Creationist Debate Stalls South Carolina State Fossil Bill

I am a Christian, and I have never said "I am going to the zoo to see lions and tigers, both of which were created on the sixth day."

This is silly (there are stronger words I would like to use). These idiot lawmakers just want to cram their agenda down everyone's throats. For crying out loud, who CARES?

a reply to: NthOther

Fair point. Do most 8-year old understand the concept of a state "anything"?

If you are correct, that means there are idiots on both sides cramming their agendas down everyone's throats.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Seems to me that this is a political argument being made on behalf of religious beliefs.

I always thought that religion and politics were to be kept separate. Isn't that what your founding fathers stated?

If the US dose not watch it's self and keep it's religious fanatics under control, out of your senates and out of your schools, in a few short decades you could all well end up believing that the world is only 6000 years old....lol

a reply to: SoldierCarryingHashbrowns

and growing, hombre…

google "viable T-Rex blood cells found"

more than once… google: polystrate trees, or just try having an open mind for an hour or two and actually ask yourself why most of the Creationist science is being left out.

Dr. Walter Veith, Dr. Baugh, Dr. Missler, etc...

youtube: The Fossil Record Speaks
youtu.be...

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.”
--Sir Isaac Newton, Principia, Book 3

"The laws of nature produce no events, they state the pattern to which every event have only and can be induced to happen, must conform. Just as the rules of Arithmetic state the pattern to which all transactions of money, must conform, if only you can get a hold of any money. Thus in one sense the laws of nature cover the whole field of space and time. In another what they leave out is precisely the whole real universe. The incessant "
"For every law says in the last resort: 'If you have A, then B."
But first catch your A.
The laws will not do it for you."
--C.S.Lewis

youtube: The Case For A Creator With Lee Strobel
www.youtube.com...

Title: “The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection OR The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”


“Darwin believed in inbreeding (he married his maternal father’s grand-daughter, who was also his mother’s niece) to produce “superior stock”. He had 10 children. Mary died shortly after birth. Anne died at age 10, Robert was born retarded and died at 19 months. Henrietta had a serious breakdown at age 15. 3 of his 6 other sons were ill so often the Darwin regarded them as semi-invalids.
--In the Minds of Men, Ian Taylor, p. 127

www.icr.org...

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.
So far, none of the theoretical assumptions of science to explain this have been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.

"According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas."

a reply to: Verum1quaere

Well first lets start with the fact that evolutionary theory has nothing to do with astronomical observations.

Secondly, present some actual data based on peer review studies and maybe you can be taken seriously.

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
www.icr.org...

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years.

No, not even close. Evolution says nothing of the sort. This is precisely the problem with getting your "science" from intellectually dishonest sources. Ask yourself this: if their position is credible and honest, why do they have to lie to you and deceive you about the scientific ideas they attack?

spider goats and gmo corn and fucushima prove god is not a necessity in genetic mutation
tune in next week
as the search for intelligent life continues

a reply to: beezzer

Technically, the pledge, money, etc did NOT include 'god' AT ALL until 1954. Please do your research, and maybe you will see why Atheists think it's VERY silly to have invisible 'god' on/in it....

Peace

Excuse me, but almost ALL Christians knows perfectly well that the Earth isn't 6000 years old.

It's just another stereotypes that the media associates with Christians, to make them look bad.

All the Christians I know are also scientists or work along science. Not to mention Newton and Galileo that did so too.

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
Title: “The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection OR The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”


“Darwin believed in inbreeding (he married his maternal father’s grand-daughter, who was also his mother’s niece) to produce “superior stock”. He had 10 children. Mary died shortly after birth. Anne died at age 10, Robert was born retarded and died at 19 months. Henrietta had a serious breakdown at age 15. 3 of his 6 other sons were ill so often the Darwin regarded them as semi-invalids.
--In the Minds of Men, Ian Taylor, p. 127

And exactly who wrote that??

Darwin was in constant debate with Francis Galton upon if humans should follow the natural selection or not. Galton believed so very hardly, and thus created Eugenics.
Darwin didn't. He found immoral and unethical, and he believed that humans were more than animals, and thus, could overcome natural selection. He forbade the use of his theory to support eugenics, and the elimination of the less strong humans. So much, that Galton waited 6 months after Darwin's death to create Eugenics.

So whoever wrote that stupid book about Darwin was wrong. Darwin never supported Eugenics or natural selection upon humans.

a reply to: starheart

Not to disrespect what you are saying; But I think we have advanced quite a bit since Newton or Galileo, for their sentimental upbringings in Christian rhetoric to be relevant with what we know to be facts now.

And as far as other 'scientists' you may or may not know; Any scientist that goes into the field of biology thinking that evolution is 'just a theory' is usually invited to try social studies.

Just my 2cents

originally posted by: Amarri
a reply to: starheart

Not to disrespect what you are saying; But I think we have advanced quite a bit since Newton or Galileo, for their sentimental upbringings in Christian rhetoric to be relevant with what we know to be facts now.

