[W:#183]Humans in the Americas before last Ice Age

[MamboDervish]

You don't get it. empirical evidence is just information. Then, the information gathered has to be interpreted to mean something. The interpretation comes from an ideological belief

NO! It certainly does NOT. It comes from observation, testing, reproducing, forming hypothesis, abandoning hypothesis, more testing, duplication, and verification. You have no clue what you're talking about. There is no fundamental ideological belief at all. You have been horribly mislead.

either the universe and earth are billions of years old or the belief that Genesis is correct and the universe and earth are only thousands of years old. When old universe-earthers interpret in publications or on air they use words like "might be," "could be," with now definite conclusions. Listen and read how they think life began on the earth. "There's a chance," "What might have occurred," "We believe what happened," and so on... Never, "this is exactly what happened." So, your theories you follow are ideologically driven.

Again - NO. That's horseshit, and it stems from your total lack of understanding. The thing that separates sciences from belief is precisely what you're describing. Belief never uses "might be", or "could be", because it is an ideology. Science understands that what is "known" is only known as far as the next, more refined, more accurate scientific understanding.

For example, there's nothing "wrong" with Newtonian physics. In can, and has been used to predict planetary motion - "accurately" - for nearly 3 hundred years. But Einstein's general relativity eclipses it, because it has a greater understanding of gravity, and provides a more refined, more accurate way to predict planetary motion. Using Newtonian physics, one would be perfectly correct in saying, "What might be ... " and "We believe ... " precisely because IT IS NOT AN IDEOLOGY, and Einstein had yet to refine our scientific understanding of planetary motion.

To your ideas of what Genesis says is incorrect and ideologically driven as well. Genesis, nor any part of the Bible, says the sun revolves around the earth. "Serpents" correctly used is representative of Satan (Lucifer.) Satan can communicate with us. If God wants to make a fish or whale large enough to have you live inside it for 3 days, He can. He's God. And, you ideologically assume the flood is fictitious with no proof. And, rainbows came about after Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden.

Follow this, because this is important to understand. We KNOW what sandstone, and gneiss, and limestone, and granite, et al, are because we've WITNESSED and MEASURED their creation. We KNOW how long it takes for sedimentation to create sedimentary rock because we've measured the deposition rate. We KNOW how long it takes to erode a river bank because we can measure erosion. We KNOW how many tens of thousands of years it takes to make a glacier, because we've measured the deposition rate. We KNOW how many eons are involved in the creation of limestone because we have measured the deposition rate in caves. The dynamics of these things are very well understood, because we've been observing them for hundreds of years. We KNOW how long it takes the continents to move, because we MEASURE THEIR MOVEMENTS !!!

We KNOW the time, and the temperature, and the pressures involved in the creation of our world, because we can quantify those dynamics and project them to within reasonable mathematical limits. We KNOW how lava flows from volcanoes, and can measure the strata created over millions of years. We KNOW how long it takes tree sap to turn into amber. We KNOW how long it takes to fossilize bone and tusk. We KNOW what it takes to petrify a tree, and we know how to count the years of growth, because WE HAVE WITNESSED AND MEASURED TREE GROWTH!! - And all of these things we KNOW are WITHIN a REASONABLE MATHEMATICAL CERTAINTY based on our understanding of how accurate our instrumentation and data is. None of it - NONE OF IT - is based on ideology. We KNOW the decay rate of radioactive isotopes, because WE CAN MEASURE IT! And likewise, we KNOW the speed of light because WE HAVE MEASURED IT!

There is no ideology involved. None. And just as it was with Newtonian physics before Einstein, we'll continue to use phrases like, "it might be" and "we suspect", and " this could be", because we KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE that greater scientific discoveries lie ahead that can refine
our understanding of the natural world and lead to more accurate physics, biology, zoology, anthropology, paleontology, genetics, geology, etc, etc.

