Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...okay, I will. With utmost respect Sans...you're acting like an idiot for subscribing to Darwinian Evolution. Besides, if all you are is a twig on Darwins tree, I fail to see how you can have an opinion about intelligence.
Utmost respect??? Such irony!...I subscribe to nothing, but accept reality and the facts, unlike those that believe idiotic myths and magic are reality....By the way you occupy the very same twig as I do, even though you work hard to deny it.
Love the debate. Same old false claims, same old quibbles about 'nobody has observed evolution...
Yes, this is all creationists have got. Things along the lines of "We've never seen a frog evolve into a bat, therefore evolution is false!" or "Humans didn't evolve from apes--that's ridiculous!" (even though this is not a part of evolutionary theory.)
They will twist and be as disingenuous and dishonest as possible making such false claims as evolution has never been observed, etc. without even deigning to understand what they are trying to argue against. Yet they make every effort to mold whatever they observe to fit with some ancient mythology to which they must adhere because their faith is too rigid and weak to withstand reality.
There is no reason why any logical, reasonable person could not believe in both a creator and evolution (which we know actually happens.) It is only the shallow fundamentalists and literalists who must cling to ancient myths as somehow being valid, historical fact. And this, of course, is nonsense.
We should remember: there is no such thing as creation science.
And we should also be mindful of the fact that those proposng the teaching of creationist nonsense in public schools are not pushing simply for the idea that "the universe may have been created"--no, their agenda is clearly to push the specific Judeo-Christian creation myths as somehow being a competing "theory" to evolution (which is, again, utter nonsense.)
Imagine how out of sorts these people would be if someone were to insist that Hindu, or Teutonic, or Greco-Roman or Hopi Indian creation myths were taught as "fact" in public schools! This is how you know creationists are hypocrites with an agenda.
Again, there is simply no science whatsoever behind creationism. Science must proceed from the observable. Gods are not observable. There is no point from which to argue that the universe was "created" by a "creator" as there is no evidence whatsoever OF a creator or creators. Evolutionary theory proceeds from the simple observation of life--biological organisms on this planet that we already know exist or have existed in the past.
Whether or not we actually were created by a creator or creators is more than any human knows. But given the 100% lack of evidence for such, there is no reason to default to a belief in creation.
However, IF there is a creator or creators, for whatever reason, it or they have seen fit to utilize the mechanics of evolution in the growth and development of their creatures on this planet. Because, believe it or not, evolution is not a myth; it actually happens!
No I didn't. I meant what I said. God will pour out his spirit on EVERYONE in the last days. That means you! And I have a very strong feeling you will be one of the ones touched the most and become saved! Plenty of people on this forum will! I pray and declare it in the name of Jesus. God bless!
Let's just check the OP. Sorry, this is off the topic. Let me just say that, if so, we goddless pondslime have nothing to worry about. We'll all be saved in the end. And if we are right and you are talking (as I strongly suspect) utter tosh, then we are better of in not wasting our time on it. Nor is there any case for it being taught in our schools. Jesus-god will be more appreciative of our efforts to use sound reasoning and evidence is using the intelligence he gave us so as to show our respect for the Existence He made rather than shutting our eyes to it and insisting that a demonstrably nonsense -filled old book is literally true.
No I didn't. I meant what I said. God will pour out his spirit on EVERYONE in the last days. That means you! And I have a very strong feeling you will be one of the ones touched the most and become saved! Plenty of people on this forum will! I pray and declare it in the name of Jesus. God bless!
The Lord forgives you. it is time to change. The only outpouring in this Age of Aquarius will by the pouring out of mythology into the gutter. Only the Agnostic Spirit will awaken everyone to reality.
It's as much "science" as the theory of evolution. I'm not suggesting we teach in depth Biblical education...but there is nothing wrong with suggesting that it's a possibility that the universe was created.
You continue to demonstrate a fascinating lack of proper understanding of things scientific, Vizio. Point is: It's NOT whether there's a valid reason to teach the fundamentals of creationism versus, or alongside, abiogenesis, evolution and all that other stuff you loath so vigorously. Heck; the topic could be "The best techniques about crocheting" and you'd still get it wrong!
And yet, the most frightening idea here is that you tell us you engage some of your time as a spiritual teacher, and yet you pass on an essentially massive philosophical error. Again, forget whatever you're thinking about me or scientists or evolution, Vizio. I'm NOT talking about the facts here (Lord knows, as regards science you've dispensed with that requirement a long time ago...).
