creationists want fairness

[Asclepias]

They will lose control if another point of view is offered.

 

[Truthmatters]

But science is supposed to allow them to speak?

isnt that what they asked for

 

[orogenicman]

Evolution does not explain the creation of life, the two are way different. And no I don't see in the fossil record where man evolved. The link is still missing.

No one is saying that evolution explains the origin of life on this planet. As for missing links, the notion that there has to be transitional fossils or else evolution is untrue is a false one. Why? Because ALL species are transitional.

What are humans today transitioning into? A bird? A dog? An Alien? Are we going to have X-ray vision? Super powers?

That you would post a statement like that one apparently in all seriousness shows how very little you understand about science.

 

[orogenicman]

No hate, God forbids homosexuality. I'm just stating the truth. Why do you care you don't believe it anyway.

Justifying your hatred in the name of your god is about as bad as it gets. No doubt, you and the folks at Westboro Baptist Church are close friends.

I could care less if a person is gay. I've never done anything against them. They are throwing their lifestyle in my face. If a gay person repents and quits the lifestyle, he can go to heaven and i hope all do. I'm not hating one anyone, it's their choice.

You could care less, but condemn them to hell. Brilliant logic, Einstein.

 

[orogenicman]

Evolution does not explain the creation of life, the two are way different. And no I don't see in the fossil record where man evolved. The link is still missing.

No one is saying that evolution explains the origin of life on this planet. As for missing links, the notion that there has to be transitional fossils or else evolution is untrue is a false one. Why? Because ALL species are transitional.

If species have been evolving for millions or billions of years then there should be so many fossils available that there would be no question whatsoever. Unfortunately, horse fossils are horse fossils and shark fossils are shark fossils. There's no indication that sharks were anything other than sharks and no indication that horses were anything other than horses. There are no fossils available that are part shark and part horse (using this as a rough example).

Rough example is an extreme understatement.

In fact, there are billions upon billions of fossils all over the globe, and from nearly every known time period in geologic history (except the very earliest). You didn't know this? Huh.

But you are right. There are no fossils that are part shark and part horse, because that would REFUTE evolution. Damn, who let the 7 year olds into the forums?

 

[Asclepias]

But science is supposed to allow them to speak?

isnt that what they asked for

Science is direct threat to religion. Religion is a control mechanism, a fairy tale made up by people in power. If you can make people think a theory is true and the only way to prove it to be false is to die then you have the makings of a system that will exist for centuries.

 

[orogenicman]

The fallacy of your mocking post is that you think that the two are mutally exculsive. There are few Christians, if any, that deny science. Yes those who believe that the world started 6000 years ago may be off on that one aspect but most of the scientific discoveries throughout time were by Christian men. For example the Big Bang theory was a RCC priest.

And the real truth about creationism is that science has no ready explanation for creation of life.

Actually, that is not true. Christians do not live in a vacuum (though I am certain a lot of people wished that they did), particularly their scientists. During the dark ages, it was the Arabs, not the Christians, who made significant scientific advances. Before that it was the Romans and the Greeks. And before that it was the Egyptians. And those Christians who made contributions stood on the shoulders of the Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Arab scholars who came before. And the Chinese were doing astronomy long before any European knew how to make a calendar. Even in the 20th Century up to today, many non-Christians made significant contributions to the sciences. In fact, today, many scientists in this country are not Christians. And I suspect that non-Christians make up the majority of scientists worldwide. Your Christ-centered universe doesn't actually exist, bubba.

Actually your opinion is wrong. Christians didn't invent everything nor did I say they did. But they also didn't slow down scientific progress either.

It most certainly did. You cannot revise Christian history out of this one.

 

[orogenicman]

Gosh darn it in the same post I provide scientist saying that for the RNA molecule to form by random CHANCE is incredibly improbable. What are you having a problem with the definition of improbable?

Funny how when scientist own words are provided all of a sudden science isn't really all that smart to you guys.

That's not exactly what he said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Shapiro_(chemist)

Robert Shapiro (28 November 1935 – 15 June 2011[1]) was professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University. He is best known for his work on the origin of life, having written two books on the topic: Origins, a Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth (1986) and Planetary Dreams (2001). He opposed the RNA world hypothesis, and held that the spontaneous emergence of a molecule as complicated as RNA is highly unlikely. Instead, he proposed that life arose from some self-sustaining and compartmentalized reaction of simple molecules: "metabolism first" instead of "RNA first". This reaction would have to be able to reproduce and evolve, eventually leading to RNA. He claimed that in this view life is a normal consequence of the laws of nature and potentially quite common in the universe.[2]

So in the case he says RNA creation is improbable then goes on to say that it is not. Which is it? And do we see these processes today? Certainly if they happened in the past they certainly should be happening today.

You really do have a problem with the English language, don't you?

