[_ Old Earth _] BREAKING AND RELEVANT WORLD NEWS

[John]

BREAKING AND RELEVANT WORLD NEWS: On March 1, 2008, FFPC President, John Stemberger sent out an editorial he wrote in response to the Orlando Sentinel's editorial opinion that evolution was "widely accepted as fact", -- which the Sentinel refused to publish. In the editorial, Stemberger argued that "In very high academic circles, macro-evolutionary theory is in a state of crisis and intellectual collapse." Only 3 days later, an article was published which publicly discussed for the first time a major world science conference to be held in Altenberg, Austria, in July, 2008, with leading secular evolutionists, philosophers and scientists to develop new theory of evolution. The invitation to this scientific conference states, "We are also grappling with the increasing feeling...that we just don't have the theoretical and analytical tools necessary to make sense of the bewildering diversity and complexity of living organisms...We think this very well could turn into a major stepping stone for the entire field of evolutionary biology." Stay tuned for more updates on this stunning and critical development.

 

[Heidi]

BREAKING AND RELEVANT WORLD NEWS: On March 1, 2008, FFPC President, John Stemberger sent out an editorial he wrote in response to the Orlando Sentinel's editorial opinion that evolution was "widely accepted as fact", -- which the Sentinel refused to publish. In the editorial, Stemberger argued that "In very high academic circles, macro-evolutionary theory is in a state of crisis and intellectual collapse." Only 3 days later, an article was published which publicly discussed for the first time a major world science conference to be held in Altenberg, Austria, in July, 2008, with leading secular evolutionists, philosophers and scientists to develop new theory of evolution. The invitation to this scientific conference states, "We are also grappling with the increasing feeling...that we just don't have the theoretical and analytical tools necessary to make sense of the bewildering diversity and complexity of living organisms...We think this very well could turn into a major stepping stone for the entire field of evolutionary biology." Stay tuned for more updates on this stunning and critical development.

What's sad is that so many people can't think for themselves and have to wait for scientists themselves to debunk evolution instead of using their own common sense. That's because people have so much blind faith in scientists that they stop using their brains and can be easily duped.

 

[Dunzo]

BREAKING AND RELEVANT WORLD NEWS: On March 1, 2008, FFPC President, John Stemberger sent out an editorial he wrote in response to the Orlando Sentinel's editorial opinion that evolution was "widely accepted as fact", -- which the Sentinel refused to publish. In the editorial, Stemberger argued that "In very high academic circles, macro-evolutionary theory is in a state of crisis and intellectual collapse." Only 3 days later, an article was published which publicly discussed for the first time a major world science conference to be held in Altenberg, Austria, in July, 2008, with leading secular evolutionists, philosophers and scientists to develop new theory of evolution. The invitation to this scientific conference states, "We are also grappling with the increasing feeling...that we just don't have the theoretical and analytical tools necessary to make sense of the bewildering diversity and complexity of living organisms...We think this very well could turn into a major stepping stone for the entire field of evolutionary biology." Stay tuned for more updates on this stunning and critical development.

What's sad is that so many people can't think for themselves and have to wait for scientists themselves to debunk evolution instead of using their own common sense. That's because people have so much blind faith in scientists that they stop using their brains and can be easily duped.

Oh, so you do trust scientists when they're attempting to disprove evolution, but distrust them when confirming evolution? Way to be stupidly religiously biased, there Heidi. You obviously have no interest in the truth at all, only your own agenda.

Anyway, in case anyone was wondering, the source for this was http://www.drdino.com/readNews.php?id=45. If you actually read their sources, it's pretty clear that Stemberger is a biased right-wing religious nut, and that this isn't nearly as great a revelation as it's being made out to be by Dr. Dino. The "Alternberg 16" agree that both natural selection and evolution happen, but the exact mechanism at the genetic level is what's under question.

 

[jwu]

This John Stemberger is a lawyer, and "FFPC" doesn't stand for a scientific organization but the "Florida Family Policy Council".

So why should i care about his personal opinion, for which he provides no evidence and which falls outside of his area of expertise?
If i were to proclaim that the germ theory of disease were in crisis, would anyone care?

