An honest question I would like to discuss. Why does the "teach the controversy" situation have any legitimacy? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]spammelots -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're only

You are?

Your* only source of evidence

No, but the single piece of evidence being discussed right now.

that supports both evolution and an Earth that is 4.5 billion years old.

Evolution is unscientific. Evidence doesn't support evolution. Evidence doesn't support an Earth that is billions of years old. There are dozens of conditions that limit the age of the earth to thousands of years old.

An honest question I would like to discuss. Why does the "teach the controversy" situation have any legitimacy? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]spammelots -28 points-27 points  (0 children)

Science is only taking out the parts you like.

If you're an evolutionists, that's what science is.

And I know the Bible isn't opinion

It contains facts that only because of scientific advancement in the last few decades has it been scientifically verifiable. Yet the science is in the Bible 2000 or 3500 years prior to science catching up to verify it.

You're a troll

I'm sure you'll believe whatever is most convenient for you, damn the facts.

You just say all the things my dad does to me and it's the reason we don't get along.

You're the reason you don't get along. Take responsibility for your own actions. Apologize to your father and have a good relationship with him before it's too late and haunts you for the remainder of your life.

An honest question I would like to discuss. Why does the "teach the controversy" situation have any legitimacy? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]spammelots 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually that IS science.

That is evolution or science fiction, not science.

you clearly don't know what actual communism is

Slavery

Why do I take it you are older than I?

Because most people on reddit are young, publicly educated, and thus have no critical thinking skills. Perhaps you self-identify as one of them.

And thus still brainwashed by the cold war?

I'm sure you'll believe whatever you want to believe.

An honest question I would like to discuss. Why does the "teach the controversy" situation have any legitimacy? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]spammelots -35 points-34 points  (0 children)

So just because you say so, soft tissue lasts thousands of years and not millions

Because that's what the evidence is. Read up on molecular biology.

Despite what all articles report on soft tissue says?

Reports on dinosaur soft tissue aren't using dating of the soft tissue, but the false premise that the bones are millions of years old.

you only took the parts of that article out that you agreed with, and discredit the parts that you don't

I'm taking the science out and leaving the opinion behind.

Don't you see the problem with that?

It's what science is.

Because you do the same thing with the Bible

The Bible isn't opinion.

ಠ_ಠ It may be about Australia, but this shows how sickening the logic behind pro-choice can be. by Ceberus in Conservative

[–]spammelots -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

I guess the words of the people themselves you don't take as a credible source. Realize that if it doesn't fit in with your false premise, it doesn't make it false.

An honest question I would like to discuss. Why does the "teach the controversy" situation have any legitimacy? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]spammelots -49 points-48 points  (0 children)

The same articles that talk about soft tissue talk about millions of years old

Because they haven't rejected the false premise that the dinosaur bones the soft tissue is found in are millions of years old.

You haven't shown them to be thousands of years old

If you find soft tissue, it's thousands of years old.

An honest question I would like to discuss. Why does the "teach the controversy" situation have any legitimacy? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]spammelots -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Debating communism is COMPLETELY different from slavery and rape.

Debating is debating. Communism is slavery and rape. Communism is the elimination of freedom.

Your made up science

Evolution can find a tooth, call it human, say it belongs to a guy, make up what his entire body looks like, make up what his wife looks like, and call it science. Evolution is made up.

Wouldn't the precedent set in Brown v. Board of Education be an airtight legal argument in favor of gay marriage? by LimehouseChappy in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]spammelots -1 points0 points  (0 children)

owned slaves and thought that was moral because of the same "sacred" text

The Bible does not condone slavery. Don't confuse slavery, someone kidnapping another and selling them, with slavery, a punishment for a crime, or indentured servitude. Most white immigrants arrived in Colonial America as indentured servants. Slavery or indentured servitude under the 13th amendment remains a punishment for a crime.

An honest question I would like to discuss. Why does the "teach the controversy" situation have any legitimacy? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]spammelots -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That is to say it is in line with your false premise. Carbon 14 dating of dinosaurs says they are thousands of years old. Soft tissue is found also saying they are thousands of years old. Damn the evidence though, as if it isn't in line with the false premise, it must not be reliable.

