AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge has prohibited the Round Rock school district from allowing students to vote on whether to have prayers at graduation.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks is included in an agreement reached by the school district and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The Washington-based group sued the school district in August on behalf of six parents and a former student.
The suit was prompted by a majority of seniors at McNeil, Round Rock and Stony Point high schools who decided to have prayers at their graduations. Most students who cast ballots at Westwood High School voted against an invocation at commencement.
In its petition, Americans United said prayers at a school-sponsored event violated "the boundary between church and state that is necessary in a pluralistic society."
Sparks' judgment forbids the school district from holding any election or vote by students to have a prayer, benediction, invocation "or other religious communication" in any graduation unless the U.S. Supreme Court rules in future cases that such votes can be held.
Sparks dismissed the suit against the school district.
Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
RSS
jar1961,
“you are right.. a theory is a theory until the hypothesis is porven and then the experiment re conducted so that the results of the 1 validate the findings of the other...”
Well, look at all the evidence for our other theories: Gravitational theory, Atomic theory, Quantum theory, Germ theory, Cell theory, Electromagnetic theory, evolutionary theory, etc. etc. All of those are theories in science b/c they are all supported by large amounts of empiracally backed factual observations that produced falsifiable and testable predictions. The only reason you doubt evolution relative to other comparable theories is b/c if conflicts with your religion.
”Evolution will always be a scientific theory.... Scopes, Lucy and the rest.. all failures....
Scopes is a failure? The Scopes trial was wehn evolution began to become taught in schools, how’s it a failure? If anything the over zealous religous folk are the ones who lost that battle.
How is ‘Lucy’ a failure exactly? You have no problem yammering how things are wrong, flawed, and so on, but provide no details as to why. Jar, we have more specimens than just ‘Lucy’. Lucy is old news, she was found over 30 years ago, we’ve found many others since then. Go back to the vids I provided earlier and take a look at some.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html
That’s a nice skull collection showing the clear transition over time and it will no doubt become more complete over time. The idea of a 'missing link' is a antiquated as thinking the earth is flat. How people like yourself can ignore actual physical evidence you can hold in your hand is perplexing.
‘Carbon dating radically flawed...”
It is? Good thing we have some 4 dozen other dating methods I guess.
“PUnctuated Equilibrium is the day a frog became an ape.... magic!!!”
That’s not what PE suggests either, do you even read anything you so openly critique? No where in PE does it state that a frog overnight becomes an ape. Here, read for a change. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
jar1961,
“It's real simple.... until you are able to explain where the matter came from every other scientific notion you have is a moot discussion….. matter can neither be created or destroyed”
Origins of matter huh? You mentioned the first law regarding matter/energy and how neither can be created or destroyed, which is accurate, but this brings the next logical question. ‘If something exists as matter does and requires no causation for to exist in the first place, as the first law demonstrates, why then does one inject ‘god made matter’ into the equation in the first place? Its an entirely illogical argument.
Something like matter that requires no causation for it’s existence is devoid of creation in the first place, so to ask what causesed (sic)it is a logical fallacy.
“and eventually you might even getting around to explaining who nutured (sic) the baby from the slime”
um, this is a strawman argument. For one, it doesn’t represent how evolution is suggested to work at all. No where in evolutionary biology is it stated that bacterium instantly transformed or out poofed a fully formed human child, this is a pure misunderstanding of the facts entirely. You’re strawman entirely ignores a key principle of evolution, which is DESCENT with modification. There is not instant ‘goo to you’ in evolution, rather the process is cumulative from species to species. Stating that bacteria could (somehow) give birth to a human demonstrates how inept and ill read you are with regards to biology, never mind evolution.
“how is it that the slime concurrently and contemporaneously created both the male and female at the same time”
Why don’t you read up on ‘Y Chromosome emergence’, it’s all there. You assume too much. The first cells were asexual and swapped genetic information via Horizontal Gene Transfer, just like bacteria do today.
“Im not going to debate with you”
Well you haven’t responded to any of the evidence I submitted earlier, so it’s hardly a shocker.
“(sic) Paschals Wager.... the believer always wins the wager, the atheist always looses it...”
No, the believer doesn’t win, as Pascal ignored the details involved. Pascal ignored all the other 3000+ possible gods one could worship and thus you could be believing the wrong one this whole time and in the end Ball or Amen Ra will still send you to hell. So, you better believe in Amen Ra and the feather of truth’ or you’re going to hell. Pascal also didn’t account for believing for beliefs sake and ignored that a god wouldn’t see through disingenuous ‘hedge betting belief’ in which case the god would still send the person so their hell anyway as their belief wasn’t sincere to being with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
ABout Evolution: Yes Topekan... you are right.. a theory is a theory until the hypothesis is porven and then the experiment re conducted so that the results of the 1 validate the findings of the other...
Evolution will always be a scientific theory.... Scopes, Lucy and the rest.. all failures....
Carbon dating radically flawed...
PUnctuated Equilibrium is the day a frog became an ape.... magic!!!
I admire the atheists..it takes more faith to believe in whatever it is they believe than for the Christian....
FOR AGENTORANGE: Give it a break will you? You've impressed us with your knowledge... right wrong or otherwise.....It's real simple.... until you are able to explain where the matter came from every other scientific notion you have is a moot discussion.... matter can neither be created or destroyed... .. and eventually you might even getting around to explaining who nutured the baby from the slime... and how is it that the slime concurrently and contemporaneously created both the male and female at the same time...
Im not going to debate with you.. and I couldn't care less about your countervailing arguements ..... I've ministered to the atheistic community for almost 10 years..... your arguements are stale.... and when one doesnt fly you go to ludicrous theories like punctuated equilibrium.. .
Last note... NOte to atheist.... your intellectualizing and your rationalizing seems applicable save for one point.... Paschals Wager.... the believer always wins the wager, the atheist always looses it...
I
agentorange
Re:What I expected was a little more critical thinking and open mindedness, but apparently I was wrong. Virtually no one here is interested in the evidence, nor are they interested in having to critcally think about what they all collectively mean. Instead, many would rather cover their ears, shut their eys and yammer 'I'm not listening, na na na' like a little petulant kid.
All these things can be said about you.
star2,
What I expected was a little more critical thinking and open mindedness, but apparently I was wrong. Virtually no one here is interested in the evidence, nor are they interested in having to critcally think about what they all collectively mean. Instead, many would rather cover their ears, shut their eys and yammer 'I'm not listening, na na na' like a little petulant kid.
agentorange
Re:My questions would have an end if people would quit dodging them over over and retorting to tired biblical verses as a defense.
This is a Christian site. What do you expect to get from Christians who know their God?
"I am not much into throwing my pearls before swine,"
Ahhhh, how cute....almost poetic.
"what do you do for a living? "
You assume too much, what makes you think only one person is using this account? Dun dun dun!!
My questions would have an end if people would quit dodging them over over and retorting to tired biblical verses as a defense.
With no love, I say spare me the indignant routine. If you're too lazy, limp and ill read to repond to intellectual enquiry then you're not much of a thinker in the first place.
Agent Orange,
I am not much into throwing my pearls before swine, but I got to ask you, what do you do for a living? I have dealt with many intense athiests and believers in other religions, but I must admit, your pointless energy into a battle that has no end but in death is quite entertaining.
With all love I say, GET A LIFE!!!
Topekan,
Here, I'll leave you a link so you can read it for yourself why only natural explanations are deemd Science. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Topekan,
I wasn't refering only to radiometric dating, but more so towards all the science questions which are in scuh IQ tests and require basic understanding of them to answer. but it's quite hard to answer them and do well if you reject them. Ever more hilarious is how she claims she got a 120 IQ at age 10!! Riiiight.
"Evolution has never been, and can't be, tested using the scientific method. "
How do you figure? It makes falsifiable predictions, it thus falls within the confines of the scientific method. using the evolution as a theory we make predictions like about chromosome 2 fusion and locatios of fossils based on past finds and what do you know, they reafrim the theory. If evolution is wrong, then there were a lot of hominids wandering around 2+ million years ago for it to be wrong as well.
"Merely asserting that: 1) there must be a 'naturalistic' explanation'"
Oh boy, sorry pal but ONLY NATURALISTIC explanations cane be used as Science, look it up according to the scientific method. Secondly, we don't have to wait for anything, we have the fossils, we have the DNA which conforms to them. We have the fossils, we win.
“When I was 10 yrs old I was administered the Stanford Benit Test by a PhD Clinical
Psychologist. My IQ determination was from that test not from some website.”
