From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 11-13-2006 23:14
quote:"The Bible is the only thing that gives you the full picture," he says. "Other religions don't have that, and, as for scientists, so much of what they believe is pretty fuzzy about life and its origins ... oh, this is a great place to work, I will tell you that."
Priceless!
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Let's face it, we're only a few thousand years old If we carry on like this, humanity will have been packed and dusted in less than 10000 years. Now that's a good job
quote:"There are no such things. Humans are basically as you see them today. Those skeletons they've found, what's the word? ... they could have been deformed, diseased or something. I've seen people like that running round the streets of New York."
Can't argue with that!
BTW, this reporter should have done his research. This isn't the first Creationist museum ...
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 11-17-2006 21:43
I'm excited about this new museum. Who knows, maybe there will be some interesting information in there after all. I wonder why everyone is so against it? Someone has opened up another school of thought and the media is ready to shoot it down. Why? I thought alternative options were supposed to be allowed in America...hmm.
[sidenote]
quote:Theological scholars may have noticed that there are, in fact, no dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible - and here lies the Creationists' first problem.
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
quote:Someone has opened up another school of thought
"School" and "thought" are two words I would never associate with such a place.
quote:I thought alternative options were supposed to be allowed in America
Has the government shut it down? No. Then what's your point? In the same vein, we are allowed to show it for the farce it is.
quote:There are also no dinosaurs mentioned in any text before Richard Owen coined the term in 1842.
Well, because we hadn't discovered them yet. I believe the word "duh" applies here? The reporter's point was that Creationists can't explain them because their source for the history of the world doesn't mention them at all and provides no explanation for their existence.
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 11-18-2006 01:40
Gideon:
Try to get through the link at the bottom please. My hope is you will get a firm understanding on certain 'scientific' definitions and how those definitions are applied to creationism. And then you'll perhaps understand how I and some others around here use words like 'crap' when it comes to 'creationism.'
quote:15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
By John Rennie
To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.
12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.
15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.
Darwin's Finches revert to Type
Neanderthals are not related to humans.
Did the chromosome break or fuse? Did apes evolve from humans?
Darwinism is a popular religious cult dedicated to the proposition that all men are not created equal..as Darwin said that whites descended from blacks..as blacks descended from apes and whites were superior to and would displace the older, darker species..
Evolution is the Darwinists creationist myth..
Read the link posted above that 'refutes" any disbelief in the official dogma But don't ask Questions..such as "did the chromosome break or fuse and how long did that take?"" because as the "scientific article" states..."These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record" Since when is any question about a scientific "fact" an unreasonable burden? .
Most of the "scientific arguments" presented in that articles are now hedged backpeddling amongst the government funded, vested interest "scientific" ommunity of high priests..splitting hairs and sputtering "aw shuckss"..as in trying to salvage a theory that cannot be defended on the basis of current scientific research. There is a nervous nellie feeling to the arguments..waiting for the next shoe to drop..as it dropped after the DNA tests on Neandertals..
Be A Heretic...and say plainly..the simple truth...Evolution didn't happen..
quote:Read the link posted above that 'refutes" any disbelief in the official dogma But don't ask Questions..such as "did the chromosome break or fuse and how long did that take?"" because as the "scientific article" states..."These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record" Since when is any question about a scientific "fact" an unreasonable burden?
Thank you, skyetyger, for effectively demonstrating how creationists repeatedly take statements out of context. The "frustrating requests" the writer spoke of referred specifically to creationists' perpetual requests to see the in-between fossils, no matter how many in-between fossils one produces. Your application of this statement to all scientific questions is something we call "twisting words."
Regardless, if somehow we were to produce the entire fossil record one day, creationists would still come up with some kind of "argument" against it. In this behavior, they are very much like conspiracy theorists. Myself, I'm done listening to creationists until they start placing the same conditions of "proof" on themselves as they do on science.
OK ..Go back and read the section on "common ancestors" in that article..The current "dodge".....Man and apes did not evolve from each other..they diverged from a "common ancestor."
