Evolution? How?

You just refuse to understand don't you--asserting that i don't know that a god exists is not at all saying that i do know that no god exists. Get over your silly imaginary friend, will ya? This is what both EB and i refer to with regard to believers. I say that i know of no god--you translate that into a statement that no god exists (which statement i did not make), and then use that as a basis to assert that i "hate god." Try to let this sink in: saying that i know of no god which exists does not constitute an assertion that i know for a fact that no god exists. Don't project your silly fears and prejudices onto me--i don't hate anything which i do not know to exist, so you'll have to pick your fight with someone else.

While I realize I can be pretty dense, it seems to me to be simple understanding the Set is saying "I do not know a god to exist" which is again very simple in that Set does not know a god to exist, neither do I for that matter or you MA. Which is far different from saying "I know that no god exists" which I have a hard time believing Set would say that (I and likely Edgar wouls say that)

<<<<going to Wal-Mart today to have my eyes checked because I obviously am not seeing what my eyes are telling me I am>>>>

He may be imaginary to you Set and to many others. But, He is not imaginary to me. I have no desire to fight with you or anyone else.

I have been asked so many times how do I KNOW God exists. I have had others tell me they KNOW He does not exist. From that statement you made, I was just trying to find out something. There was no ill intent meant.

MA, When set says "i know no god to exist", he is not totally discounting the possibility that there may be some God he does not know of which may, in fact, exist.

This is the God I have been trying to tell him about.

Neo,

Well, to me, saying I know no god to exist and I know of no god to exist are two different things. If it was a misunderstanding, I can accept that.

Hi Farmerman,

If you are referring specifically to the science scores of public school kids, I gotta ask: How can the schools be 'messed up' when they are an evolutionary utopia? Creation / ID is taught in no public school system to any extent that I am aware.

All public schools are pretty much on the ALL EVOLUTION--ALL the TIME channel 24/7 , aren't they?

How could it be possible that children leaving these schools don't have a 'proper' (evolutionary) understanding of science. The golden age of evolution in the American classroom has been with us for DECADES now.

"Messed up schools" you say? That can't be. You're pulling my leg, right? Say it ain't so !

(If you are referring to 'other' problems in the schools, certainly you cannot be implying that children who are taught that they are nothing but 'little animals wearing clothes' could ever have been observed to behave in a way that validates that teaching. It's all just academic, right? No real world consequences, right? )

REAL LIFE____not that youd understand but there are at least40 school districts in 12 states that are considering or have already entered in a pact with the mumbo jumbo artists of ID (so they can skirt around the US Supreme Court) .They are all claiming some sort of scientific base but all are funded by some religious group or clot of churches
I see that youve got a new pet phrase, and , typical of your posse, you will, no doubt keep the klaxon call of how often evolution is taught. (Evolution all the time 24/7)
Had you been reading , youd see that "No child left behind" is pretty much a failed experiment and a return to more relevant teaching may be desirable. Kids arent stupid, when they detect that there is a crisis in a schools leadership, they will be quick to mine the opportunity and "slack off" because a bogus "religious POV" allows them to use this as an excuse .

This weekend there were all sorts of laughable articles in op eds within the LAncaster and HArrisburg papers re the end of the DOver trial.The ID summary frenzy seemed to be well orchestrated , and there was even a reference to "all evolution all the time" so obviously thats not original Reading some of them reminded me of your own playbook. Its almost that the phrases and lies are mass printed and sent around to the "consumers" of anti-evolution propoganda.

We will see what the court decrees and maybe thatll help decide your future plans. Meanwhile, if you wish to evaluate how our kids are faring in math or history or other academic pursuits with which you have no argument, please visit your own states ed board website.

And little animals with nice clothes on are still little animals as you sometimes see in adverts when they have have two chimps taking tea at the vicarage to promote a certain brand and you can't teach little animals anything.You can only condition them either by reward or punishment and when they get familiar with the rewards they can legally be conditioned with as they soon do as anyone can see who has eyes to see they get bored (one can see threads on here where people who have everything that any government can reasonably be expected to provide come on and take the trouble to inform us all just how bored they are) and when they do get bored there's only punishment left to condition them to learn approved responses and to stop them using rewards they are not supposed to use and punishment only works if it is used and the more vigourously it is used the more effective it is unless of course treatment is applied which calls into being a whole new array of expertise and applications the cost of which is anybody's guess and which soon begins to make serious inroads into the economic well being which eventually becomes serious enough to be discarded leaving punishment winning the field.

