The gum disease industry is worth millions of dollars, with a huge

Why can’t we just have honest science that reports the facts. Evolution is a world view/belief system/faith that interprets information. And no matter how many times the data conflicts with their beliefs, they can’t let go of evolution and insist on fitting the data in to their belief system. What don’t you see about that (and please don’t judge that site on the most recent post or two… again, I’ve asked you to reread my other comments on the site from earlier… they constantly review and quote with full context what leading “scientists” published in all the leading publications).

There isn’t “a science” to replace evolution with, because evolution isn’t science. It’s a belief system that is constantly in contradiction with findings, but because it is religious dogma, scientist insist on inserting the E word in even when they see no signs of it. And that’s not my creationists talk saying that they “see no signs of it”, I’m talking about the reality of when they discover something that turns long held beliefs on their head and without any evidence of any type of evolution, they still somehow have to include evolution in their reporting. Why? Why must they do this? Does it further science in any way? Or is it because they hold so fast to their religion they are unaware of how ridiculous and nonscientific it is?

I gave you guys the Mars example earlier, but if you need some Earth based ones and you’re just being to lazy or blinded to see this yourself, I can provide a few examples… it happens pretty much daily.

So again, your problem ere is that you think I’m trying to replace evolution with something… where did I ever say that? Evolution isn’t science, and saying that things evolved doesn’t further science. Infact it holds science back to hold certain beliefs that are required for the story to continue on, and not study things with an open mind. Who does it benefit to go in to a science class and say “we just found this 100 million year old rodent fossil”. Did just presenting the facts, “we found this rodent fossil” leave out anything important to someone’s knowledge? Only if you feel it is necessary to push an old Earth worldview on someone… Is this making any sense to you?

Again, not about replacing evolution with anything…. The fact that you even say it like that is annoying. Why is it “evolution or something else”… How about just SCIENCE. Just the facts. Testable and observable facts.

Again, if you need examples I can provide them for you regarding ages of species or rock formations, etc. being totally different than long held (and taught) beliefs. Your side would say “they just relied on the best information available”… Really? How about they just stay away from guessing at the ages of things and just present facts?

Your last paragraph is ridiculous and totally off point.

Darwin believed in God, many people that study evolution believe in a god, and no one in the evolutionary community, with the exception of the ultra rabid has ever said there wasn’t.

As for religiong being science, where did I ever claim that to be the case? It’s not. However what you’ve been told about Creationism is simply incorrect. You may think you’re informed about it, so I won’t insult you by telling you that you’re clearly not because you’ve just repeated the same old broken record line.

But the point is, religion isn’t science and I never claimed it was. However neither is Evolution. Evolution/Darwinism are extremely religious and faith based belief systems. Again, I can’t force you to believe it, but I strongly suggest checking out the site I linked above. It’s clear what side they come down on, but all you have to do is read it to realize that the vast majority of what they post is in context excerpts and write-ups of scientific findings by the Darwinists themselves:

http://creationsafaris.com/crevnews.htm

I won’t bother rewriting everything I’ve written already… if you’re truly interested in who deals with observable testable facts of science and who uses faith to fit contradictory findings in to their worldview, take a look. It is literally a daily occurance that discoveries fly in the face of “evolution” yet because evolution is assumed, the blind Darwin faithful press through and instead of reporting JUST THE FACTS they bring evolution in to an argument where there is no basis for it.

How can I make it any clearer…. I’ll just past a paragraph from an earlier comment:

“Can you seriously call that science? When a discovery about a particular organism shows that it didn’t “evolveâ€Â? at all the way scientists previous thought and taught it did, do you think it’s fair for them to say “well it must have evolved differentlyâ€Â?, even though nothing in the finding showed that it evolved at all… just showed that certain systems prove it wasn’t possible for it to evolve the way they though, leaving them at square one for it’s origins. Is it fair, is it “scienceâ€Â? to teach that it “evolved differentlyâ€Â? even though no information had been learned about it’s evolution, but evolution is simply assumed?”

