Challenge to Creationists/IDers

[Lonestar_logic]

Not what EVERY university in Texas states Lonestar:
Baylor University || Department of Biology || Statement of Evolution

I should care what a liberal college says?

Fact is evolution is a theory, prove that it's not.

UT SAYS THE SAME THING.
Are they a liberal "college"?
Are ALL the colleges in Texas "liberal"?
As usual, you have nothing other than BELIEFS to stand on.
Baylor is a university Lonestar. You need to get out more often. There is not ONE college, university or community college in your entire state that does not teach evolution AS FACT.
But facts do not matter to you. You are an ideologue. Your religous ideology forces you to go by your beliefs and ignore all science that may conflict with it.
YOUR STATE university biology professors, 100 OF THEM FROM EVERY COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY IN YOUR STATE, wrote a letter complaining of "slipping into scientific illiteracy" when the head of the science curriclum for public schools was forced to resign for not remaining "neutral" on the question of evolution.
Lonestar would have us believe that EVERY science teacher in Texas is a liberal for believing evoultion is fact.

Yes I would think so, as most colleges are full of liberal professors.

Faith is all I need to stand on.

Evolution is theory that has not been proven. If you have the proof then let's see it.

Show evidence that all life rose from a common ancestor.

 

[hortysir]

Just as complexity of design isn't enough to convince you of a Creator, the randomness of the design isn't enough to convince there isn't One.

 

[konradv]

Just as complexity of design isn't enough to convince you of a Creator, the randomness of the design isn't enough to convince there isn't One.

Then what do IDers think they're going to be teaching in a science class? BTW, the discussion isn't whether or not there was some "Creator", but at what level the creation occurred. It does not appear that evolution was directed in any way that would make sense, unless you think God plays with our minds. "Lets bury these fossils and fool the mortals, Jesus me boy."

 

[konradv]

I should care what a liberal college says?

Fact is evolution is a theory, prove that it's not.

UT SAYS THE SAME THING.
Are they a liberal "college"?
Are ALL the colleges in Texas "liberal"?
As usual, you have nothing other than BELIEFS to stand on.
Baylor is a university Lonestar. You need to get out more often. There is not ONE college, university or community college in your entire state that does not teach evolution AS FACT.
But facts do not matter to you. You are an ideologue. Your religous ideology forces you to go by your beliefs and ignore all science that may conflict with it.
YOUR STATE university biology professors, 100 OF THEM FROM EVERY COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY IN YOUR STATE, wrote a letter complaining of "slipping into scientific illiteracy" when the head of the science curriclum for public schools was forced to resign for not remaining "neutral" on the question of evolution.
Lonestar would have us believe that EVERY science teacher in Texas is a liberal for believing evoultion is fact.

Yes I would think so, as most colleges are full of liberal professors.

Faith is all I need to stand on.

Evolution is theory that has not been proven. If you have the proof then let's see it.

Show evidence that all life rose from a common ancestor.

DNA proves it. You can use it to determine how far back different species diverged on the evolutionary tree. That is, unless you think God plays with our minds. Why would we have brains that tell us one thing, only to have it be the total opposite? Doesn't sound like a god I'd be worshipping.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Just as complexity of design isn't enough to convince you of a Creator, the randomness of the design isn't enough to convince there isn't One.

Well stated

 

[hortysir]

Just as complexity of design isn't enough to convince you of a Creator, the randomness of the design isn't enough to convince there isn't One.

Then what do IDers think they're going to be teaching in a science class? BTW, the discussion isn't whether or not there was some "Creator", but at what level the creation occurred. It does not appear that evolution was directed in any way that would make sense, unless you think God plays with our minds. "Lets bury these fossils and fool the mortals, Jesus me boy."

