Cosmic evolution trashed in new find

[Subduction Zone]

Unfortunately I cannot find any instances of people trying to teach the Bible legally in public school. As I said the only legal way to do it would to include other religions too and treat them equally. That is not what people have tried to do, they have tried to bring classes into school that teach the Bible only as literature and that is illegal.

So did you want to answer the question I posed to you or not?

 

[Tomk80]

Were you there? or did you ask her?



I am not sure if you missed, but there is a written historical record. You seem to be having a problem with facts. A pharmaceutical company called William S. Merrell made that question. Here, I will paste it again.

"One of Frances O. Kelsey’s first assignments at FDA was to review an application for the drug Kevadon, a sedative more commonly known as thalidomide. Already approved in Canada and 20 European and African countries, thalidomide was widely prescribed for morning sickness during pregnancy.

But Kelsey was not satisfied with data provided by the pharmaceutical company. Based on her review Kelsey insisted that the data were incomplete and did not support the drug’s safety claims. She refused to approve thalidomide for sale in the United States."

And a different account: "When the FDA received an application from the William S. Merrell Company, the liscensee of Chemie Grunenthal that wanted to market thalidomide in the United States, the file was given to pharmacologist Frances Kelsey, MD, a new medical reviewer for the FDA, and it was considered to be a rather straightforward case. Kelsey, however, was worried that, though the drug was being used throughout Europe, too little information about its side effects was known. Additionally, she found it odd that the drug affected experimental animals differently from humans – no harmful effects had been found in experiments done on animals, but the drug also did not have the beneficial effect of making the animals sleepy. Kelsey withstood the pressure of the drug manufacturers to push through the approval of the drug."

She did not approve the drug on scientific grounds. You want to spread falsehoods? Try another.

AV, do you understand the fact that regularly, especially with new findings, scientists disagree with each other on the findings?
Do you understand that given the costliness of drug testing, pharmaceutical manufacturers will try to perform as few tests as needed?
Do you understand that scientists may, with the same data, disagree on the amount of testing that is needed in the first place?

AV, do you understand the concept of disagreement, period?

Because the statement you are making now are venturing from the merely ignorant and arguably dishonest into outright lying. And I'm left wondering that if you are correct why you feel forced to do so?

 

[dad]

What is your evidence that there is anything outside of the "fishbowl"?

You admit to the fishbowl?

Now you want stuff outside it?

Our observations and experiments are in the universe we live in.

No. On earth basically.

All sciences work in concordance supporting the theory of evolution.

Then all is lost for you. Alas.

There is no evidence that supports creation.

From science, no doubt. That is a small matter.

No, you misunderstood my point. If you can't face the truth of course you can't accept evolution.

Rapid evolving was a created trait. It is slow now in this present state. Relax I accept it.

My question was if your religion could produce the way that science does.

Heck a dozen legions of demons could hardly compete with the fables of science.

“God shall be my hope, my stay, my guide and lantern to my feet.”

 

[dgiharris]

....
Heck a dozen legions of demons could hardly compete with the fables of science.

You know, i'm curious about your thoughts on the Salem Witch Trials and the Spanish Inquisition.

Would you classify the perpetrators of said events "Christians" and were they right to do what they did?

 

[dad]

You know, i'm curious about your thoughts on the Salem Witch Trials and the Spanish Inquisition.

Would you classify the perpetrators of said events "Christians" and were they right to do what they did?

My first line of questioning in the affair might be to ask if some Christians were falsely called witches by witches? After all, do not good guys get villainized all the time? Was not Jesus called a traitor, and Paul and John the Baptist, and Peter and John and untold numbers of martyrs called up under false charges?


Looking at one link I see this about one accused...

" admitted that she had been beaten by Rev. Parris and told to confess."....
Salem Transcripton Project


That tells me that this sadist was not a man of God. But, hey, what do I know?





Also from that link I notice this.....

" All those who confessed were saved, whereas those who maintained their innocence were executed."


So those that denied being of the devil were killed!!!!! Not a hard case to crack, that.

 

[dgiharris]

My first line of questioning in the affair might be to ask if some Christians were falsely called witches by witches? After all, do not good guys get villainized all the time? Was not Jesus called a traitor, and Paul and John the Baptist, and Peter and John and untold numbers of martyrs called up under false charges?

So you have the ability to recognize that it is possible to villainize a person...

How about villainizing a "thing".

There were many Christians in the 1950s that felt that Rock-n-Roll music was a tool of the Devil....

If you can get your mind around villainizing a "thing" then can you get your mind around villainizing a "concept".