When a discovery ONLY proves that something didn’t evolve the way the “scientists” previous thought, but doesn’t show anything else about “evolution”, why should that be brought in to the argument at all? How about just reporting the amazing and astounding design features discovered. That’s the best, when the evolutionists talk about the uniquely designed features of something, and then without anything discovered implying evolution AT ALL, they start throwing the “E Word” around to take guesses at how it came to be. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE! Do you get this? I know it’s tough to hear this because we’re constantly told that these people are the “scientists” but you simply cannot maintain a position that they are doing honest real science by bringing up Darwin in places he wasn’t found. Are you getting this?

Far be it from me to get in the middle of this but here is my “dilemma.” Evolution is a science. While creationism/ID/the purple breasted snot monster all make the same assumption that in the end if it can’t be explained “god did it.”

You could be right Randy and god could have done it, but if there is a way to scientifically prove god, then that denies faith, and why would god wanna deny faith? There is nothing wrong with religion and you are no dumber for believing in it, then i am for not believing in it.

My problem simply put is this, religion is not scientific, scientists call evolution a theory, not a fact, and if some day we prove that it was wrong then, well that is science, that is the definition of science. Religion can not be scientific can not be approached scientifically, because you can test the assumption that god did it, how would you?

So please I will concede any day of the week that you were right, PEER lied, if you concede that religion is no more a science then Scientology is a religion.

thanks
Tomato

“psuedo scientific theories that are counter to more scientifically sound theories.”

Says you. As I have explained, and I could literally provide thousands of examples for, it is the evolutionist side who’s in the psuedo science game. They don’t base their theory on observation and research, they do research based on their theory, discover that it doesn’t match their theory, and instead of just reporting facts, they spin them around to make them fit in their theory in such unbelievable ways that they should be embarassed. You can choose not to except this, but it happens all the time.

I’ll even give you the latest example of Darwinian Dogma…. I’m sure by now you’ve heard the new idea that reports that we probably killed life on Mars in the 70s because we didn’t know what we were looking for. It’s been a headline news story today, even on that evil right-wing Fox News…. here’s the gist

http://english.people.com.cn/200701/10/eng20070110_339876.html

Is that science to you? Probably. But in reality? It’s a crock. There is no evidence that there was life there, yet this is a highly popular story leaving the casual news consumer with the impression that this scenario is very likely true… but again, NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. This is a theory based on ASSUMED EVOLUTION. Assuming evolution, IS NOT SCIENCE. Studying and testing observable things is science. The “science” community is so desperate to prove life exists elswhere that they pump out their latest theory of where and why it exists every few months.. but it’s never based in reality… “We see something that may indicate liquid… which means water which means life!” Even though in reality, even if evolution were true, simply having water does not life make… that is an extreme stretch.

But back to this new “we probably crushed life” crap…. again, read the article, but this is based on the assumption life evolved… and then based on their own completely made up theory of how it would have evolved on another planet…. I just can’t even put in to words how ridiculous this article is. I mean, if this were discussed as a possible idea of how life could have come about in some back room when considering areas to study in the future, okay that’s one thing… but to put this out as a possible and likely idea for the media to trot out all day long is utterly ridiculous and NOT SCIENCE. Nothing about this is science, NOTHING.

I do find it funny how one professor acknowledged what I said earlier about all of these people: “you only find what you’re looking for,”. This has constantly dragged Darwinists down with the constant discoveries knocking down their ridiculous story… but they didn’t consider new discoveries before, because it didn’t fit the story they’d already written… now they’re in a constant state of rewrites.

Anyway, my point about that article is that is what passes for mainstream news and science and it’s just par for the course.

I repeat again:

“Your problem is, our side is talking science, your side talks assumptions that are constantly proven wrong. We want to study testable and observable facts, you want to hold science back by forcing it to stay within your belief system.�

Besides the fact that you just called me an idiot, I will approach your point and the point of the article from a different angle, perhaps to shed some light on this subject for you. But, first lets deal with the fact that you essentially tried to idiot slap me in your reply.

