Majority of Americans Reject Secular Evolution (Gallup Poll, Sep. 2005)

BP News (Baptist Press) ^ | October 19, 2005 | Michael Foust

[gondramB]

" A new type of layered superconductor NaxCoO2·yH20 which consists of
two-dimensional CoO2 layers separated by a thick insulating layer of
Na+ ions and H2O molecules has been observed to have superconductor
transition temperature Tc at 5K."


5 degrees kelvin is -268 degrees celsius.. That is the kind of basic science knowledge I am talking about.

[bert]

This same majority can't factor a quadratic equation either.

[American in Israel]

I can leave it up to you to figure out who designed the whole thing, the fact that it is a design is obvious. But to ignore creation science because it has a God is to ignore heat because it has a fire.

At that point it becomes the religion of athiesm.

ID exists, so draw your own conclusions. There are thousands of God's in mans history, pick another if you must be obtuse.

[From many - one.]

You claimed:
"For evolution to be true, vestigial organs should outnumber functional ones."

Wrong and a clear indicator that you do not understand how evolution works.

Oh, btw, citaton please.

[From many - one.]

Umm...that wouldn't be an attempt at an insulting remark, would it?

Won't work, if it is.

Clearly I am aware of Separation of Church and State.

And, to drag your hidden argument into the light of day...no, the theory of evolution is not a religion by any legal test available.

[American in Israel]

So what you are saying is we are going to teach kids that science has rules (the scientific method) and we always follow these rules, except when it comes to ID?

No silly, what I am saying is we are going to teach kids that science has rules (the scientific method) and we are going to follow the rules and try to prove/disprove ID or evolution equally based on observation instead of being hypocrites and teaching only one viewpoint and trying to fight the others scientific observation in a court of law instead of a laboratory.

But then, studying the opposition to the observation that the earth was round would show the same pattern, the flat earthers resorted to the courtrooms instead of science and delayed though did not stop the scientific advancement of the day.

The same thing is going to happen now, because science in the end continues to advance, despite doctrine.

[LiteKeeper]

YEC SPOTREP

[righttackle44]

"Science isn't conducted by polls."

And neither is faith.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"But then, studying the opposition to the observation that the earth was round would show the same pattern, the flat earthers resorted to the courtrooms instead of science and delayed though did not stop the scientific advancement of the day."

What people used the courtrooms to argue a flat Earth? In the past 2,000 years I mean.

[md2576]

I can leave it up to you to figure out who designed the whole thing, the fact that it is a design is obvious. But to ignore creation science because it has a God is to ignore heat because it has a fire.

You can leave it up to me to find my own way as you found yours, and if it were so obvious then it would be taught in school with some basis of why it's so obvious.

No where in school or in Darwin's theory are they ignoring creation. It just proves we don't know for sure so here's a biological probability. We have plenty of divine examples taught in churches across America. Leave biology theories in Science class and Religious beliefs for the church.

 

[balrog666]

I spent most of a half hour on google but could not find any reference to this.

Did you check in the comic book section?

[American in Israel]

Look guy, I have fairly answered your questions, and can continue to do so. But the insults show me that you are just being desperate to hold on to your faith. I have no need to save your arse from hell, if there is a hell, and you want to go there that is fine with me. I may pity you, but that is as far as it gets.

There is no way to "convert" you with stupid arguments over trees and beetles. Do you think that perhaps there were more than a couple of trees in the whole world at the time just like there were a couple of different beetles? I do not recall arguing evolution over adaption yet, that is a whole nother ball game that reduces your beetles to family's, which strangely enough is what your whole evolutionary tree is based on.

First you have to realize that you have not got it all figured out, then we might have a discussion. Till then, it is just you clinging to your faith and being caustic about it. You are a bible thumper, A Darwinistic one. I don't really like Bible thumpers. Face it, this is your religion, you are a priest of the religion and have spent years of your life teaching your acolytes. Fine, enjoy your religion. I don't have a problem with that.

