Ready.Set.Jet

???????????

__________________
www.xjet.com

preludespeeder

Since when has carbon dating come into question. If you find the god thread from the past, we who believe in real science debunked all your false hoods against carbon dating.

__________________
"So, you may think you're going to blow me away with your amazing show of rhetoric, but believe me, I have seen it before, and you're wrong. The thing that you're about to write is not only wrong, but transparently, stupidly, embarrassingly wrong, so wrong that it makes me wince inwardly with shame at the fact that you're a member of the same human race that I am"

Anonymous

Travelair

Radio carbon dating assumes a consistent environment, one which any scientist will admit is possible only in a lab. It does not take into account ice ages, temperature variences, atmospheric conditions (volcanic ash) and all manner of variables (world wide floods) which might make something seem MUCH older than it really is.

TheBills

My favorite part is the ending......The richard dawkins interview....proof that all this science that is spoken of, does not have all the answers. Actually this just helps Ben Steins point, that there is a position for inteligent design in an arguemnet against theories like dawkins has. We should let religion back into the schools, there is as much proof as science has for the other side(debatable?..yes), so it would make for interesting discussions/debates.

aussieflyboy

i miss the "no god" thread...

someone should dig it up, for old time's sake

__________________
If it weren't for sexual fantasies, I'd have no goals at all

MikeW

The one difference is that Science will change its opinion if presented with a new/different opinion that supports the facts. Most organized religions will execute (politically or literally) anyone expressing a new/different opinion no matter how many facts or reason they have on their side.

The problem with religions, all of them, is that if they eventually achieve a position of power, they will do their best to murder everyone opposed to them, even if doing so violates their own beliefs.

Muslims states are currently the "enemy of choice", in the middle ages it was the christians (crusades, inquisition, witch hunts, etc...).

Once you depend on a "god/goddess" who only directly speaks to certain people, a monster has been created...

At least with Science, if you can prove/repeat it, it becomes part of the cumulative knowledge, for good or bad, no matter what the politicians or prechers or imams or popes claim.

__________________
---------------------

kidicarus5897

I agree, they should teach both sides of the story, in PHILOSOPHY! Not in science classes. And dawkins comment about there being a designer of the cell is besides the point. In fact, it has nothing to do with evolution at all, which is what the argument is all about. Science will probably never answer the initial question of why we are here and how it all started, but that does not mean that religion has the answer. I don't know if there should be answers........maybe just theories, and we then treat them as such. The question is, does evolution exist or not, and the answer is, unequivocally yes. What put that evolution in motion, wheather it be random combining of amino acids or the work of some higher power snaping its fingers and creating light is completely besides the point and science does not claim to have an answer, as it shouldn't because there is no evidence for an answer- just like scripture. Anyone who does not believe that evolution is a correct description of the progression of life on this planet, or believes that it is a contradiction to their faith is uneducated. Anyone who knows what a bacterium is knows the process of evolution and natural selection, so it is a proven theory. To put creationism in the same book as evolution would require the same evidence for support, which has been little more than faith in a book. Either way, creationism is not science, and should not be taught as such, but should remain an idea discussed in philosophy classes along side every other subjective topic. If they want to "teach" creationsim instead of discuss it, it should remain in the church. Schools should not be used as a religious recruitment tool for young minds.

__________________
Hey, it's not lying if what I said would be true if the facts were different......

preludespeeder

Well said post kid.

As for travel air, go find the no god thread. I discussed this in length with evidence to back up carbon dating. Stop reading religious sites. Goggle carbon dating and the equilibrium problem. You will find all the evidence to debunk that creationist theory. Or is that against your commandment of thy shall not worship another god.

__________________
"So, you may think you're going to blow me away with your amazing show of rhetoric, but believe me, I have seen it before, and you're wrong. The thing that you're about to write is not only wrong, but transparently, stupidly, embarrassingly wrong, so wrong that it makes me wince inwardly with shame at the fact that you're a member of the same human race that I am"

Anonymous

TheBills

Both sides are "theories" technically. Im sure we can all agree with that. So what if all this evolution jumble all comes from inteligant design, something even dawkins couldn't even argue. I believe that is the arguement exactly, as the movie states.

kidicarus5897

Creationism is NOT a theory, it is an IDEA- there is no supporting evidence for creationism. Should we start teaching "creation by flying spagetti monster" because that "theory" could explain the creation of the cell too? How about the "theory" that we are just a computer generated program on some galactic laptop, should that be taught in science class as well? Those both hold the same amount of water as the standard religious explination. The initial push that started life is not what this movie is about in general, it is about evolution taking the spotlight over creationism in science class. Creationsism is the idea that a God created us as we are now; a very static idea that is not at all scientific, and if it was, science and faith would not be at odds so often. The danger here is teaching creationism as fact in school to young minds. On that slippery slope, why not stop teaching each subject seperately and put them all under the guise of "the work of God?" Math could be the language of God, history class would be the discussion of all of Gods work, biology could be "Gods work-explained." If that happens, theology/science class will have to come up with another, more creation-friendly version of evolution, because most observations about nature point directly to it. Or, they could just burn all books that mention the word and ex-communicate all who speak it! Dealth to all infidels! What ever happened to the separation of church and state???????????

__________________
Hey, it's not lying if what I said would be true if the facts were different......