Oh, so now you’re telling us that your boasting of a ‘120 IQ’ was from when you were 10 years old then, do I have you right? Star, you’re digging yourself an ever deeper hole, get a clue. Can you even back this claim up, or is it more empty rhetoric?
“Such things are not asked on IQ test Mr. agentorange, you know that.”
Oh I agree star, however many of the things tested in standard IQ tests require basic understanding in biology, and other such Sciences that you overwhelmingly deny. It’s quite hard to claim you did so well on an IQ test when some of the testing is related to things that you deny on face value.
“My faith in God and His Word is my shield against the foolish thoughts of ignorant men.”
More like your faith is your only refuge and sanctuary against the wave of reality that would otherwise come crashing down on your empty rhetoric. The wave is the evidence and with your faith you hold it all back, not very logical star. There is a reason apologetics exist, think about it.
“You are probably also frustrated and somewhat mad because you are losing this battle.”
Losing what battle Star? Here I am presenting evidence upon evidence and your only retort is, 'I got faith’. Mmmmkaaay. Go ahead, refute how light speed is a constant and the universe is 13.7 billion years old as a result, try me.
I have taken IQ tests, and have never seen a question on radiometric dating. As far as denying evolution being tantamount to rejecting science, that's malarkey (a fine scientific term). Evolution has never been, and can't be, tested using the scientific method. Until that can be done it remains an untested hypothesis. Merely asserting that: 1) there must be a 'naturalistic' explanation' and 2) it takes millions of years so it can't be tested is not science, it's dogmatic assertion, which makes it not science, but religion.
agentorange
You are probably also frustrated and somewhat mad because you are losing this battle.
agentorange
Re:Oh ok. star and my IQ is 121... are you serious? 120, from where, some website?
When I was 10 yrs old I was administered the Stanford Benit Test by a PhD Clinical Psychologist. My IQ determination was from that test not from some website.
Re:On an IQ test, how could you explain in detail or understand a principle like radionmetric dating
Such things are not asked on IQ test Mr. agentorange, you know that.
You make such foolish statements because you are the very least frustrated because you cannot control me in what I believe. My faith in God and His Word is my shield against the foolish thoughts of ignorant men.
God is the one who created this universe and everything that is in it. I would be pretty foolish to look else where for understanding on how He did things. No, the Bible is not a science textbook but it does give us clues about how things were done. If you want to know or understand how something was designed or works then go to the one who designed it. God is quite able to help man understand the data we have and to develop models based on His Word that describes what we see. To look for other explanations for observed phenomen will only result in foolish theories.
Re:it's like arguing you're a whiz in science
I never said that I was. All I said was that I had a MS in Applied Math from the Fla Inst of Tech and I was enrolled in but dropped out of the PhD program in Applied Math at Rice Univ here in Houston, Tx. My skills in math have greatly lessened over the 30 yrs since I have been in school and have not used any of it to speak of since I left school.
I flagged myself below to make some corrections/additions.
It's pretty hard to have an IQ of 120 when you reject virutally all the recent advances in science which the tests would be based on! On an IQ test, how could you explain in detail or understand a principle like radionmetric dating when you rejct it off hand, it's entirely illogical.
it's like arguing you're a whiz in science, but reject virtually all of it. That is entirely confounding logic star.
"No, my brain isn't all that great. I only have a 120 IQ"
Oh ok. star and my IQ is 121... are you serious? 120, from where, some website?
TerryH,
“It is very odd that scientist seem to think they can determine age by appearance.”
Yah, well we Sciency types don’t determine the age by mere ‘appearance’ but rather analyze the age itself by numerous methods. Just like your example of the person who looks 40, but in reality after more testing and deeper analysis reveals they are in fact olde, same goes for our earth. We at first didn't suspect it to be that old b/c the human lifetime is quite short compared to geological changes and as a result no one would have argued earth being more than some 20 million years old, which is abot the age Lord Kelvin gave for Earth. However being creationist, Kelvin didn't know about radioactive decay elements that would provide additional heat/energy to the earth and result in it being far older.
Our earth’s appearance changes over time as tectonic plates move (africa and south america are obvious examples) and mile wide asteroids collide with earth and other events that show the very surface has been reshaped countless times as a result.
I’ve asked Star and others to try to explain why light speed (which is a constant) and other testing methods reveals that our Universe isn’t some 6000 years old, but it’s over 13.7 billion years old. Even the distance to our closest galaxy, Andromeda is more than 6000 light years away and yet, you want us to think folks from NASA and other global cosmologists and astronomers are off by that much of a margin?
How can Star explain, or dare I say rationalize, that the universe isn’t actually 13.7 billion years old? I'd love to see you try this one star.
agentorange
No, my brain isn't all that great. I only have a 120 IQ. Nothing to write home about for sure.
I place my faith in God and in His Word. If man says something that goes counter to His Word then I reject what man says.
"I am sorry but I will not listen to anyone tell me that mankind and all life for that matter has been on this planet longer than approximately 6000 yrs. The Word of God is my authority not the opinions of man"
Hello, earth to star...who do you exactly think WRTOE the bible? Yes....men. in the end, inspired by god or not, men, faliable men penned it. so the very logic that you use to suggest that other works are 'mere opinon' is a logical fallacy.
Why do you even bother researching anything at all (radiometric dating) if in the end you will come to the conclussion you just did? You state that certain things are flawed before even looking into them and then when you do research them you find them to do quite accurate and in response you simply ignore them and close your eyes, cover your ears in defiance. That isn't logical at all star. You argue god gave you a great brain, well then use it. It's entirely illogical to argue god gave you such a tool to use only not to use it as you do. you don't worship a god, you worship your book and you're an idoltar of it, can't you see that?
With your attitude you'd be better of not researching anything else at all, why even bother star. Like I said, talking to you, is like talking to a brick wall. (flagged myself)
angelluv47, Was your high school band praying to God, or were they showing off how holy they were? There is something in the Bible about praying in the closet.
You can take all public authorization of the acknowledgement of God away, but you can not stop people from praying! What would happen if the entire student body all stood up together and recited the "Lord's Prayer" together at the graduation? They couldn't arrest everyone or refuse to give them their diplomas! Our high school band did this in what was Madeline O'Hare's hometown before a football game in 2000, along with a majority of the people in the football stadium. We all took the time to go out onto the field and hold hands while we prayed. Believers need to strike back at rampant atheism by public affirmation of the Christian priniples that our country was founded upon! In the next life if you have denied Jesus He will deny you!
It is very odd that scientist seem to think they can determine age by appearance. I have seen twenty five year olds with grey hair. Doctor's have said that a person has the body of a sixty year old to a person that is only forty. Appearances can be deceptive.
Word of the day:
airhead: a flighty scatterbrained simpleton
agentorange
I am sorry but I will not listen to anyone tell me that mankind and all life for that matter has been on this planet longer than approximately 6000 yrs. The Word of God is my authority not the opinions of man.
Good night agentorange. Rest well. God bless you with the truth of His Word.
“Yes, I get it but do you? You have no idea how old anything is before you test it.”
Actually we do, I told you already we use multiple dating techniques, it’s not just radiometric.
“What if your lava flow or your rock, or whatever isn't as old as you think it is?”
Well star if we just saw the lava come out of the volcano we already know it’s age, however as soon as it hardens it’s taken back to the lab for dating, so I think we can know the dates pretty accurately based on that. Additionally we use numerous dating techniques to establish accuracy. IE, we use Dendrochronology (tree rings) and those go back over 10,00 years and ice cores go back over 700,000 years.
“The ages would be off by a large anount wouldn't they be? Millions of yrs, wouldn't they be?”
Please read up on it on Wiki, I am going to bed. Please read it and get back to me, you should find answers from the Wiki page and the related links attached to it. Go ahead, be skeptical, read into it and objectively look at what that creationist site tries to pawn off as being poor dating and you'll see they are ignoring the details.
star2,
Do some research on the miniumum dating ranges for Ak-r, it's around 100,000 years, so obviously it would result in an error for anything recent. Different particles decay after different rates and this decay rate is used to establish a 1/2 life for it and that's how we establish the dates.
agentorange
Yes, I get it but do you? You have no idea how old anything is before you test it. What if your lava flow or your rock, or whatever isn't as old as you think it is? The ages would be off by a large anount wouldn't they be? Millions of yrs, wouldn't they be?
What if the earth was only about 6000 yrs olds and the different stratas were created by the flood, then all the non-carbon 14 dating methods wouldn't be applicable nor realiable would they be?
You don't know how old the earth is.
The methods used are correct for each sample type in the examples given.
“If you don't make that assumption then you tell me big boy what was the parent to daughter ratio in the beginning?”
