Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options

Faith school controversy

1234568

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    What's the evidence for evolution amongst that lot then?
    Er... different fossils show how man has evolved from semi-apes to the fully evolved humans we are today.

    http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html

    http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_2%20.htm

    http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Human:evolution.htm

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/human/human_evolution/

    http://hannover.park.org/Canada/Museum/man/evnman.html


    I could post many more...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "...the outstanding characteristics of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution." ([11], p.50)
    If there were links then they would have been found since the fossil record is "...quite ample to represent the true state of the ancient world. Most individual species of fossil plants and animals have been collected in considerable numbers, but the hypothetical intermediate species have never been represented at all!" ([18], p.33)
    Darwin stated, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" ([11], p.46)
    Darwin admitted that the number of transitional links "must have been conceivably great." The fact that there are none prompted him to conclude that this fact is "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "...the outstanding characteristics of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution." ([11], p.50)
    If there were links then they would have been found since the fossil record is "...quite ample to represent the true state of the ancient world. Most individual species of fossil plants and animals have been collected in considerable numbers, but the hypothetical intermediate species have never been represented at all!" ([18], p.33)
    Darwin stated, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" ([11], p.46)
    Darwin admitted that the number of transitional links "must have been conceivably great." The fact that there are none prompted him to conclude that this fact is "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."


    where is this sourced from?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]
    and darwin believed the eye actualy did the seeing and not a highly complex part of the brain.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    and here's the whois info for that domain

    Registrant:

    All About God Ministries, Inc.

    7150 Campus Drive

    Ste. 320

    Colorado Springs, Colorado 80920

    United States



    Registered through: GoDaddy.com

    Domain Name: DARWINS-THEORY-OF-EVOLUTION.COM

    Created on: 12-May-03

    Expires on: 02-May-06

    Last Updated on: 28-Apr-05



    Administrative Contact:

    Montgomery, Jim jim@allaboutgod.com

    7150 Campus Drive

    Suite 320

    Colorado Spsrings, Colorado 80919

    United States

    7198842246 Fax --

    Technical Contact:

    Montgomery, Jim jim@allaboutgod.com

    7150 Campus Drive

    suite 320

    Colorado Springs, Colorado 80919

    United States

    7198842246 Fax --












    not exactly impartial is it?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru

    another site run by Christian fundies. Come on mr, find an impartial site please.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Because of the metaphysical implications of life resulting from "Intelligent Design", a surprisingly large number of us seek to reject the foregoing statements and find a mechanism by which complex biologic machines may arise naturally by random chance.

    However, I was now seeing a tremendous inconsistency...


    When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance! 5
    Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist, declares:


    Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.6
    H.S. Lipson, a Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester (UK), continues:


    In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it.7
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru

    In fact, this domain is registered by the same people as the last one you quoted

    Domain ID:D106188884-LROR
    Domain Name:ALLABOUTTHEJOURNEY.ORG
    Created On:28-Apr-2005 22:26:11 UTC
    Last Updated On:28-Jun-2005 03:50:48 UTC
    Expiration Date:28-Apr-2006 22:26:11 UTC
    Sponsoring Registrar:Go Daddy Software, Inc. (R91-LROR)
    Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
    Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED
    Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
    Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
    Registrant ID:GODA-011530023
    Registrant Name:Greg Outlaw
    Registrant Organization:All About God Ministries, Inc.
    Registrant Street1:7150 Campus Drive
    Registrant Street2:Ste. 320
    Registrant Street3:
    Registrant City:Colorado Springs
    Registrant State/Province:Colorado
    Registrant Postal Code:80920
    Registrant Country:US
    Registrant Phone:+1.7198842246
    Registrant Phone Ext.:
    Registrant FAX:+1.7198842247
    Registrant FAX Ext.:
    Registrant Email:greg@allaboutgod.com
    Admin ID:GODA-211530023
    Admin Name:Greg Outlaw
    Admin Organization:All About God Ministries, Inc.
    Admin Street1:7150 Campus Drive
    Admin Street2:Ste. 320
    Admin Street3:
    Admin City:Colorado Springs
    Admin State/Province:Colorado
    Admin Postal Code:80920
    Admin Country:US
    Admin Phone:+1.7198842246
    Admin Phone Ext.:
    Admin FAX:+1.7198842247
    Admin FAX Ext.:
    Admin Email:greg@allaboutgod.com
    Tech ID:GODA-111530023
    Tech Name:Greg Outlaw
    Tech Organization:All About God Ministries, Inc.
    Tech Street1:7150 Campus Drive
    Tech Street2:Ste. 320
    Tech Street3:
    Tech City:Colorado Springs
    Tech State/Province:Colorado
    Tech Postal Code:80920
    Tech Country:US
    Tech Phone:+1.7198842246
    Tech Phone Ext.:
    Tech FAX:+1.7198842247
    Tech FAX Ext.:
    Tech Email:greg@allaboutgod.com
    Name Server:NS1.AAGNAMESERVER.COM
    Name Server:NS2.AAGNAMESERVER.COM
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Because of the metaphysical implications of life resulting from "Intelligent Design", a surprisingly large number of us seek to reject the foregoing statements and find a mechanism by which complex biologic machines may arise naturally by random chance.

