Posted on 06/27/2008 2:04:21 PM PDT by EveningStar
Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal has signed a stealth creationist bill into law, and American educational standards take a huge step backward: Science law could set tone for Jindal.
The creationist front group called the Discovery Institute is quietly crowing, and maintaining the fiction that the bill is not religiously-based.
(Excerpt) Read more at littlegreenfootballs.com ...
No, I seriously cannot understand the basis for evolutionary thought. I have considered it, and rejected it outright.
But, I am willing to listen to a reasonable response so I can understand it. Your constant attempts to change the subject will not persuade me of anything.
Are you a scientist?
Organic forms go much simpler than cells. But if you're talking about "life" then a cell would probably be the most basic since viruses probably came later.
Right now there's still hot debate among scientists about this between those supporting heterotrophic and those supporting chemoautotrophic. But some new research looks good in attempting to reconcile it.
But, I am willing to listen to a reasonable response so I can understand it. Your constant attempts to change the subject will not persuade me of anything.
Since I haven't addressed "evolutionary thought", but started and remained with the subject of geology throughout the thread there is very little, if any possibility that you ever will understand, because you either don't want to or are just too stupid to grasp the concept that they are different subjects.
No, I'm a taxpayer who's got to help foot the bill for, among other things that involve geology and geologists, our nuclear waste storage facilities.
I didn't have a problem with you and your religion until it stuck it's nose into those decisions.
Thank you. I only have high school biology as a background.
Next question... How would a "cell" generate, or "form" a cell wall, a nucleus, and all else needed to support itself, and be mobile? By what known ( and OBSERVED) means could this happen?
Did you have an argument to make, or are you finished?
I suggest God is your problem, not me!
One more time, if you want to discuss theology we'll take it over to the Religion forum.
Why waste your time with me, if you’re so concerned with your tax money supporting theists. Redeem your time howling at the moon! It will change the same things...
At least on this we are in 100% agreement
An interesting question.
“Now explain to me how life started on this planet, something no evo has ever been able to do”
Not quite. Possible explanations have been given,,,they just have`nt been proven.
“Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, “non biological origins”) is a theory which contends that organisms originated from nonliving, inanimate material at some point in the very distant past. Evolutionists typically believe that this life came from a single self-replicating protocell which in turn originally came into existence through spontaneous chemical reactions.”
http://creationwiki.org/Abiogenesis
This is on the History Channel tomorrow;
“How Life Began”
http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=303042
It was on earlier in the week, but I caught only part of it. It`s a look at how life arose from non-living matter. Science does`nt deal with the supernatural. Some scientists believe in God, but for science itself, there is only one possible explanation for life. And that is Abiogenesis.
And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. 9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11
So, do you deny the Earth is flat? Or do you accept my narrow interpretation of the bible to be the truth and reject round world heresy?
I don’t have to accept your narrow interpretation of the Bible to believe in God. Luckily, otherwise no one could rightly call themselves a Christian and a scientist.
I reject that narrow theology. And since I have the Catholic church on my side... I could really care about holy rolling baptist creationists and their backwards understanding of science.
...or, to be phrased differently, "Something, from nothing"...
How can a star be formed. Remember... use only observed means. None of that there high faluting fancy shmancy theory and physics.
"I reject that narrow theology. And since I have the Catholic church on my side... I could really care about holy rolling baptist creationists and their backwards understanding of science."Whats sad is when people believe something, not because they researched it and found it to be true, but because of religious fiat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.