New Questions--moral perspective

quote:

---

First off, don't make the mistake in assuming that I don't know anything about evolution (I've studied hard at it, and in fact I used to be such a firm evolutionist that I thought the entire idea of creationism was bogus and I would NEVER believe it).

---

I don't assuming anything. I'm simply reponding to the mistakes about basic science that you've written.You have not demonstrated that you have ever undertaken any study of science or Evolution at all, otherwise you would know what "theory" and "proven" mean in a scientific context.You would also have learned that the ToE and Abiogenesis are two different theories.I mean, Anyone can read the FAQ's at TalkOrigins and learn those three things in about 15 minutes, but you want me to believe that you have studied science and Evolution "hard"?Sorry, I don't believe you one bit.

quote:

---

In fact, the scary thought is that, with the attitude i'm recieving from you, i probably used to be somewhat like you.

---

What, you used to require evidence before believing something and now you don't?

quote:

---

Also, what is wrong with quotes.

---

They are not evidence, for starters.They are also very easy to take out of context.That's why many Creationist websites are filled with misquotes from Evolutionists.Many of the best Evolution sites are filled, by contrast, with well-referenced essays explaining scientific ideas rather than op-eds.

quote:

---

Earlier, when I gave you an argument I was attacked by not showing references. Now that i HAVE, you apparently glanced over the entire list of quotes without contemplating their reasoning and credibility (which DO contain arguments against genetics and fossil record as proving evolution),

---

LOL!!Quotes are not references!

quote:

---

and moved on to expecting ME to provide you with a wealth of anti-evolution arguments as though i was BORN with all the answers.

---

Well, you are claiming to have all the answers, so is it so unrealistic for us to expect you to provide?

quote:

---

Honestly, wasn't if from a quote by either a teacher or writer in which YOU first heard of the fossil record? (the only other alternative i can think of is if YOU were the one who discovered and pieced togethe the fossil record... highly unlikely).

---

Um, references to journal articles is what is required. You know, evidence.

quote:

---

After all, you referred me to the talkorigns site (which i have been to and even written to and had soon realized that the site is not scientific because it is very biased against any evidence that is non-evolutionary) and yet you expect me to believe it just because of what they say?

---

Go to one of the TalkOrigins essays, such as this one on the multiple evidences for Macroevolution:Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2CIt has a long list of titles, authors, and locations of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles at the end.These are the references which indicate where the author of the essay got their facts from.The reason they list all of these peer-reviewed journal references is so that you don't have to take anybody's word for it on that site. You can go and read those primary sources in the journals and decide for yourself.The site is not biased against non-evoolutionary stuff. It is biased in favor of the evidence.

quote:

---

I DID used to be an evolutionist, and I understand thoroughly what Darwin's viewpoint is.

---

Well, aside from the fact that you should really be referring to The Modern Synthesis WRT modern Evolutionary Biology, rather than "what Darwin's viewpoint is", it is not clear from your posts that you understand Evolutionary Biology at all.You can proclaim that you do, but so far you have not demonstrated much understanding at all.In fact, you have demonstrated much misunderstanding.

quote:

---

Well now, the idea that life can arise from nonliving matter is VERY important to the theory of evolution (afterall, if it can in any way be utterly proven that spontaneous generation of life is scientifically impossible, then isn't the entire theory of the evolution of life at stake?) Correct me if I'm wrong, but life arising from nonliving matter is the foundation of the origin of life on earth, according to the radical Darwinist. Therefore, biogenesis (the origin of life) is crucial in determing whether or not evolution is a valid theory.

---

No.Aliens could have seeded life here, and the ToE would be unaffected.Infinite numbers of supernatural entities could have poofed the first replicating molecules/life into existence, alone or in concert, and it would not invalidate the ToE one bit.The ToE deals with life once it got here, and not before.

quote:

---

I understand that there is much turmoil among creationists and evolutionists (I only hope that you could humble yourselves as I have made a prevailing effort to do and discuss this topic without the unnecessary "you don't know this" ... "do your research" ... "give me quotes" attitude).

---

"Unnecessary attitude?""You don't know this", "do your research", give me references", is not "unnecessary attitude"!!!It is how good informed debate is undertaken.Otherwise, we are just arguing personal opinions, which is completely uninteresting and fruitless.

To answer your post and get my 2 cents in:
fundie christianity is not a "threat" to evolutionist. How could it be?
And as far as teaching creationism in the classroom that's fine as long it is taught in a private church funded school and my tax dollars are not used to propagate mythology.

