Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How about teaching evolution at Sunday school?
xxdeadmnwalkinxx
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 106 (50136)
08-12-2003 11:11 AM


quote:
Actually, Wolverine's mutation is regeneration. The metal claws were part of a military experiment. People get this wrong all the time.
actually being an comic book fan/freak, the claws are bone, the adamantiam was part of the experiement. his mutation is his claws, heightened "animal like" senses i.e. smell, and extremely high regeneration. If you don't believe me, check out the origins series that has wolverine's beginnings as a sick little boy.
over exaggerated writing is simply my sarcasism used to illustrate a point in a more humorous tone, as in the point is made, but not in such a serious and technical tone as everyone seems to take it.
(hint: generalization)sometimes the way we view things is not based on logic, but our point of view that is developed from life's experiences.
quote:
"Don't set up a false dichotomy here. There aren't just two points of view, and most informed people of almost every belief system are satisfied with the evidence for evolution. My belief system has changed much throughout my life, and the evidence has always been convincing to me. I managed to be a YEC for a while because I was deceived by misuse of anecdotal evidence and unsupported assertions that I had an emotional need to accept."
again those are just two examples of the whole, an illustration and extreme generalization. not to mentnion I used these two fields because they are supposed to be unbiased of any opinions, but if you watch any current forms of news, they are far from it. you're not supposed to use clitches when reporting facts, stories, and you supposed to report both sides fairly, and not give commentary from the news room, nor are you supposed to report statistics based on 500 in the New York and call its America's latest poll, which NBC is extreme terrible for. I majored in communications, so I used something that I see.
Science...as the in the field of science that does most of the speaking out. Does it represent the majority? probably not, but they usually get the most press and usually are your extremists.
example...kansas school system
some schools don't carry religious classes unless its a university or college.
quote:
"The problem is that when you lay it out that way, if you insist on the false dichotomy view of things, there is absolutely zero evidence for a supernatural creation. The only evidence presented by "creation science" is actually evidence claimed to discredit some aspect of the theory of evolution or of related issues like the age of the earth. Virtually all of it can be rebutted by even an educated layman."
again people only view things from a perspective, you view me as a christian and automatically assume that I am saying view creationism as a science. ::rolls eyes:: what I am saying is that lay out what facts there are.....
if there are none, they you lay those out. if there are some, then you lay those out and you go from there. I'm saying that if people are so convicted about proving things, they should be able to get an education so they know what they have currently have available for information, in which most cases, schools do not give that option in the states much lesses have the sources (as in regards to highschool students). You're given a limited amount of options in a brief amount of time.
I gladly admit I was one of those students who wanted more information, i did not have access to a computer till I was in college. And most teachers taught things that were teaching as if it was a common law and that it can't be debunked. if it is a theory, then anything is possible, even if it unlikely.
unbiased opinion of theory would simply state as some of you have stated that most facts point towards evolution. personally I can't conclude carbon dating as pure fact because it can't be tested empirically since we as a race have not been alive that long. It assumes alot of constants. I can concur with evidence presented with natural selection.
theories can still have the option of being debunked, if it was totally unrefutable, it would be a law. yes there are facts other wise it would never have become a theory in the first place. i.e. continental drift theory vs plate tectonics
no offense and not to sound ignorant, but they are teaching gravity as a law in school. whether this is a misrepensentation of the truth, I don't know. Theory is a strict code of facts...like in music, however theory in music can sometimes be broken and rules can be bent because it is not law, which leads to people thinking outside the box.
and if you have people that think outside the box as well as other thinking inside and they work together....
maybe sooner or later you can prove things without a doubt.
I do believe microevolution is present and something that is proven in our history, but macroevolution hasn't been proven to the point of beyond doubt. There are still very few mutations that have proven not extremely harmful off the top of my head i can only think of gold fish being of one example of non-harmful mutation.
as for blue eyes, from my understanding it was a gene already included in the genetic make-up that is more recessive than brown eyes and more dominant than green or hazel.
mockery i have found in people. I've e-mailed and asked questions, most of the times getting no answers.
The only journals that I've read were probably about 8 years ago. about the time my teachers killed any love of science that i had left by discussions like why should sciencetist have to have any morals, they should do science and let man do what he wants with that information that science obtains...like the atomic bomb
my problem with that is that we know that there are minority of people who are just not right in their minds, lust for power and they misuse technology/science for their personal gain.
Again from my perspective (opinions and perspective are like butts...everyone has one) from a technology standpoint, porn is a waste of space on the internet that jams up traffic on the net and if you're like me and can only afford dial-up it sucks, not to mention the web is a wonderful too for learning, but often is filled with lots of deceit and misinformation because anyone can build one these days..
so that ruined it for me. Just the thought of no rational placements of precautions to prevent misuse of knowledge that could be used for something worthwhile...
by the way most of creationism is philophical and belief based. example: explanation of DNA to some creationists is that its like an organic binary code that is too complex to just "happen" and that it needs a programmer to design that complex code and like any programing code, it has its own language that can write many different programs, i.e. various animals. etc etc.
Where I live..again perspective....their have been alot of debates held at churchs, schools, etc from both many sides of things and thats where I get the idea of mockery from.
VCU specifically has been bad about this. Their science department is bad about this and often mocks students who do believe in God.
time: A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
i know this off the topic, but how do you measure time? how do you know it exits? speed=distance/time right? so we somewhat correlate that things change partly because time is always moving forward. then the speed of something is calculated by the distance from point a to point b then devided by time. so is there a constant that doesn't change so that we can measure time somehow other than a system of irreversible succession that never stops? something to compare it to? just curiousity. I'm sure some kind of physics answers this. but personally i have no clue