 

[MamboDervish]

You don't get it. empirical evidence is just information. Then, the information gathered has to be interpreted to mean something. The interpretation comes from an ideological belief either the universe and earth are billions of years old or the belief that Genesis is correct and the universe and earth are only thousands of years old. When old universe-earthers interpret in publications or on air they use words like "might be," "could be," with now definite conclusions. Listen and read how they think life began on the earth. "There's a chance," "What might have occurred," "We believe what happened," and so on... Never, "this is exactly what happened." So, your theories you follow are ideologically driven.
To your ideas of what Genesis says is incorrect and ideologically driven as well. Genesis, nor any part of the Bible, says the sun revolves around the earth. "Serpents" correctly used is representative of Satan (Lucifer.) Satan can communicate with us. If God wants to make a fish or whale large enough to have you live inside it for 3 days, He can. He's God. And, you ideologically assume the flood is fictitious with no proof. And, rainbows came about after Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden.

continued ...

Conversely, you simply believe that a serpent spoke to Eve because YOUR RELIGION TELLS you it did, and you just swallow that fairy tale without using "could be" or "might be" or "we think" or "we suspect" because it is your IDEOLOGY !!! See the difference? BIG difference! But have you ever seen, or heard a talking serpent? One would have to think that Satan should have learned from the very beginning how successful talking serpents can be, to the point that every snake in the grass would have his voice - but alas they don't. So Satan must be a ****ing idiot. He's given up on a sure thing, eh? When your "creation scientists" can produce a visible, audible, measurable, quantifiable, reproducible talking serpent, then maybe "creation science" can join the ranks of real science, and leave the ranks of being a poser religion, just masquerading as science. Until then, only science is a science - and the sciences - the REAL sciences - all confirm, support and verify a very old earth, and a very, very, very old universe. And they do it with no ideology involved. None whatsoever. Learn that. Learn the difference.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

NO! It certainly does NOT. It comes from observation, testing, reproducing, forming hypothesis, abandoning hypothesis, more testing, duplication, and verification. You have no clue what you're talking about. There is no fundamental ideological belief at all. You have been horribly mislead.

Again - NO. That's horseshit, and it stems from your total lack of understanding. The thing that separates sciences from belief is precisely what you're describing. Belief never uses "might be", or "could be", because it is an ideology. Science understands that what is "known" is only known as far as the next, more refined, more accurate scientific understanding.

For example, there's nothing "wrong" with Newtonian physics. In can, and has been used to predict planetary motion - "accurately" - for nearly 3 hundred years. But Einstein's general relativity eclipses it, because it has a greater understanding of gravity, and provides a more refined, more accurate way to predict planetary motion. Using Newtonian physics, one would be perfectly correct in saying, "What might be ... " and "We believe ... " precisely because IT IS NOT AN IDEOLOGY, and Einstein had yet to refine our scientific understanding of planetary motion.

Follow this, because this is important to understand. We KNOW what sandstone, and gneiss, and limestone, and granite, et al, are because we've WITNESSED and MEASURED their creation. We KNOW how long it takes for sedimentation to create sedimentary rock because we've measured the deposition rate. We KNOW how long it takes to erode a river bank because we can measure erosion. We KNOW how many tens of thousands of years it takes to make a glacier, because we've measured the deposition rate. We KNOW how many eons are involved in the creation of limestone because we have measured the deposition rate in caves. The dynamics of these things are very well understood, because we've been observing them for hundreds of years. We KNOW how long it takes the continents to move, because we MEASURE THEIR MOVEMENTS !!!

We KNOW the time, and the temperature, and the pressures involved in the creation of our world, because we can quantify those dynamics and project them to within reasonable mathematical limits. We KNOW how lava flows from volcanoes, and can measure the strata created over millions of years. We KNOW how long it takes tree sap to turn into amber. We KNOW how long it takes to fossilize bone and tusk. We KNOW what it takes to petrify a tree, and we know how to count the years of growth, because WE HAVE WITNESSED AND MEASURED TREE GROWTH!! - And all of these things we KNOW are WITHIN a REASONABLE MATHEMATICAL CERTAINTY based on our understanding of how accurate our instrumentation and data is. None of it - NONE OF IT - is based on ideology. We KNOW the decay rate of radioactive isotopes, because WE CAN MEASURE IT! And likewise, we KNOW the speed of light because WE HAVE MEASURED IT!