I submit that you are villainizing "science" just as those in the Salem Witch trials villainized people.

I have zero doubt, absolutely no doubt at all that the Reverends and Priests and Ministers of God during that era felt they were doing God's work. They felt with their whole heart and soul that they were doing what they thought God wanted them to do. In fact, I'm sure many of them "hated" beating and burning their fellow man which actually served to reinforce the righteous of their mission. Because, the fact that they did not want to do ill is validation that they are still fundamentally good at heart and thus they are carrying out the will of God with a heavy heart...

If science is an attempt to understand how and what God has done, then I submit that science can be a powerful means of forming a closer relationship with God.

However, if your relationship with God depends on mystery then I can absolutely see how science is threatening to you, because science removes the mystery behind rainbows and shooting stars...

I submit that when you don't "need" the mystery to believe in God and can just accept that God is, then through science you see just how incredible God is and with every new discovery, your love of God will grow as it becomes more and more apparent just how freakin awesome he is.

I mean, when I see the picture of a snowflake (they won't let me post since my post count is too low but google snowflake image)...


it makes me think "wow, look how beautiful that is, God is a great artist"

and I would never have known this picture if not for science...

 

[dad]

So you have the ability to recognize that it is possible to villainize a person...

How about villainizing a "thing".

There were many Christians in the 1950s that felt that Rock-n-Roll music was a tool of the Devil....

If you can get your mind around villainizing a "thing" then can you get your mind around villainizing a "concept".

I submit that you are villainizing "science" just as those in the Salem Witch trials villainized people.

Unlike people, claims of science can be looked at in detail, as they are written. It is not gossip that science says that life started some other way than Genesis, and that the stars were created some other way, etc etc etc.

I have zero doubt, absolutely no doubt at all that the Reverends and Priests and Ministers of God during that era felt they were doing God's work. They felt with their whole heart and soul that they were doing what they thought God wanted them to do.

I have doubt. The people of the jurisdiction revolted about this guy, and even tried to cut his benefits. That was the start of the thing.

If science is an attempt to understand how and what God has done, then I submit that science can be a powerful means of forming a closer relationship with God.

Not the God who said what He said to man. Ne'er the twain shall meet.

However, if your relationship with God depends on mystery then I can absolutely see how science is threatening to you, because science removes the mystery behind rainbows and shooting stars...

No more than a kindergarten kid does actually. Science blathers on based on beliefs about demonic never never lands.

I submit that when you don't "need" the mystery to believe in God and can just accept that God is, then through science you see just how incredible God is and with every new discovery, your love of God will grow as it becomes more and more apparent just how freakin awesome he is.

I submit that this is bunk. Either He is and is who He says He is and did what He said he did, or our faith is in vain. There are bigger issues at stake here than playing footsie with the daydreams of foolish men..

I mean, when I see the picture of a snowflake (they won't let me post since my post count is too low but google snowflake image)...


it makes me think "wow, look how beautiful that is, God is a great artist"

I agree. So?

and I would never have known this picture if not for science...

Christians were the majority of people in science when the microscope was made, no? I mean heck, maybe even kids caught some snowflakes in their hand and looked at them before they melted long ago? That is unconnected to the pond, or the magic speck that held the universe etc etc.

I think Shakespeare had science's number!



“I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself king of infinite space.”

 

[Tiberius]

Unlike people, claims of science can be looked at in detail, as they are written. It is not gossip that science says that life started some other way than Genesis, and that the stars were created some other way, etc etc etc.

I'm sorry. I'm not aware of any scientific discipline that claims to be able to answer how life originated.

Not the God who said what He said to man. Ne'er the twain shall meet.

I think you mean, "Not the God who said what I've been told He said to man." I mean, you don't actually know for a fact what went on back then, do you, as you weren't there.

No more than a kindergarten kid does actually. Science blathers on based on beliefs about demonic never never lands.

So how do you explain the fact that science actually works?

I submit that this is bunk. Either He is and is who He says He is and did what He said he did, or our faith is in vain. There are bigger issues at stake here than playing footsie with the daydreams of foolish men..

Such absolutist points of view are ultimately self defeating.

Christians were the majority of people in science when the microscope was made, no? I mean heck, maybe even kids caught some snowflakes in their hand and looked at them before they melted long ago? That is unconnected to the pond, or the magic speck that held the universe etc etc.

But at the time, religion was the only thing that had answers for the big questions. Now that we have increased our scientific knowledge, we have seen that science is able to explain things better than religion, and that religious explanations are very often wrong.

