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.
Yet you find nothing wrong with indoctrinating your children into your personal religious beliefs?We did learn creation in religious ed class (but most of us had learnt it at home before)
In science class we were taught evolution, and anybody religious was allowed to leave the room i while we discussed it if they wished (2 jehovas witnesses left the room).
I stayed in the room, and actually got an A in science, did me no harm to learn these 'facts'. I still believe in Creationism
I think all children should be given both sides of the story. (Though it feels wrong teaching my kids evolution, so I havent, they will learn it in school)
You made a mistake. ToE is the only scientific theory we are aware of that explains the diversity ...etc.
We did learn creation in religious ed class (but most of us had learnt it at home before)
In science class we were taught evolution, and anybody religious was allowed to leave the room i while we discussed it if they wished (2 jehovas witnesses left the room).
I stayed in the room, and actually got an A in science, did me no harm to learn these 'facts'. I still believe in Creationism
I think all children should be given both sides of the story. (Though it feels wrong teaching my kids evolution, so I havent, they will learn it in school)
We did learn creation in religious ed class (but most of us had learnt it at home before)
In science class we were taught evolution, and anybody religious was allowed to leave the room i while we discussed it if they wished (2 jehovas witnesses left the room).
I stayed in the room, and actually got an A in science, did me no harm to learn these 'facts'. I still believe in Creationism
I think all children should be given both sides of the story. (Though it feels wrong teaching my kids evolution, so I havent, they will learn it in school)
Actually the inadequacy of chance and necessity is not support for Darwinian evolution.Im kind of curious what you mean, both sides of the story.
Creationism is a story, which is told and retold, but has no actual data, no facts or evidence of any sort to support it.
Evolution is a scientific theory, which has a vast body of evidence / facts / data to support it.
They are hardly comparable as in "both sides of the story"!
Yet you find nothing wrong with indoctrinating your children into your personal religious beliefs?
Where did I say I was indoctrinating my Children?
They have a Bible story book, they hear the stories, I do not state they must believe such and such, I do not say this is fact, that is wrong etc.
It is up to them if they want to believe, I show them what I do, they do not HAVE to do anything, I don't drum anything into them, they are children.
When I was a kid, my parents hung the Periodic Table of the Elements in my room, and it gave me nightmares.They also have the history story book and the physics story book.
*snip PRATT list*
wow your desperateThey also have the history story book and the physics story book.
When I was a kid, my parents hung the Periodic Table of the Elements in my room, and it gave me nightmares.
They had to get rid of it.
Why do you put evolution in quotes?'evolution' should be taught correctly, if at all.
The theory of evolution is based on nothing but evidence. Also, DNA is not a blueprint, it is more like a recipe. You cannot look at the DNA code of an organism and figure out what it will look like.'evolution' There is doctrine of evolution, that leads to woolly theories of God-less origin and ancestral linear diversity that actually there is no evidence for, and then there is genetic variation, which has little to do with evolution but is actually evidence for God's creative power and ability to design a myriad of living creatures with the DNA blueprint to adapt.
I think you mean "Cambrian Explosion"... not like you don't know what you are talking about.. right?'evolution' For example, evolutionists can't explain the pre-cambrian explosion, because no 'ancestors' were found for all THOSE species.
A picture of a black Pepper Moth on a tree is not evidence of evolution. Black Pepper Moths have always been around, it isn't that some magically evolved from white ones. If you read the study critically you will see flaws in the observations.
'evolution' A picture of rock strata does not then prove that the rocks come from different ages. People like to label them as various ages. Geologists have a hard time accounting for DISCONFORMITIES - rocks that are out of place in their geological time scheme.
You certainly have not read the accounts, or you wouldn't be making such fallacious claims in the first palce. Miles apart! Please.'evolution' Another thing is Lucy's evidence was not misrepresented by creationists. If you read the account given by Lucy's discoverer, he himself ASSUMED Lucy's skeleton was all of one specimen, even when found miles apart.
This conclusion is based on many things, such as the position of the foramen magnum. I'm sure being an expert on human anatomy, that you already know what that is.. right?There is also detail as to her hip bones being 'unfused' so as to make it appear she walked upright- they had to smash it into place to make it appear she was upright. Also she didn't have any foot bones, so its rather assuming a lot of things to think she actually walked like a human did.
What are you talking about? Clothing has nothing to do with biological evolution.Human clothing is another speculation given by evolutionists. But it does not account for humans wearing clothing even in hot climates. Evolutionists cannot explain evolution as a basis for everything.
The fact that you had gill slits and a tail when you were an embryo says plenty.Haeckels' drawings don't actually give a shred of evidence for evolution. Since we have all have one thing in common, God, a creator who designed us, seeing similarties in the way organisms develop is not so strange. This does not mean one species evolved into another.
You are just making assertions. How about backing them up?Bacteria is another point. From time to time species change and new traits emerge. But this does not mean bacteria ever evolve into a completely different species. And those traits can disappear again. One can't go back in time and claim evolution they way Dawkins and Darwin suggest ie. that humans evolved from ape or ape-like creatures. This connection (trying to link one species to another in some sort of chain of progression) is a fallacy.
Whatever makes you think that transitionals are not species "in their own right?" Of course they are!The diagram of the evolution of plants also is such a fallacy. One simply cannot link differing species from another and claim this comes before that. Or this comes from that. Because transisitional fossils simply are not found. When fossils that appear to be missing links are found, it is not they are transitional at all but species in their own right.
The platypus is not itself a missing link, because it is a modern species. It does however have traits of both mammals (such as hair) and reptiles (such as leathery eggs). It is thus related to a "missing link."For example, a platypus isn't the missing link between mammals and reptiles. It is a unique creature. Likewise the archaeopteryx. Unfortunately for the archahoetperyx it became extinct. Extinction can be a result of predation or worldwide catastrophe (flood?) but not because species failed to adapt, which is often reiterated by evolutionists.
Of course... they are imperfect. Creationism, on the other hand, is a fallacy.Evolutionists like to sort things into diagrams. But these man-made diagrams distort the real picture.
Most fossils are buried in marine sediment, not floods. There are many other forms, such as those buried under dry conditions, such as in desert sediments. How does that happen with a global flood?Evolutionists can't explain where they actually get their fossil record from, and try to avoid the simplest explanation -sedimentation deposited from a worldwide Flood. Fossils require a quick burial to form, and burial by floodwaters is how we get most fossils.
Fables? Do you mean like a talking snake, a man made from dirt, and a woman made from a rib?Dawkin's ancestors tales, Lyell and Huxleys fanciful stories are complete fables and fabrications.
Read On the Origin of Species... there is plenty of evidence there. Where is yours?What point were they trying to make, with no evidence?
There are three mechanisms of evolution: Natural Selection, Genetic Drift and Gene Flow. None of them rely only on the "sheer will to reproduce and survive," though all organsims have this trait.That God wasn't in charge, that nothing was created, that all the diversity of life, for some reason, created ITSELF, designed itself, evolved itself, simply through sheer will to reproduce and survive.
If you are looking for a point in life, you need to look outside of science.But life we see isn't like that. It simply isn't true that the whole point of life according to evolutionist thinking is to survive and reproduce ourselves. There is something more to life than that. That is something the spiritual man knows, that the natural man cannot.
Wrong. Dendrochronology shows that trees have lived on earth for longer than 11,000 years.Carbon-dating is accurate to about 6000 years (roughly in sync with biblical timelimes). The oldest trees are dated to about 4000-9000 years. There is no evidence anything older than that.
Dendrochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaTrees from the same region will tend to develop the same patterns of ring widths for a given period. These patterns can be compared and matched ring for ring with trees growing in the same geographical zone and under similar climatic conditions. Following these tree-ring patterns from living trees back through time, chronologies can be built up, both for entire regions, and for sub-regions of the world. Thus wood from ancient structures can be matched to known chronologies (a technique called cross-dating) and the age of the wood determined precisely. Cross-dating was originally done by visual inspection, until computers were harnessed to do the statistical matching.
To eliminate individual variations in tree ring growth, dendrochronologists take the smoothed average of the tree ring widths of multiple tree samples to build up a ring history. This process is termed replication. A tree ring history whose beginning and end dates are not known is called a floating chronology. It can be anchored by cross-matching a section against another chronology (tree ring history) whose dates are known. Fully anchored chronologies which extend back more than 11,000 years exist for river oak trees from South Germany (from the Main and Rhine rivers) and pine from Northern Ireland.[3][4][5] Furthermore, the mutual consistency of these two independent dendrochronological sequences has been confirmed by comparing their radiocarbon and dendrochronological ages.[6] Another fully anchored chronology which extends back 8500 years exists for the bristlecone pine in the Southwest US (White Mountains of California).[7] In 2004 a new calibration curve INTCAL04 was internationally ratified for calibrated dates back to 26,000 Before Present (BP) based on an agreed worldwide data set of trees and marine sediments.
Carbon dating is not used for meteorites... other radioisotopes are used (see: Geologic Time: Age of the Earth). Of course, if you really read scientific journals, you would know this. Why are you implying that you have done so, when you clearly have not? Where do you imagine the date of 4.5 billion years comes from?Meterorite dating from radio-isotopes found in rocks is NOT carbon dating and is not reliable. So the 4.5 billion years is speculation, and if reading how they got to that figure you can see how dates that didn't conform to this number were thrown out. How the ratios conformed to years was never clearly explained. You can read about this in scientific journals.
So..let's throw out the confusion of God-less evolution and concentrate on the real science, the diversity of life reflecting God's creation.
Amen!
What will you do if your children declared that there is no God or if they declared in favour of Satan? What will you tell your children if they tell you that Science is above God?Where did I say I was indoctrinating my Children?
They have a Bible story book, they hear the stories, I do not state they must believe such and such, I do not say this is fact, that is wrong etc.
It is up to them if they want to believe, I show them what I do, they do not HAVE to do anything, I don't drum anything into them, they are children.
'evolution' should be taught correctly, if at all.
There is doctrine of evolution, that leads to woolly theories of God-less origin and ancestral linear diversity that actually there is no evidence for, and then there is genetic variation, which has little to do with evolution but is actually evidence for God's creative power and ability to design a myriad of living creatures with the DNA blueprint to adapt.
For example, evolutionists can't explain the pre-cambrian explosion, because no 'ancestors' were found for all THOSE species.
A picture of a black Pepper Moth on a tree is not evidence of evolution. Black Pepper Moths have always been around, it isn't that some magically evolved from white ones. If you read the study critically you will see flaws in the observations.
A picture of rock strata does not then prove that the rocks come from different ages. People like to label them as various ages. Geologists have a hard time accounting for DISCONFORMITIES - rocks that are out of place in their geological time scheme.
Another thing is Lucy's evidence was not misrepresented by creationists. If you read the account given by Lucy's discoverer, he himself ASSUMED Lucy's skeleton was all of one specimen, even when found miles apart. There is also detail as to her hip bones being 'unfused' so as to make it appear she walked upright- they had to smash it into place to make it appear she was upright. Also she didn't have any foot bones, so its rather assuming a lot of things to think she actually walked like a human did.
Human clothing is another speculation given by evolutionists. But it does not account for humans wearing clothing even in hot climates. Evolutionists cannot explain evolution as a basis for everything.
Haeckels' drawings don't actually give a shred of evidence for evolution. Since we have all have one thing in common, God, a creator who designed us, seeing similarties in the way organisms develop is not so strange. This does not mean one species evolved into another.
Bacteria is another point. From time to time species change and new traits emerge. But this does not mean bacteria ever evolve into a completely different species. And those traits can disappear again. One can't go back in time and claim evolution they way Dawkins and Darwin suggest ie. that humans evolved from ape or ape-like creatures. This connection (trying to link one species to another in some sort of chain of progression) is a fallacy.
The diagram of the evolution of plants also is such a fallacy. One simply cannot link differing species from another and claim this comes before that. Or this comes from that. Because transisitional fossils simply are not found. When fossils that appear to be missing links are found, it is not they are transitional at all but species in their own right. For example, a platypus isn't the missing link between mammals and reptiles. It is a unique creature. Likewise the archaeopteryx. Unfortunately for the archahoetperyx it became extinct. Extinction can be a result of predation or worldwide catastrophe (flood?) but not because species failed to adapt, which is often reiterated by evolutionists.
Evolutionists like to sort things into diagrams. But these man-made diagrams distort the real picture.
Evolutionists can't explain where they actually get their fossil record from, and try to avoid the simplest explanation -sedimentation deposited from a worldwide Flood. Fossils require a quick burial to form, and burial by floodwaters is how we get most fossils.
Dawkin's ancestors tales, Lyell and Huxleys fanciful stories are complete fables and fabrications. What point were they trying to make, with no evidence? That God wasn't in charge, that nothing was created, that all the diversity of life, for some reason, created ITSELF, designed itself, evolved itself, simply through sheer will to reproduce and survive. But life we see isn't like that. It simply isn't true that the whole point of life according to evolutionist thinking is to survive and reproduce ourselves. There is something more to life than that. That is something the spiritual man knows, that the natural man cannot.
Carbon-dating is accurate to about 6000 years (roughly in sync with biblical timelimes). The oldest trees are dated to about 4000-9000 years. There is no evidence anything older than that. Meterorite dating from radio-isotopes found in rocks is NOT carbon dating and is not reliable. So the 4.5 billion years is speculation, and if reading how they got to that figure you can see how dates that didn't conform to this number were thrown out. How the ratios conformed to years was never clearly explained. You can read about this in scientific journals.
So..let's throw out the confusion of God-less evolution and concentrate on the real science, the diversity of life reflecting God's creation.
Amen!
Well I do have some questions. Why is evolution so stupid? Whats the point of it?
Why can't evolutionists admit to existence of God? Why do they think the world is 4 billion years old based on a mathematical formulas based on radiation decay from a meterorite? Why did they chuck out all the data that didn't fit in with their theory? What practical use is evolution? Why do evolutionists confuse variation within species with variation BETWEEN species. What evidence is there for uniformatism? Why do evolutionist think ancestors can be different species? Why do evolutionists have a evolutionary tree exclusively for animals but have nothing for plants? Why did evolutionists cover up frauds for years eg piltdown man? Why do Lyell, huxley and Darwin's theories have in common with Kipling's 'Just So' stories? Why does the evolutionary story sound just like science fiction? Why does Richard Dawkins make up animals in his 'Ancestor's tale'? Isn't a meme another figment of Dawkin's imagination?
How do you explain the evolution of sex? Wouldn't it have been just easier if sex wasn't invented and we just divided/cloned ourselves for survival of the fittest? Why was the Pepper Moth study fabricated for school textbooks? The same with heckel's drawings? Aren't the names for the rocks divisions simply arbitrary? Why can't one find rock strata that reflects the diagrams in textbooks? Why was lucy's femur twisted to fit in with the idea that she walked upright? How could scientists be sure that all the bones belonged to one body when they were found miles apart? How do evolutionists explain humans wearing clothing? How do they explain why we would think we have souls if we didn't have any? Why can't the natural man understand spiritual things? Does time have a beginning? If not, explain why time is circular. Why is it that when genes mutate there is always a loss off function and not an add of function? Why do evolutionist think that mutation leads to more functions if it is demonstrated the opposite?
I could go on..but if there is some to start with. Have fun trying to explain yourself.
A very loaded question. So the ToE is stupid. You have declared it that way, the only question that needs to be answered is why. But the stupidity of it is already stated as a fact.Why is evolution so stupid?
Another fallacious question. And a false on for two reasons. First, the validity of the ToE does NOT depend on the religion of the scientists. Does the theory of relativity fails, just because Einstein was jewish? Is the raman effect real, just because Chandrasekara Raman was hindu? No. At least not in the real world.Why can't evolutionists admit to existence of God?
This is a pearl, I didn't want to miss.Why do they think the world is 4 billion years old based on a mathematical formulas based on radiation decay from a meterorite?
So again a very loaded question. Goodbook has stated -and who are we to question her statements? - that scientists have chuck out embarassing data. Thanks heavens, lady Goodbook has knowledge of this data and will be so kind as to publish this chucked data, won't you, Goodbook? Don't hesitate. You can be portrayed as the new Jesus who cleansed the Temple of the Merchants. See yourself cleansing the universities of these fellons who hide embarassing data for the world. I'm really keen to see this happen.Why did they chuck out all the data that didn't fit in with their theory?
SN1987A. Next question.What evidence is there for uniformatism?
Again, GB. You state as a fact something and ask why. While the stated fact isn't true. It took me 5 seconds to find an evolutionary tree for plants. It shows - again - the huge gap in your knowledge.Why do evolutionists have a evolutionary tree exclusively for animals but have nothing for plants?
Why do grammar English creationists fail?Why do Lyell, huxley and Darwin's theories have in common with Kipling's 'Just So' stories?
So again, you are stating -without any knowledge on the amtter - the dishonesty of the peoplein the field.Why did evolutionists cover up frauds for years eg piltdown man?Why was the Pepper Moth study fabricated for school textbooks?
...Why was lucy's femur twisted to fit in with the idea that she walked upright?
...How could scientists be sure that all the bones belonged to one body when they were found miles apart?
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?