Isn't it interesting how meanness and fringe rightwing beliefs are carried on the same gene?
The eye of the beholder and all that (if your teeny brain holds any Biblical references)
Yet you jumped out with a personal attack adding nothing to the discussion.reader (the Second) said:katrina said:I guess I'm like Steve, I was offended too.
No offense meant to you Katrina. I apologize for any offense given. I haven't witnessed you being mean spirited in political debates whatsoever (or elsewhere). I have NO problem with people's holding strong views on religion or other topics, I dislike the frequent personal attacks that occur in Political Bull, perpetrated by a very few.
The "eye of the beholder" comment was meant to X to look at why he/she got so jumpy about my reference about Hawaii which was made in passing.
Isn't it interesting how meanness and fringe rightwing beliefs are carried on the same gene?
Red Robin said:MP obviously Creation is a religion. It starts with the Bible. No one said it was provable. Evolution isn't provable. It is a religion in that sense and shouldn't be taxpayer funded.
Evolution rejects comon science on several fronts though mp. It is obvious they have a agenda . The radio polonium halo post I made is even censored from some papers because it refutes an old earth. How sound of science is that? You think Christians have preconceptions, I say you have preconceptions as well. Look at all this evidence for a young earth. How can one therefore say the earth is old. Any one of these ideas prevent the age of the earth from being billions of years old.Take the salt in the oceans for example,that alone should stop any sound scientist from going any further with the thought of evolution. There simply hasn't been enough time for evolution to take place. You are a journalist correct? How long would you keep your job if you came up with the evolution idea and the public was aware of the data supporting a younger earth than require for evolution? It's just a silly idea .
Glad you mentioned the oldest strata layer of the Grand Canyon ( I didn't mention that. You didn't read my post) Why are there no erosion marks between strata layers??? Obviously if a strata lay exposed for a few million years waiting on the next catastrophic event to lay down more strata, it would have erosion marks like ditches, creeks, etc. There are none. The top strata layer is the only one with erosion marks. Hmmmmm????kolanuraven said:rR2 Welcome Back....and SOOOOO glad you're here to post. Red Robin, , et.al... I'm not trying to make you mad...change your mind...your beliefs or faith. Remember me saying earlier that if you're happy with whatever you believe in...and it makes you do your humanly best ever day....more power to ya. You asked me a question...I simply answered and gave you sources of reference so that you could read more yourself into the topic as it would take pages of posts to give complete answers. You can do a little of the work for answers on your own was my only reason.
But, I must admit I shiver @ your comment that the world was not the age of Grand Canyon lowest strata level....which is the Visnu schist @ 3.4 BILLION yrs old.
You go ahead and live in your closet....safe from the sceintific boogy men...but one day someone will jerk open that door....let in daylight and I hope you're ready.
Sorry mp. I didn't mean to say you weren't Christian. I don't even know you it wasnt intentional. I will absolutely stand by my statements that Hitler was an evolutionist, The columbine shootist were (1 was) wearing evolutionist T-shirts. Nothing more. That doesn't (obviously) mean you are hitler or a columbine shooter, just that you don't have only sound science on your side. You also have strange bedfellows. On the literal understanding on the Bible part , I am confused. I don't see how you can be a follower of a book with out takig it literaly. Can you do algebra without literally following the book??? It is a real odd position to me and I am not sure it is genuine , never the less, if that is your opinion you are entitled to it. I am absolutely done discussing religion on this thread. Noone is debating the facts of the evolution argument. Everyone want's to disprove my personal opinion of Creation. What does my view have to do with Evolution. Part of that is my fault I guess but lets get back to the evolution discussion. Mp try to explain to me some of the things I mentioned earlier. Debate the issue.mp.freelance said:Red Robin said:MP obviously Creation is a religion. It starts with the Bible. No one said it was provable. Evolution isn't provable. It is a religion in that sense and shouldn't be taxpayer funded.
Evolution rejects comon science on several fronts though mp. It is obvious they have a agenda . The radio polonium halo post I made is even censored from some papers because it refutes an old earth. How sound of science is that? You think Christians have preconceptions, I say you have preconceptions as well. Look at all this evidence for a young earth. How can one therefore say the earth is old. Any one of these ideas prevent the age of the earth from being billions of years old.Take the salt in the oceans for example,that alone should stop any sound scientist from going any further with the thought of evolution. There simply hasn't been enough time for evolution to take place. You are a journalist correct? How long would you keep your job if you came up with the evolution idea and the public was aware of the data supporting a younger earth than require for evolution? It's just a silly idea .
You missed my point entirely. I don't care what you think about evolution, but when you say things like "You think Christians have preconceptions, I say you have preconceptions as well" you imply that those who believe in evolution cannot be Christian.
That's simply not true, since many Christians, inluding Christian scientists, do believe in evolution, a 15 billion year old universe, and continental drift.
I have agreed with many of your points about Iraq, the war on terror, etc., so don't take it personally when I say this: it's arrogant to assume that you are more Christian than others simply because of their views on science, even if you believe them to be erroneous. Faith is a matter of the heart, so don't assume your way (a literal understanding of the Bible) is the only way to be Christian.
By calling people "evolutionists" - as if everyone who believed in it were adamantly secular - and equating the theory to Hitler, the columbine shooters, and other tragic human events, you're subscribing to a paranoid view of the world that has no basis in reality.
I didn't think you knew there isn't any erosion marks on any of the strata except the top. Maybe you are lacking the conception totally. I am saying when the bottom strata layer was laid down originally , the old earth theorist position is that it laid there a long time before the next layer of strata was deposited. During those millions of years it would act like any other top layer of strata. It would be eroded by wind, and water. While being eroded by water it would develop erosion marks like ditches and creeks depositing into the Grand canyon. The unusual thing is there isn't any. None. In fact it looks very much like the layers could have been deposited in a very short period of time which would be consistant with what we would expect during a world wide flood. Didn't know that did you Kolan?kolanuraven said:Robin.... I know you didn't mention the Visnu strata...I doubt you ever heard of it before I mentioned it...I was making a point of the timeline of the world was all.
I hope that you are more aware of your earth's history than you are making out here. Because if you're not...you're missing a lot of information. It's sad.
And for you comments on erosion marks..... honey child the Grand Canyon IS the erosion thru the strata. Look up " uplift" and I don't mean those that go in yer shoes, continental uplilft!! The Colorado River is working thru the uplilfted area this very minute....like a chain saw thru a tree!
Honestly, I can't discuss topics with you as it's hard to make you hear things thru all that sand that's in your ears....it seems that your head is in the sand!
I do honestly hope you are doing this just to cause a fast and hardy debate...cause if not...it's scary.
If you think I am scary, you better not meet these guys. They really have alot of truth. www.answersingenesis.orgkolanuraven said:You're hopeless! It's on the BOTTOM...that's why you can only see small slices of it exposed in certain areas.
You're scary.
Red Robin said:Mp try to explain to me some of the things I mentioned earlier. Debate the issue.
I don't think it requires a simplistic, glib view of the 2nd law of thermodynamics to explain you can't start with a single celled ameba and end up with a human and not trend toward things getting much better. That is a drastic change of events toward complex involving growing several new (all new) systems , circulatory, respiratory, reproductive, etc... and in this view mp I am allowing you to start with a single celled organism. Actually you start with nothing in the evolutionist view.mp.freelance said:Red Robin said:Mp try to explain to me some of the things I mentioned earlier. Debate the issue.
RR, I don't have time to answer every single question you ask about evolution. However, one point I've heard over and over again whenever evolution gets brought up on ranchers.net is the second law of thermodynamics. It's been stated that since systems inevitably become disordered, the formation of life through evolution is impossible because the theory states we're actually becoming MORE ordered. Well, I haven't wanted to sound like a know-it-all, but the fact of the matter is that this is an extremely simplistic and glib understanding of the second law of thermodynamics. It's akin to saying that the law of gravity states that when I drop an object on a curved surface, it will roll down to the bottom of the surface and stay there. In fact, it will roll back and forth, or if I drop it in the right place, it may actually roll back up. Natural laws are not: if A happens, it leads to B. This may occur, but thousands of other things may occur as well, as still be defined by the law.
As to the second law of thermodynamics disproving evolution, it's simply false. Complex systems can form from simple components under this law, and they do all the time: think about crystals and diamonds. You believe in those, right? When you say that the 2nd law of TD precludes the formation of complex systems, you're basically saying you don't believe in the 2nd law, not evolution. The fact is, the law states that in a closed system such as our solar system, energy and matter don't enter or leave. Entropy, also called disorder (but the meaning of disorder has a different context in this regard), can decrease in part of a close system as long as it increases in others. Organisms feed on one another and use the deterioration of one substance to fuel the formation of more complex systems. Under your superficial understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, the most simple occurences in life would be impossible, such as a single egg cell united with a sperm cell to "evolve" into a fetus, then into a baby, then a fully grown human.