OReilly, hands down, has popularized the KoolAid drinking mime with conservatives, you listen to his show at least on occasion (I’m certain of this, I can tell by your pissed off approach to these other posts). Yes, I know about Jonestown, but please don’t stop thinking that I’m an idiot.

Now in terms of the post, yes perhaps those that wrote the article were incorrect in their assertions, but this, I’m sure is no more a conspiracy to discredit religion, as it was for the liberals to take the christ out of christmas mime that was ran within the past few years. However, the point that PEER may be trying to make is that Christian Conservatives are struggling to get in through back doors, and replace proven scientific theory with religous theology twisted into scientific jargon and questionable propositions. This can be seen in a number of different realms, the biggest being trying to replace evolution with intelligent design which completely lacks academic merit. And in terms of this book, it actually tries to supplant agreed upon geologic theories about the canyon with an alternate belief that it was created by an ancient flood, within a condensed time frame. It masks its own theological agenda with psuedo scientific theories that are counter to more scientifically sound theories. But if the only way you can understand the posts here is black and white, you are correct sir, what has been portrayed by PEER is incorrect, and probably evidence of too much Zeal for the Subject by the group that issued it.

I’m not even getting in to what the age of the Grand Canyon is. Not that I agree with the millions of years crap, but that has nothing to do with anything I’ve said. PEER lied. The only truthful thing they mentioned, which was years old news anyway, is that a book exists. They didn’t make clear that to calm the Church of Charlie folks down they put it in the “inspirational” section. They TOTALLY made up this story about guides not being able to tell the old Earth age estimates, etc. etc.

Those things were the subject of this post, me and my side one hands down, and like a classic liberal… you want to divert attention. And by the way, O’Reilly didn’t invent the term “kool-aid” drinker… are you even aware of it’s origins?

At any rate, I’m not going to repeat myself…. see previous comments for elaboration, but here’s the main point again, pasted for your pleasure:

“Your problem is, our side is talking science, your side talks assumptions that are constantly proven wrong. We want to study testable and observable facts, you want to hold science back by forcing it to stay within your belief system.”

it seems that you are blasting a widely accepted scientific theory for what? What are you supposing is a better theory for who things have happened in this world? Creationism? And you seem very quick to throw out the Kool Aid drinking Mime, are we watching too much Bill OReilly. There is much more Geographic Evidence that the Canyon was created over Millions, not Thousands of years. So, if they had a section in the bookstore for Mythology, I’m guessing you would have no objections to placing this book in question in the Mythology section as it has to do with a Religious belief of the creation of the canyon as does the American Indian books at the bookstore.

The PEER group is not really interested in the age of Grand Canyon, they just want to censor freedom of speech in public places and public stores, because it does not agree with their religous beliefs; i.e. the religion of evolutionism. [look up religion on dictionary.com]

Allen

What have we actually learned here? I was right from the beginning, liberals lied about this “story”, and evolutionists continue to make “discoveries” that fly in the face of their theory, but because ToE is their religion, they can’t allow it to collapse, they just refit the contradicting information in the must ridiculous ways that would be embarassing if only people knew. What don’t you get about teaching, and using it as a jumping point, that a certain set of rocks are some of the earliest of the earth, and going on about how they relate to early life, etc. etc. only to “discover” later that they’re much more recent. Why aren’t there highly publicized “corrections” when these sort of things happen every day? You have no problem with them teaching “theory” as fact, even though time and time again modern science proves these theories wrong. Should students get a “refund” on their eduction.

(here’s the part where you say “they teach the best information available at the time)

To which I say “bull!” They teach their story based on their own interpretation of information… only their interpretation was based on their story to begin with! They don’t teach observable and testable facts. There wouldn’t be a problem, because teaching testable and observable scientific facts is…. SCIENCE. Teaching a world view and belief system is not. Evolutionary theory and teaching has never contributed to science, and in fact it’s inhibited it, because “scientists” shy away from studying things they have assumptions about (to fit their story), only to later discover “oh whoops, we didn’t realize XYZ about this organism… it must have “evolved” differntly/more rapidly/convergently”… Even though these discoveries don’t ever offer insite in to how something evolved… they just shatter long held beliefs of how they evolved. Instead of just laying out the facts, the “scientists” INSIST on putting the “E” word in there, even though the studies showed NOTHING about evolution. It is only because evolution is assumed. How is that science? How can you ever prove evolution wrong when evolutionary beliefs are destroyed all the time, and they just rewrite their story?

Can you seriously call that science? When a discovery about a particular organism shows that it didn’t “evolve” at all the way scientists previous thought and taught it did, do you think it’s fair for them to say “well it must have evolved differently”, even though nothing in the finding showed that it evolved at all… just showed that certain systems prove it wasn’t possible for it to evolve the way they though, leaving them at square one for it’s origins. Is it fair, is it “science” to teach that it “evolved differently” even though no information had been learned about it’s evolution, but evolution is simply assumed?

Your problem is, our side is talking science, your side talks assumptions that are constantly proven wrong. We want to study testable and observable facts, you want to hold science back by forcing it to stay within your belief system.

I swear, this has got to be the only planet in the entire universe whose inhabitants allow a three thousand year old fairytale to take precedence over modern science. No wonder no aliens have made any official contact – they’re probably ashamed to be seen with us.

Quick “scientists”, find a new way (you always do) to reorganize your story to make sense of something you believed and taught as part of your story were some of the planet’s earliest rocks, are now revealed to be some of the more recent. Uh-oh!

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200701.htm#20070103a

I’m not worried though. Despite evolutionists’ long held ideas being shattered every day, they always find a way to just make a few edits and the Church of Charlie is once again safe from reality.

Anyone think the “journalists” at the HuffingtonPost that helped spread this word to liberal bloggers will do the right thing and issue a correction? Oh wait, liberals are virtually incapable of honesty… don’t hold your breath.

http://parkrangerx.blogspot.com/2007/01/dont-believe-everything-you-read.html

GRC sells books, not the NPS. GRC is a private, non-profit group. They also sell American Indian books with creation myths. The book in question is in the “inspirational” section. Most of PEER’s claims are wildly unsubstantiated.

http://www.nps.gov/grca/upload/2006winter.pdf

Notice something? It gives the age of the grand canyon, in millions of years.

This PEER article is a bunch of BS and I’m getting tired of sites that I usually respect being taken for a ride, and not doing the resposible thing and investigating it before making accusations.

Take your misplaced condescension elsewhere Dan… NOTHING in that article supports PEER’s assertion (or that of the writer of this post) that guides are no longer allowed to say that the Grand Canyon was created over millions of years or that there is no longer an “official” estimated age. It clearly says that PEER “alleges”, but it doesn’t substantiate.

Oh, and that’s a COLUMN not an ARTICLE. So that really completely invalidates your “MSM” point anyway. An editorial column is no different than a blog.

So again, not a shred of evidence that anything has changed. Just a bunch of Darwinists pissed about a book that is kept in the “inspirational” section at these gift shops, even though its sources are PhD’s, many with their degrees in geology.

You know, I was about to go in to how “estimating” the age of something isn’t science, especially when almost daily findings upset… I’m sorry “surprise” evolutionists, and force them to twist and reorganized their theories (but never losing faith). How about we just do science. How about reporting on the observable, testable facts. Look what they’ve been teaching about comets for a long time…. that was all shattered when they actually got results back from the Stardust mission…. their teaching was based on evolutionary assumptions. The true findings didn’t fit. They’re working on changing up their fairytale now to suit the new findings, but does that mean that it was okay to teach assumptions based on evolutionary dogma all these years was okay and “science”?

No, let’s not get in to all that. Let’s just have some evidence that supports PEER’s claims, or an admission by people posting on it, that there is no sourcing outside of this group which clearly has a special interest and agenda here.

Still waiting.