 

[dad]

I'm sorry. I'm not aware of any scientific discipline that claims to be able to answer how life originated.

How did life originate?

As in this link, we see they teach the long fluke fest fable as fact.

I think you mean, "Not the God who said what I've been told He said to man." I mean, you don't actually know for a fact what went on back then, do you, as you weren't there.

Scripture is actually well known as are the thoughts of Jesus on the scripture.

So how do you explain the fact that science actually works?

It only works in the fishbowl.

Such absolutist points of view are ultimately self defeating.

Says you, who are defeated.

But at the time, religion was the only thing that had answers for the big questions. Now that we have increased our scientific knowledge, we have seen that science is able to explain things better than religion, and that religious explanations are very often wrong.

Science blathers on about belief based Satan inspired ideas none of which have the least basis in fact when it comes to the far past.

 

[Tiberius]

How did life originate?

As in this link, we see they teach the long fluke fest fable as fact.

You really need to read things more carefully.

Perhaps you missed where it said, "life almost certainly originated in a series of small steps," and "Experiments suggest that organic molecules could have been synthesized...," and "This ability probably first evolved..."

So the website is saying that these are the PROBABLE steps, not that this is DEFINITELY what happened. Many scientists think that life developed in rocks deep underground, or that the building blocks of life were formed in space and then arrived on Earth with meteorite impacts.

Scripture is actually well known as are the thoughts of Jesus on the scripture.

I think you mean, "People's interpretation of Scripture is actually well known as are people's interpretations of the thoughts of Jesus on the scripture."

It only works in the fishbowl.

Ah yes. This fishbowl, for which you have never given any evidence for.

Says you, who are defeated.

I'm sorry, when did you ever defeat me?

Science blathers on about belief based Satan inspired ideas none of which have the least basis in fact when it comes to the far past.

And yet you can't provide ANYTHING that produces meaningful results for anything without using science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is what I can understand that is clearly at odds with all the good of the bible.

How about all of the evil of the Bible?

Untrue. You offer same state decay mostly, and can't seem to get it through your bean that you first must prove there was one to use it.

No, evidence was offered. You clearly do not understand scientific evidence. That means you cannot argue effectively in scientific debate. No wonder that you lose all of the time.

<edit>

You need present state laws for decay, and how the worlds were created is unrelated to any wet dreams of evolving you may or may not have.

I am sure that he has. He probably actually quoted from scientific theories, which if anything are "higher up" than mere scientific laws.

All can be viewed in another light than your belief system...indeed must be!
Crazy talk. Name one example.

The article that Loudmouth has linked more than once shows the same rate of radioactive decay millions of years ago. Why do you keep forgetting that one?

Science that works on a past state that has the same laws is non existent. Real science that does anything uses present state laws here and now.

No, here you have it backwards. If you want to claim a change in the rate of nuclear decay or the speed of light you have to provide evidence for that change. Of course the results of such a change would in all odds be more than catastrophic and would open up a whole new can of worms. A simple fact that will help you realize how much trouble could be caused by changing rates: E =mc^2/

 

[dad]

How about all of the evil of the Bible?

Stop babbling.

No, evidence was offered. You clearly do not understand scientific evidence. That means you cannot argue effectively in scientific debate. No wonder that you lose all of the time.

I think you mean 'no evidence was offered'! None was, save religion.

ahh... Open hypocrisy. How nice of you to admit it.

No. The bible does say this

Jude 1:8 - Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.


Wow. This gives 'right on' new meaning!

Reading comprehension fail on your part. He did not claim to manipulate the universe.

Then you clear up what he meant. You seem to think you know!

I am sure that he has. He probably actually quoted from scientific theories, which if anything are "higher up" than mere scientific laws.

?? Probably? Where?

The article that Loudmouth has linked more than once shows the same rate of radioactive decay millions of years ago. Why do you keep forgetting that one?

Untrue. Not even close. Your millions are pure 100% uncut belief. End of story.

No, here you have it backwards. If you want to claim a change in the rate of nuclear decay or the speed of light you have to provide evidence for that change.

Change IN??? Who says there WAS any decay at all?? Proof?

Of course the results of such a change would in all odds be more than catastrophic and would open up a whole new can of worms. A simple fact that will help you realize how much trouble could be caused by changing rates: E =mc^2/

Strawman. No change IN anything but the former state. NOT this one. How sweet it is!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Stop babbling.[/qote]

Watch yourself, you have already been reported for breaking the rules. You wouldn't want it to happen again

I think you mean 'no evidence was offered'! None was, save religion.

No, scientific evidence was offered. You ignored it. All you offered were your misinterpretations of the Bible.

