Darwin's idea of "Survival of the fittest" debunked... - Page 4

Of course, if God is the author of the Laws of Nature, it would make perfect sense that things unfolded the way they did.

So what you're saying, in essence, is that you oppose a parent's right to teach their kids what they want to teach them, in the way they want to teach them and you favor government schooling for all kids in order to teach them all what you think they should be taught. Right?

What I'm saying is parents who are clearly unqualified to teach science shouldn't be homeschooling their children in bullshit pseudoscience. Teaching real science isn't controversial in any modern, western country except here in the United States. You guys fucking wonder why we're losing our world leadership in innovation and technology...it's because of this anti-science DRIVEL that is being spewed nonstop by the batshit crazy right wing.

If we are to be relevant at all in the future aside from being a sad cautionary tale for other countries, we need to stop treating science and scientists so poorly.

So no, parents don't get to homeschool their children if they are unqualified to do so and try to pass off this bullshit anti-science curriculum. They can't be stopped from feeding these kids lies, but at least for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, these children can at least get a lesson of what's real and what isn't and hopefully some of that sinks in.

Who gets to decide who's qualified and what is "bullshit pseudoscience?" You? What gives you the right to decide what my kids learn?



Well, when you speak in broad generalities of "science" this is true. But since Evolution isn't really science, that part is controversial when it gets passed off as "science."



I don't, because we're actually not.



Uh huh. You might want wipe that froth off the sides of you mouth there.



Uh huh. That's what the problem in this country is. Scientists, who are actually treated almost as an unassailable priesthood in this country are being treated "poorly." What planet are you on?



Who gets to decide this? You? What gives you the right to decide what my kids learn?



Riiighht!

So we see clearly where you stand: Force government schooling of all kids to teach them what you think they should be taught. Thanks for clearing that up.

No science is this:
After god made Eve from a rib he said to himself; "This is the last time I'm doing it this way, from now on they'll have to fuck!"

You claim that, not me.

One of the reasons why parents are opting for home schooling:

http://www.theonion.com/video/studen...-traini,14166/

Article

http://www.theonion.com/articles/inc...-childr,17159/

Yes it's impossible to know everything. That's why science is on a constant quest to find the answers with an open mind but only dealing with what you can be sure of. The facts. And forming theories based on those facts. Some theories are proven wrong. However more largly accepted theories tend to have some merit or just turn out to be right. If we didn't speculate or form theories based on what we already know and go with that we'd still be running around in the tall grass waiting for lightning to strike so we could have a fire.

However there are a few things we can be sure of. One is that the earth is a helluva lot older than 6,000 years!

So you're saying you believe this 0nly 6,000 years old stuff ( come on take a stand you're not a politician )?

The same for you MJ. Do you believe things like the earth is only 6,000 years old?

Let's hear your position on that.

EVOLUTION IS SCIENCE.

If you do not understand why this is a fact, you are not qualified to discuss it.

When we talk about "evolution theory" we are talking about genetics, anatomy, archeology, physics and anthropology.

[My guess is that jazzguru and MJ1970 have stopped reading by this point. They will not read the rest of the post, and they will not answer what I wrote in any serious way with any serious consideration.]

The findings that research into "evolution theory" have brought us have led to practical discoveries like treatments and predictive medicine and immunisation and discoveries in population movements and the deep history of our species.

These findings and these discoveries and these practical applications are not in doubt.

Evolution is science. If they tell you that it isn't, then when you go to church, someone is lying to you.

Someone is lying to you in your church, and you should leave it, and go to another church, where they do not tell you lies.

NO IT IS NOT.

If you do not understand why, you are not qualified to discuss it.



Guess again sweetheart.



Partly right. Partly wrong.



Evolution is not science. If they tell you that it is, then when you go to biology class, someone is lying to you.



Someone is lying to you in your biology class, and you should leave it, and go to another class, where they do not tell you lies.

And this is why we need to pay teachers more to attract better candidates who can teach the sciences effectively, limiting the number of MJs in the next generation. Someone failed you. Parents, teachers, our church. Let's not let or children down.

Yes, we know you advocate forced government schooling to subvert the wishes and rights of parents. How...ummm...liberal of you.



Our children? My children are not your children. Are we clear on this?

MJ1970. Honeybun. My poppet. Snookums.

This is one of those instances where I am right and you are absolutely wrong.

You are wrong.

