It's 1984 in the Academy

Phileo »

Thu May 15, 2008 10:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

How was humankind created?

Until you can answer that question you cannot rule out ANYTHING. The point of the argument is that if you rule out any theory towards the explanation of our creation, then you have created academic fraud.

Until you can answer how we were created scientifically then you cannot rule out ANYTHING as a theory.

Unfortunately, the neo-darwinists refuse to even debate the issue. They've just decided that their theory is the best man will ever come up with and have resigned their path of inquisition. Shame on those with a closed mind.

steveh20 »

Mon May 12, 2008 12:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

You as well as me or anyone else is free to come up with theories to explain the known facts.

Thats true, but some will definately be wrong and some right and that is where you and I differ, some facts are established, I freely admit that in some areas of science I amn ot a relativist like you.

Thank you for enquiring about my past, its not that I don't mind talking to people about it, its just I don't talk about such persoanl journeys over the net for all to read.

Regards

Steve

star2 »

Mon May 12, 2008 12:06 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

steveh20

You as well as me or anyone else is free to come up with theories to explain the known facts. Some models are better than others. I personally believe that some but not all the models that YEC's come up with explain the facts better than any of the other non-creation (evolution) or hybrid creation (ID/thiestic evolution) models come up with. You no doubt disagree. And their are others who are hybrid-creationists that disagree with you and me. That is your right and that is their right.

I was just wondering why you were first a YEC and then became an evolutionist. I guess you don't really want to go into the evolution of your thought processes, so I'll just drop it.

Peace.

steveh20 »

Sun May 11, 2008 11:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Star
" We are each entitled to our own interpretation of the facts."
Thats incorrect in science, geology does not accept the interpretation that the Earth shows evidence of a world wide flood a few thousand years ago. You may be a relativist when it comes to this sort of thing but I am not. I will say one thing though, before I changed my position I to used to say the same thing to others, so I understand where you are coming from.
Regards
Steve

star2 »

Sun May 11, 2008 5:27 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

steveh20

No problem with what you believe, I disagree with your explanation of why things are the way they are. I am a YEC. We are each entitled to our own interpretation of the facts.

Why did you start out a YEC? Was it from your religious training? When did you begin to become an 'evolutionist'? Did you change when you were in college studying the evolutionary explanations to the origins of the universe and all that is in it? Did it affect your belief in God?

I am not attacking you. I am just curious.

steveh20 »

Sun May 11, 2008 4:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Star

No problem with your statement "Scientists have found petrified trees that extend through more than one strata. That cannot be explained by evolutionary means" that can be explained as
1.Trees are buried and fossislised
2.Further deposition occurs
3.Erosion occurs to the beds resulting in petrified forest being partially revealed
4.Erosion ceases and depostion occurs again, petrified forest crosses diffrent strata
No problem there then, the interesting thing is that if a flood buried them then they would be buried in one go(as you stated) and would not coss strata (as you state), odd that, don't you think? But its not my problem.

I changed because I followed my conscience and what I learnt about the world about me would not let me do anything else. Living with a clean conscience is one of the best things in life.

Regards

Steve

star2 »

Sun May 11, 2008 3:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

steveh20

Scientists have found petrified trees that extend through more than one strata. That cannot be explained by evolutionary means. Only the great world wide flood as described in Genesis can explain those findings. At this point I am not interested in debating that fact with you.

However, I am interested in why you were at one time a YEC but now you are an evolutionist. Why were you a YEC to begin with and why did you change?

steveh20 »

Sun May 11, 2008 1:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Dear Star
As a geaolgy student with a university in England (I actually do it rather than just reading about it in books or on web sites) there is no problem with fossilised trees. Reasonably rapid burial be it gently or violently will produce these results. I fail to see what the problem is, it certainly is not for geology. This is the point I'm making, people ask (be it haphazardly) with out understanding the basics of the discipline. So to summarise, fossilised trees in found in strata (what else would they be in?) are not a problem ,if they are to some people thats because they don't understand the subject. Two other points are, who says all strata take millions of years to form ceratinly not geologists who know their stuff and a question for you, we only find certain trees in certain strata, a flood would not produce such order, how's that?.
Kind regards
Steve

star2 »

Sun May 11, 2008 1:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

steveh20

JC's question to Paul Burnett about petrified trees upright, upside down and etc. being found in all the different stratas that evolutionists say took millions of years to form is not 'gobbidigook' as you say.

