• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What kind of twisted explicit sexual perversions are schools now teaching?

Lisa said:
Believing the Bible to be true is no more a fact of truth then beliving in Santa and the Easter Bunny.
Do you also believe that our genes are given randomly to each life form?
Click to expand...

I keep insisting nobody has to believe the Bible to know Darwinist assumptions of blood-related connections between humans and plants are insane.
 
marke said:
I keep insisting nobody has to believe the Bible to know Darwinist assumptions of blood-related connections between humans and plants are insane.
Click to expand...

define 'insane'
 
marke said:
Can you cite any example of where or how secularists went about calibrating their dating methods and verifying those methods are not flawed and will always produce accurate results?

Are you aware of the cases where one group of researchers accumulated dating results which conflicted with the results obtained from another group of experts, resulting in the one group simply throwing out all results obtained by the other group?
Click to expand...

Radiometric dating and Calibration from Western Oregon University's Physics Dept.

The "researchers" belonged to the Creation Research, Science Education Foundation (CRSEF) which is a nonprofit, tax exempt corporation founded in Millersburg, Ohio in 1972 “to advance knowledge of the scientific evidences against evolution in schools and among the general public”

CRSEF obtained several fragments of fossilized dinosaur bone from the paleontological collections of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History by disguising the nature of the creationist science group and by misrepresenting the nature of their proposed research. The specimens received were all contaminated by shellac and other contaminants which had been applied to the fossils back in the 1920s. The 'researchers" were informed of the contamination but insisted it would not affect the focus of their research. The samples were then taken to the University of Arizona for radio-carbon dating where the lab was told "Don't worry about the contamination, that's not the focus of our work." The so dates derived from the radio-carbon dating are meaningless numbers which give the age of a mixture of organic crap and preservatives which contaminated the fossils. Naturally, the CRSEF group promoted the data as proving dinosaurs were living at the same time as humans.
 
Last edited:
Logician Man said:
define 'insane'
Click to expand...

Stupidity beyond the normal bounds of rationality. For example, evolutionist claims that DNA proves humans and ragweed share a common blood-related ancestor are insane.
 
Last edited:
marke said:
Stupidity beyond the normal bounds of rationality. For example, claims that DNA proves humans and ragweed share a common blood-related ancestor are insane.
Click to expand...

Now post the dictionary definition of 'insane', and let's see if it is the same definition as you're using, or you are just making things up and not to be taken seriously.
 
marke said:
Stupidity beyond the normal bounds of rationality. For example, evolutionist claims that DNA proves humans and ragweed share a common blood-related ancestor are insane.
Click to expand...

Scientists - NOT "evolutionists" -- claim that DNA shows humans are related to every other living organism on this planet. LUCA, not Lucy, is its name -- Last universal common ancestor
 
Somerville said:
Radiometric dating and Calibration from Western Oregon University's Physics Dept.

The "researchers" belonged to the Creation Research, Science Education Foundation (CRSEF) which is a nonprofit, tax exempt corporation founded in Millersburg, Ohio in 1972 “to advance knowledge of the scientific evidences against evolution in schools and among the general public”

CRSEF obtained several fragments of fossilized dinosaur bone from the paleontological collections of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History by disguising the nature of the creationist science group and by misrepresenting the nature of their proposed research. The specimens received were all contaminated by shellac and other contaminants which had been applied to the fossils back in the 1920s. The 'researchers" were informed of the contamination but insisted it would not affect the focus of their research. The samples were then taken to the University of Arizona for radio-carbon dating where the lab was told "Don't worry about the contamination, that's not the focus of our work." The so dates derived from the radio-carbon dating are meaningless numbers which give the age of a mixture of organic crap and preservatives which contaminated the fossils. Naturally, the CRSEF group promoted the data as proving dinosaurs were living at the same time as humans.
Click to expand...

crooks as expected, more interested in fake news to further their idiotic goal than scientific investigations.
 
Somerville said:
Radiometric dating and Calibration from Western Oregon University's Physics Dept.