Now...here is the "why " of that "dodge"
Fossil Record
Kangaroos are basically upright..therefore when the "fossil" is studied..Kangaroos are homonids..monkey/humans.
It is a question of backbone..
Here is a question...Common Ancestor..?
There is a chromosome on a DNA chain ..DNA is similiar in all aminals..like a backbone..so a kangaroo, a fish, a monkey or a human doesn't show much change from one "backbone" or one DNA chain to another..all are very similiar..
NOW
On a specific DNA chain... One Chromosome is in the On Position for species Y..The chromosome in that position is reversed.in Species X..That chromosome is ....180 out or in the Off Position...There aren't any other positions....Only Those 2...On/Off Yes/NO Yet Evolutionists conclude that the similiarity and the anomolie in that "backbone" of DNA proves "speciation" and those two species "evolved from "common ancestor" ...
If Evollutionist claim "common ancestor" for those two species...Then
1) What is the position of that chromosome in the Common Ancestor?
If Species Y is the ancestor of Species X ..without a commom ancestor..
2) Which is the "switched" position in evolution..which came first..the Species X or Species Y?
If the above cited Species Y and Species X are unable to breed ..are completely speciated in form and figure..
3) Why does that same exact chromosomal anomolie occur in other species without any evidence of speciation? Did the chromosome "break" in one species and "fuse" in anther?
4) What environmental factors would cause a "switch" in chromosomal position..if that "switch" is the "proof of speciation" between Species X and Species y?
5) In Evolutionary Time..How long did it take for a chromosome to "switch" from one position 0 To 180 when 0 and 180 are the only possible positions?
6) What does it mean that Darwin's Finches reverted to TYPE?
7) Are Gold Fish ..Asian Carp?
These are scientific facts..These are scientific questions..
And none of this science supports Darwin...
Haven't we done all this already, over and over and over??
We hardly need to - once again - go through all the repetition of refuting the creationist nonsense. The *proof* and the *facts* speak for themselves. Your *beliefs* are irrelevant.
Please - if you want to conitnue arguing things that have been shown to be factually incorrect....just read through the archives and speak to yourslef outloud
Quote "In 1997 he succeeded in analyzing part of the Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA, showing that it differed profoundly from modern human DNA. " UnQuote
Are those the "facts" that speak for themselves?
There isn't any evidence that I am a "creationist." And I am not spouting nonsense.
Neandertals are not related to humans..could not breed with humans..and did not descend from a common ancestor
The proof and facts speak for themselves and they do not speak for Darwin...
There is big $$$$ being spent to refute those "facts" that Neanderthals were not "ancestors or relatives or kissing cousins of humans" They may have been Pets...They may have been Marisupials for all the evidence there is..
No One is concerned that:
There are museums dedicated to Neandertals as Ancestors of Humans
There are scientific journals and web site devoted to Neandertals as Ancestors of Humans
That is vested interest in refuting a scientifically established FACT...with big money being spent to establish any... however absurd... relationship between Neanderthals and humans..to salvage careers and wipe the egg off the Darwinists faces..
That is As Silly And Stupid as anything in any "creation myth"..
Now ..take a look at some other "darwinian science" and evolution in the same light..
As everyone gets in a twit about a "creationist" museum..
How about getting in a twit about the Neandertal museums and other nonsense being spouted by Darwinist..on public monies..
Meanwhile I am going back to something useful..like finishing the index page of my php..
If you ask me about creations.. I would say.."I Don't Know" but I don't like lies masquerading as "science" just everyone believes those lies as "proof and fact" which speak for themselves..No fact or proof "speaks" for itself..but is subject to continual scrutiny
That is what I don't like about "evolution" and "darwin"
It is the Secular ..Gospel.. mostly disproven by recent scientific evidence...and I am a Heretic..
I wonder, is skyetyger playing Devil's Advocate, or do you truly believe the nonsense your typing? I may name call, but I refuse to get into any type of intellectual argument with you skyetyger.
Patrick
Evolution and Creationism are not intellectual arguments or science..It is Comparative Religion...