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Admin, posted 08-12-2003 11:18 AM xxdeadmnwalkinxx has not replied
 Message 48 by kjsimons, posted 08-12-2003 11:20 AM xxdeadmnwalkinxx has not replied
 Message 49 by MrHambre, posted 08-12-2003 12:46 PM xxdeadmnwalkinxx has not replied
 Message 50 by Rrhain, posted 08-12-2003 9:02 PM xxdeadmnwalkinxx has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 47 of 106 (50138)
08-12-2003 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by xxdeadmnwalkinxx
08-12-2003 11:11 AM


The Reply Icon
Unless your reply is general to the topic or is a reply to more than one post, it ususally makes sense to use the little reply icon that appears at the bottom of each message, instead of the large "Post Reply" buttons that appear at the top and bottom of each message page. Using the little reply icon results in a link to your message from the message you replied to, and a link back to that message from your message. This makes it very easy to tell who you're replying to, and to follow a discussion where more than one conversation is going on at the same time.
------------------
--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by xxdeadmnwalkinxx, posted 08-12-2003 11:11 AM xxdeadmnwalkinxx has not replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 48 of 106 (50139)
08-12-2003 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by xxdeadmnwalkinxx
08-12-2003 11:11 AM


theories can still have the option of being debunked, if it was totally unrefutable, it would be a law. yes there are facts other wise it would never have become a theory in the first place. i.e. continental drift theory vs plate tectonics
no offense and not to sound ignorant, but they are teaching gravity as a law in school. whether this is a misrepensentation of the truth, I don't know. Theory is a strict code of facts...like in music, however theory in music can sometimes be broken and rules can be bent because it is not law, which leads to people thinking outside the box.
In science, a theory is as proven as anything gets. In other words, nothing is ever known absolutely. That gravity exists is a fact, how it works though is a theory. The term "Law" is an antiquated term in the field of science and should be replaced with theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by xxdeadmnwalkinxx, posted 08-12-2003 11:11 AM xxdeadmnwalkinxx has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 49 of 106 (50147)
08-12-2003 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by xxdeadmnwalkinxx
08-12-2003 11:11 AM


How ironic
xxdeadmnwalkinxx alleges:
quote:
I majored in communications
Maybe you need to take a refresher course or something.
------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by xxdeadmnwalkinxx, posted 08-12-2003 11:11 AM xxdeadmnwalkinxx has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 50 of 106 (50263)
08-12-2003 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by xxdeadmnwalkinxx
08-12-2003 11:11 AM