The "researchers" belonged to the Creation Research, Science Education Foundation (CRSEF) which is a nonprofit, tax exempt corporation founded in Millersburg, Ohio in 1972 “to advance knowledge of the scientific evidences against evolution in schools and among the general public”

CRSEF obtained several fragments of fossilized dinosaur bone from the paleontological collections of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History by disguising the nature of the creationist science group and by misrepresenting the nature of their proposed research. The specimens received were all contaminated by shellac and other contaminants which had been applied to the fossils back in the 1920s. The 'researchers" were informed of the contamination but insisted it would not affect the focus of their research. The samples were then taken to the University of Arizona for radio-carbon dating where the lab was told "Don't worry about the contamination, that's not the focus of our work." The so dates derived from the radio-carbon dating are meaningless numbers which give the age of a mixture of organic crap and preservatives which contaminated the fossils. Naturally, the CRSEF group promoted the data as proving dinosaurs were living at the same time as humans.
Click to expand...

Your source lays out the commonly accepted secularist narrative underlying radiometric dating techniques. It does not mention any possible solutions to problems with the dating processes.

You mention samples of dinosaur bones sent to a lab in Arizona. This report which made it into the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore does not mention the information you got from somewhere else.

Here is a quote:

Dr. Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany, gave the presentation in Singapore. He said that his team and the laboratories they employed took special care to avoid contamination. That included protecting the samples, avoiding cracked areas in the bones, and meticulously pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals to remove possible contaminants. Knowing that small concentrations of collagen can attract contamination, they compared precision Accellerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) tests of collagen and biopate (hard carbonate bone material) with conventional counting methods of large bone fragments from the same dinosaurs. …

These, together with many other remarkable concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C-14 unlikely.

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

As nearly as I could tell there were at least 4 or maybe 5 different professional labs which did the testing and all results were well below the 50,000 years threshold. Furthermore, after the conference the conference leaders removed the fact of this presentation for reasons unrelated to contamination. They never contested the results. They took down the history on their site because they thought the test results were unacceptable to commonly accepted Darwinist cult doctrine.
 
Last edited:
Somerville said:
Scientists - NOT "evolutionists" -- claim that DNA shows humans are related to every other living organism on this planet. LUCA, not Lucy, is its name -- Last universal common ancestor
Click to expand...

Darwin wrote the first work of evolutionist fiction commonly accepted by his cult followers. But the works of fiction did not stop with Darwin. We now have compost piles of evolutionist claims based upon wild speculations and absurd assumptions. Darwinists should stick with the fact that the preachers and teachers in their fiction science cult have clearly and repeatedly said Darwinists know nothing about how life began on earth. Now some cult members are claiming life began as LUCA and then divided into branches. like plants and animals.
 
marke said:
Darwin wrote the first work of evolutionist fiction commonly accepted by his cult followers. But the works of fiction did not stop with Darwin. We now have compost piles of evolutionist claims based upon wild speculations and absurd assumptions. Darwinists should stick with the fact that the preachers and teachers in their fiction science cult have clearly and repeatedly said Darwinists know nothing about how life began on earth. Now some cult members are claiming life began as LUCA and then divided into branches. like plants and animals.
Click to expand...

Once again, your words reveal your ignorance of history. Academics by the end of the 17th century were beginning to question the tale of creation we find in the first chapters of the Bible, though the power of the Church meant little was published during the lifetimes of the philosopher/naturalists. The French naturalist, Jean Baptiste de Lamarck, wrote in the early 1800s about changes in species. Darwin was not alone in proposing what became known as the Theory of Evolution, Alfred Russell Wallace laid out a very similar idea at the same time as Darwin. We know more about Darwin today owing to societal differences in 19th century England -- Charles Darwin came from a 'better' family than Wallace and had more connections with the academic world of the day.

Every theory begins with "wild speculations" which are formalised into a hypothesis that is then tested by experimentation and data collection to the point where a scientific theory is formulated.