Star, when the isotopes are analyzed we can know what the ratios are for parent to daughter elements and know based on continued observation how fast certain isotopes in the same sample will decay at. Read up on it on Wiki. All you stated were old creationist regurgitation that fails to mention WHY the K-Ar method revealed such hig dates for recent material. It’s b/c it’s not used to date recent material in the first place. DUH! If one uses the wrong measuring device, of course it’s going to result in an error. It tries to give the impression that they are flawed, but ignores to metioned the DETAILS that not all isotopes decay at the same rates and thus dating recent material with an slowly decaing isotope obviously results in an error. You're getting lied to star, get a clue.
star,
You still didn't show me anywhere when we must know that no daughter elements are present, so again I afraid I have caught you in a lie.
“lava dome at Mount St. Helens that was formed in 1986”
Star, you can’t use the Potassium-Argon [K-Ar] method do date recent material b/c it’s ½ life is very looooong. Learn to read about dating methods. If the K-Ar dating method has a Looooooong ½ life, then obviously it can’t be used to date recent material as it decays too sloow, now can it?
Same thing goes for number 2 and 3. C-14 has a SHORTER ½ life than the K-Ar method and therefore b/c it decays faster it’s used for dating recent material which K-AR can’t do. Get it?
agentorange
Oh yea, big boy, tell me how you know? Where is your evidence?
agentorange
Re:No offense star, but you’re pretty thick. Show me anywhere in here where it says it relies on no daughter elements being present. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
If you don't make that assumption then you tell me big boy what was the parent to daughter ratio in the beginning?
Re: Unreliability of dating methods.
Part 1
Re: Radiometric dating of the earth and fossils: Are they trustworthy?
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_earth:
Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years.
Can we be so sure?
Taken from http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/creation_truths/evo_radiodating2.html
Anomalies of Radiometric Dating
1. Rock from a dactite lava dome at Mount St. Helens that was formed in 1986 during the eruption there was dated (using the Potassium-Argon [K-Ar] method) at 0.35 ±0.05 million years. (S.A. Austin, "Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dactite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano," CEN Technical Journal, 10(3):335-343, 1986)
2. A British Engineer, Sidney P. Clementson, studied a variety of modern volcanic rock. Knowing their ages as 200-300 years old, he carefully compared them to Soviet uranium tests of the same volcanic rocks. What he found was surprising. In every instance the dates were found to be hugely incorrect with a 14 billion year (the dates varied from 50 million years to 14.5 billion) discrepancy. ("Critical Examination of Radioactive Dating of Rocks," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1970.)
3. Five andesite lava flows from Mt. Ngauuhoe in New Zealand. They were Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dated from <0.27 to 3.5 million years. The only problem was that one was laid down 1949, three were laid down 1954 and one in 1975. (A.A. Snelling, "The Cause Of Anomalous Potassium-Argon ‘Ages’ for recent andesite flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon ‘Dating’" Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, ed. E. Walsh, 1998, pg. 503-525.)
Re: Unreliability of dating methods.
Part 2
4. A single uranium deposit in the Colorado Caribou Mine had a radiometric error spread of 700 million years. (G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, pp. 139-140.)
5. Swedish kolm from Scandinavia was (using the uranium method) dated with an error spread of 420 million years. (G.A. Kerkut Implications of Evolution, pp. 139-140.)
6. Granite from the Black Hills gave strontium/rubidium and various lead system dates varying from 1.16 to 2.55 billion years. (L. Ferrell, "Dating Methods", Evolution Disproved, 2001)
7. In 1800-1801, lava flows off the coast of Hawaii near Hualalei formed volcanic rock. It was dated using K-Ar (Potassium-Argon). The K-Ar dating gave dates ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years. (Journal of Geophysical Research, July 15, 1968; Science, October 11, 1968)
8. Doctor Read, in a presentation before a special meeting of the California State Board of Education, presented his research into the radiometric dating of lunar (moon) rocks. Many lunar samples were brought back from the missions and carefully dated usingthorium dating, uranium dating, potassium-argon dating, and agglutinate dating. Yet the dates vary from 2 million to 28 billion. ("Proceedings of the Second, Third and Fourth Lunar Conferences," Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volumes 14 and 17)
9. Oxford Castle in England was built 725 years ago, and yet its mortar has been radiocarbon dated at 7,370 years old. (E.A. Von Fange, "Time Upside Down," quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly, November, 1974, p. 18.)
10. Wood only a few days cut out of living, growing trees was dated, using radiocarbon, to have existed for 10,000 years. (B. Huber, "Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions," in Physiology of Forest Trees, ed. by K.V. Thimann, 1958.)
Re: Unreliability of dating methods.
Part 3
11. Here is a quote which further demonstrates the accuracy problems of radiometric dating, and the carbon-14 method in particular:
"Hair from the Chekurovka mammoth that was found in the Lena River delta region of Russia has a radiocarbon age of 26,000 [years], while the radiocarbon age of peat only eighteen inches above the carcass is 5,610. At normal [present] growth rates, between 500-2,000 solar years would be required for the development of an eighteen inch peat layer.
"Muscle tissue from beneath the scalp of a mummified musk ox found in frozen muck at Fairbanks Creek, Alaska, has a radiocarbon age of 24,000, while the radiocarbon age of hair from a hind limb of the carcass is 17,200. A life span exceeding 7,000 years for a specimen of this species is doubtful.
"In a gravel deposit at the Union Pacific Mammoth Site near Rawlins, Wyoming, a mammoth skeleton was found together with artifacts that indicate the animal was killed by man. Radiocarbon dating of ivory from the center of the tusks establishes the kill date at approximately 11,300 radiocarbon years ago. Wood fragments from the gravel in which the remains were buried have a radiocarbon age of approximately 5,000 years. The bones would not have survived 6,000 solar years of exposure, nor could they be expected to remain in an articulate relationship during erosion and reburial by natural processes.
"A mastodon skeleton found at Ferguson Farm near Tupperville, Ontario, provided a radiocarbon age of 8,900 for the collagen fraction of bones and a radiocarbon age of 6,200 for high organic-content mud from within the skull cavities. It is unlikely that this skeleton could have survived exposure for 2,700 solar years before emplacement in peat." --Robert H. Brown, "Radiocarbon Age Measurements Re-examined," in Review and Herald, October 28, 1971, pp. 7-8.
Re: Unreliability of dating methods.
Part 4
12. Basalt from Mt. Etna, in Sicily (122 BC) was tested using the K-Ar method and found to be 250,000 years old. (G.B. Dalyrmple, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55; also see Impact, #307, Jan. 1999)
13. "One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the 'wood immediately around the carcass' was 9-10,000." (T.L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. printing office, 1975) pg. 30)
14. "The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY." (H.E. Anthony, "Natures Deep Freeze," Natural History, Sept. 1949, pg. 300)
15. "The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 ±670 and 16,150 ±230 years respectively." (R.M. Thorson and R.D. Guthrie, "Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth Locality, Alaska," Quaternary Research, Vol. 37, No 2, March 1992, pg. 214-228)
Conclusion:
Every one of these anomalies are on the dating of objects of known age. Why then should we trust radiometric dating to be accurate about objects and rocks for which we do not know the ages for?
These examples show that radiometric dating is totally useless for age determining.
"There was water underneath the earth. A mist came up from the ground to water everything.
(Genesis 2:5-6)'
So you're telling me a single 'mist' of rain was enough to allow for life to live all tha time till your no-way flood? Ok...get real star.
"Your assumption is that there were no daughter elements in the beginning. It is only an assumption. You have no evidence to back that up.”
No offense star, but you’re pretty thick. Show me anywhere in here where it says it relies on no daughter elements being present. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
agentorange
Re:Ya, and how exactly did people live back then wise guy? You need water to grow things, all living things on earth require water to live. Get a clue. Oh, let me guess…another miracle to explain it away!
There was water underneath the earth. A mist came up from the ground to water everything.
(Genesis 2:5-6)
Re:Fail again star. We don’t use that assumption for dating radiometric techniques star, we rely on the ratio of parent to daughter elements which results in decaying isotopes decaying into others, by knowing the ratio we can measure it as it decays and establish how old it is.
Your assumption is that there were no daughter elements in the beginning. It is only an assumption. You have no evidence to back that up.
"God's Word also plainly states that the human was a unique creation of God. The human, unlike all the other forms of animal life, was created in the image of God and "
Hello NEWSflash Star, who exactly do you think wrote the bible? yes MEN ! think about it. obvously they are giong to coin themselves as the pinnacle creation. try to think a little more critically.
“The Word of God implies that there was no rain prior to the great flood (deduced from Genesis 9:13).”
