians, cooks, stewards and a recovery engineer were also quarantined."

That does not support your view at all. And seriously? You are quoting doctors? Wrong authority to go to.

 

[RickG]

Anything else I can help you deny/ridicule?

Being the science forums of the CF, it would be nice to actually discuss some science instead of apologetics.

 

[AV1611VET]

Being the science forums of the CF, it would be nice to actually discuss some science instead of apologetics.

In a thread titled "Evolution or Creationism?"

You want the conversation to be one-sided in favor of evolution?

 

[bhsmte]

In a thread titled "Evolution or Creationism?"

You want the conversation to be one-sided in favor of evolution?

In a science forum, it would be nice to address the science.

 

[RickG]

In a thread titled "Evolution or Creationism?"

You want the conversation to be one-sided in favor of evolution?

No, I want science discussed. This is not an apologetics forum.

 

[AV1611VET]

In a science forum, it would be nice to address the science.

Then leave creationism out of it.

And for the record, when I see someone whine to the OP for introducing creationism into a "science forum" -- and not just at me -- then I might take you seriously.

I doubt it, but miracles still happen.

Otherwise, I'll just assume it's selective ridicule.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I want science discussed. This is not an apologetics forum.

Then tell the OP.

Don't tell me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then leave creationism out of it.

And for the record, when I see someone whine to the OP for introducing creationism into a "science forum" -- and not just at me -- then I might take you seriously.

I doubt it, but miracles still happen.

Otherwise, I'll just assume it's selective ridicule.

One can still try to discuss creationism from a scientific viewpoint. You have learned one thing over the years and that is that creationism has no response to real science.

 

[AV1611VET]

One can still try to discuss creationism from a scientific viewpoint.

When I see you do that, then I might believe you -- but I doubt it.

The only time I see atheists discussing creationism with science is when they're denying it.

And if you think I'm going to agree with you that creationism and science can even be used in the same sentence, then you need to think again.

Again, lay the axe to the root of the tree (i.e., the OP).

Don't just harp at me about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When I see you do that, then I might believe you -- but I doubt it.

The only time I see atheists discussing creationism with science is when they're denying it.

And if you think I'm going to agree with you that creationism and science can even be used in the same sentence, then you need to think again.

Again, lay the axe to the root of the tree (i.e., the OP).

Don't just harp at me about it.

Yes, we all know that even you know your beliefs are unreasonable.

 

[Smidlee]

Most of the Earth will kill you. 71% of it is salt water. Less than half of its land is arable. If it was 'created for humans', the being that did it was either stupid, lazy or incompetent.

Again, I am flabbergasted as to how you people are able to summon such elephantine levels of arrogance to make these unfathomably asinine assertions.

The highway and cars will kill you yet they were created for man. Electricity will kill you and even burn down you house but the power companies create electricity for man. Even a drink machine created for man can kill you. Maybe you should think a little before trying to suggest someone is stupid, lazy or incompetent.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe you should think a little before trying to suggest someone is stupid, lazy or incompetent.

Maybe he did.

 

[Smidlee]

You made your claim, so explain it with evidence and logic please.

I came to the same conclusion as this guy did:

So when secular scientists discuss the Miller-Urey experiment, they do several things they criticize creation scientists for doing. They assume a "fact," i.e., a reducing atmosphere, not in evidence. In fact, geologists have never once found evidence the earth ever had a reducing atmosphere. The Miller-Urey experiment results include several vials from several hypothetical atmospheres. But not one of them could have produced the changes geologists have actually seen in rocks.
.........

This shows what's wrong with the central debate in origins science: did the universe, the earth, and life come to exist by "evolution," or by creation? Those on the evolution side, do not even argue in good faith. They employ a double standard, special pleading, and sometimes projection - "throwing off" on their opponents. The Miller-Urey experiment provides the prize example of such behavior

http://www.examiner.com/article/miller-urey-experiment

The Bible is not a science book but it's much greater as it deals directly with the heart of the scientist where all science comes from.

 

[Loudmouth]

I came to the same conclusion as this guy did:
http://www.examiner.com/article/miller-urey-experiment

The Bible is not a science book but it's much greater as it deals directly with the heart of the scientist where all science comes from.

Miller and Urey used the best models of their time. Interestingly, when you run the same experiments that are adjusted to the much better and modern models of Earth's early atmosphere, you still get amino acids.

Despite Wells's claims to the contrary, new experiments since the Miller-Urey ones have achieved similar results using various corrected atmospheric compositions (Figure 1; Rode, 1999; Hanic et al., 2000). Further, although some authors have argued that electrical energy might not have efficiently produced organic molecules in the earth's early atmosphere, other energy sources such as cosmic radiation (e.g., Kobayashi et al., 1998), high temperature impact events (e.g., Miyakawa et al., 2000), and even the action of waves on a beach (Commeyras, et al., 2002) would have been quite effective.
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/icon-1-miller-urey-experiment
​