And I don't do religion...
Read the science...
It was cherished "truth" for hundreds of years... "proven " and "fact" ...that English were Viking/Anglo Saxon/Norman and were not as "original" as the older Celts..such as the Irish, Welsh and Scots but DNA has refuted that...
Now DNA Is Not "Proving" many of our most cherished "myths"..neither historical or scientific but when a historian is confronted by DNA proof that English are English and have been since Cheddar Man...the historian changes his theory..What does the Darwinist do? Defend the disproven. and yell very loudly "Don't question my "facts."
I am a heretic..and so far..I have been proven right about Neanderthals
READ THE SCIENCE YOURSELF
It is not philosophy...It is SCIENCE..
I asked questions posed by mcrobiologists and so far..no one on this thread has answered those questions..which means..no one here has read the scientific literature about common ancestors, darwin's finches and the switch on that chromosome or even which species has that "switch" and why it is important to understanding biological systems.
It may not be something that interests you, Patrick ..other than as comparative religion.. I like science and read widely on the subject.
skyetyger: No one really answered your 'questions' here because we're all sick and tired to deal with lunatics who believe in the tooth fairy and creationism. You want answers, use the Search and the FAQ. We replied to such nonsense dozens of time. No creationist has ever made sense. They keep spinning on their head and their pseudo scientific knowledge and refute the evidences went confronted with them.
It is the Secular ..Gospel.. mostly disproven by recent scientific evidence...and I am a Heretic..
And you hope, by making statements like this, to get people engaged in constructive conversation?
As I said, we've gone over this stuff over and over. Read the FAQ and the archives.
We've covered both the creationist dribble and the doubts of the microbilogists.
Everything that we learn in modern sicence SUPPORTS that we have been correct in our scientific understanding of evolution in general, and we learn more specific details all the time.
To say something as blatant and absolute as "evolution didn't happen" is extremely ignorant. Evolution has been observed in our time in laboratories. We see evolution constantly among the viruses. We see the vast evidence on many levels, and we learn what Darwin was right about, and what he was wrong about.
Are there people who take to evolution with a religious bent? Of course. There are people who will take to anything in that manner.
To equate the proven facts of evolution with the nonsense of Creationism is purely absurd.
To state that "evolution didn't happen" based on disupted claims in regard to the specific course evolution may have taken in the human species is equally as absurd (especially in light of the current mapping of the neandertal genome...as opposed to a 1997 'partial' view?)
DL-44
Defend the Faith...
Monkeys as venerated ancestors
Fossils as holy relics
I have read the latest "research" on the Neanderthal genome
This was reported on CNN:
QUOTE WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Neanderthals may have given the modern humans who replaced them a priceless gift -- a gene that helped them develop superior brains, U.S. researchers reported Tuesday.
By tracking smaller, more regular mutations, the researchers could look at DNA's "genetic clock" and date the original genetic variant to 37,000 years ago.
They noted that this D allele is very common in Europe, where Neanderthals lived, and more rare in Africa, where they did not
"The D alleles may not even change brain size; they may only make the brain a bit more efficient if it indeed affects brain function," Lahn said.
Now his team is looking for evidence of Neanderthal origin for other human genes. UNQUOTE
NOW...We have ample historical evidence of state sponsored, agenda driven science:
QUOTE Kelves says that by 1935 "...eugenics had become `hopelessly perverted' into a pseudoscientific facade for `advocates of race and class prejudice, defenders of vested interests of church and state, Fascists, Hitlerites, and reactionaries generally' UnQuote
virus and bacteria do no "mutate" any more than dogs "mutate" or people mutate
Antibiotic resistance is cited as "mutation" or "adaptation" but it is not "mutation" or "adaptation" or "evolution" any more than a person who receives a vaccination and "adapts" "mutates" "evolves" into a person with immunity
Virus and bacteria can acquire "immunity" which is lost in succeeding generations if the antibiotics are not used.
