Not a scientist, I don't need to understand how science operates. I have no need to regard science. You are trying to convince me, you post your rock solid proof and I will absolutely admit you are right.
Btw, you can see atoms with an electron microscope.
You are the radical, I support an anti discrimination law. I have maintained that I don't know, wow, such a radical position to not know and admit it, that is the definition of radical. Sorry but everybody who disagrees with your religion isn't a radical
You know no facts about religion, so in my opinion you are a radical that uses schools to indoctrinate children with do called "facts" of which you have completely failed miserably at every chance to even attempt to post.
With all due respect, I don't care what you think, clearly you are not an expert on my person, or the definition of radical. Your bully tactics will not work on me, call me a radical because I don't know, you make little sense when you loose debates.
Last edited:
Lol. So you are saying ignorance is bliss then? You keep trying to destroy the foundations of truth if you so please but be sure that I will stand by the facts and the truth.
And you can't see atoms with the naked eye- that was the point. But even with an electron microscope you can't see electrons, protons, or even smaller things like quarks. I don't know why eyewitness is so important to you considering eyewitness is probably one of the worst forms of determining fact as proven by many empirical psych/neurophys studies- our brains trick us all the time because of how they are hard-wired.
By rejecting science you are rejecting the majority of progress humanity has made in the last 400 years- the advances in medicine, engineering, communication, technology, and on and on. Ironically, if you have high blood pressure or a heart attack or some other medical condition, I doubt you will refuse medicine even though the methodology used to determine its efficacy is comparable in philosophy to that determining evolution is fact.
I will easily reject religion over science any day, especially when the science disproves religion. Keep saying evolution is a belief- 300 or 400 years from now your own Church will likely give in and say it is fact just like they did last time with the Earth being the center of the universe (something you can't see with your eyes too, by the way).
Last edited:
Listen, I haven't rejected science, that was just a response to your snobby comments. But you have completely and totally failed to provide one shred of even the slightest evidence. I am just supposed to take your word for it, much like a priest?
You tell me to read a text book, that is the most idiotic comment I have ever read. I have like 20 text books none of them say a word about evolution.
If it was as easy as 1+1=2 then get off your behind and prove it, that should be easy, watch me do it with 1+1. Pick up a shoe, now pick up another one, how many do you have?
You haven't even posted a single shred of this magical proof you have.
Best just knock it off unless your next post is am apology, a complete retraction, or the undeniable proof.
Otherwise you have nothing. No fact, no proof, no evidence, no credibility.
Again how is saying "I don't know" all that crap you accused me of? Or do you just do that toeverybody that doesn't buy your nonsense hook line and sinker? Is the tactic insult until you have beaten them into submission?
That crap will not work on me.
A decent summary that was found by Googling "proof of evolution": Early Theories of Evolution: Evidence of Evolution
Actual studies to back it up can be found here through simple text searches: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
Last edited:
How so? That is more proof than we have for a lot of other things that are taught in schools and certainly infinitely more than what the Bible or any other conflicting religious text suggests...
No one is dictating religion away- why don't you understand that? They are dictating myth away and if those myths are part of religion, so be it. Nothing against the religion, but the religion is clearly just wrong in that one aspect- just as Christianity was and now admits it was with the Earth being the center of the universe.
Sorry, not enough.
I will never understand this because it is a lie.
There was never a Christian doctrine that claimed the earth was the center of the universe.
Please post the Bible passage that this is stated in.
It seems your problem is with people using religion to perpetuate ignorance, I agree. But mine isn't the only opinion that matters, I never insisted it was, you did, but that is common among religious people.
The world will never fully accept evolution, my opinion is the gaping holes in the theory that you are choosing to be blinded to because it is a religious belief to you.
Just let them think that God created everything what does it harm? The law isn't going to force the school to teach creationism, no curriculum change is going to happen.
