Well, how can we decide if we should mandate criticism of evolution if we don't know what or how that criticism would be based? Of course we can't.
So, if we can get a round about idea of how evolution is failing we can decide if it's worthwhile to mandate (or at least encourage) criticism.
If we have no criticisms of evolution theory then the definitive answer to the question this thread asks is NO.
I believe I made my criticism quite clear. I don't wish to repeat myself to much because I don't consider that discussion.
Evolution appears to address the possible complexity of organisms when we treat aspects of them as simple tools. Even then we get figures like half a million years to get those simple tools aligned (the eye example quoted directly from talkorigins, not some creationism source)
This type of understanding was fine considering where Darwin was coming from. However knowing what we now know, we understand that an eye for example is not a series of simple tools. Rather it is a profoundly complex series of not just tools but also a large number of chemical reactions. Chemical reactions being processed with the receiving of light from the lens via the rods and cones. Chemical reactions to send it through the optic nerve, chemical reaction to process within the brain. Each of these involve multiple proteins being dealt with and all must match for the eye to work.
Chemistry is very precise. Something won't just "sort of " bind chemically on a cellular level. It takes the previous thought level of complexity (involving curvature of lenses and so forth) and ratchets it up a thousandfold. It says not only could an animal not well or perhaps at all while generations went about with semi-lenses or mis-aligned lenses it says how did the chemical receptors handle it and how did they get there and what proteins did they use from this generation when did the appropriate receptors evolve in, etc.
A second criticism is with the inability to do some sort of proofs associated with biology. I said classification and catagorizing is one thing and a proof is another.
With many aspects of science, smaller experiments can illustrate the theory. The artificialness of it is understood as is the simplicity. We could use a pool table to study vectors, salt to study compounds, etc. High schools have the standard array of experiments, most of which have been used for years. We can do this because something that occurs so often naturally should be easily more demonstratable when artifically prompted.
Yet with evolution on the macro level we have no standard experiments, not just on a high school level, but even on any level.
The amino acid experiment is a prime example. If we give what we believe is the ideal situation for creating life by replicating early earth (or what we would contend it is must have been like since life is here) under artificial condition we should be able to get much more than some amino acid chains. We can manipulate time frames, keep the optimum tempurate constantly, insure the absolute perfect combination of chemicals. It should just happen because we are told it has, not just uniquely on earth but all over the universe.
If you want to develop a new "theory of evolution", go for it. Just make sure it follows the scientific method. Have fun.
From the web site you supplied :
"Where did life come from?" contains unfounded generalisations concerning scientists. There are many "spiritual" scientists, and the writer insults them by saying otherwise. Not a good start.
This made me laugh :
"One chemist has calculated the immense odds against amino acids ever combining to form the necessary proteins by undirected means. He estimated the probability to be more than 10 to the 67th to 1 (10^67:1) against even a small protein forming".
I assume the probability of this happening by directed means came to 1? It's not mentioned if the same calculation was made to determine this. My guess is he went P(non-directed) almost zero.
P(directed) = 1 - P(non-directed) = 1. QED.
How would you even calculated something that accurately?
Creationists are using exactly the same arguments they claim "evolutionist" use. Was the chemist there? No. Did the chemist know the exact initial conditions that led to life? No. Was the name of this chemist supplied? No. Was the calculation used supplied? No. What model did the chemist use? What reason do we have to believe the model accurately reflects "initial conditions"?
Baaaaaaa.
I will assume the rest is of the same poor standard.
Remember way back when you posted the quote of a certain British scientist that you knew was out of context? Remember? It was around the same time you were quoting people long dead, and who had no expertise in evolutionary theory.
The old forum is gone, so I cannot do a search, but I'm sure you remember. I did point it out to you a couple of times, but you didn't bother to reply to my claim.
Remember way back when you posted the quote of a certain British scientist that you knew was out of context? Remember? It was around the same time you were quoting people long dead, and who had no expertise in evolutionary theory.
The old forum is gone, so I cannot do a search, but I'm sure you remember. I did point it out to you a couple of times, but you didn't bother to reply to my claim.
And this pertains to this discussion how?
You know I am about done with you types who either want to discredit the messenger or shut the thread.
I posted some data and you can not seem to come to terms with it. I think it is a lot of mistakes and deception but you are free to defend it.
I believe I made my criticism quite clear. I don't wish to repeat myself to much because I don't consider that discussion.
