WHY CREATIONISM WILL NEVER WIN

Rosborne, Could I suggest actual proof would constitute a win. And the absence of such a loss?

Plus the fact it's blatant rubbish too. Yes?

true dat. Welcome aboard MC. Youll find that these fora dont get really snotty till someone opens with counter evidences.

Ahh, faith. The word that not only implies but says outright "I'm not sure and I don't really believe this so I'll just close my eyes and pretend it's true.

Faith implies doubt. Doubt says the faith is misplaced.

Talking about the Texan Board of Education right? Home of Bush? Do we actually need anything to tell us they live in a fantasy world there? Their hats are that big to hold all the empty space they carry around are they not? I don't believe people really have 10 gallon heads do they? Just egos.

Hey Farmer, Remaining an ignoramus is indeed the very essence of being an ignoramus isn't it? Like a rhetorical question. No need to state it really.

I seem to remember where the 10 gallon hat name came from, actually , I dont seem to remember, but we do have etymology geeks on the board here.

The sad thing about Texas (and California and about 2 other states), is that all textbooks for the entire state are approved and contracted for at the state level. This gives the state of Texass a much greater influence than this shitstorm would normally mean. Publishers pay attention to a big cutomer even when what the customer advocates is garbage.

Your assumptions are just that...assumptions.

Show me where I have, at any time, tried to belittle evolution. Your dislike for me, apparently, clouds your reading and interpretive skills. Otherwise, you would have seen in this thread, and others, where I do not dismiss and actually state that I do not dismiss evolution or that fact that it exists. I just do not, like you, discount other possibilites as possibly being in conjunction.

Jerry Coynes book , Why Evolution is True , is a simply written discussion of the facts surrounding evolutions theories and how these facts have been developed by clear evidence, testing, and repeated observation in totally different areas.
The book contains very accessible information of how the fossil record has been layed out in its four dimensions, how the available fossils can leave no other conclusion than to underpin the concept of modification with time, and how the genome actually preserves "fossil genes" that show the interrelationship of early v derived body plans. Also are presented several "not so intelligent" structures in the huiman body taht are apparently derived from our fishlike and lizard ancestors.

Im sure that the gungasnales and others will not read it with an open mind but kids who are rsonably scientifically savvy will be able to review how the theory has been only strengthened with time and new diwcovery.(Id say the book is accessible to reasonably interested 8th graders to adults).

What I think that may bother many of those that believe in Creationism is not that evolution is right, but that evolution is right for all living things, including man. In other words, if evolution was just not for humans, there might be no discussion. Creationism, in my opinion, just tries to cement a special relationship between man and God (for those that subscribe to the God concept).

It is really a fruitless discussion (no pun intended relating to the Adam and Eve story).

Are these other possibilities that are possibly in conjunction scientific? If they are, where are the data? If they aren't, they shouldn't be discussed as science.

It is indeed. It wouldn't be fruitless if the real subject was debated though. Which is, of course, the social consequences of creationism being dumped on by the whole population. Which must be the objective of those dumping on it now. Otherwise they haven't a leg to stand on. It is then a mere self-indulgent affectation.

It is impossible to conceive that a long religious tradition, however wacky, could vanish with no dramatic social consequences. It is striking that this matter is strenuously avoided, here and elsewhere, by those who dump on creationism. There's a great big pregnant silence over the whole matter.

As there is over an exclusively scientific education in the hands of the politics of meaninglessness which as you must know countenances no moralities.

They prefer arguing about the flood and whether Jesus turned water into wine. They feel safe on those matters. It doesn't stretch them.

What revisionist tripe!. Its the "Put upon" Creationists whove been trying to assert their beliefs in science classes by revising their dogma, by inventing "code speak" re: IDjicy, and by claiming that they possess scientific evidence (without ever revealing same). Thats It you moronic old piece. Try not to enoble these twits any further or you cast away any remaining minimal credibility you claim to possess.

You flatter yourself to think that i have sufficient interest in you to dislike you. You are attempting to put all of this into some kind of emotional context--there is none. The other possibilities to which you refer, as was mentioned immediately by another member, have no scientific underpinning, and are, therefore, not worthy of a discussion in scientific terms. As to whether or not you belittle a theory of evolution, despite your tepid endorsement in other posts, is given the lie by your attempt to quibble about a definition of theory. My remarks were not a matter of personal animus, they were an observation on how quickly people who are uncomfortable with the implications of a theory of evolution, and who often are ignorant of the basis for the theory, want to attempt to suggest that it is "just a theory," as though that were a valid scientific way to view it. In science, no one is so facile as to suggest that the absolute truth is known--but a scientific theory is as close to certainty as science ever comes. Supplying vague definitions of the word theory which do not refer to its meaning in science is irrelevant.

Of course there is an emotional context. It is difficult to imagine there not being. And on all sides. The idolatry of science is just as much emotional as is the idolatry of anything else. The posts of atheists show more emotion than most.

Considering an Evangelical might believe in Intelligent Design today, since his/her church might proselytize that concept, and someone who is Catholic might believe in evolution today, since his/her church states that evolution is consistent with Catholic theology, then might one's position on the subject correlate to one's religious upbringing to some degree perhaps. In other words, I believe, we may tend to back into our rational arguments, based on conclusions we have accepted a priori on an unconscious level, based on one's religious teachings of one's youth or adulthood. We may be have less control of our logic than we think?

The Catholic Church's opinion is not based upon evolutions consistency with dogma. They have come out and stated emphatically that the evidence regarding naturl selection is undeniable. Catholic dogma is not inconsistent with science.
As far as Evangelicals "sensu strictu" they will NEVER accept Intelligent Design because intelligent design is actually "evolution light" ID accepts so many of the bases that underpin natural selection that and Evangelical would have to give up his "6000 year old earth" and a "Flood" or "Simultaneous Creation" . They couldnt do this because they are into Biblical Inerrancy and ID isnt.

So why, despite my constant reminders, have you, and others, consistently over four years, tried to present them as more or less the same thing?

Creationism and ID are joined by genetics. Creationism uses ID as "Proof of a Creator" and Creationism is, THE progenitor of ID. The same folks who were Creationists until Edwards v Aguillard , required a new and improved form of "God driven biology".

You miss the nuance, explaining them to you has been a hopeless task since the only one you are interested in is yourself. So, this answer I present, has a history of presentation to you. Now unless you are in the ARms of Alois, you should recall what everyone has said to you.

ID derives from Creationism and doesnt want it said out loud that there is "G"od at the switch. Creationism uses design as a proof . However , Creationism is openly Bible centered wheras ID is covert about that (until you get to their "policy statements).

You are defining ID as you wish to and it follows that your argument is circular and thus irrefutable.

That is consistent with someone who is only interested in the self and projecting such a useless attitude onto me makes no difference to that.

ID is "blowin' in a circle round your skull,
fronm the Grand Coolee Dam to the Capitouuuuuul."

It seeks to stop Darwin scrabbling about in the ineffable dark spaces behind the moon where new worlds are created. The kids don't deserve that to facilitate a few careers and public shows. That's about it. What your businessmen make of it is a function of the American psyche and nothing to do with me.