Simply that there are going to be laws against bully teachers that indeed wish to stamp out christianity. Don't try to spin this. The kid may get a B if he answers a few questions wrong on a test. A vindictive teacher couldn't fail a kid for that.
Shame on you for supporting such bigotry.
There is no evolution class, accepting that theory is not the soul purpose of highschool. Its a subject, a very minor one in a natural science class.
If you want school to be weather or not you pay lip service to a dusty meaningless dead end of science. Your motive is absolutely to stamp out religion.
Explain why this is so important, I never think about it but to debate the haters of religion that only delight in mocking that which they don't understand.
My success isn't hindered because I don't know, and I make no effort to. Just your agenda.
If the proof of evolution isn't enough for you then the proof of a lot of things aren't good enough for you. And that is why I asked you what methodology YOU use to determine the truth and at what margin belief becomes fact for you- something you still haven't addressed.
And now you are denying that the Church/Bible said the Earth was the center of the universe? When even the Church admits the change in stance, I don't really know what else to tell you other than you seem to be deluding yourself. Go read about Galileo's controversy with the Church, etc. if you need more on that.
And for maybe the thousandth time, you do not know what theory means in science- clearly. Let me say it one more time: the colloquial use of the word theory is not the scientific or original meaning of the word. If you are rejecting evolution merely because it is a theory, then you have to under the same basis of logic reject gravity, germ theory, and on and on because all of those things are defined in the realm of science as theory. And eyewitness (being able to see it) has nothing to do with it given that science doesn't care about that as you explain it. It is about causal conclusions and statistically significant correlation. It is about empiricism and reproducability.
As for not dictating religion away, how are you going to tell me my goal in rejecting this nonsense proposal? My goal is my own, is it not? And I tell you that my goal is not to dictate religion away, but to dictate myth away from being taught as an alternative to fact in schools. I just find it tremendously disheartening that you let your religious BELIEF dictate what is and is not FACT.
And now you are denying that the Church/Bible said the Earth was the center of the universe? When even the Church admits the change in stance, I don't really know what else to tell you other than you seem to be deluding yourself. Go read about Galileo's controversy with the Church, etc. if you need more on that.
And for maybe the thousandth time, you do not know what theory means in science- clearly. Let me say it one more time: the colloquial use of the word theory is not the scientific or original meaning of the word. If you are rejecting evolution merely because it is a theory, then you have to under the same basis of logic reject gravity, germ theory, and on and on because all of those things are defined in the realm of science as theory. And eyewitness (being able to see it) has nothing to do with it given that science doesn't care about that as you explain it. It is about causal conclusions and statistically significant correlation. It is about empiricism and reproducability.
As for not dictating religion away, how are you going to tell me my goal in rejecting this nonsense proposal? My goal is my own, is it not? And I tell you that my goal is not to dictate religion away, but to dictate myth away from being taught as an alternative to fact in schools. I just find it tremendously disheartening that you let your religious BELIEF dictate what is and is not FACT.
Last edited:
Because you are destroying the very distinction between facts and beliefs when you blur the two. You are destroying the very foundation of science and of education. You are destroying free thinking. Again, if you allow that fact to slip, then why not 1+1=3? Leave the religion to home. Let school be just about facts, not myths.
If you want to take this in the context of law, the Supreme Court has already ruled that creationism is religion and should not be taught in schools (see Edwards v. Aguillard 1987). By the same means, it should not be a cop-out of doing actual schoolwork (and passing tests) either.
THERE ISN'T PROOF. You want it to be, that is your religion.
You think the church and the Bible are synonymous?
a book and a collective are hardly the same thing. The church is not the Bible.
You haven't read the Bible you don't have a clue what it says.
I don't care about the theory of gravity, as long as I drop something heavier than atmosphere it will fall. That is action, not theory. The theory is an attempt to understand why it happens, not that it happens.
The theory of evolution explains nothing, it just makes more questions. The theory of evolution is that it happened, not why.