xxdeadmnwalkinxx responds to me...I think...he doesn't say:
quote:
personally I can't conclude carbon dating as pure fact because it can't be tested empirically since we as a race have not been alive that long.
No, but the trees have. And the ice cores have been around that long. And so have the varves.
You see, there's a method of dating called "dendrochronology." That's where you count tree rings. A tree makes a ring every year that it's alive. By matching up tree rings from various specimens, you can determine when the tree was alive.
We have been able to get a continual dendrochronology going back over 10,000 years.
This makes it perfect to verify carbon-14 dating since it's only accurate for about 50,000 years. You can take a piece of wood which, through dendrochronology, you can make a direct calculation of its age by comparing it to the tree ring database. You then do a carbon-14 radiometric dating of it and see what it says.
You find that the two are in general agreement.
Thus, we have just empirically confirmed that carbon-14 dating is accurate.
By the way, you do understand that carbon-14 dating is only useful for biological material such as wood, leather, and the like, yes? You would never carbon-date a rock. Carbon-14 dating works as follows: A living organism is continually cycling carbon through the system. There is a fairly constant ratio of normal carbon-12 to radioactive carbon-14 in the environment and thus, while the organism is still living, the organism will have a similar ratio of C12 to C14 in its system. But when the organism dies, it no longer cycles carbon through its system anymore. The C14 starts to decay. By measuring the amount of C14 in the system now, we can come up with a fairly accurate determination of when the organism died. And given the life of C14 and the sensitivity of our equipment, we can't make a determination beyond a few tens of thousands of years. Thus, you would carbon date, say, the Shroud of Turin or the wooden sarchophagus of an Egyptian mummy since we know that these things aren't that old and they're made of organic material.
Again, you would never use this on a rock. Rocks don't cycle carbon through their systems. And since rocks are commonly much, much older than carbon-14 dating can accurately detect, it is a useless measurement. It would be like trying to use a 3-foot tape measure to try and measure the size of the galaxy except that every time you picked it up, it snapped shut and you lost your place for where you started.
Instead for things like rocks, we use other radio-isotopes like thorium-232 and beryllium-10.
You seem to be inching toward a claim that if we weren't there to directly observe it, then we know absolutely nothing about it. If so, then you're going to have to dump the entire field of forensics and throw open the gates of the prisons since most crimes don't have witnesses. And yet, we're able to determine what happened precisely because of what was left behind.
You're right that no human was around 100 million years ago when the dinosaurs were walking around. But the dinosaurs were there and their bones have managed to survive to the present day. By examining the objects that were there at the time, we can discover some things about what went on at the time.
quote:
theories can still have the option of being debunked, if it was totally unrefutable, it would be a law. yes there are facts other wise it would never have become a theory in the first place. i.e. continental drift theory vs plate tectonics
As I'll say below, theories do not become laws. The top of the food chain in science is the theory.
However, you do understand that plate tectonics is the mechanism of continental drift and thus there is no "vs." to be had, yes?
quote:
no offense and not to sound ignorant, but they are teaching gravity as a law in school.
That's because Newton coined it as a law. You see, during the Enlightenment when the clockwork universe was the reigning paradigm, everything was called a "law"...especially if it could be pithily described and even more so if it could be done so mathematically.
The problem is, Newton was wrong. That "law" of his is turning out to be not as accurate as we thought. The Pioneer space probes are leaving the solar system at a rate that is inconsistent with what we know about how gravity works.
In short, a "law" is just a mathematical part of a theory and is just as subject to change as new data comes along as anything else.
Take, for example, Newton's "laws" of motion. According to these laws, F = ma. The result of this is that motion is linear: If I am moving on a train going at 100 miles an hour and throw a ball such that it leaves my hand as 100 miles an hour, then it's speed is actually 200 mph. And if it approaches an oncoming train that is moving at 100 mph, it strikes it as if it were moving at 300 mph.
But we know that not to be true. Motion is not linear, it's relative. And there is an upper limit on speed: The speed of light. Instead of F = ma, it's actually F = dp/dt. Now, in a linear universe, dp/dt reduces to ma, but as stated previously, the universe isn't linear. It's relative.
So why do we still call it Newton's Second "Law" of Motion even though we know it's wrong? Because that's what Newton called it, the phrase stuck, and there's little point in harping on the point since all scientists know that it's just a part of the theory of kinematics.
quote:
as for blue eyes, from my understanding it was a gene already included in the genetic make-up that is more recessive than brown eyes and more dominant than green or hazel.
Nope. Technically, there is no "gene" for green eyes. Instead, it is the interplay of pigments on the front and back surfaces of the iris that result in what we call "green" or "hazel" eyes. If you have the brown allele, you get brown eyes. Blue, however, gets all wonky. If you have no pigment on either side, you get blue. If you have some on one side but not the other, it is between blue and brown, thus "green" or "hazel."
And what do you mean "already included in the genetic makeup"? It's a mutated gene. Same with blood type. There is the allele for A, the allele for B, and the broken allele which, if you have two, results in O. They're all mutations.
quote:
i know this off the topic, but how do you measure time?
There is a standard for time, you know. The SI system defines the "second" as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."
quote:
so is there a constant that doesn't change so that we can measure time somehow other than a system of irreversible succession that never stops? something to compare it to?
Yes and no. As relativity shows, time varies according to the reference frame. However, within a single inertial reference frame, it is constant.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by xxdeadmnwalkinxx, posted 08-12-2003 11:11 AM xxdeadmnwalkinxx has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 51 of 106 (50296)
08-13-2003 1:39 AM