Constitutionally, there is nothing wrong with teaching creationism. And if you are worried about the funding of education, how do you think the millions of American Christians out there are feeling about THEIR tax dollars supporting evolution, which is an unproven--and unprovable--theory that destroys the faith of children and collegiates who are not being educated on how to think, but rather on WHAT to think.The "Separation of Church and State" is a phrase made up by Thomas Jefferson in a later to a Baptist pastor in Connecticut in 1802, and he was referring to the first amendment's freedom of religion clause. In other words, "separation of church and state" is not a ratified law--just a liberalist principle--that happens to be based on the first amendment. Take a closer look at the first amendment:"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof..."--Constitution.The amendment states, plain and simple, that there will never be a law that ESTABLISHES religion. in other words, the government promises not to REQUIRE religion to be taught in schools by law, but then again Congress promises that the free excercise of religion shall not be abridged. therefore, as long as teachers do not determine a student's grade based on their beliefs, and as long as a teacher does not force a specific religious opinion into a student's mind, then the teacher has no legal fault in providing equal time in class for the discussion of creation AS WELL AS evolution.Furthermore, there exists a great lack of evidence supporting speciation and spontaneous generation, which you have yet to answer to. YES, I HAVE read the articles and arguments of evolutionists who claim to prove beneficial mutations as leading to speciation, but there lies the problem: no new species has been observed in the making since science has been in practice AND there exists no rational reason why life would appear spontaneously--at random--within a mix of chemicals... IT does not make sense statistically OR evidently. Also, if life ever is created in the laboratory (which it hasn't even come close to yet) then that would only further promote my point--IT REQUIRES INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND PLANNING TO CREATE LIFE!!! Now, go ahead and ease your conscience by degrading my post... I figure I have it comming to me...Later,
Servant

I meant "LETTER" not "LATER" in my last reply. sorry... I was pressed for time and not paying close attention to my grammar and spelling.Sorry again, Servant

You must have missed the FAQ I pointed you to: Observed Instances of SpeciationShort of that, would you accept Answers In Genesis on the subject?

quote:

---

Other examples of rapid adaptation, even to the extent of producing ‘new species’speciationabound...

​

Not long ago, evolutionists were astonished to find that bird-biting mosquitoes, which moved into the London Underground train network (and are now biting humans and rats instead), have already become a separate species...

​

Such variation can even be sufficient to prevent two groups from interbreeding with each other any more, thus forming new ‘species’ by definition...

---

from Missing Link | Answers in Genesis So you see, the evidence that speciation occurs is so compelling that even a leading Creationist organization is forced to agree that it occurs. So then you admit there's no evidence we could give you that would convince you of natural abiogenesis? If we can't do it in the lab, that proves it can't happen? And if we can do it in the lab, that proves that it can't happen either?How convinient for you. You've adopted a position that can't be falsified by any data. Now, can you give us a reason why we should bother to talk to you if you've set yourself impervious to sense?

The Federal courts, especially the Supreme Court, beg to differ.Please provide support for your claim.

Hi there Servant, and welcome to the forum.I'd sure apperciate a reply to my messages to you; I think they start at #46 in this thread and there are about 4 of them.I understand that you have several opponents at the moment, which will make replying to everyone take longer, so take your time. However, I just wanted to let you know that I'm interested in your replies and look forward to reading them.Now, on to my next reply to you!

quote:

---

Constitutionally, there is nothing wrong with teaching creationism.

---

It is illegal to teach Creationism as valid science in publically-funded schools. It is fine to teach it in comparative world religion classes, however.Creationism fails to meet all requirements for scientific endeavors, so it isn't valid to teach it as if it were.

quote:

---

And if you are worried about the funding of education, how do you think the millions of American Christians out there are feeling about THEIR tax dollars supporting evolution, which is an unproven--and unprovable--theory that destroys the faith of children and collegiates who are not being educated on how to think, but rather on WHAT to think.

---

Can you please explain to me why any religious group should be given any consideration at all in what is taught in public science classrooms?What a weak faith all of these children must get from their parents and churches if they lose their faith when they study scientific theories.Perhaps you would like to discuss some specific evidences regarding the ToE that you think completely invalidates it.Furthermore, if the last 150 years of Evolutionary Biology, Paleontology, Genetics, etc. are all completely wrong, what better scientific theory do you propose to replace them which explains the observed and inferred evidence better?Oh, and I thought I told you that no scientific theory is ever "proven" or "provable".

quote:

---

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof..."

​

The amendment states, plain and simple, that there will never be a law that ESTABLISHES religion. in other words, the government promises not to REQUIRE religion to be taught in schools by law, but then again Congress promises that the free excercise of religion shall not be abridged. therefore, as long as teachers do not determine a student's grade based on their beliefs, and as long as a teacher does not force a specific religious opinion into a student's mind, then the teacher has no legal fault in providing equal time in class for the discussion of creation AS WELL AS evolution.

---

Of course, Creationism can in no way be considered scientific, so it should not be taught as science.Additionally, even if we were to teach Creationism alongside science in a science classroom, wouldn't you be establishing a state religion by teaching only the Christian version of Creationism? Why not the Native American version, or the Hindu version, or the Shinto version?

quote:

---

Furthermore, there exists a great lack of evidence supporting speciation and spontaneous generation, which you have yet to answer to.

