Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
Hmm. In other words, there is no such thing as a fact? Is that a fact?:D
Bit I take your point, if fact is defined as absolute certainty.
Well in science, there really can be no such thing as a fact. I will make an analogy to illustrate my point. Imagine a court case where the defendant is being charged with murder. The prosecution have evidence that makes them 99% confident that the defendant is guilty. The judge and the jury share this same confidence. However, the rules of this court of law state that 100% confidence is required. That means that ALL infinite possibilities must be found to be impossible before a judgment can be made. All it would require is for the defendant to say that an atomic monkey came from space and killed his wife and then disappeared without a trace. The prosecution would have to go and prove that this didn't happen. Of course, this wouldn't be possible and the defendant would be set free.
Thankfully, our court system doesn't work like this and all that is required is to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Bear in mind that even when the defendant is not sentenced he is declared 'not guilty' instead of innocent. This is acknowledging that it was not possible to prove him 100% innocent either, beyond reasonable doubt.
This is exactly how science works. Nothing can be proved 100% or disproved 100%. Therefore a decision must be made based on the evidence provided which is constrained by a confidence interval (95%, 99%). Unfortunately for you guys, evolution does make predications about the natural world which can be observed 95%+ of the time, and that confidence gets more accurate as new discoveries are made (ie. genetics, etc).
BUT, heres the kicker. I don't believe that evolution disproves God's existence. It simply doesn't state that. It merely contradicts what the bible says. But that was written by men anyway, wasn't it? So whats the deal with your obsession with evolution?0 -
daithifleming said:
But that is what is challenged. The new discoveries seem to undermine previous evolutionary knowledge:This is exactly how science works. Nothing can be proved 100% or disproved 100%. Therefore a decision must be made based on the evidence provided which is constrained by a confidence interval (95%, 99%). Unfortunately for you guys, evolution does make predications about the natural world which can be observed 95%+ of the time, and that confidence gets more accurate as new discoveries are made (ie. genetics, etc).
Some 'Junk' DNA Is Important Guide For Nerve-cell Channel Production
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080205115800.htm
It was written by men under God's direction, so it is His word, not theirs. The big deal is, as you say, evolution contradicts the Bible.BUT, heres the kicker. I don't believe that evolution disproves God's existence. It simply doesn't state that. It merely contradicts what the bible says. But that was written by men anyway, wasn't it? So whats the deal with your obsession with evolution?0 -
But that is what is challenged. The new discoveries seem to undermine previous evolutionary knowledge:
Some 'Junk' DNA Is Important Guide For Nerve-cell Channel Production
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080205115800.htm
Ok, i don't claim to be an expert on evolutionary theory, so i can't claim to know what is truely being said in that article. But just because a theory says one thing today, doesn't mean that is cannot be revised and updated tomorrow. For example, Newtons theory of gravity was useful in making predictions about the natural world up to a point. However, Einstein's theory of relativity completely changed our understanding of the way that gravity works. Does that mean Newton was wrong? Of course not, but Einsteins theory was better and more accurate. But not even Einsteins theory is 100% accurate, as i pointed out earlier. Who knows what might be discovered in the future to further enforce that theory? But thats the beauty of science, it is constantly revising and updating itself. It is self-correcting. Its a pity that religion can't take a leaf out of their book and stop living in the past.It was written by men under God's direction, so it is His word, not theirs. The big deal is, as you say, evolution contradicts the Bible.
Fair enough.0 -
daithifleming said:
But that is what is challenged. The new discoveries seem to undermine previous evolutionary knowledge:
Some 'Junk' DNA Is Important Guide For Nerve-cell Channel Production
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080205115800.htm
Your claim is misleading (as I'm sure you are aware) because the old ideas about "junk" DNA were not "evolutionary knowledge"
The new discoveries certain undermine previous evolutionary theories, but then that is whole point of science. An inaccurate theory is useless, it is the duty of all scientists to make their theories as accurate as they can, and if something is discovered that demonstrates the current theory is inaccurate it is updated to be more accurate
But well done in demonstrated that the Creationist idea that science is fixed and immovable and refuses to change is in fact a big fat lie. :rolleyes:0 -
Originally Posted by J C
Jesus ISN'T a baby.....He is the sovereign Creator God of the Universe.....to whom EVERY person must give an account.....