Terminal topic drift?
Someone need to show me a good reason this one shouldn't be shut down.
I do hate seeing good discussion happening in the wrong place.
Adminnemooseus
------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by BellaSanta, posted 10-08-2003 10:57 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
BellaSanta
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 106 (60090)
10-08-2003 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Adminnemooseus
08-13-2003 1:39 AM


Re: Terminal topic drift?
Ok, I just registered, so I hope I am doing this right....Getting back to the original topic: How about teaching evolution at Sunday School? I am sure an arguement has been put forward for every aspect of this topic, however, as a student of human evolution and anthropology I find it hard to believe that such a question was even posed! I remember my first year of university studies, when one of my lecturers said something along the lines of "if you believe in the bible you do not belong in this class". Of course everyone needs to respect individual belief systems, but why would teaching evolution be relevant in Sunday school? Human evolution has nothing to do with the bible and this is why it is not necessarily taught in high schools, because most populations believe in some form of God and some form of creation theory. Factors in human evolution that comes remotely close to christianity or the catholic church (basically any form of religion) is the Mitochondrial Eve theory and even then that theory is misunderstood.
Anyway, obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I deeply respect other people's religious beliefs, however, having said that I do not think that teaching human evolution at Sunday school is relevant at all.
Bella

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-13-2003 1:39 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by mike the wiz, posted 10-08-2003 11:14 AM BellaSanta has not replied
 Message 54 by NosyNed, posted 10-08-2003 11:45 AM BellaSanta has not replied
 Message 56 by Asgara, posted 10-08-2003 6:57 PM BellaSanta has not replied
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 10-08-2003 7:31 PM BellaSanta has not replied
 Message 58 by Loudmouth, posted 10-08-2003 7:53 PM BellaSanta has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 53 of 106 (60094)
10-08-2003 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by BellaSanta
10-08-2003 10:57 AM


Re: Terminal topic drift?
Is this POSSIBLY the first honest evolutionist at this sight!!!!!
Welcome BellaSanta,
Maybe you could post some topics. If evo's at this site were as fair as you, I would already be evolutionist by now. Unfortunately this is becoming a 'bash the creationist site', I hope you don't join in with the sarcasm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by BellaSanta, posted 10-08-2003 10:57 AM BellaSanta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by zephyr, posted 10-08-2003 4:49 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 59 by Asgara, posted 10-08-2003 8:17 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 54 of 106 (60101)
10-08-2003 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by BellaSanta
10-08-2003 10:57 AM


Re: Terminal topic drift?
Since this topic has suddenly popped back up and been brought to my attention I'm going to chime in with my two cents worth.
It may be surprising to some but I don't think that those who support the scientific understanding of nature would want it taught in churches. As as been noted it wouldn't be done well anyway.
However, it might be an idea for those who support the church and wish to retain their followers to conside it!
Does this sound surprising? Probably.
If the churchs allow their followers to be mislead by the fundamentalists ideas and misleading pronouncements they are left unprepared if they finally do get exposed to the truth about evolutionary theory. At that time if they have allowed thier faith to get to closly tied to a "literalist" (of course, not really literal though) interpreation of the bible then their faith is at risk. When someone finds they have been lied to about one thing they may let the suspicion unfairly carry over into other aspects of what they have been taught.
Since only a minority of Christians agree with the fundamentalists they might want to consider "proofing" their members against the nonsense promulgated by them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by BellaSanta, posted 10-08-2003 10:57 AM BellaSanta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Chiroptera, posted 10-08-2003 9:29 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 66 by nator, posted 10-09-2003 9:29 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 67 by Zhimbo, posted 10-09-2003 12:22 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 55 of 106 (60153)
10-08-2003 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by mike the wiz
10-08-2003 11:14 AM


Re: Terminal topic drift?
Mike, I'm sure you didn't mean it but you seem to be implying that just about everyone here is dishonest and unfair. Have we been that bad to you?
To be honest, (if such a thing is possible for evil old me ) I know you've gotten a lot of critical responses to your posts. However, I think you'd be hard pressed to find one that wasn't made in a constructive spirit. You have to admit, you've advertised the fact that your knowledge is incomplete, and many people here are happy to try and fill you in.
I'm not interested in bashing creationists, but am interested in bashing misinformation and logical fallacies.
Does this thread have any life left in it? It *has* been almost 2 months... my posts look only vaguely familiar to me now....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by mike the wiz, posted 10-08-2003 11:14 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 56 of 106 (60168)
10-08-2003 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by BellaSanta
10-08-2003 10:57 AM


