Actually, that was rather rude of me. My apologies, MRSX.Said1 said:Hardy, har, har.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually, that was rather rude of me. My apologies, MRSX.Said1 said:Hardy, har, har.
mom4 said:I hate to tell you, but you aren't one of the 144,000. Those spaces were all filled early last century. Anyway, those are all supposed to be Jews. Sorry.
The U.S. military isn't the only one with recruiting problems. The Army of the Lord is looking for a few good goyim. Could be your last chance...Said1 said:Hardy, har, har.
mrsx said:The U.S. military isn't the only one with recruiting problems. The Army of the Lord is looking for a few good goyim. Could be your last chance...
Adam and Eve were not the origin of man. An eternal, intelligent Creator was. The Laws of Thermodynamics show that the universe had a beginning, and therefore must have had a cause. God is that cause. The complexity of life and the existence of intelligence, itself show that God is intelligent.MissileMan said:If Adam and Eve were the first human beings on Earth as the bible claims, you don't think that should be the first chapter in every biology book under the heading "The origin of man"?
Evidence of genetic change over time does not necessarily equate evidence of the accuracy of biochemical evolution. This is Origins or Historical Science. We cannot observe or do repeated testing on history. What we can do is devise a theory or model, check the physical evidence around us, and determine which model the evidence best fits. The Biblical model includes a global flood, for which there is physical evidence. The macroevolution model explains this by "catastrophism" and "punctuated equilibrium." Same physical evidence, different explanations.Evidence of flooding does not necessarily equate evidence of biblical scientific accuracy.
Since all animals did not follow a single path, there probably was never a single trail. And erosion and other factors would probably have erased it by now if there was. I assume your question is really about animal dispersion after the release from the ark.For instance, if the story of Noah and the Great Flood are true, where is the trail that leads to all of the planets animals coming from a single point of origin (the Ark)?
Besides, the last time I checked, it was called "Darwin and the Theory of Evolution" It is included in science books because of the mountain of evidence that points to it being a sound theory. If and when ID has a significant amount of real scientific data to back it up, then, and only then should it be added to science texts.
mom4 said:Since all animals did not follow a single path, there probably was never a single trail. And erosion and other factors would probably have erased it by now if there was. I assume your question is really about animal dispersion after the release from the ark.
mom4 said:Both creationists and evolutionists acknowledge the probability of land bridges created by the lowering of the sea level while the water was locked up in glaciers during an ice age. Continental drift is another factor; the continents being closer together in the past. Animals could have swum or floated hundreds or thousands of miles using debris as resting points.
See abovemom4 said:The Creation model does not assert that, for example, a single pair of kangaroos hopped all the way to Australia. It is more realistic to assume that the pair of kangaroos disembarked from the ark, mated and multiplied, and that their offspring gradually dispersed.
If this were indeed true, the religious majority in this country would have mandated Genesis 101 be put in every text book by now. It is being excluded because of the lack of evidence.mom4 said:ID or Creation science does have a mountain of evidence. However, it is being blocked from being taught in the classroom because of philosophical disagreement. The atheistic leaders in the scientific community do not want anything to subvert their religious belief in naturalism, and so they act to block any hint of flaw from being explored in the classroom.
The fossilization of an animal is a very rare occurence, as evolutionists know only too well. Perhaps the "herd" found the climate not to its liking and either died out or moved on very quickly.MissileMan said:When I said trail, I meant fossil record, etc. not an actual trail. I wonder why they never found any kangaroo bones in the middle east? Surely a few must have died while building this great kangaroo herd that swam to Australia.
No one ever claimed that the Bible was solely a science book, only that it is accurate where it mentions science. Creationists include continental drift and an ice age in their model because of the physical evidence observed around them. Actually, a global volcanic flood is a very good explanation for both.Funny, I know of no passages in the bible that discuss an ice age or continental drift. You would think a text worthy of use as a science book would mention these globally significant occurences.
