Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
mike the wiz

No Evidence Could Convince Me Evolution Occured

Recommended Posts

really?

so you have been able to rationalize things such as love and hate, and the "voice" of your thoughts, among others.

 

tell me, how do these things come about from a mechanistic process such as abiogenesis and evolution?

Really.

Some things we don't understand yet.  200 years ago there were a lot more things we didn't understand.  In 200 years time there will be a lot fewer things we don't understand. 

'I don't know' is a perfectly valid answer and, IMHO, much better than 'I don't know, therefore <insert something because I can't accept I don't know for an answer> must be true'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really.

Some things we don't understand yet.  200 years ago there were a lot more things we didn't understand.  In 200 years time there will be a lot fewer things we don't understand. 

'I don't know' is a perfectly valid answer and, IMHO, much better than 'I don't know, therefore <insert something because I can't accept I don't know for an answer> must be true'

sounds to me like you have far more "faith" than you care to admit.

 

doesn't it bother you at all that the paradigm of evolution has mislead you?

the story of epigenetics has been kept from the masses for close to 70 years dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is in the terminology and how it is misused and abused.

i made a recent post that illustrates this perfectly:

yes, and the "mechanism" he proposed was natural selection.

unfortunately, natural selection DOES NOT explain the increasing complexity of the fossil record.

correction, there is no evidence that natural selection encourages complexity.

- is charles darwin the most overrated figure in history?

 

natural selection does indeed "explain" how living things can become more complex.

except science hasn't been able to find any evidence it does.

as a matter of fact lynch specifically says "there is no evidence that natural selection encourages complexity".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no reason at all.  Classes on comparative religions are fine.

 

The problem is when you ban the teaching of mainstream science in science classes and/or mandate the teaching of your religious belief instead.

"your religious belief", what does that mean?

isn't that what all religions are, "your religious belief"?

 

there is no reason our children shouldn't know about god, and gods in general, and how this knowledge could benefit society.

 

80% of the people can't be wrong

 

so, where's the pollution coming from piasan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

80% of the people can't be wrong

:cry:

Yes we can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because they have NO CHOICE but to accept it.did you forget koonin and his "ready made" comment?it's quite likely his paper would not have been published if he hadn't changed it.also, let's not forget that 80% of the people feel they are more than physical laws can explain.and it IS NOT the scientific community that forced religion from our schools.schools should retaliate by forming a class that teaches the worlds religions.it's my opinion that science should completely disassociate itself with atheistsscience should have the ability to sue atheists for defamation of character if atheists used any kind of peer reviewed material in any manner.

 

Schools do teach religion. I went to public school and we learned some basic stuff about Islam and Hinduism in history class; not to mention that you can't really talk about western civilization history without talking about Christianity. In English class we read excerpts from the sermon "sinners in the hands of an angry God", and although I never took AP English I know they read large sections of the bible. We even had a world religion course, but it was an elective and I didn't take it. All of it is perfectly legal as it done from an academic viewpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"your religious belief", what does that mean?

isn't that what all religions are, "your religious belief"?

 

there is no reason our children shouldn't know about god, and gods in general, and how this knowledge could benefit society.

 

80% of the people can't be wrong

 

so, where's the pollution coming from piasan?

 

Two things in the US Constitution address this:  1) The Establishment Clause and 2) Freedom of Religion Clause.  When the US was founded, recent history was rife with brutal conflicts, many of which involving religion and state sponsoring / endorsing of religion.  The Founding Fathers saw this and wanted badly to avoid it.  So, the prevailing thought was to keep the government (federal at the time) out of the religion business, e.g., promoting, sponsoring, funding, etc.

 

At the same time, however, they were also big proponents of individual religious liberties.  If people want themselves and their children to learn of and know about god, then by all means; no governmental authority will stand in your way.  Now, government won't help you with that, but it won't hinder you either.

 

That's the approach....at least, in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

The problem is when you ban the teaching of mainstream science in science classes and/or mandate the teaching of your religious belief instead.

"your religious belief", what does that mean?

In the matter under discussion, it means Fundamentalist Christians passing laws to ban the teaching of mainstream science because it is in conflict with their religious beliefs.  It also means passing laws requiring their religious belief be taught in introductory science classes.

 

isn't that what all religions are, "your religious belief"?

Of course.  