Evolution appears to address the possible complexity of organisms when we treat aspects of them as simple tools. Even then we get figures like half a million years to get those simple tools aligned (the eye example quoted directly from talkorigins, not some creationism source)
This type of understanding was fine considering where Darwin was coming from. However knowing what we now know, we understand that an eye for example is not a series of simple tools. Rather it is a profoundly complex series of not just tools but also a large number of chemical reactions.
Nick
I'll leave it to the chemist to reply to the chemistry questions.
Why must the process be a complex series?
It could just as well be a series of very simply changes which, compounded over many hundreds of millions of years, leads to a complex state.
Given 'life' has been around for a couple of billion years, there is certainly plenty of time for this to occur.
I just happen to believe we should let students ask questions.
I wasn't aware that there were any currently mandated restrictions against students asking questions.
It's fairly apparent that nearly anyone in the US lobbying that "criticisms of Evolutionary Theory be mandated in science classrooms" aren't merely hoping to let students ask their own questions. Students can already do that. (Or they can also, more likely, zone out, doodle in their notebooks, and wait for the bell to ring.)
Those who want such things mandated want a particular set of questions put forth -- "Here, kid. Ask this!" -- a set of questions driven almost entirely by a fundamentalist Christian agenda.
Quote:
Again we are discussing theories that are non-conclusive.
So it's your expert understanding of science is that science is supposed to be absolutely conclusive about all details at all times? Anything short of that is "non-conclusive", and all non-conclusive ideas are of equal value? Should all non-conclusive ideas, not just evolution, have some form of legally mandated criticism that must be presented to students?
There are still people who believe the earth is flat, and others who believe that we're living on the inside of a hollow sphere rather than the outside of a globe. Too silly for you? You think that jet travel and satellites and moon landings conclusively prove the flat earth or the hollow earth wrong? Feh!
These people will show that if you work hard enough, and especially if you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being stunningly ignorant or having an agenda, you can cast doubt on anything.
So, you want to let these groups have there say in some state or federal mandate for criticism in the classroom, to be invoked every time a science or history teacher points to a globe?
Try to poke as many holes in evolution as you can, one thing is clear: Evolution stands up to the current evidence head-and-shoulders above any alternative out there. Nothing else has earned equal time in a science classroom. Creationism is as way off base as the flat earth.
A few "Intelligent Design" proponents are at least smart enough to realize the great strengths of the theory of evolution, and to know that they are trying to slay a dragon, not catch a mouse. They wouldn't display your smug amusement at how so very silly the idea of evolution is -- they know better. Maybe just for effort they earn a brief honorable mention, but at most they cast some doubts (largely by misunderstanding the Second Law of Thermodynamics) on evolution without doing any better at offering solid alternative answers.
Quote:
Sir William Bragg: "Religion and science are opposed . . . but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything."
Given your grasp of the subject matter, everyone is going to think you're hitchhiking.
So it's your expert understanding of science is that science is supposed to be absolutely conclusive about all details at all times? Anything short of that is "non-conclusive", and all non-conclusive ideas are of equal value? Should all non-conclusive ideas, not just evolution, have some form of legally mandated criticism that must be presented to students?
There are still people who believe the earth is flat, and others who believe that we're living on the inside of a hollow sphere rather than the outside of a globe. Too silly for you? You think that jet travel and satellites and moon landings conclusively prove the flat earth or the hollow earth wrong? Feh!
shetline I expected better self control than this.
You should know I am fair with what I am saying in my posts here. I have only said people should have the academic freedom to ask questions. You don't have to bring up flat earth and other such rude nonsense.
I mean really.
Why do people that support evolution always have these rude tricks up their sleaves? Reminds me of my college professor who had anger about beating evolution into our heads in his class.
You can blame that professor for my dis-loyal rank with the evolution hoax.
I'll leave it to the chemist to reply to the chemistry questions.
Why must the process be a complex series?
It could just as well be a series of very simply changes which, compounded over many hundreds of millions of years, leads to a complex state.
Given 'life' has been around for a couple of billion years, there is certainly plenty of time for this to occur.
No one claimed the process was a complex series, rather that simple changes could not account for the degree of complexity required when you consider all the chemical processes involved.
No one claimed the process was a complex series, rather that simple changes could not account for the degree of complexity required when you consider all the chemical processes involved.
Nick
Why not?
Are you saying a single light sensitive receiver couldn't 'evolve" into a human eye over a period of, say, 1 billion years?
That's a lot of time.
