Originally posted by JesusIsAliveDespite that being bullshit, your alternative theory is to teach the pupils to have faith in a creator. Do you realise that's retarded? Until you can come up with a theory that is scientifically acceptable, shut up about evolution. We're open to evolution being wrong, just not creationism being right.
http://www.freewebs.com/zorobabellegacy/Science"Many people also wrongly assume that all the scientists
must believe in evolution; or that if they do not, then it
must be because of some religious or emotional reasons and not
because of the facts or logic. This is called "presumptuous"
and "prejudiced". Look, if a professional scientist does not
believe in evolution, you should at least be skeptical of it
yourself and try to find out why a scientist does not believe
in something that supposedly has so much solid, scientific
proof. Also consider the strong probability that many scien-
tists may only claim publicly to believe in evolution, because
of fear of peer pressure. The scientific community is like
some kind of club, and one of the requirements to be a member
these days is to say you believe in evolution. It takes real
courage for a scientist to stand up in defiance of the club
and tell the world that evolutionism is a sham, because he
will run the real risk of being utterly rejected by many other
scientists if he does. There are websites on the internet
that list details of many accounts of just such peer pressure,
persecution, and discrimination systematicly utilized to de-
stroy any scientist or student of science who rejects the lie
of evolution. There is a definite and deliberate vocalized
conspiracy to flunk creationists out of the scientific commu-
nity regardless of the quality and caliber of their work.We also all know that there is change going on in
nature and that water wears away rocks and that things die
off, etc.; but the evolutionist deceitfully calls all these
little irrelevant facts of everyday life prime examples of
evolution all around us. They think that if they can make
people think that evolution means "change" then there will be
no way to deny that evolution is real. Now, who would even
want to deny that some changes have taken place? No one is
arguing against the idea of change that I know of.Real scientists have been fighting against all the lies of
evolution from its inception, basing their opposition on long-
proven scientific laws and discoveries and logical reasoning.
The accumulation of evidence over the years has now become so
forceful and powerful as to be overwhelming. The dam to hold
back the Truth is beginning to break in spite of all the money
and lies that the wealthy evolutionists keep stuffing into the
growing cracks.One honest, famous atheistic evolutionist named Margaret
Meade wrote books teaching evolution to students in schools.
This woman is considered to be one of the foremost authorities
and one of the most well-informed, knowledgeable experts on
evolution by evolutionists themselves. Many of the leading
evolutionists of today learned much of what they believe from
the books of Margaret Meade. Reportedly in the front of many
of her books this statement was found, "Although I am a con-
firmed evolutionist, I must admit as an honest scientist that
there is not one iota of concrete evidence to support the
theory of evolution." "NOT ONE IOTA" of concrete evidence,
she said! Well, she was at least halfway honest. She did ad-
mit to believing in some oddball, whacko theory that has no
proof whatsoever, none. Now, how scientific is that? That's
what evolutionists are calling "science".(Of course evolutionists don't
use simple words like these; they like to use big, juicy,
hard-to-remember and hard-to-pronounce strange new words like
"pleistocene" and "ramapithecus" to express themselves).Remember now, Darwin gave us this idea back in the days
when science considered the use of leeches to suck your blood
as a viable, acceptable, realistic method to treat medical
patients. Don't let these evolutionists trick you into the
trap of thinking that their evolutionary ideas are something
modern science has come up with. Evolution is from the day of
the leech.The evolutionists themselves don't seem to no-
tice that they have not addressed the issues that challenge
evolution but merely replied with challenges of their own. It
is similar to watching two sword-fighters thrusting at one
another with neither of them bothering to parry the other's
lethal thrusts. First you parry, then you thrust. First an-
swer the question or challenge, then make your own challenge
or ask your own question.Again and again the popular theory of evolution has now
been thoroughly disproven by responsible science, but many
irresponsible, socalled scientists and their misguided disci-
ples support it anyway, finally even asserting evolution to be
no longer a theory, but a proven fact. There is good science,
and there is bad science; real science and fake. Evolution is
extremely bad science. Good scientists are now having a dif-
ficult time overcoming the media-hysteria and setting the
record straight about evolution in the face of fake science
and a well-heeled, worldwide campaign of deception on the part
of evolutionists."
Originally posted by lord xyz
Despite that being bullshit, your alternative theory is to teach the pupils to have faith in a creator. Do you realise that's retarded? Until you can come up with a theory that is scientifically acceptable, shut up about evolution. We're open to evolution being wrong, just not creationism being right.
correction, we ARE open to creationism being a valid science
all it needs are experiments, predictions, results, observations and all of the other things that every other science on the planet has
EDIT: This last paragraph was meant more for JIA, and I don't feel like putting it into the third person.
special rules are not being made to exclude creationism, it just doesn't meet the standards of being a science. Feel free to start your own science, as places like the discover institute have, but expect as much respect from the real scientific community as you would have for a bunch of hicks trying to tell you about how God really works.
Originally posted by Devil King
7-7-07
??
what was the prediction?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Well, perhaps he is dogging the facts by failing to acknowledge them (dogging is a word too it means to mistreat, abuse, or disrespect). But I did intend to use the word dodging instead of dogging.
Speaking of dodging facts, I'm still waiting to hear your alternative theory that I mentioned on my last post.
I can wait a long time. I know I'll have to.
Originally posted by inimalist
??what was the prediction?
Someone predicted that the rapture was going to happen on that day...I think it was the same man who predicted it was going to happen last year. I think that anyone who followed and believed this guy after he was wrong the first time, would have to be utterly stupid to believe him a second time...and now, if anyone follows him, they don't derserve their brains.
The Chick tracts are written to lure in children... children, generally do not need facts to believe something, that is why those cartoons rely on basically just saying "You are wrong; I am right" over and over again. Religion, like the tobacco companies (for example) know that children are easier potential addicts than adults, so they start targeting the young... Jack Chick is little more than a chicken-hawk.
That comic is even more insane then most. I like how they claim only 2% of the people are gay, yet still the entire city of Sodom was filled with them somehow.
Seems strange, seeing as a city would still need to reproduce in order to continue to exist. God could just as well have waited a bit longer.
Originally posted by Fishy
That comic is even more insane then most. I like how they claim only 2% of the people are gay, yet still the entire city of Sodom was filled with them somehow.Seems strange, seeing as a city would still need to reproduce in order to continue to exist. God could just as well have waited a bit longer.
If you read older passaged/Bibles, Sodom was destroyed for its wickedness and greed, because the city prospered, but refused to share its food/wealth with the less fortunate. Not because of a roving gang of anal-hunger rapist. Though the latter does make for a better story.
I just have one question:
If god is omnipotent AND omniscient, then how come he could make ants, bees, crocodiles, Dogs, Lions, tigers, African swallows, and every other extant creature perfectly, but not humans. He had to send his son to die for us to complete us, and that only works after we die! Humans sure are special, hunh? Also, If god was really on our side, why doesn't he protect us from death? He has to be on our side against the poisonous snakes, spiders, rabid dogs, viruses, fungus, genetic irregularities etc.
It makes more sense that humans were made just fine and it is only the way of life that we are pursuing that has put the god into a position where they must choose either to side with us or with the rest of the biological community. It makes more sense that god put as much care into humans as she did into dust mites, trees, Australian pythons... What have you! It makes more sense that god cares as much for us as for the mosquito that I just slapped. I can't believe in an incompetent God, so I refuse to believe that I must be saved, that I was created in an imperfect state, and so I am at odds with All major religions that I know of.