Ya, and how exactly did people live back then wise guy? You need water to grow things, all living things on earth require water to live. Get a clue. Oh, let me guess…another miracle to explain it away!
“These dating methods start out with the premise that all the radioactive substances started out in it pure form. I reject that assumption.”
Fail again star. We don’t use that assumption for dating radiometric techniques star, we rely on the ratio of parent to daughter elements which results in decaying isotopes decaying into others, by knowing the ratio we can measure it as it decays and establish how old it is.
“If all that was on the earth was subjected to the continual breaking up of the ground, and the gushing waters then it is logical to conclude that all life forms were buried under all the mud and at differnt levels.”
Sorry Star, but we find quite an orderly arrangement of types of life depending on the strata. In a real deluge like your flood you’d have all animals all mixed on all levels, but we don’t find that at all.
“Sometime back I gave you many articles that were written showing the unreliabilty of many of the different dating methods”
Ya star, you mentioned what are known as anomalies, which is why they were are from like the 1950 and prior to how our understanding of processes like the ‘reservoir affect’ which results in inflated dating.
I'd rather not even have you address my questions anymore star, talking to you is like talking to a wall. Even a wall can think more critically.
agentorange
The Word of God stands for ever.
The thoughts and opinions of man last but a short while; what is true today will be wrong tomorrow. Oh, the sinking sand of those who place their trust in it.
star2,
Fine star, you say earth dating methods are flawed....explain why when we use light speed which is a constant to measure the universe it's not 6000 years ofd. heck, even the andromeda galazy isn't 6000 years old, get a freaking clue already.
star2,
star, I am talking about evidence here. not rhetoric in your tired 3000 year old book. please try think outside of that box and address the evidence I presented outside of that, that is what I am saying.
Comments on agentorange's fossil videos part 1 &2
Originally posted on "Homeschooling Families Threatened...."
Part 1
I place my faith in the God of the Bible who has changed my life. He has been faithful to His Word in my life in many areas. I accept by faith that His Word is truth even if I don't understand it all that much or if at all in many parts.
God has revealed to mankind through His Word how He did things when He created the heavens and the earth. I accept what He says as truth and try to interpret the evidence that man has from it as best as I can.
From Genesis 1 we can see that creation took place in a very short period of time and that it was a process. God has revealed to mankind that He created fish, birds, and animal life all after their own kind in their mature state and plant life after their own kind in different stages of maturity. This implies that when He created each kind of animal life or birds, or fish He created both the male and his counterpart, the female, with the capablility of reproducing offspring like themselves. Thus, fish give birth to fish, hawks give birth to hawks, cows give birth to cows, and humans give birth to humans, and etc. There is no crossing over of the different kind of spicies and there is no transition of one kind of animal life to an entirely different kind of animal life.
The Word of God also makes it very plain that God gives to each species their nature; what their instincts are, their behavior, and etc.(see Job 39 for examples)
God's Word also plainly states that the human was a unique creation of God. The human, unlike all the other forms of animal life, was created in the image of God and was given life by God breathing into him the breath of life. God commanded the man to have dominion over all creation. The Word of God also shows that the humans, Adam and Eve, were created in their mature state with the ability to walk, talk, reason, think creatively, to reproduce, and to have communion with their Creator.
Comments on agentorange's fossil videos part 1 &2
Originally posted on "Homeschooling Families Threatened...."
Part 2
Last night I watched your videos again, both in their entirety. I understand more better now what you were trying to show and your last post to me today confirms to me that my conclusions were correct.
I do not see it the way you do. If one starts out with the premise that all life evolved from some common ancient life form, then it would be natural and logical that one would conclude that humans eventually evolved from an ancient ape based on the evidence.
But, I reject that premise. I accept by faith that God created everything like He has revealed in His Word. So, I start out with the premise that God created everything like He described in His Word.
For whatever reason God made different kinds of animals in simialr ways and they show similar but different designs. Thus, the different kinds of apes will have many characteristics that are similar but will be uniquely different in other areas. These apes will have some similar designs as the human. However, the human is totally unique. He is vastly superior to the ape, and was made to have a relationship with the Creator. The ape and all other life forms were not not made to have one.
I do not accept the dates given for the fossils. The dating methods are unreliable. Many articles written in reputable scientific journals like Science have shown that. Sometime back I gave you many articles that were written showing the unreliabilty of many of the different dating methods.
These dating methods start out with the premise that all the radioactive substances started out in it pure form. I reject that assumption. I believe that God created the earth at various levels of maturity. This would render any dating of the earth or anything else connected with the earth impossible.
Comments on agentorange's fossil videos part 1 &2
Originally posted on "Homeschooling Families Threatened...."
Part 3
I believe God's account of the world-wide flood. God's Word says in Genesis 7:11 "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were open." From this we see that God broke up the ground allowing the water underneath to come gushing out. It probably came out with great force washing the people away and burying them in the mud. Now, some how, the rains came down from the sky and every form of life was killed except, of course, those that were in the ark.
The Word of God implies that there was no rain prior to the great flood (deduced from Genesis 9:13). So, some how when the waters came gushing out from beneath the crust of the earth that that precipitated the rains.
The Word of God says in Genesis 8:2, "The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped:..." The waters from the earth and the rains continued together for forty days and forty nights (Genesis 7:12), and then God stopped both of them at the same time.
If all that was on the earth was subjected to the continual breaking up of the ground, and the gushing waters then it is logical to conclude that all life forms were buried under all the mud and at differnt levels.
If this is the case then it is not unreasonable to expect to find different remains of plant life, and animal and human fossils to be observed at different strata.
I believe that the animal and human fossils that have been found were all contemporary. So, what your videos have shown are merely the different animials and humans that were alive at the time of the flood.
“The most frustrating aspect of these discussions is what I believe Nietzche called unyielding despair that”
Most Atheists don’t even prescribed to Nietzsche’s views on life and that ‘nothing matters’ and Nihilism, what have you been reading? Or do you read?
“your bias is so firmly rooted it can not nor will not allow you to examine anything without the filter of your atheism.... and that is sad”
Yea, and like this can’t be said for the other way around for Theism right? Get real kid. Sorry but the door swings both ways in this regard.
I would just appreciate it if you or someone else would review the links to vids I posted earlier and then get back to me.
“Don't confuse atheism for belief in God.. at the end of the day, Flew accepted God as the grand creater...”
Oh trust me I am not. But don’t confuse Flew as a Deist who thinks god goes around poofing things into action as religions prescribed. A deistic or pantheistic god, as I mentioned with Star, is like natures god and one I can almost envision, however I have some questions and doubts on it, but not as many as the ones put forth by religions.
“As far as Behe.... the Denver debate did nothing to damage Behe's research or findings”
Excuse me but all of Behe’s examples of IC systems were shown in court to have evolutionary origins. One would think that would certainly kill his findings. Arguing that something is irreducible complex is an argument from person incredulity, it’s pathetic. The scientific community isn’t atheistic, most are theists! Besides, in Science that’s how ideas are vindicated by PEER REVIEW. It’s the normal science critiquing process, get a clue. All published works are open for review and that’s how science knowledge advances.
“Darwin was made a fool of in the Scopes trial..”
What! Darwin wasn’t even at the Scopes trial! Evolution is taught b/c of the scopes trial, so how exactly did it make Darwin a fool? If anything it vindicated his ideas!
“not to mention the more recent "Lucy" findings which were also shown as false..”
‘Lucy’ (Australopithecus Afarensis) isn’ t hoax, false or fraud, we have numerous specimens of these species get a clue.
“It is amazing how every step along the way, every discovery made by atheistic scientist is shortly thereafter refuted by more objective followup research...”
Such as…… you can't even name one, heck you can't even reply to my vids either.
The liars for Jesus never stop lying. They are proud of their dishonesty. They make no attempt to hide it. Anything is justified if it's for Jesus.
For the Christians, nothing is more terrifying than reality. The idea they developed from other animals, instead of being magically created to be separate from nature, scares the heck out of the Christians. They are like little children who are afraid of the dark.
agentorange, and anyone else that might wish to know,
Remember how someone went through and flagged out just about all of the articles on the CP home page? Well, he's back. it's oldguy, alias first/danny2/danny/bob.
Doesn't matter how you characterize his belief conversion... it is rooted in the fact that certain aspects of the cohesiveness and uniformity of the universe around him could only be explained through an intelligent design.... Don't confuse atheism for belief in God.. at the end of the day, Flew accepted God as the grand creater...
As far as Behe.... the Denver debate did nothing to damage Behe's research or findings.... the fact that the scientifc-atheistic community has launched an offensive against Behe since he came out with Darwin's Black Box speaks volumes.....