They teach and research "evolution" in the science faculties at Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, Beijing, Copenhagen, Cape Town and Sao Paulo.

Have you read this far?

"Evolution" is science. If you do not believe this to be a fact, as it is, then you do not understand what it is in the first place.

The research that they make in these universities and in private laboratories the world over is bringing material benefits to you and to me.

Have you read this far?

We can date genetic mutations and we can give them a near-certain point of origin, and we work out who is at risk, and we can work out how to treat them.

If genetics are a science, and they are, then "evolution" is scientific.

Have you read this far?

If archeology and geology are sciences, and they are, then "evolution" is scientific.

If gene therapy and gene analysis are sciences, and they are, then "evolution" is a science.

You are wrong. You are not right. You did not answer my post. You have been misled.

Poor you.

I know you believe this. I get it.



Yep.



We can go round and round if you like.



I know this. You are conflating the valid scientific research which brings these benefits with the faith of Evolution (tm). It's a common mistake.



Yep.



I know this. You are conflating these scientific facts with the faith of Evolution (tm). It's a common mistake.



Of course that statement is false. It's a common mistake.



Yep.



Of course these statements are false. It's a common mistake.




I have no doubt that you see it this way.

Of course, the views presented here may not represent the MAJORITY of religious folks... but... based on this thread...
The ignorance espoused by the religious fanatics is rather scary!
Almost makes one think the inquisition will be back in vogue soon.

Your backwards anti-science mentality doesn't just affect you and your children. It slows and sometimes halts scientific advancement, and that affects me and the rest of society. Case in point: stem cell research. Diseases that could have cures (or be closer to being beaten) ravage and kill innocent people. More shouldn't suffer because you are ignorant and can't fathom the scientific process. I can't stop you in your home, but I can say teach real science or no homeschool for you.





When your little ignorant clones go out protesting stem cell research, delaying a cure, every death that could have been avoided had the treatment come sooner is on your hands. Their innocent blood is on your ignorant hands.

Priceless. From ignorance to violence.

Well, for the record, I'm not the one who is an advocate for forced government schooling of kids, teaching them what I want them to be taught.

MJ1970. My honeybee.

You have proven that you don't know what scientists mean when they talk about "evolution" and what they study when they study "evolution" and what they teach when they teach "evolution."

Have you read this far?

I know something you don't know, and that is what "evolution" actually means.

We are working with the assumption that genes mutate across species and over time at predictable rates.

I don't know why I'm bothering with this, again, arguing with someone who prefers his myths over the evidence of his own eyes, but I will do it, in the vain hope that THIS TIME, this FINAL TIME, you will actually THINK about what you're reading, and it might actually change your opinion on the world and the things you've been told in your place of religion.

....

Actually, no, I won't. It's a complete, total, utter waste of fucking time.

You've got your myth. Enjoy it. I've got a world over 6,000 years old and a better understanding of the real forces that shaped it than you will ever, EVER have.

And although I might not be as happy as you, believer, with your church and your fellowship (I admit this) I am so, SO glad that I'm plugged in to something that human beings do and have always done, which is to ask questions, find better answers, and change their understanding of the world according to what they find.

You... you've got this religion, and you've got your 1859 worldview, and I've got the universe, and you can stick your Book, for all the beauty and truth I acknowledge that it contains, wherever you please.

But you're fine with stopping stem cell research so my kids can't reap the benefits.

Keep your Book out of my life, thanks.

But it is only your (incorrect, unfactual) opinion that my mentality is "anti-science." I am actually quite pro-science.


Really? How is affecting you?



Of course you are wrong, but you're to blind to see that you are wrong. I have done absolutely nothing to slow or halt any scientific advancement. Nothing. Not one thing.



What is your point about this?



My ignorance is only in your imagination...and no one is suffering because of me. No one.



I understand it quite well.



Can you? By what right?



Nice.



Federal funding of stem cell research. Who's the ignorant one now?



You like that word ignorant don't you. You also like speculating a lot as you have done in this sentence. Nice. Brilliant.

I'm fine with you not stealing money from me to perform the research. If you wish to fund it yourself with your friends, voluntarily, rather than stealing the money for it form others, then go ahead.



And keep yours out of mine. I'm not forcing anything on you or anyone else. Not one thing.

You oppose federal funding of life saving research because you have an archaic, obsolete view of the universe. Blood is on your hands.

I don't have a Book.

I am not religious..

Do you think that two men should be able to marry?

I do.

