The new millennium

[selfinflikted]

Same difference as 6000 years because the universe is between 12 & 14 years old. You pick 4.5 & they pick 6000. Neither one of them adds up to the age of the universe.

What?

 

[UncleHermit]

Creationists, the vast majority at least, have always "embraced" science. Science is observation and experimentation in an effort to understand the world we live in and falsify theories. Evo, like ID, is a philosophical framework in which to postulate how the world arrived in the first place.

The Theory of Evolution is not a philosophical framework. It also doesn't have anything to do with how the world arrived in the first place.

Evolution is easily refuted with real science alone.

Such as?

The only problem is the monopoly evo has acquired by means of the courts, because they so fear exposure to the full range of scientific facts.

Evolution has a "monopoly" because it is the best scientific explanation we have for the diversity of life, by far.

There have even been debates in the US over whether these embarrassing facts should be allowed in science classrooms where impressionable students might "leave the faith" of Darwin.

I would like you to name one person who has ever given anything even close to the above as a reason why creationism/ID shouldn't be taught in a science class.

If evo is truly science, let it face the full brunt of criticism and give up its monopoly. What is it afraid of anyway?

No one is afraid of Creationist/ID arguments against Evolution. But they shouldn't be taught in a science class because they are not scientifically valid. If you have some examples that would show otherwise, please present them.

I think Darwinism will fade away as more is learned about the complexity of life at even the "simplest" levels, rendering the notion of abiogenesis on the level of magic

Even if this were the case, how would it affect the evidence of Evolution we already have? Our knowledge about how life has diversified and continues to diversify doesn't depend on any knowledge about how it first started.

and finally admitting that fruit flies never turn into houseflies, sea horses never turn into quarter horses, and e-coli never turn into e-bola.

I'm sure you can find plenty of biologists who will "admit" to that right now, since I'm not aware of anyone who claims that existing organisms can evolve into other already-existing organisms.

Free knowledge will be the death of Darwinism. But I wonder what atheists will turn to then? Will they lose their anti-faith in God?

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but my not believing in God doesn't have anything to do with Evolution.

 

[UncleHermit]

Let me assure you that we all have been force to be "informed" about evolution. And yes, creationists even pass those classes. We tell them what they want to hear so we get our degrees. We know what they want us to believe and why they want us to believe it. We know their tortured logic and filtered facts. We are bombarded with it in movies, TV, magazines, documentaries, all day every day. I hardly think we're ignorant by any definition.

I find that very hard to believe, given the fact that nearly every Creationist argument against Evolution that I've ever seen is based on a complete misunderstanding of what the ToE actually states.

 

[Jazer]

What?

Everything is a beginning of something. You had a beginning. The earth had a beginning, the universe had a beginning. The question is what happened 6,000 years ago. Something began with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

I will say Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden 6,000 years ago. Than as sure as can be someone will come along and say: The universe is 14 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old so your wrong. WHAT??? I am not talking about the earth, I am not talking about the universe. I am talking about Adam and Eve. Then they say but the universe is 14 billion years old, so your wrong, Adam and Eve could not have lived in the Garden of Eden.

 

[Jazer]

a complete misunderstanding of what the ToE actually states.

What TOE is that? Your big toe? Your little Toe? Right left?
What does the toe have to do with it?
If your going to use TOE, then I am going to use EVO.

 

[UncleHermit]

What TOE is that? Your big toe? Your little Toe? Right left?

I think it's the one that went to market.

What does the toe have to do with it?

Who needs a toe when a toe can be broken?

If your going to use TOE, then I am going to use EVO.

Go for it.

 

[Nostromo]

And I can assure you that this "free thinker" term is intended to paint all theists as "not free" and certainly "not thinkers". The OP makes it quite clear that to be a theist/creationist is to be ignorant and in need of "freeing". It is every bit as demeaning as when some theists tell others that they need to be "enlightened".

Wikipedia definition:
"Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or other dogmas."

Since religion is dogma based on tradition and the ultimate appeal to authority I don't see that there's much of a case for complaint.