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.
...you are essentially telling children that we all came from primodial soup and there is no real meaning to life.
So you want children to be taught The Meaning Of Life in a public school forum? Who is going to teach them that, and what "meaning" will they be told there is to their lives?
Why are invisible supernatural beings supposedly necessary for life to have "meaning?"
What possible reason do you have to propose that we humans are somehow intrinsically significant and that our lives have some ultimate, deep "meaning" aside from what we instill in them?
Again, I'm curious who you would want teaching our kids The Meaning Of Life, how they would approach that subject, and what substance there would be to the idea of the specific "meaning" to which you refer.
I have to ask--do you actually think about what you are saying before you post it?
Quote:
I don't want my kids force taught that life originated from goop.
Oh. I see. A common problem with some folks. You don't understand what evolution is, so you fear it and reject it out of hand. The solution here is simple: just educate yourself a tad!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLASTED
There are many flaws to evolution so your "mountain" of evidence doesn't amount to much.
Except that evolutionary processes can and have been directly observed and studied for nearly two centuries now, and scientists from around the globe across a number of disciplines have done nothing but bolster proofs of evolution. We know evolution actually happens. We do NOT know whether there is any truth or validity to the idea that a god or gods written of by ancient peoples in different parts of the world had anything to do with creation or the diversity of life on Earth.
Quote:
I can easily claim there is mountains of evidence for a Creator.
But you would be completely and utterly wrong. There is no evidence for creator or creators. Whether or not some beings we might consider like deities or whether or not one of some of these deities are actually responsible for "creating" the cosmos and all life and matter in it is simply more than any human knows. We just do not know. One of the chief reasons for this is that there is not now nor has there ever been any kind of evidence whatsoever for their existence.
I can claim that there is mountains of evidence that galactic-sized purple unicorns from the Gologax Dimension created the universe by excreting stars and planets out of their tails and that they now control our fates. But the truth is, there is no more evidence (and no more reason to believe) in the purple unicorns than there is to believe in any deity ever devised by humans, from Apollo to Thor to Vishnu to Ra to Yahweh.
The only thing that is proven is micro-evolution, and you are essentially telling children that we all came from primodial soup and there is no real meaning to life. I don't want my kids force taught that life originated from goop.
Abiogenesis is not the same as evolution.
OTOH, there is quite a bit of evidence for *macroevolution.* (There really is no distinction between micro and macro evolution, but...)
Scientists have known for a long time that whales, the largest marine mammals, have distant relatives that lived on land millions of years ago. Little was known about whales’ land-loving ancestors until a team of scientists led by Hans Thewissen of the Northeastern Ohio Universities Colleges of Medicine and Pharmacy (NEOUCOM) started searching for fossil evidence to better understand how whales evolved. In the past 15 years, the research team has identified fossils of extinct whale ancestors that show how over millions of years these mammals evolved from small four-footed land animals to extra-large marine animals.
Now Thewissen and his team have discovered the closest known fossil relative of whales that lived on land. Named Indohyus, this extinct species lived approximately 48 million years ago in what is now the Kashmir region of India. Thewissen's team studied hundreds of fossil bones of Indohyus. They have found similarities between whales and Indohyus in the skull and ear that show their close family relationship.
The only thing that is proven is micro-evolution, and you are essentially telling children that we all came from primodial soup and there is no real meaning to life. I don't want my kids force taught that life originated from goop.
I think you may need to brush up on your arguments....Even your debating guide tells you that some of the ones you are using should not be used..
I have to say that the flowing elegance of your prose far outweighs the content.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming - morphological divergencies, redundant anatomy, DNA markers, evolutionary change observed year to year; engineering changes in life -forms, including us, and of course, the fossil record.
I think you are wrong in saying that there is scientific dissent from Darwinism. Darwinism, correctly defined, is evolution -theory and science in overwhelming numbers (1) There is of course debate, discussion and disagreement, as well as re-assessment of theory and evidence, but the principles of evolution are accepted as scientific fact, and 'dessent' usually turns out to be quotes by evolutionists taken out of context.