 

there is no reason our children shouldn't know about god, and gods in general, and how this knowledge could benefit society.

No one has said or implied otherwise.

 

Doesn't the responsibility for teaching religion belong to the parents rather than the government?

 

80% of the people can't be wrong

Oh, yes they can.

 

so, where's the pollution coming from piasan?

Well, let's go back to this.....

in my opinion, when you start forcing something like evolution by threat of lawsuit, then the evidence is either nonexistent, or so meager that it cannot withstand scrutiny.

When I pointed out the lawsuits were caused by creationists getting laws passed to ban the teaching of evolution, you were silent on that.

 

I contend the "pollution" is from creationists who were the ones that abandoned the scientific discussion in favor of legislative action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, yes they can.

how can you say that when you have no evidence to support your stance?

there is exactly ZERO evidence that we are a natural outcome of physical laws.

especially when animal phyla arrived here "ready made" with no indication they came from ANYWHERE.

 

Well, let's go back to this.....

 

When I pointed out the lawsuits were caused by creationists getting laws passed to ban the teaching of evolution, you were silent on that.

simply because i do not believe it.

one advantage of old age is the realization that things aren't always what they seem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, the lawsuits were not "forcing" evolution; they were denying the teaching of religious doctrine in public schools.  I don't think there is any law that says the public schools must teach the theory of evolution as part of the science curriculum.  Now, they almost always do because the college entrance tests usually include it to some degree.

 

"As far as I know, the lawsuits were not "forcing" evolution; they were denying the teaching of religious doctrine in public schools"

 

HAHAHAHA. Very funny..

 

I am not sure who you are trying to fool.. Us? Or Yourself...

Evolution is Religious Doctrine On Steroids.. The Godless Religion

of Metaphysical Naturalism with ZERO evidence to support it that conforms to the scientific method (You DO know how Real / Hard Science is determined dont you?) Why not be honest and agree to move the TOE from Biology where it doesnt belong to philosophy where it belongs?

 

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint and the literalists are absolutely right to make it. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

Michael Ruse

 

It seemed that all problems of heaven and earth were solved simply and convincingly; there was an answer to every question which troubled the young mind. Evolution was the key to everything and could replace all the beliefs and creeds which one was discarding. There were no creation no God, no heaven and hell, only evolution and the wonderful law of recapitulation which demonstrated the fact of evolution to the most stubborn believer in creation. I was so fascinated and shaken up that I had to communicate to others my new knowledge, and this was done in the schoolyard, on school picnics, and among friends. I remember vividly a scene during a school picnic when I stood surrounded by a group of schoolboys to whom I expounded the gospel of Darwinism as Haeckel saw it. ~ Richard Goldschmidt

 

"Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." R Lewontin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As far as I know, the lawsuits were not "forcing" evolution; they were denying the teaching of religious doctrine in public schools"

 

HAHAHAHA. Very funny..

 

I am not sure who you are trying to fool.. Us? Or Yourself...

Evolution is Religious Doctrine On Steroids.. The Godless Religion

of Metaphysical Naturalism with ZERO evidence to support it that conforms to the scientific method (You DO know how Real / Hard Science is determined dont you?) Why not be honest and agree to move the TOE from Biology where it doesnt belong to philosophy where it belongs?

 

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint and the literalists are absolutely right to make it. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

Michael Ruse

 

It seemed that all problems of heaven and earth were solved simply and convincingly; there was an answer to every question which troubled the young mind. Evolution was the key to everything and could replace all the beliefs and creeds which one was discarding. There were no creation no God, no heaven and hell, only evolution and the wonderful law of recapitulation which demonstrated the fact of evolution to the most stubborn believer in creation. I was so fascinated and shaken up that I had to communicate to others my new knowledge, and this was done in the schoolyard, on school picnics, and among friends. I remember vividly a scene during a school picnic when I stood surrounded by a group of schoolboys to whom I expounded the gospel of Darwinism as Haeckel saw it. ~ Richard Goldschmidt

 

"Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." R Lewontin

 

Well, then, I suggest you file your case in federal court; if it's deemed a religion, then it will be off-limits in public school as well.  Good luck...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

religion - the firm belief in something that doesn't exist.

 

hang on to your socks guys, because that explains exactly the case of how we got here.