But don't hide behind stupid arguments and insults with me. I don't owe you the sweat off of my back, and I am not your slave to whip. You are an idiot to not see that the first article showed that the accuracy curve is based on the same time line as creationists, as it has to be calibrated by known good specimens, and is wildly inaccurate without such specimens. Specimens that do not occur before the Biblical time line of Creation. You have no calibration points as they simply do not exist. The bristle cone pine does not die of old age. No specimen has been observed dying of old age yet. To assume it only lives from x years old because that is how old it is, is to assume it must die of old age, something never observed, just assumed.
(Whap, the sound of the obvious hitting a thick skull).

The second article brought up the very good point that radiometric dating is based on the assumption that radiation levels are constant. As we are seeing our suns radiation output change in the last five years, this makes radiometric dating based on constant radiation levels down right silly, and not observed science, but FAITH. Yet you cling to your faith to ignore what is observable.

Now is it sheer Co-Inky-Dink that the only span we can calibrate span is the very same span as the Biblical account of the lifespan of the Earth by plus or minus a few thousand years, vs the Billions or Millions of years span of radiometric dating depending on which branch of evolutionist you come from?

10% divergence of a span is logical from observation, but a span that varies by a couple hundred thousand percent is a RAW Guess, not science.

So give me a break. If you want to be arguing from a scientific viewpoint, use science, not your biting sarcasm. While sarcasm has flavor, it usually is bitter and does not hold water well.

[balrog666]

False Assumptions of Radio Carbon dating

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

Such abject stupidiy! Such bold humor!

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

You forgot the bold type: *the modern interpretation*

Maybe, I should have put

THE MODERN INTERPRETATION

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Look guy, I have fairly answered your questions, and can continue to do so. But the insults show me that you are just being desperate to hold on to your faith.

You are wasting your time with such malakhim raoth. That one is a Marxist troll who hates anything Judaic...

Shalom...

[Sofa King]

This is a classic here. Best example of Creationist Science I have ever seen.

[Kay Ludlow]

bttt

[Your Nightmare]

It has been shown that people without the appendex have a much higher infection rate. So it is not as useless as we guessed. Just because we do not understand something does not make it useless, it just makes the ameoba that invented it smarter than the evolutionist.

How did these people loose their appendixes? I'm guessing surgery. Do you think that might have contributed to their infections?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"But the insults show me that you are just being desperate to hold on to your faith. I have no need to save your arse from hell, if there is a hell, and you want to go there that is fine with me. I may pity you, but that is as far as it gets."

Another old creationist fall back play, "You're going to Hell!".

"There is no way to "convert" you with stupid arguments over trees and beetles. Do you think that perhaps there were more than a couple of trees in the whole world at the time just like there were a couple of different beetles?"

350,000 species of extant beetles.

"First you have to realize that you have not got it all figured out, then we might have a discussion. Till then, it is just you clinging to your faith and being caustic about it."

More projection on your part. Creationist psychology is fascinating if predictable.

"Face it, this is your religion, you are a priest of the religion and have spent years of your life teaching your acolytes."

If so I am still waiting my checks from Darwin Central.

"But don't hide behind stupid arguments and insults with me. I don't owe you the sweat off of my back, and I am not your slave to whip."

Stand back from the keyboard, take a deep breath. Count to 10. Up the meds, whatever it takes to return to reality.

" The second article brought up the very good point that radiometric dating is based on the assumption that radiation levels are constant."

It also undercut your whole point.

"If you want to be arguing from a scientific viewpoint, use science, not your biting sarcasm. While sarcasm has flavor, it usually is bitter and does not hold water well."

Ok, now that were have done with your ranting, please provide a citation for your ludicrous claim modern elephants and egg shells have been dated to 100,000 years old. We are really beginning to think you just made it up.


And please explain how humans can descend from just 8 people (mostly nuclear family to boot) and not face a huge genetic bottleneck. And how did the Koala get to Australia?

And what happened to the salt water fish and the fresh water fish that had their water's PH and salinity rapidly change?

[balrog666]

You are wasting your time with such malakhim raoth. That one is a Marxist troll who hates anything Judaic... Shalom...

Ah, another shameless Creationist lying troll. Why am I not surprised...