What scientific evidence is there for Creation? I'll tell you - none. If there is, be the first Creationist apologist here to produce some. I mean of course, not trying to discredit evolution theory with irreducible complexity non-science, transitional -denial or just ad hom,as in your post above: 'You are closed -minded, arguing from an invalid presupposition, closing your eyes to the facts'. Ever heard of projection? But producing some scientifically valid evidence FOR Creation (2)
Let's see whether we can make some progress. I am the eternal optimist Suppose I say that I am quite willing to accept the possibility that Yeshua is indeed part of the equation, would you then be willing to drop your Faith -instilled objections to the equation and be willing to consider the evidence objectively?
P.s Everything is fine with me, thank you and getting better all the time - whether you pray for me or not.
(1) you will have heard of the 'Steve' response to the Creationists round -robin trying to drum up a list of creationists scientists
(2)and,of course, 'The Bible - millions of Scientists believe it.' Is NOT what I call scientific evidence for creation.
I have to say that you have a severe case of moral myopia which has blinded you to seeing the truth. Morphological divergencies? An amazing invention projected through various public education texts to help promote continued belief in the erroneous doctrine that death preceded sin.
Redundant anatomy? Evolutionist claim one thing about human anatomy is their smoking gun to prove "poor design."
The fact is old chap, one who asserts that the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve is a poor design assumes that a better design exists, a claim that cannot be asserted unless an alternative embryonic design from fertilized ovum to fetus...including all the incalculable molecular gradients, triggers, cascades, and anatomical twists and tucks...can be proposed that documents an improved design. Lacking this information, the "poor design" claim uses evolution to fill in gaps in our knowledge. Furthermore, any alternative embryonic design pathway would likely result in its own unique set of constraints, also giving the false impression of poor design.
The left recurrent laryngeal nerve is not poorly designed, but rather is clear evidence of an intelligent designer...His Name is Yeshua.
DNA markers are merely proof of varieties of one's kind,, with no observable evolutionary change of one kind into another so-called "species." Your view of reality is skewed to say the very least.
Engineering changes in life forms? Does the name Noah ring a bell?
Yeah...keep lying to yourself that your so-called optimism willl carry through into eternity...and I will definitely continue praying for your speedy return back into Yeshua's arms...
I have to say that you have a severe case of moral myopia which has blinded you to seeing the truth. Morphological divergencies? An amazing invention projected through various public education texts to help promote continued belief in the erroneous doctrine that death preceded sin.
Redundant anatomy? Evolutionist claim one thing about human anatomy is their smoking gun to prove "poor design."
The fact is old chap, one who asserts that the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve is a poor design assumes that a better design exists, a claim that cannot be asserted unless an alternative embryonic design from fertilized ovum to fetus...including all the incalculable molecular gradients, triggers, cascades, and anatomical twists and tucks...can be proposed that documents an improved design. Lacking this information, the "poor design" claim uses evolution to fill in gaps in our knowledge. Furthermore, any alternative embryonic design pathway would likely result in its own unique set of constraints, also giving the false impression of poor design.
The left recurrent laryngeal nerve is not poorly designed, but rather is clear evidence of an intelligent designer...His Name is Yeshua.
DNA markers are merely proof of varieties of one's kind,, with no observable evolutionary change of one kind into another so-called "species." Your view of reality is skewed to say the very least.
Engineering changes in life forms? Does the name Noah ring a bell?
Yeah...keep lying to yourself that your so-called optimism willl carry through into eternity...and I will definitely continue praying for your speedy return back into Yeshua's arms...
I think you have missed the point of the argument. I am not referring to redundant organs as an objection to Intelligent Design - though there are examples that can be used in that way - (1) but as evidence for evolution. In the case of the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve, the Creationist excuse is that the many nerves go in roundabout routes to fullfil a function (as explained in the quote by prof. Blechschmidt) - well, of course they do, but the point is that design from scratch would not have needed to go roundabout but direct and the only reason that they go roundabout is because they had to adapt to a change in form from creatures where the nerve could go direct.
I haven't read up on it, but I imagine a biologist could 'predict' what sort of form that would be. The Creationists try to get over that (the argument is from the Creation Institute, of course) as you do, by argument from 'poor information'. That is, as we learn more, we will see that the creature HAD to be made that way.
I would suggest that is moral myopia indeed, based on the presuppositions of Faith as itis hard to see how any other reason for these formations could be other than as a need to adapt to changed morphology. Even if we accepted that such information could be forthcoming, the correct scientific view is that until the evidence for Design is forthcoming, we must go with what the evidence tells us now - which is that it indicates evolution.