......He ONLY weeps at the folly of the unsaved......and the daily trials of the saved !!daithifleming wrote: »Thats a lot of weeping.
It sure is!!!:D:)0 -
Advertisement
-
Scientists can tell if a gene has been recently (ie the last few hundred thousand years) been effected by mutation by looking at the molecule formations of the genes themselves. )
.....so you are saying that Evolutionists can tell if a gene has been altered by mutation ......hundreds of thousands of years BEFORE it was created!!!!:D
.......is that dé ja vu I wonder????
:)
......or maybe it is just hocus pokus!!!:D0 -
-
But that is what is challenged. The new discoveries seem to undermine previous evolutionary knowledge:
Some 'Junk' DNA Is Important Guide For Nerve-cell Channel Production
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080205115800.htm
Wicknight's already pointed this out, but the question of whether DNA is "junk" is not anything to do with the theory of evolution - which only states that there should be some mechanism allowing the inheritance of change. As far as we currently know, this mechanism is DNA inheritance, but the question of whether "junk" DNA does anything or not doesn't change the fact that we know change is heritable.
Strictly speaking, the Theory of Evolution would suggest (not predict, in this case) that nearly all the DNA in your cells has some function or other. However, if DNA were discovered to have nothing to do with the inheritance of change, that would still mean nothing in terms of the Theory of Evolution, although it would undoubtedly put a large hole in the field of genetics. The Theory of Evolution predicted a mechanism of inheritance, not the other way round.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Strictly speaking, the Theory of Evolution would suggest (not predict, in this case) that nearly all the DNA in your cells has some function or other. However, if DNA were discovered to have nothing to do with the inheritance of change, that would still mean nothing in terms of the Theory of Evolution,
......so the Theory of Evolution predicts NOTHING in regard to the so-called 'inheritance of change'!!
However, the Theory of Evolution maintains, for example, that complex highly functional organs, like the eye, have been 'perfected' (over millions of years) by Natural Selection getting rid of all of the 'junk' or non-functional attempts at 'improving' the supposed pre-cursors of 'modern' eyes by selection pressure......and retaining the 'improvements'!!!
......so similar selection pressure (over millions of years) SHOULD have gotten rid of practically all non-functional, uselesss 'junk' DNA.....and we therefore should have little or no 'junk' DNA ......IF Evolution occurred .......
......the fact that we have large amounts of 'junk' DNA without any current function......supports the theory that this currently useless DNA played an important role in the earlier speciation of Created Kinds (a few thousand years ago).......and it now remains like discarded packaging ......as a reminder of Special Creation and Speciation!!!
Why are Skeptics NOT actually Skeptical?
I came across an interesting explanation for why the self-styled Skeptics on this thread refuse to discuss the 'Guidestones' while 'wetting themselves' in their enthusiasm to criticise Creationism and the Word of God......
.....apparently this phenomenon is called "slides"......Most people react in a pre-programmed way towards a topic, unaware that they have been conditioned (brainwashed) to react in this way by institutional and media influences.
According to a leading programmer/de-programmer, most people have built-in "slides" that short circuit the mind's critical examination process when it comes to certain sensitive topics.
"Slides", apparently is a CIA term for a conditioned type of response which dead ends a person's thinking and terminates debate or examination of the topic at hand.
For example, the mention of the word "Guidestones" clearly elicits a "slides" 'termination response' from ALL of the Skeptics on this thread.
A conditioned response can equally manifest itself in emotional outbursts of indignation on various issues.
Mentioning the words "Creation Science" and/or any criticism of Evolution ilicits a typical conditioned 'outburst response' from the Skeptics on this thread!!!0 -
Wicknight said:
No, I genuinely thought evolutionists taught there was junk DNA.Your claim is misleading (as I'm sure you are aware)
Who taught these old ideas then? You can confirm that evolutionists did not?because the old ideas about "junk" DNA were not "evolutionary knowledge"
Now you are saying they were evolutionary theories! Please clarify.The new discoveries certain undermine previous evolutionary theories, but then that is whole point of science.