As big animals with clothes on are the inevitable result of little animals with clothes on the methods used will turn out similar whether it is Saddam Hussein or Mr Doe as big animals left to express their animality will behave in a similar fashion given similar possibilities and luck.

And whatever they do cannot possibly be their fault because as everybody knows animals have no moral responsibilities,they only have a capacity to learn certain tricks through the process of pain conditioning once reward methods have run their natural and brief course.

With nearly 300 million animals with clothes on it might become necessary to appoint a Secretary of State for conditioning and a Department to operate and oversee Her directives the first of which is that it is a serious offence to refer to Her ironically.

hehehe.I really enjoyed that.Thanks real life.

If I cannot edit, I sure am not going to allow spendius to edit the above.

fm-

I have no wish to edit my post.I think it faultless logic.I do not see any way of challenging it.

I toned it down somewhat actually.I thought it disrespectful to weave into my word pattern any reference to personal aspects of this subject or to introduce the notion that an inchoate bureaucracy might be backing the SD side with a view to bringing into being the scenario I described so sketchily.

As I write the Prime Minister of my country is explaining why he wants to bring in a 90 day detention without charge rule for terrorist suspects as the Police Chiefs say they need and,according to polls,80% of the population agree with him.But he is struggling with the House of Commons it seems and opinion is that there's no chance with the Upper Chamber which could provide him with an excuse to abolish it.

BF Skinner once said "Woe betide the country that does without torture."And he was a flat out SDer goodstyle.I do not know whether he repented at the end and took Voltaire's advice.He could train pigeons to walk in figures of 8 though.Any pigeon.Sorry-any hungry pigeon.

Spendius you have a way with words. A very strange way, but nonetheless interesting.

I saw Blair just now. He seemed to be really struggling. If its a matter of national security, and if he's prime minister with a good working majority, and if the people back the measure, why does he have to compromise?

Ans. Having lied through his back teeth to get us into Iraq, his authority is fatally damaged. I thought several times during that press conference that he might just say sod this for a game of soldiers and resign there and then.

apologies for thread diversion. (Blair was prepared to mention evolution, but no one asked a question about it)

Steve might be peeling a layer of his onion with-



He doesn't look ready to chuck the towel in to me.

maybe but he's already said he will go before the next election. The politicos are already calculating post Blair.

Isn't this micro-evolution?



And they couldn't do this by simply studying the genes and comparing them?

Im always amazed at how much the loyal opposition keeps dwelling on "Micro versus Macro" evolution. The terms are merely different ends of the same process. Mayr has defined it and most creationists accept the term "micro evolution", yet cannot follow the data that clearly shows evolution above the species level (which is all that macro evolution is)
The well worn cichlid fish of the LAke Turkana region, have clearly evolved into at least 14 new genuses and 2 families. All this in 50000 years . Geologically we have undeniable evidence that the lakes pulled away from the Nile as the rift valley began displacement (today we have the remnants of the connection by an area called the Konomakwe swamp). All the fishes that were trapped in the Turkana lake , are totally different from the cichlids of other lakes or from other stretches of the White Nile. I guess a god Created these new cichlids "In our likeness" Thats a measurable example of macro-evolution that , along with many other examples in rapid breeding species, gives a hazy definition to the two terms. Its a stubborn hold out to some tenuous thread of credibility that the Creationists want to hold on, while still giving reluctant credibility to the science of genetics.
Quite funny.

I thought the scientific process dealt with observable evidence, and was repeatable. How many accounts of macro evolving have been observed and repeated?



Any new species?

thunder,

Your questions have all been previously answered on this thread. It appears that this mere repetition of questions is a sleazy propaganda tactic.

Specifically, Wandel, the entire cichlid issue has been discussed in detail. TR is very definitely up to the shitty old tricks for which creationists are well known . . .