Some front line views of the war against God.

[Hardcore Newbie]

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.

But you're not showing "negative aspects" of evolution, you're showing flaws with eugenics.

I agree with you here, that the flaws with any religious systems don't shouldn't reflect on the idea that we were created. Let me bold something... That's not the problem with Intelligent Design. Evolution does have proof. You keep saying that there's no proof but there's tonnes.

How we know what happened when

You can learn lots more here too!

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...

No, you've misinterpreted. Let's make a chart.

In the analogy...

Evolution = Astronomy, both have proof. No where did I emphasis that evolution didn't have proof in the analogy. in fact, the opposite was implied. Astronomy has scientific proof. If I was trying to make an analogy, it'd be a poor analogy to me if I thought that evolution didn't have some sort of proof.

Eugenics = Astrology, derived from their respective fields, applying morality and meaning to where there is none.

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 may have a good memory but your memory had misinterpreted my meanings.

please please please stop bringing up eugenics as a problem with, or "negative aspect" with evolution. You've already shown you didn't even understand the point of the analogy.

You spent a very long time away from the last post I directed at you "newbie" - why was that?

My girlfriend was over this weekend, and I saw your post, but I didn't have the time to reply, as I didn't want to be on the computer typing responses to in depth subjects. I mean... I was afraid of your post and it took me a really long time to answer, invoking the help of all my friends as we mustered up the best responses we could think of to defeat that bad creationist!

Is that what you were looking for?

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!

They aren't communicated because the alternatives have no proof. If you take a course on Fluid mechanics, they'll tell you what's wrong with the initial equation that they give you in the beginning of the semester. It's a big equation, and parts of it aren't measurable because we don't currently have the equipment to do so. it does work mathematically, and the predictions made with the applied math work.

So they are assumed to be true because that's how science works. if someone has an alternate theory, it has to debunk the current method with new observations. If someone wanted to make a theory about current fairies, then they would have to observe it.

There's no "absolute proof" on fluid mechanics, but that doesn't stop us from teaching it or using it in plumbing systems, and there's no need to teach an alternate theory.

What?

the word was potato, and two different pronunciations.

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.

How do you know the position of the stars, have you been there? It's just as an absurd question as

Have you ever seen a man evolving from an ape?

So please, why can we accept that our scientists and astronomers know the positions of the stars, even without getting a giant tape measure and travelling there? lots of correlating evidence (parallax, stellar motions, Inverse Square law, etc) Just as with evolution, pointed out on the evolution 101 page that I linked to above.

Eugenics is evolutionary thinking, selective breeding etc that is all remnants of the Darwinist evolutionist school of thought.

you sigh, i sigh. *sigh*

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.

So what? My grandmother is a born again Xian. I am not. My dad is an athiest, and I am not. If all three of us made observations of the world and we had similar observations, they may be similar or different. Our philosophies on morality will also be similar in some places and different than others. In the places that they are similar, that doesn't mean we're in cahoots with theories and such. You keep pushing a point that means nothing.

No that is entirely NOT WHAT I AM SAYING.

*sigh*

Let me rephrase that.... in response to

Which is why if we pump childrenâ??s mind with theories which lack morality (being that you say we must be at a highly evolved conscious state to avoid murder, rape etc which we are not) it would be stupid to carry on teaching children theories which lack morality being as we have not reached this amazingly high evolved conscious level yet.

So because evolution lacks morality, we should be teaching alternative theories to children? Morality should be as much of a concern with regards to evolution as morality does with math.

And I also didn't state that we must be at a highly evolved consious. My exact quote was

In case you hadn't noticed, we've taken it upon ourselves to punish people who kill. To put it in simple terms, maybe humans have "evolved" to think that killing each other is bad.

MAYBE. I don't know where our morality came from (hence the maybe), but that, yet again, has nothing to do with evolution.