I have not forgotten you. I ended in the hospital and will be back with you as soon as possible. Merry Belated Christmas!
Of course the first conclusion we all jumped to as to what you were in the hospital for ... but that's neither here nor there nor even anywhere near the topic. The main thing is that you were able to get through it and out of the hospital.
I understand you to be of retirement age as I am. My brother-in-law is a decade older than I am. He got rather sick for about a week towards the end of December and is only now recovering from it. I shared with him my own experience that the main problem with getting old is that if we get sick or injured it takes so long to heal, if ever. So work on getting well.
Along those lines, I would suggest that you do not waste your time or energy continuing your efforts to discredit yourself and your own religion with mindless sermonizing. We've all heard that stuff before and, indeed, some of us could write far better sales pitches for that pig-in-a-poke (AKA "bill of goods"). Give that a rest since it would be a complete waste of your energy which is currently in short supply.
Instead, concentrate on discussing the topic. You have left so many questions unanswered that you still need to address -- indeed, your switch to blatant preaching could only be interpreted as a failed attempt to avoid those questions or, as I pondered in my Message 2033, feeding your own persecution fantasy by deliberately provoking negative reactions in order to return to your church to complain how much we "hate God" (whereas the truth is that we just hate it when you [pl] pull that stupid crap). Please just turn your attention to that discussion.
My most primary question for you, which I have had to repeat and which you have never even tried to answer, was last repeated in my Message 2032:
And you still have not answer the most basic questions your implied offer to; from my Message 2017:
... unless any of you may have any more unanswered questions.
Yes, you did still never answer my question. Though I'm sure that it's entirely beyond your ability to answer, since you don't know the answer yourself:
Yes, the student should be made aware of and familiarized with the widespread presence of the evolutionary mindset.
Just what the hell are you talking about? What "evolutionary mindset"? No such thing exists any more than there's an "electronics mindset" or a "muffin method mindset."
All you're doing is repeating a fake bogeyman that was created to scare you. If you truly believe that there is such a thing, then you must present it and your evidence for it, and then be ready to discuss it.
You keep blathering about this "evolution mindset", but you never say what it is supposed to be. Do you even know yourself? I doubt that very much. You are obviously just vomiting the BS lies that creationists keep feeding you, and then you return to eat your own vomit as a dog does.
Which reminds me, you really should try to get around to reading the Bible.
So then, ¡yet again!, just exactly what is this "evolution mindset" you keep blathering about? What is it based on?
The rest of Message 2017 brings up several other questions raised by your bald assertions, a few of which I shall list here:
There is no inherent conflict between Divine Creation and evolution (nor any other science for that matter); the only conflicts that arise are due to foolish and contrary-to-fact ideas about Creation and even more foolish and contrary-to-reality ideas about evolution.
All your assertions indicate that you believe that there is some kind of inherent conflict between Creation and evolution. Why would you believe such a thing? What are the reasons for your belief in that? What are the actual points of conflict that you perceive and why do you see them as conflicts? Provide some kind of reasoned argument, not more baseless bald assertions, please.
What do you think evolution is? Or how it works? Until we know the answers to those questions, none of your conclusions about evolution can make any sense.
Seriously, what are your unstated assumptions about evolution. For decades, we keep hearing the same nonsensical assertions about and "disproofs" of "evolution" but never ever any basis for those assertions. So yet again, what are you talking about?
That brings us back around to that primary question of just exactly what is this "evolution mindset" you keep blathering about and what is it based on? That is yet another bald assertion that is nothing but nonsense since we do not know what your assumptions are and hence we cannot know what you are talking about.
What do you think the consequences are of evolution being true? Why do you think that? (again, a reasoned argument, please, not just more baseless bald assertions) Of course, in order to answer that we would need to establish what you think evolution is.
I don't think we were able to establish whether you are a young-earth creationist. If you are, then what would the consequences be of the earth actually being billons of years old? Again, why do you think those must be the consequences?
