It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is evolution, not what some think

page: 35
12
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Barcs

I know. Believe me. I know... And that is just a few of the responses I made to him in this thread. There are many more.


Krazyshot please tell me why you are only interested in discussing biological evolution when it was only a small part of what I posted in the OP
Is that all you know?
If it is then you clearly dont have answers.

You demand i only discuss biological evolution, sorry thats only a small part of the issue.

and if you think evolution is a word that can only be applied to biology then maybe you should prove that.




posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: borntowatch

Mixing the terms , not knowing what theory means as well ingoring all science finding and starting topic that you can't provide any evidence in, ignoring all evidence that is presented on topic... and provoking as if this is a race and someone gonna loose?!

Nah, while in denial, you just make funny example of what really is wrong with religious fundamentalist, nothing more... no topic here, this is more like your own diary witch should make you feel well and prove that your ignorance is stronger then any scientifically proven evidence... good job!

No wonder you found yourself in Tim Minchin's song...




I didnt listen to TM, sorry
and your personel attacks are par for the course.
I like many others dont believe evolution is as clear cut as you wish it was.
My opening post was a simple statement hoping that those with a faith in evolution could understand why some dont accept it.
Not an invitation the get bashed by your faith in some religiousy science book, not to be preached unrelentingly at.

Clearly you are not one of those people.

Thats fine



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Here is the third link from the four links I just posted:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It helps if you actually CLICK on the links before talking about them you know? But hey, here is further proof that you just stuck your foot in your mouth. Another post in this thread that I made later than the four I just linked:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nothing about the Theory of Evolution (what you just called biological evolution) in either of those two posts. By the way I'm still waiting for you to refute the information I gave you in that first link about abiogenesis and the Big Bang and that post was made back on page 9. But then again I already explained to you over the course of many posts between pages 1 - 10 that this thread is just a giant gish gallop and you should be addressing each of the issues in your OP separately in separate threads.

If I want to only discuss one topic of the many you posted, it's because I'm more knowledgeable about how it works and can better educate the people ignorant to those topics. Asking me to debate all those scientific topics requires WAY more scientific knowledge then is necessary to debate them individually, but you seem to think that isn't the case. I don't create threads calling into question Islam, Christianity, and Judaism and demand you debate each on equally. This is why I haven't been talking to you since about page 24 or 25.
edit on 9-7-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Again, there is no faith in evolution, does not require belief in order to happen - it did not require belief to work the same way for millions of years... all we human did is just observe what was happening...

Your option to believe rather then see verifiable evidence and tryout to be smartest in room without single proof of evidence - it's really laughable - and it is not personal attack if I review current situation of the topic, you should by now know that... You said it your self that evidence that might change your mind does not exist, and that is fine, but please again, don't mix your mysticism, magic and religion with science... no need for that, thanks, science is fine.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
Your evidence isnt even wishy washy,its not vague or inane, its non existent.

Prove it. Show me where in the links I provided where the assumptions are made. You just dismiss the science as assumptions, but they aren't assuming anything. You just deny it, which isn't a valid argument. YOU are doing the assuming by claiming that "micro" evolution is true and proven, but that the changes cannot add up over time, something you have zero evidence for. You still haven't explained why this is the case. You agree with speciation, but seem to think that speciation a thousand times over or million times over couldn't produce an organism much different from the original. I still haven't seen your explanation for this and I have requested it numerous times. Each time, however you completely ignore the request and either don't respond to the post at all or or just make some vague generalization that has nothing to do with it.


Evolution is not just about biology, we have many types of evolution and they are all largely unexplained. There is no burden on me, I am not making up theorys or trying to prove them


