Spirituality
01 Jun 14
Originally posted by Paul Dirac IIYou have to be careful of the evolutionists since they have put forward much misleading and fraudulent material in the past. If you have time take a look at this:
I just looked at this link from my Net home page. RJ, if you've got a few minutes, give it a read.
http://news.yahoo.com/creationist-tall-tales-human-tails-050431615--politics.html
Human Tail: Evidence For Evolution?
Vestigial Organs: Am I Half Junk?
DON'T TOUCH MY VESTIGIAL ORGAN
Evolution: Vestigial Organs - What You WON'T Learn in Public School
Setting the Record Straight on Vestigial Organs by Dr. David DeWitt
https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/vestigial-organs/setting-the-record-straight-on-vestigial-organs/
02 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsSome of these folks have valid Phd's but that does not mean they are doing real science since they come into the study with the agenda of proving creationism correct which means they will distort, bend, cherry pick data and so forth in an effort to shoehorn their data into a proof of creationism.
chromosome # 2 Ken Miller Vs Ian Juby's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQWtQYT7MVI
CHROMOSOME 2 EVIDENCE DISINTEGRATING
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lVJauZ96Tw
That is not science. Again, that is politics.
They are not after the truth. They are after political power to force creationism to be taught in a science class as if creationism were a science which is far far from ANY scientific study.
Originally posted by sonhouseIt appears to me that most scientists come into the study with the agenda of proving evolution correct which means they will distort, bend, cherry pick data and so forth in an effort to shoehorn their data into a proof of evolution.
Some of these folks have valid Phd's but that does not mean they are doing real science since they come into the study with the agenda of proving creationism correct which means they will distort, bend, cherry pick data and so forth in an effort to shoehorn their data into a proof of creationism.
That is not science. Again, that is politics.
They are ...[text shortened]... in a science class as if creationism were a science which is far far from ANY scientific study.
Evolutionists are continually using their political power to ban the teaching of any problem with the evolution theory or the teaching of an alternate theory in science classes. It is becoming more clear that the theory of evolution is based on a belief system and not real science.
02 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat it appears to you and what it appears to scientists is two VERY different things.
It appears to me that most scientists come into the study with the agenda of proving evolution correct which means they will distort, bend, cherry pick data and so forth in an effort to shoehorn their data into a proof of evolution.
Evolutionists are continually using their political power to ban the teaching of any problem with the evolution theory or th ...[text shortened]... coming more clear that the theory of evolution is based on a belief system and not real science.
You think you know the minds of all scientists working on evolution but you don't.
They are not all part of some vast atheist conspiracy like you think, for one thing.
The other thing is, a lot of theses scientists hate each others guts and will try to undermine others work and sometimes they succeed and sometimes they fail.
One thing that shines through all of that, there is a convergence of real data and ideas from many fields that adds up to confidence in evolution, in spite of your pathetic creationist anti-science stance.
I know, now you will pull the 'I am not against science, I am only for that which shows the truth' card.
03 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsNo RJ, they just accept the paradigm theory without questioning it that much. This is fairly normal within science, there is no point in doubting paradigm theories unless there is significant evidence against them. You on the other hand reject the paradigm theory based on no scientifically acceptable evidence. I feel safe ignoring the stuff you keep posting because of its obvious bias and very poor quality. If Dawkins started saying it I might listen, but not from your preachers.
It appears to me that most scientists come into the study with the agenda of proving evolution correct which means they will distort, bend, cherry pick data and so forth in an effort to shoehorn their data into a proof of evolution.
Evolutionists are continually using their political power to ban the teaching of any problem with the evolution theory or th ...[text shortened]... coming more clear that the theory of evolution is based on a belief system and not real science.
03 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonhouseI did not say ALL, I said MOST.
What it appears to you and what it appears to scientists is two VERY different things.
You think you know the minds of all scientists working on evolution but you don't.
They are not all part of some vast atheist conspiracy like you think, for one thing.
The other thing is, a lot of theses scientists hate each others guts and will try to undermin ...[text shortened]... now you will pull the 'I am not against science, I am only for that which shows the truth' card.
03 Jun 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtSo you think Richard Dawkins is not biased? Here is a quote about Dawkins from Wikipedia:
No RJ, they just accept the paradigm theory without questioning it that much. This is fairly normal within science, there is no point in doubting paradigm theories unless there is significant evidence against them. You on the other hand reject the paradigm theory [b]based on no scientifically acceptable evidence. I feel safe ignoring the st ...[text shortened]... nd very poor quality. If Dawkins started saying it I might listen, but not from your preachers.[/b]
Dawkins is an atheist, a vice president of the British Humanist Association, and a supporter of the Brights movement. He is well known for his criticism of creationism and intelligent design.
03 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsthat is not bias, it is common sense. yes, creationism and intelligent design are garbage, yes, they shouldn't be taught in schools. neither should Magic 101 or "Practical Voodoo " be.
So you think Richard Dawkins is not biased? Here is a quote about Dawkins from Wikipedia:
[b]Dawkins is an atheist, a vice president of the British Humanist Association, and a supporter of the Brights movement. He is well known for his criticism of creationism and intelligent design.[/b]
this opinion is also completely irrelevant to Dawkins' expertise in evolution, which i consider to be considerable.
03 Jun 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziI don't believe it is common sense to believe the theory of evolution. It was not even a common belief until recently. Is the belief that DNA just created itself common sense? Is the belief that computer programs just create themselves also common sense?
that is not bias, it is common sense. yes, creationism and intelligent design are garbage, yes, they shouldn't be taught in schools. neither should Magic 101 or "Practical Voodoo " be.
this opinion is also completely irrelevant to Dawkins' expertise in evolution, which i consider to be considerable.
03 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsDon't feed the troll.
I don't believe it is common sense to believe the theory of evolution. It was not even a common belief until recently. Is the belief that DNA just created itself common sense? Is the belief that computer programs just create themselves also common sense?