@DeadlyRedRing - "time travel"You have got to be kidding..There is NO evidence for time travel.You would rather believe in time travel with no evidence rather than that there is a God which has a lot of evidence which you ignore. That is not scientific, that is fantasy. You don't want to discuss things logical,but just throw illogic around ambiguously. Go tell a scientist about time travel.You just want to argue with no evidence and make crap up.Good luck with your views, I will pray for you.
Type III secretory system, a molecular syringe which bacteria use to inject toxins into other cells, appears to be a simplified sub-set of the bacterial flagellum's components. Whether the bacterial flagellum evolved from the type III secretory system or from another bacterial system, the existence of the type III secretory system proves that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex.
@DeadlyRedRing.A simplified sub-set of a motor does not work. Like you said, give examples. Many people, Bebee, think it does not work like a type III secretory cell. They think it has to many missing parts. Alex Binz, David Klinghoffer stated in thier paper "The ability to find function for some sub-part, such as the injection function of the Type III Secretory System (which contains approximately ¼ of the genes of bacterial flagellum), does not negate the irreducible complexity"
@DeadlyRedRing I In "The Origin of Species" Darwin stated: 'If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.'
Well, it has. No way to evolve in 'numerous, successive, slight modifications' so by Darwin's own theory, it fails.
If a billion people believe something that doesn't make it true, but if it is true and provable (not sure on that spelling), one billion people denying it does not make it false.
@DeadlyRedRing - I agree.If a billion people believe something that doesn't make it true.Evolutionists are at least that many. But can it stand up to TRUE scientific scrutiny?If it can, why are evolutionists afraid to discuss or look into the data that does not fit into there theory?Every time I bring this up, I get rude comments without logic and name calling. If it was true then there should be no problem explaining the off data rather than dismissing it which is not science, but faith.
@bfrance2002 And every time someone brings that up they fail to give specific examples. I would assume one of the ones you are going to say is the eye, but I'm interested in what else there is.
Also, I find it funny that you object evolution by comparing it to faith.
@bfrance2002 These polystrate fossils are reasonably common, and have been mentioned in the scientific literature for well over a century, under the name upright fossils or in situ trees. No well-read geologist finds them surprising, and no geologist has ever claimed that it took millions (or even thousands) of years to bury them. Science is perfectly happy with the idea that deposition is occasionally rapid.
@bfrance2002 The dinosaur and human footprint is unlikely to be legitimate, but even if it was, given the strength of the evolutionary theory, I would say this is evidence for time travel and not a point against evolution.
@DeadlyRedRing - "time travel"You have got to be kidding..There is NO evidence for time travel.You would rather believe in time travel with no evidence rather than that there is a God which has a lot of evidence which you ignore. That is not scientific, that is fantasy. You don't want to discuss things logical,but just throw illogic around ambiguously. Go tell a scientist about time travel.You just want to argue with no evidence and make crap up.Good luck with your views, I will pray for you.
@DeadlyRedRing - I find it funny you can't see it takes as much faith to believe to believe in evolution and time travel and it would to believe in God. Your faith is in what you believe, and my faith is what I believe.
Faith- something that is believed especially with strong conviction;
@DeadlyRedRing@DeadlyRedRing - I find it funny you can't see it takes as much faith to believe to believe in evolution and time travel and it would to believe in God. Your faith is in what you believe, and my faith is what I believe.
Faith- something that is believed especially with strong conviction;
The theory of evolution is not a belief system. It might as well be called a fact in layman's terms. It has gone through over 150 years of scientific research and every fossil and every test from accurate radiometric dating confirms the age. Maybe it is okay for people to pray, who am I to stop them? But the teaching of creationism at best belongs in a philosophy class.
@DeadlyRedRing - That's where we differ and hence the difference in belief systems/world views. The therory of evolution does not comply with the scientific method. The fist step is observe.Do you know anyone who observed the original spark of life? No mater how much people use their intelligent design, they have never reproduced the spark of life and created a living cell. So until someone observes the creation of life by accident, it is a theory.