If you refuse that, you are rejecting science in favour of faith without evidence to support it and you have given us the strongest reason there is why Creationism is NOT science, but Faith and has no place in the science class. Least of all Faith in the monumentally ludicrous and unfeasible tale of Noah and his 100 million years of evolution crammed into a year or so.
I hope that you will stop your hopeless praying for me to become a Christian believer - let me tell you in all sympathy that you would be more profitably employed doing something useful
I hope that you may one day listen to reason and the evidence and become one of the many who are coming to realize that even if there is an unproven god, the Bible cannot be true, especially as regards the hilarious myth of the Ark. Speeded up evolution? You must surely realize not only that there is not a single fossil to support the Creationist twaddle about a few basic 'kinds' that Creationists theorize about,but that thousands of species fossilized supposedly under the flood levels had already evolved and would have needed to be on the Ark. It doesn't work and I don't envy your brain the task it has of rejecting all the evidence in favour of a lot of poorly- reasoned and unworkable explaining away of tons of evidence for evolution and telling itself that there is a lot of evidence for creation when in fact there isn't.
(1) as in the giraffe which is where you picked up the specific example of the laryngeal nerve
"The extreme detour of this nerve (about 15 feet in the case of giraffes[12]) is cited as evidence of evolution as opposed to intelligent design. The nerve's route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed.(Wiki)
I think you have missed the point of the argument. I am not referring to redundant organs as an objection to Intelligent Design - though there are examples that can be used in that way - (1) but as evidence for evolution. In the case of the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve, the Creationist excuse is that the many nerves go in roundabout routes to fullfil a function (as explained in the quote by prof. Blechschmidt) - well, of course they do, but the point is that design from scratch would not have needed to go roundabout but direct and the only reason that they go roundabout is because they had to adapt to a change in form from creatures where the nerve could go direct.
I haven't read up on it, but I imagine a biologist could 'predict' what sort of form that would be. The Creationists try to get over that (the argument is from the Creation Institute, of course) as you do, by argument from 'poor information'. That is, as we learn more, we will see that the creature HAD to be made that way.
I would suggest that is moral myopia indeed, based on the presuppositions of Faith as itis hard to see how any other reason for these formations could be other than as a need to adapt to changed morphology. Even if we accepted that such information could be forthcoming, the correct scientific view is that until the evidence for Design is forthcoming, we must go with what the evidence tells us now - which is that it indicates evolution.
If you refuse that, you are rejecting science in favour of faith without evidence to support it and you have given us the strongest reason there is why Creationism is NOT science, but Faith and has no place in the science class. Least of all Faith in the monumentally ludicrous and unfeasible tale of Noah and his 100 million years of evolution crammed into a year or so.
I hope that you will stop your hopeless praying for me to become a Christian believer - let me tell you in all sympathy that you would be more profitably employed doing something useful
I hope that you may one day listen to reason and the evidence and become one of the many who are coming to realize that even if there is an unproven god, the Bible cannot be true, especially as regards the hilarious myth of the Ark. Speeded up evolution? You must surely realize not only that there is not a single fossil to support the Creationist twaddle about a few basic 'kinds' that Creationists theorize about,but that thousands of species fossilized supposedly under the flood levels had already evolved and would have needed to be on the Ark. It doesn't work and I don't envy your brain the task it has of rejecting all the evidence in favour of a lot of poorly- reasoned and unworkable explaining away of tons of evidence for evolution and telling itself that there is a lot of evidence for creation when in fact there isn't.
(1) as in the giraffe which is where you picked up the specific example of the laryngeal nerve
"The extreme detour of this nerve (about 15 feet in the case of giraffes[12]) is cited as evidence of evolution as opposed to intelligent design. The nerve's route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed.(Wiki)
IMO, it's just easier for Creationists to believe in things magically occurring by the wave of the hand of a "God"...so uncomplicated. There's also the fear of death, which makes the belief in a religion so appealing as it guarantees them some sort of afterlife. Maybe there is a time warp, other dimension, something that might be explained by physics, but that a God has his hand in all of this is just such an archaic belief.
I think you have missed the point of the argument. I am not referring to redundant organs as an objection to Intelligent Design - though there are examples that can be used in that way - (1) but as evidence for evolution. In the case of the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve, the Creationist excuse is that the many nerves go in roundabout routes to fullfil a function (as explained in the quote by prof. Blechschmidt) - well, of course they do, but the point is that design from scratch would not have needed to go roundabout but direct and the only reason that they go roundabout is because they had to adapt to a change in form from creatures where the nerve could go direct.