You are wrong. Big bang is not a type of evolution. You only call it that because evolution is a buzz word for you that enables you to equivocate 2 definitions into 1 and as a result, you fallaciously assume that "macro" evolution is false. That is your end game, no matter how hard you try to disguise it. It's an argument that originated from Kent Hovind, it doesn't hold weight.There are 2 definitions for evolution. 1 of them is biological diversity (genetic mutations sorted by natural selection). The other definition is not a scientific term, and simply means increasing complexity or knowledge. For example the design of the automobile has "evolved" drastically since the first one. That doesn't mean that car design has changed via genetic mutations and natural selection. It only means that it has changed over time increasing in complexity, and it's true. The non scientific version of the term "evolve" can apply to almost anything, and yes it is true. Things evolve, knowledge evolves, technology evolves, people evolve socially during their lifetimes. When you say Cosmic evolution, you are merely using the unscientific version of the term, instead of simply saying "the big bang." It is not evolution in any scientific sense, only in the fact that it does change things over time. So you can't universally say that a non scientific term is wrong, because it can apply to so much in the world. It's like calling the word "change" wrong and then listing a bunch of things that haven't changed much. It's not universally right or wrong. But we all know that your goal is to attack evolution, so technicalities, facts, and data do not matter to you.


I am not even asking you a question, just stating the evidence is NOT SUFFICIENT for me to believe like others.
I havnt demanded any evidence, just pointed to the lack of it.

How can you point to a lack of evidence, when so many people have provided evidence for you? Why is it not sufficient? How can you claim that without even explaining why or where the science is wrong? You can't because you honestly don't understand it and are unwilling to. Again, that is YOUR problem, not mine. I'm just correcting your false claims for the benefit of people that may be on the fence with the issue or do not post their concerns here. You are a preacher, as you haven't defended anything about your position. You claim it's just personal opinion that evolution is a belief system, but opinions can be wrong and science isn't an opinion. It's a fact.

And yes I care about this topic. Not because I'm afraid of losing or being wrong, but because it is insulting to people that do it for a living, and it's flat out wrong.
edit on 9-7-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Hello,
Certainly, I agree that is a fair interpretation, but please do not misunderstand. I am equally skeptical of purely secular peoples claiming to need money to prove anti-gravity devices, solar roadways, hydrogen as an alternative to gasoline... It has nothing to do with the religious background of the people claiming they need money. It has to do with the evidence being presented, and I have shown you that AiG has demonstrably written false information.
Claims on the religious nature of scientists as an entirety are varied, but here is a poll I found showing a 50/50 split between belief of a higher power/deity and pure naturalistic phenomena. A third are reported to believe in God.
www.pewforum.org...
Certainly, this is the God of the Bible, so one might say Christian/Jewish scientists are disproportionately represented in the scientific body. Of note, look at the very disproportionate number of Nobel Prize winners who were Jewish.
en.wikipedia.org...
When scientists enter a lab, even the religious must abandon their beliefs and view only the observable facts, and look at how well these ones have done so.

Yes, Naturalists were funded by the Church and often theologians. But this isn't surprising. The Churches had the most disposable income at the time, and could fund long expeditions. It should be noted that these were not done in the name of science, but of understanding God's works. Not truly science, but the start in many cases, of modern sciences.
Likewise, biology was not originally dependent upon evolution, yes. But that biology was merely classifying based on morphological features. That can still be done today, but it takes an understanding of evolution to see why dogs have muscle tissues while echinoderms use water vascular systems for movement. No, science could still be done, but it would lose a lot of meaning. It would lose a lot of understanding.
" ID can make predictions, based on what is seen in the natural world.
Science must be repeatable observable and testable, most of evolution isnt so claiming its a science, hmmmm. "
Sir, you provide yourself an interesting refutation of ID as science, which is not repeatable...
However, evolutionary theory is repeatable. Everyday I find a fossil in the layers of strata I predict them to be, I am repeating my experimental design. To falsify my data, I need only find one fossil sufficiently out of place as to be unaccountable to understood phenomena. This is merely one example, one that pertains to my life, and one that you can repeat should you so choose, with the fossils of Australia. (Of which, you have many interesting vertebrates... The history of marsupials from Australian fossils is simply spectacular.)
The Steve thing is simply a joke. I assume it is all in good fun, but I am sorry you are offended by a small portion of the scientific community.
As for your skepticism, I commend you for it. I'd rather have someone think for themselves than blindly follow someone else.
I merely meant to state you should be careful in phrasing.
You are undoubtedly targeted, as you started this thread. But I don't think we should target people. I'd rather target observable facts.
Cheers.



edit on 9-7-2014 by hydeman11 because: clarified



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
OP --

Have you ever considered the idea of "intelligent deign"?

I'm not personally a subscriber to this idea, but if you have a deep belief in a God/Supreme Creator, then perhaps you can believe that God uses the mechanisms of evolution (natural selection, etc.) to guide the development of the creatures on Earth...

...i.e., as the idea goes, we are what we are because God used the forces of evolution to make us.

Like I said, I don't personally believe in intelligent design-type ideas for various reasons, but using an idea similar to this, you can be free to believe in God AND associate that God with the scientific principles behind evolution.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: borntowatch

Mixing the terms , not knowing what theory means as well ingoring all science finding and starting topic that you can't provide any evidence in, ignoring all evidence that is presented on topic... and provoking as if this is a race and someone gonna loose?!

Nah, while in denial, you just make funny example of what really is wrong with religious fundamentalist, nothing more... no topic here, this is more like your own diary witch should make you feel well and prove that your ignorance is stronger then any scientifically proven evidence... good job!

No wonder you found yourself in Tim Minchin's song...




Not an invitation the get bashed by your faith in some religiousy science book, not to be preached unrelentingly at.




"Religousy science book"???? Oh fer flips sake - Religion is a blind belief in a book of bronze and iron age myths and stories. That's what it really is when you boil it all down. Science is based on repeatable, testable evidence that in the case of evolution includes the fossil record. Science is not based on blind faith, it's based on EVIDENCE.
This has been repeatedly pointed out to you. If you cannot understand this, then too bad. Go and read a few books. If you do understand this but are still pushing your ridiculous statement about 'science = a form of religion' then certain suspicions I have about you are correct.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Consciousness itself is evolving as we contemplate these words. It is beginning to recognize itself in form and will soon no longer become lost in form but remain totally aware as form is entered. As one may imagine, this means an epic leap in possibilities, thus the game continues...



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

It's telling to see the way you use the words faith and religion as a term of derision when talking about evolution, the irony is palatable. Time after time you see creationists claiming that evolution requires too much faith, or is just another religion. Not once have I ever seen a scientist or "evolutionist" proclaiming that creationism is just another science, or that it requires too much logic, reason, and evidence.

And to add insult to injury, your posts are nothing more than a horrible mix of misunderstanding, misrepresentation, denial, obfuscation, and anti-science claptrap, mixed copiously with things you just seem to make up. All in all, your posts are just about the opposite of what science really is all about. You have failed, for this you get an F in biology.

edit on fWednesday143677f363407 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Again, there is no faith in evolution, does not require belief in order to happen - it did not require belief to work the same way for millions of years... all we human did is just observe what was happening...

Your option to believe rather then see verifiable evidence and tryout to be smartest in room without single proof of evidence - it's really laughable - and it is not personal attack if I review current situation of the topic, you should by now know that... You said it your self that evidence that might change your mind does not exist, and that is fine, but please again, don't mix your mysticism, magic and religion with science... no need for that, thanks, science is fine.


We observed something over millions of years, wow we must be old, or are you talking about fossils, that amazing collection of records all in a shoebox.

Science is fun, pretending its what it is not is funny



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
OP --

Have you ever considered the idea of "intelligent deign"?

I'm not personally a subscriber to this idea, but if you have a deep belief in a God/Supreme Creator, then perhaps you can believe that God uses the mechanisms of evolution (natural selection, etc.) to guide the development of the creatures on Earth...

...i.e., as the idea goes, we are what we are because God used the forces of evolution to make us.

Like I said, I don't personally believe in intelligent design-type ideas for various reasons, but using an idea similar to this, you can be free to believe in God AND associate that God with the scientific principles behind evolution.




Yes I have heard of id, know many Christians who accept it.

You know that I believe in science, just not evolutionary science, I can pretend to believe but thats not truthful.

Otherwise I can be free to believe anyway, what I want to believe not what others want me to believe.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: borntowatch

Hello,
Certainly, I agree that is a fair interpretation, but please do not misunderstand. I am equally skeptical of purely secular peoples claiming to need money to prove anti-gravity devices, solar roadways, hydrogen as an alternative to gasoline... It has nothing to do with the religious background of the people claiming they need money. It has to do with the evidence being presented, and I have shown you that AiG has demonstrably written false information.
Claims on the religious nature of scientists as an entirety are varied, but here is a poll I found showing a 50/50 split between belief of a higher power/deity and pure naturalistic phenomena. A third are reported to believe in God.
www.pewforum.org...
Certainly, this is the God of the Bible, so one might say Christian/Jewish scientists are disproportionately represented in the scientific body. Of note, look at the very disproportionate number of Nobel Prize winners who were Jewish.
en.wikipedia.org...
When scientists enter a lab, even the religious must abandon their beliefs and view only the observable facts, and look at how well these ones have done so.



Yes, Naturalists were funded by the Church and often theologians. But this isn't surprising. The Churches had the most disposable income at the time, and could fund long expeditions. It should be noted that these were not done in the name of science, but of understanding God's works. Not truly science, but the start in many cases, of modern sciences.
Likewise, biology was not originally dependent upon evolution, yes. But that biology was merely classifying based on morphological features. That can still be done today, but it takes an understanding of evolution to see why dogs have muscle tissues while echinoderms use water vascular systems for movement. No, science could still be done, but it would lose a lot of meaning. It would lose a lot of understanding.


" ID can make predictions, based on what is seen in the natural world.
Science must be repeatable observable and testable, most of evolution isnt so claiming its a science, hmmmm. "
Sir, you provide yourself an interesting refutation of ID as science, which is not repeatable...
However, evolutionary theory is repeatable. Everyday I find a fossil in the layers of strata I predict them to be, I am repeating my experimental design. To falsify my data, I need only find one fossil sufficiently out of place as to be unaccountable to understood phenomena. This is merely one example, one that pertains to my life, and one that you can repeat should you so choose, with the fossils of Australia. (Of which, you have many interesting vertebrates... The history of marsupials from Australian fossils is simply spectacular.)


The Steve thing is simply a joke. I assume it is all in good fun, but I am sorry you are offended by a small portion of the scientific community.
As for your skepticism, I commend you for it. I'd rather have someone think for themselves than blindly follow someone else.
I merely meant to state you should be careful in phrasing.
You are undoubtedly targeted, as you started this thread. But I don't think we should target people. I'd rather target observable facts.
Cheers.




Let me make this perfectly clear, I used AiG to counter Tim Minchin, not to justify anything.
I am sure that they get things wrong as do evolutionary scientists.
Look at some of the blatant frauds offered by evolutionists.
www.iskcondesiretree.net...
and seriously, do you believe anybody places their preconceived beliefs aside when they enter science, in a perfect world.

and no, it doesnt take an understanding of evolution to see why dogs have muscle tissues while echinoderms use water vascular systems for movement, evolution in no way helps with the observation. Unless of course you are using those observations to prove evolution, preconceived ideas then?

Id science is observing the natural, assuming that their is a fingerprint of the Creator in everything, anything found should have that fingerprint, thats a prediction
www.ideacenter.org...
www.discovery.org...
but hey I am not here to win you over, believe what you want,I accept that.

The Steve thing is a simple joke, at others expense.
It doesnt bother me and I can laugh it off, but underneath its more an attitude of, we are bigger than you, its sheer arrogance in its fundamental form.

Yes I am targeted, creationists are targeted, its to be expected. Why others cant see the issues with evolution, demand I believe what they do, preach their gospel, make such a big issue about this, it perplexes me

I do thank you for telling me to be more careful in how I phrase things, it has been an ongoing issue, I appreciate it.


and to the rest
Go show your evidence and earn some cash
www.lifescienceprize.org...



