Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If the teacher is to lead the students in prayer, from what religion should it be drawn?The religious liberties that are being suppressed are those the people of this nation had for over 150 years until the Supreme Court took them away.
The SC court ruling that usurped that power from the states and the people was "Emerson v. Board of Education", 1947.
For over 150 years the states encouraged prayer in public schools without the slightest suspicion there was anything unconstitutional about it. Those were the days when you could go on vacation without locking your house, and for the life of a car without locking its doors.
Prayer in schools was not unconstitutional then, and it is not unconstitutional now, no matter what a few un-elected judges say. The bottom line is, the citizenry of the U.S. is currently living under judicial tyranny, enforced by the power of the sword.
Dan
Humor me. Take a careful look at some of the rock layers of the Grand Canyon, each millions of years thick (or, tens of millions), according to the evolution model:
1. Tapeats Sandstone
2. Shale
3. Muav Limestone
4. Redwall Limestone
5. Supai Group (sandstone, siltstone, etc.)
6. Hermit Formation (siltstone, mudstone, etc.)
7. Coconino Sandstone
Think about it? All forms of life, not just in the GC area, but in many parts of the world, wandered around on layers of, first, sand, then shale, then limestone, then a different colored limestone, and so forth, each for millions of years before the next type of layer showed up; and in most layers are found billions of fossils, some in perfect condition?
Dan
Prayer in schools was not unconstitutional then, and it is not unconstitutional now, no matter what a few un-elected judges say. The bottom line is, the citizenry of the U.S. is currently living under judicial tyranny, enforced by the power of the sword.
You are truly ignorant of the constitution; and the constitution-hating socialists hope you stay that way. From what I have seen you post thus far, they have nothing to worry about.
For the rest of you who have a semblance of understanding of the constitution, the phrase "separation of church and state" is NOT in the constitution, nor has it ever been. It was derived from another phrase first coined by Thomas Jefferson in 1802, in reference to a limitation on the powers of the federal government over religious freedom.
During the 20th century, the phrase "separation of church and state" was usurped into federal "law" by a corrupt U.S. Supreme Court at the best of the constitution-hating ACLU, and then applied to the states and the people, thus turning the establishment clause on its head. Rather than protecting the religious liberties of the states and the people, the first amendment was reinterpreted by the courts to suppress religious liberties.
Frankly, I believe it to be the most destructive usurpation of power in U.S. History to the fabric of our nation and society.
Dan
It would be the appropriate and comradely thing to do, since you've given me a good laugh.Humor me.
You need to be corrected here. While the theory of evolution supports the estimates as to the age of these layers, such age has been determined quite independently of evolutionary theory. This was done, initially, by considering such things as sedimentation rates, nature and pace of isostatic and eustatic adjustments, probable duration of lacunae, etc. Then the more powerful tool, for absolute dates, of radiometric dating was applied. Parallel use of biostratigraphic techniques to determine relative ages still does not rely on an evolutionary model, but simply on the observed consistent sequence of fossils found in any undisturbed sequence globally. This sequence was acknowledged by Creationists and Evolutionists alike in the 19th century.Take a careful look at some of the rock layers of the Grand Canyon, each millions of years thick (or, tens of millions), according to the evolution model:
Just as an aside, The Grand Canyon is the most astounding natural vista I have yet seen on the planet. Although not prone to using expletives. when I first glimpsed it I uttered a single expletive, repeatedly, for a full fifteen minutes, so impressed was I. (In contrast, when I first saw the pyramids at Giza I remarked, "They are smaller than I imagined".)1. Tapeats Sandstone
2. Shale
3. Muav Limestone
4. Redwall Limestone
5. Supai Group (sandstone, siltstone, etc.)
6. Hermit Formation (siltstone, mudstone, etc.)
7. Coconino Sandstone
See, once again in the simplicity of your remarks you are revealing your ignorance of these matters. I would need to give you a couple of days worth of lectures on basic sedimentology* to start you on the right road, but in the meantime here are some (over-simplified) headlines.Think about it? All forms of life, not just in the GC area, but in many parts of the world, wandered around on layers of, first, sand, then shale, then limestone, then a different colored limestone, and so forth, each for millions of years before the next type of layer showed up; and in most layers are found billions of fossils, some in perfect condition?