@bfrance2002 The theory of evolution is not abiogenesis. I am not saying I know how life came from nothing, I'm just waiting for a real answer. There is as much evidence for God as there is abiogenesis: none. I am not okay with jumping to an irrational conclusion just to fill an unanswered void and am waiting for science to come up with a real provable answer, if that is even possible. If science doesn't, then I die never knowing, and that's okay.
@DeadlyRedRing Also there is lots of evidence that evolutionists ignore because it does not fit into there 'fact'/theory. Irreducible design. Many mechanisms in cells can not have evolved a single piece at a time as evolution explains, because the mechanism need ALL the parts to work. I am an engineer and I know if I leave 1 piece out of a motor and don't have all 50 pieces there at once, it will not work. So it would be eliminated through evolution, not evolved. What about laws of entropy?
@DeadlyRedRing - The belief in the theory of evolution has been un-questioned for 150 years? What about the 5000 years before that? If it is purely a math question of years... Many have questioned it via science. But the evolutionists faith in their belief ignore the science. Dr. Gavriel Avital, Andrée Tétry, Pierre Gavaudan & Pierre-Paul Grassé, W.R. Thompson, Bebee, .... Many others. A lot of these were fired for their lack of faith in evolution. radiometric dating accuracy degrade in time.
@bfrance2002 I think they were fired on the same basis that you wouldn't want a history teacher who thought the holocaust never happened, or a geologist who believes the world is flat, or an astronomer who thinks the earth is at the center of the universe or worse actually lived his life based on astrology.
@DeadlyRedRing - 'you think' they were fired....If you think, that is supposition. Why not read about it. No they were fired for saying that all the evidence should be looked at with a scientific critical eye. They did not say that evolution did not happen, they just said we should treat evolution like science, not a religion with blind faith. If you were scientific, you would agree. By the way, I have no problem looking at creation evidence in a scientific critical way, what about you?
@DeadlyRedRing - to evolve one working mechanism of 50 pieces that have 100 different amino acids to attach together, accidentally at one time is about 10,000,000,000 to one. I would not take those odds to Vegas with $100, much less bet my eternal sole on them.
Now please give me your examples of evidence that creationists have ignored.
@DeadlyRedRing Now lets talk about the book "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. The full title should be looked at which is conveniently ignored. "On the Origin of Species by means of natural selection - or the - Preservation of FAVORED RACES in the struggle for life". Go look it up. It is a raciest book to keep down the Africans and Asians as infer less evolved beings. Do you agree with that hypothesis? I don't.
@bfrance2002 It really doesn't matter if Darwin was racist or not. It wouldn't matter if he was a polygamist, a sexist, or wanted to murder his family. The idea still holds true. If evolution was not discovered by Darwin, it would have been discovered by someone else. Even if it did matter, during the time of the publication, half of the United States was racist. You cannot compare the way people thought then to how they do now.
@DeadlyRedRing - If someone is racist it colors the way they think. Then the assumptions they make are colored by what they think. Many people believed another raciest and his beliefs which he put into a book. Mein Kampf. Hitler wrote a book about his racists theories. I chose to critically look at the beliefs in that book through science. I chose to critically look at the information in the Bible through science. And I chose to critically look at evolution through science. You?
@bfrance2002 Furthermore, the bible promotes slavery and even permits people to beat there slaves as long as they don't kill them. If you dismiss evolution based on that, then you must also dismiss God.
I'm assuming by the religious rights you are refering to is the ability to pray in school. If there are others, I would be interested in knowing. I do not think that praying in school should be allowed because freedom of religion is not freedom of your religion, it is freedom of everybody's religion. I wouldn't think you would support people praising allah all the time in school. I am an atheist, so my views are not influenced by any religious deity. I am open to discussion on any topic.
@DeadlyRedRing - Actually I think all people should and do have the right to say what they want including praying to Alla, Buddha, God, or nothing. I do not see how it hurts someone else when I pray to God? You can always ignore my beliefs as I have to ignore your belief system in school about the theory of evolution. Why cant we both be tolerant of each others beliefs?
I am a democrat for the most part. While I do not promote abortion, there are certain instances where abortion would be a better alternative to letting a child grow up in a world that is not ready for them. By world I most nearly mean parents. I believe that gay's should have rights. I do not think that outlandish spending is a good idea, but it is important that we do not cut spending on things that are necessary.
