The lies of Lynchburg: How U.S. evolutionists taught the Nazis.

Answers In Genesis ^ | September 1997 | Carl Wieland

[netmilsmom]

>>God has no place in science class, either for or against. God and HIS actions and HIS plan are not subject to scientific analysis.<<

I teach Him to be the creator of all things. Every theory is by the Grace of Him and all the discoveries are by His Gifts.

This is exactly what the movie Expelled was about.

And let me tell you, I’m glad I homeschool.

[tpanther]

or burnings at the stake.

[tpanther]

First I heard “God has no place in science class”. Now it’s “God has no place in science class, for or against”...

while completely ignoring the fact that the cult of evolution IS very much against.

Amazing isn’t it?

Constant goal post moving, but at the end of the day, these are the people left with defending the indefensable: the godless liberal NEA agenda.

[Mr. Silverback]

Coyoteman, I think its about time you answered the questions in 69

While he's at it, he can say whether he believes scientists shold be trying to eliminate religion.

23 months since I asked.

[tacticalogic]

And the Spanish Inquisition. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[tpanther]

You know better than that, unless you don’t read coyoteman’s drivel.

[tacticalogic]

You know better than that, unless you don’t read coyoteman’s drivel.

So people really do expect the Spanish Inquisition?

[tpanther]

Ask coyoteman, it’s his assertion.

[tacticalogic]

If it’s his assertion, why do you expect everyone else to answer for it?

[tpanther]

Because he hasn’t. Maybe you can help him with it?

Besides, it was you who brought it up.

[tpanther]

There is no “God theory”. God is not a scientific theory as the actions of God are not measurable, predictable, and replicable.

God has no place in science class, either for or against. God and HIS actions and HIS plan are not subject to scientific analysis.

Here we witness the utter hypocrisy with M-theory, string theory and multiverse theory.

[tacticalogic]

What would you like me to do?

[Fichori]

“The people that take the evolution theory side have no problem with “beings” from another planet “seeding” the Earth, but have a problem with Our Lord “seeding” it.” [excerpt]

Thats because Dawkins' god-aliens are themselves a product of natural processes and the feasibility of their evolution from non-living matter is explained by their existence in yet undiscovered conditions on an unknown planet, whose environmental conditions are not found on earth.

Essentially, Dawkins has conceded that life evolving from non-living matter here on earth is not feasible.

The only explanation that he can then give without compromising his a priori belief in evolution is that the first evolution occurred on another planet.

By making this statement, he can shed the burden of proof, because the planet in question is unknown and probably impossible to reach in his lifetime, and therefore he cannot be expected to verify his claims.

Not exactly what I call science.

[tpanther]

LOL!

[tacticalogic]

I have been since thread started!

[Dutch Boy]

Thanks, I did not know that. It’s a good day when you can learn something.

[tpanther]

Just this thread?

[tacticalogic]

For now.

[Mr. Silverback]

I'm honored, madame.

Evolutionists believe that all life evolved to its present forms through natural selection. The critters who had gained useful traits through mutations survived to breed (or bred more often) than competing organisms.

Creationists believe that the first chapters of Genesis are literally true, that God created the world in six days. Though some of the folks working in creationist circles are competent, legitimate scientists, creationism can best be described as religion criticizing Darwinism.

Intelligent design has to do with scientists finding structures in organisms that appear to disprove Darwinism because they have "irreducible complexity." They couldn't have evolved into their present form because they wouldn't have worked (much less given the ancestor critter advantages) if they were simpler. Michael Behe, who wrote the book "Darwin's Black Box" and started the whole ID ruckus, compared them to mousetraps, because if you remove any one part from a moustrap it's useless. One of the systems he cited was blood clotting; if any particular component chemical is absent, the system doesn't work at all. Ergo, these systems must have been designed by an intelligence, or they must have occurred naturally in some way other than simple forms becoming more complex via natural selection. Either of those would disprove the current Darwinian model.

IDers are often accused of being creationists, but ID is science criticizing science, which is why it is so feared.

Let me know if you have any other questions. I'll leave you with a chart of the coagulation cascade in blood clotting:

[Mr. Silverback]

Proving microevolution means squat. It's like proving a certain civilization built pyramids by proving they they made clay pots.

There are any number of ways the theory could be falsified. Another mechanism of genetic change could be discovered that was somehow not subject to natural selection. A genomic analysis that didn't conform to the nested hierarchies of phylogenetic analysis previously discovered would also falsify common descent.

Or, one could find biological systems that couldn't have evolved because because they are irreducibly complex...oh wait, if someone did that, they would just be accused of arguing from ignorance or worshipping the God of the gaps. That's what was said when Behe presented examples. IDers could find 100 ironclad examples of irreducible complexity that stood up for 100 years and they would still not be considered falsification of evolution. They would be considered "God of the gap" claptrap no matter how strong the science was.

The reality is that evolution will never be falsified, because any work that appears to falsify it will be judged unscientific. It will be said that those who made the discovery are arguing from ignorance, and evolutionists will say, "No, you must be wrong, we proved in in the lab." They will also accuse said scientists of being closet creationists if they either have any admitted faith or anybody at any creationist organization has ever said the work could be useful for promoting the creationist cause.

For too many, science has become Professor Love's Traveling Salvation Show, and religions don't get falsified. Falsification won't kill evolution any more than finding out Charles Taze Russell couldn't read Greek killed the Jehovah's Witnesses.