0

Facts: Things that just are; examples are bones, DNA, rDNA, RNA, black holes, neutron stars, mitochondria, basalt, marble, leaves, stuff found in rocks that are not rocks. The universe is filled with facts.

hypotheses - a method to tentatively organize facts into patterns that can be understood; and, this is one of the important parts, the hypothesis must predict something that is not known yet; another important part is that it must be reproducible; and it must be falsifiable.

Theory - Once a hypotheses has been tested by many different, qualified scientists; papers have been written, submitted to journals of some repute to be juried, nits are picked, edits made, and the paper is published.

There is no higher calling in science than theory; the idea of 'LAWS OF NATURE' is outdated, no longer used. When someone starts an argument with the phrase, 'Only a theory', this shows a pretty basic lack of understanding of what science is and what science does and how science works.

What Darwin did with his "On the Origin of Species" was to detail the plant and animal life on the Galapagos Islands. What he noticed was that the same birds on one island were adapted to conditions on that island; nearly identical birds on another island right next door had differences in beak shape, wing shape, and physiology that allowed them to survive in a slightly different environment. Without going into detail about the differences between the islands that induced differences in the birds.

The scary and controversial aspect of his discovery was that species were not immutable; up until the Voyage of the Beagle, it was believed that god created everything as it is right now and nothing changes over time. Darwin sat on his book for 20 years and only published it after he realized that another person was going to publish a similar book. It caused a sensation and lead to many misleading metaphors like Survival of the Fittest, which is not scientific; it is just a popular way to express Natural Selection.

Geology was a science coming into its own;

It is 2:00am - I will have to continue the story tomorrow. But the basics are here. Evolution has been tested, it has allowed predictions to be made and it has a falsifiable component. One of the points I want to get to is Punctuated Equilibrium and, of course, catastrophism.

Good night - please comment!

0

Facts: Things that just are; examples are bones, DNA, rDNA, RNA, black holes, neutron stars, mitochondria, basalt, marble, leaves, stuff found in rocks that are not rocks. The universe is filled with facts.

A fact is something established beyond all doubt, on the basis of evidence and reasoning, to exist or have happened. To establish something beyond doubt, there must be some awareness of doubt. Which means some cognitive process that can objectively and completely examine the evidence and reasoning.

hypotheses - a method to tentatively organize facts into patterns that can be understood; and, this is one of the important parts, the hypothesis must predict something that is not known yet; another important part is that it must be reproducible; and it must be falsifiable.

Not really. A hypothesis is a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument, and tested on the basis of evidence. A hypothesis may be proposed as a means of organising facts into patterns, but need not be.

It is not necessary that a hypothesis predict something not yet known. It is required to predict something that can be tested through evidence, and falsifiable if conduct of the test yields a result that is not predicted.

A hypothesis is not required to be reproducible. For example, a hypothesis can be tested statistically. The samples, from which statistics are derived, provide a body of evidence and provides evidence to accept or reject a hypothesis to some specified level of confidence. However, given the same samples, derived statistical quantities, and level of confidence then the same conclusion will always be drawn. But given a different set of samples (eg by doing the same measurement process at a different time) a different conclusion may be drawn.

If the level of confidence is required to be 100% (probability 1), then testing the hypothesis represents proof or disproof.

Theory - Once a hypotheses has been tested by many different, qualified scientists; papers have been written, submitted to journals of some repute to be juried, nits are picked, edits made, and the paper is published.

That's not really true. A theory is, in general, a coherent body of propositions that offer an explanation for a class of phenomena. A theory can make predictions that are not possible on the basis of the individual propositions. The theory can be tested by gathering evidence to prove or disprove any of the component propositions, or phenomena predicted by the theory.

There is no higher calling in science than theory; the idea of 'LAWS OF NATURE' is outdated, no longer used.

That's not true. A law (in the philosophical sense) is a statement of a relationship or sequence of phenomena that are invariable some set of conditions. In other words, if a set of conditions can be identified under which that theory is true, the component propositions of that theory become laws.

Laws are simply theories for which there is a significant body of evidence and no refuting evidence. Laws can therefore be disproven like any theory (eg with a counter-example) although, given the amount of effort that goes into trying to prove or disprove a theory before it is declared a law, that is possible but unlikely.

A law is not required to be true outside the conditions for which it is established. For example, according to Einstein, Newton's laws of mechanics are only an approximation. However, the error in Newton's laws is less than the error in measurement in many practical conditions (most notably, when relative speed of object and observer is very different from speed of light). So under those practical conditions those laws still hold.

When someone starts an argument with the phrase, 'Only a theory', this shows a pretty basic lack of understanding of what science is and what science does and how science works.

I agree. A hypotheses and theories are key parts of scientific method: hypotheses and theories must be developed so they may be tested through evidence.

It is 2:00am - I will have to continue the story tomorrow. But the basics are here. Evolution has been tested, it has allowed predictions to be made and it has a falsifiable component. One of the points I want to get to is Punctuated Equilibrium and, of course, catastrophism.

And creationism cannot be tested. It must be assumed, or taken on faith. According to scientific method, it can be never proven nor disproven.

0

And creationism cannot be tested. It must be assumed, or taken on faith. According to scientific method, it can be never proven nor disproven.

This is not true. Scientific methods can disprove creationism, we just need to prove evolution. By proving evolution would we not be debunking creationism?

0

This is not true. Scientific methods can disprove creationism, we just need to prove evolution. By proving evolution would we not be debunking creationism?

No. Evolution is not the opposite of creationism, so proving one does not disprove the other.

0

No. Evolution is not the opposite of creationism, so proving one does not disprove the other.

I don't know if it can be said any clearer than that.

However, I suspect the message will not travel very far in minds that has been so carefully trained to see every thing in black or white.

0

Hold on a sec, you cannot believe in creationism and evolution at the same time. They are two contradicting theories. Well one is a theory anyway. The other is simply a belief based on absolutely no evidence.

0

black and white can co-exist. two separate beliefs such as these cannot.

It didn't take very long for my words to be proved.

Why. how were you trained? To see grey perhaps. Why not argue with yourself, i mean, thats what your doing by trying argue both points simultaneously.

Heres a description of each:

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution as an explanation of origins.[2]

Such beliefs include young Earth creationism, proponents of which believe that the earth is thousands rather than billions of years old. They believe the days in Genesis Chapter 1 are 24 hours in length, while Old Earth creationism accepts geological findings and other methods of dating the earth and believes that these findings do not contradict the Genesis account, but reject evolution. The term theistic evolution has been coined to refer to beliefs in creation which are more compatible with the scientific view of evolution and the age of the Earth. Alternately, there are other religious people who support creation, but in terms of allegorical interpretations of Genesis.

Creationism in the West is usually based on creation according to Genesis, and in its broad sense covers a wide range of beliefs and interpretations. Through the 19th century the term most commonly referred to direct creation of individual souls, in contrast to traducianism. However, by 1929 in the United States the term became particularly associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth.[2] Several U.S. states passed laws against the teaching of evolution in public schools, as upheld in the Scopes Trial. Evolution was omitted entirely from school textbooks in much of the United States until the 1960s. Since then, renewed efforts to introduce teaching creationism in American public schools in the form of flood geology, creation science, and intelligent design have been consistently held to contravene the constitutional separation of Church and State by a succession of legal judgements.[3] The meaning of the term creationism was contested, but by the 1980s it had been co-opted by proponents of creation science and flood geology.[2]

When scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is either to reject the conclusions of the research,[4] its underlying scientific theories,[5] and/or its methodology.[6] For this reason, both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.[7] The most notable disputes concern the effects of evolution on the development of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geologic history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system, and the origin of the universe.


Evolution

Evolution is usually defined simply as changes in trait or gene frequency in a population of organisms from one generation to the next. However, "evolution" is often used to include the following additional claims:

1. Differences in trait composition between isolated populations over many generations may result in the origin of new species.
2. All living organisms alive today have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool).

According to Douglas Futuyma, 'biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest proto-organism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.' [10]

The term "evolution", especially when referred to as a "theory", is also used more broadly to incorporate processes such as natural selection and genetic drift.

