Education

Something else I think is a big problem is the lies spread about science and evolution. Anyone seen those people passing out those little Bibles on college campuses?Well this past year they were passing out little booklets against evolution. The booklet was full of lies. Of course the most famous lie about evolution was in it (atleast I think it is). A statement roughly saying "I can't believe they think we came from monkeys."Wish someone would make a little booklet like that to be passed out called Evolution for Dummies.

Sounds like the work of Jack Chick. It's hard to believe that anybody on a college campus would swallow that garbage.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

quote:

---

Yeah, it really is stupid that we waste any time trying to use scienct to cure disease or anything.

---

I know there are many benefits to science, and math, but as hypocritical as it may seem, none of it will matter someday, don't you agree?

---

Your body may be gone, I'm gonna carry you in.
In my head, in my heart, in my soul.
And maybe we'll get lucky and we'll both live again.
Well I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Don't think so.

quote:

---

Sounds like the work of Jack Chick. It's hard to believe that anybody on a college campus would swallow that garbage.

---

Yep, thats it. Here it is Chick.com: Big Daddy? You'll laugh and get mad at the same time.

It's going to matter a lot more than your religion ever will.

Jesus did things to help the poor and suffering of his time. None of them will matter someday, don't you agree?So should we reject Jesus and his teachings? Is that really what you believe, Charlie?

---

What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul.
(paraphrasing Mark 8:36)

I see evos, even scientists, showing a deplorable lack of scientific rigor and basic logic and reasoning. Not to sidetrack this, but I learned this past week debating on Haeckel's fraudulent drawings, that it wasn't just that his drawings were used in textbooks, but according to the 1997 Richardson study, evolutionist scientists in their research had pretty much just taken the claim of a single phylotypic stage on faith without any citations, except maybe Haeckel who had faked his data.It was quite eye-opening to say the least, but I think it illustrates a point. Evos claim to be more scientific, but often I find evos are really very far from science, but just clothe unscientific approaches and reasoning, such as basing theories (such as a phylotypic stage) off of unsubtantiated and unproven claims), with scientific data.Evolutionism, it appears to me then, to be more of a hybrid of mythmaking and real science, a sort of pseudo-science.On the other hand, often the informed creationist or IDer seems to understand evolutionary theory better than evos themselves.This message has been edited by randman, 12-11-2005 03:15 PM

an illustration of what I am talking about There is messianic sense among evos that belief and acceptance of their theory is necessary for the salvation and security of the world. It never occurs to evos that one of the main reasons the public doubts their claims is that the evidence they have used, the icons of evolution such as peppered moths (claiming microevolution equals macroevolution), frauds like Haeckel's drawings, claiming the fossil record shows evolution (ignoring the lack of transitionals), etc, etc,...is so easily refuted that a reasonable person should doubt evo claims.Perhaps if evos stuck to science instead of relying on hoaxes, frauds, overstatements and exagerrations, they would have more success, but listening to basic evo claims is like hearing Al Gore claim to have too the initiative in creating the internet or another dem come out and promise a middle class tax cut.It just doesn't work anymore because people are seeing these types of things for what they are, false evidentiary claims.

Can't be worse than what the evos do in teaching the Biogenetic law until the 50s, 60 years after it was known to be wrong, or presenting Haeckel's faked drawings claiming a single phylotypic stage, claiming human gill slits, etc, etc,...I am sorry, but Jack Chick is about the same level, actually a little higher, in adherence to scientific standards, imo, than most of what passes as evolutionism.

Ned,I've been reading these boards for a couple of weeks now, having become interested in the debates, and I think that your question raises some important points.You see, I don't think that it matters how well educated you are in these subjects, and I certainly do not claim to understand the science behind most of the threads on this forum, indeed some of them went totally over my head.I think is to do with belief. That's what matters. If you want to believe that God made the world 6000 years ago, and that the bible is an historical document, then you can twist anything to fit into what you believe, the same as you can attempt to explain how we grew from primitive species to a complex one. The fact is, that none of us really know. For not only is there not a complete fossil record which Substantiates the evolutionists claims, but there is also no evidence for the existance of a creator who made everything from his own imagination. As one your respondants stated, it is a leap of faith, ON BOTH SIDES. Until we have all of the information that we require to categorically prove one or the other theory, then both are in question.Being more educated may enable us to make a more informed choice as to what we believe, and I think that that is the key. We should all be given the chance to choose. What is scary is that there are a lot of people in the world, who are just told what to believe, wheteher they be jewish, muslim, christian, pagan, or sikh etc. or an a non believer. Most people who are brought up in a certain way will follow their cultural roots, and that is where the problem lies.

No it isn't. Science does not rest on faith. It rests on evidence only. But nothing in science is ever "categorically proven". That is not the point of science. The point of science is to come up with the best possible explanation that fits the evidence without faith.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Robert, you make a good point. One of the main things I try to do is point out the overstatements evos make to try prove their claims.I am often subsequently asked about my beliefs, and I present some of them, but openly admit I don't think we have enough evidence to say exactly how it all happened, and this in turn leads to evos becoming upset as if I am dodging them.I think most evos, that debate the topic at least, have a need for an answer. An answer of "I don't know" is not good enough. Ironically, they will also say they are just working with a model, that can be changed, but their dogmatic attitude shows they don't merely approach evolution as science, but as dogma, regardless of the facts.

What?People tell you their model can be changed and you call that a "dogmatic" attitude? Seems like the opposite of dogma to me.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

The attitude of evos is they are asserting a proven fact, and they assert this with more dogmatism than any other area of science I know of. The idea they consider it scientifically, as something not proven, is demonstrably proven wrong by the inherent and unreasonable dogmatism of evos.

But then, you think Jack Chick is more scientific than scientists. Doesn't say much for your "knowledge" of science, does it?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.