Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[renniks]

Because you apparently think that's how science works--that's why somebody else ought to teach science to your kids. They don't have to believe it, but they ought to know what it is.

Maybe you want to take my children away and put them in an indoctrination center, too?

 

[renniks]

You may think so, but so far none of your comments suggest that you actually do.

That's so enlightened of you. More like close minded actually...

 

[Speedwell]

That's so enlightened of you. More like close minded actually...

What makes you an expert in the theory of evolution then? What have you studied? Have you actually studied anything at all about it? Have you taken a college-level course in genetics or done the equivalent reading? What do you know about stochastic processes? Inferential statistics? If you're such an expert, why is your version of the theory of evolution so much different than that of those who have studied and who do research in the field?

 

[Speedwell]

Maybe you want to take my children away and put them in an indoctrination center, too?

They may be already in one. Why are you afraid that they might learn something real about science?

 

[Astrid]

Oh I remember fine. It's a beaver with a bill. Half bird, half mammal, lol! Right!

If you remember that being taught you attended a revealingly
incompetent ignorant school.

 

[Frank Robert]

And what's a good lesson for children when God's miracles are called "magic"?

Is all of theology being degraded?

Good point, that's why I do not say such things and from I seen you don't say such things about evolution. That is why I respect you.

 

[Frank Robert]

Now you want to tell me what to teach my kids?
Evolution as you teach it isn't science at all.
As I said, it claims things happened not by observation but by speculation. I can find bones in the woods and create my own model of what they are and how they got there, but that doesn't make it so. And before you claim proof you might want to consider how many other proven theories are now thought to be false.

You can teach your kids anything you want, it is just my opinion that teaching kids to disrespect science is not good for the kids.

 

[Astrid]

That's so enlightened of you. More like close minded actually...

Perhaps you know auto mechanics or football? I don't, never pretend I do.

But if I went on a forum and started talking about adjusting
the fan - belt to prevent carburetor blockage in the catalytic
thingy, or, about a basketball rink or how america football
players are too stupid to think of having a goalie...

Well, awful close minded of people to just just assume
I don't know what I am talking about don't you think?

You do present as knowing more than any actual
researcher on earth but make the most basic obvious mistakes.
What reasonable interpretation do you suggest for
others to have, observing such floundering?
I'd be thrown off the after game show for talking about
a hockey bat but here we try to bring you up to,speed with s
imple basics.
Getting defensive and making accusations won't help.

 

[Astrid]

. And before you claim proof you might want to consider how many other proven theories are now thought to be false.

The actual number is now and always will be zero.

 

[AV1611VET]

You do present as knowing more than any actual
researcher on earth but make the most basic obvious mistakes. What reasonable interpretation do you suggest for others to have, observing such floundering? I'd be thrown off the after game show for talking about a hockey bat but here we try to bring you up to speed with simple basics. Getting defensive and making accusations won't help.

Frankly, Estrid, I think that if you really believed what you just wrote, you would be in READ ONLY mode with renniks, like you are me.

Unless, of course, there's some other reason you won't address me.

 

[AV1611VET]

The actual number is now and always will be zero.

Like zero Phlogiston theory? like Meckle's zero Fish Stage Theory?

 

[Speedwell]

Like zero Phlogiston theory? like Meckle's zero Fish Stage Theory?

They were never proven, merely confirmed by the evidence then available.

 

[AV1611VET]

They were never proven,

I thought someone would use that word as a fire escape.

But "proven" or "evidenced" ... either one makes the same point.

 

[Astrid]

They were never proven, merely confirmed by the evidence then available.

Consistent with the evidence then available.

Always noteworthy that ye scoffers always
reach back, smetimes centuries, to find
examples of things they try to apply to today.

Christianity, the source of Eternal Verifies might be better
scolded with witch burnings, phony relics, sale of indulgences,
the divine right of kings etc, but of course some of us have
more class than to resort to such lame and insipid tactics to
win some imaginary points.

 

[AV1611VET]

Always noteworthy that ye scoffers always
reach back, smetimes centuries, to find examples of things they try to apply to today.

You mean like science's philosophy of uniformitarianism?

Christianity, the source of Eternal Verifies might be better
scolded with witch burnings, phony relics, sale of indulgences,
the divine right of kings etc, but of course some of us have
more class than to resort to such lame and insipid tactics to
win some imaginary points.

Ya ... we "more classy people" consider those acts done in spite of the Bible, not with respect to It, regardless what went through their minds at the time they were doing it.

If that's what you think of when you think of Christianity, then I have to admit that you're a genuine modern scholar.

And I seriously mean that.

You're a credit to the academic world of today.

 

[renniks]

What makes you an expert in the theory of evolution then? What have you studied? Have you actually studied anything at all about it? Have you taken a college-level course in genetics or done the equivalent reading? What do you know about stochastic processes? Inferential statistics? If you're such an expert, why is your version of the theory of evolution so much different than that of those who have studied and who do research in the field?

I don't have a theory of evolution. I already said I was a creationist.
I've read books on genetics. Where did I say I was an expert? I said I was a skeptic.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip- I said I was a skeptic.

You really cant be a sceptic about physical reality (science).

 

[renniks]

They may be already in one. Why are you afraid that they might learn something real about science?

My kids are all adults. I can't see where learning creationism as kids hurt them any. Hopefully it made them adults who think for themselves instead of just accepting every idea thrown at them. But it was probably not being raised in indoctrination centers and knowing a variety of people instead of just kids their age that did that.

 

[renniks]

You really cant be a sceptic about physical reality (science).

I can't be a skeptic about how the physical world got here or how it functions? That's rich.

 

[VirOptimus]

My kids are all adults. I can't see where learning creationism as kids hurt them any. Hopefully it made them adults who think for themselves instead of just accepting every idea thrown at them. But it was probably not being raised in indoctrination centers and knowing a variety of people instead of just kids their age that did that.

Being indoctrinatred with creationism is the exact opposite of critical thinking and thinking for themself and may very well hurt them later when they cannot learn real science.