Atheism, Religion, and Crime

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Specifically THIS video as to why we shouldn’t just “let the student” believe what is true or not.

youtube.com/watch?v=kWdvuSUMipM
But that means Forcing Down their throats a Un accepted theory. (by a good portion of Scientific Community.)

It is eaither teach Religion AND Evolution.
Or stop Leaning to the Evolution Side, and teach nothing of it.

They start Questioning Religion, rather then a Scientific “THEORY” that seems to know it all.

When alot of Evidence for Evolution has been rebuked.
 
No, you specifical described tis info as proof of creationism at the start of your post. Of course, this effort of your only served to prove that carbon dating is ineffective on objects without carbon in them.

At present, the argument for creationism seems to be “Evolution is stupid, and contradicts the book of genesis neener neener neener!”

Listen, I like Catholics, my friends are catholics (my wife and mother), I used to be a devote catholic…my advice is that you ignore anything a protestant evangelical has to say. Those people are idiots and they will happily lie knowing that most of us have no idea what the truth is. Catholics have always been propents of science and reason…don’t forget that! Evolution does not mean that there is no god…you can believe in both. Evolution is not your enemy, evangelicals are…they’re lying spiteful humans who are so obsessed with sola scripture (a heracy in the church BTW) that they have abondoned their brains for their evil agenda.

Catholics are good folks… I like em (my wife is one), but evangelicals are the enemy, yours and mine. Just assume that anything they have to say is a lie…please.

You mean like the theory of gravity. Look up the word theory please and you’ll notice that it has many meanings.

I’m yet to see any evidence against evolution. Granted there are still gaps in the theory but no evidence against it.

Again, stop getting your info from evangelicals!
I admit, My Info on the subject is limited. But, the Gaps are decent Sized (no transitional Species Fossils ever Discovered)
I’m not a trained scientist, but I have questions. Why does all Life on Earth Have a full, specific design why are there no Modern Tranisitional, or Fossil Transitional species.

The Origin Of Life. Did we Really come from Chemicals? That is Far Unlikely, again, its like someone swining a hammer blindly and Making a Shack. Possible, sure, but really unlikely. Could DNA have been a Random Jumble? It is a very well planned program, and all programs need a programmer.

How is the Brain. Related to Concience.

Evolution is as much a Faith as Religion basicaly.🤷

Faith is a belief without need of Evidence, Evolution does the same thing.

The Catholic Church, does not Support or Nor Disporve Thiestic Evoltuion.
That not its Field. It only Focuses on What the Church is supposed to be doing. My “Personal” belief is Creationism. The Catholic Church has no stance on it.
 
Archaeopteryx has long been held up as the great example of a transitional creature, appearing to be part dinosaur and part bird. However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths. That is also the case for the other birds in the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists just placed some of the many living and extinct species next to each other to make the bird series.

Archaeopteryx: The Reptile / Bird Dinosaur.

Why is it Fully formed, with no fossils of Incomplete / Transitional Reptile / birds.

The same is true for the famous horse series. Each of the supposed ancestors is a complete animal. They are not full of failed growths and there are no parts under construction. There are many more differences between each type of animal than their size and the number of toes. Every change in structure, function, and process would have had to develop through random trial-and-error if evolution were true, but no transitional forms have been found. The fossils have not caught any changes in the midst of being created, even though they should have occurred over long periods of time. In the late 1800’s, evolutionists simply placed living and extinct species next to each other to make the horse series. However, evolutionists no longer believe there was the direct ancestry (orthogenesis)

The Tree of Life is no longer A good Classification of how Life Originated, Scientists now say it is more like a Web. (Tree of Life was important to The Darwinism ideas)

Scientist Haekel, and his drawings of the human and other animal embryo’s (showing how each embryo was going through a “evolution repeat”) were faked, and nothing like actual embryos.

The 2nd law of Thermodynamics? The fact is that the Second Law applies to all systems, open or closed, and to all actions and chemical reactions, from molecules to galaxies. The words “except for…” are not in this universal law.

The Origins of Life? DNA and RNA dissolve in water, so there could not even be water in the primeval soup. DNA is made of only right-handed versions of nucleotides, while proteins are made of only left-handed versions of amino acids
Amino acid molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resist combining at any temperature. To combine, they need the help of mechanisms in a living cell or a biochemist in an organic chemistry laboratory

Darwin himself wrote in chapter 6 of On the Origin of Species that “natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being… If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

They temporarily set aside natural selection, saying all mutations in DNA needed to build a complicated new part quietly accumulate in the population, perhaps in duplicate genes, because by themselves each of the necessary mutations is neutral, neither beneficial nor harmful. Then, millions of years later, all are in place. The new part starts working, natural selection chooses it, and the improved creature is off to the races. This scenario exists only in the mind of the evolutionist. As pointed out earlier, we do not find new parts under construction in living creatures or fossils, so it obviously does not happen. Furthermore, everyone agrees that harmful mutations appear many, many times more often than mutations needed for new construction ever could. Over those millions of years, slightly harmful mutations that are hidden, or not destructive enough for natural selection to remove, would also quietly accumulate. This would produce creatures loaded up with highly polluted genes. Survival of the barely functional? We do not find this either because cells have mechanisms that maintain the original design of a creature within it’s variation boundaries, and minimize the accumulation of mutations. These include:

A proofreading system that catches almost all errors
A mismatch repair system to back up the proofreading system
Photoreactivation (light repair)
Removal of methyl or ethyl groups by O6 - methylguanine methyltransferase
Base excision repair
Nucleotide excision repair
Double-strand DNA break repair
Recombination repair
Error-prone bypass

Here is a link to a roster of hundreds of professionals whose advanced academic degrees certify that they thoroughly understand evolution theory. They also have the courage to defy the academia by voluntarily adding their names to a skeptics list against Darwinism.

discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

The theory of evolution says life started from raw chemicals .This is “what has been called the NASA definition of life: Life is a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.” “Richard Dawkins elaborated on this image of the earliest living entity in his book The Selfish Gene: ‘At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator. It may not have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself.’ When Dawkins wrote these words 30 years ago, DNA was the most likely candidate for this role.” “Unfortunately… DNA replication cannot proceed without the assistance of a number of proteins”. So "which came first, the chicken or the egg? DNA holds the recipe for protein construction. Yet that information cannot be retrieved or copied without the assistance of proteins.

(Info from) newgeology.us/presentation32.html
 
OK, same thing like before…

you have NOT answered my questions, for the lack of tranisitional Fossils. Nor any other questions.

Again, you reference my mis understanding of the matter and completely Avoid the original discussion.

The List of People that Doubt Evolution are scientists, Just like Evolutionists, and just like Creationists, I respect their opinion. I only want to seek a discussion, and an answer to the questions.

Maybe I am misinterpretting this, but laughing, or commenting on my lack of understanding of the issue is not a discussion.
 
40.png
Angel7:
But that means Forcing Down their throats a Un accepted theory. (by a good portion of Scientific Community.)

It is eaither teach Religion AND Evolution.
Or stop Leaning to the Evolution Side, and teach nothing of it.

They start Questioning Religion, rather then a Scientific “THEORY” that seems to know it all.

When alot of Evidence for Evolution has been rebuked.
It IS an accepted theory, you just choose to ignore it for some reason that I cannot fathom. There’s 150 years of evidence that supports its.

If Creationism is such a good theory then where are the peer reviewed papers? There are none. The reason the scientific community doesn’t accept it as a theory is because it has no basis in science. Creationism by its very deffinition is religious and absolutely nothing about it can be verified or tested. People who believe this are going on blind faith. The people that push it out are either completely ignorant or purposely giving misinformation and I honestly can’t see how people can just believe it so completely without a single shred of evidence to back it up.

It sounds to me like you flat out reject science despite that it is exactly science which allows you to live the life you do today. If it wasn’t for scientists, many of which are considered the smartest people in the world today, which are the same people that you say are idiots for “believing” in evolution you’d still be spending most of your day trying to gather food so you could survive the winter to dying off at the age of 30. You wouldn’t have the water you take for granted every day or the medicine that makes you well if you get sick. You live your life if luxury compared to people that lived only a few hundred years ago and you basically spit in the face of the people that have made this life possible for you. God didn’t come up with life saving medicines and procedures or cures for disease, scientists did, biologists in particular and evolution is the cornerstone of biology. You can’t just kick it to the curb because a few people in a small office in an obscure building in Seattle (the discovery institute) that have 10 or 20 people working for them says the ENTIRE scientific community is wrong.

Teach both or teach nothing?!?! Are you serious? You can’t have it your way because your theory is based on myth and fairy tales so we’re not allowed to teach something that is based on 150 years of evidence and observation? Really? Why on earth should we allow students, most of which can’t even take care of themselves in the real world yet and havent even completed a basic basic basic education decide what’s valid or not? The debate is done in the scientific theater just like every other proposed idea. You can’t just say let the students decide when the entire scietific theater decides it’s nonsense. That’s like saying “These smart people shot it down so we’ll let the uneducated decide.”

For the record I wasn’t laughing at you, that was the title of the videos. The reason there isn’t alot of discussion between creationists and scientists about this is because scientists have better things to do than give people a basic education. The mountains upon mountains of information is out there, you just need to be willing to go read it.

Please PLEASE stop listening to the Discovery Institute. Several of the people that work there wouldn’t even defend their position in open court when the issue came up in Dover. You’re being spoon fed information that’s being cherry picked and twisted out of context.

Education is sooooooo important but these morons over at the Discovery Institute want to bring back theological education. Do you know where we’d be if that happened? We’d be back in the dark ages. Back then god was the answer to everything and to say otherwise would mean torture or even death. Thankfully we don’t live in that world today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top