 

the "religion" of believing we arose naturally is not so different than the "religion" we got here supernaturally.

no one knows what, if anything, exists "on the other side" of the universe, but it's quite likely the physical laws there are very different from here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

religion - the firm belief in something that doesn't exist.

Nobody is using that definition. 

 

:get_a_clue:

 

Why do you keep making stuff up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I pointed out the lawsuits were caused by creationists getting laws passed to ban the teaching of evolution, you were silent on that.

simply because i do not believe it.

That's the best you can do?

 

Ever hear of the Scope's Trial?  That was the result of Tennessee's passage of the Butler Act.  Also, it wasn't actually brought by evolutionists.  It was the prosecution of a teacher for teaching evolution.

 

Then there was the 1968 Epperson V. Arkansas case.  It was the result of a 1928 Arkansas law banning the teaching of human evolution.

 

McLean v. Arkansas was a 1982 case brought as a result of the 1981 passage of Arkansas Act 590.

 

Edwards v. Aguillard was a 1987 Supreme Court decision on Louisiana's (so called) "Balanced Treatment Act" of 1981.

 

 

one advantage of old age is the realization that things aren't always what they seem.

Tell me about it, Junior.

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

.... Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
Michael Ruse

Well, then, I suggest you file your case in federal court; if it's deemed a religion, then it will be off-limits in public school as well.  Good luck...

The claim that evolution is a religion was brought up in one of the (so-called) "balanced treatment" court cases.  The court quite correctly pointed out that if evolution is a religion, then the correct remedy is to stop teaching evolution .... not teach another religious belief too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, then, I suggest you file your case in federal court; if it's deemed a religion, then it will be off-limits in public school as well.  Good luck...

 

Should I file a case in federal court that it is illegal to hire a paid assasin / hitman to torture, mutilate, and murder young humans for convenience as well?

 

Slavery used to be perfectly legal as well as Jim Crow laws as well..

 

Let me inform you of a little secret that you dont seem to be aware of..

 

 

Just Because something is "Legal" DOES NOT make it RIGHT...

 

 

"Darwin made it possible to be an Intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

R Dawkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I file a case in federal court that it is illegal to hire a paid assasin / hitman to torture, mutilate, and murder young humans for convenience as well?

 

 

 

You can, if you have standing, e.g., someone did this to you, a relative, etc.  My guess is that it would probably be in state court....see OJ Simpson for example.

 

If you are paying taxes to a public school system and they are teaching the theory of evolution (potentially a religion), then I would think that one could argue that you have standing.

 

Slavery used to be perfectly legal as well as Jim Crow laws as well..

 

 

 

And they use to outlaw the teaching of evolution in public schools in places like Tennessee.  Thankfully, that idea went the same route as slavery.

 

Let me inform you of a little secret that you dont seem to be aware of..

 

 

Just Because something is "Legal" DOES NOT make it RIGHT...

 

 

"Darwin made it possible to be an Intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

R Dawkins

 

 

 

And, you claiming something is WRONG does not necessarily make it WRONG, RIGHT??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is using that definition. 

 

:get_a_clue:

 

Why do you keep making stuff up?

i don't remember the word "religion" being defined in this thread, so how would ANYONE know what definition everyone is using?

 

i would imagine you religiously change your underwear every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the best you can do?

yes.

 

Ever hear of the Scope's Trial?  That was the result of Tennessee's passage of the Butler Act.  Also, it wasn't actually brought by evolutionists.  It was the prosecution of a teacher for teaching evolution.

 

Then there was the 1968 Epperson V. Arkansas case.  It was the result of a 1928 Arkansas law banning the teaching of human evolution.

 

McLean v. Arkansas was a 1982 case brought as a result of the 1981 passage of Arkansas Act 590.

 

Edwards v. Aguillard was a 1987 Supreme Court decision on Louisiana's (so called) "Balanced Treatment Act" of 1981.

yes, and?

you mean a preacher from some hole in the wall town just decides to sue everybodys pants off.

that's almost as silly as abiogenesis.

sounds more like propaganda than anything else.

 

edit:

or maybe it was expressly to set a series of precedents.

/edit. 

Tell me about it, Junior.

this is especially true in regards to what you think you know about evolution.

i seriously doubt if these animals poofed into existence, but i also seriously doubt they arrived here by gradual changes.

