My Human Chromosome 2 Challenge

[LifeToTheFullest!]

What about llamas?

Or mountain goats.

 

[Greg1234]

I like to think of it not so much as encroaching, more like pulling the blinders back.

And now we see that random mutations cannot take bacteria to men.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

And now we see that random mutations cannot take bacteria to men.

Correct.

 

[rockaction]

And now we see that random mutations cannot take bacteria to men.

Humans and bacteria share a common ancestor, and the process that diversified us and modern bacteria from our common ancestor is the coupling of random mutation and natural selection.

Please stop using the "you guys say random mutation can turn bacteria into men lol" card.

 

[driewerf]

And yet again, Cabal -- irrespective of what you think of it -- hate it, love it, disdain it, ignore it, whatever -- it was here long before your evolution was.

You don't have to like it -- you don't have to believe it -- you don't have to embrace it -- but to deny its place on the time line is just showing misplaced contempt.

MS-Dos was there before Windows.

You don't have to like it -- you don't have to believe it -- you don't have to embrace it -- but to deny its place on the time line is just showing misplaced contempt.

 

[driewerf]

I want to point the shifting attitudes of AV1611VET.
In post nr 113, he claims that creationism is right, because it is older:

That depends.

Genesis 1 was taught as written for thousands of years, until evolution started teaching otherwise.

People who embrace/embraced evolution in favor of the order of Genesis 1 are the ones who are being led astray.

It's disingenuous to look back and accuse God of being the author of confusion, when He documented everything He did in such great detail.

Later, he shifts his position to

And yet again, Cabal -- irrespective of what you think of it -- hate it, love it, disdain it, ignore it, whatever -- it was here long before your evolution was.

You don't have to like it -- you don't have to believe it -- you don't have to embrace it -- but to deny its place on the time line is just showing misplaced contempt.

So here, it is just older and deserves it's place on the timeline. The question of accuracy is apparantly not important anymore.

But then, in post number 141, creationism wins authority again, by his older age.

The truth of creationism was taught long before Satan ever dreamed of evolution.

And on the same page AV1611VET shifts again:

I'm not interested right now in what you think -- or why you think it.

Here's an established fact: creationism came long before evolution.

You don't have to accept it if you don't want to.

Whether you do or not doesn't change which came first.

But let's face it: AV1611VET is lying.
Yes AV1611VET, it does matter, to you and to us, which is right and which is wrong, the only thing, you think that by conceding the point that creationism is older (which isn't actually a fact, creationism came there as a reation against the ideas of evolution!), your discarded opinions will gain some respectabillity. There is not a single post, not a single word that you have written in this part of the forum, dedicated to the destruction of evolution. So, if you spend so much time to make us accept the primacy of creationism, it means it matters to you. And the fact that you silently moves your positions, makes you fit in the list of dishonnest creationists, like Ken Ham, Henry Morris, Andy Schlafy or Venomfangx.

 

[Assyrian]

What about llamas?

No, the bible came before Tibetan Buddhism.

 

[MoonLancer]

And now we see that random mutations cannot take bacteria to men.

your forgetting all steps in-between.

 

[Cabal]

I want to point the shifting attitudes of AV1611VET.
In post nr 113, he claims that creationism is right, because it is older:

Actually, driewerf, I don't think he is. He is merely claiming that creationism came first and that evolution is "treading on its turf", as it were.

He's just being irrelevant, rather than wrong.

 

[driewerf]

Actually, driewerf, I don't think he is. He is merely claiming that creationism came first and that evolution is "treading on its turf", as it were.

Oh yes, he is. He is continually shifting from 'the truth of creationism' to 'you don't have to believe it', and back.

He's just being irrelevant, rather than wrong.

He is irrelevant and wrong.

 

[Cabal]

Oh yes, he is. He is continually shifting from 'the truth of creationism' to 'you don't have to believe it', and back.

He is claiming them separately. He is not claiming that creationism is true BECAUSE it is older, he is claiming that it is true; AND it is older.

In any case, I'm not sure how you managed to extract the "because" case from the bolded section of his first post you quoted.

 

[Chalnoth]

He is claiming them separately. He is not claiming that creationism is true BECAUSE it is older, he is claiming that it is true; AND it is older.