Scientists have found these trees. Do a google search on it and you will see that. Evolution cannot explain these petrified trees. However, a world wide flood as described in God's Word in the book of Genesis can.

JC, I believe, was only trying to get Paul Burnett to look at the facts and try to explain the findings according to evolution. Of course, evolution cannot which I believe was JC's point.

steveh20 »

Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Hello Slacker

I don't see a question to actually answer all I read is a load of gobbidigook (technical term) about trees in strata, my answer is no "good comeback" but an honest apprisal of what they need to do to help them maybe ask a more pertinant question.
Kind regards
Steve

Slacker »

Sun May 11, 2008 1:00 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

To Steve...

Are you going to answer his question or are you going to just leave it at "he needs to go to a library". If you are, all i have to say is "good comeback"....

Slacker »

Sun May 11, 2008 12:58 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

To Paul Barnett...

So your saying that we want to teach our kids the "truth" however we also want them not to question anything about evolution? What a Joke... It also amazes me that you equate intelligent design with (2+2=3), a theory vs a lie, hmmm sounds like you have experience with the latter, but that is a different story. You can go on and teach your kids that they should follow lies unquestioningly but I am going to teach my kids that if they don't agree with something or that something doesn't seem right that they sould question it, thank you....

steveh20 »

Sat May 10, 2008 2:55 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I shall wear the thumbs down I have recieved for advising people to go to a library and read books as a badge of honour.
Steve
P.s Flagged myself

steveh20 »

Fri May 09, 2008 3:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Why are there trees buried upright, upside down, and even sideways, in differents parts of the strata.

Why should there not be?, Your understanding of geology troubles me, go to the library, read some books on the subject and then come back to discuss such issues.

Steve

JC »

Thu May 08, 2008 5:22 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

To Paul Burnett:

You seem to be one who is passionate about truth, so maybe you can answer this question for me, as no other Evolutionist has been able to.

Why are there trees buried upright, upside down, and even sideways, in differents parts of the strata. If each layer of strata represents a distinct age and time, then why are there trees in these different layers. Certainly a tree didn't grow upside down for millions of years, it had to have toppled. If it did, certainly between each era of strata formation, the tree should have rotted to dust. But it didn't.

Why is this?

steveh20 »

Thu May 08, 2008 1:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Spot on PB.

Paul Burnett »

Thu May 08, 2008 12:25 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 3

Ben Stein is right - biologists who support intelligent design creationism over evolution ARE "expelled," just as doctors who support the Demonic-Possession theory of disease are 'expelled," just as mathematicians who support 2+2=3 are" expelled," just as geologists who support a 6,000-year-old Earth and a 4,000-year-old Grand Canyon are "expelled." Get the picture? As the Dover Federal trial judge ruled in 2005, intelligent design creationism has much more to do with religion than science.

Freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry do not provide a license to teach innocent public school children the myths and lies of creationism, even when it is disguised under the bogus name of "intelligent design," which has no theory, no hypothesis, no science and no definition in the "Expelled" movie - which spends half of its time claiming that intelligent design creationism has nothing to do with religion, and then the second half of the movie proving it does. And has anybody noticed that the only people pushing the movie are religionists? Not scientists, but religious people and organizations. That's a red flag right there.

Take a look at http://www.expelledexposed.com to see what the movie is actually about.

JC »

Thu May 08, 2008 10:56 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

To Jerry2:

I've asked you this question before, and I will assume you didn't see it. So, I shall ask again:

Why are you here? If you don't believe in God, or Intelligent Design, as God is certainly capable of, why are you here?

Are you possibly searching deep within, as deep calls out to deep? Or are you here to educate?