The more you insist that there is proof the lower your credibility goes. Christina insist there is proof of God, you choose your religion.
You cannot reproduce evolution, you can't empirically study it.
An eyewitness being able to observe it has everything to do with it, without observation you have nothing.
You tell me I have no understanding of science, undergrad was the last science class I had and I understand that the above statement is a complete lie.
You have really no business even mentioning science if you don't except observation as a fundamental part of it.
I don't believe you, you have lost all credibility now. You did this to yourself by your incessant attempts to make me swallow your magic soup God.
I maintained that I don't know, I read your speculation links and understand you share that same speculation, that is your business.
You do not have the right to say your speculation is fact, I will battle you to the death on this.
Your simple method of determining the truth has long been ditched. Our intuitions are flawed and we can't see everything with our naked eye because we too are a creation of the molecules of our universe. This has long been noted. Your simplest methods are quite antiquated. You are maybe 500+ years behind your time.
And there is proof- I just gave you a link and a large research database that shows it. You choosing to remain blind to the proof is another issue. (and you can reproduce and see evolution- bacteria in petri dishes- it is funny how you conveniently forget what you want to forget in order to keep your myth alive in your head.)
And then you go on to say you don't believe what MY goals are as I state them. Ha- so now not only are you above facts, but you are apparently are a bigger expert on what my intentions are than I am. Okay... Good luck with that.
And there is proof- I just gave you a link and a large research database that shows it. You choosing to remain blind to the proof is another issue. (and you can reproduce and see evolution- bacteria in petri dishes- it is funny how you conveniently forget what you want to forget in order to keep your myth alive in your head.)
And then you go on to say you don't believe what MY goals are as I state them. Ha- so now not only are you above facts, but you are apparently are a bigger expert on what my intentions are than I am. Okay... Good luck with that.
Once again there is no religion that teaches 1+1=3, that is the most ridiculous comparison that has nothing to do with this in the least
Got the millionth time (maybe if I write it in all caps you will read it)
THIS ISN'T ABOUT TEACHING MYTH, NO MYTH, BUT ALLOWING STUDENTS TO KEEP THEIR FAITH, AND FORBIDDING BELLIGERENT TEACHERS FROM FLUNKING STUDENTS THAT HAVE A FAITH.
Good God in heaven its like you didn't even read the &@#$ title of the link you provided in the OP.
I am sorry about that outburst, but my god you haven't noticed everytime I have written it. you're arguing about something that has nothing at all to do with this.
it is in about a cop out, it's about not paying lip service to your belligerence.
Do you not understand that belief can be anything? I can very well establish a religion that believes 1+1=3. And that is the whole issue here. IF I do that that should by no means be acceptable in school and I am sure you agree. Same issue with creationism. Thankfully the Supreme Court already agrees with me on that.
Your goals are clear, you may not be conscious of them, you seem to try and convince yourself. And you started by calling me names.
If I was 500+ years in the past why is this law being discussed today? You are in denial about reality.
You stated the ad hominem arguments because I don't accept your beliefs as factual truth, just like a Christian, I can't believe you are so against them you are exactly like them. You suggested I was backward and that I was not intelligent just like that moderator I reported because you lost the argument.
I don't think you read the link, I don't think you even read the title, you saw the word creation in there and lost your mind.
first of your intellectually dishonest. second your proof isn't proof,
you insult me by telling me on backwards. you're the charlatan, you insist that you know everything, I cleaned that I didn't know. can you run off on this crap that has nothing to do with the topic.
basically put is the Supreme Court rules on this law that has nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism nothing to do with teaching creationism
Sorry I am hoping you will finally read this and realize your argument is irrelevant.
But if the court rules in favor of this law, then the court is probably wrong in your opinion.
