Nothing changes in this forum.

[Speedwell]

Common design is proven by scientific methods. Havent you read the 29 evidences for evolution? Well I don't remember the number precisely. If you read that you will only find facts. Those facts are interpreted by science to show evidence of evolution. Those facts are actually evidences of design. That's my interpretation of the facts. It's all about interpretation and assumptions. That's all. And since people refuse to accept the truth yet will be blinded as Paul said. Science is man and man is fallible and man refuses to allow science to see common design. Just like Paul said .
You can't use science to show evolution from a common ancestor either, but they sure believe it anyway.

And if any of those 29 evidences was changed so they did not confirm the theory, evolution would be falsified. But you would not say that "design" had been falsified, which demonstrates that design is an unfalsifiable proposition. You want to paint "design" as an alternative to evolution for political reasons, but it is not an alternative, rather a distinct proposition. The theory of evolution can be valid and design can still be present.

 

[rjs330]

But you want Fundamentalist theology to be taught in school; that's political, too. You're trying (and failing badly) to make it into science to achieve that end.

I do? That's interesting. It sounds like you know more about my motives than I do.

 

[Trimeresurus]

I'm sure in another ten years things in here will be exactly the same. People will still be making unfounded claims, still be creating strawmen and still be ignorant of facts on so many levels. It's a shame. Even the Pope accepts evolution. He says that if God chose to create the world this way then who is he to question it? You all could learn something from this Pope.

Why do you care what others think about evolution? Are you some kind of atheist missonary?
"Excuse me Sir. Do you have a minute to talk about our lord and saviour science?"

 

[USincognito]

Why do you care what others think about evolution? Are you some kind of atheist missonary?
"Excuse me Sir. Do you have a minute to talk about our lord and saviour scienc?"

???

Did you happen to wander into the wrong subforum by accident? And do you not realize evolution =/= atheism?

 

[Trimeresurus]

???

Did you happen to wander into the wrong subforum by accident? And do you not realize evolution =/= atheism?

What? You mean it is not the same thing as atheism? Thanks for destroying my monocausality. I feel much smarter now.
The user information says "Atheist". I don't really see the point in going to a christan forum as an atheist and complaining about people thinking different. Yeah I know, that creationism thing is really wierd. But still thats what some people believe and it is not my job to make them think different, right?

 

[USincognito]

And if any of those 29 evidences was changed so they did not confirm the theory, evolution would be falsified. But you would not say that "design" had been falsified, which demonstrates that design is an unfalsifiable proposition. You want to paint "design" as an alternative to evolution for political reasons, but it is not an alternative, rather a distinct proposition. The theory of evolution can be valid and design can still be present.

He clearly didn't read any of them because each of the 29 has a potential falsification.

 

[USincognito]

What? You mean it is not the same thing as atheism? Thanks for destroying my monocausality. I feel much smarter now.

And yet you tied them together in your comment above:

Why do you care what others think about evolution? Are you some kind of atheist missonary?​

The user information says "Atheist". I don't really see the point in going to a christan forum as an atheist and complaining about people thinking different.

This might surprise you, but you're about 4,000th newbie to feel the need to point out to people who have been members of CF for more years than you have been for days that this is a Christian forum. Yeah, we know that. And since the very beginning (in fact back in 2002 when Phred joined) it has been open to non-Christians, including atheists.

But still thats what some people believe and it is not my job to make them think different, right?

Again, I'm still wondering if you walked into the wrong subform by mistake. This is "Creation & Evolution" which is a subforum of "Discussion and Debate" which are open to non-believers.

 

[Phred]

Why do you care what others think about evolution? Are you some kind of atheist missonary?
"Excuse me Sir. Do you have a minute to talk about our lord and saviour science?"

In case you haven't noticed there are things that are supported by the data and things that people just desperately want to believe. In order to have the things that people desperately want to believe taken as seriously as the things that are supported by the data, creationists have taken to undermining knowledge. They undermine schools, academic pursuits, degrees, science... everything that has gotten us to where we are as a society. In that way they can point to the Bible and creationism and say, "It's just as valid as science." I don't care what someone believes. As long as they understand the difference between belief and faith and science and fact. They are not interchangeable. If your belief is contradicted by the data your belief is wrong. I simply do not care if you think that what you believe was told to you by a deity. I defy you to show me one advance, one progression, one useful thing that has come about because someone believed in something over what the data showed us. Just. One.