Don't do much reading outside of your religious tracts, one can see by your words posted here. The "preachers and teachers" who work with the Theory of Evolution in their research are not searching for the origin of life, that is a different field of science. The scientific term for origin of life is abiogenesis, the process by which living organisms came from inorganic or inanimate substances.

Unlike creationists, those who actually do research, commonly called scientists, accept that they don't know for sure the exact process by which life originated. That is why, at this time, there are multiple hypotheses that are being tested.
Researchers study abiogenesis through a combination of molecular biology, paleontology, astrobiology, oceanography, biophysics, geochemistry and biochemistry, and aim to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life.[12] The study of abiogenesis can be geophysical, chemical, or biological,[13] with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of all three,[14] as life arose under conditions that are strikingly different from those on Earth today. Life functions through the specialized chemistry of carbon and water and builds largely upon four key families of chemicals: lipids (fatty cell walls), carbohydrates (sugars, cellulose), amino acids (protein metabolism), and nucleic acids (self-replicating DNA and RNA). Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions of these classes of molecules [15]

12: Voet, Donald; Voet, Judith G. (2004). Biochemistry. 1 (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-19350-0. LCCN 2003269978.
13: Dyson, Freeman (1999). Origins of Life (Revised ed.). Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-62668-2. LCCN 99021079.
14: Davies, Paul (1998). The Fifth Miracle, Search for the origin and meaning of life. Simon and Schuster, ISBN 978-0-684-863092
15: Ward, Peter; Kirschvink, Joe (2015). A New History of Life: the radical discoveries about the origins and evolution of life on earth. Bloomsbury Press. pp. 39–40. ISBN 978-1608199105.
Click to expand...
 
Somerville said:
Radiometric dating and Calibration from Western Oregon University's Physics Dept.

The "researchers" belonged to the Creation Research, Science Education Foundation (CRSEF) which is a nonprofit, tax-exempt corporation founded in Millersburg, Ohio in 1972 “to advance knowledge of the scientific evidence against evolution in schools and among the general public”
Click to expand...
Im surprised that they had electricity in 1972 in Millersburg.

I grew up not far from Millersburg I had no idea that there were idiotic creationists there. I thought it was just a bunch of backward Amish and Mennonites, plus the occasional meth smoking redneck. Holmes country would return to the 16th century if it were physically possible. It's very pretty down there but doesn't talk to the locals or you will be very disappointed.
 
marke said:
Darwin wrote the first work of evolutionist fiction commonly accepted by his cult followers. But the works of fiction did not stop with Darwin. We now have compost piles of evolutionist claims based upon wild speculations and absurd assumptions. Darwinists should stick with the fact that the preachers and teachers in their fiction science cult have clearly and repeatedly said Darwinists know nothing about how life began on earth. Now some cult members are claiming life began as LUCA and then divided into branches. like plants and animals.
Click to expand...

Well, evolution has been pretty much completely proved, so it is not up to us to prove it is applied and correct science, you claim it is fiction and I say, prove it with scientific evidence.
 
marke said:
Darwin wrote the first work of evolutionist fiction commonly accepted by his cult followers. But the works of fiction did not stop with Darwin. We now have compost piles of evolutionist claims based upon wild speculations and absurd assumptions. Darwinists should stick with the fact that the preachers and teachers in their fiction science cult have clearly and repeatedly said Darwinists know nothing about how life began on earth. Now some cult members are claiming life began as LUCA and then divided into branches. like plants and animals.
Click to expand...
High marks for patience and persistence, brother, and for disclosing the futility of discussion with science cultists, for in point of fact you would have a more fruitful conversation with chimpanzees than with the indoctrinated denizens of Darwinism.
 
Angel said:
High marks for patience and persistence, brother, and for disclosing the futility of discussion with science cultists, for in point of fact you would have a more fruitful conversation with chimpanzees than with the indoctrinated denizens of Darwinism.
Click to expand...

Sure, we are the cultists :lamo

The futility is only in the fact that some people ignore reality to claim religious doctrines that have nothing to do with science. Like denying evolution.
 