OK.An inaccurate theory is useless,
Definitely.it is the duty of all scientists to make their theories as accurate as they can,
Great.and if something is discovered that demonstrates the current theory is inaccurate it is updated to be more accurate
Creationism has never said that. It is a figment of your inflamed imagination.But well done in demonstrated that the Creationist idea that science is fixed and immovable and refuses to change is in fact a big fat lie.
Remain calm, and retrace your steps to where you lost the plot.:D Junk DNA was/was not the teaching of evolutionists?0 -
Advertisement
-
An inaccurate theory is useless,
......so are you saying that Evolution is useless then???:DCreationism has never said that. It is a figment of your inflamed imagination.
....or it COULD also be the result of some very 'deep' "Slides" pre-programming!!!!!:eek::D:)
....the Skeptics MAY remain calm because you haven't mentioned "Creation Science" or criticised Evolution!!!:DRemain calm, and retrace your steps to where you lost the plot.:D Junk DNA was/was not the teaching of evolutionists?
......but on second thoughts......duck......because I have just mentioned "Creation Science".....and you, Wolfsbane, are implicitly criticising Evolution with your question!!!:eek::D:)
.....or maybe the Skeptics will stay in 'suspended animation'......like they have all afternoon because I mentioned the word "Guidestones" .........
......which normally elicits a "slides" 'termination response' from ALL of the Skeptics on this thread!!!!!:D0 -
I find that hard to believeNo, I genuinely thought evolutionists taught there was junk DNA.Now you are saying they were evolutionary theories! Please clarify.
Bangs head against wall :rolleyes:
It would be clarified if you BOTHERED to learn what a scientific theory actually is :mad:
It says it all the time, and in fact you say it as well. Remember your little rants about how science censors challenging ideasCreationism has never said that.0 -
Wicknight said:
Don't dodge the question: was junk DNA a part of evolutionary theory? Did evolutionists believe it to exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Now you are saying they were evolutionary theories! Please clarify.
Bangs head against wall
It would be clarified if you BOTHERED to learn what a scientific theory actually is
Censors any ideas that threaten the consensus, especially Creationist ideas.It says it all the time, and in fact you say it as well. Remember your little rants about how science censors challenging ideas
But welcomes new refinements; and eventually embraces even big changes, provided they do not threaten materialist dogma. For example, Gould's problems with Punctuated Equilibrium represented a challenge to the consensus, but not to the materialist dogma. Creationist ideas can't even be discussed, because they threaten the foundations of dogma.
Scofflaw admitted that a theory of how life developed could be scientifically discussed without having to consider how life originated. But will evolutionists admit to scientific discussion of a theory that begins with the biosphere complete, mature and fully functioning? Why not?0 -
But will evolutionists admit to scientific discussion of a theory that begins with the biosphere complete, mature and fully functioning? Why not?
Because there is no evidence to suggest that. In fact, all the evidence points towards a 4.3bn year old earth. What your side is coming up with is hopeful nonsense. Some 'God' creating the earth in six days, talking snakes, talking bushes, resurrection, water-wine, walking on water, hell/hades/heaven, satan, its just complete nonsense. There more i think about it, the more stupid it seems.0 -
I was not referring to the Biblical narrative, but to the scientfic argument for a mature biosphere devolving as opposed to an immature one evolving. It is widely presented in the Creation Science sites. E.g:daithifleming wrote: »Because there is no evidence to suggest that. In fact, all the evidence points towards a 4.3bn year old earth. What your side is coming up with is hopeful nonsense. Some 'God' creating the earth in six days, talking snakes, talking bushes, resurrection, water-wine, walking on water, hell/hades/heaven, satan, its just complete nonsense. There more i think about it, the more stupid it seems.