To try and refute Behe without acknowledging how Darwin was made a fool of in the Scopes trial.. not to mention the more recent "Lucy" findings which were also shown as false...
It is amazing how every step along the way, every discovery made by atheistic scientist is shortly thereafter refuted by more objective followup research...
The most frustrating aspect of these discussions is what I believe Nietzche called unyielding despair that an atheist must adhere to in order to make his arguements for his atheism credible in his own mind..... or put another way, your bias is so firmly rooted it can not nor will not allow you to examine anything without the filter of your atheism.... and that is sad.
oldguy,
Seriously. the guy is paramount, but I think age is perhaps creeping up on him, he's 85 now. Sorry folks, but it's a fact the mental ability and cognitive ability does taper off a bit after you get up in those years.
Regarding Flew, " In a December 2004 interview he said: I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins"
Hope that clears it up. and you should note, a Deistic god, wouldn't be out and about poofing things into existance either. A Deistic god would devise natural laws that the universe would have to abide by upon inception and result in what we see, in otherwords, evolution exists in Flews minds eye as a way of god bringing using a process (evolution) to result in diversity in life. As opposed to this poofing beings from clay into action.
One senile person invokes magic and the Christians think that's proof for the invisible man.
jar1961,
Yes, Flew a once avid Atheist is now a DEIST, not a Christian. Try not to get the 2 mixed up. He came to conclude this based on, get this, the notions put forth by the proponets of Intelligent Design or certain confines in universe.
Well, theres just a few problems there, much, if not all of Behe's instances of Ireducible Complexity were thrown in his face in Dover 2005 and shown to have evoluionary origins, so Flew is likely holding his Deistic views not on biological, but on cosmological systems. Flew isn't arguing for the same benevolent god you guys invision, he's arguing for a Deistic, or Pantheistic god which is largely indifferent to us and our livelyhood.
NEW YORK - A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God — more or less — based on scientific evidence, and he says so on a video released Thursday.
At age 81, after decades of insisting that belief is a mistake, the professor, Antony Flew, has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.
wilderness,
Unfortunately, that does happen, good or bad parenting or not, it sorta just comes with the territory of the doctrine. However, other times they equally crouch in fear of such damnation as this thought of burning in some imagined not yet realized place overwhelms the logic and reason based mind. Is it any wonder even doubting the holly spirit is considered THE unfogiveable sin.
"Fear of Hell - what a horrible belief! The insane people who believe it love to abuse their children with this disgusting nonsense. They love to threaten people with torture in hell when they don't agree with their stupidity. Most of these nuts think only their religion can save them from the wrath of their loving god. It's pure insanity and hell believers should be locked up before they harm somebody." (BobC http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/34_unconvincing_arguments_for.php
Unfortunately, some children have been raised the wrong way concerning God, and it drove them far from really knowing God. Though children must be taught the consequences of a sinful life, it must be tempered with the knowledge of God’s love.
Ps 86:15 But thou, O Lord, art a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth.
I would just appreciate one of your to veiw the vids and comment on them, but it seems to never happen. It's always back to some unrelated topic that wasn't even asked.
Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
Human evolution and missing links
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sZ2WoHFc7eE
No ‘other transitionals’ right? Wrong.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=O4GdZOlPrX8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM
Any takers?
wilderness,
Your're quoting from a Blog (rolls eyes)...mmmm mkay..... Do you understnad why invoking 'god dun it' to explain something isn't falsifiable and thus isn't Science? Show me a single time when 'god done it' or it was "an intellgently designer did it" has answered something that resulted in actual greater knowledge for mankind.
For the Believers: Please, it only damages your soul to attack someone who can't accept Truth. Christ couldn't save the world, only those whom He came for.... the more the loved the greater the persecution. The one thing we all have in common, both believer and non-believer is that one day every knee shall bow... the difference being..some will bow before the throne of God in heaven and others will bow as they have wrought damnation upon themselves..
They may well make a good arguement of the science which they erroneously construe, but at the end of the day, Paschal's Wager will always be resolved in favor of the believer.
SC,
“Now let's move onto the fact that there are huge jumps in the fossil records that have yet to be filled.”
Define 'huge jump' please. I gave you some vids on transitional fossils which do fills in some gaps, please explain what ‘huge jumps’ you’re eluding to.
“http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol26/3442_ifatal_flaws_what_evolution_12_30_1899.asp”
Did you even READ that link? It’s a rebuttal against Hank Hanegraaff and how his paper is wrong. You're amazing.
“http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html”
You call that ‘hard evidence’ ? Evidence for what? Java man and Peking man are specimens a of a species known as Homo Erectus, they weren’t hoaxes.
“What about the fossils of similar humans back before these so-called evolutionary stages?”
Which ones? You mean like the Australopithecines Genus? Australopithecines weren't humans, only those in the Genus Homo qualify as hominid or human.
“Now I think I'm done explaining myself.”
Well, thanks for not even bothering to address any of the evidence I presented in vids earlier, thanks a lot for wasting all of our time on waiting for you dead reply.
oldguy
Re:"I got the answer. God did it!" The other scientists would laugh at the nitwit. You don't want to be laughed at, do you?
Did people laugh at you when you said you believed in God or was a Catholic when you were a young boy? Is that why you rejected the religious beliefs you were raised on? Were you embrassed? Was your spirited wounded when you were laughed at? Is this really the source of your attitudes and rejection of God?
By the way, ShuckCreations, more than a century has passed since Darwin dropped dead. Do you think scientists have done nothing since then?
ShuckCreations: "Obviously a higher power was at work there."
Obviously? Magic is obvious? I suggest you should not be so quick to invoke magic. It makes you look lazy. Another reason to not invoke magic is because it makes you look childish. Imagine a group of scientists trying to solve a problem, and one of the scientists says "I got the answer. God did it!" The other scientists would laugh at the nitwit. You don't want to be laughed at, do you?
Also, ShuckCreations, when you quote a scientist you should provide the whole thing and you should provide a source for the quote. When you select one sentence out of a paragraph, you look extremely dishonest. Creationists do this kind of quote mining all the time. They select a sentence out of context to completely distort what the scientist meant. This tactic always backfires because everyone knows how dishonest it is.
"Piltdown man was a hoax."
So what? Is this your excuse to insult all scientists?
Your Piltdown man is a bad sign. It makes me think you are a total waste of time. Only a creationist would make a big deal out of one dishonest scientist who died many decades ago. It's difficult for me to respect somebody who would insult thousands of scientists because a small number of dead scientists were not honest.
oldguy aka first/danny2/danny/bob
Re:This explains why creationists are a waste of time.
Then why don't you leave and invest your time in something else.
I just found this quote. This explains why creationists are a waste of time.
"When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data."
[Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research]
oldguy aka first/danny2/danny/bob
God loves you anyway.
First before I talk about evolution there exists one problem that even Darwin himself admits:
"There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest fossilferous rocks." Darwin, The Origin of Species, p 348
Regardless of if there is evolution or not there's still one point where life was created all at once. Obviously a higher power was at work there. Now let's move onto the fact that there are huge jumps in the fossil records that have yet to be filled.
"But, as by this theory inumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin, The Origin of Species, p 163
And now check out the quoted block in the middle of the page...
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol26/3442_ifatal_flaws_what_evolution_12_30_1899.asp
Now let's see about the famous ape-men fossils:
Piltdown man was a hoax:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html
As matter of fact here's a nice big list of ancient ape-men fossil inconsistencies, click on the superscripts for sources:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html
Oh and one last thing. What about the fossils of similar humans back before these so-called evolutionary stages? Why would there be a difference? Wouldn't that just mean there might have been another close relative to the humans, as are the chimps today, that might've become extinct? And now we're trying to piece together something that no one was around to document.
And for those that say man wrote the bible...the apostles that wrote it were around Christ at the time He existed. They wrote of the things they saw, including the ressurection. Now I think I'm done explaining myself. I highly recommend reading "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" by Walt Brown. You might find some interesting things about science that you didn't know about.
LOL... well there is nothing left here but to pray for all the non-believers.... God will not loose one of His....
ShuckCreations: "It's pointless to debate when you're going to be so biased."
I'm not here to debate anything. All debating is pointless. I'm here to educate people.
BTW, why am I biased if I refuse to consider the nonsense and the magic of your disgusting death cult? I thought we were talking about science.
Christians have the unfortunate habit of mixing up scientific facts and supernatural beliefs. These two things are completely separate. Even religious scientists understand how important it is to not invoke God for any scientific problem. They know invoking magic has never answered any question.