 

[Heidi]

BREAKING AND RELEVANT WORLD NEWS: On March 1, 2008, FFPC President, John Stemberger sent out an editorial he wrote in response to the Orlando Sentinel's editorial opinion that evolution was "widely accepted as fact", -- which the Sentinel refused to publish. In the editorial, Stemberger argued that "In very high academic circles, macro-evolutionary theory is in a state of crisis and intellectual collapse." Only 3 days later, an article was published which publicly discussed for the first time a major world science conference to be held in Altenberg, Austria, in July, 2008, with leading secular evolutionists, philosophers and scientists to develop new theory of evolution. The invitation to this scientific conference states, "We are also grappling with the increasing feeling...that we just don't have the theoretical and analytical tools necessary to make sense of the bewildering diversity and complexity of living organisms...We think this very well could turn into a major stepping stone for the entire field of evolutionary biology." Stay tuned for more updates on this stunning and critical development.

What's sad is that so many people can't think for themselves and have to wait for scientists themselves to debunk evolution instead of using their own common sense. That's because people have so much blind faith in scientists that they stop using their brains and can be easily duped.

Oh, so you do trust scientists when they're attempting to disprove evolution, but distrust them when confirming evolution? Way to be stupidly religiously biased, there Heidi. You obviously have no interest in the truth at all, only your own agenda.

Anyway, in case anyone was wondering, the source for this was http://www.drdino.com/readNews.php?id=45. If you actually read their sources, it's pretty clear that Stemberger is a biased right-wing religious nut, and that this isn't nearly as great a revelation as it's being made out to be by Dr. Dino. The "Alternberg 16" agree that both natural selection and evolution happen, but the exact mechanism at the genetic level is what's under question.

What? :o Your comment had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. So you're making false statements again. And since you're not open to the existence of God at all, then finding the truth is the last thing you want to do. Truth seekers are open to all sides of an issue. And your mind is closed and bolted shut to the existence of God.

As I've said many times, when scientists agree with God, they're always right. When they disagree with God, they're always wrong. And since apes do not breed human descendants in reality, then I look at reality to see the truth, not to what scientists say. If you did the same, you also would see why this theory is absurd. But you don't. You automatically believe anything scientists say, because you think they're as infallible as gods. So you try to defend them even when you have to contradict yourself and reality to do it. People who do that look as foolish as scientists do when they try to defy God and play God themselves. :roll:

 

[Dunzo]

Uh, yes it did, and you just confirmed it. Don't you see the irony here? You accept science when it agrees with the Bible and reject it when it doesn't. Religious bias, much? Don't you see the fallacy? How about taking a totally objective view on the matter and assess the truth value upon that?

And I'm totally open to the concept of a god, as soon as he (she, it, etc) shows himself to me I'm perfectly open to accepting him. So far, that hasn't happened, despite my brief stint in Christianity as a youngen. I suspect it's because I wasn't raised in a religious household...

 

[Heidi]

Uh, yes it did, and you just confirmed it. Don't you see the irony here? You accept science when it agrees with the Bible and reject it when it doesn't. Religious bias, much? Don't you see the fallacy? How about taking a totally objective view on the matter and assess the truth value upon that?

And I'm totally open to the concept of a god, as soon as he (she, it, etc) shows himself to me I'm perfectly open to accepting him. So far, that hasn't happened, despite my brief stint in Christianity as a youngen. I suspect it's because I wasn't raised in a religious household...

Sorry, it's not bias because God can't be wrong or he wouldn't be God. There is such a thing is logic, Dunzo, which you apparently haven't grasped yet. So no, I don't agree with theories that are illogical and contradict reality. if you want to call that bias, you're free to do so. I call it rational.

 

[Dunzo]

Sorry, it's not bias because God can't be wrong or he wouldn't be God.

I don't see the relevance, but that pretty much sums it up then, doesn't it? Do you believe the Earth is flat?

There is such a thing is logic, Dunzo, which you apparently haven't grasped yet.

Right back at ya, sugar.

And I'm just curious, how old are you?

 

[Orion]

Heidi said, "So no, I don't agree with theories that are illogical and contradict reality".

Heidi, . . . . . do YOU personally agree with the "Water Canopy" theory as proposed by Kent Hovind?

