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

[renniks]

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

But they all were. Because all those theories, like gradualism, were wrong. And I bet much of it is still taught in public schools as fact.

 

[VirOptimus]

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

Science is all about physical reality, the theory of evolution describes physical reality. Being sceptic about it is the same as being sceptical about physical reality, ie deluded.

 

[renniks]

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.

Lol, that's funny. Some of my kids were doing college-level stuff when barely in high school. Science is observable, BTW. Lots of evolution theory isn't.

 

[VirOptimus]

Lol, that's funny. Some of my kids were doing college-level stuff when barely in high school. Science is observable, BTW. Lots of evolution theory isn't.

....

You really really dont understand science.

 

[renniks]

....

You really really dont understand science.

My, that's helpful. You have no clue as to what I understand.

 

[VirOptimus]

It's amazing the religious fervor people have when they defend evolution. No, I don't want to join your church, thanks for asking.

Its against forum rules to call science a belief.

 

[VirOptimus]

My, that's helpful. You have no clue as to what I understand.

I can only judge you by your posts.

 

[renniks]

The actual number is now and always will be zero.

"In 1811, Johann Friedrich Meckel successfully predicted that human embryos would have gill slits. This risky prediction seemed to provide very strong evidence for his theory that humans, as the ‘most perfect’ organisms, develop via stages corresponding to each of the ‘less perfect’ species (fish, amphibians, reptiles and so on).

As it happens, early human embryos do have slits in their necks that look like gills. This is almost certainly because humans and fish share some DNA and a common ancestor, not because we go though a ‘fish stage’ in our mothers’ wombs as part of our development towards biological perfection.

But the evidence available after embryo neck slits were discovered in 1827 certainly made Mecklel’s theory appear persuasive. It was only when Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution took hold in the second half of the 19th century that it became totally clear that Meckel’s idea of a linear series of biological perfection was completely untenable."

How many failed theories do you want me to post?

 

[renniks]

Its against forum rules to call science a belief.

I didn't.

 

[Speedwell]

But they all were. Because all those theories, like gradualism, were wrong. And I bet much of it is still taught in public schools as fact.

In well conducted science classes, a scientific theory is never taught as "fact." Indeed, the epistemological character of a scientific theory is one of the most important things to be taught in secondary-level science. Now, if you want to argue that biology generally badly taught in high schools I am right with you. But it is not an argument against the theory of evolution as such.

 

[Speedwell]

"In 1811, Johann Friedrich Meckel successfully predicted that human embryos would have gill slits. This risky prediction seemed to provide very strong evidence for his theory that humans, as the ‘most perfect’ organisms, develop via stages corresponding to each of the ‘less perfect’ species (fish, amphibians, reptiles and so on).

As it happens, early human embryos do have slits in their necks that look like gills. This is almost certainly because humans and fish share some DNA and a common ancestor, not because we go though a ‘fish stage’ in our mothers’ wombs as part of our development towards biological perfection.

But the evidence available after embryo neck slits were discovered in 1827 certainly made Mecklel’s theory appear persuasive. It was only when Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution took hold in the second half of the 19th century that it became totally clear that Meckel’s idea of a linear series of biological perfection was completely untenable."

How many failed theories do you want me to post?

As many as you like, but I don't see the point of it. Scientific theories are constantly being modified or abandoned entirely as more evidence becomes available. That's how science works.

 

[Astrid]

"In 1811, Johann Friedrich Meckel successfully predicted that human embryos would have gill slits. This risky prediction seemed to provide very strong evidence for his theory that humans, as the ‘most perfect’ organisms, develop via stages corresponding to each of the ‘less perfect’ species (fish, amphibians, reptiles and so on).

As it happens, early human embryos do have slits in their necks that look like gills. This is almost certainly because humans and fish share some DNA and a common ancestor, not because we go though a ‘fish stage’ in our mothers’ wombs as part of our development towards biological perfection.

But the evidence available after embryo neck slits were discovered in 1827 certainly made Mecklel’s theory appear persuasive. It was only when Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution took hold in the second half of the 19th century that it became totally clear that Meckel’s idea of a linear series of biological perfection was completely untenable."

How many failed theories do you want me to post?

Amusing of course that you go back 200 years to find one that
was disproved.
Or to think that anyone who has studied biology
needs your review on the ontogeny
recapitulate thing.
You specifically said "proven" theory.
The number of proven theories, is and
always will be zero.
Please try to get the idea science does not do proof,
and waste no more bandwidth on corrections of this
rookie error.

 

[Astrid]

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.

Claiming to know you know more than any expert
is certainly a way of claiming expertise.
Janitor picks up the MRI and tells the neurosurgeon that his
understanding is no good, janitor sees all the doctors mistakes?

 

[Astrid]

I can only judge you by your posts.

See " proven thepry".

 

[AV1611VET]

The number of proven theories, is and always will be zero.

I'd say that puts Jesus' resurrection ahead of your myopic science then.

Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Notice, not just proofs, but infallible proofs -- many infallible proofs.

 

[VirOptimus]

I'd say that puts Jesus' resurrection ahead of your myopic science then.

Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Notice, not just proofs, but infallible proofs -- many infallible proofs.

That is not "proof" of anything.

Anyway, "proof" would make faith unnecessary.

 

[AV1611VET]

Claiming to know you know more than any expert
is certainly a way of claiming expertise.

Let's put it this way: I know things experts don't.

 

[VirOptimus]

Let's put it this way: I know things experts don't.

No, you imagine you do.

 

[Astrid]

But they all were. Because all those theories, like gradualism, were wrong. And I bet much of it is still taught in public schools as fact.

Sorry to hear all the kids in your school were subjected to such idiocy.
"All those theories were wrong" has no information content.
All what theories?
"Gtadualism" is not the name of a theory, i
dont know what yiu think was disproved.
Teaching theory as fact never happened where I
attended school.
It's serious stupidity and ignorance,
again my sympaypthy for the educational
malpractice and intellectual abuse you were
subjected to.

You cannot, though, demonstrate that there's
a word of truth in your claim so...

For the teaching of pseudoscience and
general educational malpractice we refer you
to any where creationism is taught.

 

[Speedwell]

I'd say that puts Jesus' resurrection ahead of your myopic science then.

Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Notice, not just proofs, but infallible proofs -- many infallible proofs.

But no science.