 

something must explain this piasan, and the only thing i can think of is epigenetics.

if epigenetics was operational from the very first cell, then abiogenesis is highly unlikely.

 

so, where did we come from?

i see no reason to rule out a god.

sorry, absurd doesn't cut it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can, if you have standing, e.g., someone did this to you, a relative, etc.  My guess is that it would probably be in state court....see OJ Simpson for example.

 

If you are paying taxes to a public school system and they are teaching the theory of evolution (potentially a religion), then I would think that one could argue that you have standing.

 

 

 

And they use to outlaw the teaching of evolution in public schools in places like Tennessee.  Thankfully, that idea went the same route as slavery.

 

 

 

 

And, you claiming something is WRONG does not necessarily make it WRONG, RIGHT??

 

"If you are paying taxes to a public school system and they are teaching the theory of evolution (potentially a religion), then I would think that one could argue that you have standing."

 

OF COURSE I HAVE STANDING..

 

But I cant afford to pay lawyers who can Beat the Liars that the ACLU and NCSE Have.. You do understand how that works dont you?

 

 

"And, you claiming something is WRONG does not necessarily make it WRONG"

 

 

No, Slavery, Jim Crow, And Mudering Helpless Innocent young humans for convenience is WRONG. And ALWAYS will be... IRREGARDLESS of what I claim... Make more sense to you now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the best you can do?

 

Ever hear of the Scope's Trial? That was the result of Tennessee's passage of the Butler Act. Also, it wasn't actually brought by evolutionists. It was the prosecution of a teacher for teaching evolution.

 

Then there was the 1968 Epperson V. Arkansas case. It was the result of a 1928 Arkansas law banning the teaching of human evolution.

 

McLean v. Arkansas was a 1982 case brought as a result of the 1981 passage of Arkansas Act 590.

 

Edwards v. Aguillard was a 1987 Supreme Court decision on Louisiana's (so called) "Balanced Treatment Act" of 1981.

 

 

 

Tell me about it, Junior.

 

;)

"Ever hear of the Scope's Trial? That was the result of Tennessee's passage of the Butler Act. Also, it wasn't actually brought by evolutionists. It was the prosecution of a teacher for teaching evolution."

 

Sure.. You mean the trial that the evolutionists LOST? (In spite of the lies propogated in the pro Darwin hollywool film "Inherit the wind" LOL

 

The same trial where Evolutionists provided a PIG'S TOOTH as empirical evidence to support their Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth? LOL

 

"The Earth spoke to Bryan from his own State,' he crowed, 'the little tooth speaks volumes. . evidence of man's descent from the ape."(I am not making this stuff up)

 

AS WELL AS

 

Piltdown Man (A COMPLETE FRAUD) as Evidence for Ape Man Evolution..

 

 

Yeah, We have heard of it... Quite Embarrasing to be associated with the Fraud of Evolution isnt it?

 

""I shall discuss the broad patterns of hominoid evolution, an exercise made enjoyable by the need to integrate diverse kinds of information, and use that as a vehicle to speculate about hominoid origins, an event for which there is no recognized fossil record. Hence, an opportunity to exercise some imagination."

 

(Dr. David Pilbeam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SN requested I provide a reference for my comment that the courts had commented that if evolution is a religious belief the remedy is to stop teaching evolution, not teach another religious belief.

 

It was in the decision by the 5th Circuit Court in McLean v. Arkansas:

The defendants argue in their brief that evolution is, in effect, a religion, and that by teaching a religion which is contrary to some students' religious views, the State is infringing upon the student's free exercise rights under the First Amendment. Mr. Ellwanger's legislative findings, which were adopted as a finding of fact by the Arkansas Legislature in Act 590, provides:

Evolution-science is contrary to the religious convictions or moral values or philosophical beliefs of many students and parents, including individuals of many different religious faiths and with diverse moral and philosophical beliefs. Act 590, &7(d).

.....

Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause, Epperson v. Arkansas, supra, Willoughby v. Stever, No. 15574-75 (D.D.C. May 18, 1973); aff'd. 504 F.2d 271 (D.C. Cir. 1974), cert. denied , 420 U.S. 924 (1975); Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist., 366 F. Supp. 1208 (S.D. Tex 1978), aff.d. 486 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied 417 U.S. 969 (1974).