What process stops this from happening?
I can put coffe into a cup, add hot water, stir, and make a cup of hot coffee. Simple wouldn't you say? I would be hard put to reverse that process and get back the dry coffee.
Just because the eye is complex, doesn't mean it could not have evolved in a series of simple steps. It just means we would be hard pressed to 'reverse engineer' it.
Given your complete lack of understanding, I doubt you would be in any camp that requires critical thought.
Why not bring out the name calling? You and the others are good at avoiding truth through any tactic.
Do as you wish xenu.
What you do not know about the professor I had is how he made it a point to bash Christians twice a week in his class. That is only a taste of the guy. Not all professors are created equal. Some really have some personal issues and wish to enforce their dogma into the heads of their students. If you will scroll over my comments over this subject you will find I am pragmatic and not asking for anything unreasonable. I respect the views of others as to what they wish to believe.
For what as a result? Insults by you and others who are not serious or mature enough to carry a conversation over this subject.
If the Bible said that televisions were powered by the finger of God, we'd be having a bunch of denialists saying "but there's no proof of electrons existing".
There's proof.
Evolution is fact. The details are debatable, but there is no doubt that we are bilogical descendents of primitive organisms.
To deny this truth is just plain stupid. Creationism has no place in publicy funded or subsidized schools. It's a lie.
You heard it here first folks. We have electricity so the theory of evolution is no longer something to question. It is just so. Evidence? Electricity powers televisions.
Get real Tonton.
In the process of being a jerk you make a bigger fool of yourself.
Why not bring out the name calling? You and the others are good at avoiding truth through any tactic.
Do as you wish xenu.
What you do not know about the professor I had is how he made it a point to bash Christians twice a week in his class. That is only a taste of the guy. Not all professors are created equal. Some really have some personal issues and wish to enforce their dogma into the heads of their students. If you will scroll over my comments over this subject you will find I am pragmatic and not asking for anything unreasonable. I respect the views of others as to what they wish to believe.
For what as a result? Insults by you and others who are not serious or mature enough to carry a conversation over this subject.
Again knock yourself out with your insults.
Fellowship
Fellowship
LOL. Pretending to be insulted in the hope that the thread will be closed is a pretty poor losing tactic fellowship.
You had a bad teacher. Get over it. I consider teachers who teach creationism to be unworthy of the term. I had great teachers. That's why I followed in Braggs footsteps - I even went to the uni he taught at. Many decades after, mind you.
You are asking for a religious belief to be put in the science class. That is completely unreasonable.
You claim two men, who are/were at the forefront of the field, produced books full of nonesense. Who do we believe? People who are critical enough of a theory to produce variations of said theory, or a creationist who doesn't even know what evolution is supposed to explain?
No. Really. I really can't believe this. It's just plain shocking that someone can be so deep in denial. I think he needs psychological help. Honestly.
So I am in denial because I link to data that de-bunks the lies of some presented "evidence" of evolution?
Or is it because I request a modest notion of a simple academic freedom to allow students to question a theory?
I am not going to play this like a football game.
Actually I am going to see how this discussion slows to a halt.
Seems an abundance of rude remarks and little substance so I have other things to do.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
Well, how can we decide if we should mandate criticism of evolution if we don't know what or how that criticism would be based? Of course we can't.
So, if we can get a round about idea of how evolution is failing we can decide if it's worthwhile to mandate (or at least encourage) criticism.
If we have no criticisms of evolution theory then the definitive answer to the question this thread asks is NO.
I believe I made my criticism quite clear. I don't wish to repeat myself to much because I don't consider that discussion.
Evolution appears to address the possible complexity of organisms when we treat aspects of them as simple tools. Even then we get figures like half a million years to get those simple tools aligned (the eye example quoted directly from talkorigins, not some creationism source)
This type of understanding was fine considering where Darwin was coming from. However knowing what we now know, we understand that an eye for example is not a series of simple tools. Rather it is a profoundly complex series of not just tools but also a large number of chemical reactions. Chemical reactions being processed with the receiving of light from the lens via the rods and cones. Chemical reactions to send it through the optic nerve, chemical reaction to process within the brain. Each of these involve multiple proteins being dealt with and all must match for the eye to work.
Chemistry is very precise. Something won't just "sort of " bind chemically on a cellular level. It takes the previous thought level of complexity (involving curvature of lenses and so forth) and ratchets it up a thousandfold. It says not only could an animal not well or perhaps at all while generations went about with semi-lenses or mis-aligned lenses it says how did the chemical receptors handle it and how did they get there and what proteins did they use from this generation when did the appropriate receptors evolve in, etc.
