How much longer?

[Subduction Zone]

Lots of evidence for that too:

“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.” (Adolph Hitler, Speech- Reichstag, 1936)

“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of
the Almighty Creator.” (Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf. P46)

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so” (Adolph Hitler to General Gerhard Engel, 1941)

Correct, and the quotes that are used to claim that Hitler was not a Christian tend to come from one questionable source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_Table_Talk

 

[justlookinla]

Even if evolution is completely false how does that make creationism true? creationism is a belief based on an old story as are all religions.

Simply because they're old doesn't make them not true. Their falsity isn't dependent on age.

 

[Black Dog]

Is that why scientists think Hitler was a Christian?

With respect to your advice, or in spite of your advice?

Hitler was Christian, but I don't think it really matters. There are crazy people in every large group. Stalin was an atheist, but I don't think that really matters either.

Sorry for getting Off Topic.

 

[justlookinla]

Owned by Evolutionists, judged by Evolutionists, and if you dare insult or bring proof against their precious "Darwinian Evolution" dynasty there will be hell to pay and your funding will cease to exist.

True. Science will suffer because of the heavy bias against any view which doesn't include the Darwinist worldview, if it hasn't already.

 

[Black Dog]

How much longer do you think creationism will be tolerated in the US?

Who knows, but if too large a portion of the population believe in it, there will be repercussions. Science does not flourish in a theocratic society, and without science a society is going backwards. The USA is losing it's edge, and will continue to slip so long as a large portion of the population believe in creationism.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, I have issues with someone who knows very little about the science of biology or the theory of evolution, but accuses all those scientists of lying and using unfair tactics to protect those lies. Do you believe that an uninformed accusation such as this is virtuous?

I have issues with someone who uses "evolution" as a monolithic term when it's been shown over and over it's not.

 

[justlookinla]

Who knows, but if too large a portion of the population believe in it, there will be repercussions. Science does not flourish in a theocratic society, and without science a society is going backwards.

Science flourishes in a open environment without constraints of the various biases of other scientists.

 

[justlookinla]

Perhaps I shouldn't have matched her tone. Advice accepted.
However, bananas give me heartburn

No bananas. We're not cannibals!!

 

[DerelictJunction]

I have issues with someone who uses "evolution" as a monolithic term when it's been shown over and over it's not.

Since you replied to my post, I take it that you mean I was using evolution as a monolithic term in that post. Please explain what you mean by "monolithic term" and point out the things that I wrote which lead you to the conclusion that I was using it in such a way. Here is my entire post reprinted below:

Yes, I have issues with someone who knows very little about the science of biology or the theory of evolution, but accuses all those scientists of lying and using unfair tactics to protect those lies. Do you believe that an uninformed accusation such as this is virtuous?​

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

True. Science will suffer because of the heavy bias against any view which doesn't include the Darwinist worldview, if it hasn't already.

How has science suffered because of the theory of evolution?
Here is how it has thrived:

"Medical science is continually making rapid advances: new medications and treatments are developed and introduced at a rapid pace, but we can better take advantage of these advances by taking evolution into account.
Like all biological systems, both disease-causing organisms and their victims evolve. Understanding evolution can make a big difference in how we treat disease. The evolution of disease-causing organisms may outpace our ability to invent new treatments, but studying the evolution of drug resistance can help us slow it. Learning about the evolutionary origins of diseases may provide clues about how to treat them. And considering the basic processes of evolution can help us understand the roots of genetic diseases."
Source: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_01

You can click "Next" in the bottom right corner of the link if you care to learn why the understanding of evolution is important.

 

[justlookinla]

Since you replied to my post, I take it that you mean I was using evolution as a monolithic term in that post. Please explain what you mean by "monolithic term" and point out the things that I wrote which lead you to the conclusion that I was using it in such a way. Here is my entire post reprinted below:

Yes, I have issues with someone who knows very little about the science of biology or the theory of evolution, but accuses all those scientists of lying and using unfair tactics to protect those lies. Do you believe that an uninformed accusation such as this is virtuous?​

The is no unified theory of evolution. When one speaks of evolution, what view of evolution does one 'know very little about'? The view of evolution which medical researchers observe when doing pharmaceutical experimentation or the view of evolution which makes certain guesses and suppositions concerning the process which produced all life we observe today. (Two examples of 'evolution' not being a monolithic term.) Those are two very different views of evolution based on very different facts of evidence. One has evidence, based on the scientific method, the other doesn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have issues with someone who uses "evolution" as a monolithic term when it's been shown over and over it's not.

No, that is simply your error and poor reading comprehension on your part. If you can't understand what someone means by context then you should ask politely. Others can understand, don't blame others for your inability to understand a simple conversation.

 

[justlookinla]

How has science suffered because of the theory of evolution?
Here is how it has thrived:

"Medical science is continually making rapid advances: new medications and treatments are developed and introduced at a rapid pace, but we can better take advantage of these advances by taking evolution into account.
Like all biological systems, both disease-causing organisms and their victims evolve. Understanding evolution can make a big difference in how we treat disease. The evolution of disease-causing organisms may outpace our ability to invent new treatments, but studying the evolution of drug resistance can help us slow it. Learning about the evolutionary origins of diseases may provide clues about how to treat them. And considering the basic processes of evolution can help us understand the roots of genetic diseases."
Source: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_01

You can click "Next" in the bottom right corner of the link if you care to learn why the understanding of evolution is important.