Why do you advocate that the government should be compelled to impose indoctrination in some arbitrarily chosen religion on school children in direct violation of their parents' right to choose the religious tradition to raise their children in?
If you wish to falsely claim that you have done no such thing, then support your false claim! Refer to my Message 2015 again for the points about education that you would need to address.
Bonus Question: Since all theology is created by Man, if error is found in one's theology, then what does that mean about God? And what should one do about that error which has been found?
These are but a few questions that need to be addressed.
They are very reasonable basic questions which promote discussion (whereas bald assertions only serve to shut down discussin). They are also basic questions that I have never ever seen a creationist attempt to answer in the four decades I have been studying "creation science." Indeed, creationists instead do everything they can to avoid those questions.
My expectations of you are extremely low. Please surprise me.
drlove is an embarrassment to all Christianity ...
... and an example of the perversion that is so characteristic of much of today's Christians. He is the epitome of the current crop of Conservative Evangelical Biblical Christians; willfully ignorant, willfully dishonest, willfully delusional, willfully deplorable and willfully pitiful.
The fault though is not really his but rather of his parents and religious leaders that have never allowed him to think beyond the 5- or 6-year-old level. They have lied to him about what is written in the Bible, lied to him about what Jesus' message was, lied to him about even what the Bible is.
It's sad and pitiful that those like him are far too often the image of Christianity today, and image that could have been avoided had he not been immersed in the utter depravity that is today's Conservative, Evangelical Biblical cult.
He sees as a child, thinks as a child and speaks as a child, never learning that he should put aside his childish nature.
Re: drlove is an embarrassment to all Christianity ...
Perhaps he has been misled.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox
“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894).
Re: drlove is an embarrassment to all Christianity ...
Yes, he has been misled, just like you. He has been misled by his parents, his teachers, his religious leaders, all the Apologists and Carny Spielman that are the current Conservative Evangelical Biblical Cult.
He has been taught that somethings should not be questioned, and that SOURCE trumps content and BELIEF trumps evidence and FANTASY trumps reality. He has been taught to compartmentalize all facets of his life and so never suffers from cognitive dissonance even while holding mutually exclusive beliefs. He has been taught that there is a "BIBLE™" and that there is a "God of the Bible" and that what is important is "Salvation" and that he can be "SAVED" if he shuts his eyes and repeats "I do BELIEVE in fairies."
Re: drlove is an embarrassment to all Christianity ...
In addition, while he and his fellow sheeple have been taught to worship that SOURCE, they also never bother to actually read that SOURCE. Instead, they mindlessly follow what their handlers tell them. For that matter, most often their handlers are themselves mindless sheeple doing the exact same thing, flocking aimlessly.
BTW, why did this sub-topic get put here? drlove has never participated in this topic, Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate in a topic like Belief Versus The Scientific Method which he has spammed with 153 posts (amazing how prolific you can be when you simply leave out actual content)?
Given Jzyehoshua's record, he might be back in a few years or a decade to read this. Until then, this is for the rest of us.
Of course, the Biblical kinds, what you replace with "Core Created Species," has no support in reality. You see, there is no evidence to support that superstition that would warrant its inclusion in any science curriculum.
How do you explain sterility in interspeciary breeding? Why, if all species had a common ancestor, do we see animals even as closely related as horses and donkeys or lions and tigers produce sterile offspring? If they all had a common ancestor, why then does sterility result? This was a major issue for Darwin and he spent a whole chapter in "On the Origin of Species" trying to explain it away.
