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.
I haven't said they knowingly teach things wrong, did I?
They teach things that are unproven. Things that we simply don't KNOW to be true. And yes--evolution is one of them. It's not provable. Along with that, we have speculation about the origins of the universe, but we just don't know.
Do they really teach evolution? I can only speak to my education (such as it was) and in the Biology and science class (apart from planetary formations) there was no teaching of evolution. I can tell you that I knew nothing about it until I came here and heard the genesis -literalist challenge and pretty much everything I learned out it was finding out that the Creationist case did not stand up.
Is the problem rather that Genesis -literist Creationist Young Earth theory is not allowed to be taught in the science -class?
Its a mistake to conclude that because we observe the mechanism of evolution that it has more explanatory power than it does.
Darwin wrestled with the implications of human intelligence arising from the lower forms of life.
And there's the problem of abiogenisis.
There was a lot of information that Darwin didn't have, but he expected the information would appear, and it did. Transitionals for instance. DNA, pre cambrian fossils, radiometric data, and a better understanding of instinct, consciousness and the workings of the mind. The evidence was plenty good enough even then to explain the mechanism of what was actually accepted in Darwin's day - deep time evolution even by Churchmen.
Evolution had more explanatory power now than it did in Darwin's time, and it was pretty sound even then.
What we get now from the anti -evolutinist side is denial, misunderstanding and misrepresentation, making too much of remaining questions and trying to find debunks; the only one that was a problem (Polystrates) recently turning around as a debunker of the Flood -theory (1).
Creationism has no real case anymore, and a Creator is at best an unnecessary theory based on the needs of believers.
Abiogenesis - which is still hypothetical - at least has theoretical mechanisms and indirect support. Goddunnit creation has nothing but Faith -claims, appeals to unanswered questions and nit picks about evolution -theory.
In fact, while not actually being Creationist, theistic evolution uses the same (bad) arguments.
(1) polystrates growing on polystrates proves layer on layer of trees on trees over geologic ages - not one big Flood.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-17-2018 at 10:29 AM..
You can use the ignore feature to eliminate the noise.
Baptist fundie IS the noise. The international global atheist Christian eradication, science subversion and Legal system manipulation comittee, surveillance team, slush fund addministration steering group, grill and bar, recently tendered for designs for a statue to be built in commemoration of the soon -to -be extinct hominid sub species Homophobis unsapiens unsrationiensiswhen genesis -literalist Young earth creationism finally ceases to be a nuisance. It will be made of brass from melted down crucifixes apart from the one hung around the distended neck of the head with mouth open and screaming, eyes screwed shut, fingers screwed in ears and brain just screwed.
But ignoring time wasting rubbish is one thing; shutting out unwelcome ideas is another.
There was a lot of information that Darwin didn't have, but he expected the information would appear, and it did. Transitionals for instance. DNA, pre cambrian fossils, radiometric data, and a better understanding of instinct, consciousness and the workings of the mind. The evidence was plenty good enough even then to explain the mechanism of what was actually accepted in Darwin's day - deep time evolution even by Churchmen.
Evolution had more explanatory power now than it did in Darwin's time, and it was pretty sound even then.
What we get now from the anti -evolutinist side is denial, misunderstanding and misrepresentation, making too much of remaining questions and trying to find debunks; the only one that was a problem (Polystrates) recently turning around as a debunker of the Flood -theory (1).
Creationism has no real case anymore, and a Creator is at best an unnecessary theory based on the needs of believers.
Abiogenesis - which is still hypothetical - at least has theoretical mechanisms and indirect support. Goddunnit creation has nothing but Faith -claims, appeals to unanswered questions and nit picks about evolution -theory.
In fact, while not actually being Creationist, theistic evolution uses the same (bad) arguments.
(1) polystrates growing on polystrates proves layer on layer of trees on trees over geologic ages - not one big Flood.
There's a lot of confusion based on semantics.
The fear of considering cosmological design because the biblical creationists will jump on it.
Baptist fundie IS the noise. The international global atheist Christian eradication, science subversion and Legal system manipulation comittee, surveillance team, slush fund addministration steering group, grill and bar, recently tendered for designs for a statue to be built in commemoration of the soon -to -be extinct hominid sub species Homophobis unsapiens unsrationiensiswhen genesis -literalist Young earth creationism finally ceases to be a nuisance. It will be made of brass from melted down crucifixes apart from the one hung around the distended neck of the head with mouth open and screaming, eyes screwed shut, fingers screwed in ears and brain just screwed.
But ignoring time wasting rubbish is one thing; shutting out unwelcome ideas is another.
The noisemakers offer nothing but ad hominems, Baptist fundie is at least offering his belief based argument.
We should argue the principles, not personalities.
There's a lot of confusion based on semantics.
The fear of considering cosmological design because the biblical creationists will jump on it.
Concedo. But we also concede that it is one of the better gap for god argument that the god -believers (Creationist or not) have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg
The noisemakers offer nothing but ad hominems, Baptist fundie is at least offering his belief based argument.
We should argue the principles, not personalities.
Of course. I am not talking of BF personally, but of his methods and substance in argument. They are unsound and poor, and far too much backchat and personals. "Noise" rather than substance.
Concedo. But we also concede that it is one of the better gap for god argument that the god -believers (Creationist or not) have.
Of course. I am not talking of BF personally, but of his methods and substance in argument. They are unsound and poor, and far too much backchat and personals. "Noise" rather than substance.
lmao. pile of crapola in the post. shun that science that doesn't support your statement of belief, embrace the science that does support your statement of belief. sound familiar?
and when there is no gap, you make one up. Like you did with gld. jump all over the word "god" not the observations because the observations support "how the universe works". so you make a big stink over a word because science doesn't support deny anything about how the universe works because you are afraid of religion.
Noise? all you have is noise. Heckling sounds over everything no matter how valid the claim. scaredy cats don't make claims, they hissy fit, heckle, and run away like the "insert" post makes it seem like.
lets have a look at that statement of belief of yours?
Concedo. But we also concede that it is one of the better gap for god argument that the god -believers (Creationist or not) have.
Of course. I am not talking of BF personally, but of his methods and substance in argument. They are unsound and poor, and far too much backchat and personals. "Noise" rather than substance.
I've seen enough philosophical arguments that dispel the notion of God of the gaps to reject the whole idea.
There is no God of the gaps unless you follow zeus, thor, or neptune.
They are God's of natural phenomina.
Today's various monotheistic concepts of god are The God of the whole show.
Saw Neil degree Tyson trying to make the God of the gaps idea, but he couldn't reconcile how Newton was more brilliant than he could hope to be , yet believed in god.
Well, its because Newton didn't believe in a God of the gaps, the more Newton discovered the more it revealed God to him.
De grasse is an example how bright people can be stupid with their own intelligence.
I'll tell you what, this is a great time to be living.
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.