I haven't read up on it, but I imagine a biologist could 'predict' what sort of form that would be. The Creationists try to get over that (the argument is from the Creation Institute, of course) as you do, by argument from 'poor information'. That is, as we learn more, we will see that the creature HAD to be made that way.
I would suggest that is moral myopia indeed, based on the presuppositions of Faith as itis hard to see how any other reason for these formations could be other than as a need to adapt to changed morphology. Even if we accepted that such information could be forthcoming, the correct scientific view is that until the evidence for Design is forthcoming, we must go with what the evidence tells us now - which is that it indicates evolution.
If you refuse that, you are rejecting science in favour of faith without evidence to support it and you have given us the strongest reason there is why Creationism is NOT science, but Faith and has no place in the science class. Least of all Faith in the monumentally ludicrous and unfeasible tale of Noah and his 100 million years of evolution crammed into a year or so.
I hope that you will stop your hopeless praying for me to become a Christian believer - let me tell you in all sympathy that you would be more profitably employed doing something useful
I hope that you may one day listen to reason and the evidence and become one of the many who are coming to realize that even if there is an unproven god, the Bible cannot be true, especially as regards the hilarious myth of the Ark. Speeded up evolution? You must surely realize not only that there is not a single fossil to support the Creationist twaddle about a few basic 'kinds' that Creationists theorize about,but that thousands of species fossilized supposedly under the flood levels had already evolved and would have needed to be on the Ark. It doesn't work and I don't envy your brain the task it has of rejecting all the evidence in favour of a lot of poorly- reasoned and unworkable explaining away of tons of evidence for evolution and telling itself that there is a lot of evidence for creation when in fact there isn't.
(1) as in the giraffe which is where you picked up the specific example of the laryngeal nerve
"The extreme detour of this nerve (about 15 feet in the case of giraffes[12]) is cited as evidence of evolution as opposed to intelligent design. The nerve's route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed.(Wiki)
The layngeal nerve of the giraffe is an example...but I was specifically referring to the laryngeal nerve of man and his kind. The recurrent laryngeal nerve in humans loops around the aorta and back up to the larynx instead of taking a more direct route.
Evolutionists ask, "Why not just have the nerve extend directly from the brain to the larynx?" Are evolutionists asking this of The Lord of all creation, or is it merely a rhetorical question?
The most logical reason is that the RLN design is due to developmental constraints, not historical carryovers from evolution.
The "change in form" occurs in the womb from blastocyst to elongated fetal development when the heart is forced to descend from the cervical location down into the thoracic cavity.
The laryngeal nerve was "caught on the wrong side of the heart?"
The body must operate as a living, functional unit during this time, requiring ligaments and internal connections to secure various related structures together while also allowing for body and organ movement. For the laryngeal nerve, the ligamentum arteriosum functions like a pulley that lifts a heavy load to allow movement.These nerves cannot either be obliterated or replaced because many of them must function during every fetal development stage. No organ could exist that is functionless during its development," an axiom that also applies to the nervous system. "Natural selection" therefore, could not "gradually" lengthen anything.
Your suggestion that we continue following Nimrod in his rebellion of father Noah until G-d Himself comes down and wiggles on your face is unwise. It's a tragedy that many like you are prolific in your backward soil... G-d is used and abused in the service of faith in science....demonstrating a serious lack of any moral imagination whatsoever.
My prayers are not for you to become a Christian believer...that would be like pleading with G-d to make the tiger that is about to eat me a Christian...the dumb tiger dropped down in supplication and spoke, "Lord, thank you for this meal I am about to partake!"
My prayer is for your return into Yeshua's arms my prodigal brother from another mother...
The layngeal nerve of the giraffe is an example...but I was specifically referring to the laryngeal nerve of man and his kind. The recurrent laryngeal nerve in humans loops around the aorta and back up to the larynx instead of taking a more direct route.
Evolutionists ask, "Why not just have the nerve extend directly from the brain to the larynx?" Are evolutionists asking this of The Lord of all creation, or is it merely a rhetorical question?
The most logical reason is that the RLN design is due to developmental constraints, not historical carryovers from evolution.
