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.
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.
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.
No, evolutionists do not use the terms "micro" or "macro," they just use evolution. Those are invented creationist terms.
Evolutionists must have great faith to believe in their concept, because it certainly isn't observable.
I'd like to remind you that a pug is directly related to a wolf. If you were looking by mere appearances and did not know the history you would likely not believe that there was any relation between them because of the radical differences in appearance. This, of course, is evolution at work and it is incontestable. The only difference is it was guided by human intervention. We all know a pug, if left in the wild, would not be fit for survival.
There is no way possible for them to prove their assertions.
Oh, sure there is. You are relying on observation, as in, only by direct observation can science be explained. Not true at all. If you accept DNA and you sequence the genome of various creatures you will see that some match within tenths of percentages. If direct observation is a requirement, then how is it that police can solve cases using DNA evidence without having observed the crime directly?
I only believe in science that can be proven. True science never relies solely on assumptions.
And it has been proven... it just happens to fly in the face of your beliefs so look for ways to make it conform to a preordained narrative.
And what I observe is "kind producing kind"
And what precisely is a "kind" in scientific terms?
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
I have already stated that dogs and wolves are of the same "kind." For your information, a pug is a dog.
One must have faith to believe in evolution.
Can you explain stellar evolution? Can you explain biological evolution? Can you explain chemical evolution? If you can't, then you must either admit there is a creator, or that you have faith they happened on the own.
I beg to differ. I have a glimmer of how stellar evolution happens, and I’m a complete amateur at astronomy, though I am a reasonably competent reader. And stellar evolution has as much to do with biological evolution as the price of M&Ms in Kazakstan has to do with the orbit of Mimas around Saturn. Do you want to talk about evolution? Stellar, or biological? We’ll go find Son Goku if we need to ......
But just what the hell is stellar evolution supposed to have to do with biological evolution? They are two completely different things.
Don't you know anything? The word "evolution" first appeared around 1610, more than two centuries before Darwin! It means "turning out" and is commonly used to refer to the development of something over time. Virtually all uses of the term have nothing to do with each other. The US Navy uses evolution all the time and could not possibly function without it -- every Navy evolution has the crew or part of the crew turn out in an organized manner to accomplish a task.
You have been deceived by a common creationist deception which seeks to generate confusion about what evolution means by conflating biological evolution with all other uses of the word, "evolution". And you are most certainly confused. The creationists are taking you for a fool and you are letting them do it.
Can you explain biological evolution?
Yes we can! I know that you cannot, but you could learn if you would only stop fighting so desperately to remain abysmally ignorant! We keep trying to explain it to you, but you keep shutting your eyes tightly and cramming your fingers into your ears and shouting "la la la" as loudly as you can in order to keep from learning anything.
If your creationist position were really as strong as you pretend it is, then why can it only defend itself by keeping its followers ignorant? Why are you so completely incapable of supporting or discussing any of your claims? Could it be because they don't want you to know what's really behind those claims? Could it be because as soon as you start to learn the truth then you will start to see the lies in "creation science"? I've been studying "creation science" and this issue since 1981. I have seen many creationists abandon creationism as they learned how full of lies it is. A large number of them left Christianity as well, since any religion that must be supported by lies and deception has to be a false religion. As I understand, many of this forum's members are former creationists who finally learned the truth. You should learn from them.
Can you explain chemical evolution?
Meaning what? Do you even have any clue what you're blathering about?
Abiogenesis, the transition from nonliving elements to living systems
Astrochemistry, the study of the abundance and reactions of molecules in the universe, and their interaction with radiation
Cosmochemistry, the study of the chemical compositions in the universe and the processes that led to them
Evolution of metal ions in biological systems, incorporation of metallic ions into living organisms and how it has changed over time
Gas evolution reaction, the process of a gas bubbling out from a solution
Molecular evolution, evolution at the scale of molecules
Oxygen evolution, the process of generating molecular oxygen through chemical reaction
Stellar nucleosynthesis, the creation of chemical elements by stellar thermonuclear fusion or supernovae
You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You're just throwing out random words that have no meaning.
Time for an impromptu Greek lesson. There are at least two verbs for making vocal utterances:
λεγω -- indicating rational speech. Related to the English verb, to lay, it implies a process of placing thoughts down in an orderly manner. Related words are logic and λογος .
