Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

Of course I answered questions from the students. Most re actually intrested in acquiring the skills to pursue geochem as a career.
Theres a great difference between answering questions and carrying on debates with people in the class who were firmly held in a grip of evience-free belief.
When someone continues demanding that I answer questions as to "Why" the atomic clocks of radionuclides are incorrect according to Biblical "FACTS", I can only pursue that line of questioning so far because Im kinda held fast to provable scientific evidence. Ill discuss and present extra reading in the subject to the "tudent" and, usually, before the semester ends the kid will move on and drop the course that he was mrely auditing.

Weve only ever had two actual grad students , both Fundamentalist Christians who hung on to acquire their MS's and PhD. Their real goal in life was to get an advanced degree with their theses or dissertations in some less controversial aspect of geochem (like radionuclide driven birefringence as a tool for mineral assemblage identification--it had great market potential in mining lithium from its main rock ore called spodumene or lepidolite). Its also an area of BS argument about dating rocks of the earth using a miscast method of determining Polonium birefringence. The tuent stayed away from any controversy during his thesis completion because he only resented it as a "Tool for exploration"

Niether of those students were my advisees or else maybe I would have trie to push em out the door on thir own

I told you that to tell you this,
These two kids, armed with advanced degrees actually became ministers of Fundamentalist Presbyteries and hadTV missions as apart ofa larger xhurch organization (Name of which is unimportant) .They use their " dgree credentials, and try to bullhorn real scientists and by convincing their :Flocks" about the real tuth in science only if it follows Genesis.)

To me this is BS and quite a bit dishonest. It seems that these Fundmentalist groups, while preaching truth and god-like attributes, were being as fraudulently underhanded in pushing thir belief systems onto the new "Flocks" in the more rural area of the US.

You really think Dr HAMM of the "ARK Exprience" is a really ualified scientist?? Bill Nye wxposd him on tv once an "The SCience Guy" is a swlf professed entertainer, not a scientist

Matt 6:7
...Use not vain repetition, as the heathen do: for they think they shall be heard for their much speaking.

You and others could use this good advice.

And you didn't answer any of my questions about the 'Scientific American' article in my post.

I reffered back to Mark 16:18, :they whall tak up deadly serpents..."
Without any education except as a bible thumping, preaching holy roller, this isnta wis thing to try, a Rev Coots found.
almost Every verse in your KJV has a negative rejoinder in real life.

course this doesnt include you because you are without error eh?

No, because i don't waste a lot of unnecessary words on idiots.

Still no answer to my question i see. You might be another one.

same thing. walk proudly and upright as soon as you are able

The upright are not ashamed to have an answer for any man. Why are you?

You might ask our friend Frank that for me as well.

i forget, what even was this question that you are using as farmerman bait?

I usually dont go back byond 2 pages when Ive been away from the plac for ome ays. I may be writing from my phone and I dont go beyond a post or two back.

so will you provide me with the kindness as to remind my failing 70 year old mind what it was that you specifically asked ME ( and not someone else perhaps), that you claim Im avoiding answering via my Natural Order right of cowardice of a vaster intellect?

you do apparently get easily ticked off in conversations.Do you threaten others when they fail to deliver your exact order at a restaurant?

Our latest sub thread started when i posted a link to a 'Scientific American' article about "denial of Evolution being a form of White racism." I called it a 'piece of filth' and said it had to be the ultimate in irony/stupidity.

You then responded with a lengthy monolog on my incompetence without addressing the article at all. (i.e., you attacked the messenger) You probably didn't read the article but since you took the time to reply to my post:

I asked you if you were or wanted to defend Scientific American's article or not. I don't blame you too much for trying to dodge such a daunting task.

However, i don't excuse you on the basis of age related memory problems. I'm about four years older and i remember our discourse with Crystal clarity.

well, obviously I DID answer you, just not to any satisfaction that your Passive Aggressive style would accept. I thought you were talking about somthing mor recent. You wre tapping Frank or Monterey on something unrelated.
In avctuality I spend about hour very few days on A2K, much less than I used to. I was annoyed at your using me just for insults so thats why I made the "Upright" back-atcha.

I think I was somewhat clear about denial of evolution being "Racist", wvn though the issues the article pointed to wre all fucked up anyway.
Darwins own terms were misconstrued because Victorian language was a bit more always more politely didactic even though Darwin did not really give a ****.
When I asked my partner about his opinion he too felt it disingenuous. (He IS a DARWIN SCHOLAR) with a few books to his name, even though mby profession, hes a palontologist and a paleogeneticist.

I think I called you out because I really didnt follow the article as anything instructive or even valuable, apparently you did.
OK, I stand corrected

Calling it “A piece of Filth” and 'ultimate stupidity' is calling it 'valuable'?

Perhaps as a demonstration of how 'Science' goes completely off the edge at times.

This one seems appropriate today.

1 Timothy 6:20-21 KJV
[20] O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: [21] Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

reading comp seems to be your limitation. I said I didnt see anything valuable, you interpreted as just the opposite? hmmmmm,

Its interesting how your Bible has interpreted Timmy 6:20 somewhat differently than has the VULGATE

viz:

You said that I DID!



My comprention? Starting to wonder about you farmer.

In any case, to illustrate the awesome irony of that Scientific American article, here is a snippet of an article about 4 black students suing about white racism involving Darwinian Theory i stumbled across.

I fail to see any real difference between the two translations.

They come from the same root.

In English, science came from Old French, meaning knowledge, learning, application, and a corpus of human knowledge. It originally came from the Latin word scientia which meant knowledge, a knowing, expertness, or experience.

- Credit Google

of course you 'fail to ee any difference"> the term "Science" as an actual iscipline post dated the KJV bya century or more. The ENglish term unerwhich most amateur "scientists" discovered their links, was actually called "Natural Philosophy". Wven the vulgate , which pre dated the KJV by centuries didnt use the term "scientia" but used the common lingo of the country and in ENglish it was "knowledge". What your highlighted section of your post was, was a IDers attempt at being disingenuous . I wonder what edition that little change was made.

sciences , as distinct disciplines owe their origins usually to one or two practitioners.

Like the word "Creationism" had "evolved" into the phrase "INtelligent Design" just to cover up its real connection to religion, and thi phrse change could be credited to one man, Phillip Johnson, who, as one of the deponents in the Edward v AGuillard CAse that spelled the death of Creationism as science in the US (As per the USSC in 1987), o does th term"cience" brinng about the same response. The only reason its not been triwd is that no chool has tried to actually TEACH the Bible an Genesis especially as valid, rel, science.

You guys know that as fct you just deny it and whenever I bring it up to remind you I mostly get a "La La La La LA , I CAINT HEEEAR YEEEW" response.

That was interesting.

If i get the gist of that, you are criticizing that Bible verse for the twin vices of being pro ID AND, pro theism .

Me too.

once again youve avoided the facts by throwing yer first post under the bus..

I'm trying to follow you here. What has that Scientific American article on Evolution denial being a form of White Racism which i called the ultimate in irony/ stupidity got to do with my agreement that the scripture is pro ID and pro theism?

How does the second negate the first?