Fact

Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental data or objective verifiable observations. "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any hypothesis for which there is overwhelming evidence.
Evolution is a fact in the sense of it being overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.[15][17] The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point.

There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. [3]

The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes a similar point:

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.[18]

Philosophers of science argue that we do not know anything with absolute certainty: even direct observations may be "theory laden" and depend on assumptions about our senses and the measuring instruments used. In this sense all facts are provisional.

Theory

Scientific theories describe the coherent framework into which observable data fit. The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the colloquial sense of the word. Colloquially, "theory" can mean a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. In science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous: a theory must be based on observed facts and make testable predictions.

In science, a current theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable alternative theory, and has survived attempts at falsification. That is, there have been no observations made which contradict it to this point and, indeed, every observation ever made either supports the current theory or at least does not falsify it. A revision of the current theory, or the generation of a new theory is necessary if new observations contradict the current theory, as the current findings are in need of a new explanation (see scientific revolution or paradigm shift). However, the falsification of a theory does not falsify the facts on which the theory is based.


Just go to wiki and look them up. Evolution and Creationism are not the same nor can they co-exist.

0

@steven woodman
>Why. how were you trained?
The same way than you, and there's not double hidden meaning in my words. Accepting the same material and text book and opinions, and dissertations, and scientific studies, as you have exposed in that "brief" example.
And then I had to untrained myself. Because, ultimately, no one has come with the answer. And primarily, because it is this binary thinking mode what's troubling the subject.
The absence of evidence is not proof in itself. I might add.

Still, it is not a wondering for me, that this topic will keep popping up continually until this Earth ceases to exist, or we'll kill each other in the process of imposing the wrongness of our ideas.

0

some very important questions

a) why does there have to be a creator - why cant we just be?
b) who is to say god didnt create evolution?

0

The absence of evidence is not proof in itself.

No, I agree, it is not. But, the difference here, is that only one belief has an absence of evidence and that is creationism. there is tons of supporting evidence for evolution.

0

My case in support of evolution is much simpler. And it works whether the creationists are right or not. ;)

1) If there is no creator, then things must have evolved somehow.

2) No intelligent creator will just build everything first go: there will be trial runs, false starts, starting over, etc. That is evolution!

No need to prove that people are descended from apes (although a lot of people provide strong evidence in support of this).

The only thing needed to disprove my theory is proof of the existence of a creator and then proof that creator does everything on the first go.

If you read my post again, you will see that I did not claim my theory is proven. I noted the way to disprove my theory is to prove the existence of a creator, and then prove that creator does not require evolution. You are asserting that is the case, not offering proof. Offer proof of your assertion, and I will concede my theory is incorrect. Otherwise, I will maintain that it is not disproven.

If you prove the existence of such an unflawed creator, you will have disproved my theory and you will also have the option of finding and asking her. :icon_lol:

I did reread your post. I'm not arguing for or against the existence of a Creator. The key phrase is this:

And it works whether the creationists are right or not.

If the Creationists are right, then the Creator is an extraordinarily skilled Creationist who doesn't make mistakes. Thus your point below isn't true. The intelligent Creator posited by Creationists could very well build everything right the first time, have no trial runs, never have a false start, and never need to start over.

2) No intelligent creator will just build everything first go: there will be trial runs, false starts, starting over, etc.

Similarly, if the "creationists are right", then point 1 is irrelevant too:

1) If there is no creator, then things must have evolved somehow.

If the Creationists are right, then there IS a Creator, so the second part of the premise about evolution is irrelevant.

0

No, I agree, it is not. But, the difference here, is that only one belief has an absence of evidence and that is creationism. there is tons of supporting evidence for evolution.

Well, then you have many more years of reading until you'll get to the point when you can accept that those "tons of supporting evidences" are not such "supporting evidence" but rather a "subjective interpretation" of piece of facts, that are only facts through that "filtered" interpretation.

You can scream about it, you can sing about, you can pray about it and you can joke about it, and yet, at the end of the day, the answer is still the same. No one has an answer.
But I am sure you think you do. ;)

0

oh i do, i do.

This thread was started by grim to setup an intelligent debate on creationism vs evolution, so pick a side and go with it. if not you shouldnt be typing anything. No one has an absolute answer, that is true, but, the overwhelming evidence points towards evolution. An intelligent interpretation is what gives us all our theories.

In a debate such as this there needs to be no definite answer. If there was, then there would be no debate.

0

>oh i do, i do.
I thought so.

>This thread was started by grim to setup an intelligent debate on creationism vs evolution, so pick a side and go with it. if not you shouldnt be typing anything.

Boy, what a perfect sample of what I started indicating you are. In absolutism your mind works. Impossible for you to see beyond is.

That's alright, you can have the last word ( those you are going to post after this ). I won't answer to your comments any more.
But mistaken you are in thinking as the ultimate authority on what should or should not be included in the conversation.

0

I will have the last word Aia and it will be this:

I am not upset and nor should you be. this is just a meaningless debate on an unprovable subject. I dont think i am the ultimate authority and that you can be sure of.

You think that you can judge me by some posts on a forum, well sir/ma,am i will do the same. You are shallow, and think you know so much about people because you are so beyond them.

all i was looking for from you was a single statement of your belief on this matter but, all ive seen is aimless arguing.

Not once did you have a relevant opinion. Just spiteful wishwash.

So the last word to you is a good one.It refers to what i have done with your posts. And that word is: FLOCCI­NAUCINI­HILIPIL­IFICATION

0

Sorry for the multiple post guys but i just wanted to get this off my inbox. Aia just sent me a private message which is in quotes. When i tried to reply (under quotes) it wouldnt let me send because i was blocked or something. so this is how i will respond to him/her:

I am not upset. Nothing you can said can upset me. I don't know you, you don't know me.
My believes are for me to know, and for you to wonder.
I don't judge you, you expose yourself with your words.
This is a courtesy e-mail. Nothing more.

If you don't want your beliefs to be known, then why post on a belief based subject. That makes no sense.

You attack others beliefs but refuse to state your own??????

Thanks for the courtesy but i really don't need it.

0

A fact is something established beyond all doubt, on the basis of evidence and reasoning, to exist or have happened. To establish something beyond doubt, there must be some awareness of doubt. Which means some cognitive process that can objectively and completely examine the evidence and reasoning.

You give too much weight to what a fact is - a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation. I may have underplayed, but you have overplayed it.

Not really. A hypothesis is a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument, and tested on the basis of evidence. A hypothesis may be proposed as a means of organising facts into patterns, but need not be.

It is not necessary that a hypothesis predict something not yet known. It is required to predict something that can be tested through evidence, and falsifiable if conduct of the test yields a result that is not predicted.

A hypothesis is not required to be reproducible. For example, a hypothesis can be tested statistically. The samples, from which statistics are derived, provide a body of evidence and provides evidence to accept or reject a hypothesis to some specified level of confidence. However, given the same samples, derived statistical quantities, and level of confidence then the same conclusion will always be drawn. But given a different set of samples (eg by doing the same measurement process at a different time) a different conclusion may be drawn.

If the level of confidence is required to be 100% (probability 1), then testing the hypothesis represents proof or disproof.

Well, yes and no - so let's go with the wiki version: People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis — often called an "educated guess" — because it provides a suggested solution based on the evidence. Experimenters may test and reject several hypotheses before solving the problem.

According to Schick and Vaughn,[1] researchers weighing up alternative hypotheses may take into consideration:

* Testability (compare falsifiability as discussed above)
* Simplicity (as in the application of "Occam's razor", discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
* Scope - the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
* Fruitfulness - the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
* Conservatism - the degree of "fit" with existing recognized knowledge-systems....

That's not really true. A theory is, in general, a coherent body of propositions that offer an explanation for a class of phenomena. A theory can make predictions that are not possible on the basis of the individual propositions. The theory can be tested by gathering evidence to prove or disprove any of the component propositions, or phenomena predicted by the theory.

