The Dover trial

[Speedwell]

Really no sense in arguing this Sarah, been there... I'll never be convinced, and I seriously doubt you will.

Now all you and your coreligionists need to do is stop being hostile about it and we'll get along just fine. Really, if you stopped trying to get your doctrine taught in public school science classes, and your version of prayer and Bible study along with it, you would never hear from any of us again.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Now all you and your coreligionists need to do is stop being hostile about it and we'll get along just fine. Really, if you stopped trying to get your doctrine taught in public school science classes, and your version of prayer and Bible study along with it, you would never hear from any of us again.

Where was I hostile? And when did I do any of what you accuse me of.

Very clearly, you are not only hostile but accusing without any cause whatsoever.

 

[Speedwell]

Where was I hostile? And when did I do any of what you accuse me of.

Very clearly, you are not only hostile but accusing without any cause whatsoever.

I was talking about creationists as a group. Whether you, personally have ever been hostile I will let the moderators of the forum decide.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I was talking about creationists as a group.

No you were not.

 

[Speedwell]

No you were not.

What do you think "coreligionists" means?

 

[Kenny'sID]

And what do you think "you" means.

I don't care but you really need to be more careful.

 

[mark kennedy]

Swing and a miss, nice try though. The point is that we need to discuss both sides of the issue. Our strength is in our diversity not in how much we agree or are the same. If you want to endorse a theory that is based on diversity then you can not be blinded by bigotry and quench diversity of opinions.

My point was that if it were not for Paley you would have never heard of Darwin.

Remarkably you fell early, resorting to ad hominem taunts without a single substantive point. Sad really...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You cite all but the relevant there... I just got through dealing with evolutionists deception. You cover all but what I actually asked, so it looks good to the unaware, and I do understand that's the only way you can make it appear evolution has a leg to stand on, but it's still an assumption those things prove evolution. Are you following me?

Not at all.

This things that you call "assumptions", are really facts in reality. Obseverable, testable, verifiable facts.

It's like I always say, they grab a few facts, then twist it into meaning it's proof of evolution and this is a perfect example of that.

There's no twisting.
It's just what the facts are.

Off spring of the original host in which the insertion took place, has the ERV.
Creatures that don't share that original host as an ancestor, don't have the ERV.

Where's the twisting?

Even after pointed out several times and putting the evidence right in front of you, you still can't catch on to the fact, that's exactly how they got you to believe what you do today....deception.

what evidence?
Did you somehow demonstrate that ERV's aren't inherited by off spring?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, some Christians sadly do join the herd.

Actually, it's most christians.

It really depends on where in America.

I said "overall". Meaning "on average". That's taking all schools into account...

The prevalence of foreign students in graduate science programs is due in part to qualified Americans pursing other fields -- law school, business school, or medicine. In other countries, as I understand, a person goes into a field based more on the government's perceived need.

That is in contradiction with what the universities themselves are saying.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I said creationists science, not creation science

What's the difference?

Creationists can work with science as well in spite of the other deception floating around here they are antiscience.

Sure. Newton was a "creationist" and an alchemist, but that sure didn't stop him from working out his laws of motion etc.

If you follow proper scientific procedure and leave your preconceived personal beliefs at the door, you can off course do impeccable scientific work while believe all kinds of things.

The problem only occurs when you allow your preconceived and unevidenced beliefs, influence your scientific work.

Is anyone picking up on this? and how the deceptions work in making one of the most ridiculous theories man has ever come up with believable to you?

Complaining about 21st century biology again?

I'm going to have to pass on reading the rest of your posts geared towards me, but I do recommend anyone who does, read them carefully.

I'll go ahead and second that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'd say it's more like...Of course evolutionists *would* say it that way.

You continue to use that word "evolutionist" as if it is a "thing".
But in reality, it is just the mainstream. It's telling that science opposers use that word for that specific theory which theatens their preconceived beliefs. It's a classic attempt to create an "us vs them" scenario.

It's also telling in the sense that it makes clear that you are picking on one very specific theory in the whole of science and not suprisingly, it is a theory that cuts right through your preconceived beliefs. For example, i've never heared of a "germicist", "gravitationalist", "general relativist", "quantumist", "atomicists", "plate tectonicist", etc... to categorize people who accept those scientific models.

Creationists are anti evolution, and the only thing that is clear is the claim "anti science" is far from factual.

The "anti science" bit is concluded from the conversation that follows the initial claim of the creationist - not just from the mere statement that they don't buy into evolution. Rather, the "anti science" part is concluded from the answers given when asking the question "why don't you accept evolution theory?".

What ultimately gets attacked, is not the actual theory. It's the construct thereof. It's the notion of evidence and what qualifies as evidence (and what doesn't).

Anti science suggests that science has proven evolution to begin with

No theory in science is ever considered "proven".

, so all you end up with is nothing but a deception, one of many untrue tactics that sound good to someone who whats to believe in something other than a God/creation

Classic case of projection.
It is YOU who wants to believe something specific. And your opposition to evolution is a direct result of it contradicting the things that you want to believe. Which is creationism.

I, personally, don't have any emotional attachments to any given theory, nore do I consider what I "prefer" to be true relevant in any way to what is actually true.

If tomorrow evolution is disproven into oblivion, I would have no emotional problems with that. In fact, I think I'ld be incredibly excited for learning new things concerning our origins.

