Does teaching of evolution cause social decay?

Which version of the bible are you talking about?Speaking as someone that speaks 2 languages fluently and a 3rd language for backup, there is no such thing as a noninterpreted translation. Care to enlighten to the rest of us why you think the version of the bible (in English) that you have read is without translation error from the original?Note that I am saving the historical accuracy assertion for later. If you think that you can make assertions without backing them up without the rest of us coming down on you, you are wrong.

---

The Laminator

​

Based on your reasoning, the Quran is more valid than the bible, since it Predicted the speed of light

---

The Laminator

​

I'm guessing this is the introduction of your argument, so I'll let it slip for now. You might want to consider that that is 1.5 million children that will have to end up in orphanages each year. Let's face it, the number of people adopting kids aren't catching up with the number of children needed to be adopted. I'm not talking about the United States alone. I'm talking about a world wide problem. You might want to go back to school (if you are not in school right now) and learn more about the AIDS epidemic. And just how does homosexuality tie in with teenage pregnancy? If anything, you should be thanking us for not continuing to help overpopulate this planet. In fact, I think you should be on your knees thanking us for allowing your offsprings to have less competition later on. Look at these graphs. These were taken from The Bureau of Justice Statistics
Notice that the only crimes that are increasing are crimes related to drugs because of this stupid drug war that we are in. Homosexuality doesn't have anything with pediphilia. Get your freaking facts straight! Actually, there are more pediphilic men that prey on girls (in proportion to the population of the group) than the ones that go after little boys. If you want proof of this, I'll give it to you later. I strongly suggest you take a class on philosophy of ethics. Subjectivism is one of the weakest branches of the "tree" of moral theories. You mean you want us to revert back to the times when the church is free to burn people alive for being labeled as heretics? Warning!!! Slipery Slope detected! Warning!!! Straw Man detected! What the hell are you talking about? The theory of evolution doesn't have anything to do with popular opinion. In fact, the majority of the people I know don't believe in evolution. IFF he exists.You've just proven to us that we need to educate people more or they'll end up being as ignorant as you.

---

The Laminator

​

Edited by Lam. I have already proven that crime rates are actually going down and provided a source for it.As for the abortion rate, The US Census Bureau website has the information on that. Click on section 2 of year 2003 report. Go to page 15 and you will see that about 1.5 million induced abortions are done each year.Before I edited this post, I stated that there were only 1,500 abortions each year. I did not notice that it stated that the numbers represent 1,000 each. So, he was correct after all. I apologize for my mistake earlier. It's late now.By the way, aren't I good or what? This message has been edited by Lam, 05-07-2004 01:40 AM

---

The Laminator

​

*Ahem* I believe I've done your work for you.Noone here has a problem with you looking at the world from the biblical perspective. However, we do have a problem with you making assertions that you can't support.Although the abortion rate you made turned out to be true by my research, the fact that you couldn't back up your claims makes me question your other assertions. Your crime rate claim obviously wrong, as I have shown with graphs. I just don't understand why you continue to make these claims that are being easily shot down by critical thinking and the use of facts on our part.I think it is time for you to question about your worldview.This message has been edited by Lam, 05-07-2004 01:39 AM

---

The Laminator

​

A little work on reading comprehension will do you much good.I did not ask you to change your worldview. I only recommended that you question your worldview more often. I question my worldview all the time, too. The fact that I have demonstrated that your assertion about increasing crime rates is wrong should be enough to tell you that not questioning your worldview will lead you down the wrong paths.Here is something that I normally tell people after a debate. Nothing I've said here is necessarily true. I've given you some facts. Hopefully, you will take the time to analyze the facts and determine if my argument is valid or not.