First a minor point. Why place so much importance on Darwin having problems explaining patterns of interfertility? He also had problems figuring out heredity. But we have learned a few things in the 162 years since 1859 that Darwin didn't know, such as genetics. Indeed, since Darwin's attempts at explaining inheritance were disproven by the rediscovery of Mendel's work, creationists have a gold mine of mined quotes in which geneticists proclaimed that Darwinism had been disproven, whereas in reality genetics supplied the missing piece to the puzzle giving us neo-Darwinism ("... generally used to describe any integration of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection with Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics."). Please try to remember that science and religion operate quite differently: Whereas science keeps learning and increasing in knowledge as it builds on original ideas however incomplete those ideas were, religion keeps getting dumber and continually loses knowledge as its original ideas, which are deemed to have been perfect from the start, have nowhere else to go but to keep deteriorating and losing knowledge over time. Please stop trying to saddle science with religion's shortcomings.
Why interspecial infertility? Because that is what happens when species become increasingly genetically different. Genetics, no magic required. If two species are closely related, then they should be genetically similar enough to interbreed, albeit to varying degrees (eg, fertile offspring versus infertile offspring), whereas the more distantly related they are then the more likely that they will be too dissimilar genetically.
However, this creationist "idea" of "basic created kinds" (BCK, which you remonicker as "Core Created Species") is tied to misconceptions about "microevolution versus macroevolution" in which "micro" is defined as "variations within a basic created kind" implying very strongly that all members of a BCK should be able to interbreed -- heavy creationist reliance on the existence of hybrids supports that implication.
The problem for creationists with their BCKs is that while they point triumphantly at reproductive barriers between BCKs, they turn a blind eye to reproductive barriers within single BCKs. For example, the "basic created felid kind" (corresponding with Felidae) consists of two subfamilies: Pantherinae and Felinae. There is a high degree of interbreeding possible within Felinae (see this list) and a high degree of interbreeding possible within Pantherinae (see this list), but there is almost absolutely no interbreeding possible between the two groups. Almost, because there has been one case of a pantherinae/felinae hybrid, the pumapard, a cross between a cougar (Felinae) and a leopard (Pantherinae). That greatly surprised scientists because they thought that they were too distantly related for that to happen. Also, the pumapard has a tendency for dwarfism being about half the size of the parents.
So then, the "basic felid kind" which is supposed to be all interrelated (which they are) and able to interbreed (not quite, as follows), but they are divided into two groups, each capable to interbreed within their group but incapable of interbreeding with the other group. Within the same BCK, there's a reproductive barrier that you say should not be there, and yet there it is. So you decide that they must instead be two separate BCKs, but then there's that one case in which they were able to interbreed, so by your definitions they must all be part of the same BCK. But then there's still that massive reproductive barrier.
How does your "creationist theory" explain that? Evolution explains it quite well, but your "theory" cannot. Hmm.
Then there's also the "basic canid kind". Creationists point out how very compatible compatible wolf-like ones are genetically and how they can freely interbreed. However, there are a lot of other groupings within that "kind" with varying degrees of reproductive barriers. Two types of jackel cannot interbreed with the wolf-like canids. And other canids, such as South American canids, true foxes, bat-eared foxes, or raccoon dogs, also cannot interbreed with wolf-like canids. True reproductive barriers had evolved within the "basic canid kind."
And what about the "basic worm kind" which has diversified far more widely (and yet are all lumped together by creationists)? What about the "basic insect kind"? What about the "basic fish kind"? What about the "basic bird kind"? Genetically-based reproductive barriers all over the place in direct conflict with the whole idea of BCKs.
All of which raises a question in my mind. Part of zoology involves studying how those groups are related. How many creation-science types are also zoologists and how many of those creationist zoologists support "basic created kinds" and how do they go about doing that? (ie, do they maintain their scientific integrity or just dump it down the drain like so many other creationists do?)
How do you explain the lack of transitions and stasis in the fossil record inconsistent with Gradualistic Evolution? This issue was becoming so dangerous to Evolution that Gould proposed his theory of Punctuated Equilibrium a few decades ago suggesting evolution went really fast for short time periods to explain away this growing body of evidence.
