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.
Now you are just trying to joke your way out of it . Extreme Fundy Creationist though you clearly are, I do not believe that you are so uninformed that you didn't get the point that the methods of evaluating the evidence (but not the subjects) are the same and equally valid, and your quip was really because you had no better answer . Though I do believe that you are so uninformed that you don't know that evolution theory does not relate to the formation of the earth any more than it relates to solving crimes, though, again, the methods of assessing the evidence are the same and equally valid in all three cases.
Typical fundie response. That is like saying an elephant and a rabbit are the same species...Can't be evolution because they are both still mammals....
Bacteria is not a species, but a group of thousands of species...
It is still bacteria. And I really detest that term, "fundie". Can't you atheists show a little respect for a change?
That's the best evidence you got for macro-evolution? lol A freaking bacteria that mutates, and well, is still a bacteria? Unless you can produce solid evidence that shows a species evolving into a completely different species then evolution (on a grand scale) is still fiction, not fact.
How about evidence that explains why other species of primates did not develop the anatomical equipment necessary for speech and language?
It is still bacteria. And I really detest that term, "fundie". Can't you atheists show a little respect for a change?
Yup, and a palm tree and a daffodil are still plants....On a side note, did you know that you are related to daffodils? We humans share 35% of our DNA with daffodils... Isn't science amazing?
It is still bacteria. And I really detest that term, "fundie". Can't you atheists show a little respect for a change?
Do you even understand how frustrating it is to try and explain to someone how wrong they are on the most fundamental level of understanding something? It's clear, just from this statement alone, that your conceptual understanding of the topic at hand is so vague and so ill informed that there really isn't even a starting point from which to begin. I see responses like this and I think "Maybe I'll inform them of the way DNA triangulation works relative to the way our taxonomical charts and phylogenies are grouped and he'll understand." Then I realize that, nope, I have to start earlier than that. I'll have to explain what DNA actually is, more than just the standard TV series understanding of it, but even then, I realize you'll play... or be... stupid. So, then I'm thinking, well, take it to the biochemical level, talk about enzymes and ATP, amino acid side chains, phospholipid bilayers, and the basic structures of not just bacteria but of most cells. From there, maybe I could explain how marvelous it is when, say, a plant that used to have the amino acids phenylalanine, tryptophan and tyrosine blocked when sprayed with Roundup because it inhibited the 3-P-Shikimate-1-carboxyvinyl transferase enzyme is suddenly able to adapt to this and Roundup no longer works.
Something tells me that even that would do no good. So, I'd have to start even earlier, at something like the actual chemistry of molecules and the atoms that comprise life - Oxygen, Carbon, Phosphorus, Sulfur, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen (not necessarily in that order). Yeah, that'll do it, I think... He'll understand once we talk about covalent bonding, hydrogen bonding, and Van der Waal's forces and how that applies to the chemical structures of molecules which make up those enzymes and proteins and amino acids.
It's not until I've written a virtual doctoral thesis on the topic that I realize that, you know, it doesn't matter how much information I throw at this guy, he's going to bury his head in the sand and just repeat the same mantra - "Nope. That's not evolution!!!!!!! I know it when I see it and that's not it!!!!" And it's not just childish, it's pretty much insulting the intelligence of anyone who has more than a three year old's understanding of evolutionary biology - or biology in general. That's when I realize that you're the guy who argues with the car mechanic over what's wrong with your car - even when it's in his shop. You're the guy who ignores the GPS because you know a better way. You're the guy who people are referencing when they say "Don't be that guy!" And, then, I realize that better than to get my blood pressure up over someone who is so ignorant of the facts and who will probably just play a game of Pee Wee Herman's "I know you are but what am I." So, instead, I just slink back, shake my head, and think to myself "Where on Earth do these people come from who have such ill-informed knowledge of such a well studied topic?"
It is still bacteria. And I really detest that term, "fundie". Can't you atheists show a little respect for a change?
It's hard to show respect to some whose whole belief system lacks respect for others. IMO. Why do we owe respect on this subject? If you wanted to teach children the earth was only 17 miles wide because that's what you believed I wouldn't respect it. Why would I respect you trying to tell children the earth was only 6000 years old?
Besides after reciting the first 4 or 5 chapters of Genesis, what more is there to say about creation? One class period of one day and there is nothing more to say. What do you do with students for the rest of the semester?
Wow! You know, mensaguy, I have to admit, I'd never thought of this "angle" to the issue. You're dead-on right!
I mean, what would you do after day one, or day two at most? Get around to rote-parrot chanting sessions like they do in Sunday School? Not to mention that of course the subject of Creationism, is, by their own admission, only a Christian faith-based concept at best, while Evolution is covered by a literal ocean (and a few mountains worth as well...) of completely repeatable scientific research. That you don't happen to like it is of no consequence to those who are not terrified of facts and the truth.
Very good point, mensaguy! I intend to use it often from now on.
Or, we could also hope for a classic answer here from one them'thar fundy Crearionists.
Q: what would be the semester-long Creationist's anti-science curriculum, pray tell, Vizio/littlewitness/dtangoet al? I'm now v. curious.
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.
. Extreme Fundy Creationist though you clearly are, I do not believe that you are so uninformed that you didn't get the point that the methods of evaluating the evidence (but not the subjects) are the same and equally valid, and your quip was really because you had no better answer 
. Though I do believe that you are so uninformed that you don't know that evolution theory does not relate to the formation of the earth any more than it relates to solving crimes, though, again, the methods of assessing the evidence are the same and equally valid in all three cases. 
You've made mine! 
Excellent counter-point! Wowsers and Huzzah!