---

The Laminator

​

Could you name some references? I will deal with each one accordingly. Neither is your computer. What does that have to do with anything we are discussing about? (Note to self: calm down. Everything is going to be ok.) Mainstream science does NOT consider evolution as fact!!!The fact that you've said hundreds of times doesn't mean squat to us if you don't provide any evidence to back up your assertions. In fact, I can tell you with certainty that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about regarding the scientific approach to the theory of evolution. I could write more, but I highly doubt that you could understand anything I write. Please, provide some evidence to back up this claim. And your head is a watermelon. Since so far you have refused to provide any evidence for your claims, I believe I am justified in believing that your head is just a watermelon. I don't have to put forth any evidence for this. Can you even tell us what the scientific method is? Could you tell us the steps involved? Sounds like the opposite of the scientific method to me. As been demonstrated before, creationists pound the evidence with their hammers until the evidence fit their faith.The scientific method demands that you consider all evidence available and come up with a theory to that could fit in all the evidence.This message has been edited by Lam, 05-07-2004 02:24 AM

---

The Laminator

​

Evolution is a theory. It's the mechanisms and the effects that are considered facts simply because we observe them happening all the time. At least this is what I've always thought to be the case with the theory of evolution.Anyway, new thread it is.

---

The Laminator

​

Perhaps this is where the disagreement is. I'm a pretty sure that almeyda meant "fact" as "absolute certainty" based on what he has written so far. It is also this definition of "fact" that I used for my statement.

---

The Laminator

​

Besides what you said, I believe that, as people dedicated to science, we should try to stay with the definitions that many creationists often use rather than start using sophisticated distinctions between these words.For example, I have noticed that creationists tend to use the word "fact" as something that has "absolute certainty." By introducing the scientific approach to this word, we will only cause more confusion regarding the creationist side.Another thing that I have observed is that creationists often have a hard time understanding that there are always a certain level of uncertainty in everything we know through science. To the creationists, truth is absolute. To science, truth is we-are-99.99%-sure-but-it-is-subject-to-change-when-necessary.

---

The Laminator

​

What's your point?

---

The Laminator

​

Warning: Fallacy of appeal to unqualified authority detected!
Dr John Baumgardner- What does electrical engineering has to do with biological evolution?Donald Chittick, Ph.D- Again, chemistry is closer but it still doesn't give him the authority to speak on biological evolution. However, it is absolutely all right for him to share his opinion on the matter.Dr Donald DeYoung- Physics and math doesn't give him the authority on biological evolution.Dr Terry Mortenson- History is hardly a qualification for being an authority figure in biological evolution.Dr Monty White- Again, chemistry is close to biology, but not close enough.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The following scientists are the ones that are qualified to represent as authority figures in this matter.Dr David DeWitt- biochemistryDr David Menton- cell biologyDr Gary Parker- biology/geologyDr David Catchpoole- physiologyI don't know enough about their backgrounds to comment on anything. However, just because there are some to a few scientists that happen to disagree with mainstream science doesn't mean they've disproven the theory of evolution. Just think of it this way. There are some religious people that believe in biological evolution. Does this mean that the rest of you should start believing in evolution? I would guess no.Between my biology professors and these scientists, I will trust my biology professors more for now.By the way, those books that these guys published just made it to my summer reading list.

---

The Laminator

​

First of all, I'd like to point out that for an angel you are quite horrific with your grammars. Just take a white crayon and a black crayon and color them together. Voila! You have gray.Admitting your ignorance of certain matter and natural phenomena is the first step toward wisdom. There's an old Vietnamese proverb: when a fool talks, he is always right, because no reasonable person can tell him otherwise. Um... the middle ground is not where many of us fall. I'm not a religious evolutionist and I know at least 6 other people here that are the same way.However, if you are refering to the uncertainty of scientific theories, you picked the wrong ground to fight on. I could have sworn Australians speak and write English fluently.

---

The Laminator

​

Let me ask you this. Can you specify any condition that can "disprove" creationism?In order for something to be scientific, it has to be falsifiable. This is a concept that every biology teacher I know try to beat on the heads of the students with. To be falsifiable, a theory must say that if certain conditions are observed then the theory can be thrown out the window.For example, one of the specified conditions in which a scientist can discredit the theory of relativity is the discovery of a particle that travels faster than the speed of light. The reason I'm not talking about evolution is because the conditions are much more complicated than that.With that said, is creationism falsifiable? If you answer yes, could you or one of your fellow creationists name a specified condition in which creationism can be falsified? If you answer no, then creationism is not a valid scientific theory, period.

---

The Laminator

​

Opinions are only valid if they can be backed up by facts. If they are unsupported, they're nothing but a pile of crap.

---

The Laminator

​