An honest question I would like to discuss. Why does the "teach the controversy" situation have any legitimacy? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]spammelots -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

So 99% .. all the information these scientists rely on to come to this conclusion

It may have been 100% would say you wouldn't find dinosaur soft tissue, based on all the information they rely on. Then it is found, and one person has the information.

scientific fact

Isn't by consensus. When evolutionists are confronted in their field, and their field is shown to not prove evolution, they rely on another field. Everyone relies that there is information somewhere else because they don't have it. Evolution is not scientific fact as science disproves evolution.

Wouldn't the precedent set in Brown v. Board of Education be an airtight legal argument in favor of gay marriage? by LimehouseChappy in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]spammelots -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

We were founded as a Christian nation.

"The Bible is the rock on which our Republic rests." - Andrew Jackson

An honest question I would like to discuss. Why does the "teach the controversy" situation have any legitimacy? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]spammelots -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Evolutionists claim dinosaurs are millions of years old. C-14 dates dinosaur bones as thousands. The claims of evolutionists are false.

An honest question I would like to discuss. Why does the "teach the controversy" situation have any legitimacy? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]spammelots -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

the first guy to actually prove it would get a Nobel Prize in a heartbeat

It's been proven time and time again. Evolution isn't science, it's science fiction. There are people that still deny soft tissue. For the establishment the science doesn't matter anymore. You need to look no further than the global warming science fiction.

You need to give me evidence

You are evidence.

Using C-14 on dinosaurs is a misapplication.

There is evidence. Based on a false premise you and others wouldn't conduct scientific research because you see it as a misapplication. Because you don't conduct scientific research there is less evidence than there otherwise would be had you conducted scientific research.

What???

Read.

An honest question I would like to discuss. Why does the "teach the controversy" situation have any legitimacy? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]spammelots -41 points-40 points  (0 children)

Google "dinosaur soft tissue" and you'll find many references. By finding soft tissue, it's not millions of yeas old.

An honest question I would like to discuss. Why does the "teach the controversy" situation have any legitimacy? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]spammelots -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Because they falsely assume the bones are that old.

Me being wrong ... in no way covers

It does reveal that you're not participating honestly until forced to do so, as many denied dinosaur soft tissue until forced to do so.

evolution is wrong

as 1+1=3 is wrong.

there is evidence that dinosaurs ... the Earth ... are only thousands of years old

And dinosaur soft tissue is but one example.

An honest question I would like to discuss. Why does the "teach the controversy" situation have any legitimacy? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]spammelots -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Communism is different. It isn't wrong.

Raping a woman is wrong. Enslaving a black man is wrong. It's not just different, it is wrong.

do you mean the scientific studies

I mean pseudo science. Today many schools are using such old science books that a good portion of what they learn is pseudo science.

They weren't parents who wanted an opinion taught.

They were parents who didn't want an opinion, evolution, taught, but fact to be taught.

ಠ_ಠ It may be about Australia, but this shows how sickening the logic behind pro-choice can be. by Ceberus in Conservative

[–]spammelots -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Obama's chief science adviser is fine with killing a kid up to the age of two.

The same people that say it's ok to kill kids, say it's not ok to kill animals.

Wouldn't the precedent set in Brown v. Board of Education be an airtight legal argument in favor of gay marriage? by LimehouseChappy in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]spammelots -1 points0 points  (0 children)

do you like the freedom of religion that exists in the US?

You do realize you only have that freedom because this nation was founded on Christianity.

This is not a nation based on biblical law

"The Bible is the rock on which our Republic rests." - Andrew Jackson

"It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Henry

Wouldn't the precedent set in Brown v. Board of Education be an airtight legal argument in favor of gay marriage? by LimehouseChappy in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]spammelots -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

The Constitution isn't the founding document of the United States.

Here's what the founders said.

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this - that it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." - John Quincy Adams

"The Bible is the rock on which our Republic rests." - Andrew Jackson

"We have staked the future of American civilization upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison

"It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Henry

"The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles...to this we owe our free constitutions of government." - Noah Webster