Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science...actual science...knows that there was a separating of continents. The only issue is when and how long it took. Your pseudo science uses beliefs to concoct ages. I have no need to be so dishonest.I heard all these pseudoscience rapid continental movements before, and rapid mountain building before, and I see no evidence in old threads, I see none now.
No one asked how the rates are. Really. Only using these present rates would we come up with millions of years...totally imaginary time. The only issue is whether the separation occurred in this nature or not.You are making wild claims without backing any of the claims up. The rate of motions of both continent drifts are slow, as well mountain ranges being uplifted, slow, taking milllions of years.
Wrong. As mentioned evolution was very fast in the former nature. All we need is for creatures to live in Australia, and evolve as needed after the flood! Since there was over a century in the former nature after the flood to do this, no problem.And as to animals moving to destined their place before the continents started splitting, is still BS, because the Australian marsupials would still have to treks tens of thousands kilometres, because they would have to move before South America/Africa (West Gondwana) split from India/Antarctica/Australia (East Gondwana) you would still litters of dead marsupials, but this would have to occur before the entire Gondwana split from Laurasia (North America/Greenland/Eurasia).
Absurdly wrong. As mentioned all that need to happen is that the creatures were in that area. Then we move the continents away and they are still there. So for various reasons, such as the vegetation available in that area, creatures adapted accordingly there. Simple.The marsupials would have to trek from Anatolia (which was joined to Eurasia, to Africa, to India, to Antarctica before reaching where Australia joined to Antarctica. As I said that would be tens of thousands of kilometres, and would have taken very slow-moving kolas to tens of thousands of generations to reach from Ararat to Australia.
Your wild flailing about and shrill accusations show desperation on your part and an inability to defend your beliefs.You are still making up BS. This is why no one take you seriously, because you are not only utterly ignorant, you have a penchant to lying to people, and everyone here have already spotted your lies and your openly uses of propaganda.
If abiogenesis is a religion, then perhaps schools and research companies could get tax exemptions like churches?
In another post I cited the three most commonly used biology textbooks in the US, they each discuss abiogenesis. Your assertion is wrong.IStudents in high schools still wouldn’t be taught Abiogenesis, since -
(A) Abiogenesis wouldn’t be in any biology high school-level textbooks.
(B) Abiogenesis isn’t even on university-level textbooks because students have to choose to study Abiogenesis, and most biology and biochemistry textbooks would include Abiogenesis, because of...
(C) ...Abiogenesis is a very highly specialized form of biochemistry, that are not available in every universities.
(D) Which leads to D, scientists haven’t agreed which versions or models of Abiogenesis to be correct one.
All of these factors, only demonstrated that Abiogenesis wouldn’t be taught in high schools.
And you are evading my requests to display this chart that has Abiogenesis in the evolution chart, the one that you have claimed to be displayed by a single 5th grade high school teacher.
I can’t take your word for it about the teacher unless you show me the illustration/chart that linked Abiogenesis to evolution.
I doubt private schools are tax exempt. Maybe you have some insight into it that I don't have. And any company doing research in biology are most likely for profit, and not tax exempt. Public schools however, yeah, they're an exception.Oh wait...they do. Just like some folks get government benefits from using the baby destroying science on human beings.
In another post I cited the three most commonly used biology textbooks in the US, they each discuss abiogenesis. Your assertion is wrong.I
As I noted earlier, no one is disputing that biology textbooks "discuss abiogenesis". The question at hand is what they say about it, and whether it lines up with your assertion that "it isn´t described as an unknown mystery" and is instead "described as being likely".In another post I cited the three most commonly used biology textbooks in the US, they each discuss abiogenesis. Your assertion is wrong.I
Government supported in some way I suspect.I doubt private schools are tax exempt. Maybe you have some insight into it that I don't have. And any company doing research in biology are most likely for profit, and not tax exempt. Public schools however, yeah, they're an exception.
--edit
In a way it could. If some curricula demanded teaching of evolution.Looked up the private school and tax exemption, apparently they can get it depending on certain criteria. Non that relates to abiogenesis though.
Good for them.Government supported in some way I suspect.
In a way it could. If some curricula demanded teaching of evolution.
"
Free schools forced to teach evolution in science classes
All British free schools will be forced to teach evolution as a central principle of scientific theory, under new government rules, it emerged today."
Free schools forced to teach evolution in science classes
Their religion demands compliance.
If I give you the page numbers where abiogeneisis is discussed as likely will you look them up ? I can and will for each book.As I noted earlier, no one is disputing that biology textbooks "discuss abiogenesis". The question at hand is what they say about it, and whether it lines up with your assertion that "it isn´t described as an unknown mystery" and is instead "described as being likely".
Simply posting the titles of textbooks does nothing to support your assertion.
No. You made the claim, it therefore falls on you to substantiate it.If I give you the page numbers where abiogeneisis is discussed as likely will you look them up ? I can and will for each book.
If I don`t have the bloody chart, how can I give the it to you?.Now you are bloody evading my request.
I have asked for this chart in evolution that illustrated Abiogenesis, the one supposedly used by “a 5th grade teacher”. That’s what you claimed.
How many times must I ask for this chart?
But since you brought these textbooks up, please do cite these sources.
Typing is a pain the *** to me because of tremors from a neurological disorder.No. You made the claim, it therefore falls on you to substantiate it.
And besides....if you know the textbooks well enough to be able to give us the actual page numbers where they cover OOL, why can't you just quote directly from them?
Hasn't seemed to have stopped you so far.Typing is a pain the *** to me because of tremors from a neurological disorder.