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Howdy,
I don't mean to be rude, but can I ask for clarification? You say you accept science, just not evolutionary science? Am I to gather that you accept all other sciences, not pertaining to those in your original post? Or do you accept some in your original post? I mean, the science behind stellar/planetary and chemical "evolution," as it were, is pretty solid and based in physics experiments and calculations... Actually probably less directly observable that something like "microevolution." You also clearly accept "microevolution," so I am lead to believe you do not just throw out all of the original post. This seems a bit inconsistent, in that you said you don't believe in evolutionary science, where as by your definition, you believe in things deemed evolutionary science... So, I ask to clarify, are you using the mainstream definition of evolutionary science in this instance, as in, speciation?
Also, I am quite glad you don't just believe things based on what others tell you to believe. I truly believe the world would be a better place if people didn't always listen to what others say and actually reason out why they believe what they believe in the first place.
That said, I wish to ask of you another question. I assume you are not a scientist, which is fine, neither am I, yet you claim to accept science. You probably accept the science of geology, a completely different field of study than evolution, and one responsible for pretty much all the raw resources that make up modern consumer goods. (Except the organics, with exceptions.) You probably accept the theory of gravity (not the law of gravity), as we have evidence of gravity's probable existence (I make assumptions, please forgive me if I am wrong). So, my question is this...
On what grounds do you accept the theory of gravity and not the theory of evolution? What is different? We cannot "reproduce gravity" much the same way we cannot "reproduce evolution". We can observe things in support of both, run experiments using similar methods, make observations of the natural world, but we cannot reproduce gravity, as we don't even know what gravity truly is... But why do you distinguish between these two theories and say one is unworthy? I ask for an honest answer, not to target you, but to clarify your beliefs. Do you know more about one theory than you do the other? Is it a matter of more familiarity with gravity? I can understand familiarity being an issue.
I understand if my question is perhaps too far from the topic of what evolution truly is, so I do not ask you to answer this question here if you do not wish to. Merely, I ask that you ask yourself that question so that you may learn why you believe what you believe. Ultimately, I don't care which side of this fence you end up on, that's your choice. I care how you end up on that side, the process that goes behind it. I'm sure you'd want the same for anyone else, right? You'd want them to honestly and openly admit to themselves why they believe what they believe?
I've explained my reasoning to this, my views on materialism and the consistency of nature... I hope I've shown you the method my mind has taken to try and piece together a framework of reality. In this way, I hope you understand that this is all done for clarity, openness, and it is done in an attempt to learn (as I've learned a great deal since replying to this thread).
Regards,
Hydeman



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch
Howdy,
Absolutely, I do apologize if it seemed like I implied you used AiG as anything but a counter to absurdity. I was merely trying to justify my skepticism.
That said, the link you just provided is less reliable than AiG. It has many misinterpretations/misrepresentations toward actual evolutionary theory (such as the faulty belief that evolution occurs to individuals, which is what it suggest with the sperm and egg section... Or that the evolutionary history of the giraffe and platypus are somehow less important than that of homo sapiens. That's simply not true, as you can see the same clades have been made for said animals and the relatives exist , as evidenced by each animals' wikipedia page. Also, the bird wing is a matter of the fallacy of irreducible complexity, and is the subject of of one of Dawkin's lectures in that series I recommended way back in this thread. Some dinosaurs had feathers. Not birds, dinosaurs morphologically speaking. Unless you want to call something like a velociraptor a bird...) Sir, this site is based on misrepresentation. Please do not be offended, but that information is falsifiable. If you want me to spend the rest of my summer collecting resources to disprove each and every false claim made, I would do so and it would not be a waste of my time. I am that certain that this website is less credible than AiG, which at least attempted to provide evidence for their claims.
Alright, that was a bad example for why evolutionary theory was important. A better example, why do echidnas lay eggs and yet why do they have so many mammalian characteristics? That would be a question evolution could answer.
You just refuted that ID was science based on your own definition of what was scientific. How do you reproduce creation? You cannot. (I jest, please don't be offended. Obviously your definition was a little... less than standard, so ID would not so easily be refuted as a science. No, ID is not science because it breaks science by asserting non-uniformity in laws of nature.)
The US courts have already deemed ID unscientific though, so I don't think I can claim that prize... Even if I had the spare $10,000 to use. : /
Now, as others have pointed out, you did start this thread. You put the target there in this case.

And honestly, I mean what I say sincerely, not bitterly. I wish for all people to be respected. I respect your beliefs. Do not let my disagreement with them frustrate or offend you. All said, I have nothing against you and I hope I haven't made you feel uncomfortable or frustrated.
Regards.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Well...I thought it best not to use a creationist site in case it would render the article invalid.
Believe it or not there were not many scientific based sites dealing with these issues.

For the most part I expect to feel uncomfortable, I am dealing with issues that are very close to the heart of many.
It does surprise the animosity my beliefs generate amongst so many

Its also worth noting that remaining calm and even handed tests me and my faith, thats a good thing. Many a time I have written something and erased it because it would cause serious dissension, so this helps me grow

and finally again, I didnt start this thread to be convinced, I started this thread to say these are my beliefs, can you accept my beliefs and I accept yours and then we can get along.