This is a pretty good definition but I would like it restated a little for clarity -
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

That's not true. A law (in the philosophical sense) is a statement of a relationship or sequence of phenomena that are invariable some set of conditions. In other words, if a set of conditions can be identified under which that theory is true, the component propositions of that theory become laws.

Laws are simply theories for which there is a significant body of evidence and no refuting evidence. Laws can therefore be disproven like any theory (eg with a counter-example) although, given the amount of effort that goes into trying to prove or disprove a theory before it is declared a law, that is possible but unlikely.

A law is not required to be true outside the conditions for which it is established. For example, according to Einstein, Newton's laws of mechanics are only an approximation. However, the error in Newton's laws is less than the error in measurement in many practical conditions (most notably, when relative speed of object and observer is very different from speed of light). So under those practical conditions those laws still hold.

Well, no. This article states it quite well so i will quote:
"The origin of this confusion has it's roots in the history of the development of science. When we speak of early, classical physics, we talk about laws, Newton's laws of motion for instance, the ideas have the weight of veracity. After all, the word "law" has a serious and strictly defined meaning in our culture. Back when Newton declared his laws, he believed them to be absolute descriptions of how the universe worked. At the time, they were irrefutable. We now know that his laws are in fact approximations, rules that work when describing motion on the macroscopic scale but which break at the quantum scale.

Since that time, science has gotten warier about describing anything as being absolute. Science, and physics in particular, is a tool to root out the true nature of reality. It can describe only what it observes which may or may not be true in every case. In order to say if something is absolutely true, every single possible case of a particular phenomena must be observed. In a universe as vast as ours, that's completely impractical. Science can say if something is probably true all the time if observations of a phenomena are the same in many cases. This tiny bit of waffling bothers many people who are not familiar with the inner workings of science. Shouldn't something be always true if it is true at all? Science just can't commit all the way to absolute - otherwise it wouldn't be science, it would be faith.

So science has tossed the use of "law" in favor of "theory". This "theory" does not mean "hypothesis" which is a speculation. In this case, think of music theory - definitely not a hypothesis, but a working set of rules that define a body of knowledge." The fact that 'laws of nature/science' is still used in general conversation does not validate its use in science.

I agree. A hypotheses and theories are key parts of scientific method: hypotheses and theories must be developed so they may be tested through evidence.

And creationism cannot be tested. It must be assumed, or taken on faith. According to scientific method, it can be never proven nor disproven.

This is the direction I was going when it got too late in the evening and my meds started kicking in.

0

For those interested in the pure topic of Evolution for/against. What concepts can you find against evolution in the current form? (Please, leave outside the bigotries begotten by the masses that evolution can not fit inside creation)

What I mean is, what do you know that is in shaking ground when it comes to evolution?

For those that are quick to jump to the keyboard to eagerly proclaim the "facts" and the "evidences":
Let me remind you that it is a theory after all, which indicates that things haven't been proved, neither has produced any laws. (e.g. Relativity, Gravity). Reason enough for questioning and pondering.

0

You are asking the impossible. We can't prove without a doubt that we all have the same ancestor as apes/monkeys, etc.. None of us was around then. We do the best we can with what we have, which is an awful lot (DNA, fossils, etc.), but it's not going to be perfect.

There is no fossil record that even supports evolution. If this were actually the case scientists would have found fossil records showing several variations between man and ape. What the fossil record does show is animals and plants appearing abruptly, not evolving.

0

For those interested in the pure topic of Evolution for/against. What concepts can you find against evolution in the current form? (Please, leave outside the bigotries begotten by the masses that evolution can not fit inside creation)

What I mean is, what do you know that is in shaking ground when it comes to evolution?

For those that are quick to jump to the keyboard to eagerly proclaim the "facts" and the "evidences":
Let me remind you that it is a theory after all, which indicates that things haven't been proved, neither has produced any laws. (e.g. Relativity, Gravity). Reason enough for questioning and pondering.

I will continue to argue against the use of the word 'LAWS' in science - it is not the accepted standard and has not been since Relativity modified Newton's work and Quantum Theory shook the world of science. There has never been a 'law' of Relativity and wonder what you mean by 'law' of Gravity (your examples not mine). Let me remind you that you are using the word 'theory' in the vernacular not with the rigors of scientific thought.