A second criticism is with the inability to do some sort of proofs associated with biology. I said classification and catagorizing is one thing and a proof is another.
With many aspects of science, smaller experiments can illustrate the theory. The artificialness of it is understood as is the simplicity. We could use a pool table to study vectors, salt to study compounds, etc. High schools have the standard array of experiments, most of which have been used for years. We can do this because something that occurs so often naturally should be easily more demonstratable when artifically prompted.
Yet with evolution on the macro level we have no standard experiments, not just on a high school level, but even on any level.
The amino acid experiment is a prime example. If we give what we believe is the ideal situation for creating life by replicating early earth (or what we would contend it is must have been like since life is here) under artificial condition we should be able to get much more than some amino acid chains. We can manipulate time frames, keep the optimum tempurate constantly, insure the absolute perfect combination of chemicals. It should just happen because we are told it has, not just uniquely on earth but all over the universe.
Yet we haven't been able to do this even once.
That's a couple to start.
Nick
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Hold on a second. Are you saying while there is one given theory over origins another can not be pursued?
I would sure hope not.
You are welcome to also check out This Site and tell me what you find fault with concerning the arguments presented.
I always find
This Page worthy of notice.
Fellowship
If you want to develop a new "theory of evolution", go for it. Just make sure it follows the scientific method. Have fun.
From the web site you supplied :
"Where did life come from?" contains unfounded generalisations concerning scientists. There are many "spiritual" scientists, and the writer insults them by saying otherwise. Not a good start.
This made me laugh :
"One chemist has calculated the immense odds against amino acids ever combining to form the necessary proteins by undirected means. He estimated the probability to be more than 10 to the 67th to 1 (10^67:1) against even a small protein forming".
I assume the probability of this happening by directed means came to 1? It's not mentioned if the same calculation was made to determine this. My guess is he went P(non-directed) almost zero.
P(directed) = 1 - P(non-directed) = 1. QED.
How would you even calculated something that accurately?
Creationists are using exactly the same arguments they claim "evolutionist" use. Was the chemist there? No. Did the chemist know the exact initial conditions that led to life? No. Was the name of this chemist supplied? No. Was the calculation used supplied? No. What model did the chemist use? What reason do we have to believe the model accurately reflects "initial conditions"?
Baaaaaaa.
I will assume the rest is of the same poor standard.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Any evolutionists care to comment on the following?
From this link
Just curious
Fellowship
When you comment on using a quote you know to be out of context as an argument against evolution.
You are just as guilty.
Originally posted by xenu
Baaaaaaa.
I will assume the rest is of the same poor standard.
Go ahead assume. I question things a little more.
Fellowship
I'd like yell out one big whopping
LET'S GET BACK ON TOPIC, PEOPLE!
*waits for evil moderator to close this miserable ending of a thread*
Originally posted by xenu
When you comment on using a quote you know to be out of context as an argument against evolution.
You are just as guilty.
What is out of context xenu? What exactly?
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
The question I have for evolutionists is what was this "original common ancestor"?
Just one of them? How do you know?
How did this "original common ancestor" spring into life?
Any ideas?
Just curious. I have to ask these questions as they are not exactly clear.
Fellowship
Try reading a book or two on evolution that wasn't written by a creationist.
You know, a book written by "experts" in the field of "evolution".
I have mentioned Gould and Dawkins to you in the past.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
What is out of context xenu? What exactly?
Fellowship
Oh, come on fellowship, don't be coy.
Remember way back when you posted the quote of a certain British scientist that you knew was out of context? Remember? It was around the same time you were quoting people long dead, and who had no expertise in evolutionary theory.
The old forum is gone, so I cannot do a search, but I'm sure you remember. I did point it out to you a couple of times, but you didn't bother to reply to my claim.
Originally posted by xenu
Oh, come on fellowship, don't be coy.
Remember way back when you posted the quote of a certain British scientist that you knew was out of context? Remember? It was around the same time you were quoting people long dead, and who had no expertise in evolutionary theory.
The old forum is gone, so I cannot do a search, but I'm sure you remember. I did point it out to you a couple of times, but you didn't bother to reply to my claim.
And this pertains to this discussion how?
You know I am about done with you types who either want to discredit the messenger or shut the thread.