I think it's very important what people think about evolution because it's a microcosm of our society and how our society treats knowledge when it comes up against bronze-age mythology. Here we have the Bible. Genesis in specific. Two versions mind you. The gist is that God created every creature on earth and placed them here in exactly the forms we see today. Then God killed them all in a global flood except for two examples of every species. These he kept alive on an ark. This ark floated around for a year. The animals were tended to by a man, his wife and their three sons. The sons brought along three wives. So eight people. From those eight people spawned the entire human race as we know it today. No scientific discoveries support this global flood. No genetic evidence supports this winnowing of the populations. No archaeological evidence supports this sudden flooding of the world's civilizations. Yet people insist it happened and happened exactly as described. Not only that but they insist that we must stop teaching the actual facts and start teaching the Biblical narrative instead. Bill after bill has come before legislatures and school boards to try and force this to happen.

How are we to compete against other countries in the world if our children are taught mythology instead of facts? If they are taught that opinions are just as valid as facts? And when did wanting to teach kids about science, evidence and facts become atheistic???

 

[Trimeresurus]

This might surprise you, but you're about 4,000th newbie to feel the need to point out to people who have been members of CF for more years than you have been for days that this is a Christian forum. Yeah, we know that. And since the very beginning (in fact back in 2002 when Phred joined) it has been open to non-Christians, including atheists.

Thanks for putting so much effort in this anyway. I don't doubt your longe CF expertise. Still that does not explain why people would come here and complain about people thinking different.

And yet you tied them together in your comment above:

Why do you care what others think about evolution? Are you some kind of atheist missonary?

I asked if he is the atheist version of a missionary. Mea maxima culpa. May god (my god, not the christian one) forgive me.

Just noticed that Phred wrote a nice explanation.
I would love to argue a little but let me read that first.

 

[Speedwell]

I do? That's interesting. It sounds like you know more about my motives than I do.

That's a collective "you." The Christian Right. in other words.

So why are you here then, if you don't care that evolution is taught in schools?

 

[juvenissun]

I want you to be honest. I want you to admit that what you espouse is based upon a very simple basis... You believe the Bible is the end-all, be-all and therefore if anything contradicts it no matter what is wrong. So you work to undermine everything that you see as being against your biblical worldview. Even though there are multitudes of other interpretations of the Bible, not just one. What you do is cherry pick. You find a few scientific things that agree with you and so you say that your version is scientific. Then you find things that don't agree with you so you say those things are not scientific. What you do is distort scientific methods and results to achieve your own ends.

I find this to be against everything you say you're for.

NO. You never find a trace of what you think on ME. I said everything on any issue, based first, on science (which includes logic and data), then, on faith (beyond science). It is the way it should always be.

YOU, are not honest, by saying what you have said. You can not put every Christian in one basket. You are not honest.

 

[Trimeresurus]

In case you haven't noticed there are things that are supported by the data and things that people just desperately want to believe. In order to have the things that people desperately want to believe taken as seriously as the things that are supported by the data, creationists have taken to undermining knowledge. They undermine schools, academic pursuits, degrees, science... everything that has gotten us to where we are as a society. In that way they can point to the Bible and creationism and say, "It's just as valid as science." I don't care what someone believes. As long as they understand the difference between belief and faith and science and fact. They are not interchangeable. If your belief is contradicted by the data your belief is wrong. I simply do not care if you think that what you believe was told to you by a deity. I defy you to show me one advance, one progression, one useful thing that has come about because someone believed in something over what the data showed us. Just. One.

I think it's very important what people think about evolution because it's a microcosm of our society and how our society treats knowledge when it comes up against bronze-age mythology. Here we have the Bible. Genesis in specific. Two versions mind you. The gist is that God created every creature on earth and placed them here in exactly the forms we see today. Then God killed them all in a global flood except for two examples of every species. These he kept alive on an ark. This ark floated around for a year. The animals were tended to by a man, his wife and their three sons. The sons brought along three wives. So eight people. From those eight people spawned the entire human race as we know it today. No scientific discoveries support this global flood. No genetic evidence supports this winnowing of the populations. No archaeological evidence supports this sudden flooding of the world's civilizations. Yet people insist it happened and happened exactly as described. Not only that but they insist that we must stop teaching the actual facts and start teaching the Biblical narrative instead. Bill after bill has come before legislatures and school boards to try and force this to happen.

How are we to compete against other countries in the world if our children are taught mythology instead of facts? If they are taught that opinions are just as valid as facts? And when did wanting to teach kids about science, evidence and facts become atheistic???

