Creationism vs Evolution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
ephrem wrote:
miroku333 wrote:
ephrem wrote:
[/thread]

we still have a sub-topic to address- the freedom of parents to teach their children.
would you care to weigh in on that?

…many parents are incapable of reasing their offspring properly, i’m even less confident they’ll do a better job at schooling them. A country should think hard if they want a significant amount of children be educated outside of a general curriculum that ensures a broad exposure to information. That is to say, assuming that general curriculum is of quality ofcourse…

…should they have the freedom? In special cases they should, not as a rule though…

I was pretty sure I disagreed with you about a lot of things - but this is the first time I find myself seriously not liking you - are you intimating that governments have an overriding interest in enforcing education that they deem appropriate upon families who may not agree with them?[/quote]

…i will limit my response to the dutch situation. We have many different kinds of schools for all denominations and fields of interest. These schools have to comply to a certain standard to ensure the children have a basic education that will prepare them for higher learning, or work…

…i personally think it’s important to give children as many points of view on as many subjects as possible. A family that chooses to home school usually does this out of dissatisfaction with the public system, or due to religious convictions. By nature this means that these children will not be privy to the wealth of information that’s otherwise available to them. An average parent does not have the qualifications or skills to properly educate a child, nor does that parent has acces to the myriad of books, information and knowledge the child has through the schoolsystem…

…i honestly think a child is better off being educated in a schoolsystem of your choice, than to be homeschooled. Now, as far as i know, it’s illegal in Holland to keep your underaged child at home and school it yourself if there are no special circumstances, and i have no problems with that. Because there are so many different kinds of schools to choose from, you don’t even have to…

62

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
ephrem wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…a lot of time has passed and we’re damn lucky to find examples of intermediate fossils at all, but they’re there allright. This is perhaps the most famous of them all:

Right . . . the Archeopteryx . . .the one that a leading world authority on birds and an evolutionist at UNC (Dr. Feducia -i think was his name)has definitively identified a being a perching bird, not a earth-bound feathered dinosaur?

…link please?

Feduccia, A.; cited in V. Morell, ?Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms,? Science 259(5096):764?65, 5 February, 1993.[/quote]

…okay, from what i could gather from his paper, and with my limited intellect that’s not much tbh, he proposes a different theory that contradicts the opinion of many other scholars in that field of research. One voice amongst many, and you see that as a thorough debunking of that fossil’s meaning or origin? Creationists appear to have jumped on his paper as proof of evolutions folly, but i’m not convinced…

63

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
ephrem wrote:
miroku333 wrote:
ephrem wrote:
[/thread]

we still have a sub-topic to address- the freedom of parents to teach their children.
would you care to weigh in on that?

…many parents are incapable of reasing their offspring properly, i’m even less confident they’ll do a better job at schooling them. A country should think hard if they want a significant amount of children be educated outside of a general curriculum that ensures a broad exposure to information. That is to say, assuming that general curriculum is of quality ofcourse…

…should they have the freedom? In special cases they should, not as a rule though…

I was pretty sure I disagreed with you about a lot of things - but this is the first time I find myself seriously not liking you - are you intimating that governments have an overriding interest in enforcing education that they deem appropriate upon families who may not agree with them?

Reading Ephrem’s posts for some reason makes me feel like Omega Man. [/quote]

…the lowest ranking male in the pack?

64

[quote]ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
ephrem wrote:
miroku333 wrote:
ephrem wrote:
[/thread]

we still have a sub-topic to address- the freedom of parents to teach their children.
would you care to weigh in on that?

…many parents are incapable of reasing their offspring properly, i’m even less confident they’ll do a better job at schooling them. A country should think hard if they want a significant amount of children be educated outside of a general curriculum that ensures a broad exposure to information. That is to say, assuming that general curriculum is of quality ofcourse…

…should they have the freedom? In special cases they should, not as a rule though…

I was pretty sure I disagreed with you about a lot of things - but this is the first time I find myself seriously not liking you - are you intimating that governments have an overriding interest in enforcing education that they deem appropriate upon families who may not agree with them?

Reading Ephrem’s posts for some reason makes me feel like Omega Man.

…the lowest ranking male in the pack?

[/quote]

LOL! More delusions of grandeur from the man with his finger in a dike.