I posted some data and you can not seem to come to terms with it. I think it is a lot of mistakes and deception but you are free to defend it.
Fellowship
Originally posted by trumptman
I believe I made my criticism quite clear. I don't wish to repeat myself to much because I don't consider that discussion.
Evolution appears to address the possible complexity of organisms when we treat aspects of them as simple tools. Even then we get figures like half a million years to get those simple tools aligned (the eye example quoted directly from talkorigins, not some creationism source)
This type of understanding was fine considering where Darwin was coming from. However knowing what we now know, we understand that an eye for example is not a series of simple tools. Rather it is a profoundly complex series of not just tools but also a large number of chemical reactions.
Nick
I'll leave it to the chemist to reply to the chemistry questions.
Why must the process be a complex series?
It could just as well be a series of very simply changes which, compounded over many hundreds of millions of years, leads to a complex state.
Given 'life' has been around for a couple of billion years, there is certainly plenty of time for this to occur.
Originally posted by xenu
Try reading a book or two on evolution that wasn't written by a creationist.
You know, a book written by "experts" in the field of "evolution".
I have mentioned Gould and Dawkins to you in the past.
I have reviewed their nonsense.
And which camp of thought am I to adopt according to you?
Good Question
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I just happen to believe we should let students ask questions.
I wasn't aware that there were any currently mandated restrictions against students asking questions.
It's fairly apparent that nearly anyone in the US lobbying that "criticisms of Evolutionary Theory be mandated in science classrooms" aren't merely hoping to let students ask their own questions. Students can already do that. (Or they can also, more likely, zone out, doodle in their notebooks, and wait for the bell to ring.)
Those who want such things mandated want a particular set of questions put forth -- "Here, kid. Ask this!" -- a set of questions driven almost entirely by a fundamentalist Christian agenda.
Again we are discussing theories that are non-conclusive.
So it's your expert understanding of science is that science is supposed to be absolutely conclusive about all details at all times? Anything short of that is "non-conclusive", and all non-conclusive ideas are of equal value? Should all non-conclusive ideas, not just evolution, have some form of legally mandated criticism that must be presented to students?
There are still people who believe the earth is flat, and others who believe that we're living on the inside of a hollow sphere rather than the outside of a globe. Too silly for you? You think that jet travel and satellites and moon landings conclusively prove the flat earth or the hollow earth wrong? Feh!
These people will show that if you work hard enough, and especially if you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being stunningly ignorant or having an agenda, you can cast doubt on anything.
So, you want to let these groups have there say in some state or federal mandate for criticism in the classroom, to be invoked every time a science or history teacher points to a globe?
Try to poke as many holes in evolution as you can, one thing is clear: Evolution stands up to the current evidence head-and-shoulders above any alternative out there. Nothing else has earned equal time in a science classroom. Creationism is as way off base as the flat earth.
A few "Intelligent Design" proponents are at least smart enough to realize the great strengths of the theory of evolution, and to know that they are trying to slay a dragon, not catch a mouse. They wouldn't display your smug amusement at how so very silly the idea of evolution is -- they know better. Maybe just for effort they earn a brief honorable mention, but at most they cast some doubts (largely by misunderstanding the Second Law of Thermodynamics) on evolution without doing any better at offering solid alternative answers.
Sir William Bragg: "Religion and science are opposed . . . but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything."
Given your grasp of the subject matter, everyone is going to think you're hitchhiking.
Originally posted by shetline
So it's your expert understanding of science is that science is supposed to be absolutely conclusive about all details at all times? Anything short of that is "non-conclusive", and all non-conclusive ideas are of equal value? Should all non-conclusive ideas, not just evolution, have some form of legally mandated criticism that must be presented to students?
There are still people who believe the earth is flat, and others who believe that we're living on the inside of a hollow sphere rather than the outside of a globe. Too silly for you? You think that jet travel and satellites and moon landings conclusively prove the flat earth or the hollow earth wrong? Feh!
shetline I expected better self control than this.
You should know I am fair with what I am saying in my posts here. I have only said people should have the academic freedom to ask questions. You don't have to bring up flat earth and other such rude nonsense.
I mean really.
Why do people that support evolution always have these rude tricks up their sleaves? Reminds me of my college professor who had anger about beating evolution into our heads in his class.
You can blame that professor for my dis-loyal rank with the evolution hoax.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I have reviewed their nonsense.
And which camp of thought am I to adopt according to you?
Good Question
Fellowship
LOL.
