Copying and pasting is allowed, acting as if it's your post in your own words and or congratulating someone for copying and pasting really is not the way to 'greatness' is my point. That quote he keeps posting is on hundreds of religious pages, straight from the supporters of creationism. You're free to believe what you wish, science however does not back it up. Not to forget the bible is not in it's original form, many things have lost their meaning PLUS so often we are told not to take things literally when they are 'bad' but in this instance we should take it literally. I find that more than a bit disingenuous. You may have just got here but you immediately went after to spank homebiz on the ass for a post directed at me, then right after went after a post I made which makes me conclude you have a different reason here than actually debating the topic at hand. Further more you sounded like you did not know the facts of the matter
Well, since we are pointing out problems, Even when you try to make any type of a reasonable point, you have to somehow spew your token portion of venom, just to be certain that you still offend everyone you meet.
This is a brilliant example of the flaw endemic to creationism, and why I do not want a VP espousing its teaching in science curriculum. Creationism has come to be re-packaged as "Intelligent Design," and intelligent design rests on a classic tautology: Against this tautological, flawed premise, evolutionary theory approaches evidence by scientific method. Beyond the tautological flaw endemic to "intelligent design," the other flaw is one of confusing static observation with dynamic processes: In other words, observing what is a dynamic process, that doesn't even occur in orderly, rhythmic sequences - with a lens that takes a snapshot. It's much like taking a picture of a competitive swimmer moments after the start gun fires, where the picture freezes the swimmer mid-air. To argue the swimmer moves from the starting block to the water and then swims is tossed out, by the above flawed logic, because a snapshot shows a swimmer in the air. So, of course, swimmers fly, they don't swim. The problem with this "dismissal" of evolution must also "condemn" the science of archaeology: both use principles based on known science to explain phenomena buried - and non-manipulable because of it - in the past. Nevertheless, we are moving towards an ability to see "evolution" - and by this, I mean, speciation, not just adaptive changes - in action. A simplified version of what happens in the wild: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VBDefiningSpeciation.shtml And the experiments themselves (as well as other models of speciation). Stox mentioned these, and I had seen them previously (nod to Berkeley, my alma mater): http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_45 The notion that somehow creationism and evolutionary theory are on the same plane in terms of scientific merit is ridiculous. Creationism has no place in a science curriculum, because it does not use science to arrive at its (tautological) conclusions.
Well, he cited the source and gave proper credit. It's at the top. Congrats were given because I thought is was great content. I see that you don't agree. I doubt that I could ever win you over, so I have to let it go. Yeah... Even worse than that (but on another subject) I hate preachers that take one verse from one book and another verse from another book and so on, in justification of some point they are trying to make. Grrrrr!!! I agree with most of what you say, but science doesn't leave room for God in the process. I believe in Evolution also, just not as the origin of life. Ahh... Yeah I see that. I should have quoted his earlier reference. Sorry. When I disagree with you, I won't be so chicken, OK? Hmmm... Well, I think I understand the subject matter, but maybe I just missed that inner warmth that you and HomeBiz were sharing.
Yeah, OK, work with me here. You started with a reasonable talking point. "Most christians don't believe everything in the bible is factual. Most, Well, The intellectually honest ones, think they are allegorical stories used a metaphors to make a point. I mean seriously, What kind of person believes in a talking snake?" At this point we could possible have a conversation. But no... "Your problem is that you value faith over reason. it's a waste of a brain." Oh, make no mistake, your hatred is plain for all to see. You would be easier to talk to, argue with, and maybe even laugh with with if you just dropped the hate. Case in point: That's was just plain funny. Then you followed with a point. Great post. Anyway, take it for what it's worth.
Creation and evolution are both faith based with no facts. Here are some facts. Both written by man The bible The Bible is estimated to have been printed five billion times since 1815. Since 1999 over 30 million Bibles are sold each year
Hell, I know, man, of course. Although there is that pesky thing about "ink" being used wherever writing is printed on a book, and circulation doesn't really help to discern truth from fiction: No, not equating the Bible to Mein Kampf, in any way. Merely marveling at the nadir to which any semblance of reason and logic has fallen of late in this section of the forum.
The exact opposite is true. Wrong as usual Are you serious? theory defined Evolution is based on a guess or propositions and I do not need a Berkley, Kosovo, or Harvard degree to see how false the argument of evolution is and that evolution has no scientific merit. The argument presented is ridiculous. Agnostic views should not be taught as fact, evolution is faith based. Let me repeat it. Evolution is faith base and should not be taught. Now think about it and let it digest. How many ancient cities that were talked about in the bible have been discovered by archeologist? Are archeologist scientist? In the study of archeology in schools in Africa, Middle East and India, what is one of the books that is studied as fact based on archeological findings from those areas? Go ahead and say it. Creation cannot be proved and evolution never happened. Many parts of the bible have been proved and more parts of bible will be proved in the future. The bible has more historical facts than the history books being used in classrooms today. It is obvious that Palin is correct that Creationism should be taught in the Classroom by the absurd arguments some people are presenting over a guess.