This is why I am willing to wander off into the world of definitions - if we do not use the same language, we will have some difficulty communicating and will end up talking past each other (which is part of the fun and frustration of these discussions).

0

I will continue to argue against the use of the word 'LAWS' in science - it is not the accepted standard and has not been since Relativity modified Newton's work and Quantum Theory shook the world of science. There has never been a 'law' of Relativity and wonder what you mean by 'law' of Gravity (your examples not mine). Let me remind you that you are using the word 'theory' in the vernacular not with the rigors of scientific thought.

Alright, let's set definitions on the side, for the sake of sanity.
In what way is evolution flawed?

0

There is no fossil record that even supports evolution. If this were actually the case scientists would have found fossil records showing several variations between man and ape. What the fossil record does show is animals and plants appearing abruptly, not evolving.

Hunh? There are fossil records of several variations of paths from the common 'progenitor'. The fossil record does not show animals and plants appearing abruptly. If you have sources for your statements, I would like to see them.

Before we get too deep into this discussion, I need to know if you believe in a New Earth or Old Earth - if you believe in a New Earth, then there is not much room for discussion. Do you believe that everything was created exactly as it is in 7 days within the last 10-100,000 years? If so, how do you explain the various forms of finding the age of items (fossils, rocks, etc) using radio-active half-life?

0

Alright, let's set definitions on the side, for the sake of sanity.
In what way is evolution flawed?

Do you want me to argue against evolution?

0

Do you want me to argue against evolution?

If you care about it.
If you are completely convinced and totally in the boat for it, I suppose you will not have any thing to say against, which will render you a peon of whatever opinions and changes those driving the boat make.

If not one has anything against evolution except some form of prejudice that goes against "religion beliefs" and every one that are against "creationism" uses the "mighty power of evidence" to disassemble religious faith, then this is nothing more that another "God vs no God" thread; regardless how it is phrased.

0

For those interested in the pure topic of Evolution for/against. What concepts can you find against evolution in the current form? (Please, leave outside the bigotries begotten by the masses that evolution can not fit inside creation)

What I mean is, what do you know that is in shaking ground when it comes to evolution?

For those that are quick to jump to the keyboard to eagerly proclaim the "facts" and the "evidences":
Let me remind you that it is a theory after all, which indicates that things haven't been proved, neither has produced any laws. (e.g. Relativity, Gravity). Reason enough for questioning and pondering.

If you care about it.
If you are completely convinced and totally in the boat for it, I suppose you will not have any thing to say against, which will render you a peon of whatever opinions and changes those driving the boat make.

If not one has anything against evolution except some form of prejudice that goes against "religion beliefs" and every one that are against "creationism" uses the "mighty power of evidence" to disassemble religious faith, then this is nothing more that another "God vs no God" thread; regardless how it is phrased.

Why do you feel the need to introduce words like "bigotry", "prejudice", "peon", "in the boat", etc. into the conversation? You comment often about others' lack of civility in these threads and you phrase these posts as a plea for civility, but then you immediately start throwing gasoline onto the fire with words like these, along with accusations about how others are acting. What's wrong with "using the mighty power of evidence"? How is that prejudice?

0

>Why do you feel the need to introduce words like "bigotry", "prejudice", "peon", "in the boat", etc. into the conversation?
Sorry, you don't have a comfortable sofa.

>You comment often about others' lack of civility in these threads and you phrase these posts as a plea for civility,
Is...is that ci.vi.li.ty or ci.vil.i.ty? I am afraid you are confusing me with someone else, doc, I wouldn't know how to use that word.

>but then you immediately start throwing gasoline onto the fire
See, now I know you're impersonating a shrink. Everyone knows how expensive gasoline is.
Why on earth would I go that extreme and waste it?. No, don't tell me...I saw it in a movie, I can do this; does it has to do with my inability to cope with so much yellow color every where in summer? I am afraid of sun-flowers, they look at me, laughing, with their yellow petals. It is horrible. I can't stand it.

Happy Halloween, everyone!!.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.