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/14/14_1/enzymes/enzymes.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org:80/home/area/re1/chapter2.asp0 -
I was not referring to the Biblical narrative, but to the scientfic argument for a mature biosphere devolving as opposed to an immature one evolving. It is widely presented in the Creation Science sites. E.g:
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/14/14_1/enzymes/enzymes.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org:80/home/area/re1/chapter2.asp
That first paper used an exclamation mark in the abstract... no wonder you don't get taken seriously. :rolleyes:
Quite how these people got PhD's is beyond me.0 -
Don't dodge the question: was junk DNA a part of evolutionary theory? Did evolutionists believe it to exist?
Sigh. Junk DNA was not, and is not, part of "evolutionary theory". Junk DNA is explained in evolutionary terms, but does not form any part of the Theory of Evolution.
It will have been taught in biology classes at the same time as evolution, because the field of genetics is also a prediction of the Theory of Evolution, so it has a nice 'flow' in teaching terms.
If you are asking whether the idea that non-coding DNA is "junk" with no actual function has been taught in schools as correct, the answer is almost certainly "yes". Current accepted scientific theory is taught on science courses as current accepted scientific theory - but quite a bit of what I was taught at school is now considered incorrect.
As to whether any "evolutionists" "believed" "junk DNA" "existed" - the statement requires so much analysis and qualification as to be meaningless. Most scientists will have accepted that the idea that non-coding DNA had no function was reasonable, and fitted the available evidence. There will always have been some who didn't.
However, to characterise this as 'belief' is in any case incorrect. The scientist who does the work does it as best he can, trying to eliminate any possibility that his results are incorrect, or mean something else entirely. He then publishes the work, which is scrutinised by several of his peers before it is accepted for publication. If there are errors which the trained eye can spot they are usually sorted out at this stage. The published paper will then be read by others in the same field, and those with objections will write either to the author or the journal with their objections - or publish their own, contradictory, conclusions, however much later that may be.
Scientists outside the field have no "belief" directly in what the original scientist claims - indeed, frequently they will have no opinion about it, or not know about it (in the case of the theory that non-coding DNA is junk with no function, they probably will have heard about it). What they "believe in" is the honesty of the claim - that the scientist is making an honest claim off the back of work he actually did, and which had the results he reports - and in the integrity of the system of peer review that helps ensure that. They believe that, if it is necessary to do so, they can repeat the original experiments or observations, and get the same results.
Nor is this belief ill-founded. There are mistakes, and there is fraud - but both are found out relatively quickly, because other experimenters will be consistently unable to repeat the results or observations. Indeed, there are far fewer miscarriages of science than there are miscarriages of justice in the courts.Censors any ideas that threaten the consensus, especially Creationist ideas.
But welcomes new refinements; and eventually embraces even big changes, provided they do not threaten materialist dogma. For example, Gould's problems with Punctuated Equilibrium represented a challenge to the consensus, but not to the materialist dogma. Creationist ideas can't even be discussed, because they threaten the foundations of dogma.
Scofflaw admitted that a theory of how life developed could be scientifically discussed without having to consider how life originated. But will evolutionists admit to scientific discussion of a theory that begins with the biosphere complete, mature and fully functioning? Why not?
"Admitted"? Insisted, in the teeth of repeated claims that from the Creationist side that you can't.
As to a theory that begins with the biosphere "complete, mature and fully functioning", the problem is that it does not explain the available evidence. It requires us to discard everything that is known about stratigraphic relations, without even considering dating. It is clear that the biosphere has changed through time.
Let me put it to you like this. Ignore radiometric dating for a moment (after all, it's a relatively recent development in geology). If we find a sandstone sitting on top of, say, a mudstone , we are faced with two main possibilities - that the sandstone predates the mudstone , or that it postdates the mudstone . There are two more possibilities - that the two are essentially contemporary, or not.
We determine which of these are the case by a variety of observations. Does the sandstone appear to be "right way up" - so that, for example, ripples are pointy-side upwards? Is there any sign that the mudstone had solidified before the sand came along - for example, are there channels cut steeply into the mudstone, or truncating the bedding? If there are bits of the mudstone in the sandstone, are they blobs of ripped-up soft mud, or angular pebbles?
All of this allowed the earliest geologists to create a timeline, simply in the sense of "A precedes B precedes C...". At that stage, it was a timeline without units - people made estimates of a few thousand to many millions of years, but no-one knew for sure.