Did you look at the amazon customer reviews of the book I recommended? You complained about the fossils, and you insulted the integrity of scientists. Do you still have problems with the fossils? What about all the DNA analysis that biologists use to test for evolutionary relationships? Do you understand how that works?
ShuckCreations, you should consider it a compliment that I talk to you at all. Some people, for example jar1961, are a complete waste of time. I'm probably wrong, but I think there is a very small chance you could understand why every biologist in the world calls evolution a fact.
It would be easier for you if you could at least temporarily set aside your supernatural beliefs, and imagine how the world would work without some invisible man in the sky performing magic tricks.
Yes orange, that wasn't directed at you. I'm interested in discussing, not converting. I'll leave that decision up to you but oldguy seems as though he's just here to troll and make people argue for the sense of pride and pleasing himself.
jar1961,
“evokution dictates that man came from apes... So who nutured the first baby chimps...? They are amammilian....it is the same question.....”
No, you’re confusing it. As a species branches out and evolves vie genetic isolation you have a group of formerly closely related species that overtime incur their own genetic mutations, selection, and thus evolve in their own trajectories. For a short period they could interbreed, then later interbreed with difficulty, and then later can’t interbreed. At no point would either side of this branch result in a parentless offspring as for the offspring to come about requires the parents in the first place.
Please understand, we didn’t come from Chimpanzees, and evolution doesn’t say that we did. Rather it suggests that both us homo sapiens (human) and Chimpanzees (Pan (and other great apes) both share a common ancestor some 5-6 million years ago, which would have been a primitve ape.
”You are claiming that man and apes were 2 different species”
Yes, they are. However, ‘APE’ as a taxonomic classification is at the Family level, which we are part of. Along with Orangutans, Gorillas, Chimpanzees and Bonobos. Those species are in the Great Apes Family according to taxonomy, genetics and other lines of evidence.
“... evolutionary theory claims man came from apes’
Well, not quite. Rather it suggests we and today’s members of the Great Ape Family shared a common ancestor, thus why I used the term ‘branching’ with reference to evolution.
ShuckCreations,
Will you still speak with me? I haven't insulted you, I am trying to bridge a gap here and would appreciate your response SC. Please say you'l review what I gave earlier and reply back.
"In evolution you have a group of species branching out to other descendants and therefore there is no instant part where an offspring would be without parent in the first place. You are totally misunderstanding what evolution suggests in the first place. Evolution never suggests that instantly life went from bacteria to humans in a single generation resulting in hapless babies".
Species of different types don't mutually nuture each other..... Wrong arguesment... evokution dictates that man came from apes... So who nutured the first baby chimps...? They are amammilian....it is the same question.....
You are claiming that man and apes were 2 different species ... evolutionary theory claims man came from apes
"Why should I waste my limited time looking at all aspects of your death cult?"
LOL oldguy, if you refuse to look at both sides of an arguement then I believe you and I are done with this discussion. It's pointless to debate when you're going to be so biased.
ShuckCreations,
Oldguy and I await your evidence and data that you bring forth, we understand you’re at work, that’s reasonable. Before posting your bit, please review those vids and sources from them it might explain something related to your points that you made earlier.
“God's Word has been, is, & will always be unchanged”
And WHOM do you think wrote it? Sure, you can say it was ‘inspired by god’, but in the end men, fallible men penned it. This logic swings both ways, so if men are by virtue of logic fallible, then it goes equally for anything and that includes holy texts.
You do know why Science knowledge changes yes? It’s b/c old ideas are debunked and others are revised further thus resulting in greater epistemological knowledge onwards towards ‘truth’. Decrying by fiat ‘the earth doesn’t move’ as the bible indicates doesn’t make it so, objective evidence and testing via scientific method makes it so. and it moves, so it’s not so.
“I have no problem whatsoever in supporting a theory that God himself could use”
SC, since god setup all the laws and rules, which govern the universe, anything derived from it is directly or indirectly from him/her/it. Think of it this way, if you were god and you had to setup a system to ensure that life could survive huge mass extinction events and other earthly calamities, would it be more logical to make life static and without any wiggle room to adapt and change, OR, would it seem more logical to have a system support life that is dynamic and can change, adapt to greater degrees and thus stands a better overall chance of living. Consider it, 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, and yet life soldiers on.
“..just explain to us creationist and intelligent designers..How did that first baby get its needs met?”
Oh boy, back to basics it appears. In evolution you have a group of species branching out to other descendants and therefore there is no instant part where an offspring would be without parent in the first place. You are totally misunderstanding what evolution suggests in the first place. Evolution never suggests that instantly life went from bacteria to humans in a single generation resulting in hapless babies.
Rather it suggests that life changes over time and thus all offspring are going to have parents.
Try to review the links I gave earlier on evidence for evolution and refute those accordingly.
jar1961,
“Irreducible complexity has scientifically refuted the concept of human "evolution"....”
REALLY, WHERE? Didn’t you know in Dover in 2005 all of Behe’s instances of IC were shown to have natural evolutionary means to explain them?
“that both the female and male of the species were created simulataneously in order for human procreation to have taken place within the same generation”
The emergence of Y chromosomal sexual recombination would have occurred looong before the first complex organisms orose over 600 million years ago. All those descendants from that point would have had sexual reproduction. Evolution never suggested that out of bacteria that instantly two humans were formed, know what you’re talking about.
“. I wont even touch on the Scopes monkey trial.. we all know how that turned out”
Ya, we do. Evolution was deemed science and creationism in all this time still hasn’t for lack of evidence. What’s your point?
“Evolution has been and will always be a theory...”
Major fail. Gravity is a theory, as is atomic matter, and germs is a theory, so is quantum mechanics. A ‘theory’ in science is supported by empirical facts and observation and tests, it doesn’t mean theory as a laymen would use the word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
ShuckCreations: "But basically what I'm trying to say is you must look at all aspects of Christianity and Science when coming to a conclusion."
Why should I waste my limited time looking at all aspects of your death cult?
Do you think a scientist would say, after making a scientific discovery, "what would jesus say about this fossil?"
jar1961, you claim you're educated, but I have seen no evidence you graduated from First Grade. Even ShuckCreations pointed out how dumb your question was.
"FOR ALL THE EVOLUTIONISTS: We don't need to debate...just explain to us creationist and intelligent designers..How did that first baby get its needs met? "
Jar: While I appreciate your need to help, this just does exactly the opposite. If evolution were to have happened then it would've bee gradually. Whether the man or woman evolved faster is irrevalent. The answer to the question you asking is very simple. Just look at it logically:
There would be a point as to which we call "man" vs the apelikeman. Where that is...heh, it's fuzzy but there would've been a point to which it occured. Let's say the parents were both still ape-like beings but almost that of the common man. They mate and have an offspring and it's slightly evolved mutation would be man. It would then be cared for by the ape-like parents. The baby would not be on it's own as you claim.
I don't support this theory but I'm just trying to explain to you how your logic doesn't work.
FOR ALL THOSE OF FAITH: Going down the road of debate with the secular community is a waste of energy and distracts us from loving our adversaries.... My suggestion is... don't try to convince them... they will believe what they will....
If they can accept that a baby.. never mind 2 babies survived on premordial earth without adult parenting that takes more faith to believe than what we as Christians believe....
FOR ALL THE EVOLUTIONISTS: We don't need to debate...just explain to us creationist and intelligent designers..How did that first baby get its needs met?
Oldguy, like I said before I don't have my reference material here and when I do present it I'm sure it won't convince you otherwise. But for the sake of presenting both sides of an arguement I will post it later. Furthermore, I've discussed this on another article on this site in more detail (don't remember which one so don't ask) and really don't feel like getting into a debate about it.
Lastly, before you start claiming that I have no knowledge of science, and as some people around here would like to call me an "uneducated christian," I'd like to inform you that I have had an interest in science since I was in middle school. My degree is in electrical engineering and I've had quite a bit of education in scientific studies. I have no problem whatsoever in supporting a theory that God himself could use. However, I also view science as an unbiased observer and if there is any scientific evidence that contradicts other siencetific studies I must take that into consideration.
Science is a world that is heavily reliant on fact and even then is sometimes faith put into assumptions. Science is constantly changing as it is based on findings made by man. God's Word has been, is, & will always be unchanged. When I have to put faith into something I'd rather put it into something that I know is consistant.
Anywayz, I've gone off on a little of a rant here. But basically what I'm trying to say is you must look at all aspects of Christianity and Science when coming to a conclusion. Once you have read and debated your doubts you can come to a decision. I have made mine after several years of study and that is to trust in Christ. But that in no way means that I don't believe in science either. It just means that I put more faith in God than I do in the ever-altering discoveries of man.
