RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
jesus_freak
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2007
- Messages
- 515
I will never defend a man who "claims" to be a Christian and beats his wife. There are people who claim to be Christian and yet do horrible things, I will not defend them nor would I expect you to defend all atheist (don't know for sure what you are) that do horrible things.
jesus_freak
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2007
- Messages
- 515
and I could say thoroughly debunked by http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html
but all this would prove is that there IS two sides of the story and I think both should be taught.
jesus_freak
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2007
- Messages
- 515
Pretty sure yes Creation (or ID) and evolution...let me guess you are gonna throw out some alien or matrix stuff?
gypsey
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Messages
- 222
at this stage of my life I am an atheist but I do not personally know any other atheist's so the the only personal experiance I have from my life is from christians and yes some of them do just "claim" to be christian but most are firm believers they don't just "claim" to be, they actually follow the bible pretty close, after all most fifty years all I can say is thats what is so scary to me about most christians, at least the ones I know
gypsey
jesus_freak
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2007
- Messages
- 515
I am done with you! (cyborg)
jesus_freak
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2007
- Messages
- 515
So would you like to defend the actions of all people who claim to be atheist?... on a side note I gotta go to work.
cyborg
deus ex machina
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,981
It seems a simple enough question.
Rrramon
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2006
- Messages
- 68
The DNA is, too.
Also, jesusfreak, you have flip-flopped. Originally you said that the Neanderthals were a different species, but now you are implying they are just humans (which is just plain wrong for reasons that have been posted).
So, which is it?
I will be glad to defend the actions of all the atheists I know
H3LL
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,963
Thank you for the reply. Appreciated...but....
You haven't been very clear on anything yet.
Clear means presenting your evidence...remember.
No evidence = Not clear
You're still not clear.
What exactly do you mean as a 'FACT'. Something I would preliminarily call a 'FACT' requires evidence to back it up. Without evidence it is just a story or opinion, or as ID claims were called by a Judge, "Lies".
No evidence = Not a 'FACT'
You're still not clear.
There is only one side and one theory. The evolution theory is supported with evidence and is science, the ID story is supported with no evidence and is not science, a theory or 'FACT', just a story. Theories require evidence.
No evidence = No theory
You're still not clear.
Not "force feeding", it is science, backed by evidence from a multitude of disciplines taught in a science class. ID has no evidence, is not science, should not be taught in science class and belongs in Religious studies, philosophy or the Story-Corner in any respectable school.
No evidence = Not science
What is your evidence that scientists are scared?
It would be fair to say that many scientists and non-scientists are very concerned that there is a well funded, concerted attempt by a minority group using any and all tactics, including lying and cheating, to replace evidence based science education with a made-up story and sending the education of those particular students back into the Bronze Age.
Those concerned people have every cause to be so.
Lies without evidence = Concerned scientists
And this, you think, is a good thing?
How will future people be able to work, compete, manufacture and drive the American economy when they do not understand, or accept basic science, such as evolution and the evidence behind it.
A "scientist" not understanding evolution and why it is so strong a theory, is the equivalent of a journalist being unable to read and write. Not much call for those.
Assuming you are right (you're not) and ID and/or Creationism is correct, and evolution is wrong, wrong, wrong.
The rest of the world is happily going to go on developing new drugs, medicines, DNA research and other evolution science based research and manufacture that actually works.
ID is utterly useless to assist in any of those scientific field. It predicts nothing, provided no useful mechanism and gives no method to work with.
So, even if ID is right it is useless.
It isn't, so is less than useless. Actually a barrier to progress.
You really don't get it, do you?
Science isn't about belief, it's about evidence.
Science isn't a popularity contest. The number of people believing something had no bearing...It's the evidence. You know, that thing that ID has none of.
Believe what you want without evidence. After all, that is exactly what faith is, belief without evidence. Science it isn't.
Evidence = Science
No evidence = Faith
You definitely don't get it. Science is not about belief or faith (see above), that's religion. It's spelt differently.
You will be hard pressed to find many on this board that disagree with both sides being taught. I for one have argued strongly against religious based topics being excluded from education and refused to sign a petition wanting exactly that.
BUT NOT AS SCIENCE.
I don't want to play football in my maths class, do cookery in my English class, chemical experiments in my music class or chess games in my RE class.
ID and Creationism are not science, do not belong in science and never will be science. They belong and should be taught in the appropriate classes.
I hope you read this. If so thanks.
Now to my original question, as I don't find your answer particularly clear and my overall feeling is that you were being evasive.
Correct me if I am in error but I have put answers from you as I understand them in bold.
Would you support the position taken in UAE?
Not replied to.
Do you see any difference between the reason for their position and yours?
Not replied to.
Stated your position but made no comment as to whether the reasons differ and how, if at all.
Are you comfortable that Islam in the UAE has achieved what xians similar to yourself hope to achieve in the USA?
Not replied to.
More specifically it would be the well funded ID movement that you have strongly indicated you agree with and support by using their arguments.
Are you happy to copy their example?
Replied that do not, which is a puzzle as your arguments, quotes and constant reference directly or indirectly to ID rhetoric and scripture indicate the opposite.
I have tried to be polite, if I have failed, my apologies.
Any spelling, grammar or other errors are not my fault.
Goddidit.
.
You haven't been very clear on anything yet.
Clear means presenting your evidence...remember.
No evidence = Not clear
You're still not clear.
What exactly do you mean as a 'FACT'. Something I would preliminarily call a 'FACT' requires evidence to back it up. Without evidence it is just a story or opinion, or as ID claims were called by a Judge, "Lies".
No evidence = Not a 'FACT'
You're still not clear.