@DeadlyRedRing - I am sort of a republican, although I have not been happy lately with them. I do not want to have people hurt by cutting money spent, but I don't think the way the money is spent is good for most of the people that receive it. They do not appreciate it , in fact they think they deserve it and hate us for not giving more. How does that help them. I think all people should have health care, but I just don't think the inefficient government is the way to manage things.
It's not so much what we will lose if, in any campaign, a liberal is elected as what we will never get back, as you have already stated in one sense. For instance, if we continue to elect liberals to the presidency then we will continue to have liberal judges on the supreme court and therefore never overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Furthermore, if liberals are consistently elected we WILL continue to move towards the neo-left wing ideal of communism which will in fact only lead to socialism.
And socialism/communism is an unsustainable government. I was in China in 1992, just after they did an open-market/capitalism. I saw what 40 years of socialism/communism left them broken and poor. (A 3rd world country) They were still using steam engines until 1997.
Now about 15 years of capitalism, and they are a world power and back on top. Why would we want to go the other way?
Humans work on incentive and socialism/communism destroys that.
@DeadlyRedRing - "time travel"You have got to be kidding..There is NO evidence for time travel.You would rather believe in time travel with no evidence rather than that there is a God which has a lot of evidence which you ignore. That is not scientific, that is fantasy. You don't want to discuss things logical,but just throw illogic around ambiguously. Go tell a scientist about time travel.You just want to argue with no evidence and make crap up.Good luck with your views, I will pray for you.
bfrance2002 1 year ago
Type III secretory system, a molecular syringe which bacteria use to inject toxins into other cells, appears to be a simplified sub-set of the bacterial flagellum's components. Whether the bacterial flagellum evolved from the type III secretory system or from another bacterial system, the existence of the type III secretory system proves that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex.
DeadlyRedRing 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing.A simplified sub-set of a motor does not work. Like you said, give examples. Many people, Bebee, think it does not work like a type III secretory cell. They think it has to many missing parts. Alex Binz, David Klinghoffer stated in thier paper "The ability to find function for some sub-part, such as the injection function of the Type III Secretory System (which contains approximately ¼ of the genes of bacterial flagellum), does not negate the irreducible complexity"
bfrance2002 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing I In "The Origin of Species" Darwin stated: 'If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.'
Well, it has. No way to evolve in 'numerous, successive, slight modifications' so by Darwin's own theory, it fails.
bfrance2002 1 year ago
sorry for not making these a reply, I can't figure out how to do that on my phone, I don't see the option.
DeadlyRedRing 1 year ago
If a billion people believe something that doesn't make it true, but if it is true and provable (not sure on that spelling), one billion people denying it does not make it false.
DeadlyRedRing 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing - I agree.If a billion people believe something that doesn't make it true.Evolutionists are at least that many. But can it stand up to TRUE scientific scrutiny?If it can, why are evolutionists afraid to discuss or look into the data that does not fit into there theory?Every time I bring this up, I get rude comments without logic and name calling. If it was true then there should be no problem explaining the off data rather than dismissing it which is not science, but faith.
bfrance2002 1 year ago
@bfrance2002 And every time someone brings that up they fail to give specific examples. I would assume one of the ones you are going to say is the eye, but I'm interested in what else there is.
Also, I find it funny that you object evolution by comparing it to faith.
DeadlyRedRing 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing - Examples:
The grand canyon.I have seen fossilized trees that span 6 layers of soil that was supposed to be 3 million years of layers. 3 million year old tree?
Behe -irreducible cell of flagellum.
The Limestone Cowboy- fossilized leg less than 60 years old.
Fossilized Hat of Rock - 2 of them less than 100 years old.
This fossil footprint man and dinosaur found Alvis Delk of Stephenville, Texas
Many more. but youtube
Now where is your proof of evolution with the spark of life?
bfrance2002 1 year ago
@bfrance2002 These polystrate fossils are reasonably common, and have been mentioned in the scientific literature for well over a century, under the name upright fossils or in situ trees. No well-read geologist finds them surprising, and no geologist has ever claimed that it took millions (or even thousands) of years to bury them. Science is perfectly happy with the idea that deposition is occasionally rapid.