The "change in form" occurs in the womb from blastocyst to elongated fetal development when the heart is forced to descend from the cervical location down into the thoracic cavity.
The laryngeal nerve was "caught on the wrong side of the heart?"
The body must operate as a living, functional unit during this time, requiring ligaments and internal connections to secure various related structures together while also allowing for body and organ movement. For the laryngeal nerve, the ligamentum arteriosum functions like a pulley that lifts a heavy load to allow movement.These nerves cannot either be obliterated or replaced because many of them must function during every fetal development stage. No organ could exist that is functionless during its development," an axiom that also applies to the nervous system. "Natural selection" therefore, could not "gradually" lengthen anything.
Your suggestion that we continue following Nimrod in his rebellion of father Noah until G-d Himself comes down and wiggles on your face is unwise. It's a tragedy that many like you are prolific in your backward soil... G-d is used and abused in the service of faith in science....demonstrating a serious lack of any moral imagination whatsoever.
My prayers are not for you to become a Christian believer...that would be like pleading with G-d to make the tiger that is about to eat me a Christian...the dumb tiger dropped down in supplication and spoke, "Lord, thank you for this meal I am about to partake!"
My prayer is for your return into Yeshua's arms my prodigal brother from another mother...
You use this nerve as evidence of intelligent design, yet ignore the plethora of poorly design organs and systems in the human body, i.e. the human eye, the design of air, food, and water intake in the same orifice, the human spine that's so easily damaged, etc... We can see that evolution hasn't provided the most efficient or effective solutions, but, then again we don't claim that evolution is perfect, unlike theism which is claiming a perfect being has created such a flawed creation. How can that be?
Sure it does, silly person. I'm happy to see a class where your ideas are openly presented and discussed, alongside the general philosophy of a biochemical initiation, plus the Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto and even Aboriginal Aussie, Kiwi and N. American native versions. But nope; you'd not want any of that either, would you? Christians want it all to yourselves, now don't you? With a strong paddle for obedience training if a person attempts to transgress outside of the mandatory thinking!
You should teach those empirically unsupportable faith-based concepts in a Comparative Religion or General Philosophy Class, but not in a dedicated Science class where The SMPROCESS (remember: it's NOT an entity!) is the topic and method under discussion, where a subject of concern is approached according to the rules of that PROCESS, not an answer arrived at according to some hysterical musings, the reading of Tarot Cards by candlelight with "Oooo...ooo...eee..ooooohhh" music playing in the background, or by fervently praying to an invisible Sky Daddy who has, incidentally, chosen to NEVER show Himself.. How convenient, huh?
I know how much the idea of having a steady, logical and demonstrable investigative process openly discussed, with sample experiments to validate and teach that critical thinking process, is so terrifying to fundamentalist Christians.
I also know you folks won't willingly abide such educational transgressions, where open intellectual honesty is utilized to get to the most logical answer. I also know you would not be happy to have to be academically segregated "down the hall", where you can't interrupt and out-yell a calmly logical presentation on, say, abiogenesis and Evolution (both of which I'd wager several million dollars you have literally no idea about how they actually operate, as per your comments above linking abiogenesis to Evolution).
Sad, so sad. You apparently do not value an honest educational experience, huh?
I think this is a great idea. I have been saying this for years. Even nearing 60 I would like to take a class like this. By the way I am Catholic. I accept evolution and do not take the bible literally.
I think this is a great idea. I have been saying this for years. Even nearing 60 I would like to take a class like this. By the way I am Catholic. I accept evolution and do not take the bible literally.
A Theist I'm all right with. (a rare breed to be sure)
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.
Ever heard of projection? But producing some scientifically valid evidence FOR Creation (2) 
Suppose I say that I am quite willing to accept the possibility that Yeshua is indeed part of the equation, would you then be willing to drop your Faith -instilled objections to the equation and be willing to consider the evidence objectively?
You must surely realize not only that there is not a single fossil to support the Creationist twaddle about a few basic 'kinds' that Creationists theorize about,but that thousands of species fossilized supposedly under the flood levels had already evolved and would have needed to be on the Ark. It doesn't work and I don't envy your brain the task it has of rejecting all the evidence in favour of a lot of poorly- reasoned and unworkable explaining away of tons of evidence for evolution and telling itself that there is a lot of evidence for creation when in fact there isn't.
