A debater, an apologist, and a scientist walked into a bar...
Actually, no. I just made that up.
But there are significant differences among these three.
A debater can take any side of an issue (much like a lawyer), and they don't care about the facts. They'll argue anything.
An apologist can take only one side of an issue, and doesn't care about the facts either. This is particularly true of religious apologists. They'll argue using anything that favors their belief, and they have been known to make things up from whole cloth.
A scientist is supposed to follow the facts to wherever they lead, and most do just that.
Scientists are trained to ignore magic, superstition, wishful thinking, divine revelation, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, spells, ouija boards, anecdotes, tarot cards, sorcery, naturalism, seances, black cats, table tipping, witch doctors, divination, "miracles," the unguessable verdict of history, hoodoo, voodoo, and all that other weird stuff.
Would that everyone were similarly trained, eh?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
So are you accepting that you were wrong when you wrote this?:
quote:All that keeps evolutionist sheeple from thinking for themselves is the fact that the secularistic evolution myth of chaos into order is programmed into their young minds full of mush all the way from pre-school through doctorate degree.
You didn't answer my question...
quote:Is there anything at all that could convince you otherwise?
What would it be?
Catholic school may be different than public school.
but public school science has assumed evolution for a long time.
It has "assumed" geocentrism for longer... so what? Science class is for teaching science (For Science!), so that's what we should expect. Like my biology professor said: you aren't expected to believe it all, but you are expected to be able to explain it.
Even back in the early 1940s when I was in grade school I remember the 5th grade teacher telling us about grunting cavemen.
Go on... they did exist.
Btw, I see the term creationist as incongruent to evolutionist. Creationism implies a creator, rather than disorganized soup to life to organized complexity absent of a creator. No?
If you define them as exclusive then they will be. I see room for a creator in there. You have to have heard of Theistic Evolution.
What creationist dream team would want the likes of you debating evolutionists, CS?
I was gonna pick Chuck, cause he's at least honest... but from his latest posts he seems to have trouble with not addressing the poster, instead of just addressing the argument. I'd take Phat, again for the honesty. Maybe jar, if he'd be willing to post with some substance slevesque seems smart, so he'd work too.