You will have to humour me further and spell out, in detail, why you think it is illogical.That is beyond illogical. Rapid layering by a world-wide flood is the only reasonable explanation for that layering, and for those fossils, many of which under the best of initial conditions would require rapid covering in deep sediment to prevent bio-destruction.
Well sure, the farther back you go, and the more delicate the animal in question, the less fossils you'll have representing it. As a result, many organisms end up with extremely complete fossil records whereas others have it mostly missing. In the case of human evolution, the fossil record is extremely complete within the range of today to about 4 million years ago.And regarding this last part
"and in most layers are found billions of fossils, some in perfect condition?"
Do you realize that there are only perhaps 50 or so T rex skeletons ever found? For an animal that, from our perspective, lived perhaps 2 million years.
Indeed, most of the billions of fossils you are referring to, are of sea animals, clam shells, gastropod shells, cephalopod shells. Shells. 99.99% of the fossil record actually consists of....hard shells.
Imagine if life did actually live for millions of years, where countless countless countless terrestrial life forms lived, including T rexes.
And at the end of the day, you only found 50.
No, lets re examine your question. "in most layers are found billions of fossils", oh so you mean shells? "some in perfect condition?", well a shell is a shell. Its hard, its durable, its long lasting.
Now, if you were referring to terrestrial fossils, such as those of T rex, there are not billions, there are perhaps 50, and most of those are incomplete skeletons.
Why? Because of the millions of T rexes that perhaps existed over 2 million years, 99.99% of them were eaten, and destroyed and decayed.
Well sure, the farther back you go, and the more delicate the animal in question, the less fossils you'll have representing it. As a result, many organisms end up with extremely complete fossil records whereas others have it mostly missing. In the case of human evolution, the fossil record is extremely complete within the range of today to about 4 million years ago.
While yes, most fossils are quite incomplete when it comes to terrestrial organisms, how does that justify disregarding the ones that are like this:
Should we just ignore the obvious feather imprints and the bone structure just because there are fewer than 100 of these? What kind of fossil record would it take for you to recognize any evaluation of them as legitimate?
Additionally, the most complete T. rex skeleton is over 90% complete and is just missing a few of the smaller, more fragile bones. Plus, bones are shaped in part by how muscles attach to them, so you can determine musculature of an organism based on the various details of fossils. Sue is so well preserved that we'd get a decent idea about what the T. rex was like just based on her alone.
And are you seriously treating the fossil record as the strongest evidence for evolution? Because genetics definitely holds that title.
He's wrong about junk DNA. There is precisely zero evidence that the sequence of the genome matters to the well-being of an organism. If you think otherwise, point to the specific finding in a specific paper that provides said evidence. You won't find it.
What most biologists conveniently forget, or were never aware of, is that Darwin was first and foremost a geologist. A case can be made that without the sense of deep time he acquired from his geological studies, field investigations and mentors such as Lyell, he might never have conceived of his theory.You're firing at the wrong target missy.
But, as a geologist, i would love to dive in.
I think that...the theory of evolution without the fossil record, and without geology, would be nothing to speak of.
What most biologists conveniently forget, or were never aware of, is that Darwin was first and foremost a geologist. A case can be made that without the sense of deep time he acquired from his geological studies, field investigations and mentors such as Lyell, he might never have conceived of his theory.
So, you were unable to address the coccyx in any way, and true to form, have dove into the gutter claiming Darwin was a racist. Classic!I personally do not know one way or the other about Darwin's views on race. Many say he was opposed to slavery and was concerned about the poor, which I do not dispute, and which I believe to be a Christian attribute.
