Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,925 Year: 4,182/9,624 Month: 1,053/974 Week: 12/368 Day: 12/11 Hour: 0/1


EvC Forum ⇒ Side Orders ⇒ Coffee House ⇒

Sarah Palin & Intelligent Design + Creationism

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sarah Palin & Intelligent Design + Creationism
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2137 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display
Message 3 of 51 (481430)
09-10-2008 8:58 PM 		Reply to: Message 1 by obvious Child
09-10-2008 8:15 PM

Is Sarah serious...
No.
​
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by obvious Child, posted 09-10-2008 8:15 PM obvious Child has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by obvious Child, posted 09-10-2008 9:23 PM Coyote has replied
  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2137 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display
Message 5 of 51 (481434)
09-10-2008 10:01 PM 		Reply to: Message 4 by obvious Child
09-10-2008 9:23 PM

Re: Is Sarah serious...
Check out more recent statements, and what she did as Governor.
​
She is not going to try to force creationism into the classrooms.
​
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by obvious Child, posted 09-10-2008 9:23 PM obvious Child has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Rahvin, posted 09-10-2008 10:50 PM Coyote has not replied
  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2137 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display
Message 9 of 51 (481445)
09-11-2008 12:46 AM 		Reply to: Message 7 by johnfolton
09-10-2008 11:45 PM

Creation "science" again
Now that its obvious of the young age of the earth and the missing transistional fossils...
​
Claiming that either of these topics belongs in science classes is just one more example of the dishonesty of the creationist argument -- creation "science" is religious apologetics, and has nothing to do with science. In fact, it is the opposite of science!
​
Science, which relies on evidence, supports an old earth and has found numerous transitionals.
​
Why, here's one now!
​
​
Fossil: KNM-ER 3733
​
​
Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
​
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
​
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
​
Species Name:
Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8),
Homo erectus (3, 4, 7),
Homo erectus ergaster (25)
​
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
​
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
​
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
​
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
​
See original source for notes:
​
Source: Default 404 | Museum of Science, Boston
​
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by johnfolton, posted 09-10-2008 11:45 PM johnfolton has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by johnfolton, posted 09-11-2008 3:04 AM Coyote has replied
  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2137 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display
Message 22 of 51 (481501)
09-11-2008 10:11 AM 		Reply to: Message 13 by johnfolton
09-11-2008 3:04 AM

Re: Creation "science" again
Off topic post hidden.
You know primordial polonium halos pretty much trumps the old earth stuff perhaps you could start rewriting paleontology 101. It was primordial polonium halo's think it Gentry work that proves its a young earth.
​
Polonium halos have been refuted as evidence for a young earth. Here are a couple of links:
​
​
Your fossil is good example to explain to the students why the evolutionists date sediments is to give whatever age to the fossil they need without actually directly dating the fossil. That the age is assumed by indicator fossils, sediment layers, and other bogus reasonings when these same fossils are dated by C14 to be only thousands of years old.
​
A creationist lie followed by a creationist misrepresentation. And your point on C14 dating is based on total ignorance of the subject. Creation "science" as usual.
​
That baumgardener and all of the RATE Boys talks of directly dating with carbon 14 that there is still enough of a ratio left in those young bones to date these kind of fossils directly and they are all dating young. Imagine that the paleontologists were off by near a 1.75 million years.
​
Then explain in spite of new technology the paleontologists refuse to believe any ratio is left when clearly all fossils of this type are all dating thousands of years old.
​
If they were 1.75 millions of years old they simply would not have any ratio left. That this is another prime example of the young earth phenomenom thats being excluded from the textbooks because its scientific evidence of an young earth! Yes Creation science again and again, etc...
​
The examples you give of residual amounts of C14 in fossils (and you missed the common creationist example of residual C14 in diamonds) are bogus. Have you ever investigated these claims, or do you just trust them because you agree with them? (Creation "science" at work again.)
​
If I were you, I wouldn't bet the rent money on anything you find in a creationist website.
​
Edited by AdminNosy, : off topic material hidden
​
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by johnfolton, posted 09-11-2008 3:04 AM johnfolton has not replied
  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2137 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

Normal Thread Display
Message 35 of 51 (481830)
09-12-2008 9:25 PM 		Reply to: Message 34 by Buzsaw
09-12-2008 8:55 PM

Re: Palin With America And Americans
Sarah Palin identifies with nearly all of America's founders, most of America's statesmen, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and the vast majority of Americans over the centuries and decades on ID and creationism, so what's the big deal??
​
The problem with that is ID is a recent political movement associated largely with the Dyscovery Institute.
​
The founders were either creationists or more generally, deists; there was no need to disguise their beliefs in those days. They were worlds apart from what we now know as fundamentalists. For one, they believed in the Enlightenment and sought to form a government that would not turn into a theocracy.
​
Why fundamentalists, in part under the dishonest guise of ID, are trying to reverse the Enlightenment and overturn the constitution is beyond me.
​
But in either case, Palin is not leading the fundamentalist pack, rabidly pushing for ID or other forms of creationism. (Sorry.)
​
Edited by Coyote, : theist should have been deist; change made
​
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 09-12-2008 8:55 PM Buzsaw has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024