In any case, I'm not sure how you managed to extract the "because" case from the bolded section of his first post you quoted.

I'm pretty sure that he actually thinks this is a reason to believe creationism is true (that it's older). This is definitely the way his posts read to me. Feel free to correct me, AV1611VET.

 

[AV1611VET]

MS-Dos was there before Windows.

You don't have to like it -- you don't have to believe it -- you don't have to embrace it -- but to deny its place on the time line is just showing misplaced contempt.

Yes -- good ol' MS-Dos.

That's another good example.

 

[AV1611VET]

I want to point the shifting attitudes of AV1611VET.

I think I'll pass defending this.

I'm not going to go back through this thread and address each point one at a time.

You think what you want to think about how genuine I am.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm pretty sure that he actually thinks this is a reason to believe creationism is true (that it's older). This is definitely the way his posts read to me. Feel free to correct me, AV1611VET.

Cabal is right -- I'm claiming creationism is true because of Genesis 1.

Yes -- looking back, I noticed I started out using the term "Genesis 1", then went to "creationism".

Perhaps I should have stuck with one or the other.

In any event, my point is that God created this universe ex nihilo, but today, evolution is muscling in and trying to claim some kind of primacy.

I always cringe when I see someone say, "You creationists want to get your creationism into the public schools!"

The fact is, creationism was taught in the public schools long before evolution was.

 

[Cabal]

The fact is, creationism was taught in the
public schools long before evolution was.

Glad we cleared that up.

The fact remains however, that this is not a reason for not teaching evolution, and that creationists are trying to interfere with this unreasonably.

 

[AV1611VET]

The fact remains however, that this is not a reason for not teaching evolution...

I agree -- primacy is a weak argument here; but primacy needs to be brought up whenever anyone comes across with the attitude that creationism is trying to force its way into the classroom.

If anything, it's trying to force its way back into the classroom.

... and that creationists are trying to interfere with this unreasonably.

I disagree.

I think we need to send a clear message to our schools that if evolution is going to be taught, then we'll have the final say at the voting booth, when we 'give the finger' to evolution on the touchscreens.

If kids want to learn about evolution, they can learn it at home.

And please note: I am talking about macroevolution here -- not microevolution.

 

[Cabal]

I agree -- primacy is a weak argument here; but primacy needs to be brought up whenever anyone comes across with the attitude that creationism is trying to force its way into the classroom.

If anything, it's trying to force its way back into the classroom.

That still is not relevant to the matter of whether it should be there or not or whether it should have been in the first place.

I disagree.

I think we need to send a clear message to our schools that if evolution is going to be taught, then we'll have the final say at the voting booth, when we 'give the finger' to evolution on the touchscreens.

Assuming there are enough creationists to make it stick. There haven't been so far, and it's not like the trend is to convert to creationism.

If kids want to learn about evolution, they can learn it at home.

And please note: I am talking about macroevolution here -- not microevolution.

Nope, creationism is what belongs at home, as public schools should not be endorsing one religion over another.

I'm all for creationism class, perhaps with the all the creation myths being taught in alphabetical order of creators, starting with Allah - suddenly I suspect it's not such an appealing thing. Creationists really should be careful what they wish for.

 

[rockaction]

I agree -- primacy is a weak argument here; but primacy needs to be brought up whenever anyone comes across with the attitude that creationism is trying to force its way into the classroom.

If anything, it's trying to force its way back into the classroom.

Primacy is still a weak argument, no matter how you phrase it.

I disagree.

I think we need to send a clear message to our schools that if evolution is going to be taught, then we'll have the final say at the voting booth, when we 'give the finger' to evolution on the touchscreens.

If kids want to learn about evolution, they can learn it at home.

And please note: I am talking about macroevolution here -- not microevolution.

Science is not a democracy, so the science classroom should not be a democracy either. The modern theories should be taught. Otherwise, the gap between the dumb Americans and smart Europeans and Japanese and Chinese kids will get bigger and bigger.

 

[Chalnoth]

I think we need to send a clear message to our schools that if evolution is going to be taught, then we'll have the final say at the voting booth, when we 'give the finger' to evolution on the touchscreens.

This why I'm very glad that the constitution of the United States doesn't let the majority push their religion on the rest of us just because they are in the majority.