FOR OLDGUY etals:
I assure you my education is at the post graduate level... now... putting oyur insults aside let's try this again:
1. Irreducible complexity has scientifically refuted the concept of human "evolution"....
2. The odds of the evolutionary process which you claim led to the creation of the first human being are incomprehensively impossible that both the female and male of the species were created simulataneously in order for human procreation to have taken place within the same generation
3. I wont even touch on the Scopes monkey trial.. we all know how that turned out
4. Evolution has been and will always be a theory...
But assuming you are far more intelligent than I .. I am still waiting for an explaination how that first baby survived......so please educate me...
"There has been no evidence of fossils where evolution has taken place."
sigh.
For your convenience, ShuckCreations, I created this tinyurl for you to look at.
http://tinyurl.com/2z7fhk
This website has amazon.com customer reviews of the book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" by Donald R. Prothero. You could buy the book and read it, but it would be enough to read the customer reviews.
"There have been many hoaxes..."
In the future, before you insult the integrity of tens of thousands of scientists, please make some effort to educate yourself first. It's obvious you have no idea how many fossils of transitional species have been found. It's an interesting subject to study. Also interesting is how scientists can use their scientific knowledge to predict where to find the fossils they are looking for. I suggest you learn how Neil Shubin and his team were able to successfully predict where they could find Tiktaalik roseae on an island in the Canadian Arctic.
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
"The Search For Tiktaalik: The Transitional Species"
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html
The reason myself and others come here is because we are amazed there are still people who deny the facts of evolution. There could be nothing more interesting than the history of life, but millions of Americans ignore this fascinating history because they would rather believe in magical creation. I can't imagine anything more boring and more lazy than invoking God. Scientists have been learning about the history of life for more than a century. What they have found out is amazing and with every new discovery it becomes even more amazing. What a horrible waste to deny all this rapidly growing knowledge to defend an ancient religious idea like magical creation.
ShuckCreations,
On a side note, it appears Palu is resulting in more finds of the species homo florensis (the hobbit). http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2008/03/11/small_bodied_humans_from_palau/#more
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/16/10630/6201
Again like I said. If evolution is wrong, we shouldn't expect to fine any hominid fossils anywhere, but there sure were a LOT of hominids wandering around from 2 million years ago up till quite recently it appears.
oldguy,
I noticed it, they should notice it too, it's their service. However the link you mentioned from the creation/evolution section within Education was removed, so it seems the entire artilcle and link were removed, or lost (not likely) from the webserver as generally web servers are load balanced and for his reason missing links shouldn't occur. It also addressed bandwidth issues.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080315/31533_Ben_Stein_Brings_'Star_Power'_to_Florida's_Evolution_Debate.htm
Our apologies... The page you requested could not be found.
If you got here by typing a URL into your browser's address bar, please make sure the spelling,
capitalization, and punctuation are correct, then try reloading the page.
If you are certain that this URL is valid, please send us feedback about the broken link.
Anyone else notice this problem? Anyone want to complain to the Christian Post about it?
ShuckCreations, in the meantime perhaps I could answer why those 3 or 4 reasons jar1961 listed earlier in no way negate the process of evolution.
'Punctuated equillibrium
First and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics
Law of Entropy
Law of Universal Planetary Motion"
ShuckCreations,
No problem. Copy them down to a text file and look them up later, be sure to look up the references and sources if you have questions and I look forward to your response. FYI, the genetic evidence requires a basic understanding of biology to understand their significance.
I'll respond later as I cannot view youtube at work and do not have access to my reference material here either.
ShuckCreations,
"Really? where? There has been no evidence of fossils were evolution has taken place"
Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ2WoHFc7eE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=O4GdZOlPrX8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM
If evolution is wrong, then there were sure a lot of hominids roaming around 2 million+ years ago for it to be false. Here’s some genetic evidence for common ancestry and evolution. I am sure it’s all just a coincidence.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
Do refer to all the sources and references to see they are supported and legit. How do you respond to these? And I bet you thought 'lucy' was the only one!
jar: Umm they are right in the aspect of the theory. If we were to have evolved the parents would have been some sort of apelike men raising the child.
orange: "Remember all those earlier less complex life forms that left fossils?"
Really? where? There has been no evidence of fossils were evolution has taken place. There have been many hoaxs and fragments of bone placed in such a way that one might believe there were such ape-men but if arranged correctly they actually more closely ressemble chimps. Sorry.
jar1961: "So i will take it you either have no sound scientifc response as to how the first man came into the world as a baby and took care of itself"
Ask an intelligent question and I might answer it. Think about why your question makes no sense. You are making an assumption that shows your total ignorance of science and your complete lack of common sense.
jar1961, with all due respect, it's obvious you are uneducated. There could be no other explanation for your incredibly dumb question. Why don't you spend a few months studying biology and the history of life, then get back to me. Don't be lazy and don't be afraid. Evolution is just science. It won't harm you if you study it.
jar1961,
“So i will take it you either have no sound scientifc response as to how the first man came into the world as a baby and took care of itself of the primordial beaches of earth, spewing with volcanoes, harsh elements and no supermarkets... I really do want to know how you explain how that baby took care of itself and survived.”
WOW, what a major misunderstanding of what evolutionary biology teaches. Jar, evolution in no way suggests that from the ancient eukaryotic bacteria cells instantly became a fully formed human baby, you've erected an entirely false statement (see strawman arguement) and are attempting to argue that, when it's not what evolution suggests in the lest.
Remember all those earlier less complex life forms that left fossils? This shows it wasn't some good to you instant causation.
“Punctuated equillibrium
First and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics
Law of Entropy
Law of Universal Planetary Motion”
I’d love to hear how these (somehow) refute evolution as a process. And by the way, the 2nd lawIS the law of entropy, so you’re already down to 3.
“The Apostle Paul warned Christians about those who would come preaching a false doctrine along time before the theory of evolution came into existence. HMMM> wonder how he knew that?”
Well, considering there are over 3000+ known recorded religions and many existed prior to the time of early Christianity it’s not hard to fathom that if Christianity were to survive it would have to, like all other religions, compete for devotees and thus the line by Paul is added as an obvious quip that indeed others will follow other religions in the future as they have in the past.
I don’t think he’s referring to evolution, as this is science and not theology, and more likely referring to other contemporary competing religions, in this case islam, hinduisim, etc. that have always been around. Paul pointed out the obvious.
For those of you who favor prayers being used in public schools, be careful what you wish for. Your great granchildren might be praying to some other non-Christian diety and then how would you feel?
Here are some terms for you from this uneducated, Christian:
Punctuated equillibrium
First and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics
Law of Entropy
Law of Universal Planetary Motion
and finally:: the law of the great slime pool created a baby (both male and female) at the same time, and in their infancy survived on the shores of primordial earth, no clothes, no food, no supermarket, no medicine..... and survived on their own...
NOw if thats the case then wow did we DE-volve... cause I haven't seen a baby yet that could do its own shopping, change its diaper, keep itself warm and feed itself...
FOR OLDGUY: So i will take it you either have no sound scientifc response as to how the first man came into the world as a baby and took care of itself of the primordial beaches of earth, spewing with volcanoes, harsh elements and no supermarkets... I really do want to know how you explain how that baby took care of itself and survived.....
oldguy,
In any case, atheistic evolution says that humans came from primordial slime, goo... Sure they say it took billions of years for the goo to become a man, but the goo became a man. Your great great great............(billions of years pass).......great grandfather/mother/it was a puddle of slime.
So if the valedictorian decides that he/she wants to pray before giving a speech what are they going to do? Keep that person's diploma? Please!
Our job is to spread the good word and not to be afraid of persecution. Every little seed counts and I would applaud anyone who prays in public despite what any government tells them. I'm not afraid to die (as would be in some countries) for my God!
Hey oldguy - The Apostle Paul warned Christians about those who would come preaching a false doctrine along time before the theory of evolution came into existence. HMMM> wonder how he knew that?
question: oldguy are you atheist or agnostic? how old are you anyway? 16?
man was created from the slime pool?
What are you talking about?
It sounds like you think a microscopic living cell gave birth to a modern human.
Do you have any science education at all? Do you know how to spell science?
Are all religious people as uneducated as you are?
God has taught us....
Render to Ceasar what is Ceasars, Render to God what is God's.
There is a reason for the Separation of Church and State.
Rather than abusing the law in the name of faith, why don't we teach our students why it protects our faith?
