Kids, School, and liberal Science?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeh, DaddyO, it is, among other things.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest 6.8 AR]

46% questions what he believes.

46% of what?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chucktshoes]

The Gallup Poll has been tracking Americans' views on creation and evolution for the past 30 years. In June it released its latest findings, which showed 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution.

There's the 46% that question it.

[G27]

Whether or not you believe in creation (I do), the point is science cannot rely on it to explain the creation of the universe or the search for knowledge (and the huge amount of byproducts that come from the scientific research) stop. Science, by design, has to ignore 'a miracle happened here' and search for physical answers.

I believe in God and I love science - the two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

[Guest nicemac]

Get your kids out of government schools. Global Warming today-my two dads tomorrow. Only you can instill your values into your children. You should not turn them over to the government for that.

[Smith]

Funny Daniel. So Nye's logic is that biblical creationism holds us back technologically and in building yet as non biblical ideology has taken dominance the US, who used to lead in technological and educationall advances under a strong Judeo-Christian perspective in education, is now continually falling behind in nearly every educational and technological advance. Interesting logical journey there Bill Nye. He sounds more like a religious fanatic than the so called scientist/engineer he claims.

[Jonnin]

Nye is not spending enough time talking to real people. Almost every engineer I know that was born in this country is a conservative and most are christians. They are not held back at all. Conversely, most of the liberals I know could not solve X+1 =2 on a good day, and those tend to be the "greens" who are all about global warming and typically not christian.

Evolution happens, we have seen animals and plants over time reproduce useful genes and die off when they had lesser genes. Pretty much a fact. To take that and produce a theory that in a relatively short time, single cell critters that spontaneously poofed into existance due to a lightning strike became human takes as much, or more, faith than creationism. There is no evidence of either one, both are pure faith.

[mikegideon]

I have a very open mind on the subject. I'm not ready to commit to the belief that we're the cause until there is research done by folks that don't have an agenda. There is such a history of debunked studies and agenda-driven "facts" that it is too convoluted for me to have an opinion on the subject. If it is true, than the eco-terrorist hippies are to blame for derailing the legitimacy of the studies.

There are agendas on both sides. It should be obvious that the energy companies will buy enough scientists to debunk it. On the other side, the scientific community can't agree on the health consequences of eating eggs. I'm not really concerned that we will ultimately destroy the Earth. It will puke us up like a bowl of bad clams if it has to.

Edited August 28, 2012 by mikegideon

[Smith]

Nye is not spending enough time talking to real people. Almost every engineer I know that was born in this country is a conservative and most are Christians. They are not held back at all. Conversely, most of the liberals I know could not solve X+1 =2 on a good day, and those tend to be the "greens" who are all about global warming and typically not Christian.

Evolution happens, we have seen animals and plants over time reproduce useful genes and die off when they had lesser genes. Pretty much a fact. To take that and produce a theory that in a relatively short time, single cell critters that spontaneously poofed into existence due to a lightning strike became human takes as much, or more, faith than creationism. There is no evidence of either one, both are pure faith.

Not arguing. Clarifying. No one disputes micro-evolution. That we can/have observed and happens within cells, while not changing the cells original fundamental design or purpose. Macro-evolution is a theory that makes assumptions based on micro-evolution that says cell can change their fundamental design and purpose and essentially create something from nothing. I absolutely dispute macro-evolution based on scientific theory, biology, physics, philosophy, and what we know to be true and verified through the scientific model.

The fact that it lines up with my religious beliefs confirms to me my philosophical world view. Not the other way around and some like to contend. It's kinda like when you want to know what the Democrats are up to, you simply listen to what they accuse the Republicans of doing.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Smith

[mikegideon]

Not arguing. Clarifying. No one disputes micro-evolution. That we can/have observed and happens within cells, while not changing the cells original fundamental design or purpose. Macro-evolution is a theory that makes assumptions based on micro-evolution that says cell can change their fundamental design and purpose and essentially create something from nothing. I absolutely dispute macro-evolution based on scientific theory, biology, physics, philosophy, and what we know to be true and verified through the scientific model.

I don't know how anybody can dispute the fossil records. Evolution is not my field of expertise, but explains to me what they have found. I wish somebody could tie it all together.

[Smith]

I don't know how anybody can dispute the fossil records. Evolution is not my field of expertise, but explains to me what they have found. I wish somebody could tie it all together.

There are no link fossils. The only fossils we have are species that are individual and unique, but nothing that shows species development to an entirely different unique species. There are micro-evolved fossils but not one single macro-evolved fossil ... ever.

[Guest uofmeet]

So the bible says the earth was built in 7 days. Evolution says a lot longer? Who says 7 days to God is the same as seven days to us? 7 days to God could be quite a few million years to us?

Just a thought......

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I am not intending to insult anyone. Smith and I have voiced our own positions on religon numerous times and, I believe at least, maintained a mutual respect, I for him at the very least.