One thing, though, was completely inarguable - conditions at the start of the timeline look nothing like conditions at the end of the timeline. The fossils are very different, and there are types of sedimentary rock only found in the "lower" stretches - for example Banded Iron Formations - that imply a completely different kind of planet. Banded Iron Formations consist of unoxidated iron interleaved with sand - with thicknesses of thousands of metres. You cannot produce any such thing today, because the oxygen in the atmosphere oxidises the iron.
So any theory that starts with the biosphere "complete, mature and fully functioning" cannot possibly be correct, simply based on the observed relationships between the rocks. The biosphere has changed, and in the direction of progressively greater complexity.
hope that helps,
Scofflaw0 -
No and possibly. As Scofflaw explainedDon't dodge the question: was junk DNA a part of evolutionary theory? Did evolutionists believe it to exist?
The problem (STILL) is that you clearly (STILL) don't understand what a scientific theory actually is.
It is not the collective opinion of scientists, it is an actual thing totally independent of the scientists who came up with it or who use it. Do you understand that yet?
"Materialist dogma"??But welcomes new refinements; and eventually embraces even big changes, provided they do not threaten materialist dogma.
And what pray tell is "materialist dogma" :rolleyes:
You betray your own bias and ignorance Wolfsbane when you come out with stuff like this. Because science doesn't say what you want it to say you assume there must be an agenda in scientific community. When in fact the agenda lies completely with you. You require science to confirm your personal religious beliefs.
Unfortunately for you reality doesn't have the responsibility to make you feel better about your religious choices.But will evolutionists admit to scientific discussion of a theory that begins with the biosphere complete, mature and fully functioning? Why not?
You ignore the fact that they did actually discuss this theory. They accept it at first, then discussed it for hundreds of years and eventually found that it simply does not match ANY of the evidence. So they abandoned it, as all good scientists do. A disproved theory is useless and has no value in science
You seem to think that they should start re-discussing it now, despite it being disproved nearly 200 years ago.
Again you betray your own bias and ignorance. You want it discussed so you can pretend to yourself that it hasn't been disproven, that if science is discussing it that must mean it is still up for debate. You and other Creationists want it to be rediscussed again and again ad nauseum simply because science isn't confirming for you your own person religious beliefs.
That is because your own person religious beliefs are wrong
You really need to get over it.0 -
So to summarize:- Jakkass posts about the meaning of "adultery".
- I point it a simple logical error in Jakkass' post.
- You agree with me and start a thread polling for opinions about what "adultery" actually means.
- I point out that all of this suggests that the confusion that I was talking about is real.
- You say that it's me that's confused.
0 -
So to summarize:
- Jakkass posts about the meaning of "adultery".
- I point it a simple logical error in Jakkass' post.
- You agree with me and start a thread polling for opinions about what "adultery" actually means.
- I point out that all of this suggests that the confusion that I was talking about is real.
- You say that it's me that's confused.
The only person confused about adultery was wicknight.0 -
Advertisement
-
Um, so I'm not confused, and wolfsbane isn't either, nor Jakkass, nor yourself, but now it turns out that Wicknight, whom I thought was quite straightforward, is really the confused party in all of this?BrianCalgary wrote: »The only person confused about adultery was wicknight.
I feel that my original point about this causing confusion has been more than adequately shown -- I just hadn't realized that confusion around something so simple could ever have been so splendidly complete.
Thanks to all contributors, I suppose 0 -
Scofflaw wrote:Nor is this belief ill-founded. There are mistakes, and there is fraud - but both are found out relatively quickly, because other experimenters will be consistently unable to repeat the results or observations. Indeed, there are far fewer miscarriages of science than there are miscarriages of justice in the courts.
This needs to be repeated and emphasised, especially with the focus that has been placed on 'peer review' so far in this thread. Repeatable openly published experiments are far more important to science than peer review is. In fact it could be argued that the main purpose of peer review is primarily to protect the journal publishing, science 'happens' when the results are repeated by independent scientists, not necessarily when it is 'peer reviewed'.