Virus do "combine" with other virus to produce virus's with characteristics of both parents..but then so do humans
Nothing new there and that is not "evolution"
quote:DL-44
Defend the Faith...
Monkeys as venerated ancestors
Fossils as holy relics
Funny boy
And just so you know there is this thing called UBB code. You might find it too in the FAQ during your quest for answers. Or maybe you'll open your eyes and see the Insert UBB Code box next to the text area.
[edit] In the light of your previous post(s), you should really check out the archives. [/edit]
OK
Being a Heretic..I guess I should RECANT..
HOWEVER.....Acording to Modern Research..including an article published yesterday in Australia...
"No humans alive today are descended in any part from Neanderthals. It is believed that Modern Humans and Neanderthals could not breed with each other, because Neanderthals and the great apes had 48 chromosomes whereas modern humans have only 46."
I didn't find anything in the archive about creationism..
Thanks Poi
I checked the philosophy archives...
Here is another quote from the science papers..Also..it was reported that chimps had 99.9% DNA with humans..Now it is 96% and dropping. The Neanderthals are promoted to 99.5 but there are Profound Differences.. Mice share over 90% but they don't have a Lobby...
"One finding so far is that the Neanderthal Y chromosome is substantially more different from human and chimp Y chromosomes than are other chromosomes. This suggests that little interbreeding occurred, at least among the more recent Neanderthal species."
OK I will answer the arguments presented in the FAQS:
Intelligent Design V Darwin...both have some problems...
THE SEVERAL DIFFERENCES..intelligent design doesn't address adaptation very well and Darwinism takes too long..and doesn't make sense in some very key areas...
Here are some thoughts about both:
I would say there is "ADAPTATION" but that seems to be built in or the species dies..
Consider...Virus "Mutation"...A species can only "adapt" within a range...We can adapt to "smallpox." We do not mutate or evolve..we develop an "immunity" That is within the range of the species. It has been said that small pox wiped out the Indians..but what is interesting is that there wasn't any vaccine at that time. Whites had some small acquired immunity..which was a slight edge but they were as susceptible as the Indians..That is "adaptation." That slight edge or "adaptation" is lost in succeeding generations..The species revert to the Mean or Type..just like the Darwin Finches discussed below.
Speciation seems to be limited to what is already in the box of dog, human, finch, virus...That means a Darwin Finch can adapt to a range FINCH.. but when the environmental factors get beyond that range FINCH..the bird cannot "mutate" or "adapt." The bird cannot mutate into a lion to survive in an environment overrun, overgrazed and trampled by the sudden appearance of a herd of buffalo..Or even "evolve" or "mutate" into any form required to cope with the environmental change..And the Darwin Finch Reverts to Type..which means that a micrometer increase in beak size in big seed seasons quickly Reverts to the Mean beak size of Finch in normal times..The bird is limited to FINCH BOX.
Think of it this way..If species could rapidly "evolve" or "mutate" in reaction to environmental factors..then we should be seeing very rapid evolution because many species are under very serious pressure right now. This is not the case...Species are not "adapting' or "mutating" They are becoming extinct..OK ..next...
Here is an Argument:
Speciation. For Instance..an isolated population (2) has 10 genomes..There is a switch in the 5th genome..which is not shared by the general population (1)from which it is isolated...That switch is inherited..So the isolated population (2) becomes a bit different ...then a second switch occurs on the eighth genone in the isolated population..and this third population (3) is slightly different than the second (2) and very different than the Greater Population..(1)
That is the "instant" switch I mentioned at the beginning of this thread..but it has not be demonstrated that fusing or breaking genomes or chromosomes means anything at all. It is the intriguing question of 46 human chromosomes and 48 in chimps..It is theorized that human's fused or the chimps broke but instantly? Although no one denies now that humans appeared very abruptly..
Or Did They?
All dogs are wolves...dogs can REVERT TO TYPE and can breed with wolves and other canines....But We are alone..we are unable to breed with any other "ape type." That means we are a different species..although Darwinist keep trying to breed us off to Neanderthals and other apes using the "switch" theory above..but what if....our line is unbroken but we are the only surviving member?
What if there were always humans..maybe bigger or smaller..but always identifiably human? That would not have a switch..it would not have an adaptation although it might be bigger or smaller or ..different within the BOX human...not mutated or evolved but..always within the range "human?"
These are some of my Heretical Ravings but as you see... I am not scientifically illiterate..
I just have a different theory..and I don't buy into UnEthical Science in any way..as Ethics and Good Science have always been true and real in the end...I don't buy into eugenics in any form..All Men Are Created Equal...and no "interbreeding" with ape men or space men can change that..not by evolotionary accident or certainly not by (intelligent) design..
Can you please explain to me exactly who these "state sponsored" groups are, who are so adamant about pushing an "evolution agenda"?
Last time I checked, our monkey in the white house was a supported of 'intelligent design'.
Anyway.....
skyetyger said:
The bird cannot mutate into a lion to survive in an environment overrun, overgrazed and trampled by the sudden appearance of a herd of buffalo..Or even "evolve" or "mutate" into any form required to cope with the environmental change.
[/quote]
And this type of instant change, which always seems to be the argument among those who do not understand the science they are talking about, has nothing to do with evolution.
Evolution is not "survival magic".
Evolution does not happen to an organism, it happens to a species.
And it has been witnessed. In our time. In laboratories.
Other than that, I will not sit and argue with someone so insistant on throwing about the ignorant and insulting mockery you seem so fond of.
If you'd like to have an intelligent conversation - great! If you enjoy your verbal masturbation....by all means, have at it...but in that case, farewell.
The smallpox virus was unable ..over centuries..to "mutate" or "adapt" to vaccines. It died out...
That happened to a species...
Evolution has not been "witnessed" in our time in a laboratory...unless you mean "recombination" and that is not "evolution" from a "common ancestor"
And don't ask me to believe that Northern Europeans have superior brains because their daddy was a European Ape and their Mommie was an African Ape
The rest of the human race descended from HUMANS...and are Human..
What is wrong with that Theory?
Also ..
The switch on the genome would have to be instantaneous..The D allele being introduced by one neanderthal into the Northern Europeans gene pool would have to be instantanwous
No one disputes ..instantaneous....
But neither the switch on the genome or the allele are useful informatin..in terms of survival so there isn't any known mutation that would take Evolution time and be useful that would be outside the bounds of the adaptation for that species...For Instance...the "precious gift of superior brain" bestowed by Neanderthal didn't seem to have much survival value in the neaderthal species case..
"Instantaneous" was proved by the mitochodrial DNA studies..
The Darwinsist are arguing that the "pressure" for the DNA change would take Evolution XXX time but no one disputes that man appeared very suddenly...
What if we don't have an ancient ape ancestor?
Do we need one?
The current theory is...There are millions of years of subhuman apelike beings..billions and eons...of apes..and then suddenly..HUMANS
Why?
Why does the "sub" have to proceed to the sup..? Dogs are not inferior to wolves...not in strength or intelligence or beauty..
THEN what if....our line is unbroken but we are the only surviving member?
What if we were always HUMAN...
Maybe a bit bigger or smaller..maybe a bit sharper in the tooth or bigger in the bone....BUT always equal to ..
Human...
Dude. It looks like somebody was sleeping in biology class. You have so many misconsceptions about evolution. It's disturbing. I hope you're not representative of the education system in the US.
Sorry but evolution have been witnessed in our time and in the wild. Read real scientific literature. The argument that significant DNA changes have to be instantaneous to be valid has been debunked countless times, i.e. read the Blind watchmaker or have a look at some documentary featuring Richard Dawkins.
The smallpox virus was unable ..over centuries..to "mutate" or "adapt" to vaccines. It died out...
...
What if we don't have an ancient ape ancestor?
What does that have to do with anything?
Evolution is not "the theory of how we developed from apes".
And as I stated above, evolution is not "survival magic". Not every species is able to adapt - that's the whole point you are missing here: evolution is not a directed super power. It does not take a species and say "ok, what do we need to make this species survive?"