I don't know, but it seems strange that an Evolutionist such as yourself would choose a Christian website to do their postings.

steveh20 »

Thu May 08, 2008 8:04 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

I have a question for those who believe that censorship applies to those who question evolution ( and I am talking about the concept itself not the mechanisms).

Geologists (with evidence) proclaim the Earth to be 4.5 Ga, if somebody lost their job at a university because they wanted to teach the Earth was only 6000 years old would that be censorship?

Thanks

Steve

star2 »

Thu May 08, 2008 12:00 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Jerry2

I am still waiting for you to come up with something original.

merkin »

Wed May 07, 2008 10:02 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Jerry2,

When you're unable to think of anything more substantial to say than "ID magic is a childish idiotic religious idea," you make proponents of ID look comparatively reasonable.

Jerry2 »

Wed May 07, 2008 9:06 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

By the way Christians, "Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging Abusive, Spam, Offensive, Illegal, Racist or Libellous Posts" does not mean flag comments you don't agree with. I'm sick and tired of christian cowards who delete any comment that questions their childish everything-is-magic fantasy world.

Jerry2 »

Wed May 07, 2008 9:03 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 4

Somebody said "ID is not good science."

ID is not science at all. Intelligent design means "I'm too stupid to understand, therefore it was magic."

ID magic is a childish idiotic religious idea. Supporters of intelligent design magic deserve nothing but ridicule. Proponents of magic are uneducated, and most of them are professional liars. The entire scientific community laughs at them because they are too lazy to study science, and unable to understand anything.

Jerry2 »

Wed May 07, 2008 8:59 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

Ken Connor, your article would be more accurate if you substituted every occurrence of the words "intelligent design" and "ID" with "childish magic".

Also you should replace the words "academic freedom" with "freedom for an incompetent teacher to teach magic instead of science".

Your use of the words "intelligent design" instead of using the word "magic" is dishonest. It's like you are trying to disguise magic to look scientific by calling it "design". You're not fooling anyone. It's obvious you are supporting the idea that scientists should invoke magic to explain natural processes. That's just plain dumb, and you, Ken Connor, should be ashamed of yourself.

JoeU »

Wed May 07, 2008 2:04 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

For those who have not yet seen
Ben Stein's movie,
visit:
http://www.ExpelledTheMovie.com/video.php
to view 3
"EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed"
movie trailers and a Bill O'Reilly interview.

.

canadianchristian »

Wed May 07, 2008 1:43 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 3

JR63,

Atheism does lead to atrocity- just look at abortion if you dare, millions have been aborted - it is mass murder on an unprecedented scale!

While I have not seen expelled yet, I can say that the "theory" of evolution is the worst example of misinformation, outright lies, pandering propaganda, and scare tactics used to silence any differing opinion. If evolution is such a proven fact then what are Darwinist's afraid of ? Why not let all sides explain themselves and let the truth reveal itself ? Seem's like a no-brainer to me. IN JESUS NAME

JoeyRamone63 »

Wed May 07, 2008 12:28 pm Agree: 8   Disagree: 6

ID is not good science. Science starts with observations, hypotheses, and then seeks to substantiate the hypotheses with testable scenarios, predictions, and falsifiability.

Creationists have been trying for decades to get public schools and universities to give "equal time" to creationism. The most recent tact is to dress it up as "intelligent design" and it was shot down at the Dover trial when it was proven (by a Christian biologist, Ken Miller) to be nothing more than creationism without a direct reference to "god". In fact, the intelligent design manifesto "Of Pandas and People" was originally written with direct references to God, and then edited to replace God with Intelligent Designer; this evidence was also presented in the Dover trial.

Moreover, the "persecuted scientists" who were presented in Expelled have all been debunked. One of them completely side-stepped the peer review process in order to get his ID paper published! Another was an unpaid volunteer. More details can be found at expelledexposed.com.

Stein's movie purports to be about academic freedom; but it fallaciously equates evolution with eugenics and implies that atheism leads to atrocity, which couldn't be further from the truth. Expelled is the worst example of misinformation, outright lies, and pandering propaganda.