In fact the emphasis on peer review (on this thread and elsewhere) does science a disservice, as it implies wrongly that truth and facts in science are somehow agreed on by professors and such like in committee, that at its heart getting scientists to agree with your paper by reviewing it somehow makes it true.
Nowhere is this less well understood more than in ID circles, as seen recently in this thread with regard to their promise to publish a journal and be, wait for it, "peer reviewed".
Peer review primarily protects the reputation of journals that publish papers, the real science happens when results are replicated independently. Peer review could be thrown away completely and science will still flourish, albeit probably with a little more wasted effort.0 -
Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Part 1 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY
2 of 6 (This is a good one)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFrkjEgUDZA
3 of 6 (It gets better and better! I implore you to watch this video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnj7PlqmJ5o&feature=related
4 of 6 (Wolfsbane should watch this)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80nhqGfN6t8
5 of 6 (JC, this is for you)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzmbnxtnMB4&feature=related
6 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3k0dDFxkhM&feature=related
Just finished watching them all, brilliant stuff altogether. Pretty much wipes out the creationist argument in one sitting.0 -
BrianCalgary wrote: »The only person confused about adultery was wicknight.
Well as Robin points out the point couldn't have been proved better if we had tried. The lengths that you guys will go to to make it look like you all have a uniform sense of understanding is quite spectacular. One is left only with the rather peculiar conclusion that you all genuinely seem to believe you actually do have one. The lack of self-awareness must be spectacular.0 -
Strictly speaking, the Theory of Evolution would suggest (not predict, in this case) that nearly all the DNA in your cells has some function or other. However, if DNA were discovered to have nothing to do with the inheritance of change, that would still mean nothing in terms of the Theory of Evolution,
......so the Theory of Evolution predicts NOTHING in regard to the so-called 'inheritance of change'!!
However, the Theory of Evolution maintains, for example, that complex highly functional organs, like the eye, have been 'perfected' (over millions of years) by Natural Selection getting rid of all of the 'junk' or non-functional attempts at 'improving' the supposed pre-cursors of 'modern' eyes by selection pressure......and retaining the 'improvements'!!!
......so similar selection pressure (over millions of years) SHOULD have gotten rid of practically all non-functional, uselesss 'junk' DNA.....and we therefore should have little or no 'junk' DNA ......IF Evolution occurred .......
......the fact that we have large amounts of 'junk' DNA without any current function......supports the theory that this currently useless DNA played an important role in the earlier speciation of Created Kinds (a few thousand years ago).......and it now remains like discarded packaging ......as a reminder of Special Creation and Speciation!!!
Why are Skeptics NOT actually Skeptical?
I came across an interesting explanation for why the self-styled Skeptics on this thread refuse to discuss the 'Guidestones' while 'wetting themselves' in their enthusiasm to criticise Creationism and the Word of God......
.....apparently this phenomenon is called "slides"......Most people react in a pre-programmed way towards a topic, unaware that they have been conditioned (brainwashed) to react in this way by institutional and media influences.
According to a leading programmer/de-programmer, most people have built-in "slides" that short circuit the mind's critical examination process when it comes to certain sensitive topics.
"Slides", apparently is a CIA term for a conditioned type of response which dead ends a person's thinking and terminates debate or examination of the topic at hand.
For example, the mention of the word "Guidestones" clearly elicits a "slides" 'termination response' from ALL of the Skeptics on this thread.
A conditioned response can equally manifest itself in emotional outbursts of indignation on various issues.
Mentioning the words "Creation Science" and/or any criticism of Evolution ilicits a typical conditioned 'outburst response' from the Skeptics on this thread!!!An inaccurate theory is useless,
......so are you saying that Evolution is useless then???:DCreationism has never said that. It is a figment of your inflamed imagination.
....or it COULD be the result of some very 'deep' "Slides" pre-programming!!!!!:eek::D:)0 -
......so the Theory of Evolution predicts NOTHING in regard to the so-called 'inheritance of change'!!
