Quote:
Look familiar? You keep saying that you're not trying to use eugenics to show flaws in evolution, yet you do keeps saying that you're trying to show the link between them to show the "negative aspects" of evolution, which seems like a case of poe-tay-toe/poe-tah-toe to me.
No, how on earth can by displaying negative aspects to a theory be an attempt to debunk and flaw the entire concept of evolution?
Does that fact of me thinking the great african tin man as a silly idea debunk the whole concept of intelligent design?
No it doesnt, if I wish to show negative aspects to the theory of a subject then that by no means I am attempting to FLAW the whole idea and concept of it.
This I would have thought is obvious.
Quote:
My original reasons for bringing up astrology was based around the fact that astronomy and star positions which have been around a long time gave birth to silly and absurd ideologies SUCH AS astrology.
These points in turn are not communicated effectively in the schooling system, the negative sides to astronomy must be addressed.
No, your original reasons for making the analogy (it was an analogy) of star positions and astrology was to try and emphasize the fact that although evolution cannot be proven to be correct it is still happening...
Which leads perfectly on to the reason why you made that analogy because you said, believing in astronomy does not invalidate the positions of the stars.
Here is your original quote:
Quote:
Astrology is based upon the positions of the stars. Just because there is something wrong with astrology, that doesn't invalidate the position of the stars, only the assumptions or interpretations derived from them.
And you assume that just because there is something wrong with evolution (eugenics) does not invalidate the theory.
This is what you meant originally, do not alter your meanings.
I have a good memory.
You spent a very long time away from the last post I directed at you "newbie" - why was that?
Quote:
These points in turn are not communicated effectively in the schooling system, the negative sides to astronomy must be addressed.
And what is wrong with this? Besides the fact you are using it on an idiotic example. There is nothing wrong with communicating the negative aspects and other viable options to theories, this is not done in schools which is my only point!
Kind of. - lmfao
Quote:
poe-tay-toe/poe-tah-toe to me.
What?
Quote:
How do you figure? I used a silly analogy to show that the link between eugenics and evolution is about the same as the link between astrology and astronomy
No you used an analogy which related a flaw in a theory (Astrology) to the actual factual position of certain stars.
You believed that this flaw which related to eugenics in evolution does not disprove the evolution concept which in turn is true IF EVOLUTION COULD BE PROVEN TO BE TRUE. Your analogy assumes evolution to be as true as the position of the stars. When in fact it is not.
Quote:
If you disagree with my reasoning, point out why it isn't a valid reasoning instead of just resorting to calling it stupid.
Read the last paragraph.
Quote:
You need to make a link to eugenics, it seems, to have an argument that there are "negative aspects" to evolution. Claiming you've made the link by showing that the founders of each are related and that eugenics has a false interpretation of evolution is the best you can do?
Eugenics is evolutionary thinking, selective breeding etc that is all remnants of the Darwinist evolutionist school of thought.
And yes, the founder of modern day eugenics was actually related to the founder of the theory of evolution.
What more do you want?
This by no means makes evolution to be an icorrect theory.
Quote:
So because evolution lacks morality, we shouldn't teach it to children? Morality should be as much of a concern with regards to evolution as morality does with math.
No that is entirely NOT WHAT I AM SAYING.
*sigh*
Quote:
To be fair, he asked you a question, and you are dodging it entirely here. Answer the question, please.
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.
The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.
Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.
The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.
Quote:
Because, the theory of creationism goes against some peoples religoius beliefs. It excludes some religions, and includes others, which in turn promotes some religions, while "disproving" others.
Intelligent design does not have to include religious belief, it does not have to incorporate religion whatsoever or even the theory of God.
Quote:
So what you are saying is you are want a very basic form of creationism that says, in essence, "something created us, the end"?
No I want respect for the theory of intelligent design as much as the theory for evolution, due to the fact they both lack evidence does not entail that one supports one over the other (other than mere self opinions).
Quote:
There is a difference between the simple concept of creationism meaning that something created all that we see, and the specific versions of creationism that people want to teach in the schools.
I not once recommended that they teach a specific concept of creationism in schools, I simply think creationism/intelligent design are just as viable as evolution.
Quote:
That is one of my arguements yes. And as I admited, its a bit of a slippery slope fallacy, but this is one of the building blocks towards a government religion. First you have schools teaching a specific religious viewpoint, which gives you the foothold to put more and more religious type things in the schools. Public schools should not promote any religion, ever. Freedom of religion is an important trait of this country, and teaching creationism leads itself to pushing a specific religions viewpoints, as there is no point in teaching creationism if you are going to teach its most basic form. A single statement does not a class make.
Quote:
So what are you wanting to be taught? I dont get it... you are saying its not tied to a religion, but how do you plan on teaching it. The most basic form of creationism with all religion removed from it simply says "something created us". Thats not a class, thats not even a decent seminar.
The popular views of creationism are tied directly into religion. In the case of the Louisianna situation, its tied directly into religion especially, since the money is going to a religious group to promote teaching creationism in public schools.
Imitator, you do not need to talk to me as if I am some kind of Indoctrinated christian who wants to also indoctrinate the youth and shove creationism down their throats by the use of political tools to bring creationism into the educational system.