There is no ideology involved. None. And just as it was with Newtonian physics before Einstein, we'll continue to use phrases like, "it might be" and "we suspect", and " this could be", because we KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE that greater scientific discoveries lie ahead that can refine
our understanding of the natural world and lead to more accurate physics, biology, zoology, anthropology, paleontology, genetics, geology, etc, etc.

"Science understands that what is "known" is only known as far as the next, more refined, more accurate scientific understanding." I like this statement of yours because you state that the known isn't really known. It's "Might be" until the next piece of unknown information comes along. Again, fuzzy words and thoughts galore. Thank you for admitting this.
As far as what we know about how geological creations are made, you are so far off. You think the Grand Canyon had to be made by the Colorado River over millions of years. No, it did not. If you would be open minded about the "known" information you have and realize there are large canyons around the world that have been formed in a matter of a couple of weeks with fast moving flood waters. But, you won't even follow your own advise to look for the next, more refined, more accurate scientific understanding. And, you are not open to know from experience that greater scientific discoveries lie ahead. That is why your belief is ideologically driven. The drive to disprove God.

 

[MamboDervish]

"Science understands that what is "known" is only known as far as the next, more refined, more accurate scientific understanding." I like this statement of yours because you state that the known isn't really known. It's "Might be" until the next piece of unknown information comes along. Again, fuzzy words and thoughts galore. Thank you for admitting this.

Could you possibly have missed the mark by a greater margin? I doubt it. You insist on being deliberately obtuse. I thoroughly corrected your foolish assertion that science is an ideology, even going so far as contrasting it with what obviously is your ideology, and you think you can tap dance past that with horseshit about "fuzzy words" ?? Not likely.

Science = Academic disciplines that are quantifiable, measurable, verifiable, and humbly flexible, as it admits that it is subject to future refinement in light of newer, greater discoveries.

"Creation Science" = The pseudo-science of desperately trying to force the round peg of real science into the square hole of religion, ossified by rigid beliefs in ancient texts, which are unquantifiable, immeasurable, unverifiable, and arrogantly inflexible.

As far as what we know about how geological creations are made, you are so far off. You think the Grand Canyon had to be made by the Colorado River over millions of years. No, it did not. If you would be open minded about the "known" information you have and realize there are large canyons around the world that have been formed in a matter of a couple of weeks with fast moving flood waters. But, you won't even follow your own advise to look for the next, more refined, more accurate scientific understanding. And, you are not open to know from experience that greater scientific discoveries lie ahead. That is why your belief is ideologically driven. The drive to disprove God.

Breathtaking foolishness. The various strata alone exposed in the Grand Canyon represent millions of years of time. Anyone with open, unbiased eyes can see them. They're staring you right in the face, and range in age from 200 million, to nearly 2 billion years.

Science makes no effort whatsoever to disprove god. None. But rigid beliefs in mythical cosmologies are just naturally vaporized when exposed to the light of scientific discoveries. How tragic that you would attempt to blame science for the fragility of your own dogma.

 

[MaryP]

Oh dear. It was an interesting thread for awhile. If it ever gets back on topic, someone @ me.

 

[Oozlefinch]

You can go with the safety in numbers joke. But, the truth is with the 10,000. And, more and more, the 2 million are not laughing anymore. Their theories are not adding up.

Gee, I can accept the beliefs of 99.5% as to what is reality. Or I can accept the belief of 00.5% of people as to what is reality.

I think I will go with the 99.5%, thank you very much. I never have had any interest in giving a damn what the mentally ill think.

Oh, not mentally ill because they are Christian, or even religious at all. Mentally ill in that they can not grasp reality.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

Could you possibly have missed the mark by a greater margin? I doubt it. You insist on being deliberately obtuse. I thoroughly corrected your foolish assertion that science is an ideology, even going so far as contrasting it with what obviously is your ideology, and you think you can tap dance past that with horseshit about "fuzzy words" ?? Not likely.

Science = Academic disciplines that are quantifiable, measurable, verifiable, and humbly flexible, as it admits that it is subject to future refinement in light of newer, greater discoveries.

"Creation Science" = The pseudo-science of desperately trying to force the round peg of real science into the square hole of religion, ossified by rigid beliefs in ancient texts, which are unquantifiable, immeasurable, unverifiable, and arrogantly inflexible.

Breathtaking foolishness. The various strata alone exposed in the Grand Canyon represent millions of years of time. Anyone with open, unbiased eyes can see them. They're staring you right in the face, and range in age from 200 million, to nearly 2 billion years.

Science makes no effort whatsoever to disprove god. None. But rigid beliefs in mythical cosmologies are just naturally vaporized when exposed to the light of scientific discoveries. How tragic that you would attempt to blame science for the fragility of your own dogma.

The reason why Old Universe science is an ideology is based on your behavior. You said that "Belief" is 100% one way and one way only and that is what makes Belief an ideology. Well, you absolutely refuse to look at creation science information and only 100% accept Old Universe science. By your own words, your belief is an ideology. On the other hand, creation scientists actually have studied old universe science and many have PhD's from universities. They also continue to read the old universe studies and information and use it as well. They also do their own science studies too. You don't know that because you refuse to look and see for yourself. Your ideology keeps you from doing so 100% of the time. The concept that comes to mind is "closed minded."

 

[Grasshopper121212]

Gee, I can accept the beliefs of 99.5% as to what is reality. Or I can accept the belief of 00.5% of people as to what is reality.

I think I will go with the 99.5%, thank you very much. I never have had any interest in giving a damn what the mentally ill think.

Oh, not mentally ill because they are Christian, or even religious at all. Mentally ill in that they can not grasp reality.

It's only your reality. Others are able to look at both sides and make their own conclusions. They are known as creation scientists. Almost all of the 10,000 were once believing as you do. But, when they began questioning some of the data and theories, they were ostracized. Because of this, they simply said "why?" Why that action against their questions? So, they have opened their minds and have found out that much of what they were learning couldn't be proven. In fact, much can be disproved. There are just too many questions of geology and other science that are out there to turn a blind's eye to them. As they do their work, they continue to be ostracized by their counterparts, atheists, liberal media and those who hate God.

 

[MamboDervish]

The reason why Old Universe science is an ideology is based on your behavior. You said that "Belief" is 100% one way and one way only and that is what makes Belief an ideology. Well, you absolutely refuse to look at creation science information and only 100% accept Old Universe science. By your own words, your belief is an ideology. On the other hand, creation scientists actually have studied old universe science and many have PhD's from universities. They also continue to read the old universe studies and information and use it as well. They also do their own science studies too. You don't know that because you refuse to look and see for yourself. Your ideology keeps you from doing so 100% of the time. The concept that comes to mind is "closed minded."

Science has no ideology. Having a more closed mind than yours is almost unimaginable. I've provided you with dozens of facts to address, demonstrating that dozens of totally different sciences, from totally different academic fields, engaged in the study of totally different dynamics, of totally different naturally occurring processes, all lead to the same conclusion - an old earth, and a much older universe - and all you can come up with is " . . . you refuse to look at creation science information .... ". How does "creation science" measure the speed of light? Hmm?? Apparently by refusing to even believe there is a speed of light. By adopting an ideology that you're convinced has answers to absolutely everything, you've managed to dig your heels in on a belief system that has answers to absolutely nothing. Good luck with that.

Your obstinate adherence to the false cosmology of Genesis is something I find pitiable. It is a tale told to a child - nothing more - and has every bit as much scientific validity as trying to prove that storks deliver babies, the tooth fairy leaves money under your pillow, and reindeer can fly on Christmas Eve. Having faith in the Divine is one thing - but having blind faith in a children's tale is quite another.
This is what the grownups think of creation science.

Creation science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Have fun debating that.



I hope Santa is good to you this year.

 

[Deuce]

It's only your reality. Others are able to look at both sides and make their own conclusions. They are known as creation scientists. Almost all of the 10,000 were once believing as you do. But, when they began questioning some of the data and theories, they were ostracized. Because of this, they simply said "why?" Why that action against their questions? So, they have opened their minds and have found out that much of what they were learning couldn't be proven. In fact, much can be disproved. There are just too many questions of geology and other science that are out there to turn a blind's eye to them. As they do their work, they continue to be ostracized by their counterparts, atheists, liberal media and those who hate God.

Young Earth Creationism has never answered the question of the Liar God Necessity. Do you have an answer for that?

So many fields of science independently and overwhelmingly support an "old earth," as you call it. God created the universe, which means god created the various aspects of physics that tell us this. An odd choice for a god who wants us to know the truth. Why show us so many signs of an older universe? Why create physics in such a deceiving way? A very simple example is light. If the universe were only ~6000 years old, then the first spark of light from stars could only reach ~6000 light years in that time, by definition. However, we can observe stars from millions and millions of light years away. That light must have been traveling for millions and millions of years.

The only way for this light to have reached us in 6000 years would be for God to have deliberately altered the travel of light in a way to deceive us into believing the universe was much older. A Liar God is necessary to reconcile our observations.

 

[Napoleon]

Young Earth Creationism has never answered the question of the Liar God Necessity. Do you have an answer for that?

So many fields of science independently and overwhelmingly support an "old earth," as you call it. God created the universe, which means god created the various aspects of physics that tell us this. An odd choice for a god who wants us to know the truth. Why show us so many signs of an older universe? Why create physics in such a deceiving way? A very simple example is light. If the universe were only ~6000 years old, then the first spark of light from stars could only reach ~6000 light years in that time, by definition. However, we can observe stars from millions and millions of light years away. That light must have been traveling for millions and millions of years.

The only way for this light to have reached us in 6000 years would be for God to have deliberately altered the travel of light in a way to deceive us into believing the universe was much older. A Liar God is necessary to reconcile our observations.

Actually, there is a theory in physics that light traveled faster (up to an infinite speed) in the early universe and has since slowed.

 

[Deuce]

Actually, there is a theory in physics that light traveled faster (up to an infinite speed) in the early universe and has since slowed.

That's a hypothesis and it still wouldn't indicate a 6000 year old universe.

 

[Napoleon]

That's a hypothesis and it still wouldn't indicate a 6000 year old universe.

What it means if the speed of light has not always been constant is that we really have no idea how old the universe is. If it moved faster in the past then it is much younger than we think it is.

 

[Deuce]

What it means if the speed of light has not always been constant is that we really have no idea how old the universe is. If it moved faster in the past then it is much younger than we think it is.

Not correct at all. No part of that hypothesis alters the age of the universe.

 

[Napoleon]

Not correct at all. No part of that hypothesis alters the age of the universe.

Of course it does. Our understanding on the measurement of distance between Earth and other objects outside of the solar system is based on the speed of light and this in turn informs our equations to determine the age of the universe. If the speed of light has not always been constant then that changes everything we think we know about astrophysics.

 

[Deuce]

Of course it does. Our understanding on the measurement of distance between Earth and other objects outside of the solar system is based on the speed of light and this in turn informs our equations to determine the age of the universe. If the speed of light has not always been constant then that changes everything we think we know about astrophysics.

This hypothesis does not alter that calculation in any meaningful way. The increase in the speed of light they are talking about in the early universe is only significant at extremely high temperatures that only existed for a brief period. This isn't an arbitrary "the speed of light can be anything we want it to be" situation. If you call the speed of light infinity for a period of femtoseconds, you don't go from billions of years to thousands in doing this math.

It's also worth noting this hypothesis has yet to be backed up by any observation.

 

[Deuce]

It's also worth noting that virtually everything in the field of astrophysics points to a universe that is billions of years old and not thousands, independent of the speed of light. And that's just one field of science. A 6000 year old universe is simply out of the question. It's a religious idea cooked up centuries ago and some people today have this bizarre compulsion to try and force the evidence to fit it. "Every scientist is extremely wrong about basically every field of science but all happen to be wrong in a consistent fashion" is utterly ludicrous.

 

[Napoleon]

It's also worth noting that virtually everything in the field of astrophysics points to a universe that is billions of years old and not thousands, independent of the speed of light. And that's just one field of science. A 6000 year old universe is simply out of the question. It's a religious idea cooked up centuries ago and some people today have this bizarre compulsion to try and force the evidence to fit it. "Every scientist is extremely wrong about basically every field of science but all happen to be wrong in a consistent fashion" is utterly ludicrous.

Our understanding of the age of the universe is deeply flawed at best. There’s no such thing as a settled science so I don’t know what your aversion to that fact is. Pursuit of the truth is a never ending journey.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

Young Earth Creationism has never answered the question of the Liar God Necessity. Do you have an answer for that?

So many fields of science independently and overwhelmingly support an "old earth," as you call it. God created the universe, which means god created the various aspects of physics that tell us this. An odd choice for a god who wants us to know the truth. Why show us so many signs of an older universe? Why create physics in such a deceiving way? A very simple example is light. If the universe were only ~6000 years old, then the first spark of light from stars could only reach ~6000 light years in that time, by definition. However, we can observe stars from millions and millions of light years away. That light must have been traveling for millions and millions of years.

The only way for this light to have reached us in 6000 years would be for God to have deliberately altered the travel of light in a way to deceive us into believing the universe was much older. A Liar God is necessary to reconcile our observations.

If you keep telling yourself and a million people keep doing the same thing so that you and they feel good about their stupid theories, that's the definition of insanity. It doesn't matter how many support your position because it just might be wrong. But, there is no immediate punishment for doing so so it really doesn't matter in our lives. But, for those who hope for things that are not proven such as eternal life with God, this is our probationary period to choose God or Mammon.
As far as who is deceiving who, that is for the individual person. God has never said there isn't a way to alter the perception of light. Just because scientists currently can't figure that one out doesn't mean there isn't a way to alter that perception. That isn't deceit. The one's deceiving you are the scientists you follow. They say they 100% know what God has done isn't possible. Yet, they don't know if it could be done. They don't know if God could make the light all appear for us no matter how far a star or galaxy is from us. Creation scientists also don't know exactly God could do this either. They are simply proposing the alternative based on the Book of Genesis. Now, they are doing what is necessary to find out how it is done. Why do you and others try so hard to stop this? What do you get out of it?

There are theories amongst Creation Science. One is that the universe is old and God started it with a big bang. 13.5 billion years later, he formed the earth and placed it around the sun somewhere between 6,000 and 14,000 years ago. I've heard from one religion theories that the earth first was made at another star. After the fall of Adam, not only did Adam fall, but the earth itself fell from the grace of its existing star and was placed around our sun. Perhaps it passed too close to Venus and caused Venus to spin the wrong way and very slowly. Something did. Just an idea. Something for someone to work on proving if possible. Makes more sense than something unknown caused a big bang of immense mass and developed an earth that continually creates more complex life forms even though that goes against laws of nature where all things break down.

 

[Deuce]

As far as who is deceiving who, that is for the individual person. God has never said there isn't a way to alter the perception of light. Just because scientists currently can't figure that one out doesn't mean there isn't a way to alter that perception. That isn't deceit. The one's deceiving you are the scientists you follow. They say they 100% know what God has done isn't possible. Yet, they don't know if it could be done. They don't know if God could make the light all appear for us no matter how far a star or galaxy is from us. Creation scientists also don't know exactly God could do this either. They are simply proposing the alternative based on the Book of Genesis. Now, they are doing what is necessary to find out how it is done. Why do you and others try so hard to stop this? What do you get out of it?

Falsely presenting religious people as the victims of some kind of attack. You have it backwards. Religious people are attacking science because they feel science is undermining their belief.

Believe whatever you want. Overwhelming evidence supports an old earth and an old universe. You can fit your bible to this evidence or you can just shut your eyes. Just stop trying to shove your beliefs into my kids' school curriculum. If it's not science, it doesn't belong in a science classroom. Genesis is not science.

There are theories amongst Creation Science. One is that the universe is old and God started it with a big bang. 13.5 billion years later, he formed the earth and placed it around the sun somewhere between 6,000 and 14,000 years ago. I've heard from one religion theories that the earth first was made at another star. After the fall of Adam, not only did Adam fall, but the earth itself fell from the grace of its existing star and was placed around our sun. Perhaps it passed too close to Venus and caused Venus to spin the wrong way and very slowly. Something did. Just an idea. Something for someone to work on proving if possible. Makes more sense than something unknown caused a big bang of immense mass and developed an

Uhh, what? :"Something did" does not make more sense than anything because that's not an explanation.

