Evolution? How?

Just to clarify the point. Ros and Farmerman are bemoaning the public's supposed gullibility and resistance to accepting evolution.

Since only evolution is taught by public schools now (creation/ID is not allowed and actively censored), I am wondering what additional measures they would deem appropriate to insure greater belief in evolution.

If 100% monopoly on the public schools hasn't gotten evolution the amount of support they want, what do you suppose the problem is?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Perhaps the reason why a larger percentage of people don't buy the evolution theory (just a possibility here) is because it builds a series of unlikely coincidences on top of a foundation of assumptions. And folks can see through that.

Or perhaps they simply don't understand evolution, or the evidence for it.

You yourself have demonstrated a dramatic lack of understanding of the most basic principles of evolution, and you don't support it. Likewise, the public doesn't understand it, and they don't support it.

Those who do understand the theory, support it overwhelmingly.

I can see why you're afraid for us to teach it.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Perhaps the reason why a larger percentage of people don't buy the evolution theory (just a possibility here) is because it builds a series of unlikely coincidences on top of a foundation of assumptions. And folks can see through that.

Or perhaps they simply don't understand evolution, or the evidence for it.

You yourself have demonstrated a dramatic lack of understanding of the most basic principles of evolution, and you don't support it. Likewise, the public doesn't understand it, and they don't support it.

Those who do understand the theory, support it overwhelmingly.

I can see why you're afraid for us to teach it.

Hmm.. you said, "Likewise, the public doesn't understand it, and they don't support it."

Wouldn't "the public" be most of the population? Want to borrow my extraction tool? :-)

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Just to clarify the point. Ros and Farmerman are bemoaning the public's supposed gullibility and resistance to accepting evolution.

Thanks for the "clarification" there Mr. Propaganda.

I'll speak for myself if you don't mind; what I'm bemoaning is the lack of understanding the public has for the theory of evolution, and the attempts by coercive political and theological groups to undermine their chance to learn one of the cornerstone theories in modern science.

0 Replies

What is ridiculous is that no one demands that religion not be taught in schools. The objection is the attempt to present someone's imaginary friend superstitions as science. There is every opportunity to present religion in comparative religion classes, which can be elective. State governments through their curricula requirements have alread held that science education is a requirement and not an elective. Therefore, presenting someone's imaginary friend superstitions as science becomes unacceptable indoctrination. The most telling point is that the religionists involved in this scam don't want just anyone's version of creationism taught in schools, they insist on the Hey-Zeus imaginary friend version, and that version alone.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Wouldn't "the public" be most of the population?

Yeh, what's your point?

You don't think that valid science is determined by public opinion do you?

Most of the population doesn't understand General Relativity either, but nobody's in denial of Relativity.

0 Replies

I agree with you Set. Its iniquitous imo that children are indoctrinated with christian mythology at tax payers expense.

As it would be Islam or judaism or flying spaghetti monsterism.

0 Replies

I'll betcha dollars to donuts that religionists don't accept relativity either, cause they don't understand it. God is the answer for everything they don't understand.

0 Replies

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism has me worried, though, Boss . . . it's making gains among the credulous and those with a strong sense of absurdity by leaps and bounds . . . the afterlife, with hookers and beers, is just too seductive . . .

0 Replies

...and the pasta

0 Replies

you guys must have heard of this but if not you have now

http://www.venganza.org/

0 Replies

There are also those who believe other scientific theories in public schools should be countered with alternatives. (Such as the insistence that "intelligent falling" be taught alongside gravity.)

0 Replies

Muslims are promised 71 virgins. I wonder what christians are promised? LOL

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Muslims are promised 71 virgins. I wonder what christians are promised? LOL

Eternal life

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'll betcha dollars to donuts that religionists don't accept relativity either, cause they don't understand it. God is the answer for everything they don't understand.

Many of us understand it, CI. Do you? Can you explain it to us?

0 Replies

real life[quote] Yeah, the 'stupid public' argument from evolutionists is a favorite. You are the wise ones who know what's best for us, why don't we listen?
[/quote]
GEE Now youre using the "ARE YOU GONNA LET HIM CALL US THAT?"
defense, quite original. As Ive been consistent throughout these many pages, I believe that others have special talents and training in other areas than science. I, have been consistent because usually , when losing, the Creationists will employ that bit of diversion. We must be making you nervous there real life.
However, because others dont have training in certain sciences That doesnt diminish them or raise science up.Its merely a fact. This entire A2k community is a walking example of the specialties out there
You, whose arguments have been pretty much dead ended (Based on second hand pre spun opinions) have been the mean spirited one. BUT, I do like the way that you gather some of your pet data from whatever Bible BAsed e-source and try to ram it down our throats. If Ive gotten to ya, well, that makes my day. I guess youre done with radioactive decay, and data selection .

Out of the ICRs own play book and the Wedge Document, the issue of flailing at science reads like Karl Roves mantra
"Take them on at their strong points and question those concepts" However, not having anything to fall back on by ID "tech" is a minor shortcoming. The facts dont support anything you and friends have said , nor can you even come up with any.You neatly avoid any real confrontations (even the silly "half assertion" that neologist made (but really didnt make according to him) about bay blood clotting).

AS for neo, jews state that the Creation week was 7 days. It included the big guys R&R day. The tradition of a briss is determined from the creation week. Im sure youre full of all kinds of coincidences , but as we say herein, SO WHAT?

Set and CI its good having you both back also, not that ros and I were working up any lather. :wink:

0 Replies

What's the big deal here? So some believe one thing and some believe another. That's part of life. That is reality. I keep getting told to face reality. Reality is we are all different. We all have different beliefs and we all have the right to those beliefs. I was learning something from this discussion until it turned into a name calling tit for tat.

0 Replies

Having different beliefs, however, doesn't entitle someone to attempt to pass off their imaginary friend belief as science to be included in school curricula, to the detriment of students who need to learn useful things.

0 Replies

Set,

I see the real problem here being that some believe it is an imaginary thing. It is not imaginary. God was here before anything else. I have no problem with evolution being taught in schools. My problem is that it should be taught along with other things. It will never be that one side will get what they want completely. So, what's wrong with compromising and teaching both?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Set,

I see the real problem here being that some believe it is an imaginary thing. It is not imaginary. God was here before anything else. I have no problem with evolution being taught in schools. My problem is that it should be taught along with other things. It will never be that one side will get what they want completely. So, what's wrong with compromising and teaching both?

Bottom line, Religion is not Science. It should therefore not be taught under the auspices of Science.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know