It's that the teaching of advanced crocheting techniques does NOT belong in a cooking class. Nor does "How to tune a Rochester Quadrajet™ carb" belong in a Spanish History class. And Creationism, valid or not, is definitely not the product of The SM process. I'm sure even you'd even agree with that one, because if you tried to pass off such an absurd idea, you'd even have the majority of thinking & intellectually honest Christians disagreeing with you.
"Oh but it is!" you hopelessly but loudly protest. OK then: tell me/us:
√ what's the testable Hypothesis?
√ What Methods and Materials were used in your carefully conducted research study?
√ What data did you document? And then,
√ What conclusions, based conservatively but also entirely on that specific dataset, did you discuss and then report...
√ In the Results section? And then...
√ What other studies did you utilize in your oiriginal study esign? (i.e.: where's your extensive Bibliography?) Oh yeah, and
√ What credible authors, all specialists in your imaginary study's particular subject matter did you use for...
√ A pre-publication peer-review, and...
√ Where can we see their commentary and pre-publication critiques.
You know, where they make strong suggestions or even requirements, that perhaps some parts of your "study" might have to be revised before it can be published in a recognized, highly competitive and tenured publication?
All these things are part and necessary parcel of The SM that you are obviously so hopelessly out of touch with. This is also keenly demonstrated by the fact that I've asked you to provide us, several times in the past, with the very list that I've just provided you above!
To wit: that the bible, and any part of it, doth not good Science make. I'll agree, being an essentially honest fellow, that the bible does indeed provide other things. I'm happy to grant you that, like unverifiable faith-based claims, but it's NOT backed up, as you'll have to agree, with The SM that I've so thoughtfully listed for you now.
Obviously, it's now clear that there's a good reason that you've been unable to provide us with this list in the past. Because, one must now of needs assume you simply didn't know or understand how real science functions credibly, else you'd not have made such entirely boneheaded commentaries as you did up top, starting with the usual rat-food idea about discrediting an idea because it's referred to as a "theory".
I know you've been corrected on this error time and again, so I'm now assuming here that your hive leader must be grading you on re-using an entirely incorrect definition of that word yet again. Specifically, in true science, a " theory" follows the successful testing of "an hypothesis" which is that "guessy part" you think "theory" refers to. (<sigh>)
More to the point, fundamentalist Christians simply can not abide the subject of Evolution to ever be discussed in school without some pointy finger-waggling, and air-punching rowdy Christian out-yelling a calm and steady science teacher's logical and fact-filled presentation to the minds of inquisitive kids, esp.those at about 14 - 16 years of age.
You know: when they are just beginning to think for themselves, a particularly critical moment in the minds of denialist Christians all over the globe. And so you insist on demanding that a demonstrably nonscientific subject (Creationism) always be presented alongside a purely scientific one (Evolution).
Well, sorry Viz old pal. Time and again such pathetically biased efforts on the part of fundamentalist Christians have been shot down by intelligent and concerned school boards, except in the more dark cave-like venues of the most overbearingly religious school districts, mostly in the less well-educated countrysides. It was ever thus.
So anyhow, I'll await your sincere apology for getting the wholly Christian concept of Creationism mixed up wit dat ol'Debil Science. I'm sure you'll also want to make that distinction yourself, lest Christianity get errantly co-mingled with logic and credibility? Or is that how you'd like it to remain?
And THAT's the way it is, Wednesday March 13th, 2013.
Utmost respect??? Such irony!...I subscribe to nothing, but accept reality and the facts, unlike those that believe idiotic myths and magic are reality....By the way you occupy the very same twig as I do, even though you work hard to deny it.
Now that's ironic. Took down three dead Aspen trees today...difficult for one man even with gaffs on to occupy a twig, much less two to occupy the same twig on any of them.
...ahem...'accept reality and the facts?' It's quite clear which version of reality Sans that many of you here on this forum accept as fact. Hey, I have no doubt that there is a varied amount of descent with modification in various living organisms, human or otherwise...but to claim that Darwin's theory accounts for the origin of new Syngameons (not species)...or for that matter, for every Syngameons since the first cells emerged from some assumed primordial ooze is idiotic.
The fossil record and modern molecular biology contradict Darwin's branching "Tree of Life."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...okay, I will. With utmost respect Sans...you're acting like an idiot for subscribing to Darwinian Evolution. Besides, if all you are is a twig on Darwins tree, I fail to see how you can have an opinion about intelligence.
Love the debate. Same old false claims, same old quibbles about 'nobody has observed evolution...
Let's see you squirm out of this one, old buddy!
Teaching creationism in our public schools