No. The bible does say this

Jude 1:8 - Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.


Wow. This gives 'right on' new meaning!

That misinterpretation of the Bible of yours still is no excuse for your hypocrisy.

Then you clear up what he meant. You seem to think you know!

Nope, do your own homework.

?? Probably? Where?

Really? You know that little of science? Everywhere. A scientific theory "outranks" a scientific law because it has at least a partial explanation of an observation. A scientific law is merely an observation. Here is one solid example. Einstein's theories of gravitation have replaced Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. For cruder calculations Newton still works, but if you need to really know what is happening you need to apply Einstein.

Untrue. Not even close. Your millions are pure 100% uncut belief. End of story.

Yes, you can keep repeating that lie all that you want. The facts are that all of the scientific evidence supports the ages we have calculated. None supports creationism. I notice that you never give any scientific evidence of any sort. We know why you fail to do sl.

Change IN??? Who says there WAS any decay at all?? Proof?
Strawman. No change IN anything but the former state. NOT this one. How sweet it is!

No that was not a straw man argument. Do you even know what a straw man argument is? I was giving you a clue why you were wrong. Once again, if you want to claim that processes occurred at different rates in the past you have to give some sort of evidence for it. Not misinterpreted Biblical nonsense.

If you read the Bible you will see that is also describes the World as being flat. The Hebrew word for sphere is never used and all of the times is is described as round the context is that of a flat round surface, not of a round sphere. Why do you assume that the world is spherical and not flat? Your Bible disagrees with you on that point.

 

[dad]

No, scientific evidence was offered. You ignored it. All you offered were your misinterpretations of the Bible.

Untrue. The same state religion fraud is over.

That misinterpretation of the Bible of yours still is no excuse for your hypocrisy.

Quoting a verse is anything but what you falsely accuse here.

Nope, do your own homework.

You cannot clear up what you think he meant then. Fine with me. Don't post before thinking next time maybe?

Really? You know that little of science? Everywhere. A scientific theory "outranks" a scientific law because it has at least a partial explanation of an observation.

Blather.

A scientific law is merely an observation.

Nope. It is little men trying to put a name on God's rule for this state.

Here is one solid example. Einstein's theories of gravitation have replaced Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. For cruder calculations Newton still works, but if you need to really know what is happening you need to apply Einstein.

Nope. If you really know, then Einstein is an also ran runt.

The facts are that all of the scientific evidence supports the ages we have calculated.

In their pond dreams.

None supports creationism.

All records do.

I notice that you never give any scientific evidence of any sort. We know why you fail to do sl.

For what? You thought the future should have present state science evidence?? (or the past or the spiritual?)

No that was not a straw man argument. Do you even know what a straw man argument is? I was giving you a clue why you were wrong. Once again, if you want to claim that processes occurred at different rates in the past you have to give some sort of evidence for it. Not misinterpreted Biblical nonsense.

I don't claim different present state decay! I posit NO present state, period.

If you read the Bible you will see that is also describes the World as being flat.

False. Old wives tale.

The Hebrew word for sphere is never used and all of the times is is described as round the context is that of a flat round surface, not of a round sphere. Why do you assume that the world is spherical and not flat? Your Bible disagrees with you on that point.

So how would there be a circle of the earth, if it was flat?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And dad is once again defeated. How many points did he get right in his last tirade? I count zero.

Here is a simple question for dad:

What is more accurate when it comes to gravity: Newton's Law or Einstein's Theory?

There is only one correct answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

dad, when you get to be so incredibly wrong as you have on this site there get to be too many posts to respond to. So let's take them one at a time. I will start with your last claim:

So how would there be a circle of the earth, if it was flat?

A flat disc would look circular. In fact if you were far enough from the edge of a flat Earth you would see a circle no matter what shape it had. The atmosphere is almost transparent, but after a couple of hundred miles even air is "thick".

 

[dad]

And dad is once again defeated. How many points did he get right in his last tirade? I count zero.

Here is a simple question for dad:

What is more accurate when it comes to gravity: Newton's Law or Einstein's Theory?

There is only one correct answer.

Neither. Gravity is a temporal feature of a state so insignificant it will pass forever.

 

[Mikecpking]

<edit>

It is well known that the chemical elements which are not formed in the normal fusion processes in stars can be produced in supernova events. This has been observed.

It is not about 'taking sides', it is simply IMOH observations of God's creative power.

 

[newbeliever02072005]

mod hat on


This thread has been cleaned - again.
If there is any further flaming it will be permanently closed.




mod hat off