Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (115812)	9/18/2008 2:33:10 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 132070

not sure how i missed this debate. ;-) i believe in creationism, but i readily admit the concept is not scientific and shouldn't be taught as science. the idea isn't what we call science. i also readily admit that i do not believe i know exactly what processes were used in said creation. having said that, i think the religious zeal of the macro-evolutionary crowd has blinded them to a large degree in that they don't want anyone discussing some serious issues with their various evolutionary conclusions. a couple tid bits that i think ought to be openly discussed in science class... 1. macro-evolutionary theory has whales evolving from a terrestrial creature. well, a terrestrial ear is fundamentally different than an aquatic ear... and a hybrid ear is a deficiency on land and in water. not to mention such a hybrid ear has never been observed in the fossil record. am i really to believe that random chance created a temporary disadvantage hybrid terrestrial/aquatic ear on a land creature in anticipation of eventually moving into the water? really? really? 2. the issue of transitional creatures in the fossil record is a red herring. if macro-evolution were true, there should be millions, if not billions, of transitional creatures still alive today. no animal alive today has the same "survivability index" in a given environment, yet they have all survived/evolved anyway. the idea a small population evolves out of a large population and then the large population goes extinct 100% of the time (many millions for many millions of times) is statistically absurd. 3. and then there is that darn law (not theory) of biogenesis. nobody wants to seriously discuss that problem and, no, a fanciful "primordial soup" is not evidence of anything other than a vivid imagination and blind faith. 4. here's an interesting view of a bird "big bang" theory from an evolutionist that believes the evidence for current bird evolutionary thought is not grounded in the evidence. i'll bet the evolutionary zealots won't let something like this into their science class when it clearly belongs there. "The more you dig into the facts," he says, "the more the goblins start to creep out." research.unc.edu science should be all about digging into facts but, unfortunately, this doesn't happen when it comes to macro-evolution. other agendas trump the scientific method. as an aside, albert einstein died certain physical creation was eternal. the author of genesis 1 made it clear that this was not the case. science eventually proved the author of genesis 1 correct and albert einstein wrong. this doesn't prove anything, of course, but it is interesting, nonetheless.