However, the Theory of Evolution maintains, for example, that complex highly functional organs, like the eye, have been 'perfected' (over millions of years) by Natural Selection getting rid of all of the 'junk' or non-functional attempts at 'improving' the supposed pre-cursors of 'modern' eyes by selection pressure......and retaining the 'improvements'!!!
......so similar selection pressure (over millions of years) SHOULD have gotten rid of practically all non-functional, uselesss 'junk' DNA.....and we therefore should have little or no 'junk' DNA ......IF Evolution occurred .......
......the fact that we have large amounts of 'junk' DNA without any current function......supports the theory that this currently useless DNA played an important role in the earlier speciation of Created Kinds (a few thousand years ago).......and it now remains like discarded packaging ......as a reminder of Special Creation and Speciation!!!
Why are Skeptics NOT actually Skeptical?
I came across an interesting explanation for why the self-styled Skeptics on this thread refuse to discuss the 'Guidestones' while 'wetting themselves' in their enthusiasm to criticise Creationism and the Word of God......
.....apparently this phenomenon is called "slides"......Most people react in a pre-programmed way towards a topic, unaware that they have been conditioned (brainwashed) to react in this way by institutional and media influences.
According to a leading programmer/de-programmer, most people have built-in "slides" that short circuit the mind's critical examination process when it comes to certain sensitive topics.
"Slides", apparently is a CIA term for a conditioned type of response which dead ends a person's thinking and terminates debate or examination of the topic at hand.
For example, the mention of the word "Guidestones" clearly elicits a "slides" 'termination response' from ALL of the Skeptics on this thread.
A conditioned response can equally manifest itself in emotional outbursts of indignation on various issues.
Mentioning the words "Creation Science" and/or any criticism of Evolution ilicits a typical conditioned 'outburst response' from the Skeptics on this thread!!!
......isn't it ironic that the Skeptics are the ones who are brainwashed.....and trying to suppress Creation Science.......so that they can promote their unfounded FAITH in Evolution !!!:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzmbn...eature=related0 -
:eek::Ddaithifleming wrote: »Just finished watching them all, brilliant stuff altogether. Pretty much wipes out the creationist argument in one sitting.
.....I was wondering how the Evolutionists are programmed......with completely illogical arguments!!!!!!!:D:)
......and now I think I know!!!!0 -
-
daithifleming wrote: »You couldn't possibly have watched them. Once again we have creationists bearing false witness.
I didn't say that I watched them all.....
I have scanned some of them before.....and I looked at the first five minutes of one of them......and it is the usual stuff about "freedom of religion meaning freedom from religion".......which is an oxymoron......
.....you cannot have religious freedom UNLESS all religious viewpoints are allowed expression in the public domain.
It also depends on what you deem to be 'religion'....in the first place!!
.....indeed freedom OF religion on the 'origins issue' SHOULD guarantee the free expression of ALL ideas about 'origins'.....
......and certainly freedom FROM religion (which I don't personally agree with) would ALSO include freedom FROM all Atheist religiious believers promoting their unfounded and illogical notions about Evolutionism on prime time TV!!!:eek::D0 -
Advertisement
-
I have scanned some of them before.....and I looked at the first five minutes of one of them......and it is the usual stuff about "freedom of religion meaning freedom from religion".......which is an oxymoron......
.....you cannot have freedom of religion UNLESS all religious viewpoints are allowed expression in the public domain.
It also depends on what you deem to be 'religion'....in the first place!!
.....indeed freedom OF religion on the 'origins issue' SHOULD guarantee the free transmission of ALL ideas about 'origins'.....
......and certainly freedom FROM religion (which I don't personally agree with) would ALSO include freedom FROM all Atheist religiious believers promoting their unfounded and illogical notions about Evolutionism on prime time TV!!!:eek::D
Some of these people claim that Christian parents teaching the Word of God to Christian children is 'child abuse'......
.....but apparently, Atheists teaching Christian children that they are descended from pondslime to lead an ultimately meaningless existence should be mandated by law......with the threat to any parent who refuses to subject their children to such unfounded nonesense ......that they will either have their children siezed and reared by Evolutionists....or 'earmarked' for life as unemployable!!!:eek::(
You understand nothing about political science. It's not my job to educate you.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement