How much longer?

willubraptured2 said:

Where is the fossil record that proves evolution as fact?

Click to expand...

What they're not revealing to you is that there is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process, which produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago. All they have are guesses and suppositions.

DDan said:

No unfortunately they don't, how many children will be paying the price of being raised by creationists?
They even have Muslim madrasas here, creationists can see the indoctrination and damage being done by Muslim madrasas but they can't see the indoctrination and damage being done by creationism, religions obviously make fools of everyone.

People should be arguing about reality not myths.

Click to expand...

What is reality to a bag of chemicals?

justlookinla said:

What is reality to a bag of chemicals?

Click to expand...

What is reality to someone who deludes himself into thinking he knows what other people think of themselves? Define delusion my friend, then look up the parimeters that Christ put up for us and when he said we should walk away.

Is this the way Jesus ministered to others? Making assumptions of others and the placing that out as if it were a suit others need to wear because it suits you for them to do so.

AHH who-stole-my-name said:

What is reality to someone who deludes himself into thinking he knows what other people think of themselves? Define delusion my friend, then look up the parimeters that Christ put up for us and when he said we should walk away.

Is this the way Jesus ministered to others? Making assumptions of others and the placing that out as if it were a suit others need to wear because it suits you for them to do so.

Click to expand...

Maybe they believe they're more than a sack of chemicals? Why on earth would they believe that?

justlookinla said:

Maybe they believe they're more than a sack of chemicals? Why on earth would they believe that?

Click to expand...

Why would they not?

You seem to think they should reduce themselves down to what you supose you would be without God. That's your opinion and your burden to carry, not theirs. This is called projecting and no one besides yourself is shackled to this image.

AHH who-stole-my-name said:

Why would they not?

You seem to think they should reduce themselves down to what you supose you would be without God. That's your opinion and your burden to carry, not theirs. This is called projecting and no one besides yourself is shackled to this image.

Click to expand...

I'm sure they'd have to answer, but nevertheless the question remains. Why would they believe themselves to be more than a sack of chemicals? Simply because you aren't comfortable with the question doesn't mean it's not a valid question.

justlookinla said:

What they're not revealing to you is that there is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process, which produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago. All they have are guesses and suppositions.

Click to expand...

Thanks..I know, that was my point

DDan said:

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

Click to expand...

For as long as Atheism is. That's the wonderful spirit of freedom isn't it.

The difference as far as alleged damage is concerned is, creationism arrives as a faith based teaching that has God, creator of all that exists, behind it.
Whereas evolution claims primordial ooze changed into something upright and conscious with opposable thumbs and a conscious intellect on a planet, in a solar system, in a galaxy that came into being because something went bang.
And while atheist evolution has no answer for what it was that went bang, or what created those properties that were able to go bang and then give birth to all that exists in all places of existence, atheist evolution theorizes whatever that was it wasn't God.
All things came from nothing in the beginning that orchestrated something that was able to go bang and create all things.
And atheists laugh at the religious that look at all things and say what amounts to God-did-it. Because something banged but we don't know what went bang or how bang-able properties got there to go bang in the first place, is an intellectually superior theory to faith.

DDan said:

Yes but I have heard that people don't only believe it they act on it to the detriment of their children and their communities.

Click to expand...

If people want to teach their children this stuff, that is their choice.

The bottom line is though, when children get exposed to the real world and are educated, most drop these types of beliefs like a bad habit.

In fact, ignorance and denial of well evidenced science, is one of the major reasons young people leave certain religious beliefs.

DDan said:

How about Nazism would that also be allowed? would you defend someone's right to be a Nazi?

Click to expand...

Sure, as long as they are not infringing on the rights of others.

Loudmouth said:

Many?

"Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent. "
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

Also, you never addressed what I said. If scientists are saying that a fossil falsifies the theory of evolution, lets see that fossil. From what I have seen, all of the fossils fit the prediction of a nested hierarchy.

Click to expand...

I offer the following from a brief search of the web. I think it states rather succinctly my point.

As one source states: “The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is ‘the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas,’ according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give ‘no satisfactory answer’ to why no fossils had been discovered. Today’s scientists are none the wiser” (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe , 1982, pp. 26-27).

Question: If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world’s continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.

It’s like finding an exquisite watch on the seashore and yet never finding any previous primitive models of the watch on earth. If you reasoned as an evolutionist, you would deny there was a need for a watchmaker at all, maintaining that time, water, sand, minerals and actions of the elements are sufficient to producing a fully functional watch that runs. This is part of the reason it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator!

Further important evidence from the fossil record is the absence of transitional forms between species. Darwin was concerned that the thousands of intermediate stages between creatures needed to prove his theory were not in evidence, but he expected they would eventually be found. Yet those thousands of missing transitional forms are still missing!

Another reference explains: “If throughout past ages life was actually drifting over in one continual stream from one form to another, it is to be expected that as many samples of the intermediate stages between species should be discovered in fossil condition as of the species themselves … All should be in a state of flux. But these missing links are wanting. There are no fossils of creatures whose scales were changing into feathers or whose feet were changing into wings, no fossils of fish getting legs or of reptiles getting hair. The real task of the geological evolutionist is not to find ‘the’ missing link, as if there were only one. The task is to find those thousands upon thousands of missing links that connect the many fossil species with one another” (Byron Nelson, After Its Kind , 1970, pp. 60-62).

