Schools that teach creationism in the science class.

[AV1611VET]

Then provide links to it.

Well, as I said, if I were an evolutionist, I would welcome that particular question.

But I'll admit, I don't think like an evolutionist; so maybe I'm underestimating basic repetition.

 

[whois]

Then provide links to it.

i copy/pasted a couple paragraphs from forbes magazine from eugene koonin that explained some of this.
some darwinist got miffed about it and complained to the mods.
i was told that i could only quote one sentence from such sources.

i can provide the PM upon request.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well, as I said, if I were an evolutionist, I would welcome that particular question.

But I'll admit, I don't think like an evolutionist; so maybe I'm underestimating basic repetition.

I am sure repetition of ignorant questions in regards to Christianity would wear on you over time. Especially the ones that qualify as "you are not even wrong", often said when someone is so ignorant about a topic that they can't even ask a question that applies to it. And then attempting to explain to that person that their question isn't valid, with them of course assuming that you don't know and hence they "win".

And it isn't as if evolution is the only topic in which I have to deal with that. Atheism itself is just so much worse of a topic in that regard.

But I just think the degree of irritation depends on how much you care about a topic, and how much you care in regards to how other people view it. I care a lot about removing misinformation, so I can find this exercise to be very daunting at times.

 

[PsychoSarah]

i copy/pasted a couple paragraphs from forbes magazine from eugene koonin that explained some of this.
some darwinist got miffed about it and complained to the mods.
i was told that i could only quote one sentence from such sources.

i can provide the PM upon request.

I looked that up. Koonin isn't talking about epigenetics, he is talking about genetic drift, which is a current component of evolutionary theory. His deal is that he thinks it has more of an influence on evolution than natural selection does. None of that is epigenetics. None of that is to disprove evolution.

 

[Blue Wren]

Like what?

For pastimes, other than spending your life, on this place? I don't know, I don't know anything about this person, his age, interests, ect, ect, but there must be, better occupations of time. Bowling, chess, backgammon, video games, sex? Lol.

Telling them to their face?

Or letting it go? Or obtaining therapy if that's not possible, perhaps?

He has a lot of anger to vent, and I suspect he's had a bad encounter with Christianity.

Probably, yes. There could be, reasons that are very justifiable, for the anger towards Christians. I do not doubt this, at all, no, not at all. Anger, that consumes your life, even if it's justified, it's not so healthy, is it? Coming to a place, that will only make you angrier, that doesn't make much sense to me. That's just me.

I've never seen this person, on this forum, so what I'm saying, it's more generalised.

 

[Blue Wren]

I looked that up. Koonin isn't talking about epigenetics, he is talking about genetic drift, which is a current component of evolutionary theory. His deal is that he thinks it has more of an influence on evolution than natural selection does. None of that is epigenetics. None of that is to disprove evolution.

Exactly.

 

[whois]

I looked that up. Koonin isn't talking about epigenetics, he is talking about genetic drift, which is a current component of evolutionary theory. His deal is that he thinks it has more of an influence on evolution than natural selection does. None of that is epigenetics. None of that is to disprove evolution.

For example, it is not much of an exaggeration to claim that we have an excellent idea of the core genetic makeup of the last common ancestor of all bacteria that probably lived more than 3.5 billion years ago.
The Real Evolution Debate: Is It All Just Natural Selection? - Forbes

the above means only one of 2 things:
1. bacterial cells are fundamentally different than all others cells.
2. there is no such thing as trees coming from whales (or where ever else they were supposed to come from).

 

[PsychoSarah]

For example, it is not much of an exaggeration to claim that we have an excellent idea of the core genetic makeup of the last common ancestor of all bacteria that probably lived more than 3.5 billion years ago.
The Real Evolution Debate: Is It All Just Natural Selection? - Forbes

the above means only 2 things:
1. bacterial cells are fundamentally different than all others cells.
2. there is no such thing as trees coming from whales (or where ever else they were supposed to come from).

No, you are jumping to major conclusions without realizing what you are reading doesn't mean that at all. And bacteria cells are fundamentally different from other cells, their DNA even organizes into a different shape. And no one claims that animals came from plants or the other way around; there are actually creatures with traits of both even to this day that are representative of the inbetweens that would give rise to plants and animals.

Additionally, while he is an expert and his position has some support, it is in no way more heavily evidenced than the opposing position that natural selection has a stronger role. As of yet, anyways.

 

[whois]

No, you are jumping to major conclusions without realizing what you are reading doesn't mean that at all.

i see.
i guess ol koonin was passing gas when he said darwin needs to be relegated to a museum.

And bacteria cells are fundamentally different from other cells, their DNA even organizes into a different shape.

i don't see how the shape of DNA inhibits mutation.
can you provide research that says it does?

Additionally, while he is an expert and his position has some support, it is in no way more heavily evidenced than the opposing position that natural selection has a stronger role. As of yet, anyways.

support?
as in verified research results?
yes he does indeed have support.

 

[Blue Wren]

Lol. I heard Gene Koonin speak at NYU, in January, when he gave the Darwin Lecture. He has respect Darwin, that was clear. That he thinks, some of Darwin's work, is outdated or incorrect, it's not so surprising.

Are you wanting Koonin's work, to be taught, as part of the teachings on evolution, in schools? Is that your point, in bringing him up, in this thread? He's not a creationist, of course, so that part, doesn't tie into the OP.