 

[orogenicman]

Gosh darn it in the same post I provide scientist saying that for the RNA molecule to form by random CHANCE is incredibly improbable. What are you having a problem with the definition of improbable?

Funny how when scientist own words are provided all of a sudden science isn't really all that smart to you guys.

Science does not say RNA formed by random chance, Creationists say it was formed by a random chance accident or by a creator implying that if science rejects a creator they support random chance. You fool no one but yourself.

The scientific position is that the valence electrons in the outer shell determine the composition and structure of complex molecules.

there are two ways thing happen. By intelligence or chance. Chance not meaning that the physical laws are violated only that there was no intelligent input.In other words breeding dogs does not show evolution because their is intelligence directing the process. So what we have is the DNA molecule which is VERY complex and it formation came either by intelligence or chance. The chance of it happening is astronomically large against. What science is saying, in my opinion, is like building a computer, turning it on and then waiting for it to program itself. Or more to the point the computer fell together by itself then waited for programing.

This is a false dichotomy, an either/or argument, and a classic one at that. Natural selection is not random, though there is also no intelligent input. Also, you are arguing from irreducible complexity, also long refuted (over 80 years ago). Last but not least, we have the airplane constructed in a tornado argument, also a logical fallacy. This is all you've got? Back to the kiddie table for you.

 

[orogenicman]

So in the case he says RNA creation is improbable then goes on to say that it is not. Which is it? And do we see these processes today? Certainly if they happened in the past they certainly should be happening today.

Learn to read!

First: He opposed the RNA world hypothesis, and held that the spontaneous emergence of a molecule as complicated as RNA is highly unlikely.

Second: This reaction would have to be able to reproduce and evolve, eventually leading to RNA. He claimed that in this view life is a normal consequence of the laws of nature and potentially quite common in the universe.[2]

He opposed the "RNA FIRST" hypothesis in favor of the "metabolism first" hypothesis. His point is that there has to be the chemistry of metabolism before RNA can function. And in fact, scientists have artificially produced self-replicating cells that metabolize.

 

[Plasmaball]

im enjoying this fact that cosmos is basically putting these voodoo believing people in their places. They need to be rejecting soundly and put back in their holes.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

But science is supposed to allow them to speak?

isnt that what they asked for

Science is direct threat to religion. Religion is a control mechanism, a fairy tale made up by people in power. If you can make people think a theory is true and the only way to prove it to be false is to die then you have the makings of a system that will exist for centuries.

Exactly. The very definition of "faith" is lack of intellect and logic.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The fact that Tyson has this new show should give us hope that most people trust science over superstition.

 

[Freewill]

im enjoying this fact that cosmos is basically putting these voodoo believing people in their places. They need to be rejecting soundly and put back in their holes.

 

[Freewill]

That anyone can look at the fossil record, and not see evolution, is a damning indication of their level of intellect. Throw in what genetics has taught us in the last 60 years, and only the very stupid and blind deny evolution.

Evolution does not explain the creation of life, the two are way different. And no I don't see in the fossil record where man evolved. The link is still missing.

no the link isnt missing.

Talk about closed minds, you accept everything that science tells you. Even though "science" has been wrong many times before. After all it was the science then that taught the Earth was flat and Spontaneous Generation.

Missing Link Between Man and Apes?

The hominids had longer arms than we do, and smaller brains. But their faces were human-like, and scientists say the discovery represents an important look into our pre-human past. Researchers stopped short of calling the new species, dubbed Australopithecus sediba, a missing link.

Australopithecus means 'southern ape.' Sediba means "natural spring, fountain or wellspring in Sotho, one of the 11 official languages of South Africa," said researcher Lee Berger, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa. This was "deemed an appropriate name for a species that might be the point from which the genus Homo arises," Berger said.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Greeks knew that the earth was round by 350 BC. What science taught that the world was flat? Babylonian scientists?

 

[orogenicman]

The Greeks knew that the earth was round by 350 BC. What science taught that the world was flat? Babylonian scientists?

So did the Egyptians (know that the world was round).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Creationists are never going to get equal time to peddle the bible as a counterbalance to science because Cosmos is a science program and creationism is a religious myth.

True, thus making a ‘demand’ for ‘equal time’ is ridiculous.

If a cable network were to air a program about ancient myths and legends that excluded Christian mythology, however, then creationists might be able to make a claim for ‘equal time.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That anyone can look at the fossil record, and not see evolution, is a damning indication of their level of intellect. Throw in what genetics has taught us in the last 60 years, and only the very stupid and blind deny evolution.

Evolution does not explain the creation of life, the two are way different. And no I don't see in the fossil record where man evolved. The link is still missing.

You don’t understand.

The issue has to do with the fact that the Earth, since its very beginning, is constantly changing. And life, in order to survive this endless change, must be able to evolve to adapt to that change.

Without the process of evolution, therefore, life would have vanished from the Earth eons ago.