(and let's not forget - small pox is not gone...it is just contained....)
As Poi said - you have a great many misconceptions about the basic principles of evolution - it is no wonder you are so confused about the finer points.
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 11-20-2006 22:49
I didn't quit WS. I just got tired of being battered for my beliefs. I still don't believe that life originated without help, and I still don't believe the Earth is older than a few thousand years. All the evidence I have ever been given of a millions of years old Earth have been shown to be wrong. Seems like it is always back and forth. Every scrap of evidence I have been given for a millions of years old Earth are shown to be based on guess work or lies, while the tangible evidence for a thousands of years old Earth are few and far between. And many of those arguments are shaky at best as well, or just ways to disprove the millions of years old Earth.
So no, I didn't give in my beliefs. I do remember that we had a miscommunication on some definitions and that cleared up a ton of problems about Evolution, Darwin, and Creationism. But calling either the Theory of Evolution (origins) or the Theory of Creationsim (origins) science is absurd at best. Both are centered around belief systems, which means believing one system almost guarentees the belief in one theory.
And you cannot tell me that the Theory of Creationism (origins) is wrong, because you have no possible means of proving it wrong. You were not there when God formed the Earth, you were not there when God placed plants, animals, and mankind on Earth. You have no evidence of a millions of years old Earth either, because all your evidence is in the present. What happened to it between then and now? You don't know because you weren't there.
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 11-21-2006 01:19
I don't mean to be rude, I'm just tired of pompous people thinking they know the answers. No one knows all the answers. No one is certain about what happened between "The Beginning" and now in any system. They all, even scientific theories, take faith to work.
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
please. we have shown you many many times what evidence is out there. The fact that some quack or some quack website tells you, without being able to offer actual scientific evidence, that it is wrong is completely irrelevant - we have shown you over and over why the arguments offered by such places as answersingenesis.com and other similar sources are 1) wrong and 2) not scientifically sound from the start.
This whole thing is so truly saddening.
I will say, for the sake of my own mind I guess, one more time:
evolution has been proven to happen.
There are plenty of particulars open to debate. That is not one of them.
I wanted to be a paleontolgist when I was kid...I remember going to the AMNH in NYC and just being in awe of all those dinosaurs.
But later on in life I had a revelation - one of those moments where you really being to doubt your core beliefs - in this case I started to doubt evolution. I was watching a documentary on TV...it clearly showed dinosaurs coexisting with humans..in fact one of the humans, I think his name was Fred, had a dinosaur (a sauropod) as a pet. Fred had a friend called Barney, and Barney kept a Smilodon (saber tooth cat) as a pet..further evidence that these "pre-historic" creatures are not as old as we would think.
So now, I'm no longer sure what's right - creation or evolution.
~ Luxury is the wolf at the door and its fangs are the vanities and conceits germinated by success. When an artist learns this, he knows where the danger is. ~ http://www.sleepingwolves.com/
Gideon: Do you really think scientists hold on their theories and are in denial of any new fact/discovery proving them wrong ? It seems you also have a misconception of the word: 'critical'.
Ever heard about, say : Newton's theory of gravitation. That theory prevailled for almost 250 years. That was a good approximation and people didn't knew better at the time, but scientists didn't fear to claim it bullshit when the buddy Einstein elaborated the general theory of relativity.
This is just one of many examples of the scientific community's open mind to sound and coherent theories. Can you imagine a single second that if there was anything contesting the ~4 billion years earth the scientific community would not rush to investigate and elaborate new theories based on these exciting finds ?
Also think about the fields of science that your ~6 thousand years earth dream contradicts and what it would mean. Our understanding of radioactivity, electro-magnetism, biology, geology, ... isn't as crap as your dream suggests. So far the 'guess work' and 'lies' allowed us to do quite a few things in these fields. Heck we haven't even blown up our planet.
posted 11-13-2006 19:37
If we carry on like this, humanity will have been packed and dusted in less than 10000 years. Now that's a good job 
Evolution