IDers aren't allowed to teach Creation in science class so take a Valium, dude.
Micro-evolution I can agree with.
Macro, or a single ancestor for all species? No.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

UT SAYS THE SAME THING.
Are they a liberal "college"?
Are ALL the colleges in Texas "liberal"?
As usual, you have nothing other than BELIEFS to stand on.
Baylor is a university Lonestar. You need to get out more often. There is not ONE college, university or community college in your entire state that does not teach evolution AS FACT.
But facts do not matter to you. You are an ideologue. Your religous ideology forces you to go by your beliefs and ignore all science that may conflict with it.
YOUR STATE university biology professors, 100 OF THEM FROM EVERY COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY IN YOUR STATE, wrote a letter complaining of "slipping into scientific illiteracy" when the head of the science curriclum for public schools was forced to resign for not remaining "neutral" on the question of evolution.
Lonestar would have us believe that EVERY science teacher in Texas is a liberal for believing evoultion is fact.

Yes I would think so, as most colleges are full of liberal professors.

Faith is all I need to stand on.

Evolution is theory that has not been proven. If you have the proof then let's see it.

Show evidence that all life rose from a common ancestor.

DNA proves it. You can use it to determine how far back different species diverged on the evolutionary tree. That is, unless you think God plays with our minds. Why would we have brains that tell us one thing, only to have it be the total opposite? Doesn't sound like a god I'd be worshipping.

While Evolutionists look only at the data that seems to be consistent with Evolutionism, looking at all the data shows that it is consistent with Genesis 1 rather than Evolutionism.

If plants and animals evolved, there would need to be thousands of transitional forms between known kinds of animals and plants; where are they?

How does order come from chaos? How can something come from nothing? How can randomness create intelligence?

You can line up plants and animals according to similarity and claim that proves evolution; I can do the same with things I find in my garage; does that mean they evolved too? If the first complex (they are all amazingly complex) cell popped into existence, by what mechanism did it pop? If it came into existence slowly, what are the steps? No one who looks at evolution with an open mind can accept it as a viable hypothesis.

Molecular Equidistance: The Echo of Discontinuity?

References

1.Jeanson, N. 2010. Literature Review: Molecular Data and the Tree of Life. Acts & Facts. 39 (12): 6.
2.Jeanson, N. 2011. Looking for Molecular Discontinuity: The Use of Sequence Alignments. Acts & Facts. 40 (1): 6.
3.Denton, M. 1985. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler.
4.The not-so-angry evolutionist. Cosmic Log. Interview with Richard Dawkins posted on cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com, accessed December 13, 2010.

 

[Gadawg73]

I should care what a liberal college says?

Fact is evolution is a theory, prove that it's not.

UT SAYS THE SAME THING.
Are they a liberal "college"?
Are ALL the colleges in Texas "liberal"?
As usual, you have nothing other than BELIEFS to stand on.
Baylor is a university Lonestar. You need to get out more often. There is not ONE college, university or community college in your entire state that does not teach evolution AS FACT.
But facts do not matter to you. You are an ideologue. Your religous ideology forces you to go by your beliefs and ignore all science that may conflict with it.
YOUR STATE university biology professors, 100 OF THEM FROM EVERY COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY IN YOUR STATE, wrote a letter complaining of "slipping into scientific illiteracy" when the head of the science curriclum for public schools was forced to resign for not remaining "neutral" on the question of evolution.
Lonestar would have us believe that EVERY science teacher in Texas is a liberal for believing evoultion is fact.

Yes I would think so, as most colleges are full of liberal professors.

Faith is all I need to stand on.

Evolution is theory that has not been proven. If you have the proof then let's see it.

Show evidence that all life rose from a common ancestor.

No, your claim is ALL biology professors are liberal if they teach evolution as fact.
So all biology professors must be liberal.
You are a quack.

 

[Gadawg73]

Yes I would think so, as most colleges are full of liberal professors.

Faith is all I need to stand on.

Evolution is theory that has not been proven. If you have the proof then let's see it.

Show evidence that all life rose from a common ancestor.

DNA proves it. You can use it to determine how far back different species diverged on the evolutionary tree. That is, unless you think God plays with our minds. Why would we have brains that tell us one thing, only to have it be the total opposite? Doesn't sound like a god I'd be worshipping.