But there is little doubt that white supremacy was commonplace in his day and age. The "Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex", which focused on our species, should have cleared up any misconceptions about Darwin's views on race; or at least those which he wished to publicize at the time.
How do you interpret these passages?
"The sense of smell is of the highest importance to the greater number of mammals—to some, as the ruminants, in warning them of danger; to others, as the carnivora, in finding their prey; to others, again, as the wild boar, for both purposes combined. But the sense of smell is of extremely slight service, if any, even to the dark coloured races of men, in whom it is much more highly developed than in the white and civilised races." [Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." John Murray, 2nd Ed, 1888, Chap I, pp.17-18]
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." [Charles Darwin, Affinities and Genealogies, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." John Murray, 2nd Ed, 1888, Chap VI, p.156]
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man." [Charles Darwin, Civilised Nations, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." 1981, Chap V, p.168]
One thing I am certain of is the removal of Christian doctrine from the halls of our schools -- at the behest of atheists and evolutionists, as well as the voluntary removal from our media and entertainment, has led to a cultural rot in western civilization that will be difficult to repair.
This is a pretty good historical analysis of the situation, titled "Darwinism and the teaching of racism and eugenics in biology textbooks":
Dan
Do you understand the relevance of pseudogenes in assessing phylogeny?I watched Stephen's lecture. Was there any particular segment I was supposed to focus on?
Do you know of any proof there is such a thing as a nonfunctional gene -- a pseudogene?
Dan
So, your skepticism comes from reading creationist essays. And not from your own relevant knowledge, education, experience, etc.I guess you can see why I am skeptical of any claims that "pseudogenes" are non-functional, or that they provide "evidence" of common ancestry.
Dan
No.No. But I'll bet you got everything you know from evolutionism sources. Did I win the bet?
Dan
He described the pelvic fins BEFORE the pelvic fins had been described in the literature.You have the floor. Please explain how and when Dr. Menton was lying about the so-called Tiktaalik fossils. I am more than curious how you will respond.
Dan
Who and where? Wasn't you.Of course.
Dan
Nothing on topic here, just hackneyed propaganda.I will agree that the field of evolution is based on a lie (or, more to the point, magic and historical philosophy), as are many of its "Icons", such as Haeckel's embryos, peppered moths, vestigial organs, whale evolution, and junk DNA, to name a few. But after all those embarrassments, the myth that man and ape are 95% genetically similar is still being touted as fact, years after it was demonstrated that there are millions of differences between the two. Even evolutionary geology is based on flaky theories that are easily rebutted.
Dan
No need to go further - Tomkins' claims have been debunked all over the place, including on this forum.Just so there is no misunderstanding by new-arrivals, humans and chimps are only about 70% similar. There are many millions of differences, as Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins,
Your posts are a great example of the creationist cult of personality.At least he is not evolutionist. He is also well educated, having earned a PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology from University of California at Berkeley, where he also worked as a postdoctoral research biologist. But I understand he is also a wanted man:
I think his books are quite good; and the Icons of Evolutionism most certainly needed a good house-cleaning.
Have you read this review of his book titled, "The Myth of Junk DNA"?
It begins:
"One of the greatest evolutionary frauds of recent times is the myth that eukaryotic genomes, particularly the human genome, are largely composed of meaningless ‘junk’ DNA sequences that serve no biological purpose." [Jeffrey P. Tomkins, "The Junk DNA myth takes a well-deserved hit." Creation Ministries International, 2011]
It ends:
"My final suggestion is that I would hope that Dr Wells considers this book an ongoing project. Given the immense amount of research in this field and the new and exciting developments which emerge virtually every week, the book should be regularly revised every couple of years to keep the issue at the forefront in the hotly contested fields of intelligent design and creation science. This is particularly important given the fraudulent rhetoric actively promulgated by theistic evolutionists and popular science authors." [Ibid.]
It is any wonder evolutionists dislike Jeffrey Tomkins?
Dan
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?