If you don't, please keep your Book out of my life. I'm not gay. I just think you should keep your Book where it can't interfere with the happiness of others.

But like I say: You've got your myth. Carry on.

I've got a world over 6,000 years old and a better understanding of the real forces that shaped it than you will ever, EVER have.

And although I might not be as happy as you, believer, with your church and your fellowship (I admit this) I am so, SO glad that I'm plugged in to something that human beings do and have always done, which is to ask questions, find better answers, and change their understanding of the world according to what they find.

You... you've got this religion, and you've got your 1859 worldview, and I've got the universe, and you can stick your Book, for all the beauty and truth I acknowledge that it contains, wherever you please.

I know you think you do. I get that.



I know you are.



I do.



Good. See ya later then.



Back at ya.



Yes, we both do.



Well...maybe.



Funny the logical leap you've made here. My guess is you probably don't even realize it.







It's interesting to see that being civilized hasn't "evolved" much.

Did you pick the year before Mr. Lenoir invented the internal combustion engine (1860) on purpose?
Some people here think it is new technology ....

Let me phrase what you've just said more correctly:




( There's still a little froth on the corners of you mouth...and some spittle on your screen. )

How date I be passionate about saving people from needlessly dying prematurely? How dare I be passionate about not wanting people like you thrusting us into a new dark ages? Make fun of my passion. Innocent blood is still on your hands.

And for someone who subscribes to a religion allegedly about kindness, compassion, and selflessness, MJ sure says me me me my my my a lot. "Don't you dare take MY money for something that could save lives." WWJD? Not be such a selfish prick.

You're assuming a lot. Delusions of grandeur perhaps?



I'm not thrusting you or anyone else into anything. Not anything.



No, it is not. No matter how many times you say that, it won't be true.

P.S. Hey Mr. Innocent Blood on Your Hands: Answer me this, do you support a woman's "right" to have an abortion?

The issue is about force Einstein. Haven't you got that yet. Jesus commanded people to be generous and kind of their own heart and volition. He didn't command people to "go steal from a bunch of people who you think should be helping out and could spare the money so you can feel better about your alleged kindness and 'generosity.'"



Before preaching what the Bible says, perhaps you should read it and understand it first.

Jesus would put the emphasis on the kindness and caring. You look at it as stealing. I see it as society collectively embodying the virtue of compassion.

You're still missing the point. Jesus' instructions and command are to individuals. Individuals are to be acting in kindness in generosity. Sometimes those individuals gather in groups and collectively collaborate and pool their kindness in generosity. But no where, no where do I see any command or instruction or even implication that individuals or group are to go and point a gun at other individuals and say..."Give us your money so we can all be kind and generous."

You can't be partly moral. Though I see many who think you can and wish to be.

A society can indeed collectively decide that some things are worth pursuing for everyone's benefit. And it's not stealing no matter how much you repeat it.

If you had taken the time to read the other posts in this thread, you would have seen this one:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...5&postcount=36

Sorry I don't fit your stereotypes and you actually have to respond to what I'm saying rather than what you think I believe.

That, my friend, is called tyranny. Whether it is executed by a "democracy" or by an individual dictator.


Yes it is. Try not paying them. See what happens.


Why don't you just come clean and admit that you don't really like freedom...at least for other people. That you favor the use of force and coercion to achieve the goals that you deem worthy of pursing. That individual liberty of of little value to you when the person in question might do something you simply don't like or don't agree with.

"Stealing" is when someone takes something you own without announcement or option.

"Tax", which is what you're selfishly and stupidly characterising as "stealing", is not "stealing."

Tax is annoying, but it keeps your borders defended and your roads passable and your children educated and your fire brigades trained and supplied.

If you think that your obligations to your fellow man are so galling that they're tantamount to "stealing" then you really, truly have the option of moving to a country where no-one pays tax if they don't want to, like Nigeria, or Somalia, or even Turkey. Nigeria is a good Christian country, and I think you would like it very much.

And do you think that two men should be able to marry?

I do.

If you don't, then don't you think you ought to be a bit libertarian about things and keep your Book out of other people's happiness and lives?

Or does 'libertarianism' only really matter when it's your right to be selfish at stake?

No, my friend, that is not the definition of 'tyranny'. That is called 'maturity'.

Please stop pissing your pants and trying to change the definitions of English words which already have perfectly good definitions.

Yes dear.

P.S. I didn't say it was the "the definition of 'tyranny'".