There is only one side and one theory. The evolution theory is supported with evidence and is science, the ID story is supported with no evidence and is not science, a theory or 'FACT', just a story. Theories require evidence.
No evidence = No theory
You're still not clear.
Not "force feeding", it is science, backed by evidence from a multitude of disciplines taught in a science class. ID has no evidence, is not science, should not be taught in science class and belongs in Religious studies, philosophy or the Story-Corner in any respectable school.
No evidence = Not science
What is your evidence that scientists are scared?
It would be fair to say that many scientists and non-scientists are very concerned that there is a well funded, concerted attempt by a minority group using any and all tactics, including lying and cheating, to replace evidence based science education with a made-up story and sending the education of those particular students back into the Bronze Age.
Those concerned people have every cause to be so.
Lies without evidence = Concerned scientists
And this, you think, is a good thing?
How will future people be able to work, compete, manufacture and drive the American economy when they do not understand, or accept basic science, such as evolution and the evidence behind it.
A "scientist" not understanding evolution and why it is so strong a theory, is the equivalent of a journalist being unable to read and write. Not much call for those.
Assuming you are right (you're not) and ID and/or Creationism is correct, and evolution is wrong, wrong, wrong.
The rest of the world is happily going to go on developing new drugs, medicines, DNA research and other evolution science based research and manufacture that actually works.
ID is utterly useless to assist in any of those scientific field. It predicts nothing, provided no useful mechanism and gives no method to work with.
So, even if ID is right it is useless.
It isn't, so is less than useless. Actually a barrier to progress.
You really don't get it, do you?
Science isn't about belief, it's about evidence.
Science isn't a popularity contest. The number of people believing something had no bearing...It's the evidence. You know, that thing that ID has none of.
Believe what you want without evidence. After all, that is exactly what faith is, belief without evidence. Science it isn't.
Evidence = Science
No evidence = Faith
You definitely don't get it. Science is not about belief or faith (see above), that's religion. It's spelt differently.
You will be hard pressed to find many on this board that disagree with both sides being taught. I for one have argued strongly against religious based topics being excluded from education and refused to sign a petition wanting exactly that.
BUT NOT AS SCIENCE.
I don't want to play football in my maths class, do cookery in my English class, chemical experiments in my music class or chess games in my RE class.
ID and Creationism are not science, do not belong in science and never will be science. They belong and should be taught in the appropriate classes.
I hope you read this. If so thanks.
Now to my original question, as I don't find your answer particularly clear and my overall feeling is that you were being evasive.
Correct me if I am in error but I have put answers from you as I understand them in bold.
Would you support the position taken in UAE?
Not replied to.
Do you see any difference between the reason for their position and yours?
Not replied to.
Stated your position but made no comment as to whether the reasons differ and how, if at all.
Are you comfortable that Islam in the UAE has achieved what xians similar to yourself hope to achieve in the USA?
Not replied to.
More specifically it would be the well funded ID movement that you have strongly indicated you agree with and support by using their arguments.
Are you happy to copy their example?
Replied that do not, which is a puzzle as your arguments, quotes and constant reference directly or indirectly to ID rhetoric and scripture indicate the opposite.
I have tried to be polite, if I have failed, my apologies.
Any spelling, grammar or other errors are not my fault.
Goddidit.
.
H3LL
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,963
Jesus_Freak writing tip that may help:
Try to write without using belief, believe or other strongly faith-based words and you might start to understand my position and a little about how science works. It's takes a bit of mental gymnastics but tend to immediately point out where thinking is off-course with regard to science.
Have fun.
.
Try to write without using belief, believe or other strongly faith-based words and you might start to understand my position and a little about how science works. It's takes a bit of mental gymnastics but tend to immediately point out where thinking is off-course with regard to science.
Have fun.
.
well its a poorly thought out one. The bones give plenty of clues as to what they would look like, brow ridges are part of bone formation, as is the small forehead and lack of chin. Projection of the nose can be estimated from the small bit of bone that the nose has. I mean how do you think forensic artists come up with clay sculptures of missing persons based on skulls?
When scientists use the word 'theory' they mean it in a technical way, not the common use way in which you use it. Commonly it means that its unproven, its quite the opposite to scientists. For instance, einsteins theory of relativity is well established and taught. I imagine you dont have a problem with that, or people being taught that gravity exsists.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
im sure when you use it you mean:
2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
but when scientists explain that evolution is a theory they mean:
"A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis. "
Its not quite fair to tell students something is 'just a theory' in science class, because theory is used for a well established, solid, fact supported and proven hypothosis.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
The post was actually about observations and measurements. Facial reconstruction is based on measurements and observation. If you consider the scale of the plastic surgery industry you'll appreciate that facial anatomy is not a field of research that's been starved of funds. Bones and muscles and teeth aren't just thrown together randomly, they work with each other in ways that are common throughout the mammalian world. observed and measured and explicable ways. So there's no theory in the post, just facts and a conclusion : that none of it suggests any great distinction between our ancestor species (or the uncles that didn't make it) and ourselves.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
H3LL : you don't need no writing tip!
Excellent post back there.
Excellent post back there.
How do evolutionists respond to the zero likelihood of life arising by chance? The biochemistry text quoted above asks and then answers the question: “How then did life arise? The answer, most probably, is that it was guided according to the Darwinian principle of the survival of the fittest as it applies at the molecular level.”14 The key fact to note here is that natural selection simply cannot act unless there are functional, self-replicating molecules present to act on. We have already seen that no such system could possibly appear by chance. Life in its totality must have been created in the beginning, just as God told us.
Well he's a scientist.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/marcus.asp
Well he's a scientist.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/marcus.asp