Creationism Checkmate: 40M Year-old Walking Whale Fossil

[wurd2]

I call bs on this pic, unless it's from the westboro baptist psychos, or the like.

I thought it was fake too.

It's not though.

You can read all about the faith school behind it and why the school was closed (they claim "financial" reasons).

There's an additional page of the test floating around.

.

 

[wurd2]

hey, i wonder who's minds will be changed in this thread? since all the previous ones have had such a massive success rate!

The goal is not to change minds.

The goal is to make minds think about what they believe.

.

 

[wurd2]

By the way, if you think that creationist test is bad, you should look into Ken Ham's Creation Museum.

.

 

[paynecasey]

Why do people insist on arguing about Creationism? It isn't much different than arguing with people that think the earth is flat or the Holocaust never happened.

It's so absurd it isn't even worthy of any type of a debate, and even if it was you're not going to change anyone's mind.

All I can say is wow.

 

[paynecasey]

The goal is not to change minds.

The goal is to make minds think about what they believe.

.

Key word believe. You can believe in evolution. No ones is hating you for that.

 

[paynecasey]

Creationism is essentially at war with science education.

It's the reason the National Center for Science Education was formed.

The Christian faith school responsible for this is no longer, but we must take this very, very seriously:

Watering down science in the name of religion is a major step backwards for us all.

.

Ken Ham promotes taking evolution classes as well as creationism.

 

[TheCPE]

It's all about molecular genetics and what we've discovered there.

Human chromosome #2 is a smoking gun in my opinion.

Absolutely, but yeah, maybe some times transitional animals are the blunt instrument necessary when fine tools aren't getting the job done.

 

[TheCPE]

Ken Ham promotes taking evolution classes as well as creationism.

The problem is teaching creationism as a science. If you attend a private religious school they can obviously teach whatever they like, but trying to dress creationism up as science is not going to accomplish anything but produce students with poor scientific knowledge.

 

[DaleM]

Ken Ham promotes taking evolution classes as well as creationism.

He is half right if he wants to discuss science. It seems like he is combining tribal myths and a true science to make everyone happy. The fact is, one of his offerings is total scientific bunk. Just so you are not confused, there is zero scientific purpose within creationism. It is to satisfy the religious, period.

 

[wurd2]

You can believe in evolution.

I believe in evolution the same way I believe in germ theory, atomic theory, gravitional theory, big bang theory, and so on.

You see what I did there?

.

 

[wurd2]

Ken Ham promotes taking evolution classes as well as creationism.

Ken Ham is a creationist crackpot out to subvert science in the name of Jesus, PERIOD.

.

 

[wurd2]

By the way, does anyone know the going radioactive decay rate of carbon today?

:rolling:

.

 

[DaleM]

By the way, does anyone know the going radioactive decay rate of carbon today?

:rolling:

.

I see that hook from here!

 

[oooooh snap]

there is zero scientific purpose within creationism.

Creationism bolsters the scientific fundamental of "nothing can come from nothing and for no reason", as well as "life cannot come from non-life".

Although when presented with that fact, back pedaling occurs. Funny because that's what science peeps make fun of the religious for.

 

[TheCPE]

Creationism bolsters the scientific fundamental of "nothing can come from nothing and for no reason", as well as "life cannot come from non-life".

None of that is a scientific fundamental, those are all unscientific assertions.

How do you test the premise that "nothing can come from nothing"?

It is untestable and unobservable and thus is not science. Inscrutable feelings based on religious faith is not science no matter how loud and frequently the claim is made.

Although when presented with that fact, back pedaling occurs. Funny because that's what science peeps make fun of the religious for.

What fact has been presented? I see no facts in your post.

 

[James Snover]

I assume you mean carbon-14: half-life is approximately 5,730 years.

By the way, does anyone know the going radioactive decay rate of carbon today?

:rolling:

.

 

[wurd2]

Creationism...

...is a faith-based worldview written by Iron Age peasants that didn't know the earth went around the sun.

It pretends to explain everything when in fact it explains nothing.

It's not the least bit falsifiable or subject to physical experiment.

It has no place in the science classroom or the laboratory.

.

 

[65fastback2+2]

Why do people insist on arguing about Creationism? It isn't much different than arguing with people that think the earth is flat or the Holocaust never happened.

It's so absurd it isn't even worthy of any type of a debate, and even if it was you're not going to change anyone's mind.

so are explosions of nothing becoming something....but people believe that too

 

[oooooh snap]

None of that is a scientific fundamental, those are all unscientific assertions.

How do you test the premise that "nothing can come from nothing"?

It is untestable and unobservable and thus is not science. Inscrutable feelings based on religious faith is not science no matter how loud and frequently the claim is made.



What fact has been presented? I see no facts in your post.

Unscientific assertions? Medical science quietly relies heavily on this "unscientific assertion".

So you've walked down the street and had matter violently and rapidly appear in front of you for no reason?

 

[65fastback2+2]

Some of God's creation are simply astonishing past and present.

yup!

enjoy some of these

BUFF-TIP PHALERA BUCEPHALA

larva of the Hemeroplanes triptolemus moth

trychopeplus laciniatus

Even the simplest cell you can conceive of would require no less than 100,000 DNA base pairs and a minimum of about 10,000 amino acids, to form the essential protein chain. Not to mention the other things that would also be necessary for the first cell.

Bear in mind that every single base pair in the DNA chain has to have the same molecular orientation (“left-hand” or “right hand”)? As well as that, virtually all the amino acids must have the opposite orientation. And every one must be without error.

“To put it another way, if you attempted a trillion, trillion, trillion combinations every second for 15 billion years, the odds you would achieve all the correct orientations would still only be one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion … and the trillions would continue 2755 times!

“It would be like winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket purchased for each. In other words…impossible.” -Jonathan Gray "The Forbidden Secret"

4700 state lotteries in a row! lol


good octopus fossil

Darwin once said the octopus evolved from starfish. Not only is there no evidence for this, but there are no known ancestors of the octopus. Darwinists have claimed we don't see octopus fossils to prove anything anyway. Not anymore. This supposedly "95 million year old" fossil complete with tentacles and suckers is remarkably preserved and sits in a Paris museum. Normally when an octopus dies, it sinks and gets eaten very quickly, or becomes a blob and decays within days-It's been called a rarer specimen than finding a fossilized sneeze (Science Daily). So a fossil like this does 2 things..1 . It proves that octopuses have always been octopuses as God made them fully complete in the beginning. 2. It shows that something preserved this octopus quickly. According to the Biblical timeframe and Noah's flood, masses of sediment would have created toxic conditions wiping out massive amounts of sea life as we see in the fossil record, quickly preserving specimens as they died on the ocean floor.