I think it was Ken Miller who broke the ground and took creationsism out of the schooling system of America, he showed how creationism has no weight behind it therefore - nothing to teach!.
However Imitator what you fail to realise is the concepts and implications of what you are saying, you assume with your above quotes that evolution should be taken out of the educational system and replaced with creationism.
I do not agree with this, and this is not what I am saying, there is nothing with examining signs of nature with the view that these were specifically intelligently designed and created.
I think also the fact that no scientific FACT contradicts the Quran, theories may contradict the Quran, but no Fact has actually contradicted the Quran to date.
Quote:
And I believe that there is some viablity in creationism, but I dont think a basic form of creationism deserves to be taught in class,
By no means do I wish to teach utter creationism in schools as you have said "God did it" doesnt leave much for the rest of the semester of education, I was just making the statement that evolution is as valid as creationism (you may think) but this does not mean creationism is not as viable as evolution because it is!
Quote:
We are talking Biology here though - I think? Last time I checked? My degree is relevant, yours isn't.
There is no need to show aggression because you have a clear lack of understanding about exactly what this whole thread is about, but reading the title may help you on your way.
The fact remains that creationism is just as viable as evolution.
What if after everything you are actually wrong about evolution? This is what I hate about both evolutionists (you) and creationists (not me) they both do not have the slightest understanding of the fact that due to the lack of evidence upon both schools of thought that each could be just as valid as the other.
So why should we dictate one doctrine above the other in schools?
We should give the option and show how creationism could and is just as viable as evolution.
Quote:
We are talking Biology here though - I think? Last time I checked? My degree is relevant, yours isn't
My degree does not mean I am excluded from any debates around evolution, and it does not by any means make you the figurehead of the theory and thus excel you in any way above anyone else.
Your being offensive.
You believe by showing me the fact you have a degree makes you more knowledgeable about the subject than me? I know people who would run rings around me discussing financial theory who have little or no qualifications in the subject.
Like I said, your CV is your own business.
Like I said, me having a degree in accountancy does not make me a figurehead in the subject just like you having a science related degree does not make YOU a figurehead in the subject of science or evolution.
So (in bold I ask you).
Why did you feel the need to bring up your degree?
Quote:
Still waiting for this lack of evidence?
I think ive mentioned about 10 if you read up.
Quote:
If you want to debate WHY creationism doesn't have any evidence (let's throw in ID as well because that's bollocks too) then let's do it. If you just want to apply circular logic to everything without facing the actual meat of the debate then you bore me.
Creationist are relying on the average joe not understanding the facts - people just like YOU.
You can attempt to signpost me as a creationist all you like, there is no basis for attack until I actually tell you that I am a creationist.
When infact im not.
Quote:
LOL like everything else taught in school is absolute truth.
LOL you have just contradicted yourself, firstly you want evolution in schools and creationism out, for the reasons that it is on a "search for the truth".
And now your saying well actually not everything in schools are true so why worry about evolution not being true?
Then what is your big gripe with creationism even being CONSIDERED as a viable option in schools?
You should never give people the opportunity to make a fool of yourself in a debate by saying sensless things which do not have any applicible reason for existence within the structure of the debate.
Im not even saying creatioism shoulw be "taught in schools" when the hell did I say this?
I dont even agree with the actual teaching of creationism because all your left with is understanding how things work and discovery - but "god did it". But that does not stop science, even if someone was to believe that God just did all of it, that would not stop that scientist from learning more about how things work and how the world was created.
He could be wrong (and I hope he accepts this fact).
Archaeology is another subject which has unveiled some amazing theories about the history of the people and civilizations who lived thousands of years ago, some archaeologists subjectively go as far as saying these civilizations had advanced technology and an incredibly high degree of knowledge about the origins of our existence.
Who are we to say that in terms of knowledge, that we are at the pinnacle?
Evolutionary thinking was a rebellious act against the creationist church yes, I agree.
It was a revolution.
But what is revolution? - RE-EVOLUTION.
In 200 years time we could all be back to following intelligent design.
Who are you to say that we are on some kind of advancement of knowledge and intelligent design is history, dead and buried, never another sign of that being true will be show again?
This is all im saying, im being rational about your evolutionary thinking.
Quote:
You are talking about Abiogenesis - totally different, but that's about the 3rd time I've said it now so I'm giving up
I understand that Abogenesis must not be confused with evolution entirely but it is not invalid to link the two, biological evolution and molecular evolution (the basis of naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis) do have some relation and overlap in the sense that molecular change (in genes) is what drives biological evolution. So it is not necessarily invalid to join the two â?? especially when you consider that it is hard to draw a definitive line between life and non-life.
I also understand that evolution is a theory which describes how life has developed, a premise to this story is to understand that life must have already existed.
Again which points me to what was earlier said,that evolution does not by any means discredit the existence of an inteligent creator.
However here is the mystery..
It could have been created intelligently by a designer.
Or it could have come about with the theory of ABOGENESIS.
Whatever the explanation, evolutionary explanations begin to apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.
So, why on earth should I not be allowed to even make a statement about ATLEAST considering the fact that intelligent design could have actually happened.
Lets not rule it out, thats all im saying!
Im not saying evolution or creationism are wrong!