Re: Terminal topic drift?
Anyway, obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I deeply respect other people's religious beliefs, however, having said that I do not think that teaching human evolution at Sunday school is relevant at all.
Welcome Bella,
I don't believe that the original intent of this tread was to seriously promote the teaching of evolution in Sunday school. If I remember correctly (it's been awhile since I read the entire thread) it was a counter to fundamentalists wanting religious beliefs taught in science class.
Human evolution has nothing to do with the bible
I totally agree...and religious beliefs have nothing to do with science. Leave science education in the hands of science educators and leave religious instruction in the hands of the church.
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by BellaSanta, posted 10-08-2003 10:57 AM BellaSanta has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 57 of 106 (60175)
10-08-2003 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by BellaSanta
10-08-2003 10:57 AM


I remember my first year of university studies, when one of my lecturers said something along the lines of "if you believe in the bible you do not belong in this class". Of course everyone needs to respect individual belief systems
I don't see that this is true, exactly.
While I'm hesitant to call science a "belief system", for fear of equating it with religion, it would be accurate if we take "belief system" to refer to "a system by which people decide what is real or true."
If you're in a science class doing science, then everybody doing the science agrees on (at least) one thing - to operate under a belief system that says "if we can't agree that it's true, it probably isn't." This in a nutshell is objectivity. Other belief systems, like
"if it's in the Bible, it's true" are incompatible with the science.
So saying that if you believe in the Bible (by which I assume he meant "if you believe that the Bible is without error" not "if you believe that the bible exists") then you don't belong in a science class is reasonable - your method of determining what is real and true will never be compatible with science, and you're just wasting your time with science instruction.
The problem with creationists is they want it both ways. They want to proceed from a methodology of "if it's in the Bible, it's true" while simultaneously presenting the face of objectivity. It's too bad for us that a lot of people don't seem to understand the difference.
Human evolution has nothing to do with the bible and this is why it is not necessarily taught in high schools, because most populations believe in some form of God and some form of creation theory.
Well, the problem isn't that the findings of science in terms of human evolution don't intersect with the narrative of the Bible, it's that human evolution almost totally contradicts the Bible story. That's what creationists really object to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by BellaSanta, posted 10-08-2003 10:57 AM BellaSanta has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 106 (60180)
10-08-2003 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by BellaSanta
10-08-2003 10:57 AM


Re: Terminal topic drift?
Anyway, obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I deeply respect other people's religious beliefs, however, having said that I do not think that teaching human evolution at Sunday school is relevant at all.
I agree, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The problem arises when people's opinion about science education segues into creation being taught in secular science classes. The argument most raise for creation in the classroom is that students should be exposed to both theories (disregarding other religious non-christian creation theories). In doing so, students are thought to be more well rounded. If this argument holds true regardless of the educational arena, then evolution should also be taught in Sunday school as well(at the appropriate age). This is something that a lot of pro-creation education proponents seem to miss.
Besides, if evolution were completely left out, how would you teach about creation using scientific evidence? As many have said here, pseudo-scientific data is usually only used to try and refute evolution, not to support creation (as portrayed in the Bible) without reference to evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by BellaSanta, posted 10-08-2003 10:57 AM BellaSanta has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 59 of 106 (60184)
10-08-2003 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by mike the wiz
10-08-2003 11:14 AM


Re: Terminal topic drift?
Hi Mike,
Is this POSSIBLY the first honest evolutionist at this sight!!!!!
Welcome BellaSanta,
Maybe you could post some topics. If evo's at this site were as fair as you, I would already be evolutionist by now. Unfortunately this is becoming a 'bash the creationist site', I hope you don't join in with the sarcasm
I don't quite understand. I don't think BellaSanta has said anything very different from what most of us post here. I don't understand how the majority of posters here are being "dishonest".
I do agree with you that "some" posters do a fair amount of bashing, sarcastic type posts, but I don't believe that that holds for the majority of this site.
In my view, the people who get "bashed" the most are the ones that refuse to listen to anyone, restating refuted arguments time and time again. Or posters like Wise who would post paintings of space and claim them as proof of god.
If I remember correctly, myself and others have personally taken to task posters who have jumped you for your beliefs and demanded explainations for these beliefs.
When you come on an E vs C forum, you have to remember that there are going to be a WIDE range of opinions. Never apologize or feel you have to defend your "faith", but do be prepared to defend your understanding of science.
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by mike the wiz, posted 10-08-2003 11:14 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 60 of 106 (60189)
10-08-2003 8:37 PM


I must find it ironic that this topic has come back to on-topic life, with most of the messages having the heading "Re: Terminal topic drift?".
Now, back to the topic already in progress.
Adminnemooseus

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Asgara, posted 10-08-2003 8:56 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 69 by BellaSanta, posted 10-11-2003 10:29 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024