The absence of transitional forms is an insurmountable hurdle for theistic evolutionists as well.

justlookinla said:

I'm sure they'd have to answer, but nevertheless the question remains. Why would they believe themselves to be more than a sack of chemicals? Simply because you aren't comfortable with the question doesn't mean it's not a valid question.

Click to expand...

Are you going to contribute to our conversation with something akin to responce to what I just posted?

And please don't use this Politically correct terminology of comfort. I've came up against much more than the delustions that you wish to place on people.

I've asked you a question, which you have conveniantly sidestepped and tossed out a red herring in order for you to facilitate your escape from responding to it and here you are saying others have to honor your querries.

crjmurray said:

Can you provide evidence as to why you have that understanding? Or are you blatantly saying that you have no intention to back up your statements?

Click to expand...

See post #111.

willubraptured2 said:

See post #111.

Click to expand...

I thought you said you could show me a scientist that would laugh at us for saying evolution is well founded?

justlookinla said:

Maybe they believe they're more than a sack of chemicals? Why on earth would they believe that?

Click to expand...

AHH who-stole-my-name said:

Why would they not?

You seem to think they should reduce themselves down to what you supose you would be without God. That's your opinion and your burden to carry, not theirs. This is called projecting and no one besides yourself is shackled to this image.

Click to expand...

justlookinla said:

I'm sure they'd have to answer, but nevertheless the question remains. Why would they believe themselves to be more than a sack of chemicals? Simply because you aren't comfortable with the question doesn't mean it's not a valid question.

Click to expand...

AHH who-stole-my-name said:

Are you going to contribute to our conversation with something akin to responce to what I just posted?

And please don't use this Politically correct terminology of comfort. I've came up against much more than the delustions that you wish to place on people.

I've asked you a question, which you have conveniantly sidestepped and tossed out a red herring in order for you to facilitate your escape from responding to it and here you are saying others have to honor your querries.

Click to expand...

If one were to view themselves as a product of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a life form of long ago, an evolved sack of chemicals, one would have to attribute the view that they're more than that to some process, some cause. Their existence is owed solely to a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless process and yet, if they believe themselves of having morals, values, empathy, they would have to identify the source for those attributes. Are they simply arrangements of synapses in the brain....if so, how was that arrangement produced, and more importantly they're still no more than a sack of chemicals.

So, you asked, "why would they not". There, my friend is a short and simple answer.

crjmurray said:

I thought you said you could show me a scientist that would laugh at us for saying evolution is well founded?

Click to expand...

Darwinist evolution isn't well founded. It has a bazillion guesses and suppositions.

crjmurray said:

I thought you said you could show me a scientist that would laugh at us for saying evolution is well founded?

Click to expand...

I notice that you didn't respond to the context of my post but only want to see a list of scientists that don't support evolution. I don't think that forwards the debate, despite the fact that a few were quoted in the post. I've invested more time in this post than I intended and am done.

willubraptured2 said:

I notice that you didn't respond to the context of my post but only want to see a list of scientists that don't support evolution. I don't think that forwards the debate, despite the fact that a few were quoted in the post. I've invested more time in this post than I intended and am done.

Click to expand...

Bye

justlookinla said:

If one were to view themselves as a product of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a life form of long ago, an evolved sack of chemicals, one would have to attribute the view that they're more than that to some process, some cause. Their existence is owed solely to a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless process and yet, if they believe themselves of having morals, values, empathy, they would have to identify the source for those attributes. Are they simply arrangements of synapses in the brain....if so, how was that arrangement produced, and more importantly they're still no more than a sack of chemicals.

So, you asked, "why would they not". There, my friend is a short and simple answer.

Click to expand...

Yes, I asked and that was already answered. This idea that one would have to believe in what you believe in to have a sense of purpose or destiny is ridiculous. It's like someone who defines themselves by wither they had parents that stayed together or were adopted.

Certainly we know that we were created, but that's not a essential part of the lives of others and they need not report to you on anything that they wish not to. this is one of the freedoms that god gave to us that you have no authority to depose.

AHH who-stole-my-name said:

Yes, I asked and that was already answered. This idea that one would have to believe in what you believe in to have a sense of purpose or destiny is ridiculous. It's like someone who defines themselves by wither they had parents that stayed together or were adopted.

Click to expand...

I haven't said that one would have to believe in what I believe in. My question was concerning contrary views on one's existence.

Certainly we know that we were created,

Click to expand...

Some believe that, some don't. The question is about the views of those who don't.

but that's not a essential part of the lives of others and they need not report to you on anything that they wish not to. this is one of the freedoms that god gave to us that you have no authority to depose.

Click to expand...

Of course one doesn't have to enter into discussion concerning one's view of their existence. Since this is a forum concerning creation and evolution, the source and meaning of one's existence is an integral part of the discussion though.