λαλαω -- indicating nonsensical utterances, like "la la la la". LaLaLand of the mind.
All you are posting falls under λαλαω. It's pure nonsense.
If you can't, then you must either admit there is a creator, or that you have faith they happened on the own.
What the hell is that supposed to have to do with anything? Yet again, there is no conflict between biological evolution and a Creator. Anybody who knows anything about the subject and has given it any thought should see that with no problem. Why would you think otherwise? THAT IS NOT A RHETORIC QUESTION! I EXPECT A MEANINGFUL ANSWER!
Oh yeah, because you are being played for a fool by the creationists and their lies and deceptions.
One of their lies is that science attacks religion and is trying to disprove God. That is absolute nonsense. Even if science wanted to disprove God (which it does not), it couldn't possibly disprove God.
Guess who is able to disprove God. Creationists! Not because they are such dishonest liars and deceivers, but because of what they teach their followers. Think about it. What are you taught are the consequences of the earth actually being billions of years old? Here's John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR -- the creators of "creation science"):
quote:"If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning." (John Morris at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism)
Having received my fundamentalist training from the Jesus Freak Movement in 1970, I have eyes to see and ears to hear (if your knowledge of the Gospels is as non-existent as your knowledge of science and of creationism, let us know so that we can try in vain to explain it to you). If Scripture is found to have no meaning (eg, if even one single error were to be found in it) then you are taught that your Bible would be absolutely worthless and should be thrown in the trash followed by you becoming a hedonistic atheist -- sadly, I've had far too many creationists vehemently insist on exactly that.
And sure enough, the earth really is much older that 10,000 years, more like 3.5 billion (109) years old. So John Morris taught his followers that an old earth would invalidate Scripture and, by logical extension, Christianity and God, his followers believed him, the earth does actually turn out to be very old, therefore that disproves God. QED.
Leading creationists also teach you the falsehood that if evolution is true then Christianity is false and God does not exist (or at least is a false god unworthy of worship). Well, evolution is true -- by which I mean actual biological evolution and other actual sciences, not the strawman misrepresentative lies that creationists have deceived you with. Therefore, as you were taught, you conclude that God does not exist. QED.
Of course, creationism's disproofs of God are based on false premises and depend on you accepting those false premises. And since you do accept those false premises, then for you God is disproven.
That you would be so eager to commit spiritual suicide for the stupidest of reasons makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to us normals.
What is wrong with you people?
Add to that creationist sources declaring that if evolution
And yet again you ducked and dodged and avoided answering my question. Your typical creationist dishonesty keeps coming out. Why do you believe that God must be served with dishonesty, lies, and deception?
You claimed that "evolutionists" believe in such things as "a dog producing a cat; a cow producing a raccoon; or, an [non-human] ape producing a human" or "bobcats producing pigs." We have all explained to you that that is a utter false accusation. The only people who believe such a stupid thing are creationists, including you yourself.
My question, which you avoid answering like the plague, is why you would make such a stupid and utterly false accusation! In particular, I want to know what kind of reasoning went into creating such a stupid claim (that would include a detailed description of how you think evolution is supposed to work).
Answer the question!
You also claim that evolution requires such events as "a dog producing a cat; a cow producing a raccoon; or, an [non-human] ape producing a human" or "bobcats producing pigs." That is not only completely and utterly false, but it is the exact opposite of what evolution would have us expect -- as we have explained to you repeatedly!
My question, which you avoid answering like the plague, is why you would have such a stupid and utterly false expectation of evolution! In particular, I want to know exactly what your misunderstanding of evolution is that would lead you to such a stupid idea (that would include a detailed description of how you think evolution is supposed to work).
So cut the crap already and answer the damned question!
Everybody on this forum is responsible for the claims that they post. That means that they are responsible explaining, supporting, and defending the claims that they make.
You are no exception. When you make a claim here, you are responsible to answering questions about those claims, including explaining, supporting, and defending them. If you are so abjectly ignorant of your own claims that you are completely incapable of explaining, supporting, or defending them, then do not post them! Ignorance of your own claims is not an excuse.
In typical dishonest creationist manner, you have persistently dodge your responsibility and you are receiving our contempt which you so richly deserve. So far, you have been little more than a troll. Only you can change that.
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. 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:
The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of very high density and high temperature, 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 Lemaître 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. 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, 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.
[In reply to candle2:] 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.
