The New Anti-Science Assault on US Schools

If you accept evolution as science instead of Atheistic dogma. That IS the premise of your video BTW. I accept science that examines science that perpetuates knowledge, like observing that there is variation among species, and that adaptation to an environment is in fact a scientific fact. That we evolved from single cell amoebas to include every animal and tree is beyond belief and explains nothing especially considering the complexity of some organisms.

 

God and Evolution is incompatible.

 

Its premise is Godless. There are those who believe yet accept evolutionn as a consession, not because its true.

 

To you it most certainly is. Because you say the the science of evolution explains that God could not be, which explains your world view, and is therefore palatable.

 

Thats exactly what it is. Evolution is unassailable and unquestionable and is therefore dogma, just like AGW.

 

Again, the EVIDENCE is iron-clad, whether or not I like it, you like, etc.

Evolution has been proven to be 100% true and verified. The only time the theory changes is HOW it happens, not that is DOES happen.

So this Atheist dogma is just a line of BS.

PS: EVERY independent living creature on this Earth shares the same exact DNA structure. The only thing that differs is the details inside. So yes, we all did evolve from single cell amoebas. Again, just because you do not understand the evidence, that doesn't make it untrue.

Last universal ancestor

 

Nope, the bible is clear on how life got here and when humans came to be.

Evolution disproves all that. Hence they are incompatible.

 

Up-next for your viewing pleasure: How the Law of Gravity is an Atheist Conspiracy.

 

They say its iron-clad, and you accept that. Because its easy, not because its true. The building blocks of life are the same for every creature. The Bonobo Chimp shares 96% of our human DNA. Yet that 4% makes all the difference does it not. Only Human being have the capacity of intellectual complexity to comprehend God, that is denied by the Atheists because they do not want to accept that they are ultimately accountable to God in the end. Though that does not change with unbelief, it does make it a comfortable premise for a world view the prefers there to be no God.

 

Actually it confirms the nature of life on Earth between Genisis 1:1 an 1:2, and the fossil record confirms that in part. To complex for a single post.

 

I accept it because of the evidence. Something there is none of for 'god'

You also have to understand chemistry. Here is an example how you can the same elements but vastly different results. H20 is commonly known as water. But what happens when you reverse the amounts (I.E. HO2)? You will get an explosion. One combination supports life, the other takes life away.
So it doesn't take a lot to show that a mere 4% difference can make a huge impact going from specie to specie.

PS: Your fear tactic of “accountable to 'god' in the end” doesn’t work with me. I want evidence, not hearsay.

 

Well, you have to think about it. Evolution explains that there is no God, and AGW explains that man has absolute control over his environment and that God is not needed. We are in control and master of our own destiny.

What if we over correct the environment and we start an Ice Age? What do we do then. How will evolution, that takes millions of years to acheive, help us to adapt so quickly? Unless you consider the little Ice Age and the Mideval Warm Period that in the science of that time was a natural process that man had no power over. I think the same applies now. Its a rediculous theory when you really think about it and consider the logical problems that real questions present.

 

Is this the fossil record you claim is full of holes?

 

Sure, why not. A simple division is best.

 

Its the evidence you accept. However, if you want to test your convictions, buy a book about the opposite view with the creationist science as its evidence. Would you do that? Would you seriously consider that evidence, especially if it presents a convincing argumant? That may qualify as empirical evidence for your consideration. Though your world view would be challenged, I doubt you would be intellectually honest enough for that kind of challenge.

 

Yes, as it is interpreted and contorted to fit the accepted world view.

 

Evolution by natural seection makes sense, and is consistant with the fossil record. Creationism fails at both.

 

I like the nonsense of creationism. The belief humans somsersaulted out of the oceans several centuries ago then drove away in suvs.

Although teaching this to school kids, is probably not a good idea. Unless Tom cruise wears his pointy hat.

 

Wrong on both counts.

Dinner is ready. I'm out.

 

LOL! There is no evidence for creationism. NONE.

There is not one shred of evidence from creationism that could stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Again, you think you have some, please present it. So far on every challenge I have given you in presenting evidence, I hear crickets.

 

As I thought, no intellectual courage. Lending serious credence to my claim of always being right.

 

Creationism is not about 'evidence' but surrealism.

After the great one defeated the lizard people, humanity was born. Although to a creationist this makes perfect sense. As said, i enjoy the nonsense of it all. But why anyone would seriously ponder teaching it as part of education. Is a mystery.