    However, I was now seeing a tremendous inconsistency...


    When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance! 5
    Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist, declares:


    Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.6
    H.S. Lipson, a Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester (UK), continues:


    In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it.7


    where is this sourced from?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    another site run by Christian fundies. Come on mr, find an impartial site please.
    see why i have to do cut and pastes as well as provide the fucking link!!!!!!!

    cos you are so narrow minded as to be able to censor before even reading ...anything at all which might upset your world view.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Provide an impartial source, one written without a Christian fundamentalist agenda and I'll take it seriously.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Provide an impartial source, one written without a Christian fundamentalist agenda and I'll take it seriously.
    you are unbelievable.

    your as bad as a racist.

    'I'M NOT LISTENING TO HIM ...HE'S BLACK.'
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru

    Better, but not great. The bloke who wrote it is a professor of history, hardly an expert in evolutionary theory and science. Find me a decent source.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    you are unbelievable.

    your as bad as a racist.

    'I'M NOT LISTENING TO HIM ...HE'S BLACK.'

    Don't be a prick. The agenda of the writer and their credentials is always taken into account when evaluating its veracity and validity. Otherwise you'll end up believing any old crap (oh yeah, you already did that).
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    PM me your email address and I'll email you the paper my friend wrote.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Don't be a prick. The agenda of the writer and their credentials is always taken into account when evaluating its veracity and validity. Otherwise you'll end up believing any old crap (oh yeah, you already did that).
    so you never read anything from the 'OTHER' SIDE' ...

    OF COURSE IT'S BIASED!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    so you never read anything from the 'OTHER' SIDE' ...

    OF COURSE IT'S BIASED!

    Yes of course its biased and is coming from an agenda of fundamentalist Christianity and wanting to discredit evolution. So its hardly accurate is it?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Better, but not great. The bloke who wrote it is a professor of history, hardly an expert in evolutionary theory and science. Find me a decent source.

    Rubenstien's article is contested
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rubenstien's article is contested

    Good find.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in "The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought."


    "It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end—no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).


    " `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."—*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].

    " `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

    Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.

    "It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.

    "Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."—*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.

    The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    [In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."—*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].

    "The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    1 - This is the evolutionary formula for making a universe:

    Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.

    2 - This is the evolutionary formula for making life:

    Dirt + water + time = living creatures.

    Evolutionists theorize that the above two formulas can enable everything about us to make itself—with the exception of man-made things, such as automobiles or buildings. Complicated things, such as wooden boxes with nails in them, require thought, intelligence, and careful workmanship. But everything else about us in nature (such as hummingbirds and the human eye) is declared to be the result of accidental mishaps, random confusion, and time. You will not even need raw materials to begin with. They make themselves too.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong.

    No, they could both be wrong. As it happens this is the case.
    The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis.

    If your average day is billions of years long and doesn't include dinosaurs, sabretooth tigers or dolphins, then yeah, ok.
    In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms

    Wow, an accurate bit. Triloboites do indeed pop into the fossil record with fully formed, working eyes for instance.
    Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*

    Well, yeah. the odds on a creature becoming a fossil, it being preserved and then found are pointlessly small. The total amount of fossils for hominids fits into a small lorry. It's not so much gaps as amazing we have anything at all.

    Evolution is just the description of a process.

    Silly, and seemingly stupid question - but why does the moon appear to be different sizes on different days of the week? i.e. why is it a small dot in an afternoon sky on monday and a hufe red blob on tuesday night?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Charles Darwin never had a day of schooling in the sciences.

    Here is Darwin’s explanation of how one species changes into another: It is a variation of *Lamarck’s theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics (*Nicholas Hutton III, Evidence of Evolution, 1962, p. 138). Calling it pangenesis, Darwin said that an organ affected by the environment would respond by giving off particles that he called gemmules. These particles supposedly helped determine hereditary characteristics. The environment would affect an organ; gemmules would drop out of the organ; and the gemmules would travel to the reproductive organs, where they would affect the cells (*W. Stansfield, Science of Evolution, 1977, p. 38). As mentioned earlier, scientists today are ashamed of Darwin’s ideas.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    No, they could both be wrong. As it happens this is the case.



    If your average day is billions of years long and doesn't include dinosaurs, sabretooth tigers or dolphins, then yeah, ok.




    ?
    first bit ok ...what the hell your on about in the next bit i know not.ii
This discussion has been closed.