rem,
You said you understood evolution, and then in the next sentence you said evolution teaches that life just popped out of the mud.
The first thing you assert is a lie. I did not say evolution teaches that life just popped out of the mud. Here is what I said: "(fairy tales like "life just popped out of the mud?")" This statement was a response to the implication that creation was a fairy tale. It was not the very next sentence by any means. It was addressing a whole other is issue.
The word evolution is not there. I said that life just popping up out of the mud is a fairy tale. If you are so right you don't need to make up lies about me.
If you really understood evolution you would not have made the second statement. The point is that you don't know what you are talking about.
I do know what I am talking about. You are misrepresenting what I said.
You are confusing the theory of evolution with abiogenesis.
Once again, lets see what I said before you accused me of this: "There is no irony. Genesis says that God created man in his image. Abiogenesis basically states that life popped up out of the mud or "soup" (with a few lightning bolts and such)."
You lie. I made it perfectly clear that I was talking about abiogenesis and never said I was referring to evolution.
Also, it is interesting that the bible teaches life popped out of the mud, not science.
The bible teaches God intended to and did create life. I did not say science teaches anything. I said abiogenesis states... Indeed, your statements are interesting.
Naturalistic beliefs are, by definition, rational. Beliefs that lack evidence are, by definition, irrational.
Abiogenesis is therefore an irrational belief. Abiogenesis is a naturalistic belief.
No, you insinuated some conspiracy of scientists holding back the supposed evidence for creation and hiding evidence against evolution, though you have not provided any evidence of this claim.
Teachers do not bring up the hurdles that evolutionary theory faces nor do they explain the significance of said hurdles.
I never said scientists were holding back evidence for creation or evidence against evolution. I specifically insinuated that scientists could manufacture and or misrepresent evidence to support evolution. You admitted that scientists had done what I insinuated they could or should do. Your deception and false accusations are getting boring.
It is common knowledge that there have been hoaxes in the past. Scientists were the ones that found them out and exposed them.
Scientists also conspired, perpetrated and touted them as evidence to support their theories. I never said scientists were useless in research and discovery. I am just skeptical to what they call evidence because the true nature of their evidence is not commonly disclosed in the classroom or the museums. That to me is deceptive. In addition the line between hoax and controversey is getting thinner. A self-deluded scientist would not be considered a fraud.
You probably don't realize how controversial such hoaxes were before they were exposed.
That doesn't change the fact that they happened. The desire to decieve is what is proven. It doesn't have to be outright fraud to be a deception. Putting a spin on what may be a genuine find to support an agenda is deceptive.
Science is self correcting. This is more than I can say for creationists who still publish the Paluxey Dinosaur Tracks as evidence of creation.
You act as though there are no deceptions being perpetrated by the scientific or educational community.
Like I said before, if you have something to back up your statement, then back it up. Unsubstantiated claims will not be glossed over.
You admitted my initial statement was true. I cite you as support for my statement.
1) You went to a crappy school
Doubt it. We had modern labs, textbooks, equipment and state endorsed educational videotapes.
2) You weren't paying attention.
4.0 GPAs. Top of my class.
Taking into consideration the state of our public schools these days, option 1 is quite probable.
So you support the removal of teaching abiogenesis and or evolution in public schools? The school I went to was fine. It was not a matter of better teachers or equipment. The curriculum was in error. As a matter of fact about 9 years ago there was a major controversey in my district concerning the manner in which evolution was being taught. It is still being taught though.
One thing to remember is that science teachers are not scientists.
If you have an M.S. in a hard science I think that qualifies you to some extent.
Science you learn in Highschool is often quite different and oversimplified when compared to what scientists are really publishing.
So then you think it is appropriate for scientists to treat high and jr high as Sunday School for the First Church of Evolutionary Biology.
They may find some interesting results or correlations that don't really mean much, but the press announces the findings as if they are fact: "Study shows baby carrots cause colon cancer!". It's a problem with how the information gets filtered down in our society.
I agree, but school is a mandatory contrived institution for learning that bends over backwards to eliminate or take a neutral stance on matters of faith in the curriculum. Evolution and abiogenesis currently get unquestioned endorsement without a mention of their hurdles.
Now evolution, on the other hand, is a fact (and a theory - the same as light and gravity).
Evolutionary theory: The diversity specializations in lifeforms is the result of random mutations in genetic code refined over generations by natural selection causing an ever (but not everytime) increasing number, complexity and usefullness of adaptations. aka: macroevolution. This is taught as a fact in schools and it is only theory.
You use the simple change in allele frequency to justify blending micro and macro evolution into one subject and label it as fact.
But like I said before, it seems you are confusing it with abiogenesis.
But like I said before, it seems you have yet to demonstrate that I ever did that.
Evolution is a completely different theory and is not inherently atheistic.
Oh, I see it is a theory once again.
Evolution works with or without a god.
I am aware of that.
If you believe in god, why is it so hard to imagine god using evolution to guide his creation?
Wouldn't you say that is an irrational thing to believe? Don't you say that is it hard for you to believe things that are irrational? Are you asking me or yourself?
Yes there are problems with evolutionary theory, just as there are problems with every theory.
Hmm... you said
"Now evolution, on the other hand, is a fact (and a theory - the same as light and gravity)."
So are you saying there are problems with the theory of light and gravity? I would agree with you that there are problems with evolutionary theory, but don't expect to hear it if you go to public school.
We don't just throw out relativity because it doesn't work in every single instance. We modify it and use if for things it's good for because it's useful.
How useful is it to teach macro-evolution as an absolute fact in public schools? Should we not throw out creation theory and teach that as well because that can be useful?
The same is true with evolution.
Again, you blend evolution into one subject and act like teaching the missing link is useful.
It's an extremely useful theory. It has aided in the curing of diseases and helps us understand the environment and conservation/breeding.
If you want to teach kids the change in allele frequency in context -- GO FOR IT.
Creation, as a theory, is not useful at all. It has not helped us learn anything useful about our universe. Useless theories are more likely to be incorrect.
Bullsh*t. WTF is SETI using.
I do respect humility as well. That includes knowing our limitations. You probably are smarter or more intelligent than me... I'm just average.
I'm shocked. Okay then, I take back what I said. However, I doubt you are average so don't BS me.
But intellect is not the same thing as being rational. It's a way of thinking... requiring evidence for belief.
I'm glad you realize the difference. Others on this board don't.
I can see your intellect, but you are not as rational as you think you are. That's all I'm trying to get you to realize.
I freely admit you are more rational than I am. I am a visionary not a scientist. I anticipate human, sociological and economic behavior. These are all irrational pursuits. It was the basis on which you challenge my rational that I protest. The belief in a creator is no less rational than the belief in abiogenesis. And if it is less rational, it is on a technical basis which contradicts philosophical ones.
Being overly rational is illogical.
I know of no modern specemins that would be considered hoaxes.
If they were considered hoaxes they would not be considered specemins. I agree.
The thing about science is that when something is found out to be a hoax, it is no longer used as evidence.
The effect on people's psyches is done. Most people accept what scientists tell them. If people are convinced finally by bogus evidence it doesn't matter that the evidence is no longer valid. Scientists still endorse the theory and the prevailing sentiment stays the same. It is like what happens with JWs: "NEW LIGHT!"
Which goes beyond even strong atheism, according to Cline's definition. A 'gnostic athiest' (yes I did pull this out of my butt, but it makes more sense than Cline's definition of 'strong atheist') is someone who is not an agnostic atheist. A gnostic atheist 'knows' that there is no god out there. A gnostic atheist denys the possibility of any god.
Sorry, you are wrong. Cline defines strong atheist and gnostic atheist as the same thing. You may have pulled the term out of your butt, but your butt is generating definitions of strong atheist these days. Cline said that a strong atheist denies the existence of AT LEAST some god or gods. That leaves the door wide open to the exclusion of all gods and is exactly what he meant. He was only trying to say that you don't have to deny all gods to be a strong atheist, however if you do you certainly are a strong atheist indeed.
I don't see how my sense of logic excludes philosophy.
This is going too get to deep for me. I'll let it go for now.
Logically inconsistent beings cannot exist.
The same standard of logical consistincy you attribute to no real being can be produced by a number of people on earth.
I don't have to be agnostic about square circles.
Not in this universe, you don't.
There could be one or many gods out there, who knows. But I know it can't be the Christian god - a god alleged to be omnicient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent is logically impossible.
I don't know where you got the idea that the Christian God was omnibenevolent.
I suppose if you want to get technical, you could say I'm a gnostic athiest when it comes to the Christian god, and an agnostic athiest when it comes to the concept of god in general, but why bother?
According to Austin Cline, you are a gnostic atheist. If you want to be an agnostic atheist alone you must consider the possibilty of the Christian God. I agree. Why bother with such a stupid label anyhow.
No, the Unicorn is not god. It just created the universe. God created the Unicorn.
That is a religion you have invented. It does not discredit the creation theory or make it irrational. All you have done is given your version of creation theory. If you wish to compare your religion to others you have done a good job. If you want to throw out creation theory you need to find a suitable analogy first.