While Evolutionists look only at the data that seems to be consistent with Evolutionism, looking at all the data shows that it is consistent with Genesis 1 rather than Evolutionism.

If plants and animals evolved, there would need to be thousands of transitional forms between known kinds of animals and plants; where are they?

How does order come from chaos? How can something come from nothing? How can randomness create intelligence?

You can line up plants and animals according to similarity and claim that proves evolution; I can do the same with things I find in my garage; does that mean they evolved too? If the first complex (they are all amazingly complex) cell popped into existence, by what mechanism did it pop? If it came into existence slowly, what are the steps? No one who looks at evolution with an open mind can accept it as a viable hypothesis.

Molecular Equidistance: The Echo of Discontinuity?

References

1.Jeanson, N. 2010. Literature Review: Molecular Data and the Tree of Life. Acts & Facts. 39 (12): 6.
2.Jeanson, N. 2011. Looking for Molecular Discontinuity: The Use of Sequence Alignments. Acts & Facts. 40 (1): 6.
3.Denton, M. 1985. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler.
4.The not-so-angry evolutionist. Cosmic Log. Interview with Richard Dawkins posted on cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com, accessed December 13, 2010.

What biology teacher teaches this?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

UT SAYS THE SAME THING.
Are they a liberal "college"?
Are ALL the colleges in Texas "liberal"?
As usual, you have nothing other than BELIEFS to stand on.
Baylor is a university Lonestar. You need to get out more often. There is not ONE college, university or community college in your entire state that does not teach evolution AS FACT.
But facts do not matter to you. You are an ideologue. Your religous ideology forces you to go by your beliefs and ignore all science that may conflict with it.
YOUR STATE university biology professors, 100 OF THEM FROM EVERY COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY IN YOUR STATE, wrote a letter complaining of "slipping into scientific illiteracy" when the head of the science curriclum for public schools was forced to resign for not remaining "neutral" on the question of evolution.
Lonestar would have us believe that EVERY science teacher in Texas is a liberal for believing evoultion is fact.

Yes I would think so, as most colleges are full of liberal professors.

Faith is all I need to stand on.

Evolution is theory that has not been proven. If you have the proof then let's see it.

Show evidence that all life rose from a common ancestor.

No, your claim is ALL biology professors are liberal if they teach evolution as fact.
So all biology professors must be liberal.
You are a quack.

Yes I believe most all college professors are liberal and doesn't matter really what they teach because it doesn't change their ideology. Oh and evolution is a theory, not a fact.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

DNA proves it. You can use it to determine how far back different species diverged on the evolutionary tree. That is, unless you think God plays with our minds. Why would we have brains that tell us one thing, only to have it be the total opposite? Doesn't sound like a god I'd be worshipping.

While Evolutionists look only at the data that seems to be consistent with Evolutionism, looking at all the data shows that it is consistent with Genesis 1 rather than Evolutionism.

If plants and animals evolved, there would need to be thousands of transitional forms between known kinds of animals and plants; where are they?

How does order come from chaos? How can something come from nothing? How can randomness create intelligence?

You can line up plants and animals according to similarity and claim that proves evolution; I can do the same with things I find in my garage; does that mean they evolved too? If the first complex (they are all amazingly complex) cell popped into existence, by what mechanism did it pop? If it came into existence slowly, what are the steps? No one who looks at evolution with an open mind can accept it as a viable hypothesis.

Molecular Equidistance: The Echo of Discontinuity?

References

1.Jeanson, N. 2010. Literature Review: Molecular Data and the Tree of Life. Acts & Facts. 39 (12): 6.
2.Jeanson, N. 2011. Looking for Molecular Discontinuity: The Use of Sequence Alignments. Acts & Facts. 40 (1): 6.
3.Denton, M. 1985. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler.
4.The not-so-angry evolutionist. Cosmic Log. Interview with Richard Dawkins posted on cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com, accessed December 13, 2010.