"Fellowship finds eminent professors full of it."
Brilliant, just brilliant.
You can be in any camp you want to be in.
Given your complete lack of understanding, I doubt you would be in any camp that requires critical thought.
Originally posted by xenu
I'll leave it to the chemist to reply to the chemistry questions.
Why must the process be a complex series?
It could just as well be a series of very simply changes which, compounded over many hundreds of millions of years, leads to a complex state.
Given 'life' has been around for a couple of billion years, there is certainly plenty of time for this to occur.
No one claimed the process was a complex series, rather that simple changes could not account for the degree of complexity required when you consider all the chemical processes involved.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
No one claimed the process was a complex series, rather that simple changes could not account for the degree of complexity required when you consider all the chemical processes involved.
Nick
Why not?
Are you saying a single light sensitive receiver couldn't 'evolve" into a human eye over a period of, say, 1 billion years?
That's a lot of time.
What process stops this from happening?
I can put coffe into a cup, add hot water, stir, and make a cup of hot coffee. Simple wouldn't you say? I would be hard put to reverse that process and get back the dry coffee.
Just because the eye is complex, doesn't mean it could not have evolved in a series of simple steps. It just means we would be hard pressed to 'reverse engineer' it.
Originally posted by xenu
LOL.
"Fellowship finds eminent professors full of it."
Brilliant, just brilliant.
You can be in any camp you want to be in.
Given your complete lack of understanding, I doubt you would be in any camp that requires critical thought.
Why not bring out the name calling? You and the others are good at avoiding truth through any tactic.
Do as you wish xenu.
What you do not know about the professor I had is how he made it a point to bash Christians twice a week in his class. That is only a taste of the guy. Not all professors are created equal. Some really have some personal issues and wish to enforce their dogma into the heads of their students. If you will scroll over my comments over this subject you will find I am pragmatic and not asking for anything unreasonable. I respect the views of others as to what they wish to believe.
For what as a result? Insults by you and others who are not serious or mature enough to carry a conversation over this subject.
Again knock yourself out with your insults.
Fellowship
Originally posted by tonton
If the Bible said that televisions were powered by the finger of God, we'd be having a bunch of denialists saying "but there's no proof of electrons existing".
There's proof.
Evolution is fact. The details are debatable, but there is no doubt that we are bilogical descendents of primitive organisms.
To deny this truth is just plain stupid. Creationism has no place in publicy funded or subsidized schools. It's a lie.
You heard it here first folks. We have electricity so the theory of evolution is no longer something to question. It is just so. Evidence? Electricity powers televisions.
Get real Tonton.
In the process of being a jerk you make a bigger fool of yourself.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Why not bring out the name calling? You and the others are good at avoiding truth through any tactic.
Do as you wish xenu.
What you do not know about the professor I had is how he made it a point to bash Christians twice a week in his class. That is only a taste of the guy. Not all professors are created equal. Some really have some personal issues and wish to enforce their dogma into the heads of their students. If you will scroll over my comments over this subject you will find I am pragmatic and not asking for anything unreasonable. I respect the views of others as to what they wish to believe.
For what as a result? Insults by you and others who are not serious or mature enough to carry a conversation over this subject.
Again knock yourself out with your insults.
Fellowship
Fellowship
LOL. Pretending to be insulted in the hope that the thread will be closed is a pretty poor losing tactic fellowship.
You had a bad teacher. Get over it. I consider teachers who teach creationism to be unworthy of the term. I had great teachers. That's why I followed in Braggs footsteps - I even went to the uni he taught at. Many decades after, mind you.
You are asking for a religious belief to be put in the science class. That is completely unreasonable.
You claim two men, who are/were at the forefront of the field, produced books full of nonesense. Who do we believe? People who are critical enough of a theory to produce variations of said theory, or a creationist who doesn't even know what evolution is supposed to explain?
As I said, brilliant, just brilliant.
Originally posted by tonton
Is Fellowship truly a Creationist? I'm astounded!
Denial, denial, denial, denial.
No. Really. I really can't believe this. It's just plain shocking that someone can be so deep in denial. I think he needs psychological help. Honestly.
So I am in denial because I link to data that de-bunks the lies of some presented "evidence" of evolution?
Or is it because I request a modest notion of a simple academic freedom to allow students to question a theory?
I am not going to play this like a football game.
Actually I am going to see how this discussion slows to a halt.
Seems an abundance of rude remarks and little substance so I have other things to do.
Peace
Fellowship