DeadlyRedRing 1 year ago
@bfrance2002 With calcium carbonate under ideal chemical conditions, it is possible for petrification to occur in less than 100 years.
DeadlyRedRing 1 year ago
@bfrance2002 The dinosaur and human footprint is unlikely to be legitimate, but even if it was, given the strength of the evolutionary theory, I would say this is evidence for time travel and not a point against evolution.
DeadlyRedRing 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing - "time travel"You have got to be kidding..There is NO evidence for time travel.You would rather believe in time travel with no evidence rather than that there is a God which has a lot of evidence which you ignore. That is not scientific, that is fantasy. You don't want to discuss things logical,but just throw illogic around ambiguously. Go tell a scientist about time travel.You just want to argue with no evidence and make crap up.Good luck with your views, I will pray for you.
bfrance2002 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing - I find it funny you can't see it takes as much faith to believe to believe in evolution and time travel and it would to believe in God. Your faith is in what you believe, and my faith is what I believe.
Faith- something that is believed especially with strong conviction;
bfrance2002 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing @DeadlyRedRing - I find it funny you can't see it takes as much faith to believe to believe in evolution and time travel and it would to believe in God. Your faith is in what you believe, and my faith is what I believe.
Faith- something that is believed especially with strong conviction;
I think you have a strong conviction.
bfrance2002 1 year ago
The theory of evolution is not a belief system. It might as well be called a fact in layman's terms. It has gone through over 150 years of scientific research and every fossil and every test from accurate radiometric dating confirms the age. Maybe it is okay for people to pray, who am I to stop them? But the teaching of creationism at best belongs in a philosophy class.
DeadlyRedRing 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing - That's where we differ and hence the difference in belief systems/world views. The therory of evolution does not comply with the scientific method. The fist step is observe.Do you know anyone who observed the original spark of life? No mater how much people use their intelligent design, they have never reproduced the spark of life and created a living cell. So until someone observes the creation of life by accident, it is a theory.
bfrance2002 1 year ago
@bfrance2002 The theory of evolution is not abiogenesis. I am not saying I know how life came from nothing, I'm just waiting for a real answer. There is as much evidence for God as there is abiogenesis: none. I am not okay with jumping to an irrational conclusion just to fill an unanswered void and am waiting for science to come up with a real provable answer, if that is even possible. If science doesn't, then I die never knowing, and that's okay.
DeadlyRedRing 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing Also there is lots of evidence that evolutionists ignore because it does not fit into there 'fact'/theory. Irreducible design. Many mechanisms in cells can not have evolved a single piece at a time as evolution explains, because the mechanism need ALL the parts to work. I am an engineer and I know if I leave 1 piece out of a motor and don't have all 50 pieces there at once, it will not work. So it would be eliminated through evolution, not evolved. What about laws of entropy?
bfrance2002 1 year ago
@bfrance2002 The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to evolution because the earth is not a closed system.
DeadlyRedRing 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing - I was talking about the scientific method, not the second law of thermodynamics, and that applies everywhere.
bfrance2002 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing - The belief in the theory of evolution has been un-questioned for 150 years? What about the 5000 years before that? If it is purely a math question of years... Many have questioned it via science. But the evolutionists faith in their belief ignore the science. Dr. Gavriel Avital, Andrée Tétry, Pierre Gavaudan & Pierre-Paul Grassé, W.R. Thompson, Bebee, .... Many others. A lot of these were fired for their lack of faith in evolution. radiometric dating accuracy degrade in time.
bfrance2002 1 year ago
@bfrance2002 I think they were fired on the same basis that you wouldn't want a history teacher who thought the holocaust never happened, or a geologist who believes the world is flat, or an astronomer who thinks the earth is at the center of the universe or worse actually lived his life based on astrology.