65

:slight_smile:

67

[quote]ephrem wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
ephrem wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…a lot of time has passed and we’re damn lucky to find examples of intermediate fossils at all, but they’re there allright. This is perhaps the most famous of them all:

Right . . . the Archeopteryx . . .the one that a leading world authority on birds and an evolutionist at UNC (Dr. Feducia -i think was his name)has definitively identified a being a perching bird, not a earth-bound feathered dinosaur?

…link please?

Feduccia, A.; cited in V. Morell, ?Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms,? Science 259(5096):764?65, 5 February, 1993.

…okay, from what i could gather from his paper, and with my limited intellect that’s not much tbh, he proposes a different theory that contradicts the opinion of many other scholars in that field of research. One voice amongst many, and you see that as a thorough debunking of that fossil’s meaning or origin? Creationists appear to have jumped on his paper as proof of evolutions folly, but i’m not convinced…

[/quote]

oh yeah, just because they’re in the minority of evolutionists who disagree - they couldn’t possibly be right - I mean when has the minority scientific opinion ever been correct . . . .well, except for Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Planck,

oooorrr . . . . Newlands, Galvani, Lister, Arrhenius, Crick, Watson, Gauss, Alfven, Doppler, Folk, Ovshinky, Baird, Marshall, Goethe, Wright, Zwicky, Gold, Bakker, Pasteur, Bardeen, McClintlock, Harvey, Chandrasekhar, Tesla, Prusiner, Rous, Chladni, Krebs, Nottebohm, Binning, Goddard, Margulis, Mayer, Ohm, Semmelweis, Warren or Zweig . . .

Seriously?

What about the number of scientists who support his findings . . . Drs. Nowicki, Burke, Hinchliffe, Lianhai

and, if that is not enough tomake you pause and think, then how about a joint russian/american team who also reached some startling conclusions that support his finding independently . . .

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/feathered-fossil-proves-that-birds-did-not-evolve-from-dinosaurs-713382.html

OH yeah . . .being a minority means your wrong - that kind of reasoning could get people in a lot of trouble from an authoritarian government that dictates such discriminatory activity constitutes a hate crime . . .

68

[quote]Fergy wrote:
:slight_smile:

[/quote]

69

Hahaha, Dilbert comics are the win.

70

Enjoy

71

[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
Why can’t it be both?[/quote]

Because one is magic and one isn’t.

Saying God facilitated evolution I have no problem with. Saying God nodded his head and shit just appeared is simply ludicrous.

72

lol satire

73

I don’t know…therefore god.

I can’t 100% wrap my head around “evolution”…therefore “creation”.

What don’t you all understand with the above?

74

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Doug Adams wrote:
Why can’t it be both?

Because one is magic and one isn’t.

Saying God facilitated evolution I have no problem with. Saying God nodded his head and shit just appeared is simply ludicrous.

[/quote]

Wow - you’re God is able to create the universe (except for life) and cause evolution to happen, but not able to create the universe and create life . . . well . . . My God can beat up your God!

So long and thanks for all the fish!! (sorry Doug - I couldn’t resist any longer)

75

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
ephrem wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
ephrem wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…a lot of time has passed and we’re damn lucky to find examples of intermediate fossils at all, but they’re there allright. This is perhaps the most famous of them all:

Right . . . the Archeopteryx . . .the one that a leading world authority on birds and an evolutionist at UNC (Dr. Feducia -i think was his name)has definitively identified a being a perching bird, not a earth-bound feathered dinosaur?

…link please?

Feduccia, A.; cited in V. Morell, ?Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms,? Science 259(5096):764?65, 5 February, 1993.

…okay, from what i could gather from his paper, and with my limited intellect that’s not much tbh, he proposes a different theory that contradicts the opinion of many other scholars in that field of research. One voice amongst many, and you see that as a thorough debunking of that fossil’s meaning or origin? Creationists appear to have jumped on his paper as proof of evolutions folly, but i’m not convinced…

oh yeah, just because they’re in the minority of evolutionists who disagree - they couldn’t possibly be right - I mean when has the minority scientific opinion ever been correct . . . .well, except for Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Planck,

oooorrr . . . . Newlands, Galvani, Lister, Arrhenius, Crick, Watson, Gauss, Alfven, Doppler, Folk, Ovshinky, Baird, Marshall, Goethe, Wright, Zwicky, Gold, Bakker, Pasteur, Bardeen, McClintlock, Harvey, Chandrasekhar, Tesla, Prusiner, Rous, Chladni, Krebs, Nottebohm, Binning, Goddard, Margulis, Mayer, Ohm, Semmelweis, Warren or Zweig . . .