And as far as other 'scientists' you may or may not know; Any scientist that goes into the field of biology thinking that evolution is 'just a theory' is usually invited to try social studies.

Just my 2cents

I guess we can start ignoring Newton's laws then? Newton developed CALCULUS, the fundamental component of ALL science from physics down to biology. Newton's method of prediction, as in predictions based on calculations, as opposed to hypotheses without proofs (proof in the scientific world).

The reason people can still challenge the concept is because a proof is an incredibly rigorous test which accounts for all situations. An example can be found here Principia Mathematica.

Furthermore often in the sciences unexplained phenomena are simply accepted as a fact. An example would by the question of, "why can almost all physical phenomena be explained by mathematical expressions?" This sort of question is avoided like the plague and will eventually require an explanation other then, "that is just the way it works."

Creationism is an extreme minority and really has no place being forced onto the naming of a state fossil.

. . .

That being said OP referenced the new Cosmos show as if it were some enlightening science program. I would disagree and say it is total and complete crap that takes extreme detours from actual scientific principles and should itself be avoided like the plague if one were actually interested in learning anything.

Really, calling a guy who preached about a dream he had a martyr of science . . . . GTFO.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
You are implying something I did not say. But it's an obvious tactic. So I'm responding to others who may be confused by your accusation..
Nowhere did I mention 'Ignoring ALL of his Laws'. Nope. Not one place.
What I did say... However... Is that someone's religious upbringing, has NOTHING to do with one's ability to think... Although, it does seem to be getting that way, doesn't it?

Their belated beliefs are just not relevant. They didn't 'discover' God and prove him to the world, now did they?

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

That being said OP referenced the new Cosmos show as if it were some enlightening science program. I would disagree and say it is total and complete crap that takes extreme detours from actual scientific principles and should itself be avoided like the plague if one were actually interested in learning anything.

That being said you referenced the new Cosmos as crap.....

Are you aware of how many youths in this country are getting NO education about current science at all?
It's been stated from the beginning that Tyson wanted to get youths more interested in science...and math. AS IT SHOULD BE.
You can't put a kindergartner into a college CALCULUS class. They (the uneducated, very young) need to start at the beginning....arithmetic. Multiplication.

Do you realize how many FOX viewers are ill-educated Bible Thumpers who want their kids to reject science??????

Please.

originally posted by: Verum1quaere


more than once… google: polystrate trees,

I find it very interesting that only in the last couple of decades have "polystrate trees" become an issue when the mechanism for how these deposits were formed has been well understood for approximately 150 years, since
geologist John William Dawson described the mechanism in 1868. The disbelief in this mechanism is so ridiculously outdated I don't even know what to say.

or just try having an open mind for an hour or two and actually ask yourself why most of the Creationist science is being left out.

I can answer that rather definitively, because their "hypothesis" aren't even testable let Alone repeatable. That's not science, its scam artistry for the believers to keep them in line in the face of actual scientific advancement that counters YEC thought.

Dr. Walter Veith,

ahh... The infamous Veith, the one who was forced to resign his position Professor of Zoology at Uiversity of Capetown SA... Not exactly a shining example of a good scientist here.

Dr. Baugh,

Baugh's garbage story about human and dinosaur foot prints side by side has been debunked so many times it really isn't worth getting into and repeating the me information again when its available in multiple threads on ATS aloe without resorting to the Internet. It isn't even good enough to be called junk science, its a money scam for the foolish.

Dr. Missler, etc...

I hate to keep attacking the individuals as opposed to their "work" but as Dr. Missler is a well known plagiarist nothing he has said or written has any degree of veracity to it.

originally posted by: Amarri
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
You are implying something I did not say. But it's an obvious tactic. So I'm responding to others who may be confused by your accusation..

Nowhere did I mention 'Ignoring ALL of his Laws'. Nope. Not one place.

What I did say... However... Is that someone's religious upbringing, has NOTHING to do with one's ability to think... Although, it does seem to be getting that way, doesn't it?

You do realize that back when Newton first developed derivatives and anti derivatives they meant the same things as today and are the fundamental component of all the advances made by science.

As in why does the derivative of a function give its rate of change?
Why does the anti derivative provide the area under the curve?

What laws are at work here to explain that?

None of those questions have been answered, merely accepted as an unexplained fact with all scientific advances accepted on the apparent truth of such a mystery.

PS
Biology is the field of study offered to physicists who can't cut it, so knocking folks for not accepting a theory with no laws defining its manifestation is very silly.

If you want to really settle the argument a proof that validates yet to be produced laws of evolution based on physics and described in the language of maths must be tested. Until then it is merely liberal arts majors (and biologists) and religious studies majors throwing their egos at each other.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
So you are truly saying that they 'discovered' god... Everyone just missed it because we learned all that other stuff you wrote so much about...