Thanks. Didn't know his name. Google shows him to look a lot different from the image I saw first. The Scott's guy is named Phil McKee. No, no. He reminded me a bit of Tom Cruise in Born On The 4th Of July. Edie's cover was better, and that's hard for me to say as I really don't much care for her voice or songs (other than that one hit, which was catchy).
In other words: He's engaging in special pleading...tell me something I didn't know. He might argue like that, but he would be wrong. Knowledge does not exclusively derive from direct observation. He understands that for everything in his daily life, yet he "forgets" once issues that contradict his world view are concerned. We KNOW for example that radiometric dating works as well as we can know anything. To argue otherwise is to argue for Descartes' evil demon. But in that case we couldn't know anything about the underlying turning the entire argument moot to begin with. However, even if there was an evil demon, we could know about about our perceived reality which is still superior to nothing I guess. For many aspects of our lives this might be accurate. For science, it is not. That is exactly the point of science which distinguishes it from things like religion. It doesn't matter which lens you look through, the facts always support radiometric dating or evolution. I fear that rather than looking through a Biblical lens, Ken Ham is walking around with his eyes shut. And here you once again demonstrate your dishonesty. 1) What is "neo-Darwinian" supposed to mean? This is an entirely artificial term that is supposed to trigger a negative reaction. 2) You know fully well that the world has not stopped 60 years ago. I have explained to you in detail the history of the idea of abiogenesis, how Urey-Miller fits in there and what came afterwards. You however chose to ignore all that. It is obvious that you still cling to your false understanding of the Urey-Miller experiment and what it means and that you still ignore everything that has happened in the 6 decades since. It doesn't get any more dishonest than that and I'm baffled that you think you can get away with it. You didn't have any arguments then and you don't have any now, only lies. 3) The only ones who believe in "spontaneous generation" are creationists. Science deals with continuous processes. You don't have a lens, all you have is an ancient book and with it you hit everything on the head that doesn't fit, so that you don't have to deal with reality but rather be cozy in your personal la-la-land.
my false understanding of Urey-Miller?? what understanding of Urey-Miller adds anything to any equation that opens the locked box that is how life began? it was a wrong gas, tinkering experiment that proves nothing. tell me, mister. how did life begin? start with Urey-Miller. what a joke. neo-Darwinian means that Darwin didn't have much understanding of the genetic science or cellular biology, compared to present day knowledge, so Darwin is really a stepping stone to a more precise description of the processes involved. we cannot exclude his contributions, but he didn't know enough in his day to go much farther than general principles.
A question for Creationists. How does attacking Evolution support Creationism? How is Creationism 'the alternative' if it doesnt meet all of the criteria on which you attack Evolution? How does not teaching Evolution support the teaching of Creationism?
Why? Weren't people in that neck of the woods Jewish at the time, only being displaced centuries later?
Because chances are he would have looked more middle eastern than european like that IDF soldier whose pic was posted above.
well, the more uneducated you can keep someone, the more likely they'll believe in the fairy story of creationism, that one's easy - the rest of the questions are more complex It's why you send the littlest kids to sunday school, indoctrinate them early, before they know stuff
Well, to be fair, while I can't speak to Sunday School as a rule, I'll say that the one I was sent to (Catholic CCD) spent no time at all on any of the common-fundamentalist-Christian-disagreement-with-science topics. Not that it wasn't indoctrination, mind -- of course it was. Just not on such issues.
If I remember correctly Catholics formally accepted evolution back in the 19th century & I believe most main-line protestant churches also accept evolution. Its among the evangelical/fundamentalist/charismatic churches that literal belief in creationism dwells.
You remember correctly. You will find a great divide between academics and theologians of the mainline Protties and their congregations, as I suspect you might among Papists.
Well, as far as individuals and their beliefs are concerned, I think it depends on how you define "creationism". Various polls give percentages of Americans who believe the statement "humans were created in more-or-less their present form within the last 10,000 years" to be between 40% and 50%. I don't think 40%-50% of the population are evangelical/fundamentalist Christian. So some significant amount of that belief is apparently present in the mainline Christian population.
I think those polls get skewed a bit by people answering what they think they're supposed to answer. It'd be more interesting to see poll results that ask circles around the question without mentioning religion. I would wager that a number significantly higher than 50 - 60% would answer, for instance, that they believe dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago.
Right, that's what I was getting at when I said that it depends on how you define creationism. There absolutely are people who believe that dinosaurs roamed the Earth millions of years ago *and* also believe that humans were created by God in more-or-less their present form within the last several thousand years.
So did the jews in the area at the time look arabic? Just saying that given the migrations/invasions throughout history, assuming people would look like who lives there now could be false.
Well both are semitic peoples, so baby J probably looked more like some one in Arabia, than some one from Scandinavia.
And more importantly, not like the Europeanized Jewry of the Holocaust. Those peoples had traveled through Old Macedonia, through the Balkans or Venice, or Persia and the Caucasus-- they'd been a thousand years or so among Caucasian stocks, and interbred enough to lighten up.
You're the joke. You have been made aware of the facts repeatedly, for example here, here and here. Also, you may want to look at my post here for further details. Yet you still ignore them and continue to spew your creationist lies. Don't you have any self respect? As for abiogenesis, again let me direct you to an old post on mine here or here where you were given lots of resources which you apparently decided to ignore. You may also look at my post here where I addressed some typical fallacies. Also this more than 4 year old post where I addressed some of your misunderstandings. It's really fascinating that over and over again you repeat the same old tactic of ignoring evidence and simply pretending as if it doesn't exist and you never heard of it. A tiny bit of intellectual honesty seems to be too much to ask from a creationist I guess, as creationism is built upon ignorance and lies. The good thing is that this is the internet and everybody can follow these links I posted and see for themselves that you could have known the answers to all your so called challenges years ago. You either didn't bother to examine the facts or you simply lie about it. In either case, it doesn't really strengthen your position.
Scientists Just Found Earth's First Cousin "Our cousin avoids many of the problems that reduce the likelihood of life on other Earth-like planets. Some are too big, too cold, too gaseous, or have gravity problems that scorch oceans. So far, Kepler-186f appears almost to be a Goldilocks — not too big, not too far from its star, maybe just right."