Seems like it cant happen, thats a bit sad.

Anyway no offence taken

Funny thing is I teach Sunday school and a few bible studies, wondering if I should introduce creation apologetics (not as a science) to the kids.

Snap



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Howdy,
Fair enough, but I would warn you to be more scrupulous about the content of those sources that you do cite. I'm blinded by my biases as much as you are to yours, which is why I tried to use science (at its best, science should be neutral). There aren't many publicly available sources of scientific content, that's very true. Perhaps this is why you are unfamiliar with the evidence supporting evolutionary theory? I know it is a real bummer for me to go looking for a scientific article when I don't have access to my college's databases... : /
Everyone has beliefs, some people get angry. I get angry over how many spaces people put after periods if I edit their sentences. (I think it should be two, despite that apparently being an outdated format... Completely irrational of me, too, but I can't explain it.)
You've got to remember though, these issues are close to the hearts on the other side of the argument, too. As has been said, every bit of scientific data, every last itty bitty shred of data, could have taken a lifetime of work by a team of dedicated, under-appreciated scientists who could then be unjustly called part of a larger conspiracy. Even if there were a conspiracy in science, and I highly doubt there is, there is no way everyone could be involved, right? (I'm not saying you accused the scientific body of conspiracy, but I have seen it elsewhere...) It kinda hurts when I hear that everything I worked hard to learn is actually "meaningless" and that it was all formed "in one catastrophic flood." I've spent sleepless nights analyzing data, formulating papers based upon evidence and the life's work of others and it was just learning experience. Imagine you spend your life looking at data, you make a neat little chart describing the exact T/P conditions under the exact fluid chemistry conditions needed to make a mineral species appear in a rock... And then, out of the blue, someone says your data is meaningless. Not that it's wrong, that is has no value.
I imagine some of these angry/frustrated folks are in that boat. They see the evidence as sufficient, and they probably have seen more evidence then shown here (still, who knows if that is properly sufficient, you know?). To them, a quote like this "One of the issues I am tired of having to explain is what evolution is, not just to me but recognised by the scientific community " must seem like uninformed arrogance, as if you are putting yourself above the entirety of their experiences, their educations... I'm not saying it is, merely trying to clarify as to where this anger might be stemming.
And again, I am not trying to convince you. I only wish to clarify for mutual understanding. I care less where you end up than I do how you get there. Informed decision. Everyone should have the right to an informed decision. By which I mean that they should be exposed to what science truly says, not what sources like your link with the platypus said. That's all I want.
I want to also say, I accept you. I don't agree with you, and I think you are misinformed. But you likely think the same of me. That's fine. You remind me of a lot of my friends, so I don't despise you, or hate you, or even want to criticize you. That said, I can accept your beliefs, as long as you understand that where facts, demonstrable facts, are involved, I will not be afraid to criticize sources, falsehoods, or fallacies.
I'm all for continuing traditions, so I commend you on your Sunday schooling. I only ask that you be careful to stick to facts, should you teach young children about evolutionary theory. Please do not resort to the traditional responses that have riled up communities such as this one. Give them an informed choice.
Regards



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 03:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Again, there is no faith in evolution, does not require belief in order to happen - it did not require belief to work the same way for millions of years... all we human did is just observe what was happening...

Your option to believe rather then see verifiable evidence and tryout to be smartest in room without single proof of evidence - it's really laughable - and it is not personal attack if I review current situation of the topic, you should by now know that... You said it your self that evidence that might change your mind does not exist, and that is fine, but please again, don't mix your mysticism, magic and religion with science... no need for that, thanks, science is fine.


We observed something over millions of years, wow we must be old, or are you talking about fossils, that amazing collection of records all in a shoebox.

Science is fun, pretending its what it is not is funny


Your derision for fossils is stunning. And deeply unfunny. Right. That confirms my suspicions.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Well he is a sunday school teacher and teaches sorry brainwashes kids to believe what he believes even though it is un scientific so of course he will dismiss the truth even If we prove it (which many have).



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 03:41 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join