 

[whois]

Lol. I heard Gene Koonin speak at NYU, in January, when he gave the Darwin Lecture. He has respect Darwin, that was clear. That he thinks, some of Darwin's work, is outdated or incorrect, it's not so surprising.

there is a reason he is saying darwin needs to be relegated to a museum.
apparently, what is being discovered doesn't fit at all with darwin.
i wouldn't worry about it too much though.
the powers that be will ensure no such "dethroning" takes place.

Are you wanting Koonin's work, to be taught, as part of the teachings on evolution, in schools? Is that your point, in bringing him up, in this thread? He's not a creationist, of course, so that part, doesn't tie into the OP.

i brought it up in response to TLKs post about staying current on the research.

 

[sandybay]

research is coming from these areas that's almost guaranteed to bury darwin.

Darwin was buried 150 years ago but his theory of evolution will live on forever no matter how much you wish it wouldn't.

Todays biologists have moved way beyond Darwin, if Darwin was to be completely written out of history evolution would still be seen in the same way, we are animals just like all the other animals that populate this planet, our wishes will still have no impact on reality unless we act on those wishes.

 

[sandybay]

Atheism itself is just so much worse of a topic in that regard.

That is very true, just as the lack of belief in the "Loch Ness Monster" is not worthy of discussion?

 

[dad]

Darwin was buried 150 years ago but his theory of evolution will live on forever no matter how much you wish it wouldn't.
.

. Only as an eternal laughing stock.

 

[dad]

For example, it is not much of an exaggeration to claim that we have an excellent idea of the core genetic makeup of the last common ancestor of all bacteria that probably lived more than 3.5 billion years ago.
The Real Evolution Debate: Is It All Just Natural Selection? - Forbes

the above means only one of 2 things:
1. bacterial cells are fundamentally different than all others cells.
2. there is no such thing as trees coming from whales (or where ever else they were supposed to come from).

No. Having knowledge does not mean gussing what something golly gee just must have probably been somewhat like!

 

[sandybay]

No. Having knowledge does not mean gussing what something golly gee just must have probably been somewhat like!

What you describe only happens in religion.
A guess in science is only as good as the evidence backing that guess up, pink unicorn have no place in science because there is no evidence backing them up.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know anything about this person, his age, interests, ect, ect,

Actually, neither do we.

He posted as male, female, teenager, old man, Agnostic, Atheist, Buddhist, Baptist, Catholic, Deist, from all seven continents, including the League of Nations, and everything in between.

Here are two examples of his demeanor:

In all honesty what hope is there for the US when most of it's people think like this?
it must drain the others of any hope whatsoever, how can this happen? or be allowed to happen?
the lack of education breeds religion, the US must be a con mans paradise, so many gullable people.

That's why they do it, if they were on their own in normal society they would stand out like sore thumbs,
so it's best that they stick together, that's why countries are associated with certain religions,
every one believes the same thing so they won't stand out from the rest, how sad is that?

AND WHY CAN'T RELIGIOUS PEOPLE SEE THIS FOR THEMSELVES?
PERHAPS THEY CAN BUT THEY CHOOSE TO IGNORE THE FACT,
IT SEEMS THAT BLINKERS ARE THE BEST THINGS EVER INVENTED.

And that's the truth.

 

[sandybay]

Actually, neither do we.

He posted as male, female, teenager, old man, Agnostic, Atheist, Buddhist, Baptist, Catholic, Deist, from all seven continents, including the League of Nations, and everything in between.

Here are two examples of his demeanor:

Originally Posted by consol View Post
In all honesty what hope is there for the US when most of it's people think like this?
it must drain the others of any hope whatsoever, how can this happen? or be allowed to happen?
the lack of education breeds religion, the US must be a con mans paradise, so many gullable people.

Originally Posted by consol View Post
That's why they do it, if they were on their own in normal society they would stand out like sore thumbs,
so it's best that they stick together, that's why countries are associated with certain religions,
every one believes the same thing so they won't stand out from the rest, how sad is that?

AND WHY CAN'T RELIGIOUS PEOPLE SEE THIS FOR THEMSELVES?
PERHAPS THEY CAN BUT THEY CHOOSE TO IGNORE THE FACT,
IT SEEMS THAT BLINKERS ARE THE BEST THINGS EVER INVENTED.

And that's the truth.

I don't agree with everything he wrote but I agree with a some of it.

I agree that the religious countries in the world have a greater proportion of uneducated or under informed people in them,
also I agree that if religious people did not band together there is every likelihood they would lose their beliefs.

It is also my opinion that the USA would be even better than it is if there was less belief in the supernatural and more belief in reality.

 

[whois]

Darwin was buried 150 years ago but his theory of evolution will live on forever no matter how much you wish it wouldn't.

unfortunately, you might be correct.
i don't say that as a slight to darwin either.

Todays biologists have moved way beyond Darwin, if Darwin was to be completely written out of history evolution would still be seen in the same way, we are animals just like all the other animals that populate this planet, our wishes will still have no impact on reality unless we act on those wishes.

you write as if you are convinced there isn't a god.
although i find the proposition ludicrous, i can't say i'm convinced.

 

[sandybay]

you write as if you are convinced there isn't a god.
although i find the proposition ludicrous, i can't say i'm convinced.

I am not convinced there is no God? how could I possibly know either way?

Please tell me: Why would there be a God and who would need a God?
[please don't answer with a question]