I want to highlight this, though, as it's a variation on a common creationist lie:

earth that continually creates more complex life forms even though that goes against laws of nature where all things break down.

No. False. Garbage.

Evolution does not go against the laws of thermodynamics. (you didn't say thermodynamics, but that's the original version of the lie you are repeating) Things can become more complex if they have an energy input. I really don't understand how someone can be so blinded by religion that they would put so little thought into statements like these. All living creatures grow larger and more complex over time. If you really think God is the only way to become larger and more complex, stop feeding your children and find out whether God makes them grow or food makes them grow.

 

[ecofarm]

My anthropology professor said it was by boat. They don’t know for sure. Some say life formed then spread out while others think that life developed all over at the same time.

It will never really be known.

No one believes humans experienced evolutionary divergence in multiple places, except racists.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

Falsely presenting religious people as the victims of some kind of attack. You have it backwards. Religious people are attacking science because they feel science is undermining their belief.

Believe whatever you want. Overwhelming evidence supports an old earth and an old universe. You can fit your bible to this evidence or you can just shut your eyes. Just stop trying to shove your beliefs into my kids' school curriculum. If it's not science, it doesn't belong in a science classroom. Genesis is not science.


Uhh, what? :"Something did" does not make more sense than anything because that's not an explanation.

I want to highlight this, though, as it's a variation on a common creationist lie:


No. False. Garbage.

Evolution does not go against the laws of thermodynamics. (you didn't say thermodynamics, but that's the original version of the lie you are repeating) Things can become more complex if they have an energy input.

You have again proved our point that your science is ideologically driven theories. You interpret the science to conclude what you want it to conclude. And, anything that deviates from this is sacrilegious and evil. Not only you must condemn this, you must silence this as well. By the way, energy is not increasing in the world nor the universe. It's decreasing. Scientists are getting stupider and stupider. They even believe their own lies that climate change is all man-made and man can stop it. As the sun loses energy, burns it up, it's expanding outward. The heat is increasing and that is driving up your carbon dioxide. All man is doing is creating more pollution. But carbon dioxide is not pollution no matter how many Al Gore's say it is. Yet, the grand wizard Gore has created an ideology supported by your scientists who claim the earth is 5 billion years old. LOL!!! Oh, the hypocrisy.

 

[Deuce]

You have again proved our point that your science is ideologically driven theories. You interpret the science to conclude what you want it to conclude. And, anything that deviates from this is sacrilegious and evil. Not only you must condemn this, you must silence this as well. By the way, energy is not increasing in the world nor the universe. It's decreasing. Scientists are getting stupider and stupider. They even believe their own lies that climate change is all man-made and man can stop it. As the sun loses energy, burns it up, it's expanding outward. The heat is increasing and that is driving up your carbon dioxide. All man is doing is creating more pollution. But carbon dioxide is not pollution no matter how many Al Gore's say it is. Yet, the grand wizard Gore has created an ideology supported by your scientists who claim the earth is 5 billion years old. LOL!!! Oh, the hypocrisy.

Energy doesn't need to be "increasing in the universe."

Earth has an energy input. It's called the sun. The sun has more energy than you do, therefore it is possible for net energy input to your body. Thermodynamics is satisfied.

You're complaining about ideology, but you aren't arguing the science. You're just attacking scientists.

Look up "projection," dude. Because wow.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

Energy doesn't need to be "increasing in the universe."

Earth has an energy input. It's called the sun. The sun has more energy than you do, therefore it is possible for net energy input to your body. Thermodynamics is satisfied.

You're complaining about ideology, but you aren't arguing the science. You're just attacking scientists.

Look up "projection," dude. Because wow.

When the sun increases the energy in my body, it causes heat stroke and I die. That isn't evolution as I see it. Care to explain how the sun's energy will cause humans to increase in intelligence? Or, any animal for that matter.

 

[Deuce]

When the sun increases the energy in my body, it causes heat stroke and I die. That isn't evolution as I see it. Care to explain how the sun's energy will cause humans to increase in intelligence? Or, any animal for that matter.

The claim was that evolution violates thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is satisfied because an animal can experience net energy input from the sun. This is not the same thing as saying that sunlight causes evolution.

Do you agree?