A link will be just fine. But anything along the lines of "go find the textbook yourself" is a tacit admission that you cannot substantiate your assertion.I am not going to the trouble of typing stuff out when you can read it more easily than I can type it.
That makes absolutely no sense, since I have consistently stated that the OOL remains an unsolved mystery.This is a game you are playing anyway. I think it is personal to you that I was right about what you believe in being an imaginary idea, so now the ground has shifted to the gotcha scenario.
I did no such thing. I responded directly to that quote and you chose to ignore it.You ignore statements from an abiogeneisis investigator who says the idea that abiogeneisis is believed as a done deal in scientific circles and by the public, and instead you want to try the gotcha on me because I say the same thing.
That's quite a list of excuses. But the simple fact is, either you can substantiate your assertion or you can't.I am pretty sure you aren`t interested in the material anyway.
I am not going to go flipping through books and type quotations when you can do it.
If there is going to be busy work, then it falls to you.
If you don`t choose to do so, you can claim you have impeached my statement.
I know what the material is, and I know what people have been lead to believe.
@shmogie refers to Koonin, but I cannot find anything by him that supposedly denies abiogenesis. I am betting that in his book he refuted one model of abiogenesis at best. From the arguments that I have seen he refuted abiogenesis occurring in one fell swoop. But that is not how it is thought to have occurred, and though his book came out in 2011 Koonin in 2007 was a coauthor of a paper that advocated for a step wise approach to abiogenesis:Hasn't seemed to have stopped you so far.
A link will be just fine. But anything along the lines of "go find the textbook yourself" is a tacit admission that you cannot substantiate your assertion.
That makes absolutely no sense, since I have consistently stated that the OOL remains an unsolved mystery.
I did no such thing. I responded directly to that quote and you chose to ignore it.
I suggest you be more careful in throwing around false accusations, especially in a written-word forum where such accusations are trivially easy to check.
That's quite a list of excuses. But the simple fact is, either you can substantiate your assertion or you can't.
So are the sources of the statement, I have made it easy for you, easy to refute, which you cannot.Hasn't seemed to have stopped you so far.
A link will be just fine. But anything along the lines of "go find the textbook yourself" is a tacit admission that you cannot substantiate your assertion.
That makes absolutely no sense, since I have consistently stated that the OOL remains an unsolved mystery.
I did no such thing. I responded directly to that quote and you chose to ignore it.
I suggest you be more careful in throwing around false accusations, especially in a written-word forum where such accusations are trivially easy to check.
That's quite a list of excuses. But the simple fact is, either you can substantiate your assertion or you can't.
The other side of the coin is how you handle other religions forced on you instead of the evo belief system. It may not all depend on just what some like or 'mind'...as it sure doesn't now.Good for them.
Here in US, I'm not sure if there's a law like that. But I wouldn't mind it. I'm a convicted evolutionist.
There's nothing to refute. You've made a series of assertions and haven't substantiated any of them. That speaks for itself.So are the sources of the statement, I have made it easy for you, easy to refute, which you cannot.
So you have no quotes from any actual textbook. Therefore your claim remains unsubstantiated.I will give you a quotation though, a perfect summation and proof of what I said.
Texas and California drive the textbook industry because of how many they buy. This is from a group of three people who set out to examine these biology books for proper science instruction. Tĥese were biology 1 textbooks. Their report was extensive, but this is from their review how the books dealt with abiogenesis.
The report was published in the American Biology Teacher, vol.55, no. 2, 78-83 1992. A little old, but clear. I have no idea how long these books were used in teaching biology.
¨ " Despite the abundant use of leading questions and tentative terminology in their origin of life discussions, the majority of textbooks exude confidence that confirmation of a naturalistic model for the origin of life is inevitable. ¨
Something that is inevitable is something you can believe in as fact. Something inevitable cannot be modified or stopped, it is a done deal, there is no other possibility.
Again, you made the claim, therefore it falls on you to support it. If you cannot, there's nothing left to discuss.I don´t have a link, so instead google origin of life and evolution in biology textbooks-a critique: Mills,
Gordon.
So you've not actually seen the textbooks yourself, but rather are relying on a secondary source to tell you what's in them. Curious....what books did you get this info from?I do not have a link for the other, since I got the information from books, not off the internet.
Pretty typical creationist behavior....make an assertion, dodge all attempts to get you to substantiate it, and finish by restating the assertion.The facts are that abiogenesis is taught in public schools, taught as something for which confirmation is inevitable, i.e. the only possibility for the origin of life. Just as I stated.
These students are taught FAITH in abiogenesis.
Well done. Another creationist busted for quote mining. Funny how they consistently engage in such dishonest behavior while simultaneously claiming to be on the side of God and morality.@shmogie refers to Koonin, but I cannot find anything by him that supposedly denies abiogenesis. I am betting that in his book he refuted one model of abiogenesis at best. From the arguments that I have seen he refuted abiogenesis occurring in one fell swoop. But that is not how it is thought to have occurred, and though his book came out in 2011 Koonin in 2007 was a coauthor of a paper that advocated for a step wise approach to abiogenesis:
On the origin of the translation system and the genetic code in the RNA world by means of natural selection, exaptation, and subfunctionalization | Biology Direct | Full Text
I usually will not do the homework for those that refuse to do their own. But when they continually refuse to do their homework then I begin to get a bit suspicious of their claims and then I sometimes I do it for them. Usually it ends this way. The person did not say what the creationists claimed that the person said and their work shows that they disagree with the claim that the creationist is making.
If I don`t have the bloody chart, how can I give the it to you?.
I will give you the names and page numbers and you can look up the bloody references to abiogeneisis on your own.