I quote Dr. Jonathan Sarfati of Answers in Genesis (AiG) issuing the same warning to creationists who are being misled by false creationist claims. Just in case it needs to be pointed out, Dr. Sarfati is a professional young-earth creationist. And here, he agrees with what I've been telling YECs for decades.
In 2002, AiG published their first "please don't use these bogus claims" article. Apparently since that list included bogus claims that he would use routinely, Kent Hovind replied with a hostile response. On 02 December 2002, Dr. Sarfati replied in AiG Negative Feedback:
quote:As said in the original Don’t Use page, the harm is in using something which is not true, because the cause of the one who is "the truth" cannot be helped thereby. And your own recent experience reinforces something else we said—that using discredited arguments can backfire on the user. So our aim was to help Christians to avoid arguments that are likely to backfire, and return their focus to the Word of God not "evidence".
But more and more over the last few years, we have noticed tens of thousands of Christians excitedly using arguments over the Web, for instance, that are a plain embarrassment to those with scientific training. It was like watching your brother enter the ring thinking he had a killer punch, and watching him get cut to ribbons. Further, and most importantly, it had escalated to the point where it was a hindrance to soul winning, since it gave the hearers a "legitimate" excuse to reject Christ. And all we did at that point was to publish an "advice" article. The only time it became relevant to a specific creationist was when Kent [Hovind] himself decided to align himself publicly with a justification of false arguments. If it had been one or two minor points of disagreement, OK, but when it reinforces some of the most blatant fallacies, and even defends fraud, at what point does one NOT face one's responsibilities to the innocents being "slaughtered" in the belief that they are getting sound ammunition?
... , we actually do know people who say they almost gave the faith away when they found out that a particular argument was fallacious, and who say that finding Christians with the integrity to avoid falsehood, no matter what the cost, helped restore it. Also, in the last day or so, a leading atheistic anti-creationist organization said that while they disagreed with almost everything we stand for, they said we were "admirable" and "showed integrity" in trying to persuade other creationists not to use bad arguments. Who knows what sort of witness this could be? We know of many people, outside and inside of the church, who will no longer even look at or consider the authority of the Bible in Genesis, in its history, cosmology, etc. because of bad experiences with blatant pseudo-arguments applied by enthusiasts who had been fed creationist non-arguments.
It is sad that Carl Baugh will 'muddy the water' for many Christians and non-Christians. Some Christians will try to use Baugh's 'evidences' in witnessing and get 'shot down' by someone who is scientifically literate. The ones witnessed to will thereafter be wary of all creation evidences and even more inclined to dismiss Christians as nut cases not worth listening to.
Also, the Christian is likely to be less apt to witness, even perhaps tempted to doubt their own faith (wondering what other misinformation they have gullibly believed from Christian teachers). CSF ministers to strengthen the faith of Christians and equip them for the work of evangelism and, sadly, the long term effect of Carl Baugh's efforts will be detrimental to both.
We would much rather be spending all our time positively encouraging and equipping rather than countering the well-intentioned but misguided efforts of some like Carl Baugh, but we cannot stand idly by knowing people are being misled. Truth sets people free, not error!
I should point out that Dr. Batten's essay is not posted on AiG's site, but rather by Glen Kuban who is well known for his debunking of Baugh's bogus "human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints" claims. Kuban's story is that originally AiG's website was shared with another evangelical organization which did not allow them to post Batten's essay -- though I don't quite remember whether I got the story from Kuban or from AiG itself.
I authenticated Dr. Batten's essay and that it is what Dr. Batten had actually written. I did so independently of Glen Kuban. I got AiG's webmaster's email address from the AiG website and sent him an email with links to the essay and asking whether it was authentic. The AiG webmaster verified that the essay was indeed authentic.
And then there's Steve Rauch. In the 1990's, an evangelical Christian PhD candidate in Physical Geology ran a very active Christianity/science discussion web ring through conservative Christian Calvin College. Being an honest Christian, he was very highly critical of YEC. I still have some excellent essays he had written, but since then he graduated and started a career in education and a family, so he no longer wants to be involved in the creation/evolution discourse, having far better things to do with his time. I requested permission to repost his essays and he declined. I am also withholding his name in order to protect his privacy.
From that web ring I got a quote from an ex-creationist, Steve Rauch:
quote:I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed.
Will candle2 read any of what even professional creationists know about his false claims? I very much doubt it.