Peter King said:
Well, evolution has been pretty much completely proved, so it is not up to us to prove it is applied and correct science, you claim it is fiction and I say, prove it with scientific evidence.
Click to expand...

Darwinists expose the source of their foolishness by claiming DNA proves they share a common ancestor with loco weed.
 
Somerville said:
Once again, your words reveal your ignorance of history. Academics by the end of the 17th century were beginning to question the tale of creation we find in the first chapters of the Bible, though the power of the Church meant little was published during the lifetimes of the philosopher/naturalists. The French naturalist, Jean Baptiste de Lamarck, wrote in the early 1800s about changes in species. Darwin was not alone in proposing what became known as the Theory of Evolution, Alfred Russell Wallace laid out a very similar idea at the same time as Darwin. We know more about Darwin today owing to societal differences in 19th century England -- Charles Darwin came from a 'better' family than Wallace and had more connections with the academic world of the day.

Every theory begins with "wild speculations" which are formalised into a hypothesis that is then tested by experimentation and data collection to the point where a scientific theory is formulated.

Don't do much reading outside of your religious tracts, one can see by your words posted here. The "preachers and teachers" who work with the Theory of Evolution in their research are not searching for the origin of life, that is a different field of science. The scientific term for origin of life is abiogenesis, the process by which living organisms came from inorganic or inanimate substances.

Unlike creationists, those who actually do research, commonly called scientists, accept that they don't know for sure the exact process by which life originated. That is why, at this time, there are multiple hypotheses that are being tested.
Click to expand...

Darwinists don't know how life started by they think they know where it went immediately after it did start. They know no such thing. They just think they do, the poor devils.
 
marke said:
Darwinists don't know how life started by they think they know where it went immediately after it did start. They know no such thing. They just think they do, the poor devils.
Click to expand...

Don't get mad because you keep asking for something that doesn't exist. "How does evolution explain the origin of life, checkmate liberals?" The answer is that it doesn't, and makes no attempts to do so. Picture someone asking "how does gravity explain how my computer works?" You'd think that is a silly question, wouldn't you?

That's how you sound when you demand evolution explain the origin of life.
 
Angel said:
High marks for patience and persistence, brother, and for disclosing the futility of discussion with science cultists, for in point of fact you would have a more fruitful conversation with chimpanzees than with the indoctrinated denizens of Darwinism.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem. Rejected. Without evidence to present, you're just howling in the dark. Nobody cares.
 
Teens are having sex, that's just reality. Sexual education classes aren't a problem for me, but showing kids how the bit about anal sex is over the line of what should be taught.
 
marke said:
Darwinists expose the source of their foolishness by claiming DNA proves they share a common ancestor with loco weed.
Click to expand...

And you are illogical enough to think our commons plants and our current human form are impossible to be from the same far far far far far far far far ancestor. All DNA, both plant as animal DNA has the same structure (the double helix) and are all built up of nucleotides. So it is very much possible that far far ago we were descendant from one and the same organism. Now if plants would have had a totally different make up at the core of their DNA you might have been right but as is often the case, you are wrong. It is not foolish to claim that DNA may be another piece of evidence that all life comes from the same one cell plant/animal/amoeba.
 
Peter King said:
Sure, we are the cultists :lamo

The futility is only in the fact that some people ignore reality to claim religious doctrines that have nothing to do with science. Like denying evolution.
Click to expand...
Yet in our current exchanges on primatology and evolutionary biology in the Duggars thread you would reject science. Playing both ends against the middle, Mr King? Tsk, tsk.
 
Angel said:
Yet in our current exchanges on primatology and evolutionary biology in the Duggars thread you would reject science. Playing both ends against the middle, Mr King? Tsk, tsk.
Click to expand...

More nonsense I see, I do not reject science, I reject your claims that you have any science to back up your claims. The primatology studies of de Waal are fine, but they fail to do what you claimed they are doing, which is proving your insane idea that morality is objective. That is what we disagree about. De Waal's science for primates is fine, your claim that it proves the same is valid for human society is what is rejected.
 