 

[John]

I will address the "world is flat" in other thread.

 

[Jayls5]

There is such a thing is logic, Dunzo, which you apparently haven't grasped yet. So no, I don't agree with theories that are illogical and contradict reality. if you want to call that bias, you're free to do so. I call it rational.

AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!


:BREATHE:


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!


You used the same strawman in this thread that we've been telling you about since the start.

 

[Heidi]

There is such a thing is logic, Dunzo, which you apparently haven't grasped yet. So no, I don't agree with theories that are illogical and contradict reality. if you want to call that bias, you're free to do so. I call it rational.

AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!


:BREATHE:


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!


You used the same strawman in this thread that we've been telling you about since the start.

I'll use your debating tactics:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. : : . According to you, that proves me right. ;-)

 

[Jayls5]

There is such a thing is logic, Dunzo, which you apparently haven't grasped yet. So no, I don't agree with theories that are illogical and contradict reality. if you want to call that bias, you're free to do so. I call it rational.

AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!


:BREATHE:


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!


You used the same strawman in this thread that we've been telling you about since the start.

I'll use your debating tactics:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. : : . According to you, that proves me right. ;-)

According to me? Another strawman! Can I have another? I just can't seem to get enough from you.

 

[Heidi]

You used the same strawman in this thread that we've been telling you about since the start.[/quote]

I'll use your debating tactics:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. : : . According to you, that proves me right. ;-)[/quote]

According to me? Another strawman! Can I have another? I just can't seem to get enough from you.[/quote]

So if you don't think my post proves me right, the neither can your post prove you right and it's meaningless. So unless you can make true statements, you undermine your own credibility, which you have just done. Sorry. ;-)

 

[freeway]

Heidi said:

And since you're not open to the existence of God at all, then finding the truth is the last thing you want to do. Truth seekers are open to all sides of an issue. And your mind is closed and bolted shut to the existence of God.

Heidi that statement is 100% true,

If all you have is science and it is your sole salvation, hope for the future, then I would myself not be open to anything that counter dicks what I feel is the way to perceive the world and how we can to be. But if you start to put God into the equation well then that changes everything. Now I love science love what it has given us "good stuff" and some very bad stuff which someday could end the human race if left unchecked, but also I hate that some scientist are so closed minded that anything outside of what they where trained, weather by self or someone else, that they can not consider that just maybe there could be something else involved here.... God.. after all we only know what? 1% of the universe, maybe just maybe.. God is there...

 

[Heidi]

Heidi said:

And since you're not open to the existence of God at all, then finding the truth is the last thing you want to do. Truth seekers are open to all sides of an issue. And your mind is closed and bolted shut to the existence of God.

Heidi that statement is 100% true,

If all you have is science and it is your sole salvation, hope for the future, then I would myself not be open to anything that counter dicks what I feel is the way to perceive the world and how we can to be. But if you start to put God into the equation well then that changes everything. Now I love science love what it has given us "good stuff" and some very bad stuff which someday could end the human race if left unchecked, but also I hate that some scientist are so closed minded that anything outside of what they where trained, weather by self or someone else, that they can not consider that just maybe there could be something else involved here.... God.. after all we only know what? 1% of the universe, maybe just maybe.. God is there...

Again, when scientists agree with God they are always right. When they disagree with God, they are always wrong. It's that simple.

 

[Jayls5]

So if you don't think my post proves me right, the neither can your post prove you right and it's meaningless. So unless you can make true statements, you undermine your own credibility, which you have just done. Sorry. ;-)

lol WHAT?

 

[Jayls5]

Again, when scientists agree with God they are always right. When they disagree with God, they are always wrong. It's that simple.

I'm glad you can take such complex issues and turn it into black and white laughable comments.

 

[Heidi]

Again, when scientists agree with God they are always right. When they disagree with God, they are always wrong. It's that simple.

I'm glad you can take such complex issues and turn it into black and white laughable comments.

You'll simply have to find out when you die that you don't know better than God does, friend. But we've warned you so we've done our part.

 

[Orion]

What evidences of science do you find that agree with God? I'm interested in the evidences you have that does.