What biology teacher teaches this?

You forget how to read?

 

[Gadawg73]

Yes I would think so, as most colleges are full of liberal professors.

Faith is all I need to stand on.

Evolution is theory that has not been proven. If you have the proof then let's see it.

Show evidence that all life rose from a common ancestor.

No, your claim is ALL biology professors are liberal if they teach evolution as fact.
So all biology professors must be liberal.
You are a quack.

Yes I believe most all college professors are liberal and doesn't matter really what they teach because it doesn't change their ideology. Oh and evolution is a theory, not a fact.

Do you know the difference between scoentific theory and how they are tested by the scientific method and other non scientific theories?
Gravity is a theory. Go get on your roof and jump off head first onto the concrete and see if that theory is not fact also.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No, your claim is ALL biology professors are liberal if they teach evolution as fact.
So all biology professors must be liberal.
You are a quack.

Yes I believe most all college professors are liberal and doesn't matter really what they teach because it doesn't change their ideology. Oh and evolution is a theory, not a fact.

Do you know the difference between scoentific theory and how they are tested by the scientific method and other non scientific theories?
Gravity is a theory. Go get on your roof and jump off head first onto the concrete and see if that theory is not fact also.

Yes I understand theory and no amount of you changing the subject will change the theory of evolution into law.

 

[Gadawg73]

Yes I believe most all college professors are liberal and doesn't matter really what they teach because it doesn't change their ideology. Oh and evolution is a theory, not a fact.

Do you know the difference between scoentific theory and how they are tested by the scientific method and other non scientific theories?
Gravity is a theory. Go get on your roof and jump off head first onto the concrete and see if that theory is not fact also.

Yes I understand theory and no amount of you changing the subject will change the theory of evolution into law.

Name one test using the scientific method that evolution has failed.
Explain how scientific theory differs from all other theories.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Do you know the difference between scoentific theory and how they are tested by the scientific method and other non scientific theories?
Gravity is a theory. Go get on your roof and jump off head first onto the concrete and see if that theory is not fact also.

Yes I understand theory and no amount of you changing the subject will change the theory of evolution into law.

Name one test using the scientific method that evolution has failed.
Explain how scientific theory differs from all other theories.

Now you want me to school you?

Everything about evolutionary science is a scam.

For many years the medieval idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation. According to Webster, spontaneous generation is “the generation of living from nonliving matter … [it is taken] from the belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it.”

Simply stated, this means that under the proper conditions of temperature, time, place, etc., decaying matter simply turns into organic life. This simplistic idea dominated scientific thinking until 1846, when Louis Pasteur completely shattered the theory by his experiments. He exposed the whole concept as utter foolishness. Under controlled laboratory conditions, in a semi-vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying, nonliving matter. Reluctantly it was abandoned as a valid scientific issue. Today no reputable scientist tries to defend it on a demonstrable basis. That is why Webster says it is “now abandoned.” It never has been and never can be demonstrated in the test tube. No present process is observed that could support the idea of spontaneous generation. Obviously, if spontaneous generation actually did take place in the distant past to produce the first spark of life, it must be assumed that the laws that govern life had to be completely different from what they are now. But wait a minute! This won’t work either, because the whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that conditions on the earth have remained uniform throughout the ages.

How Evolution Failed the Science Test

 

[Gadawg73]

Yes I understand theory and no amount of you changing the subject will change the theory of evolution into law.

Name one test using the scientific method that evolution has failed.
Explain how scientific theory differs from all other theories.

Now you want me to school you?

Everything about evolutionary science is a scam.

For many years the medieval idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation. According to Webster, spontaneous generation is “the generation of living from nonliving matter … [it is taken] from the belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it.”