---

There are plenty of instances of observed speciation, especially in plants, and of course in bacteria and other organisms that have rapid gererational turnover. Read about it here:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Observed Instances of SpeciationAn example:"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

quote:

---

YES, I HAVE read the articles and arguments of evolutionists who claim to prove beneficial mutations as leading to speciation, but there lies the problem: no new species has been observed in the making since science has been in practice

---

Completely incorrect!Read the above links and example.Are you SURE you have studied Biology at all?

quote:

---

AND there exists no rational reason why life would appear spontaneously--at random--within a mix of chemicals...

---

We've been through this, Servant.Abiogenesis theories have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER upon the Theory of Evolution.The ToE applies once life appeared, not before.Please stop repeating the strawman that the theories are related or codependant because they are not.

quote:

---

IT does not make sense statistically OR evidently.

---

Can you explain the statistics you are talking about?Show your work, please.

quote:

---

Also, if life ever is created in the laboratory (which it hasn't even come close to yet) then that would only further promote my point--IT REQUIRES INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND PLANNING TO CREATE LIFE!!!

---

No, it would only mean that, in that particular experiment, a certain kind of life was created under certain conditions. Extrapolation to the rest of the universe would be unwarranted.

quote:

---

Now, go ahead and ease your conscience by degrading my post... I figure I have it comming to me...

---

You show a strange need to project some kind of heavy emotion into the way you imagine your opponents' state of mind to be.Nobody is interested in degrading you, nor have we degraded you, and why would you think you deserve it if we did?This is an intellectual debate, concerning facts, evidence, and logic.

---

"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

Servant, before I forget, I'd also be delighted to have replies to messages #42-#45 in this thread. Don't worry, most of them are not long posts.Remember, I do not expect quick replies at all, but if you think you are going to take more than a week or so, a note to let me know would be great.Thanks!

[Can you please explain to me why any religious group should be given any consideration at all in what is taught in public science classrooms?
]because these religious groups that you speak of pay taxes as well... the same taxes that support the ToE being taught in schools. Furthermore, as i have said before, evolution is not a proven theory. There may exist all the world's best intentions in solving the idea that life originated from a common ancestor, but it stll is not proven.ALso, in regards to your statistics, i mentioned it in an earlier post, in which i was quoting a mathematician who had studied genetics and the likelihood of common ancestry based on mathematical probability.I am once again pressed for time, but i'll try to get to replying to your posts ASAP.Servant

It's as proven as any other theory, including the Theory of Relativity, the Kinetic Theory of Gases, and the Germ Theory of Disease. Do you object to teaching those in school, too?

quote:

---

because these religious groups that you speak of pay taxes as well... the same taxes that support the ToE being taught in schools.

---

So what?There are hundreds of religious groups in the US, and they all pay taxes.(Correction of myself through edit: While individuals, regardless of religion, pay taxes, religious groups do NOT pay any taxes at all. So, can you please explain why tax-paying individuals who happen to hold certain religious beliefs, should have any influence over what is taught in science classrooms?)There are also white supremacist groups in the US who's members pay taxes; should we allow them to influence the teaching of science so that Biology teachers can teach that whites are superior to all other races?

quote:

---

Furthermore, as i have said before, evolution is not a proven theory. There may exist all the world's best intentions in solving the idea that life originated from a common ancestor, but it stll is not proven.

---

Look, I am begining to think you do not read our messages, or that you have a reading comprehension problem.Nothing is ever "proven" in science. Nothing.A "Theory" is as confirmed as anything gets in science. Some theories are particularly well-supported, and some are less-supported.The Germ Theory of Disease, the Atomic Theory of Matter, and the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System are all "theories", just like the Theory of Evolution. A;ll are very well-supported.This is a great short essay on what science is and what it isn't. Please read it:science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com"Non-scientists commonly use the term 'theory' to refer to a speculation or guess based on limited information or knowledge. However, when we refer to a scientific theory, we are not referring to a speculation or guess, but to a systematic explanation of some range of empirical phenomena."There's also this on "scientific" Creationism.creationism and creation science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com"What makes scientific creationism a pseudoscience is that it attempts to pass itself off as science even though it shares none of the essential characteristics of scientific theorizing. Creation science will remain forever unchanged as a theory. It will engender no debate among scientists about fundamental mechanisms of the universe. It generates no empirical predictions that can be used to test the theory. It is taken to be irrefutable. And it assumes a priori that there can be no evidence that will ever falsify it."[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-08-2004]

I was answering Booboo's thread when you chimed in and was susequently ripped to shreds by resident posters. In regards to your ridiculous ill thought out, opinionated post. I have nothing more to add as they have thoroughly Whupped your hind end in great fashion. Thanks for sharing though. *edit to correct spelling of thought out.[This message has been edited by 1.61803, 03-08-2004]