FOR OLDGUY... NOW THIS IS THE 3RD TIME I HAVE ASKED YOU TO EXPOUND ON YOUR RECENT STATEMENT... SO LET'S TRY THIS AGAIN:
Let me ask you.. after man was created from the slime pool... who took care of the baby's need? I mean we both agree that man starts as a baby.. or did the slime pool make them adults?
Who fed them ,, clothed them, protected them from the elements and sickness? I mean did they live on the beaches of prehistoric earth without being able to fend for themselves and lived to be adults?
jar1961, your rejection of the science of evolution, and your strange misconceptions about it, is another reason why I think religions harm people.
letsgetreal: "if life really means nothing"
Who said that?
Hi Old Guy,
If you're really old what value has your life really been? Why bother? You don't have much time left. And if life really means nothing than why are you working so hard to get us brainwashed but happy Christians to lose the only hope we have and that's Jesus Christ?
The difference between us is that we have made peace with our true Father, God.
Studies show most atheists have had a poor representation of an earthly father, and therefore can't see the one who really values and loves them if they'll let Him. The first step is to swallow your pride and forgive.
FOR OLDGUY: "i assume you're joking. Certainly you understand our ancestors developed into modern humans about 100,000 or 200,000 years ago, but evolution began after the first living cells appeared almost 4,000,000,000 years ago. A microscopic living cell di
d not give birth to a modern human. The tree of life took billions of years to develop"..
lol... NOW YOU'RE JOKING... EXPLAIN THIS.. You are claiming that mankind in this hypothetical development theory of yours skipped infancy???? That time replaced cellular division with some other form of biological and evolutionary development? WOW... now thats a new one....
FOR OLDGUY: Deflection is the methodology used by atheists in engaging in debate. I noticed you didnt answer the questions... so I will pose them again.... I am awaiting for your enlightened answers to some basic biological issues which you must be able to respond to in order for the theory of evolution to be more than just a theory.. what is was, is and always will be...
I will raise you up in prayer......
My heart breaks for people like you... it takes more faith to believe we are created from nothing, our existence credited to a pool of slime.. which just so happens also created the female species at the same time...
Let me ask you.. after man was created from the slime pool... who took care of the baby's need? I mean we both agree that man starts as a baby.. or did the slime pool make them adults?
Who fed them ,, clothed them, protected them from the elements and sickness? I mean did they live on the beaches of prehistoric earth without being able to fend for themselves and lived to be adults?
NOw that takes alot of faith!!!
Sooo i guess if people are upset because a public school should use some form of religion during a graduation ceremony, it is also ok for a public school to promote aethism and a no-god status... you can't be tipped one way or another... you have one pro-life group, gotta have a pro-choice.. students speak out against homosexuality, then gay students should be allowed to bash the anti-gay ignorance they hear.. or you could just ignore the issue altogher to avoid controversies. Good for this judge.
"Let me ask you.. after man was created from the slime pool... who took care of the baby's need? I mean we both agree that man starts as a baby.. or did the slime pool make them adults?"
I assume you're joking. Certainly you understand our ancestors developed into modern humans about 100,000 or 200,000 years ago, but evolution began after the first living cells appeared almost 4,000,000,000 years ago. A microscopic living cell did not give birth to a modern human. The tree of life took billions of years to develop.
This is a very good question: "And what exactly has atheism done to transform the lives of those seeking hope and purpose in a chaotic world?"
The world is chaotic but my neighborhood is like a paradise to me.
Milton: "The mind is its own place, and of itself can make a Heaven of Hell, or a Hell of Heaven."
Shakespeare: "There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so"
I'm ashamed to say I used to have all the strange Christian beliefs. When I finally figured out it was all a bunch of made up stories, I was very glad to be rid of it. I no longer wasted my day off going to church. I was pleased I was no longer a slave of some man in the sky. Now I knew I had only one life and I understood the importance of making the most of it. Any person can create their own purpose for their life. People should be grateful for the one life they have. It's greedy, not to mention crazy, to wish for a 2nd life in a mythical heaven.
"And..that lie has somehow persevered for 2000 years... that's some lie....."
I agree. The Resurrection of Jesus and the claim he was the son of God, is the biggest hoax in human history. Every generation is brainwashed to believe it, long before they are old enough to think for themselves. When they do grow up, it's too late. Their lives are permanently wasted.
FOR OLDGUY: "Jesus is a myth"
Old Guy.. ?.. WOuld you die for something that you knew to be a lie?
11 men went to a martyr's death..... for what you define as a lie...
that "lie" was documented in the secular writings of the Roman Historian Josephus
that "lie" was the transfomring power in the proculator's life Pontius Pilate who was returned to Rome and executed by Cesear for what has been passed on through the ages for his conversion to Christianity after he sent Christ to the cross.
It was the "lie" that transformed Italy from a pagan society to a Christian nation...
It is amazing how that "lie" has transformed the history of mankind...
And what exactly has atheism done to transform the lives of those seaking hope and purpose in a chaotic world?
My heart breaks for people like you... it takes more faith to believe we are created from nothing, our existence credited to a pool of slime.. which just so happens also created the female species at the same time...
Let me ask you.. after man was created from the slime pool... who took care of the baby's need? I mean we both agree that man starts as a baby.. or did the slime pool make them adults?
Who fed them ,, clothed them, protected them from the elements and sickness? I mean did they live on the beaches of prehistoric earth without being able to fend for themselves and lived to be adults?
NOw that takes alot of faith!!!
And..that lie has somehow persevered for 2000 years... that's some lie.....
Men like you have also denied the holocaust...
oldguy: "God is now in the business of supplying 22 year old hookers for governors?"
jar1961: "What are you talking about?"
This is what I was talking about:
jar1961: "Did you know that a month before ELliot Spitzers demise, that he was preparing to launch a terrible campaign against the Christian community and a call for intercessory prayer was done on a regional level to ask God to intercede and stop him... Guess God heard us."
It amazes me that so many people think they are such a big deal that the God of the entire universe listens to their strange requests.
Christ: "He who denies me in this life him I will deny in the next."
jar1961: "so while private prayer is important.. public profession of our faith is also expected."
You're making that up. I find it hard to believe Christ would require show-off praying. If I remember correctly the Bible said Jesus was strongly against the idea of people showing off how holy they are.
In a public school not every student is a Christian and some students don't want to have anything to do with any religion. At a graduation ceremony they should not be forced to listen to religious students praying. The Christians have churches for this purpose.
Jesus is a myth, but if Jesus was real, I can't imagine him approving of people who don't respect the rights of minorities. Students who pray out loud when they know other students don't want to listen to it are being extremely rude, and they are showing off. Is this what religions are for?
FOR OLD GUY: "Doesn't God prefer praying in the closet instead of show off praying?"
The whole purpose of man is to worship and glorify God.....
And I will ad to that statement.. in all we do .. and to give Him thanks.
Christ said..He who denies me in this life him I will deny in the next... so while private prayer is important.. public profession of our faith is also expected.
FOR OLDGUY: What are you talking about?
"Guess God heard us."
God is now in the business of supplying 22 year old hookers for governors?
Doesn't God prefer praying in the closet instead of show off praying?
FOR OLDGUY: Your statement is the height of hypocrisy..... It took one woman, Madeline O'Hare and 9 members of an activist Supreme Court under Earl Warren to undo 200 years of law and traditions and the will of the majority. The atheist community has no place to talk about respecting the will of others. I just thank God that the arrogance of the atheist community, the ilks of the Newdows and hawkins of this world does more to strengthen the resolve of the average American who does believe in God and does care about our traditions and heritage.
I used to rail against people like you, but now I thank God, because like Pharoe your arrogance simply serves to illustrate what is worth fighting for....
Did you know that a month before ELliot Spitzers demise, that he was preparing to launch a terrible campaign against the Christian community and a call for intercessory prayer was done on a regional level to ask God to intercede and stop him... Guess God heard us.
"Why is it that the minority run the majority?"
rolln4him, a better question would be why does the majority not respect the rights of the minority?
Another good question would be doesn't the Bible say something about praying in a closet?
Hey, they ought to take a lesson from a girl who was the valedictorian at another High School... They forbid her from evoking Christ's name... so ya know what she did? She sneezed while giving her commencement address and the entire senior class said "GOD BLESS YOU"!!!!
Pass it along...
So why don't those in favor of having a praying graduation have one on their own. Rather than having the an officially sanctioned school graduation rent out a facility and all those wanting a praying graduation go to that one. That way those 6 kids and their parents can go to the official graduation and the vast majority will have separate one. LOL. This has become such a joke. I remember my public high school in the mid-80's had a very Christian ceremony the night before graduation and on graduation we had prayer. Why is it that the minority run the majority?