The Bible used to be a part of every school day, with children bringing their "testaments" to school along with their primers. However, in 1947, the Supreme court in its majority decision chose to quote out of context Thomas Jefferson's famous phrase "separation of church and state." What followed was a slippery slope of misguided judgment until, in 1962, in Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court, without legal or historical precedent, ruled that the word "church" in the phrase "church and state" meant not a state-mandated religion, but any religious mention or activity. Thus began the histrionic fear of faith that pervades our legal evironment today. Genesis was not blocked from lack of evidence, but from fear.If this were indeed true, the religious majority in this country would have mandated Genesis 101 be put in every text book by now. It is being excluded because of the lack of evidence.
mom4 said:Natural selection is a phenomenon embraced by creationists. Creatures can indeed learn to use existing features for new functions. However, macroevolution cannot explain how the features arose to begin with. Mutation and natural selection involve the loss or shuffling of genetic information. As I said before, a man could never become a millionaire by losing a penny a day for 30 years. In the same way, a microbe could never become a man by losing one gene a century for 3 billion years.
One can split atoms in the lab and observe results thereof, or see the effects of quantum mechanics. These tests can also be repeated. No one has ever observed life from a non-living chemical concoction or one instance of a spontaneous appearance of a new gene. These would be an indirect way of observing macroevolution. The microevolution we observe actually serves to disprove macroevolution, for the reason I gave above. The genetic code is losing information, which is the opposite of what is needed to produce a man from a microbe.
Now, now... I give people a lot more credit for intelligence than that! Even if Genesis is not mentioned in the schoolroom, people are perfectly capable of seeing the conflict between a literal Genesis and the theory of evolution. This has led some to abandon their faith, others to compromise it. Who has more knowledge and authority? God or the men He created? In many, many cases, people believe that men do, since they adjust the Bible to fit around evolution rather than adjusting their theories of origin to fit the Bible. However, as I stated before, in this social climate, I would not expect this to be brought up in a science classroom.
Why do you say that Creationism and ID aren't "scientific"? Do they not observe data and test against the theory? Just because the theory involves a supernatural Being? Evidence of this Being is just as observable as evidence of a "Big Bang," if not more so. Once again, what you are seeing is the clash between two belief systems, atheism v/s belief in God. Why should one have exclusive coverage in the classroom?
No assumptions added. Both models assume a beginning. The universe had a beginning at some point. The axiom is "whatever has a beginning has a cause." This is self-evident. What model fits best? That an eternal Being (who had no beginning, and therefore needs no cause) created the universe, or that the universe created itself, making the assumption that it existed (in order to create itself) before it existed. This is a logical absurdity.
Saying "microevolution leads to macroevolution" is not axiomatic. It, too, is a logical absurdity. It is, in essence, saying that the process of losing genes, if given enough time, will result in creatures with more genetic information.
mrsx said:The U.S. military isn't the only one with recruiting problems. The Army of the Lord is looking for a few good goyim. Could be your last chance...
mrsx said:The U.S. military isn't the only one with recruiting problems. The Army of the Lord is looking for a few good goyim. Could be your last chance...
Said1 said:@Kathianne: Almost spooky isn't it? (re:slave )
deaddude said:.... is merely sneaking chritianity into Public schools.
Pale Rider said:It's comments like that, that tell a lot about a person, not only misspelling Christianity, but not capitolizing it either.
Nobody's "sneaking" Christianity anywhere. All Christians are saying is that there's no more hard evidence to prove evolution that there is creation, so if you're going to teach one as legitimate, then why not the other? There is no "sneaking" going on, and you calling it that tells me you're just another Chrisitian hating liberal who'd like to see all Christianity wiped out.
mrsx said:Some day much sooner than that the Son of Man will return on a cloud of fire and I and the other 143,999 good guys will go off to eat the Ice Cream of Unimaginable Bliss while you will spend eternity in a really hot tub with Tipper Gore.
manu1959 said:neither is proveable...each as unlikely as the other... thus both should be taught....we are here because we are
mom4 said:The fossilization of an animal is a very rare occurence, as evolutionists know only too well. Perhaps the "herd" found the climate not to its liking and either died out or moved on very quickly.
mom4 said:No one ever claimed that the Bible was solely a science book, only that it is accurate where it mentions science. Creationists include continental drift and an ice age in their model because of the physical evidence observed around them. Actually, a global volcanic flood is a very good explanation for both.