In my opinion if you believe and instill a belief in a diety and creationism you are essentially already saying to your children that science is not "as absolute as she is told."

If you feel differently I would love to hear it.

it doesn't take a leap

at all to say science isn't as absolute

as anyone is told, since, as science

marches on, theories like "global

warming" are being unraveled for

the phony science they are.

There are plenty more examples,

other than that. Hawking was one

honest example of a scientist who

came out and stated one of his

accepted ideas was wrong. It was

mostly accepted for, twenty or so

years?

One of the original proponents of

"global warming" recently jumped

ship, also.

There are very few absolutes in

many areas of science, Daniel.

When theory is accepted as fact, or

absolute, if you will, it strays quickly

into the realm of bad science.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited August 28, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[mikegideon]

There are no link fossils. The only fossils we have are species that are individual and unique, but nothing that shows species development to an entirely different unique species. There are micro-evolved fossils but not one single macro-evolved fossil ... ever.

OK... so all these species died off, but no new ones evolved? You would think that some of the species of today would show up in the fossil record from the beginning. Or, did God create the earth with used parts?

[Smith]

So the bible says the earth was built in 7 days. Evolution says a lot longer? Who says 7 days to God is the same as seven days to us? 7 days to God could be quite a few million years to us?

Just a thought......

You also can't assume that a world created in a big bang or by God would be aged at year zero any more than it could be assumed aged 50 billion years. In other words how old was Adam when he was created? A full grown man that was 1 day old or was he 100 yrs old (biologically aged)? Maybe the earth at creation was aged 50 billion years. Maybe it was aged 1 day but that is a lot of assumption either way. It also assumes "time" based on an earth rotation around the sun. We do not know what aging properties takes place in the absence of a solar system on a planet like ours. Either way physical properties of aging (whether by creation or a bang) can not be accurately chronicled because we have no idea how the initial system started and to what maturity the solar system was developed .

Secondly, the term "formless and void" (Biblically) is a poor English translation of the Hebrew context. It does not imply "not in existence" but rather that it was without structure or "form". Much like say Mars is presently. It has some building blocks of life, but they are not organized or structured in such a way as to allow life of even micro-evolution of life.

[Smith]

OK... so all these species died off, but no new ones evolved? You would think that some of the species of today would show up in the fossil record from the beginning. Or, did God create the earth with used parts?

Interbreeding, size, features, etc. are all part of micro-evolution. The fact that the elephant of today does not look like the Woolly mammoth of yesterday is not proof of macro evolution. In fact it is more likely proof against macro-evolution. The Woolly mammoth didn't become a fish. It adapted to changing environments (micro-evolution). Some species died off due to these changes some adapted, but not one of them has become something entirely different and unique from it's original design.

[Smith]

Also, just to get into another wonderful topic. MIke how are fossils formed? It takes a fairly sudden catastrophic event to bury, protect, and islolate and organism for us to find intact thousands of years later. I've yet to see a fossilized white tail deer.

[mikegideon]

Interbreeding, size, features, etc. are all part of micro-evolution. The fact that the elephant of today does not look like the Woolly mammoth of yesterday is not proof of macro evolution. In fact it is more likely proof against macro-evolution. The Woolly mammoth didn't become a fish. It adapted to changing environments (micro-evolution). Some species died off due to these changes some adapted, but not one of them has become something entirely different and unique from it's original design.

I don't think anybody would suggest that a fish evolved directly into a bird. Define Macro evolution. Natural selection is evident everywhere, expept where democrats try to prevent it

[Smith]

I don't think anybody would suggest that a fish evolved directly into a bird. Define Macro evolution. Natural selection is evident everywhere, expept where democrats try to prevent it

Haha, actually they do (fish to bird thing that is). As far as definitions, do your own work and quite trying to cheat off mine!

[mikegideon]

I've yet to see a fossilized white tail deer.

http://www.fossil-treasures-of-florida.com/deer-fossils.html

Starting at 10 bucks

[mikegideon]

Haha, actually they do (fish to bird thing that is). As far as definitions, do your own work and quite trying to cheat off mine!

Dang. You're getting as crabby as DaddyO

[zapfbroad]

Great debate of evoluton vs creationism. Christopher hitchens vs. Dinesh d'souza (2016 creator)

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

[Daniel]

OK... so all these species died off, but no new ones evolved? You would think that some of the species of today would show up in the fossil record from the beginning. Or, did God create the earth with used parts?

I was about to ask why we have no fossils of humans or present day animals.

[mikegideon]

I was about to ask why we have no fossils of humans or present day animals.

I'm going with the used parts theory

[G27]

Great debate of evoluton vs creationism. Christopher hitchens vs. Dinesh d'souza (2016 creator)

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

Thanks for posting, going to watch this when I have time. That's two really smart dudes debating...