To start with, Darwin himself knew and stated that the rate of evolutionary change would vary, that it was not at a constant rate. The reason why he emphasized gradual change, even despite Huxley's objections, is because of another competing idea: saltation. Saltation ("jump") says that changes happen suddenly, such as the sudden appearance of an entire new complex organ or an entirely new species in one single generation. Judging from everything I've seen creationists say about evolution and speciation, they are still stuck in thinking about things in terms of saltation with one species giving birth to an entire new species in a single generation.
Creationists think that evolution is saltation when in fact saltation is completely different from evolution. Saltation has an individual produce an individual of an entirely new species; eg, "a snake laid an egg and a bird hatch.", "why don't we see any chimps in the zoo giving birth to ape-men?", "when an individual has evolved into a new species, where will he find a mate (for which he would have to wait millions of years to come around -- as in BSCUTTER21's Message 1)?" All of which means, of course, that practically none of creationists' have anything to do with evolution!
The thing about evolution is that its rate depends both on the interplay between evolutionary processes (which remain constant), the environment (which is subject to change), and how well (or poorly) the population is adapted to that environment (the most variable). And as it turns out, the exact same evolutionary processes (survival, reproduction, rinse and repeat) can result in rapid change, slow change, or no change (AKA stasis), so there is no need for any kind of mechanism to regulate the rate.
Punctuated Equilibrium has almost nothing to do with rate of change except to argue that it's not strictly constant, but rather with sampling rates of fossils; it was used to explain the patterns we find in the fossil record. In geologic time, fossils of a particular "lineage" can be separated by thousands of generations making the changes appear abrupt, whereas in generational time the changes between each generation are still gradual. An article on a conference at which Punctuated Equilibrium was presented showed graphically that between periods of stasis there was still gradual change generation by generation.
quote:Herschel Walker is a former professional football player who has an alleged history of violence. He’s also hawked a snake oil “mist” he said would “kill any COVID on your body.” He’s also the likely GOP nominee for the U.S. Senate from Georgia. And wasn’t there one other thing I was going to mention? Oh yes. The Washington Post reports that Walker said this:
At one time, science said man came from apes. Did it not? Every time I read or hear that, I think to myself, ‘You just didn’t read the same Bible I did,’ Well, this is what’s interesting, though. If that is true, why are there still apes? Think about it.
To top it all off, he seems to think that in vitro fertilization is science fiction. So he’s the first In Vitro Denier I’m aware of.
The GOP take such pride in their ignorance.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
quote:At one time, science said man came from apes. Did it not? Every time I read or hear that, I think to myself, ‘You just didn’t read the same Bible I did,’ Well, this is what’s interesting, though. If that is true, why are there still apes? Think about it.
Just dare to even allude to that "why are there still monkeys?" claim to any creationist and he will start screaming bloody murder that you are just making that up trying to create a strawman and that no creationist would ever say something as incredibly stupid as that. The same thing with the "men have one rib less than women do because of Adam having had one of his ribs removed to create Eve" claim.
And yet when Answers in Genesis (AiG) circa 2001 published their first (I think) list of "Claims We Wish Creationists Would Stop Using", that list included both "why are there still monkeys?" and Adam's Rib along with the old missing neutrinos argument (it used to be a problem for astronomers, but it did get solved). In order for AiG to feel the need to include those items in that list, that means that they were seeing those claims still being used.
In the case of "why are there still monkeys", not counting having heard it growing up my first sighting of it in the wild was a call-in to a radio talk show in 1984 which featured creationist Duane Gish and humanist Fred Edwords as guests. Believe it or not, it was Gish who had to explain to the caller why that was wrong. Since then, I've observed it a few more times being used in earnest by creationists. Now we have yet another sighting of it in the wild.
National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has traditionally been the national clearinghouse for tracking such activity. Late 1970's each state formed its own Committee of Correspondence and the NCSE was formed to coordinate their efforts -- that was shortly before I got involved. They especially tracked attempts to pass state laws. This past decade they've expanded their efforts to climate change education.