Why not both?

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Cute.

I knew it.

 

[AV1611VET]

?

I'm asking.

Did you read my post?

Dan and Ephraim.

 

[crjmurray]

Did you read my post?

Dan and Ephraim.

What is this supposed to tell me?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Either you think he will come from the United States, or your xenophobia remark can take a hike.

How's that?

AHA! I knew it all along.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

What is this supposed to tell me?

It's got something to with the Ghost Busters and Dan Aykroyd.

 

[crjmurray]

AHA! I knew it all along.

Nah not her. My moneys on this guy

 

[crjmurray]

It's got something to with the Ghost Busters and Dan Aykroyd.

He does seem worried.

 

[Blue Wren]

It's because of the general trend towards anti-intillectualism you see in rural areas.

I think maybe in more rural areas, of N America, homeschooling is more popular, as there are not as many schools nearby? This could add to it, I think.
Whilst living in the US, I've only been in urban cities. I did go, to Atlanta, for a conference. I do not think so many people living there, are creationists. They have the CDC, very good hospitals & universities, very many scientists.

I go to a Baptist church here, and it does not have the same beliefs, as the people who go to Baptist churches, and post in the Baptist section here. We had Evolution Weekend festivities, in Feb.

 

[crjmurray]

I think maybe in more rural areas, of N America, homeschooling is more popular, as there are not as many schools nearby? This could add to it, I think.
Whilst living in the US, I've only been in urban cities. I did go, to Atlanta, for a conference. I do not think so many people living there, are creationists. They have the CDC, very good hospitals & universities, very many scientists.

I go to a Baptist church here, and it does not have the same beliefs, as the people who go to Baptist churches, and post in the Baptist section here. We had Evolution Weekend festivities, in Feb.

I don't know about the homeschooling. I only know one person who was homeschooled. The homeschooling certainly isn't to blame for the anti intellectualism though.

 

[Blue Wren]

I don't know about the homeschooling. I only know one person who was homeschooled. The homeschooling certainly isn't to blame for the anti intellectualism though.

I don't know so much about this, as homeschooling, it is prohibited, in Sweden. I was given the link, to a creationist biology textbook, for homeschooling education. It was just, so appalling, as it was filled, with errors that anyone, with a true grasp of biology, would recognise, very easily.

I read, also, that public schools, in the rural areas, many do have as much money, and they have teachers, who do not have much specialised training, in science?

What, do you think, is the blame for the anti intellectualism, where you live?

 

[crjmurray]

I don't know so much about this, as homeschooling, it is prohibited, in Sweden. I was given the link, to a creationist biology textbook, for homeschooling education. It was just, so appalling, as it was filled, with errors that anyone, with a true grasp of biology, would recognise, very easily.

I read, also, that public schools, in the rural areas, many do have as much money, and they have teachers, who do not have much specialised training, in science?

What, do you think, is the blame for the anti intellectualism, where you live?

Basically, people think education is worthless.

There's no value attached to it.

I can't get into exactly why because we're talking about some deep rooted sociological issues that would take up an entire thread.

I will say that all the rural schools I attended had plenty of money but the educators were laughably inept.

 

[AV1611VET]

I will say that all the rural schools I attended had plenty of money but the educators were laughably inept.

Let's see:

1. Plenty of money on hand.
2. Inept educators.

What does that tell you?

That the school district is employing bargain-basement educators?

Budget cuts?

If you were a top-notch educator, would you apply at any of the rural schools you attended and work for peanuts?

 

[crjmurray]

Let's see:

1. Plenty of money on hand.
2. Inept educators.

What does that tell you?

That the school district is employing bargain-basement educators?

Budget cuts?

If you were a top-notch educator, would you apply at any of the rural schools you attended and work for peanuts?

It tells me they're hiring locally. Did you really think that was a good question? Like I wouldn't know where the teachers come from or what they make? I still know some of my highschool teachers. Man that question was not thought through well at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

It tells me they're hiring locally. Did you really think that was a good question? Like I wouldn't know where the teachers come from or what they make? I still know some of my highschool teachers. Man that question was not thought through well at all.

And yet you attribute the attitude of the common people toward education as needing an entire thread to explain.

I can't get into exactly why because we're talking about some deep rooted sociological issues that would take up an entire thread.

I'll tell you what your "deep rooted sociological issue" is.

1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I'm not buffaloing anybody (BTW we have different definitions of that verb here). You interjected into a conversation and showed that you don't know what you're talking about. Don't feign indignance here.

What more can you expect from a grand master of:

投影

 

[Justatruthseeker]

As a first time poster here, I have to wonder why everyone seems to ignore this simple question?

If you can accept that God is wise and great enough to Create everything, why can't you accept that He also gave His creations the ability to adapt, over time, to changing environmental factors (which is known as evolution)?
Why does it have to be one or the other, when BOTH makes sense, both Biblically and scientifically...

He did give them the ability to adapt. Finches develop beaks based upon food supply - but they always remain finches. Black rabbits placed in a snowy clime would eventually become white rabbits - but they will always remain rabbits. Do not confuse adaptation and variation within kinds, as evolution - kind changing into kind.

