All Evolutionists, go see the movie "Expelled"

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Rodsrsr

You seem to having trouble following this thread. I am not attempting to explain I.D at all, I never claimed to do so. I am merely showing that you cannot rule it out as a possibility to how life "began" not evolved "began" you seem to keep drifting back to the same old evolution is true debate. But according to every living and dead scientist, evolution (micro and macro) CANNOT account for how life "began" If you want to keep arguing evolution in itself, there is an entire thread devoted to that very topic. I know its hard, but try and fight off the ADD.

So Rod, why don't you tell us what you think happened? Science has laid out its theory and invited you to throw rocks at it. Lay out your theory here and subject it to the same scrutiny.

[trekkor]

Genesis lays it all out quite clearly.
It's in harmony with established FACT.


KT

[Jim Richards]

[trekkor]

Just so you know, Jim.
That's not an answer.


KT

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by IROC

So Rod, why don't you tell us what you think happened? Science has laid out its theory and invited you to throw rocks at it. Lay out your theory here and subject it to the same scrutiny.

I think he is still confused about what the movie was about and what evolution is (Darwinism by his definition) and what abiogenisis is, and how they relate.

Movie:

Darwinism=atheism=immorality=bigotry=racism=genoci de

ID=acceptable alternative to naturalism and should be openly accepted by science

I have a question. How many fundamentalist protestant churches allow equal time on Sunday AM for the constructive teaching of evolutionary theory by appropriate scientists/experts?

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by trekkor

Just so you know, Jim.
That's not an answer.


KT

You have exposed yourself in the other threads, so, why continue to show your lack of understanding/unwillingness to learn/intellectual dishonesty? Don't you have any shame?

[trekkor]

Jim, you have not been able to contribute, as far as I can see. ( insults don't count )
Just because what I say is 'unpopular', doesn't mean it is false.
Especially since you cannot disprove it.


KT

[Jim Richards]

[Tobra]

lighten up Jim. He believes what he believes, you believe what you believe. Why does it bother you so much?

[Jim Richards]

Reread the other threads and you might get more insight. But you are right, I should lighten up. Thanks for the gentle reminder.

[trekkor]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

You have exposed yourself in the other threads, so, why continue to show your lack of understanding/unwillingness to learn/intellectual dishonesty? Don't you have any shame?

Pretty bold statement ( accusation ) there, Jim.

Maybe you could give just one example of each of your accusations that you can effectively demonstate with undeniable, established fact?

I have no shame in telling the truth.


KT

[stuartj]

Its Groundhog Day.

Fine day for witnessing.

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by trekkor

Genesis lays it all out quite clearly.
It's in harmony with established FACT.


KT

Science testimonial from a tile layer. Maybe Trek should have testified at the Dover trial. Behe certainly didn't do his cause justice, but then again, he is only a biochemist and not a tile layer.

[sjf911]

[kang]

Originally Posted by snowman

What is it about Dawkins? He is an idiot Savot in a wheelchair. What special in site does he provide? He claims to know Physics, but has not done a single significant thing to advance the field. What are his qualifications concerning the spiritual side of man? He has NONE. Dawkins is a FK ing idiot. My Dog knows more than he does about the spiritual side of man.

ID is completely consistent with evolution. Evolution is NOT a fact, it is a THEORY. Most religious beleive in evolution as it is consistent with most religions. Belief in GOD does not exclude belief in evolution. Only IGNORANT people think that religious people do not beleive in evolution, and there are a lot of them. Ignorance must be bliss as these people cannot conceive that religion is consistent with evolution. Only homos that have a bias against religion beleive this. Apparently because religion condemns their risky, abhorrent behavior they cannot beleive in anything that might condemn them, even if it were true. Only homos seem to be resistant to the fact that ID may be true and that they may actually be condemned for their behavior.

So called scientists (I suspect that only homos are in this category) will not even discuss the possibility of ID. Any true scientist will be glad to discuss any alternatives, again only the homos seem to have a problem.

Bottom line, it appears that the so called scientists (most likely homos) will not discuss any theory that might indite them, or condemn them, not matter how valid that theory may be. Its to bad that science takes a back seat to homos.

I have to repeat my previous post on the word "theory."


Here we have yet another creationist who either doesn’t understand the scientific usage of the word theory, or someone who is bending the definition to what they want it to mean.

I suggest that you go beyond the dictionary to educate yourself on this important distinction.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

The key above is the words “in common usage.” In science, on the other hand:

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by trekkor

Genesis lays it all out quite clearly.
It's in harmony with established FACT.

KT

Simple question that is not intended as inflammatory, but I merely am looking for your honest answer.

Have you ever wondered why the vast majority of people in all branches of science disagree with your above statement? They have spent their lives researching and learning about this very subject and the overwhelming majority do not agree with you. What is your honest interpretation of that? Is your understanding of the subject matter so much better than theirs that you are confident that you are correct? Honestly?

[Dennis Kalma]

Why do you guys keep arguing about proof when both approaches (ID and EB) are a matter of Faith, whether in the Bible or scientific observation/interpolation and theory.

Faith: Definition - b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

[sjf911]

I still haven't gotten a response on my question about equal time for expert evolution education during the Sunday AM sermons in the fundamentalist protestant churches.

[HardDrive]

I can't believe you guys are trying to argue with creationists. They're not interested in reason, so quite wasting your breath.

They're like the anti-gun folks. They are constantly getting spanked in court, there are mountains of evidence that they are wrong, and yet their continue to spout the same rubbish year after year. When one inane idea gets shot down, they switch states, give it new official sounding name, and setup shop again.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

I can't believe you guys are trying to argue with creationists. They're not interested in reason, so quite wasting your breath.

They're like the anti-gun folks. They are constantly getting spanked in court, there are mountains of evidence that they are wrong, and yet their continue to spout the same rubbish year after year. When one inane idea gets shot down, they switch states, give it new official sounding name, and setup shop again.

I think it's because - for me at least - I cannot comprehend of someone who is so intellectually dishonest that they deny overwhelming evidence. Maybe I am spoiled because I work in a research facility and no one can get away with that behavior here. I find it hard to believe that people in other walks of life can behave that way and there seems to be no penalty. It's almost like their denial of the obvious is a badge of honor.