Which is easier...?

[Naraoia]

Pardon my typo.


The Darwinist claim is that the morphologies of the two species are different. If you claim they are the same then they are the same species.

I claimed they were SIMILAR.

Also, soooo blatantly wrong Ever heard of cryptic species complexes?

(Before you turn my words inside out: I did NOT say that humans formed a cryptic species complex. But you are wrong to suggest that same morphology = same species.)

Apparently your alleged cavemen were so primitive and unevolved that they circumnavigated the globe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16archeo.html

How does this address anything I said?

Did you notice, by the way, that you are the only one here talking about primitive, unevolved cavemen?

So, AV, care to justify your sweeping generalisations about British Muslims?

Oh, I was beginning to forget about that. Glad you didn't.

I wonder which of you proves more stubborn

 

[Naraoia]

Also, another reading comprehension fail. Getting to Crete by boat is hardly circumnavigating the globe, unless they came from Australia or something.

 

[Cabal]

Oh, I was beginning to forget about that. Glad you didn't.

I wonder which of you proves more stubborn

I'm not getting my hopes up - but a lack of a response would still say an awful lot, so I can't say being stubborn will be a problem for me

 

[KIYX]

Have you declared war on science?

Nope, psudoscience? Yes.

 

[AV1611VET]

* By the way, this poll is still open. *

 

[crjmurray]

Break out the C-Rats!
Gather up weapons and ammo!
Take positions!
ZOMBIE THREAD!!!!!!

 

[jacks]

I picked it's easier for an instant creationist to sit through evolution 101. Simple because I've always found science easier to understand than theology.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Which is easier?

1. An evolutionist to sit through Instant Creation 101.
2. An instant creationist to sit through Evolution 101.

I went with #1.

Far more education is required to understand evolution 101 than to understand creation myths.

So, imo, an evolutionist is virtually certain to understand Creation 101, whereas some creationists won't have a clue what is being talked about in Evolution 101.

That youtube creationist apologist Venomfangx is a perfect example. He believes when the flood waters receded, they carved the Grand Canyon, and that the water moved at five times the speed of sound while doing it.

 

[Gracchus]

I don't remember how I voted on this, probably for number one, but I have thought about it since it recently clawed its way out of the tomb, and I do think now that someone who understands evolution would find it very hard to sit through a class on creationism. The outrage to reason would be very hard to bear without some special understanding of abnormal psychology.
On the other hand, a creationist could probably sit through anything without any sort of thought at all.

 

[quatona]

Which is easier?

1. An evolutionist to sit through Instant Creation 101.
2. An instant creationist to sit through Evolution 101.

An exhaustive presentation of "Instant Creation" won´t take longer than two minutes (the "101" version is even shorter). So I´d vote #1.

 

[Mediate]

Option 2.

Namely:


It is illegal to teach anything other than evolution in biology class because Darwinists have a totalitarian monopoly in our government education system. Identical to Nazi Germany.

Everyone is forced to believe in evolution from the time of their birth, through the time they can crawl, and throughout their entire education. In North Korean academic circles they call this "brainwashing."

We also call this logical fallacy ''Hitlerization''. Nobody is ''forced'' to believe in evolution anymore than they are forced to believe the sky is blue. The sky is blue, right? Particles do exist, right? The diversification of species is evident in the study of the geological strata, right?

What we force on kids is what is outside scientific facts. Fact is learned, seen and accepted, because it is fact. It makes logical sense. What do we teach kids that isn't logical?

Well, I have a list:

That money is an innate part of human existence.
That a person's means of sustenance must be monetary.
That intelligence can be objectively measured through educational systems whose primary function is to endow and indoctrinate children to want money, to believe it is the sole socioeconomic mechanism.
That being ''not smart'' in the ways that system decides means that you are '''not smart'' and shoud resign yourself to accepting the exterior societal judgements of your mediocrity, which are themselves nothing more than psychological control measures to perpetuate the current economic systems for the benefit of those who are arbitrarily assigned the ''leaders'' and the ''smartest'' and the ''brightest''.

State education is a joke, no doubt, but the assertion that fact is forced is a farcical assertion. You don't even accept facts! Nobody has to accept facts. You can reject fact. You do reject fact. Thankfully you're allowed to do that.

I distinctly remember a very powerful worldwide socioreligious establishment once in charge of teaching who didn't allow people to reject its teachings. It's called umm .. what's the name again .. oh yea. ''The Church''

 

[MissRowy]

I think this is a good topic.
I don't think its a good idea to push something onto someone who is not interested in learning whether its evolution or creationism
Let both have their own views without the need to push it down the others throat.

 

[mzungu]

 

[Gracchus]

[]

I think this is a good topic.
I don't think its a good idea to push something onto someone who is not interested in learning whether its evolution or creationism

I seem to remember being very un-interested in arithmetic, particularly the multiplication table. I had no problem learning it but it was very boring. I think many students would agree with that early assessment. Therefore, children should be excused from learning to read or cipher. We certainly don't want to burden them with learning they don't want.

Let both have their own views without the need to push it down the others throat.

If you hadn't noticed me mention it before, when I was in kindergarten, one of my classmates assured me that 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 + 2= 3. It would have been needless cruelty, I am sure, had anyone pushed down his throat the idea that 2 + 2 = 4. Perhaps to him it was done, but but I am sure that there are some in these forums who would have resisted in spite of dungeon fire and sword, even unto death.

[/]

 

[Papias]

Life wrote:

What's an "instant creationist?"

They come in a box. Just add water and they reconstitute and start talking about hydroplates.

 

[AV1611VET]

They come in a box.

Many came in a boxcar, until the German scientists figured out what to do with them.

 

[True Scotsman]

Option 2.

Namely:


It is illegal to teach anything other than evolution in biology class because Darwinists have a totalitarian monopoly in our government education system. Identical to Nazi Germany.

Everyone is forced to believe in evolution from the time of their birth, through the time they can crawl, and throughout their entire education. In North Korean academic circles they call this "brainwashing."

OH please. Forced. How can anyone force you to believe something. I guess if they threatened to burn you alive for eternity that might work. Oh wait.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Many came in a boxcar, until the German scientists figured out what to do with them.

That's really classy, AV :o

 

[Skaloop]

That's really classy, AV :o

AV uses the victims of Thalidomide, the Challenger explosion, and earthquakes to support his position, so it's not like he has ever been classy in that respect. But this is the first time I recall him using Nazis.

 

[selfinflikted]

AV uses the victims of Thalidomide, the Challenger explosion, and earthquakes to support his position, so it's not like he has ever been classy in that respect. But this is the first time I recall him using Nazis.

Well, his old material was getting a bit stale.