Brother, I'm not the one that said that because both evolutionary theory and the Bible were printed in a book, they're the same in terms of "faith" v. "science;" not the one posting multiple, large, irrelevant images in lieu of a single, relevant and cogent thought. Please do not attempt to preach to me that I need to be the one slowing down, breathing, and considering the merits. In fact, I have considered quite a bit, my post above, including a significant amount of material dealing with the specifics of the issue, merely a small sample. You have simply ignored it, for reasons you will have to deal with. Though it is this kind of fingers-in-the-ear mentality that troubles me, with respect to the climate of our land.
Talk about fingers-in-the-ear mentality. How many ancient cities that were talked about in the bible have been discovered by archeologist? Are archeologist scientist? In the study of archeology in schools in Africa, Middle East and India, what is one of the books that is studied as fact based on archeological findings from those areas? Go ahead and say it.
Homebiz, it really is difficult to continue when you have such muddied logic, in my opinion. One by one. I haven't disputed that the Bible contains history that has prompted archaeological digs; much like the Mayan temple ruins, for example, that have provided a fascinating entree into the ancient language of these people (to include a treasure trove of "The Life of Kings," - "Cracking the Maya Code, great series, by the way) these texts often have a wonderful mix of myth, culture, history, and have prompted serious study. I myself use the term "historical Christ" quite a bit, as I find much in his message that I admire. It wouldn't be "historical Christ" if I didn't believe the Bible contains the "historical." Uh, yes. Hence the stem "-ology" in archaeology, from logos, or study, and -"arch," ancient/old/archaic. Wiki is, well, maybe a decent stop if you had a concern over what something is, prior to stepping in it deeply with posting. Or, if you'd prefer, the dictionary isn't bad. I have no idea, never having studied archaeology in Africa, Middle East and India. Did you have an idea? Homebiz, look. I don't like doing this, but if you are going to seriously contend that those who have done the work - who have researched, in this instance, evolutionary theory, for example - if you're going to dismiss it all as "evolution is based on faith and not scientific inquiry," with a kind of "I'm right, you're wrong, as always," then you should be prepared to defend your view with substance and fact. And if you can't manage more than the claptrap above - that because evolutionary theory is, uh, printed on paper, much like the Bible, they "both are faith-based," or fail to look the word "archaeology" up in the dictionary, then, well, I'm sorry, man, but you earn the embarrassment that comes from simply pointing the serious flaws out. Please stop, think a bit more, post on substance, and cease merely posting cut and pastes, or large, ,multiple, irrelevant images. You would gain so much more. Sincerely.
A theory is just a theory. Evolution has never happened. No animals evolved from another animal. That is insanity to think we came from something other than a human. Darwin made a theory, a guess that's it. You can come up with a guess that states we are descendants from raindrops or from anything and it will be just a theory.
A theory is based on evidence. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that animals evolved from more primitive life. As much as your defence of Creation is commendable to me as a Christian, it is absurd to me as a scientist. Evolution is a fact. Get used to it.
Casually, last night I watched "Jesus Camp". Now I see where some posters came from, and why reasoning seems such an unreachable feat for them.
Homebiz, your post above amounts to: "Because it is a working theory, it explains nothing." Whereas, as many here have tried to help point out to you, this is how logic works - you move from the known to the unknown by logical inquiry. Granted, it isn't as easy as a thunderbolt that strikes one down, and says, "Lo! Truth!," but it's what we have as human beings, curious about nature. In my opinion, amounts to "nahnahanahnahnah," or, "I refuse to deal with whatever substantive merits have been presented." Which is fine, as a matter of faith, but in terms of approaching science, a mere "well....you're WRONG!" doesn't hold much water, my friend. Actually, no, that's not it. Darwin's theory was the springboard for an entire world of inquiry, to include punctuationalism and other "houses" of scientific inquiry. Which is how science works, again. I don't have an issue with your faith. I have an issue with your faith - devolving, eventually, as above, to "nahnananananana, you're wrong!" - being the basis for my child's science education.
You are confusing adaptation and evolving. We have breed cows to produce better meat over the last 200 years. That is adapting. If I took a street in Fallujah and saw 50 machine guns nest I would circle use a different street and aqure the targets from a different route. That is adapting. We adapt. We do not evolve.
And, though I have to admit after awhile it does gets really tiresome to try, you are ignoring that we have already specifically dealt with the distinction between "adaptation" and "speciation", in this thread alone. (A false dichotomy, actually, since it's all adaptation). ***** A very personal statement: I get depressed over the breadth of ignorance I see, and I guess this Palin choice, and the reasons given by her apologists, has hit home with me. I'm either totally wrong, on the perimeter of reality, or we've chosen, as a country, to simply stop thinking as a people. If right, I don't judge it, but I would have hoped that in today's world, we'd have a lot more going on. I'm not trashing Homebiz, though I'm sure this statement will come off as so to many; I am truly sad that such a mindset has as much an audience as it seems to have in today's America, which is the only country I can speak to with any fair degree of personal experience.
@npt "The notion that somehow creationism and evolutionary theory are on the same plane in terms of scientific merit is ridiculous. Creationism has no place in a science curriculum, because it does not use science to arrive at its (tautological) conclusions." Both are faith based. show me the monkey