Angel said:
"Listen to them — children of the night. What music they make."
― Bram Stoker / Count Dracula
Bram Stoker - Wikiquote​
Click to expand...

Nice, another meaningless response. You might as well have posted lines from bark at the moon or blackened, it would have the same value for the continuation of the discussion (which is none).
 
Angel said:
Yet in our current exchanges on primatology and evolutionary biology in the Duggars thread you would reject science. Playing both ends against the middle, Mr King? Tsk, tsk.
Click to expand...
Peter King said:
More nonsense I see, I do not reject science, I reject your claims that you have any science to back up your claims. The primatology studies of de Waal are fine, but they fail to do what you claimed they are doing, which is proving your insane idea that morality is objective. That is what we disagree about. De Waal's science for primates is fine, your claim that it proves the same is valid for human society is what is rejected.
Click to expand...
So you did not reject science in our exchanges in the Duggars thread? Is that so?
Well, here are some of your posts from those exchanges, in which you reject primatology and evolutionary biology, with my bolding to highlight your present mendacity:
Peter King said:
The problem I have with the Waal is that he is extrapolating ethics among primates to those of humans. That is a practice that IMHO only gets inaccurate results. While it is nice to know about the evolution of morality, but what happens in bonobo society is not comparable to the morality among humans.We have a much more complex reaction process and we do not solve our problems like the bonobo's do. We don't copulate our problems away. Sex is their problem solving procedure. And if you solving skills end is sex, well than no problem is ever too great. It does not have the complex societal structures that we do. Another difference with humans is that bonobo's are a matriarchy and not a patriarchy as us humans mostly have. The same with his study among chimps. Chimps do solve their problems in many the same ways as humans do. And while they also have a patriarchy structure as we humans mostly have, a lot of problems among chimps get solved with varying degrees of violence. Which also does not work that well among humans.Don't get me wrong, de Waal is an interesting guy but he studied biology and is dabbling in ethics mostly based on his primate study knowledge, rather than other professors in that field who have a great education purely based on actual people studies and the results thereof.
Also, his views are just his opinion IMHO, not some kind of gospel over which no discussion or disagreement is possible. Ted talks are meant to advance discussion and not meant to quash other opinions/specialists in a field.
Click to expand...
Peter King said:
...it is not the rest of us who is dragging this forum to the level of belief and skepticism it is because you are wrongly trying to elevating this discussion into something that does not belong here. If you want to have a purely scientific discussion go and start a thread about that in the Academia/Science and technology section. If not stop trying to be the thread master to further/force this into creating a pseudo scientific discussing...
Click to expand...
Peter King said:
...it is not science, it opinion....
Click to expand...
Peter King said:
No, it is not science purely because you say so. Your arguments do not hold water and that is the simple reality of the matter.
Click to expand...
Peter King said:
And you are not able to understand that what you call science I do not call science. It is pseudo psychological mambo jambo which you have not proved or made even believable.
Click to expand...
Peter King said:
... We are a more evolved animal than those which de Waal studies.... And as stated, some degree of comparison may be found between some primates and human beings, but this does not mean that we can gather definitive conclusions about human morality and the subjective nature of the workings of a human mind and it's morality from studying animals ...
Where some human like behavior might be similar to that of primates, we are way too complex as a creature to glean more than a rudimentary understanding of our own morality by studying chimps/bonobo's.
Click to expand...
Peter King said:
You don't have evidence of philosophy to even prove your assertion. What de Waal does is study primates, bonobo's and chimps. It does not extrapolate to human morality or human ethics or human philosophy. Your entire premise was incorrect because you relied on chimp studies and not human studies. You cannot substitute human studies with primate studies because we as humans are far more complex, evolved and capable of many things that apes are not.
Non-Human primates might be wily when it suits their purposes and can learn some behaviors, they do not have the mental capacity that we do. To look at primate morality (or what we think is primate morality) and take their observations to humans is bogus. You have no case here and you keep acting like you do. And as said, you don't.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom