Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 1284 of 2073 (843686)
11-20-2018 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1277 by creation
11-19-2018 1:56 PM


Re: Conclusion vs Assumption, Belief, teach the difference
Mutations occur now. That is what is observed. The way evolution happened in the former days we do not know.
We conclude the past behavior of life, the universe, etc. is similar to what we see today, because the evidence is consistent with a consistent nature, ... AND there is no evidence of it being any different "in the former days" -- you certainly have not presented any.
Nor do we know what the created kinds were from which all adapting/evolving started. ...
What is a "kind" -- please define and provide examples.
... Nor do we know aout nature in the far past, and how creatures would have quickly evolved/adapted to that. ...
Again, we conclude the past behavior of life, the universe, etc. is similar to what we see today, because the evidence is consistent with such a consistent nature, ... AND there is no evidence of it being any different "in the former days" -- you certainly have not presented any.
Your use of "former nature" does not rest on evidence or anything but personal fantasy, and as such is no argument of any kind of value.
... Nor do we know that any possibility existed in that former nature for them to be able to leave fossil remains! So the fossils we do see could and probebly do only represent a small small small small fraction of what variety of life LIVED and existed also when those creatures that became the fossils we do have died!!!
It is accepted in science that the fossils only represent a small proportion of the amount of life that has existed on this planet, and new varieties are being found constantly. Curiously they all fit into the nested hierarchies predicted by evolution.
It is always good to teach multiple lines of inquiry as a way to explore the validity of ideas. Another aspect of the fossil record is the space-time matrix of where they are found. This is discussed in Alfred Russel Wallace and Biogeography:
quote:
On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species
This is the paper where Wallace first published his "Sarawak Law" that he developed from his pursuit of biogeographical and geological relationships:
quote:
The following propositions in Organic Geography and Geology give the main facts on which the hypothesis is founded.
Geography.
1. Large groups, such as classes and orders, are generally spread over the whole earth, while smaller ones, such as families and genera, are frequently confined to one portion, often to a very limited district.
2. In widely distributed families the genera are often limited in range; in widely distributed genera, well-marked groups of species are peculiar to each geographical district.
3. When a group is confined to one district, and is rich in species, it is almost invariably the case that the most closely allied species are found in the same locality or in closely adjoining localities, and that therefore the natural sequence of the species by affinity is also geographical.
4. In countries of a similar climate, but separated by a wide sea or lofty mountains, the families, genera and species of the [[p. 186] one are often represented by closely allied families, genera and species peculiar to the other.
Geology.
5. The distribution of the organic world in time is very similar to its present distribution in space.
6. Most of the larger and some small groups extend through several geological periods.
7. In each period, however, there are peculiar groups, found nowhere else, and extending through one or several formations.
8. Species of one genus, or genera of one family occurring in the same geological time are more closely allied than those separated in time.
9. As generally in geography no species or genus occurs in two very distant localities without being also found in intermediate places, so in geology the life of a species or genus has not been interrupted. In other words, no group or species has come into existence twice.
10. The following law may be deduced from these facts:--Every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a pre-existing closely allied species.
This law agrees with, explains and illustrates all the facts connected with the following branches of the subject:--1st. The system of natural affinities. 2nd. The distribution of animals and plants in space. 3rd. The same in time, including all the phnomena of representative groups, and those which Professor Forbes supposed to manifest polarity. 4th. The phnomena of rudimentary organs. We will briefly endeavour to show its bearing upon each of these.
color and bold added: this is known as "The Law of Sarawak" and this formulation is an important step in his development of a theory of evolution.
He goes on to discusses how this law results in nested hierarchies of relationships between living and extinct groups:
quote:
If the law above enunciated be true, it follows that the natural series of affinities will also represent the order in which the several species came into existence, each one having had for its immediate antitype a closely allied species existing at the time of its origin. It is evidently possible that two or three distinct species may have had a common antitype, and that each of these may again have become the antitypes from which other closely allied species were created. The effect of this would be, that so long as each species has had but one new species formed on its model, the line of affinities will be simple, and may be represented by placing the several species in direct succession in a straight line. But if two or more species have been independently formed on the plan of a common antitype, then the series of affinities will be compound, and can only be represented by a forked or many-branched line. ....
Here "antitype" (antetype) is used where today we would use "common ancestor" for the ancestral population, and "affinity" is used where today we would use homology.
This is 3 years before he (or Darwin) ties the population dynamics of Malthus together with natural selection, but it shows that he had developed the basis for the theory of evolution.
This also shows the basis for biogeography that is his legacy.
These simple observations and the correlations of fossils in time and space provide strong evidence that the fossil record is best explained by evolution.
WE also have the evidence from DNA that also shows life falling into the nested hierarchies predicted by evolution, and amazingly those nested hierarchies generally match the ones from the fossil record.
There have been some minor anomalies, but they have been resolved. If they were not resolvable then that would be a problem.
I know you don't really understand the value of correlations as very strong supporting evidence of scientific findings, but this is another such correlation of results from two entirely separate fields of study, one that did not need to occur ... unless both are documenting the same thing, the actual pattern of evolution in the past of life as we know it.
Science assumes the fossil record represents a good cross section/sampling of life on earth at the time of the fossil creation..no?
Science concludes and accepts that the fossil record is a cross section/sampling of some of the life on earth and that there are some unknowns, missing evidence, in actual lineal descent. We talk about cousins species as more accurate to the patterns of descent from common populations.
So far the best explanation we have of the diversity in the fossil record is evolution. This is tested by each new fossil. It is also tested by each new genome developed from DNA. So far evolution remains the best explanation of the diversity in the fossil record.
Your "we can't know the past" is not an explanation. It is also worthless for education, it teaches nothing and only fosters ignorance.
Your "things may have been different in the past" is not an explanation. It is also worthless for education, it teaches nothing and only fosters ignorance.
Teaching that pigs may have flown in an entirely made up different past is actually teaching ignorant falsehoods. Maybe suitable for a course on mythology and silly things some people believe, but it certainly is not history or science.
Sorry, stop pushing your religion on kids.
Says the one pushing personal fantasy without any basis on evidence.
Science is not religion, it's fact based conclusions and validated theory that is based on evidence to explain it, subject to change when the evidence shows anomalous or unexpected results to tests predicted by the theories developed to explain the evidence.
Show me a religion ready and prepared to change if the evidence invalidates it, and that is actively seeking such evidence.
We have a choice when it comes to school history and science classes: Do we teach hid-bound blind religious dogma, or do we teach flexible thinking (that constantly adapts to new evidence) and how to find testable answers to questions.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1277 by creation, posted 11-19-2018 1:56 PM creation has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 1286 of 2073 (843700)
11-20-2018 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1283 by creation
11-20-2018 1:45 AM


Re: Conclusion vs Assumption, Belief, teach the difference
... ALL remains of humans are post flood.
Let's now have a lesson on the continued failings of creationist claims:
29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
Where do you draw the line for human among these skulls? Other than "A" (chimpanzee) the skulls are arranged by their space-time matrix, so what is pre-flood and what is post-flood and how can we tell?
Evolution explains these skulls, creationism doesn't.
In school we should teach what works, not what fails.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1283 by creation, posted 11-20-2018 1:45 AM creation has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1293 of 2073 (844147)
11-25-2018 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1289 by creation
11-25-2018 3:34 AM


Re: Conclusion vs Assumption, Belief, teach the difference
I daresay I think you have NO remains of any man before the flood, or even shortly after it. ...
Because there was no flood.
Teaching evolution and religion in school should be based on fact, not fantasy.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1289 by creation, posted 11-25-2018 3:34 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1295 by creation, posted 11-26-2018 1:10 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1297 of 2073 (844190)
11-26-2018 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1295 by creation
11-26-2018 1:10 PM


Re: Conclusion vs Assumption, Belief, teach the difference
There was no big bang, or first lifeform or same nature in the past. Making claims is easy. ...
Says the person making up claims: you should know.
Developing conclusions from evidence not so easy, as you should also know, because there is an absence of evidence for your assertions -- you can't find any ... so you try to make it up.
... Why would sane people teach your beliefs??
Because they are conclusions based on evidence, not mere belief, and sane people can look at the evidence and decide that the conclusions are valid.
This is the kind of thing that needs to be taught: how to tell fact from fantasy, how to use evidence to support your arguments, how to apply rational thinking to the issues.
Again, you are a poster child for the empty vapidness that is creationism: pontificating on things you don't have evidence for ... loudly, frequently, as if repetition can change reality;
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1295 by creation, posted 11-26-2018 1:10 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1301 by creation, posted 11-27-2018 2:02 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1304 of 2073 (844246)
11-27-2018 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1301 by creation
11-27-2018 2:02 AM


One Trick Pony
Mere belief foisted on evidences is all you have shown you are able to do actually. Further pretense is in vain.
We have reviewed your thesis and reject it for the following reasons:
The effort you've put into researching and documenting the evidence to substantiate your thesis is grossly insufficient for a school program based on facts.
Repeating the same assertions without reference to facts is indiscernible from delusion, and has no place in school.
You basic thesis provides nothing for educational value in schools, it leads nowhere. There is insufficient information provided to base a study plan for even a single class period.
Please review these comments and make changes if you want your thesis to be accepted for school use -- as anything other than a bad example.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1301 by creation, posted 11-27-2018 2:02 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1307 by creation, posted 11-27-2018 4:42 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1310 of 2073 (844323)
11-28-2018 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1307 by creation
11-27-2018 4:42 PM


Re: One Trick Pony rides again
Don't pretend some thesis exists. The issues you face are supporting your religion as science. ALL THE THESIS AND CLAIMS AND BELIEFS OF ALL ORIGIN SCIENCES ARE WORTHLESS RELIGION.
You are correct, there is no thesis to your one-trick pony ramblings. My mistake.
There is also no proposed study plan to use in school.
Further there is no information or question proposed to study in school.
531 posts to date, all wasted bandwidth.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1307 by creation, posted 11-27-2018 4:42 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1312 by creation, posted 11-28-2018 6:35 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1314 of 2073 (844372)
11-28-2018 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1312 by creation
11-28-2018 6:35 PM


Re: One Trick Pony rides again
All study should involve truth. Your religious fables are dangerous poison for kids.
Message 1311: They should learn to despise lies, and treasure truth and learn the difference.
Seems you haven't learned what you advocate teaching children. Amusing irony.
Science is not religious, nor is it fables. It is fact based conclusions
Fantasies built on fact free personal opinion of biblical myths are both.
Your one-trick pony keeps leaving piles of ignorant underinformed blather. Unfortunately -- for you -- it doesn't contain any evidence to support your assertions, just wasted bandwidth ... just more evidence that creationist arguments like yours are worthless drivel with no place in any school.
You make a strong argument for science and fact based education by demonstrating what develops from the lack of it.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1312 by creation, posted 11-28-2018 6:35 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1318 by creation, posted 12-01-2018 2:24 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 1352 of 2073 (875547)
04-28-2020 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1328 by candle2
04-27-2020 6:48 AM


Please define what you mean by Evolution
Observation proves that human parents produce human babies;
that puppies come from dogs; that piglets come from pigs; and,
chimps procreate chimps.
Which evolution (as defined by science) actually predicts. So it seems you have/use a different definition than science uses, if you think this challenges evolution (as defined by science).
Can you define what you mean by "evolution?" This is necessary to have a rational discussion about evolution, don't you think?
No poster on this site has "observed" a dog producing a cat; a cow producing a raccoon; ...
The observation of which would actually disprove evolution, so not observing it does not disprove evolution (as defined by science).
Never has a pregnant woman asked "I wonder what kind of animal will I give birth to?
They know for certain that their offsprings will be a human.
Why are they (and I) so sure of this fact? Because for thousands of years we have observed.this to be true.
Again, this is predicted by evolution (as defined by science), so seeing this does not disprove evolution (as defined by science).
This is observable science. Science does not disagree with this proven fact; ...
Facts are facts, they are not proven, nor do they need to be, they are facts.
... however, evolutionists (whose paradigm prevents them from seeing truth) reject "observational science."
What's an "evolutionist?" What is their "paradigm?"
Are the non-observational sciences?
Fossils exist. This is a proven fact. But, they don't comes with labels attached to them, stating how old they are, or how many offsprings they had.
Indeed, but sciences (physics, chemistry, geology) have determined many ways to test for the ages of fossils. When several methods reach the same result we have high confidence in that result.
Humans (guided by their paradigm) ...
Again, can you define this paradigm?
... place their own interpretations on them.
That would be science interpreting the data, a standard aspect of any science.
Scientists (evolutionists) ...
Are all scientist evolutionists" (and again, what is an evolutionist?)
... might accept evolution as being true, ...
Most scientists do, based on a preponderance of evidence showing evolution (as defined by science) occurring again and again, with no evidence of it being erroneous or mistaken.
... but science is not so kind to this concept.
So you state, but fail to demonstrate. Nothing you have said challenges evolution (as defined by science) in any way.
What you have demonstrated, if anything, is that your model of evolution (whatever that is -- you have yet to define it) is wrong. In science we discard failed models. Will you? That is how you learn.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1328 by candle2, posted 04-27-2020 6:48 AM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1353 by candle2, posted 04-28-2020 3:23 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1357 of 2073 (875565)
04-28-2020 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1353 by candle2
04-28-2020 3:23 PM


Re: Please define what you mean by Evolution
Evolutionists believe minute changes, which they refer to as micro evolution (it is nothing more than variations in a species), over the course of eons, leads to macro evolution.
Evolutionists require great amounts of time in order for a species to evolve and create a totally different species.
They believe that "time" can do the impossible.
Evolutionists must have great faith to believe in their concept, because it certainly isn't observable. There is no way possible for them to prove their assertions.
Curiously I don’t know any scientist, biologist, ecologist, or otherwise that believes any of this muddled twaddle
And I notice you did not define EVOLUTION, which is probably why this twaddle you rattle on about.
Please give it a whack, and now also define what you mean by macro evolution ... just for fun. And then tell me what you mean by a totally different species. Because good debate depends on all parties understanding what each other says.
I only believe in science that can be proven. True science never relies solely on assumptions
Never took a real science have you?
Nothing is proven in any science. If you think otherwise give an example.
The theory of gravity is not proven, for example, so if you don’t believe science unless proven, I invite you to jump off a 10 story building. You can test the theory and perhaps invalidate it.
Do you know what the scientific method is? Occam's Razor? Anything on Popper’s theories?
It seems you have a lot to learn. A good first start is that what you think you know is probably wrong.
And what I observe is "kind producing kind"
Don’t you mean kinds reproducing within their kinds ... ? Not producing (some other) kind.
Curiously, what I observe is clades reproducing (generation after generation), offspring within their clades
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1353 by candle2, posted 04-28-2020 3:23 PM candle2 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1366 of 2073 (875599)
04-30-2020 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1365 by jar
04-29-2020 5:28 PM


Re: Evolution over Religion
Religion though should be taught in my opinion, and taught early and continuously so that religious beliefs are held to the same standards of evidence as reality or science. Religion has done some good in the world but mostly harm, and it's important that both the good and harm be acknowledged.
Comparative religion could be taught as a sociology course where all religions are compared and contrasted.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1365 by jar, posted 04-29-2020 5:28 PM jar has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1367 of 2073 (875600)
04-30-2020 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1363 by candle2
04-29-2020 4:49 PM


Evolution faith based? What evidence do you have?
Faith based beliefs should not be supported by taxpayers. This is true for evolution.
So you keep saying, yet you have presented no evidence for this claim, it is just assertion of your opinion, your belief.
Curiously opinion and belief have shown remarkably little ability to change reality.
Now, I see evidence of evolution occurring every day, not because I believe in it, but because I know what it is, what the scientific definition is for this process, and how it works.
You still have not defined it, and this is a grave oversized in a debate about evolution. Your failure to do this leads me to the conclusion that you do not know what it is. Your argument is based on ignorance.
That can be remedied if you are willing.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1363 by candle2, posted 04-29-2020 4:49 PM candle2 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1379 of 2073 (875650)
05-02-2020 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1371 by candle2
04-30-2020 7:49 PM


Re: Please define what you mean by Evolution
You have no idea of how stellar evolution could happen, nor does anyone else. ...
You have no idea how ignorant this makes you look.
Search engine: Stellar evolution
Results: many pages of result covering this topic, among them:
quote:
Stellar evolution - Wikipedia
Stellar evolution is the process by which a star changes over the course of time. Depending on the mass of the star, its lifetime can range from a few million years for the most massive to trillions of years for the least massive, which is considerably longer than the age of the universe. The table shows the lifetimes of stars as a function of their masses.[1] All stars are formed from collapsing clouds of gas and dust, often called nebulae or molecular clouds. Over the course of millions of years, these protostars settle down into a state of equilibrium, becoming what is known as a main-sequence star.
Many more paragraphs after that. Other results are similar (and don’t contradict this). A remarkable trove of information on a topic of how stellar evolution occurs, readily available for anyone who wants to learn. To say we have no idea of how stellar evolution could happen is demonstrably poppycock.
... You know that I know better than this.
You haven’t shown it.
Science knows absolutely well that nothing (the size of the period at the end of this sentence) exploded into the universe that we know today. ...
Aside from knowing that this description of the Big Bang is bogus, with the term originally meant as mockery, you once again could avail yourself with another trove of information with a google search. Once again there are pages of results, including:
quote:
Big Bang - Wikipedia
The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[1][2][3] The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of very high density and high temperature,[4] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, large-scale structure, and Hubble's law — the farther away galaxies are, the faster they are moving away from Earth. If the observed conditions are extrapolated backwards in time using the known laws of physics, the prediction is that just before a period of very high density there was a singularity. Current knowledge is insufficient to determine if anything existed prior to the singularity.
Georges Lematre first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, calling his theory that of the "primeval atom". For much of the rest of the 20th century scientific community was divided between supporters of the Big Bang and the rival Steady-state model, but a wide range of empirical evidence has strongly favored the Big Bang, which is now universally accepted.[5] Edwin Hubble concluded from analysis of galactic redshifts in 1929 that galaxies are drifting apart; this is important observational evidence for an expanding universe. In 1964, the CMB was discovered, which was crucial evidence in favor of the hot Big Bang model,[6] since that theory predicted the existence of a background radiation throughout the universe.
You’ll note that this doesn’t give an original size of the singularity. You’ll also note that the expansion is not called an explosion.
... The idea is laughable.
Straw man arguments are always laughable, you should stop making them.
It takes great faith to believe in evolution.
Do you want to talk about scientific biological evolution or another straw man argument? You haven’t said anything remotely related to scientific biological evolution yet.
So far your arguments are as dangerous as taking a toy rubber hatchet into an axe fight, one painted red to look like blood rather than the real thing.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1371 by candle2, posted 04-30-2020 7:49 PM candle2 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1380 by dwise1, posted 05-02-2020 1:01 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1384 of 2073 (875702)
05-03-2020 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1383 by vimesey
05-03-2020 12:11 PM


troll or too willingly ignorant to make a difference
Good grief.
You really don’t understand what science is, do you ? ...
See Message 9, The Methods of Historical Science to demystify the process for the public: from over a year ago, and Message 24 as an example
Try learning ...
Apparently not possible.
troll or too willingly ignorant to make a difference, sad.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1383 by vimesey, posted 05-03-2020 12:11 PM vimesey has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 1386 of 2073 (875707)
05-03-2020 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1385 by AZPaul3
05-03-2020 2:55 PM


Realize that the only people learning are the lurkers
But, understand, candle2, that lacking sufficient knowledge of some specific topic is not disproof, especially in areas where evolution is not involved like abiogenesis.
Insisting on proof and duplication is the creationist displaying his own ignorance of the subjects involved and the creationist’s simplistic childish view of the complexity of reality. It make you look really stupid.
Realize that the only people learning from these discussions are the lurkers. Not that it is a bad thing to provide educatio.
See The Methods of Historical Science to demystify the process for the public:, Message 10 from over a year ago. Same ignorant assertions, no changes.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1385 by AZPaul3, posted 05-03-2020 2:55 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1389 of 2073 (875730)
05-04-2020 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1382 by candle2
05-03-2020 11:22 AM


bogus claim on the age of the earth being in the bible
I don't know how old the Earth is, but the Bible teaches that it is more than 6000 years
It does nothing of the sort. The age of the earth is not mentioned, to say nothing of providing a number.
Prove me wrong or accept my comment as valid: Cite verse that gives a number.
Agreed that is older (much older) the point is you claiming an actual number in the bible.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1382 by candle2, posted 05-03-2020 11:22 AM candle2 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1391 by dad, posted 05-29-2020 2:39 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024