evolution: 1 creationism: 0

[Turok]

Slowtrend:
>Some of the apparent evolutionists on this thread like to
>interject comments about religion, the Bible, and theism.
>Where have I sought to defend any of that on this
>thread? Please show me.

I assume that comment was in response to my post:
>I wish Theists could all show such "integrity".

If it was, grow a bit of a skin cause that doesn't challenge anything you have said on this thread. It is a simple honest statement that stands on it's own.

The quotation marks were added around the work "integrity" because that is not the word I would have chosen to use in that instance and wanted to make sure it was attributed to you. Why would I not choose that word? Because I will rarely believe that theist, atheist, evolutionists, etc. take or publish their respective positions base on integrity or lack thereof.

JB

 

[Sardo_Numspa]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

I think the correct understanding of the belief is that God controls the universe and gives man free will to act within it.

A man in the sky must be your belief system.

No, I believe in a rational universe. You believe in slavery. That you can believe that gives you free will is both sad and laughable.

 

[Sardo_Numspa]

Quote from slowtrend:

You know as well as I do, there is no controversy over microevolution, changes within a population over time. But there is a raging controversy over macroevolution, new organs, new body parts, new species. Come clean. Stop equivocating.

Nonsense. There is no such division in evolution as it pertains to the MECHANISM. Don't know why you creationists persist in the artificial division. Oh wait, it's because it's your strawman, without which your argument falls apart.

 

[Sardo_Numspa]

Quote from Turok:

>A man in the sky must be your belief system.

Now THAT was a snappy come-back ART. I can smell the fumes from here.

JB

A simple comeback from a simple mind. If he'd actually think, he might impress me.

 

[Sardo_Numspa]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

I think the correct understanding of the belief is that God controls the universe and gives man free will to act within it.

A man in the sky must be your belief system.

Note too that ART is resorting to ad hominem as he realizes he's losing the argument. The last defense of a truly weak mind. It's fascinating how these irrational types fall back on the same attacks time after time.

 

[ARogueTrader]

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is just an opinion and your belief system after all.

That you try to ridicule the beliefs of others is not laughable, it is sad and indicative of a lack of emotional and mental maturity.

Quote from Sardo_Numspa:

No, I believe in a rational universe. You believe in slavery. That you can believe that gives you free will is both sad and laughable.

 

[Turok]

>it is sad and indicative of a lack of emotional
>and mental maturity.

Ahhh...we've fallen all the way to the "I'm mature and you're not arguments". More fumes.

JB

 

[slowtrend]

Thanks for the comments and clarification. I appreciate your efforts to keep things on track. I have plenty of skin, no problem. Maybe integrity isn't the best word.

I have read enough from both sides, the evolutionists and the anti-evolutionists, both creationists and Intelligent Design. I have tired of the evasiveness and ambiguity that some evolutionists have so skillfully developed, pretending to defend science, when they are doing no such thing. Underlying the Darwinian theory of evolution is metaphysical naturalism. Some evolutionists have admitted that. That is philosophy, not science. Some evolutionists use pejorative terms to slander and slur anyone who would dare to question them, guilt by association, without ever dealing with the problems of evolution.

I like a scientist who will state clearly, unequivocally, what the theory of evolution attempts to explain, which is both microevolution and macroevolution, and then admits that the micro part of the theory (which no one disputes) doesn't explain or can't explain the macro part. He is not evading anything.

If there is no matter to resolve over the definition, and I'm just quibbling over secondary matters, why then are the terms macroevolution and microevolution still used by some scientists and evolutionists? What are they doing?

Is it a good scientific theory that has more than one definition?

The first post on the thread had to do with evolution and public schools. I responded with ten questions. They are valid questions which scientists are asking, and some of the scientists asking the questions and criticizing Darwinian evolution are evolutionists.

Here is a book worth looking into, if you have the time. I'm not advocating any single view on this thread, just teach the controversy. I plan to read it. I add it not to defend any particular position, but just to show how big the issue is for public school, education, and scientific inquiry.

Here is the link:

http://www.darwinismanddesign.com/

The explanation is below. The contributors are from all sides, including the evolutionists.

And one more final comment. When you read an evolutionist's review of an intelligent design book, read the review carefully. Does the reviewer interact with the contents or not?

**

Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (DDPE) is a peer-reviewed book published by Michigan State University Press that presents a multi-faceted scientific case for the theory of intelligent design while also examining the legal and pedagogical arguments for teaching students about the scientific controversies that surround the issue of biological origins. Contributors to the book include both leading scientific proponents of intelligent design and neo-Darwinism.

“The book establishes the existence of a vibrant scientific controversy between advocates of neo-Darwinism and the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design. It also develops a compelling argument for teaching students about this controversy,” explains Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture and a co-editor and contributor to the book.

 

[slammajamma]

Quote from slowtrend:


The first post on the thread had to do with evolution and public schools. I responded with ten questions. They are valid questions which scientists are asking, and some of the scientists asking the questions and criticizing Darwinian evolution are evolutionists.

I read with interest those ten questions. I also read dougcs' reply.

If scientists are asking those ten questions, would you kindly provide sources for those ten questions?

 

[Turok]

Slowtrend:
>Thanks for the comments and clarification. I appreciate
>your efforts to keep things on track. I have plenty of
>skin, no problem. Maybe integrity isn't the best word.

Not a problem. I share your desire for openness and honesty, especially where it involves the education of our youth. I am always amused at positions taken on both sides that attempt to infer or state that any one side 'has the answers'.

I disagree with creationism being taught as the factually derived origin of our species. I disagree with evolution being taught as the same. I don't know why some are afraid to present all the evidence in a scientific manner and let the youngsters decide which theory has been presented in a convincing manner.

Many seem to think that if their side is presented alone then the kids will only know "the truth" (as they see it). Keeping information from kids rarely (if ever) works and in the end the entities hiding information only lose credibility when the young minds become free.

JB