Seriously?

What about the number of scientists who support his findings . . . Drs. Nowicki, Burke, Hinchliffe, Lianhai

and, if that is not enough tomake you pause and think, then how about a joint russian/american team who also reached some startling conclusions that support his finding independently . . .

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/feathered-fossil-proves-that-birds-did-not-evolve-from-dinosaurs-713382.html

OH yeah . . .being a minority means your wrong - that kind of reasoning could get people in a lot of trouble from an authoritarian government that dictates such discriminatory activity constitutes a hate crime . . .[/quote]

…do you actually read my posts? I’ve admitted my ignorance on the subject, and my ambiguity on whether he’s right or wrong. Please pause before you hit the reply button because you are getting silly. So you have the mistaken identity of one fossil that the scientific community now believes is a flightless bird, and not a feathered dinosaur, that existed before the supposed ancestors of birds were even alive. Shame on me for posting that picture…

…just tell me something: how does this refute evolution?

76

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ephrem, your ignorance on the subject matter is in full regal display here if you are convinced Archaeopteryx is a valid transitional form. It is NOT the example you want to use in this debate and you’re making a laughingstock of yourself. So much for the Dutch educational system for which you are so proud.

Seriously, more study is in store for you before you can compete in the arena of this debate.

Repeat: the theory that Archaeopteryx is a intermediary life form that substantiates macroevolution has been thoroughly debunked and even hard core evolutionists shy from using Archaeopteryx as intellectual ammo like a vampire in front of a barn-sized crucifix. In other words, Archaeopteryx is so passe.

You need to look elsewhere for evidence of the Great Myth.
[/quote]

78

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I don’t know…therefore god.

I can’t 100% wrap my head around “evolution”…therefore “creation”.

What don’t you all understand with the above?[/quote]

…it’s the lazy man’s answer to everything…

80

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I don’t know…therefore god.

I can’t 100% wrap my head around “evolution”…therefore “creation”.

What don’t you all understand with the above?[/quote]

I don’t know . . .therefore Lixy!!

I can’t 1005% wrap my head around evolution . . .therefore instantaneous cosmically stellar morphing!!

A new theory of the Origin of species . . .tiny little quantum particles called morphs . . .once they build up to a unstable mass they cause instantaneous morphing of any carbon-based life forms in the vicinity (kind of like medichlorines on steroids . .)

Welcome to the life side, luke . . .we are your fathers . . who knew the power rangers were on to a scientific theory . . .of course that makes the death side of morphs out to be hell . . . so this is heaven here on the life side . . . I know - cuz I have seen some angels . . .

This phenomenon has been witnessed occurring in such places as Hollywood, (I only played a smart person on TV, but now I understand the entire geopolitical spectrum and Bush lied!) Washington DC (I am now a democrat) France (but not proven - they may have always been spineless . . . say how many French soldiers does it take to protect Paris? We don’t know they’ve never tried . . .)

some times morphs cause devolution though, thus pond scum (viruses and bacteria) became lawyers . . . a walrus became Donald Trump . . . Michel Jackson morphed into a white woman . . .

I love this theory - I’m going to call it the Morphic Cosmic Collective Unified Natural Theory of Science. McCUNTS for for short . . .

Explains the platypus . . . poor little creature was the result of a morphing of a group of Ducks and Beavers - also explains why neither is no longer native to Australia now- they all got morphed . . .

The Do-do bird is not extinct - the whole species was morphed into ACLU attorneys and ACORN activists . . .

Democrats are morphed lemmings (always running off the deep end of things), Republicans are morphed ostriches (keep their heads buried until they get run over) Muslims are morphed Africanized honey bees - used to be really nice and make make natures sweetness, but now piss them off once (even accidentally) and they won’t stop attacking . . .

IRS agents are morphed leeches . . . Navy SEALS are the result of a morphed collection of sharks, wolf packs and wolverines . . .

OK - I should stop myself . . .I’m so excited about my new theory that I’ve covered myself with baking grease and Saran wrap and I don’ even know why . . . .