There has never been any scientific evidence to support that viewpoint, ever. Hence we have Mendel's Laws of genetics. Nothing new is ever generated, just what already exists within the genomes. This is why science has all but given up on mutations as the cause of species change in the real world. Mutation now only exists as a viable alternative to the rise of new species in the land of Fairie Dust.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

 

[lifepsyop]

He did give them the ability to adapt. Finches develop beaks based upon food supply - but they always remain finches. Black rabbits placed in a snowy clime would eventually become white rabbits - but they will always remain rabbits. Do not confuse adaptation and variation within kinds, as evolution - kind changing into kind.

There has never been any scientific evidence to support that viewpoint, ever. Hence we have Mendel's Laws of genetics. Nothing new is ever generated, just what already exists within the genomes. This is why science has all but given up on mutations as the cause of species change in the real world. Mutation now only exists as a viable alternative to the rise of new species in the land of Fairie Dust.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

You know what's funny.. Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species" is basically one big false dichotomy, that if lifeforms adapt AT ALL to their environment, then universal common descent must be true... and if universal common descent is false then lifeforms can not show any adaptation.

In the same sense, Origin is also a strawman argument, that anyone who doubts universal common descent, believes that living things do not change over time AT ALL. (and even though this is a laughably obvious strawman, it has been faithfully employed right up to present day by evolutionists attempting to silence any opposition)

You can see this nonsense illustrated in Darwin's finches and their morphing beaks... how on earth did the "scientific" community equate this amount of change with the idea that a finch descended from a fish??? It's pretty obvious that actual science was the last thing on their minds... these were philosophers peddling an ideology and looking for any evocative selling point...

It's amazing that this nonsense is still passing for a scientific theory in the 21st century.... no, much more than a theory, it is a sacred cow that will not be questioned... if beaks can change shape... if fur can change color, this is unequivocal PROOF that bird and rabbits can evolve from fish over time with the right selection pressures. Sometimes you just have to sit back and marvel at the mass delusion that is Evolutionism...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You know what's funny.. Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species" is basically one big false dichotomy, that if lifeforms adapt AT ALL to their environment, then universal common descent must be true... and if universal common descent is false then lifeforms can not show any adaptation.

In the same sense, Origin is also a strawman argument, that anyone who doubts universal common descent, believes that living things do not change over time AT ALL. (and even though this is a laughably obvious strawman, it has been faithfully employed right up to present day by evolutionists attempting to silence any opposition)

You can see this nonsense illustrated in Darwin's finches and their morphing beaks... how on earth did the "scientific" community equate this amount of change with the idea that a finch descended from a fish??? It's pretty obvious that actual science was the last thing on their minds... these were philosophers peddling an ideology and looking for any evocative selling point...

It's amazing that this nonsense is still passing for a scientific theory in the 21st century.... no, much more than a theory, it is a sacred cow that will not be questioned... if beaks can change shape... if fur can change color, this is unequivocal PROOF that bird and rabbits can evolve from fish over time with the right selection pressures. Sometimes you just have to sit back and marvel at the mass delusion that is Evolutionism...

Religious belief is still religion, whether you couch it under the name of science or not. Fanatics are still fanatics, whether they preach one religion or another. Evolution has become their new religion - and all dissenters will be ex-communicated.

Yes, it is quite amazing that despite all the scientific evidence falsifying evolution theory over the years - it still has supporters who believe they are enlightened. Who actually believe they are not practicing a religion - a religion they have couched in the name of science in an effort to give it legitimacy by association.

 

[crjmurray]

You know what's funny.. Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species" is basically one big false dichotomy, that if lifeforms adapt AT ALL to their environment, then universal common descent must be true... and if universal common descent is false then lifeforms can not show any adaptation.

In the same sense, Origin is also a strawman argument, that anyone who doubts universal common descent, believes that living things do not change over time AT ALL. (and even though this is a laughably obvious strawman, it has been faithfully employed right up to present day by evolutionists attempting to silence any opposition)

You can see this nonsense illustrated in Darwin's finches and their morphing beaks... how on earth did the "scientific" community equate this amount of change with the idea that a finch descended from a fish??? It's pretty obvious that actual science was the last thing on their minds... these were philosophers peddling an ideology and looking for any evocative selling point...

It's amazing that this nonsense is still passing for a scientific theory in the 21st century.... no, much more than a theory, it is a sacred cow that will not be questioned... if beaks can change shape... if fur can change color, this is unequivocal PROOF that bird and rabbits can evolve from fish over time with the right selection pressures. Sometimes you just have to sit back and marvel at the mass delusion that is Evolutionism...

You do know that book is 150 years old? And we've gathered more evidence in support of the theory since then? Also, the book isn't just about finches.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You do know that book is 150 years old? And we've gathered more evidence in support of the theory since then? Also, the book isn't just about finches.

What evidence?

E coli that after billions of mutations and generations are still E coli?

Mutation all but given up on in animal and plant husbandry sciences as a cause of new life?

Miss-classification of species amongst dinosaurs too numerous to mention?

I'm not quite sure what evidence there is that evolutionists claim to have?