Okay, this is actually a rational explaination. This is about education people of your own country then. Science is mainly atheistic which doesn't mean that religious people are necessarily less educated. But religion does not play a big part in public education anymore. Religion is an emotional matter that can not be explained by scientific facts. I goes deep down to the manifestation of your personality. Thats' were the problem begins. People feel different so you can't possibly break religious feelings down to facts. So if a religious dogma which is based on emotions stands above it makes people immun to facts.You can only believe what you emotions allow you to.
As a religious person with scientific background let me tell you that if in fact this is very unlikely to change.
-
I don't care about other people's education at all. But if you care, it sure makes sense to tell them about evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

But religion does not play a big part in public education anymore.

There is a large bloc of people in this country who want it to. Especially in science class, as they feel that teaching evolution is a direct and intentional attack on their religious beliefs by militant atheists who concocted a false theory expressly for that purpose.

 

[Trimeresurus]

Wait.. you Americans are really arguing if evolution should be part of the public education? Okay that might be a problem.

 

[USincognito]

Common design is proven by scientific methods.

No it hasn't. Not for the least of reasons that nothing is ever proven in science. Why is this so hard for some of you to understand?

No such thing as scientific proof.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Further "common design" is ad hoc meaning it's a logical fallacy and it's unfalsifiable meaning it's unscientific.

If you read that you will only find facts.

And that's a bad thing?

Those facts are interpreted by science to show evidence of evolution. Those facts are actually evidences of design.

For a month now I've been asking you to tell us how "design" explains the following. If design is such a compelling and useful proposition, why are you unable to answer four simple questions?
---------------------------
1. Why do you humans and chimpanzees share 203,000 endogenous retroviral insertions? Also why, when we compare humans and chimps with gorillas, and then h/c/g with orangutans and then h/c/g/o with gibbons does the number of shared ERVs decrease?
2. Why do all haplorhine primates including humans share a broken GULO gene for vitamin C production? Why in other beings that have a broken GULO are different exons non-functional?
3. Why do cetaceans have a non-functioning Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 gene pathway for hind limb development if they never hand hind limbs? Why did marine reptiles like Plesiosaurs, Pliosaurs, Mosasaurs and Ichthyosaurs all have hind limbs, but cetaceans do not?
4. Why do all therian mammals have broken vitellogenin genes for egg yolk sac development?

Common ancestry explains all of these things. "Common design" doesn't.

 

[Speedwell]

Wait.. you Americans are really arguing if evolution should be part of the public education? Okay that might be a problem.

LOL! No kidding.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think you have done a bang up job of that yourself by claiming the common ancestor evolved out if the primordial ooze to be able to fly. Just quote any evolutionist and you have your answer.

Ah, no. Jumping vast distances and flying are different.

I'll take that as a simple evasion.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's funny that you would recognize evolutionary limitations and considerations. Yet would blindly believe that there are none where it seems plausible such as a non breathing common ancestor being able to evolve to "breath" water then eventually breath air. Or one that can grow legs strong enough to jump a large stream where it couldn't before. Incredulous. And it's us creationists who see design in all things are the one thought stupid. It's so obvious yet you and others would rather trust in some unobservable, untestible, unverifiable theory.

It's not that difficult to understand - if you're prepared to think it through; and it's not a blind belief, it's a reasonable inference from the available evidence - and the evolutionary mechanism has been observed, tested, and verified - both in principle and in practice.

 

[USincognito]

Wait.. you Americans are really arguing if evolution should be part of the public education? Okay that might be a problem.

Despite several Supreme and District Court decisions ruling it unconstitutional, there is a vocal and activist segment of the population that wants Creationism in schools.
Americans Weigh In on Evolution vs. Creationism in Schools

Bottom Line

The percentage of Americans who actively want creation, not evolution, to be taught in schools may seem relatively modest at 30%, but this number is significantly larger than the percentage who actively want evolution to be taught over creation.​

In Kansas, and here in Texas, we've had some serious school board battles over it.

 

[Ophiolite]

There is a large bloc of people in this country who want it to. Especially in science class, as they feel that teaching evolution is a direct and intentional attack on their religious beliefs by militant atheists who concocted a false theory expressly for that purpose.

Statistically I should die sometime in the next decade. I feel considerable guilt that I have done almost nothing to counter the problem you describe. It may not be my country, but it is my planet and I shall regret leaving it as messed up as it is.