DeadlyRedRing 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing - 'you think' they were fired....If you think, that is supposition. Why not read about it. No they were fired for saying that all the evidence should be looked at with a scientific critical eye. They did not say that evolution did not happen, they just said we should treat evolution like science, not a religion with blind faith. If you were scientific, you would agree. By the way, I have no problem looking at creation evidence in a scientific critical way, what about you?
bfrance2002 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing - to evolve one working mechanism of 50 pieces that have 100 different amino acids to attach together, accidentally at one time is about 10,000,000,000 to one. I would not take those odds to Vegas with $100, much less bet my eternal sole on them.
Now please give me your examples of evidence that creationists have ignored.
bfrance2002 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing Now lets talk about the book "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. The full title should be looked at which is conveniently ignored. "On the Origin of Species by means of natural selection - or the - Preservation of FAVORED RACES in the struggle for life". Go look it up. It is a raciest book to keep down the Africans and Asians as infer less evolved beings. Do you agree with that hypothesis? I don't.
bfrance2002 1 year ago
@bfrance2002 It really doesn't matter if Darwin was racist or not. It wouldn't matter if he was a polygamist, a sexist, or wanted to murder his family. The idea still holds true. If evolution was not discovered by Darwin, it would have been discovered by someone else. Even if it did matter, during the time of the publication, half of the United States was racist. You cannot compare the way people thought then to how they do now.
DeadlyRedRing 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing - If someone is racist it colors the way they think. Then the assumptions they make are colored by what they think. Many people believed another raciest and his beliefs which he put into a book. Mein Kampf. Hitler wrote a book about his racists theories. I chose to critically look at the beliefs in that book through science. I chose to critically look at the information in the Bible through science. And I chose to critically look at evolution through science. You?
bfrance2002 1 year ago
@bfrance2002 Furthermore, the bible promotes slavery and even permits people to beat there slaves as long as they don't kill them. If you dismiss evolution based on that, then you must also dismiss God.
DeadlyRedRing 1 year ago
I'm assuming by the religious rights you are refering to is the ability to pray in school. If there are others, I would be interested in knowing. I do not think that praying in school should be allowed because freedom of religion is not freedom of your religion, it is freedom of everybody's religion. I wouldn't think you would support people praising allah all the time in school. I am an atheist, so my views are not influenced by any religious deity. I am open to discussion on any topic.
DeadlyRedRing 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing - Actually I think all people should and do have the right to say what they want including praying to Alla, Buddha, God, or nothing. I do not see how it hurts someone else when I pray to God? You can always ignore my beliefs as I have to ignore your belief system in school about the theory of evolution. Why cant we both be tolerant of each others beliefs?
bfrance2002 1 year ago
I am a democrat for the most part. While I do not promote abortion, there are certain instances where abortion would be a better alternative to letting a child grow up in a world that is not ready for them. By world I most nearly mean parents. I believe that gay's should have rights. I do not think that outlandish spending is a good idea, but it is important that we do not cut spending on things that are necessary.
DeadlyRedRing 1 year ago
@DeadlyRedRing - I am sort of a republican, although I have not been happy lately with them. I do not want to have people hurt by cutting money spent, but I don't think the way the money is spent is good for most of the people that receive it. They do not appreciate it , in fact they think they deserve it and hate us for not giving more. How does that help them. I think all people should have health care, but I just don't think the inefficient government is the way to manage things.
bfrance2002 1 year ago
The argument left unheard cannot convince.
Anathema1984 1 year ago
It's not so much what we will lose if, in any campaign, a liberal is elected as what we will never get back, as you have already stated in one sense. For instance, if we continue to elect liberals to the presidency then we will continue to have liberal judges on the supreme court and therefore never overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Furthermore, if liberals are consistently elected we WILL continue to move towards the neo-left wing ideal of communism which will in fact only lead to socialism.
timleebee 3 years ago
And socialism/communism is an unsustainable government. I was in China in 1992, just after they did an open-market/capitalism. I saw what 40 years of socialism/communism left them broken and poor. (A 3rd world country) They were still using steam engines until 1997.
Now about 15 years of capitalism, and they are a world power and back on top. Why would we want to go the other way?
Humans work on incentive and socialism/communism destroys that.
bfrance2002 3 years ago