Anyone with any sense at all can see the deception in that, even the opposition if they want to. I'm actually surprised someone here would try to defend it.

Direct question, if you please...

Do you believe that there is an active world-wide conspiracy among thousands, if not millions, of scientists concerning evolution theory?

Just curious.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Good science seems to mean embracing evolution.

Good science means "embracing the evidence of reality". And the evidence of reality overwhelmingly happens to support the evolution model. You can either deal with that or stick your head in the sand.

The science however, is what it is.

The YEC and ID movements are full of people with scientific degrees from secular institutions.

Most of them in irrelevant fields.
Not that it matters though... If they're wrong, they're wrong.

They of all people should know better

Really? Why should a handfull, most with irrelevant degrees, of people "know better" then the vast, vast, vast majority of actual working, publishing scientists who do have relevant degrees?

if disbelieving evolution is simply a matter of a lack of education.

It certainly can be.
Most of all, it's a matter of (fundamentalist) religious indoctrination.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not at all. Theistic Evolution is just as valid of a Creationist belief as any version of Creationism. Most all
creationists accept micro evolution, the objection usually has to do with macro evolution.

Theistic evolution is not generally refered to as creationism.
Instead, it is refered to as... well... theistic evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What part of the creation explanation gave you the idea it was doing that?

If I were a christian, I'ld say that the part where the literal story turns out to be obvious nonsense, when compared to the evidence of reality.

Let's see if I can explain, when you say it's raining cats and dogs, I know perfecly well it doesn't rain cats and dogs, so.... do I really need to explain this further?

Only because you understand what rain, cats and dogs are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Like sarah just said, when it's obvious it's obvious.

Honestly, this has always been one of the shakiest arguments I've ever heard for changing the Bible, so you do that if you want, I'll never buy your reasoning for it.

Obviously, what is obvious to some isn't that obvious for others.

I'll go ahead and hope / assume that you consider it "obvious" that the earth is a sphere, right?

Are you aware that there are people today, and actually on this very forum, who believe the earth is flat?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

That didn't answer my question. Why do you do that? This thread is full of deception, it's all I've dealt with since I started posting this A.M. I ask for one thing, you say you have it, then with a little twist you sort of say you don't have it (proof). Then once I see what you are presenting is not what I asked for and I choose not to waist my time on something I never intended to waist my time on, (anything other than proof) I'm seen as backing out. Watch what happens here.

Either you have proof of evolution or you do not.

Fair enough that you have issues with others here, but the conversation you and I are having is not with other people. Your issues with others are with them, not me.

Now, Endogenous Retroviruses ARE one of many knockdown arguments for Evolution, and likely the easiest to explain to someone in laymans terminology. Regardless what you think of evolution, set it to one side and read & answer the post and answer Examples C, D and E to show you aren't either braindead or brainwashed with religious YEC blockery.

First you say flatly, no assumptions, then you back pedal and realize there probably are some. And I'm not just trying to be combative here, all I claim is right there, and it just gets old. You are trying to trick me into engaging into something other than what I agreed to engage in.

No, I did no such thing. I said there are no assumptions, but if YOU think there are, I'll discuss them with you so you can see why you're mistaken, I was just being polite but I see there's a communication fail if I approach you in any respectable way. I won't make that mistake again.

Please understand I've already seen the things that don't hold up, and wasted time with them. That is why I now ask for something that proves evolution, plain and simple. If it doesn't do that, we're just going to repeat what has already been done, so no reason to engage to begin with.

Sounds like you'll do anything to not understand the facts and observations that underpin this entirely well supported scientific theory, but I'm willing to persist if you can swallow your pride and walk with me.

Not seeing a whole lot of honesty here on the other side either.

Feel free to point any dishonesty out and we can talk that out to its logical conclusion too.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

....resorting to ad hominem taunts...

.....BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahaha!

Are you sure you're even reading posts on this forum??? Seriously tho, Can you tell us what an 'ad hominem' is please?

 

[HereIStand]

Good science means "embracing the evidence of reality". And the evidence of reality overwhelmingly happens to support the evolution model. You can either deal with that or stick your head in the sand.

The science however, is what it is.



Most of them in irrelevant fields.
Not that it matters though... If they're wrong, they're wrong.



Really? Why should a handfull, most with irrelevant degrees, of people "know better" then the vast, vast, vast majority of actual working, publishing scientists who do have relevant degrees?

Actually, a number of scientist in quite relevant fields disbelieve in evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

Actually, a number of scientist in quite relevant fields disbelieve in evolution.

Of the fifty listed, only twenty two of them are involved in fields which are even remotely related to biological evolution. Among the rest, we find such worthies as astronomers and engineers, even an architect and an orthodontist, so evidently your notion of a "quite relevant field" is very broad. In any case, fifty is not so great a number considering that there are about 400,000 biologists in the US alone.

 

[HereIStand]

Of the fifty listed, only twenty two of them are involved in fields which are even remotely related to biological evolution. Among the rest, we find such worthies as astronomers and engineers, even an architect and an orthodontist, so evidently your notion of a "quite relevant field" is very broad. In any case, fifty is not so great a number considering that there are about 400,000 biologists in the Us alone.

Astronomy is unrelated to evolution? But what about the evolutionary notion of panspermia? Anyone with any type of science degree would be exposed to evolution at the college level in a way far deeper than any liberal arts grad, or the general public.