Evolutionary news

[Minimalist]

The Dover decision was discussed. Arch thinks the judge is a godless commie.

do i?? i don't recall saying that. i think i have made my position quite clear concerning intelligent design. do i think that evolution needs a monopoly in the science classsroom---NO. i think that all theories need to be discussed so we educate not brainwash.

but in saying that, remember i stand with the Bible and believe creation is true, scientific and we can study the results easier than we can of evolution.

It is amusing that one would continue to debate the question of evolution in the first place

Well, this is what you said....I think "godless commie" captures the gist of it quite well.

Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 1600
Location: korea
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:30 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and your point is...? just because a judge did not side with i.d. does not make it unscientific or untrue. nor can it declare something unproveable, evolution, true.

the logic the judge uses certainly lacks insight. there is no way i.d. or creationist can divorce themselves from the religious aspect of their theory. they are one and the same BUT that doesn't make it unscientific.

only in the minds of those who reject the creation story, deny the science of the account. they limit the scope of what is science , which evolution is not for the very basic reason that all aspects of the theory are unobservable and outside the scope of review.

for example, the ape to man concept. all that is used for evidence is a few skulls and some scientists word that that is what took place, there is no modern day evidence, no scholarly observation, no multi-tasked experiments and no historical record that corroborates the claim.

so evolution is far less scientific than i.d. could ever be. at least with i.d. we can see the results of creation every day whether it is in the ancient records or modern day, everything goes according to what Genesis says.

there is an old saying which fits the evolutionary side well: they that cry the loudest, are guiltiest most of all.

[Guest]

the logic the judge uses certainly lacks insight

a far cry from 'a godless commie'.

but i stand on the fact that evolution should not have a monopoly since that would result in brainwashing and not education.

[ed]

the logic the judge uses certainly lacks insight

a far cry from 'a godless commie'.

but i stand on the fact that evolution should not have a monopoly since that would result in brainwashing and not education.

Any other scientific theory is welcome. If we are going to give equal time to myths then we are no longer in science class.

Which creation myths, IYO, should be included?

6.1 Ainu
6.2 Apache
6.3 Australian Aboriginal
6.4 Babylonian
6.5 Bantu
6.6 Buddhist
6.7 Cherokee
6.8 Chinese
6.9 Choctaw
6.10 Christian
6.10.1 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
6.11 Creek
6.12 Digueno
6.13 Egyptian
6.14 Evolutionary Spirituality
6.15 Greek (Classical)
6.16 Hermeticism
6.17 Hindu
6.18 Hopi
6.19 Hmong
6.20 Inca
6.21 Inuit
6.22 Iroquois
6.23 Islam
6.24 Japan
6.25 Jainism
6.26 Judaism
6.27 Lakota
6.28 Maasai
6.29 Mandaeism
6.30 Mandinka
6.31 Mansi
6.32 Mayan
6.33 Māori
6.34 Mongol
6.35 Navajo
6.36 Norse
6.37 Ojibwe
6.38 Orok
6.39 Polynesian
6.39.1 Hawaiian
6.40 Randomness
6.41 Seminole
6.42 Sikh
6.43 Surat Shabda Yoga
6.44 Taoism
6.45 Tlingit
6.46 Voodoo
6.47 Wicca
6.48 Yoruba
6.49 Zen
6.50 Zoroastrianism
6.51 Zulu

This list from Wiki is a good start. They are all similar to the Biblical myth in that they are non-falsifable so they are all equally non-scientific.

[Minimalist]

the logic the judge uses certainly lacks insight

a far cry from 'a godless commie'.

but i stand on the fact that evolution should not have a monopoly since that would result in brainwashing and not education.

It was more THIS line....but WTH.

the logic the judge uses certainly lacks insight. there is no way i.d. or creationist can divorce themselves from the religious aspect of their theory. they are one and the same BUT that doesn't make it unscientific.

[ed]

.

but i stand on the fact that evolution should not have a monopoly since that would result in brainwashing and not education.

A quick question ... should geocentrism be taught alongside heliocentrisim? What about astrology and alchemy?

[john]

i think it is perfectly appropriate that a human (judge) should decide to what extent god should exist, as it was humans invented god in the first place.

welcome to the hall of mirrors...........


john

[Guest]

it is amazing how seemingly intelligent people believe in a theory, evolution, that :
1. they can't prove;
2. can't provide answers;
3. provides nothing but questions;
4. provides no hope;
5. relies on conjecture and unsubstantiated opinion;
6. can't get scientists to agree on its function;
7. relies on chance;
8. provides no stability ;
9. contains none of the attributes it is credited with evolving
10. can't think, feel , see,protect, etc.


the list can go on, you are the ones who will look foolish in the long run.

[ed]

it is amazing how seemingly intelligent people believe in a theory, evolution, that :
1. they can't prove;

Wrong. There is an overwhelming body of evidence that the theory is correct. From geologic columns to hypothesised intermediate species (some recently discovered) to a highly accurate statement of the structure of DNA for the chimp (produced prior to it's sequencing). To our detriment it is obvious in the changes to the flu virus every year.

2. can't provide answers;

Very vague. It provides an amazingly elegant structure that explains how we got to where we are.

3. provides nothing but questions;

Irrelevant. Science is hard.

4. provides no hope;

One hell of a lot more than any alternative. Genetics reconfirms evolution with every advance in that science.

5. relies on conjecture and unsubstantiated opinion;

Which are then tested. Do you think religion could meet that test?

6. can't get scientists to agree on its function;

What in the name of Zeus does that mean?

7. relies on chance;

Do you understand what evolution is? Tell me, does the phrase "Markov process" mean anything to you. Do you think that the metastisizing of a cancer cell is an orderly process? Have you ever studied genetics? Bio?

8. provides no stability

;

Are you suggesting that life, over the past billion years, has been stable?

9. contains none of the attributes it is credited with evolving

Specifically? This sounds absurdly vague.

10. can't think, feel , see,protect, etc

.

So? Does any science? Do you understand, at the most basic level, what science is?

the list can go on, you are the ones who will look foolish in the long run

Your list is banal. If it shows anything, it demonstrates an appalling level of scientific illiteracy on your part. The educational system has failed you.[/quote]

[Guest]

Your list is banal. If it shows anything, it demonstrates an appalling level of scientific illiteracy on your part.

heard this before. acusations only undermine your own credibility. but i am not going to get into another evolutionary debate at this time. i have proved evolution wrong and impossible long before you came here so read my posts to get my arguments.

[Guest]

Your list is banal. If it shows anything, it demonstrates an appalling level of scientific illiteracy on your part.

heard this before. acusations only undermine your own credibility. but i am not going to get into another evolutionary debate at this time. i have proved evolution wrong and impossible long before you came here so read my posts to get my arguments.

[ed]

Your list is banal. If it shows anything, it demonstrates an appalling level of scientific illiteracy on your part.

heard this before. acusations only undermine your own credibility. but i am not going to get into another evolutionary debate at this time. i have proved evolution wrong and impossible long before you came here so read my posts to get my arguments.

Pity they didn't call you as a witness in Dover. Why the oversight do you think?

[ed]

Your list is banal. If it shows anything, it demonstrates an appalling level of scientific illiteracy on your part.

heard this before. acusations only undermine your own credibility. but i am not going to get into another evolutionary debate at this time. i have proved evolution wrong and impossible long before you came here so read my posts to get my arguments.

You can not win a debate on this topic with me. Fact.

Pity they didn't call you as a witness in Dover. Why the oversight do you think?

[ed]

Your list is banal. If it shows anything, it demonstrates an appalling level of scientific illiteracy on your part.

heard this before. acusations only undermine your own credibility. but i am not going to get into another evolutionary debate at this time. i have proved evolution wrong and impossible long before you came here so read my posts to get my arguments.

You can not win a debate on this topic with me. Fact.

Pity they didn't call you as a witness in Dover. Why the oversight do you think?

[ed]

Your list is banal. If it shows anything, it demonstrates an appalling level of scientific illiteracy on your part.

heard this before. acusations only undermine your own credibility. but i am not going to get into another evolutionary debate at this time. i have proved evolution wrong and impossible long before you came here so read my posts to get my arguments.

No, it shows a fair level of understanding on my part and virtually none on yours. It shows that you don't have a modicum of understanding of what science is, what evolutionary theory purports to describe, the body of evidence or anything else relevant to an informed discussion. In your circles, the glorification of ignorance may be commendable but it does not prepare you for a serious discussion. Do you even know which points that you made that are absurd? If you cannot conjure up that level of self awareness, a debate with you would be akin to debating one of those deranged men who yell at passing cars in NYC.

I am still waiting for your "proof". Let me guess, hominid footprints in dinosaur tracks.

[ed]

Your list is banal. If it shows anything, it demonstrates an appalling level of scientific illiteracy on your part.

heard this before. acusations only undermine your own credibility. but i am not going to get into another evolutionary debate at this time. i have proved evolution wrong and impossible long before you came here so read my posts to get my arguments.

Your list is banal. If it shows anything, it demonstrates an appalling level of scientific illiteracy on your part.

heard this before. acusations only undermine your own credibility. but i am not going to get into another evolutionary debate at this time. i have proved evolution wrong and impossible long before you came here so read my posts to get my arguments.

No, it shows a fair level of understanding on my part and virtually none on yours. It shows that you don't have a modicum of understanding of what science is, what evolutionary theory purports to describe, the body of evidence or anything else relevant to an informed discussion. In your circles, the glorification of ignorance may be commendable but it does not prepare you for a serious discussion. Do you even know which points that you made that are absurd? If you cannot conjure up that level of self awareness, a debate with you would be akin to debating one of those deranged men who yell at passing cars in NYC.

I am still waiting for your "proof". Let me guess, hominid footprints in dinosaur tracks.