my apologies. i meant that as a teacher, you should know better than to teach religion in school. and i didn't miss anything, the point here is that some creationsists, you? believe the earth is only 6000 years old. human years. dig believes that, and yet we do have proof that it is far, far, older. science, you have to teach actual science in school, not bible created suppositions. you also have to realize that creationsists who are "scientists" have an agenda.
Well what does creationism have going for it?
Yet the Big Bang theory is the only theory that I learned in high school about the creation of the universe. Why not share other theories with kids and let them think for themselves?
Again, not true. Observing and drawing conclusions based on those observations, then testing those conclusions is not "guessing". Yes, as new evidence comes out, we adjust and reject theories and create new ones, but they are much more than guesses.
The same thing can easily be said about evolutionists and the fact that we have proof that the world is far, far younger than billions of years.
You keep claiming to have proof of creationism and how old the earth is, but you haven't provided anything more than links to sites that are indeed bias. In fact, you didn't even provide a direct link to where the proof (in form of research, studies, evidence) is exactly within those links. You haven't even given what that proof is.
Evolution has plenty of proof that can be pointed directly to and scientific research to back it up. The exact method of how evolution works certainly has flaws in the current theories, however, they still have a lot of supporting evidence.
So again, where is your scientific proof of a young earth or of creationism rather than evolution? What exactly does it entail?
The same thing can easily be said about evolutionists and the fact that we have proof that the world is far, far younger than billions of years.
Nothing in this discussion that I have said. Would you PLEASE go back and read my thoughts on the subject. Stop assuming.
Of course there could be a "creator" but what evidence is there for one?
And for some reason the only scientists out there that find and understand these "proofs" just happen to be uber Christians and hell bound on proving their Religious views.
Isn't it amazing that science and scientists are amazing and awe inspiring to most people, and that scientific discoveries tend to be lauded as absolute monumental occasions attributed to the greatness of mankind... unless that discovery happens to not agree with your religion. Then it's pure hokum that has no proof and can easily be disproven, even if it does have enough peer reviewed articles written on it to fill a few libraries by itself...
If there were any real evidence against evolution you'd better believe that every biologist in the world would want their hands on it and want to take part in it's discovery, because it would mean instant fame and notoriety and put your name in the history books. That's why science works as well as it does.
I did read your thoughts. You said you are an old Earth Christian. Now what evidence is there for "God."?
Did you read any of the links? Evolution has plausibility but no proof.
There is no proof that any organism arose from any ancestor. There is no genome with a specific mutation(s) that gave rise to a new trait. You can claim my evidence is biased, but did you read any of their points? Here is a list of young age evidence ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A
Are you kidding? Scientists vilify those against evolution and want to brand them as ideological morons. I have never seen rational or ethical treatment of a creation scientist. Science is very "partisan" if you will. We all glean from the same data, but come out with different answers based on interpretation and testing of the data.
I am denying the proof that evolution occurred. I specifically stated that it is plausible but unproven and certainly not the only level. I study microbiology. My degree is in molecular biology which mainly focuses on DNA and proteins. I am not saying that evolution is flat out false and implausible, but that I don't believe it and recognize the holes within it. Scientists are all presented with the same data, they interpret the data to mean different things. I interpret the data to believe in Biblical creationism.Digsbe, my friend. This is absolutely not true. The evidence is there even on a microbiological level. To deny this makes that web site even less credible than I thought.
This is only a very small part of a huge picture. To deny the proof we do have is a fools folly.
No we don't glean from the same data, lol. Scientists find that layers of rock towards the bottom have more simplistic forms of organisms and dates to be much older than the upper layer of rock and they draw the logical conclusions. Creationists then scream bias and the absurd idea that a gigantic flood created all of the fossils, of course layered from older strata to newer strata and with simpler organisms towards the bottom mean while saying that no dating system is accurate because none of it says 6000 years ago.
I am denying the proof that evolution occurred. I specifically stated that it is plausible but unproven and certainly not the only level. I study microbiology. My degree is in molecular biology which mainly focuses on DNA and proteins. I am not saying that evolution is flat out false and implausible, but that I don't believe it and recognize the holes within it. Scientists are all presented with the same data, they interpret the data to mean different things. I interpret the data to believe in Biblical creationism.
Again, I am not denying evidence for evolution. I just don't believe it is proven or a complete theory with no flaws or unproven problems.
Did you read any of the links? Evolution has plausibility but no proof. There is no proof that any organism arose from any ancestor. There is no genome with a specific mutation(s) that gave rise to a new trait. You can claim my evidence is biased, but did you read any of their points? Here is a list of young age evidence ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A
Intelligent Design is a fraud
Regards from Rosie
So, Rosie, you don't believe in a god? You think that in the perfect vaccuum of nothingness the entire universe just appeared out of nowhere and then organized itself perfectly into the complex structures we see today without any sort of direction? Interesting. I'm afraid I don't have that much faith.
Evolution on a microbiological level does not prove slime to human evolution. Darwin himself defeated the idea of evolution in his Origin of Species by saying that if his theory is correct, then the fossil record must contain thousands of completed chains of fully developed links between one species and the next. Not just one missing link or a handful of fossils that bear semblance to two species, Darwin said thousands of completed chains would be found in the fossil record. If Darwin doesn't convince you, I have an even better argument.
So, Rosie, you don't believe in a god? You think that in the perfect vaccuum of nothingness the entire universe just appeared out of nowhere and then organized itself perfectly into the complex structures we see today without any sort of direction? Interesting. I'm afraid I don't have that much faith.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?