Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Time For Class Proving Evolution

I haven't seen any proof of this.. can you show me it in a recognised work (peer reviewed), that has been validated by a scientist?

Gentry�s the only guy with this hypothesis as far as I know. wswolf posted a pretty thorough refutation of the polonium ring deal a page back.

Hypothesis: A testable and potentially falsifiable explanation which includes some way to determine whether it is inaccurate or incomplete.
Its not 'blind speculation'.

Theory: (1) An explanation of a set of related facts or a given phenomenon. Example: Why �matter attracts matter� is a theory of gravity. (2) A body of knowledge including all known facts, hypotheses, and natural laws relevant to a particular field of study.
It is not conjecture!

Science: An objective method of measurably or verifiably improving our understanding of physical nature in practical application, or mathematics, or through experimentation and observation, by proposing falsifiable hypotheses explaining the facts in a theoretical framework to be subjected to a perpetual battery of critical analysis in peer review.
It is not "a conspiracy against God."

[biological] Evolution: An explanation of biodiversity through population mechanics, summarily defined as �descent with inherent genetic modification�: Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets, which �when compiled over successive generations- can increase biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.
It is not "How life began without God." It�s not "how life began" at all, and it certainly isn't 'anti-god'. Neither does it have anything to do with the origin of the universe. It�s simply how generations of branching lineages change and diversify over time; that's all!

The definitions and comentary above are quotes from AronRa who phrased them better than I could.

Gentry cooks up a hypothesis that predicts that the earth is still molten and requires multiple divine interventions changing the basic laws of nuclear physics to account for the state of the earth as we see it, and he is doing science? If Gentry's work can be classified as science then so can any other suprenatural explanation for anything. "The accumulated evidence from many fields of earth science pointing conclusively to a great age for the Earth" is philosophy? Better check that definition of science. Since I used the word "law" in the scientific sense I better put in another definition.

Law [of nature]: A general statement in science which is always true under a given set of circumstances. Example: That �matter attracts matter� is a law of gravity. - AronRa

Seems like anyone who's results agree with your assumption of a supernatural creator is doing science and anyone using "an objective method of measurably of verifiably improving our understanding of physical nature" is using philosophy.

Why do Creationist readilty accept that Jesus used metaphors and parables during his time on earth.. but reject the notion that metaphors and parables are contained in the written word?

If people are going to demand that Creationism be taught, then are they prepared for the schools to spend equal time on creation theories espoused by Hindus and Buddhists? Or those of the various Native Americans? or African Animists? Or the ancient Greeks, Norse, or Egyptians?

Schitbird, NO ONE is seriously considering letting Dr. Gish or Ken Hamm write their HS biology books. All anyone is saying is the public schools should present the FACTS (stubborn things, they are) that Darwin's Theory has lots and lots of holes in it. That isn't done, anywhere, ever, at least not when the marxist teacher's unions get wind of it. The smart kids will figure the rest of it out on their own. There are ONLY two options regarding human origins.

knee, your imagined "holes" are really only between your ears. That's the point. The whole idea of evolution is about as controversial as the earth orbiting the sun.

It is so interesting how you need to bring in marxism now, as if that has diddly to do with how genetic change occurs. Really, give it up man, you're lost.

What metaphors and parables are you refering to?
He didn't explain why He uses metaphors such as "I AM the Way the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me," or "I AM the Bread of Life." They seem to explain themselves.

Jesus explains why he speaks in parable though,

"And He was sayng to them, 'To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God; but those who are outside get everything in parables; in order that while seeing, they may see and not perceive; and while hearing, they may hear and not understand; lest they return again and be forgiven.'"



Where did you get the idea that people are going to demand that creation be taught? I am note inclined to have a person antaginistic to creation teaching creation in school or anywhere else; just like you would not want me teaching evolutionism.

Ouch. Schitbird. Wow. Pain. Good lord... On-his-knees slung an insult. That makes in incomprehensible argument much clearer.... give it a rest.

Perhaps you're aware that the teachers' unions don't select state curricula, or textbooks.

Can you please provide some authority for the claim that that "[t]here are ONLY two options regarding human origins?" I'm sure the millions of practitioners of other religions who subscribe to creationism might disagree with your pronouncement...

He apparently sees the teaching of evolution as a Marxist plot to undermine capitalism or something judging from his comment:

�This in no "conversation" azzhat. The creationist camp has made an unsupportable claim or two but you dumbasses' only retort is, "you just don't understand the science" whenever they give one of your sacred cows a high shoulder shot.

You mofos are too ignorant to understand that the doctrine (that's EXACTLY what it is, currently) of evolution is the linchpin of Dialectical Materialism. It is the philosophical underpinning of killing fields all over this planet. And so far, you mofos have won, volumes of evidence that contradict your sacred cow, will, if mentioned in the publik skools you jackasses also revere will result in a pink slip for the teacher who utters a shred of it.

And you chastise me and tell me to be civil. EAT SCHIT AND DIE MOFO�

Never mind that the Soviets were all about Lamarckism as opposed to natural selection up until the 60�s. Evolution is a threat to his world view it seems and needs to be fought tooth and nail. Facts be damned.

A distinction without a difference, and your point is?

Hitler wasn't an evolutionist either, was he? He only killed 30 million plus.

Margret Sanger wasn't an evolutionist either, was she?

My whole point is if you knuckleheads can't see the philosophical/world view issue with having young skulls-full-of mush only being taught that when they look up their family tree, a monkey will schit in their face, and the monkey's family tree goes back to some slime-filled pond, then you are too stupid to be in charge of anything more complicated than a shovel or maybe a mop. What is scary is a whole bunch of you are publik skool teachers. We are absolutely [bleep] as a nation.

You claimed that evolution was the "linchpin of Dialectical Materialism"; a Hegelian offshoot of Marxism. I was pointing out that natural selection was frowned upon by the folks supposedly using it as their �linchpin�. Try to keep up.

Is it a �linchpin� of Nazism too now? I hadn�t heard���

Gotta admit that TAK takes this thread to a whole different level of entertainment. Much like the Blond Chicks explains MPH thread.

Guffawing.

He does take this thread somewhere...

I'd like to think he'll be appointed head debator for the creationist movement. That'll be a surefire way to get creationism taught in all public schools PDQ.

I�m starting to think he�s an atheist/naturalist sock puppet out to make the YEC�s look even crazier. Nobody could possibly be that obtuse.

I had to watch the Blond chic vs MPH after reading carbons comparison and I've gotta' say her input would be a welcome respite for TAK. No doubt she'd articulate her position at least as good he.

She could just "wack it in half"...

You, sir, are insulting my slime heritage.

My people will be contacting your people.

+1

Curious whether you believe the bread and wine at the last supper were literally the flesh and blood of Jesus. Roman Catholics believe it, but just wondering if you agree with Catholics on this.

"LADIES & GENTLEMAN !!!!
IT'S THE BATTLE OF THE MILLENIUM !!!!
CREATION VS. EVOLUTION!!!

This is going to be a caged, no holds barred match, to the death!!!!

In one corner we have EVOLUTION, who brings with it an assortment of weapons, including : records, fossils, actual proof, and even a bit of faith and belief.

In the other corner we have CREATION, who brings---wait a minute, CREATION is pulling something from out of a sack, it's a....it's a.... It's a book ?!? CREATION has brought a book to use in battle. And yes a bit of faith & belief."

"It's unbelievable the way they are going at each other folks ! It's a battle royal. Who will win this grudge match? Who will suffer from their loss? We may never know. Let's watch & see, and pray ours is the victorious one, which ever that may be."