23 Apr 15
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-evolution-stem-cells-fossilized-rodent.html
By studying the evolution of molars in fossil rodents they find the ability of modern rodents have the genetic code to make regrown teeth but not expressed.
This is some of the findings of evolution studies. That would never happen with creationists. They would shut down such studies as coming from satan or some such rot.
Originally posted by sonhouseWe young earth creationists are not against real science studies in genetics to study how change takes place by adaption and selective breeding or natural selection through the God designed process of reproduction. We just don't believe it is right to teach the religious idea of the theory of evolution supported by atheists and secular humanists as fact without at least giving equal time for the religious idea of special creation by the God of the Holy Bible.
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-evolution-stem-cells-fossilized-rodent.html
By studying the evolution of molars in fossil rodents they find the ability of modern rodents have the genetic code to make regrown teeth but not expressed.
This is some of the findings of evolution studies. That would never happen with creationists. They would shut down such studies as coming from satan or some such rot.
If religion is to be removed from the schools then the Darwinian religion that requires billions of years of past history that has not been proven to be a fact should also be removed.
At leas, we believe the point that much of this theory of evolution is based on a lot of science fiction, speculation, and guess work, and not real practical science should be stressed to the students.
24 Apr 15
Originally posted by RJHindsFortunately you are not the head of education and they know what is science and what is science fiction, the latter being creationism.
We young earth creationists are not against real science studies in genetics to study how change takes place by adaption and selective breeding or natural selection through the God designed process of reproduction. We just don't believe it is right to teach the religious idea of the theory of evolution supported by atheists and secular humanists as fact wit ...[text shortened]... speculation, and guess work, and not real practical science should be stressed to the students.
24 Apr 15
Originally posted by sonhouseThat's not true. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that there are many things about the genetic code that is hitherto unknown, but attributing such things to evolution is not logical.
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-evolution-stem-cells-fossilized-rodent.html
By studying the evolution of molars in fossil rodents they find the ability of modern rodents have the genetic code to make regrown teeth but not expressed.
This is some of the findings of evolution studies. That would never happen with creationists. They would shut down such studies as coming from satan or some such rot.
24 Apr 15
Originally posted by josephwIt would seem logical if you had studied the relevant science. You haven't. Claiming it is not logical when you don't understand it is essentially lying. It would be better to have said it doesn't seem logical to you given that you don't actually know much about it.
.... but attributing such things to evolution is not logical.
24 Apr 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt might seem logical if you have been indoctrinated to believe the propaganda of Darwin's theory of evolution a.k.a. EVIL-Lution. 😏
It would seem logical if you had studied the relevant science. You haven't. Claiming it is not logical when you don't understand it is essentially lying. It would be better to have said it doesn't seem logical to you given that you don't actually know much about it.
24 Apr 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYes. It might. But in my case, I haven't been indoctrinated. I do however have a scientific education including enough biology to actually understand evolution and how it works. But I have not read the article in question, nor claimed it is logical. I am merely stating that anyone who claims it is illogical without understanding the relevant science is being dishonest.
It might seem logical if you have been indoctrinated to believe the propaganda of Darwin's theory of evolution a.k.a. EVIL-Lution. 😏
24 Apr 15
Originally posted by RJHinds
We young earth creationists are not against real science studies in genetics to study how change takes place by adaption and selective breeding or natural selection through the God designed process of reproduction. We just don't believe it is right to teach the religious idea of the theory of evolution supported by atheists and secular humanists as fact wit ...[text shortened]... speculation, and guess work, and not real practical science should be stressed to the students.
change takes place by adaption and selective breeding or natural selection through the [God designed] process of reproduction.
change takes place by adaption and selective breeding or natural selection through the [natural] process of reproduction.
Creationism in this form presumably says that changes survive through God's will and meet the needs of an organism in a changing environment through design. Darwin says there is no design - the changes that survive and allow reproduction are those that are favourable in the context of a changing environment.
There is nothing significant to distinguish these two accounts of change; there is no intrinsic reason for Creationists to deny the evident fact of evolution; the theory of natural selection is not incompatible with Christian faith, All that stands in our way is a contentious interpretation of scripture which is not accepted by many Christians, That issue of interpretation may be significant and indeed very interesting but it is not in itself a basis for depicting evolutionary science as a fraud, when as it happens, as regards change in the characteristics of a species, there is no particular difference in the two accounts.
24 Apr 15
Originally posted by finneganSo why not teach Creationism in schools?change takes place by adaption and selective breeding or natural selection through the [God designed] process of reproduction.change takes place by adaption and selective breeding or natural selection through the [natural] process of reproduction.
Creationism in this form presumably says that changes survive through God' ...[text shortened]... nge in the characteristics of a species, there is no particular difference in the two accounts.
Well it can be a part of religious education and presented as a religious belief so that is fine.
If it is included in a thorough account of evolutionary theory in biology, then to be historically accurate and objective about the way these theories developed, the theory of intelligent design could be presented as the prevailing theory prior to the publication of Darwin's theory of natural selection, which offered a thoroughly satisfactory and explanatory model of evolution supported by scientific evidence, which has indeed been strengthened in the subsequent century and a half of research, for example with the discovery of the gene, and demonstrated effectively for example in the rapid evolutionary changes found in viruses, leading to (and accounting for) resistance to antibiotics. Obviously a religious account would not have been the slightest assistance in dealing with drug resistant infections (for example). If this historically accurate and valid account were emphasised in schools, that would be desribed as anti-religious, despite it being accepted by most Christians outside of the fundamentalist sects that are especially prevalent in the USA for historical reasons which we might again choose to discuss, at the risk of being accused ... (etc in circles).
What would not be remotely credible, however, would be to present "Creation Science" as anything remotely resembling Science, because it operates in flat contradiction to the methods of Science. Again, a serious educational account of Creation Science would, of necessity, have to discuss the way Creation Science is funded, the widespread use of lies and misrepresentation, the fraudulent connection with evangelical capitalists who make significant fortunes from gullible believers, and the close connection with Right Wing political movements in the USA. All of this can be readily documented. To ask an education system to discuss Creation Science and not discuss its critics would be dishonest and contrary to the values of any self respecting education system. But of course, a balanced account would explain to the class that Creation Science is not representative of the firmly held views of the majority of informed Christians and their various Churches. Instead, it is part of a fundamentalist trend, especially in the USA, which is very modern and very much a reaction against the perceived threat of the modern world, an irrational fear given that most Americans for example proclaim that they remain Christians. Religious beliefs need to adapt to new knowledge about the world around us but it does not follow that this need entail an existential threat to religious faith as such. Instead, the role of faith can be made relevant and helpful by adapting to change and meeting the changing needs of the faithful, most of whom no longer require childish fables as a substitute for dealing with reality, the dark and their dreams.
25 Apr 15
Originally posted by finneganHowever, much fraud has been done by those pushing the idea of evolution.change takes place by adaption and selective breeding or natural selection through the [God designed] process of reproduction.change takes place by adaption and selective breeding or natural selection through the [natural] process of reproduction.
Creationism in this form presumably says that changes survive through God' ...[text shortened]... nge in the characteristics of a species, there is no particular difference in the two accounts.
Originally posted by finneganHowever, they could teach about the anomalies and other problems with the theory and not pretend that it is all proven fact.
So why not teach Creationism in schools?
Well it can be a part of religious education and presented as a religious belief so that is fine.
If it is included in a thorough account of evolutionary theory in biology, then to be historically accurate and objective about the way these theories developed, the theory of intelligent design could be presente ...[text shortened]... ger require childish fables as a substitute for dealing with reality, the dark and their dreams.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/597-evolutionary-anomaly-or-barking-up-the-wrong-tree-an
25 Apr 15
Originally posted by RJHindsThere has been plenty of fraud in the history of this debate about the origin of variation among species. Hence it is extremely important to identify the fraudulent strands and the failed theories and the misleading claims, which frequently can be associated with non scientific objectives, ranging from the racist ideologies of European imperialism and American slave ownership to the fundamentalist religious cults that have had such a poisonous impact in the USA and beyond.
However, much fraud has been done by those pushing the idea of evolution.
One of the achievements of Darwin was to refute the so called "Social Darwinism" of Herbert Spencer and his followers, to whom the purpose of evolution was the production of self important English gentlemen. Plenty of frauds and foolish thinkers have tried to borrow the scientific status of Darwin's work to cloak their own miserable pretensions. In Germany of the late 19th and early 20th Century racist ideologies were manufactured out of the heat of this debate and led not only to the horrors of the holocaust (though pogroms against Jews had prevailed in Europe under Christian banners for centuries - millennia - and this was just another cloak) but also to the still ongoing racist ideology of Zionism.
So I completely agree that it is desirable to expose fraud and foolish thinking and to recognise the harm that does to our social world and human values. It would be pleasant to see you adhere to this principle when recommending patently fraudulent and foolish Creation Science from such absurd sources as YouTube, manufactured by ideologues to befuddle foolish believers.
25 Apr 15
Originally posted by finneganWhen I pick a youtube video to reference, it is one that fits the mood I am in at the time and conveys the correct meaning and/or entertainment value I am looking to project to my readers. 😏
There has been plenty of fraud in the history of this debate about the origin of variation among species. Hence it is extremely important to identify the fraudulent strands and the failed theories and the misleading claims, which frequently can be associated with non scientific objectives, ranging from the racist ideologies of European imperialism and Ameri ...[text shortened]... e from such absurd sources as YouTube, manufactured by ideologues to befuddle foolish believers.
25 Apr 15
Originally posted by RJHindsWhen you invite us to view a dishonest video based on misrepresentation and lies, that clearly conveys the value you are looking to project, meaning you choose misrepresentation and lies. When you base your own arguments on such sources, then you lose all credibility.
When I pick a youtube video to reference, it is one that fits the mood I am in at the time and conveys the correct meaning and/or entertainment value I am looking to project to my readers. 😏
25 Apr 15
Originally posted by finneganThat doesn't bother Hinds in the slightest. He will continue to plow his lying political based BS video's till the cows come home in spite of the entire site here laughing in his face.
When you invite us to view a dishonest video based on misrepresentation and lies, that clearly conveys the value you are looking to project, meaning you choose misrepresentation and lies. When you base your own arguments on such sources, then you lose all credibility.
That just strengthens his resolve like the good little brainwashed Christian he is.