Read your last post again and then tell me which one of us two is being childish, not reading the others' posts, and unwilling to actually discuss the issue at hand. Believe what you want, but I know my intentions better than you do (thought that was pretty obvious, but I guess not) and everyone reading this thread can see which one of us is so arrogant that he thinks he has the other person figured out more than the other person himself. Fight for what you think is right, but I will fight for the truth and not some fairy tale that denies the truth.
Without methodology and a differentiation between truth and belief there is no truth and that is a very dangerous thing. Descartian proof isn't possible- we know that- it is all relative and science has clearly been the superior method at determining the truth in human history. But you can deny it while you continue to reap the benefits of science and even less established factual bases for decisions that affect your own life like when you go to a hospital and get treated for certain things or like when you use that brand new electrical device built on an uncertain mechanism of action. While you reap the benefits of science and the importance of rigor in establishing fact from fiction, you can at the same time hypocritically deny the very methodology when it comes to evolution in favor of your creationist fairy tale. Such is the way of the world I suppose.
I just hope a few hundred years from now you go down as the nutjob who defended creationism on a equal playing field as evolution just as we look at the nutcases who a few hundreds years back defended geocentricism despite the evidence.
Without methodology and a differentiation between truth and belief there is no truth and that is a very dangerous thing. Descartian proof isn't possible- we know that- it is all relative and science has clearly been the superior method at determining the truth in human history. But you can deny it while you continue to reap the benefits of science and even less established factual bases for decisions that affect your own life like when you go to a hospital and get treated for certain things or like when you use that brand new electrical device built on an uncertain mechanism of action. While you reap the benefits of science and the importance of rigor in establishing fact from fiction, you can at the same time hypocritically deny the very methodology when it comes to evolution in favor of your creationist fairy tale. Such is the way of the world I suppose.
I just hope a few hundred years from now you go down as the nutjob who defended creationism on a equal playing field as evolution just as we look at the nutcases who a few hundreds years back defended geocentricism despite the evidence.
Last edited:
It is not the same issue. 1+1=3 is so easily disproven, I can't believe this has to come to nursery school level with you. Pick up one shoe, then pick up another, count your shoes.
Now lets try with creation v evolution. Pick up one shoe, now pick up another one, how on earth does this relate to creation v evolution?
Your simily doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense.
The supreme court agrees with you, great, I hope you feel validated. I don't need their agreement.
I don't think they would agree with you on the law this topic is about. Because its a huge jump from we accept evolution as an academic principle, to you must reject all beliefs to get a diploma from highschool.
You miss a few questions on a test about prehistory in one section in science class should never merit the bigoted hateful vindictive act of a spite fail.
What makes you think evolution is disproven any easier than 1+1=3 given the evidence for evolution? Because most people agree with it? Well popular vote is hardly a good measure for the truth given history. So what is it? Because you say so? You are hardly omniscient. Do you not realize that there has to be methodology? That is my whole point here. You use degrading remarks about nursery school, but you fail to see how deep this issue actually runs and instead opt for the simpleton fix as you often seem to do. Well guess what? Relative methodologies at determining the truth isn't that simple. And neither is the world. So yes, tell me, why given the evidence is there any difference between my religion saying 1+1=3 and yours saying creationism is true?
Man you are a perplexing little mind. I never said once that it should be on a level playing field.
Myp seriously what posts are you reading.
I really don't know how you jumped to this conclusion, I am really not even sure you have been responding to my posts now.
This is why I think you are a contrarian. You are accusing me of things that I did not perpetrate.
The default setting in this discussion for you is argue against a creationist, I am not a creationist. I even made it abundantly clear that I wasn't.
You want to beat creationists, leave them be. Beating people over the head with the Bible is their tactic, see how well it works.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.
Don't be a secular Bible Thumper.
So you admit evolution has more of a factual basis? If so, good. Then that is reason enough to teach it over creationism (or whatever you want to call your beliefs/arguments as- I don't care for the label) in schools. The latter is myth considering you have 0 proof. Get some and then maybe we'll talk about comparing the two
Similar threads