Simply stated, this means that under the proper conditions of temperature, time, place, etc., decaying matter simply turns into organic life. This simplistic idea dominated scientific thinking until 1846, when Louis Pasteur completely shattered the theory by his experiments. He exposed the whole concept as utter foolishness. Under controlled laboratory conditions, in a semi-vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying, nonliving matter. Reluctantly it was abandoned as a valid scientific issue. Today no reputable scientist tries to defend it on a demonstrable basis. That is why Webster says it is “now abandoned.” It never has been and never can be demonstrated in the test tube. No present process is observed that could support the idea of spontaneous generation. Obviously, if spontaneous generation actually did take place in the distant past to produce the first spark of life, it must be assumed that the laws that govern life had to be completely different from what they are now. But wait a minute! This won’t work either, because the whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that conditions on the earth have remained uniform throughout the ages.

How Evolution Failed the Science Test

Your link states that religous ideas should be taught in science class.
You are a quack.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Name one test using the scientific method that evolution has failed.
Explain how scientific theory differs from all other theories.

Now you want me to school you?

Everything about evolutionary science is a scam.

For many years the medieval idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation. According to Webster, spontaneous generation is “the generation of living from nonliving matter … [it is taken] from the belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it.”

Simply stated, this means that under the proper conditions of temperature, time, place, etc., decaying matter simply turns into organic life. This simplistic idea dominated scientific thinking until 1846, when Louis Pasteur completely shattered the theory by his experiments. He exposed the whole concept as utter foolishness. Under controlled laboratory conditions, in a semi-vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying, nonliving matter. Reluctantly it was abandoned as a valid scientific issue. Today no reputable scientist tries to defend it on a demonstrable basis. That is why Webster says it is “now abandoned.” It never has been and never can be demonstrated in the test tube. No present process is observed that could support the idea of spontaneous generation. Obviously, if spontaneous generation actually did take place in the distant past to produce the first spark of life, it must be assumed that the laws that govern life had to be completely different from what they are now. But wait a minute! This won’t work either, because the whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that conditions on the earth have remained uniform throughout the ages.

How Evolution Failed the Science Test

Your link states that religous ideas should be taught in science class.
You are a quack.

Your concession is duly noted.

 

[Gadawg73]

Hey Lonestar, I am looking at Premier Ranch out your way to hunt late this year. Is that near you? Buy you a beer and show you how us Georgia boys skin a buck. That place looks great and I have heard great things about the hill country out your way. I know Texas is like a damn country and huge so it may not be near you.

 

[Gadawg73]

Now you want me to school you?

Everything about evolutionary science is a scam.

For many years the medieval idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation. According to Webster, spontaneous generation is “the generation of living from nonliving matter … [it is taken] from the belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it.”

Simply stated, this means that under the proper conditions of temperature, time, place, etc., decaying matter simply turns into organic life. This simplistic idea dominated scientific thinking until 1846, when Louis Pasteur completely shattered the theory by his experiments. He exposed the whole concept as utter foolishness. Under controlled laboratory conditions, in a semi-vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying, nonliving matter. Reluctantly it was abandoned as a valid scientific issue. Today no reputable scientist tries to defend it on a demonstrable basis. That is why Webster says it is “now abandoned.” It never has been and never can be demonstrated in the test tube. No present process is observed that could support the idea of spontaneous generation. Obviously, if spontaneous generation actually did take place in the distant past to produce the first spark of life, it must be assumed that the laws that govern life had to be completely different from what they are now. But wait a minute! This won’t work either, because the whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that conditions on the earth have remained uniform throughout the ages.

How Evolution Failed the Science Test

Your link states that religous ideas should be taught in science class.
You are a quack.

Your concession is duly noted.

Not 4th quarter, not 4th and 1, no white towel in sight and the fat lady is not even warming up.
10-9.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Hey Lonestar, I am looking at Premier Ranch out your way to hunt late this year. Is that near you? Buy you a beer and show you how us Georgia boys skin a buck. That place looks great and I have heard great things about the hill country out your way. I know Texas is like a damn country and huge so it may not be near you.

Not near me but I have hunted that area quite a few times and you stand a good chance at getting a trophy buck. Good luck!