Why are we so bad at this?

If you had a loved one who was pregnant, what advice would you give if they were facing a serious threat to their life because of a failing pregnancy?

Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Their own words are our best argument. If the inanity of uber fundamentalists isn't enough to persuade, I do doubt if there is anything we can say to sway them.

You can tell a child not to touch the stove all you want and they may still try to touch the hot stove every chance they get. At some point, you have to let them touch it. It may be the only way to learn that lesson.We are already starting to see women die from treatable conditions because of abortion bans. Instead of just the baby dying in a failed pregnancy, now both the mother and child are dying. It's barbaric. It's stupid. Unfortunately, this is a case of stupid touching the stove and the rest of us getting burned.

I would like to hear a response to that too.More specifically, how would you persuade me that my sister-in-law should not terminate a failing pregnancy and should instead die in order to not have a life saving abortion. How would you persuade my brother that his wife should die.

And if the mother's life is at risk, what then? What can you say to persuade me that abortions should not be performed to save the life of the mother? What is gained by both the child and mother dying? Many people worship idols. Should we throw them in jail or outlaw their religion? Why should your religious beliefs be forced onto non-Christians?

I wish no elective abortions ever happened, but I am not in charge of other peoples' bodies. Why do you think you are in charge of the bodies of other women?

And yet you can't supply any evidence that the GC formed quickly.If it was so clear, surely you could present some evidence, right?

False. We are defending the separation of church and state which is one of our constitutional guarantees. If you want to set up a private school where you teach all sorts of nonsense, knock yourself out. However, none of those students are going to be prepared for getting a science degree. The absence of creationists in the scientific community where the actual debate takes place demonstrates creationists are avoiding debate. What science would their grant application contain? What experiments would they be doing? It doesn't take any funding to ignore facts. Science isn't debated in the classroom. It's debated in the peer reviewed scientific literature and at scientific gatherings like conferences. 9th graders aren't the arbiters of science. Science is decided by data, not debates.There is no creation science. It's just denial.

No creation scientists are trying to prove creation through scientific research. All they do is make up false justifications for ignoring the work of real scientists. There are Christian universities across the countries that have lots of money (e.g. Liberty University) and yet none of them are funding research into creation science because there is no science in creation science. Ignoring facts does not disprove evolution. Creation science is nothing more than the refusal to accept facts. This would actually carry some weight if you could actually present any evidence that disproves evolution. You are the one being deceitful. Go figure.

You believe life was magically poofed into being by a supernatural deity. How is that not absurd?

How does that make any of your claims less absurd? Writing absurd claims in a book doesn't make them less absurd. All you are proving is that you don't understand the creation, randomness, or real science. Anyone who says randomness has nothing to do with real science has labeled themselves as the scientifically ignorant. You can't do science without a firm grasp of randomness.

Students are taught the scientific consensus, just as they should be. If they are going to have careers in the sciences then they need to understand the consensus within those scientific fields. All empty assertions. I would suggest you take some advice from one of your fellow YECs.

quote:

---

I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

​

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

​

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

​

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

​

I think that's all I want to say today. Rant over.
The truth about evolution

---

Your refusal to accept reality is not a mark against any scientific theory.Also, if you want to see the type of data creationism needs to explain, and what the theory of evolution already explains with ease, I would suggest reading this post:EvC Forum: Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

Atheists????? Both atheist and theist scientists get grant money to study the universe.It's also hilarious to see people like yourself label the Big Bang theory as atheistic. I guess you never heard of George Lemaitre, the guy who came up with the theory? He's the guy on the left.
Yes, the Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest, a theist, not an atheist. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent It apparently never occurred to you why a Creator would be required to fit those similar traits into a nested hierarchy. Why would we expect to see a nested hierarchy if species were created separately? Your argument was already addressed 140 years ago, and you still haven't got the memo:

quote:

---

Now, since the days of Linnæus this principle has been carefully followed, and it is by its aid that the tree-like system of classification has been established. No one, even long before Darwin's days, ever dreamed of doubting that this system is in reality, what it always has been in name, a natural system. What, then, is the inference we are to draw from it? An evolutionist answers, that it is just such a system as his theory of descent would lead him to expect as a natural system. For this tree-like system is as clear an expression as anything could be of the fact that all species are bound together by the ties of genetic relationship. If all species were separately created, it is almost incredible that we should everywhere observe this progressive shading off of characters common to larger groups, into more and more specialized characters distinctive only of smaller and smaller groups. At any rate, to say the least, the law of parsimony forbids us to ascribe such effects to a supernatural cause, acting in so whimsical a manner, when the effects are precisely what we should expect to follow from the action of a highly probable natural cause.
--George Romanes, "Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.

---

What is the law of parsimony? From the same source:

quote:

---

For, be it observed, the exception in limine to the evidence which we are about to consider, does not question that natural selection may not be able to do all that Mr. Darwin ascribes to it: it merely objects to his interpretation of the facts, because it maintains that these facts might equally well be ascribed to intelligent design. And so undoubtedly they might, if we were all childish enough to rush into a supernatural explanation whenever a natural explanation is found sufficient to account for the facts. Once admit the glaringly illogical principle that we may assume the operation of higher causes where the operation of lower ones is sufficient to explain the observed phenomena, and all our science and all our philosophy are scattered to the winds. For the law of logic which Sir William Hamilton called the law of parsimony—or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the observed effects—this law constitutes the only logical barrier between science and superstition. For it is manifest that it is always possible to give a hypothetical explanation of any phenomenon whatever, by referring it immediately to the intelligence of some supernatural agent; so that the only difference between the logic of science and the logic of superstition consists in science recognising a validity in the law of parsimony which superstition disregards. Therefore I have no hesitation in saying that this way of looking at the evidence in favour of natural selection is not a scientific or a reasonable way of looking at it, but a purely superstitious way.

---

It cracks me up that creationists have such a distorted and wrong view of thermodynamics that they make human reproduction impossible. Each of us starts out as a single cell, and over time we grow into a complex human being. If that doesn't violate thermodynamics, then neither does evolution.

That's why grant money is given to study evolution and the Big Bang. No, they don't. Not every nation has a flood myth, and the nations that do have a flood myth many of them are only local floods with many of the details of the myths contradicting each other across nations. Yet another claim you will never support with evidence. What evidence????? You would first need to supply evidence that a recent global flood is a viable option. Do you count our current oceans as large regional floods? What about the Great Lakes here in the US? Are those large regional floods? There was a time when students' first amendment rights were violated by religion being pushed in public schools. That was fixed. Students are still allowed to talk about religion all they want. The only prohibition is government officials evangelizing as part of official school activities.Given how many lies you tell in every one of your posts, who do you think is feeding you this information?

A warning from St. Augustine is worth mentioning.

quote:

---

It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel [unbeliever] to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn … If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well, and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books [Scriptures], how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
--St. Augustine, "The Literal Meaning of Genesis", Book 1, Chapter 19.

---