That particular view of evolution is far different than the view of evolution which claims that only naturalistic mechanisms produced all life we observe today from an alleged life form (unknown) of long ago. Many do the 'switcheroo' thing you're attempting to do, point out medical research, which is based on actual scientific evidence (except when the scientific evidence is misinterpreted....then it's bad science with no evidence) and then 'switcheroo' to Darwinist evolution, another form of evolution which isn't based on the scientific method. Usually Darwinists try to keep the discussion in the realm of common ancestry while attempting to ignore the total lack of evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process of the production of all life we observe today from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.

 

[justlookinla]

No, that is simply your error and poor reading comprehension on your part. If you can't understand what someone means by context then you should ask politely. Others can understand, don't blame others for your inability to understand a simple conversation.

Point out what part I misunderstand.

 

[mickiio]

And I'll bet you don't really know why that is.
You also need to work on your knowledge of the classification system used by science for the living things on this planet.

We were kidding around trying to show how silly some of you evolutionist are...duh. However they ARE using pigs for transplants. Just sayin ;

How has science suffered because of the theory of evolution?
Here is how it has thrived:

"Medical science is continually making rapid advances: new medications and treatments are developed and introduced at a rapid pace, but we can better take advantage of these advances by taking evolution into account.
Like all biological systems, both disease-causing organisms and their victims evolve. Understanding evolution can make a big difference in how we treat disease. The evolution of disease-causing organisms may outpace our ability to invent new treatments, but studying the evolution of drug resistance can help us slow it. Learning about the evolutionary origins of diseases may provide clues about how to treat them. And considering the basic processes of evolution can help us understand the roots of genetic diseases."
Source: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_01

You can click "Next" in the bottom right corner of the link if you care to learn why the understanding of evolution is important.

The "evolution' you quote I have no problem with, nor would any other Creationist. It is a true science, verifiable, testable and believable. I take issues when you take that GOOD science and "extrapolate" it over "millions and millions of years" and say that time takes care of the problems we have.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

or the view of evolution which makes certain guesses and suppositions concerning the process which produced all life we observe today.

You mean hypothesis' that are then tested (Scientific method)?
For example: "If evolution is true, then based on what we see in the fossil record we should find a transitional from fish to the earliest tetrapods. Based on what we know about evolution, this fossil should be roughly 360 million years old. Lets take out a geological map to see what rocks this age are exposed....oh there is an island in Canada. Time to test our hypothesis by searching for this fossil" They found it, confirming their hypothesis.
You can learn about this more here: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik2.html

Scientists also test the hypothesis of common ancestry. This is tested by looking in the fossil record, DNA, human genome. The evidence here confirms the hypothesis. I don't think you understand the scientific method and how it's used. You twist the definition to support your world view. There aren't "Different" types of evolution. It's all evolution...you wrong about this and it's been pointed out to you on several occasions.

 

[justlookinla]

You mean hypothesis' that are then tested (Scientific method)?
For example: "If evolution is true, then based on what we see in the fossil record we should find a transitional from fish to the earliest tetrapods. Based on what we know about evolution, this fossil should be roughly 360 million years old. Lets take out a geological map to see what rocks this age are exposed....oh there is an island in Canada. Time to test our hypothesis by searching for this fossil" They found it, confirming their hypothesis.
You can learn about this more here: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik2.html

You're doing what you've been doing for quite a while now....and is common among those who hold to the faith-based view of Darwinism. You wish to discuss not the HOW, the process which Darwinism promotes with pseudo-scientific guesses and suppositions, but try to ignore that very important part of Darwinism.

Scientists also test the hypothesis of common ancestry.

Common ancestry can be tested for medical purposes without knowing one whit about the Darwinist common ancestry claim that a single life form was the father to both pine trees and humans.

This is tested by looking in the fossil record, DNA, human genome.

How do you test for the HOW, the process?

The evidence here confirms the hypothesis. I don't think you understand the scientific method and how it's used. You twist the definition to support your world view. There aren't "Different" types of evolution. It's all evolution...you wrong about this and it's been pointed out to you on several occasions.

One form of evolution is based on the scientific method (medical research), the other form of evolution is based on pseudo-science (Darwinism). Can't present it to you any simpler than that.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

The "evolution' you quote I have no problem with, nor would any other Creationist. It is a true science, verifiable, testable and believable. I take issues when you take that GOOD science and "extrapolate" it over "millions and millions of years" and say that time takes care of the problems we have.

Why is evolution in quotations?
It seems you are okay with the idea of microevolution when it benefits you (Vaccinations) but you can't wrap your mind around macroevolution.....which is simply the results of microevolution over millions and millions of years.

How does the knowledge of evolution over millions of years help us? Why do you think new drug studies are tested on rats?
Because we are more similar to rats than we are different. For example we are both mammals, both warm blooded, they eat everything we do. They also suffer from similar diseases humans do. They have similar organs, similar nervous system that works the same way, react similarly to injury or infection. Without the knowledge of evolution over millions of years, would we have any reason to think that testing on rats could help advance modern medicine?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Point out what part I misunderstand.

There seem to be two types of evolution for you. There is the evolution that you will admit exists, the ToE as used by medical researchers and as observed in speciation. And the ToE that you do not want to admit is real. Sorry, but it is all the same "evolution".

Once again, don't blame others for your own inability, or refusal, to understand.

 

[justlookinla]

Why is evolution in quotations?
It seems you are okay with the idea of microevolution when it benefits you (Vaccinations) but you can't wrap your mind around macroevolution.....which is simply the results of microevolution over millions and millions of years.

A claim unsupported by scientific evidence.