 

It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court, in Edwards v. Aguillard, cited the McLean ruling.  They're not in the habit of using precedent they disagree with as a reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever hear of the Scope's Trial?  That was the result of Tennessee's passage of the Butler Act.  Also, it wasn't actually brought by evolutionists.  It was the prosecution of a teacher for teaching evolution.

Sure.. You mean the trial that the evolutionists LOST? (In spite of the lies propogated in the pro Darwin hollywool film "Inherit the wind" LOL

....

Yeah, We have heard of it... Quite Embarrasing to be associated with the Fraud of Evolution isnt it?

Yeah.  That one.

 

It was the first trial that involved evolution and the last one "the evolutionists LOST."  Scopes violated a law banning the teaching of evolution and was fined.  The trial was held in county court.

 

On the other hand, Kitzmiller was decided in US District court,  McLean was a victory in Federal Circuit Court which is below only the Supreme Court.  Epperson and Edwards were victories in the Supreme Court.

 

It's like comparing a win in your kid's Pop Warner football league with an NCAA championship, a NFL Conference championship and two Super Bowl victories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SN requested I provide a reference for my comment that the courts had commented that if evolution is a religious belief the remedy is to stop teaching evolution, not teach another religious belief.

 

It was in the decision by the 5th Circuit Court in McLean v. Arkansas:

The defendants argue in their brief that evolution is, in effect, a religion, and that by teaching a religion which is contrary to some students' religious views, the State is infringing upon the student's free exercise rights under the First Amendment. Mr. Ellwanger's legislative findings, which were adopted as a finding of fact by the Arkansas Legislature in Act 590, provides:

 

Evolution-science is contrary to the religious convictions or moral values or philosophical beliefs of many students and parents, including individuals of many different religious faiths and with diverse moral and philosophical beliefs. Act 590, &7(d).

.....

Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause, Epperson v. Arkansas, supra, Willoughby v. Stever, No. 15574-75 (D.D.C. May 18, 1973); aff'd. 504 F.2d 271 (D.C. Cir. 1974), cert. denied , 420 U.S. 924 (1975); Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist., 366 F. Supp. 1208 (S.D. Tex 1978), aff.d. 486 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied 417 U.S. 969 (1974).

 

It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court, in Edwards v. Aguillard, cited the McLean ruling.  They're not in the habit of using precedent they disagree with as a reference.

.....

 

So 1 judge a court of 12 jurists, who have been brainwashed and indoctrinated since the age of 6 that "Evolution" is a "scientific fact" (The biggest con job in history) and were "convinced, after listinging to 3 ACLU Liars with million dollar salaries that evolution is "not a religion".. Makes everything OK.. Wonderful..

 

The Blind and Deaf leading the Blind... What could go wrong?

 

 

FORCING ONESELF to ignore things like Causation, Information, Beauty, Intelligence, and Irreducible Complexity just so you can pretend to yourself that there is no God is MORE DELUSIONAL than any False Religious Belief one could think of..

 

 

"The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs."

 

(Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse of the University of Paris and past-president of the French Academy of Science)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK  what if .... let's see where we stand....

 

1) Blitz complained about legal action by evolutionists.

2) I commented the legal actions were made necessary because states were passing laws banning the teaching of evolution.

3) You remarked that if "you start forcing something like evolution by threat of lawsuit, then the evidence is either nonexistent, or so meager that it cannot withstand scrutiny."

4)  I pointed out the lawsuits were made necessary because creationi

sts were passing laws banning the mention of evolution in the classroom.

5)  You dismissed that with a "I wouldn't know anything about any of this..."

6)  I commented on your silence on the creationist mandates.

7)  You said you don't believe it.

8)  I provide 4 specific examples of cases in which the teaching evolution had been banned by law.

 

And you respond with:

....
you mean a preacher from some hole in the wall town just decides to sue everybodys pants off.
that's almost as silly as abiogenesis.
sounds more like propaganda than anything else.

edit:
or maybe it was expressly to set a series of precedents.
/edit. 

 

OK .... here's the message I'm getting.....

When evolutionists sue in response to laws passed by creationists that ban the mere mention of evolution in the classroom, that's because the evidence is "either nonexistent" or "meager."

That creationists passed such laws "sounds more like propaganda than anything else."

 

In other words, if creationists ban evolution, that's fine and if evolutionists complain about it, it's because the evidence of evolution is so poor.

 

Got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms