Creationism vs Evolution in public schools

[Cat_Herder]

Huh? When? Where? Chemistry is “junk science”? Physics is “junk science”? Cytology is “junk science”?

I never said they were. But waving away gaps in causality to avoid abiogenesis is.

Oh, come on. This is not even worth a reply.

Do you think it’s just a coincidence that atheism began its rise in universities during the Cold War?

 

[larkin31]

I never said they were. But waving away gaps in causality to avoid abiogenesis is.

If science were doing this, you would have a point. But since they don’t, you don’t.

Do you think it’s just a coincidence that atheism began its rise in universities during the Cold War?

When was Marxism born? When did the Bolsheviks revolt? When did Nietzsche declare that God is dead? When was the first Humanist Manifesto written? Long before the Cold War, my friend.

Isn’t the rise you mention also during the same time that fraternity membership soared? And the average age of marriage fell to the lowest ever in US history? I blame frat parties and beer and panty raids!!!

 

[Cat_Herder]

If science were doing this, you would have a point. But since they don’t, you don’t.

When was Marxism born? When did the Bolsheviks revolt? When did Nietzsche declare that God is dead? When was the first Humanist Manifesto written? Long before the Cold War, my friend.

Not in the West, my friend. There is plenty of evidence of Soviet infiltration of academia under the guise of “scientific atheism” just as there is plenty of evidence for chaotic patterns in evolution. You just reject it because you don’t like it. I don’t know why you do this but there is no use in further belaboring this tangent.

 

[larkin31]

Not in the West, my friend. There is plenty of evidence of Soviet infiltration of academia under the guise of “scientific atheism” just as there is plenty of evidence for chaotic patterns in evolution. You just reject it because you don’t like it. I don’t know why you do this but there is no use in further belaboring this tangent.

You,ve dropped the abiogenesis claim?

The rest is just entertaining. I don’t “buy it” cuz it’s kooky.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Dear Bill,

like gurneyhalleck, I also wonder who or what Annie is.

Maybe he means Lucy. Or Annie could be the nickname for another primate (or any other animal, for that matter).

 

[Young_Thinker]

Evolution isn’t really meant to say anything about human nature. Evolution does a good job of explaining how humans evolved.

Actually, evolution can explain various aspects of human nature, as absent from divine grace. There are even subdisciplines like evolutionary ethics and sociobiology, though some scientists (e.g. Stephen Jay Gould) have frowned upon such use of evolutionary theory as wandering into the realm of religion (Dr. Gould considered morality to a part of religion and wanted religion and science to be separate entities).

 

[Cat_Herder]

You,ve dropped the abiogenesis claim?

The rest is just entertaining. I don’t “buy it” cuz it’s kooky.

I don’t know what you mean by “dropping the abiogenesis claim.” You are unwilling to entertain any views or evidence other than your own.

 

[kbachler]

Problem: a bunch of self replicating molecules in a bubble is not a cell. The “genetic” code of the molecules does not magically change once it enters the bubble such that it starts producing copies of itself and the bubble. This is what I mean about sloppy science teaching. Some folks are so desperate to get rid of God that they will break every rule of causality and claim that it is just an exercise of parsimony.

Put that razor down before you hurt yourself.

I’m sorry that you miss the point. If I can find the wonderful Scientific American article on this topic from a couple of years ago, I’ll reference it for you.

First, none of the argument get’s rid of God, nor do your attempts at randomly throwing words like chaos into the mix add God.

Second, the molecules already replicate whether in a bubble or not. That is the nature of DNA, RNA, TNA, etc. These molecules replicate. What is interesting is that once in a cell a mechanism develops to assist with thereplication.

Third, the research quoted in this (and now other articles) shows that in essence a cell can (not necessarily DID, but can) arise in this way.

If you keep looking to prove something, rather than lookingfor the truth, you will continue to miss the mark, and continue to do God a dis-service.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I’m sorry that you miss the point. If I can find the wonderful Scientific American article on this topic from a couple of years ago, I’ll reference it for you.

First, none of the argument get’s rid of God, nor do your attempts at randomly throwing words like chaos into the mix add God.

There is hard evidence for chaotic systems in biology.

Second, the molecules already replicate whether in a bubble or not. That is the nature of DNA, RNA, TNA, etc. These molecules replicate. What is interesting is that once in a cell a mechanism develops to assist with thereplication.

Not spontaneously.

Third, the research quoted in this (and now other articles) shows that in essence a cell can (not necessarily DID, but can) arise in this way.

Again, DNA in a bubble is just DNA in a bubble. It is not a cell.

If you keep looking to prove something, rather than lookingfor the truth, you will continue to miss the mark, and continue to do God a dis-service.

I am being insulted for the sake of Christ.

 

[larkin31]

I don’t know what you mean by “dropping the abiogenesis claim.” You are unwilling to entertain any views or evidence other than your own.

I am inundated by views other than my own, and consider them. And give them their due. Yours on a causal link between university atheism and Communism are just funny. When you stop bringing it up here, I will stop responding to it.

 

[larkin31]

I am being insulted for the sake of Christ.

I am fairly certain that both Jesus in the scriptures and the Catholic Church in its teachings have never claimed or argued what you are presenting here. So what do you mean that you are being insulted “for the sake of Christ”? Honestly, these ideas are not presented by Jesus or the Church (to my knowledge).

Thia thread is about science topics in the public schools.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I am fairly certain that both Jesus in the scriptures and the Catholic Church in its teachings have never claimed or argued what you are presenting here.

[BIBLEDRB]Romans 1:20[/BIBLEDRB]

So what do you mean that you are being insulted “for the sake of Christ”?

I am not willing to make the concessions to atheist views of human origins that you are. I point out the flawed science underlying their theories and you respond with friendly fire. I do not know why you are so hostile.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Yours on a causal link between university atheism and Communism are just funny. When you stop bringing it up here, I will stop responding to it.

The Red subversion of US colleges was well documented. Much of the current generation is a product of socialist and Marxist–and atheist–influence. As stated in that article, Marxism, socialism and atheism was promoted by the Reds as a total cultural package.

 

[Nec5]

The Red subversion of US colleges was well documented. Much of the current generation is a product of socialist and Marxist–and atheist–influence. As stated in that article, Marxism, socialism and atheism was promoted by the Reds as a total cultural package.

That’s because the other side (progressives, etc) knows how the game (good vs evil) is played. The Christian side is currently oblivious and does not believe in evil or that there is any real kind of conflict except a kind of loose recognition of a translucent moral malaise that is easily cured by Dr. Phil or smiling everyday.

 

[larkin31]

[BIBLEDRB]Romans 1:20[/BIBLEDRB]

This has nothing to do with the topic.

I am not willing to make the concessions to atheist views of human origins that you are. I point out the flawed science underlying their theories and you respond with friendly fire. I do not know why you are so hostile.

I made no claims here whatsoever about human origin. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with human origin. No one claims that chaos and randomness have NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory. I seriously think that you do not actually understand evolutionary science. Which is fine. Except when you then post on a thread under the topic and claim that the hard science that the theory is based on is some sort of fraud. Then, you should know, you will receive “fire” in return. I am here, in part, to defend the true nature and scope and legitimacy of science from uninformed criticisms. I teach high school students, and I take very seriously an unwarranted attempts to or suggestions to impede their knowledge of the world and growth of their intellects.

One thing I have learned here is that the Catholic Church does NOT support the claims that you are making here.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I made no claims here whatsoever about human origin. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with human origin.

Scientists disagree with you.

No one claims that chaos and randomness have NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory.

That’s a confusing double-negative. If you meant to say “chaos and randomness have nothing to do with evolutionary theory,” then even more scientists disagree with you.

I seriously think that you do not actually understand evolutionary science. …I am here, in part, to defend the true nature and scope and legitimacy of science from uninformed criticisms. … I teach high school students, and I take very seriously an unwarranted attempts to or suggestions to impede their knowledge of the world and growth of their intellects.

Ah, I get it. Anyone who disagrees with you is “uninformed” and “unwarranted” and is guilty of stumping the “knowledge of the world and growth of their intellects.” Because, after all, you are the one who decides what is and is not science, and so you have the right to tell Dr. Einstein to go away and stop stumping the children’s minds.

One thing I have learned here is that the Catholic Church does NOT support the claims that you are making here.

It is a dogma of the Faith that the existence of God can be proven through reason alone and what I provide is one of many ways to do it.

 

[larkin31]

Scientists disagree with you.

This is an essay about spontaneous generation during the years 1859-1880.

Are you serious with this stuff?

That’s a confusing double-negative.

Read it again. I am accusing you of arguing against a strawman. I am being as direct and as clear as possible.

If you meant to say “chaos and randomness have nothing to do with evolutionary theory,” then even more scientists disagree with you.

HAHA. No. I am saying that NO ONE claims this. You are arguing against an argument that IS NOT MADE, and NO ONE HAS MADE IT HERE.

Ah, I get it. Anyone who disagrees with you is “uninformed” and “unwarranted” and is guilty of stumping the “knowledge of the world and growth of their intellects.”

No. Just you on this specific topic. Why would you generalize? I am making this specific claim only about you to you about the things you are writing here on THIS THREAD. There are other posters who are indeed informed on the topic. But you are not one of them.

Because, after all, you are the one who decides what is and is not science, and so you have the right to tell Dr. Einstein to go away and stop stumping the children’s minds.

I have never claimed that I determine this. This is a silly remark.

It is a dogma of the Faith that the existence of God can be proven through reason alone and what I provide is one of many ways to do it.

This has nothing to do with our topic, which is which approach to an analysis of the fossil and geological and genetic record of life on this planet over time should be taught in a science class in a school that uses federal money.

 

[Cat_Herder]

This is an essay about spontaneous generation during the years 1859-1880.

Are you serious with this stuff?

Click “cited by” and you’ll see it was cited in 2010. Darwin’s theory is of course from that same era.

Read it again. I am accusing you of arguing against a strawman. I am being as direct and as clear as possible.
…
No. Just you on this specific topic. Why would you generalize? I am making this specific claim only about you to you about the things you are writing here on THIS THREAD. There are other posters who are indeed informed on the topic. But you are not one of them.

A clear argument is free of ad hominem attacks and yours is not.

HAHA. No. I am saying that NO ONE claims this. You are arguing against an argument that IS NOT MADE, and NO ONE HAS MADE IT HERE.

Posts 125, 140 and 156

I have never claimed that I determine this. This is a silly remark.

You reject any view that is not your own and launch ad hominem attacks against the people presenting those views. You have done this on thread after thread:

Religion may be the greatest scam ever perpetrated in the history of the planet. Albeit, mostly, with some decent intentions. Mostly.

I tire of your sloppy syllogisms, so I prefer it if you’d just make your thesis plain…
I actually think that you are just tooling around, trolling for entertainment. No serious thinker writes what you just wrote.

no, neurotic about sex and gender. he is a rather classic case.

(The last quote being in reference to Paul of Tarsus.)

So you call Christians dogmatic in a pejorative sense while you yourself are just as, if not even more, dogmatic about your own views. I am not attacking you for it, but I fail to see how you can put forth any sort of coherent argument about anything without some serious work on your epistemology.

This has nothing to do with our topic, which is which approach to an analysis of the fossil and geological and genetic record of life on this planet over time should be taught in a science class in a school that uses federal money.

You got the topic wrong on at least two counts:

1. Discussion of other theories such as chaos theory was specifically allowed by the OP and is an item in the poll.
2. The 14th Amendment applies the 1st Amendment to all public schools whether or not they receive federal money.

Peace.

 

[larkin31]

Click “cited by” and you’ll see it was cited in 2010. Darwin’s theory is of course from that same era.

Do I need to specifically state that no one claims your strawman argument TODAY???

A clear argument is free of ad hominem attacks and yours is not.

I am merely stating that you do not know that which you are arguing against here. That is not ad hominem in any sense of the word. I have made no claims about your character or person.

Posts 125, 140 and 156

These don’t claim what you say they claim.

You reject any view that is not your own and launch ad hominem attacks against the people presenting those views. You have done this on thread after thread:

False. I attack the claims. Sometimes, when the claims persist despite the errors I have demonstrated, I then criticize the thinking that leads to the continued error.

Are you following me around on “thread after thread”? I have never seen you before, to my recollection.

(The last quote being in reference to Paul of Tarsus.)

So you call Christians dogmatic in a pejorative sense while you yourself are just as, if not even more, dogmatic about your own views. I am not attacking you for it, but I fail to see how you can put forth any sort of coherent argument about anything without some serious work on your epistemology.

Dogma is only bad if it is false. I never attack “dogma” per se, and much of Catholic dogma I have complimented or am indifferent to. Which I have stated several times here. Which you are not overlooking and not crediting, if, as you say, you have seen me on “thread after thread.”

You got the topic wrong on at least two counts:

1. Discussion of other theories such as chaos theory was specifically allowed by the OP and is an item in the poll.
2. The 14th Amendment applies the 1st Amendment to all public schools whether or not they receive federal money.

Fair enough. I retract that criticism and leave the others.

 

[kbachler]

There is hard evidence for chaotic systems in biology.

I agree. But your statement has nothing to do with what I said. Nor is chaos a be-all/end-all to all areas of biology, nor does it carry any sort of God-implication.

Not spontaneously.

I guess that depends on what you mean by spontaneously. It follows physically laws and its been demonstrated that it can happen. There’s no God-implication, one way or the other.

If you let go of a rock, does it “spontaneously” fall?

Again, DNA in a bubble is just DNA in a bubble. It is not a cell.

Except that it fully appears that the bubble does in fact provide the potential for a membrane that continues to evolve. And initially it may not have been DNA, and probably not RNA; TNA, RNA and GNA, although they aren’t known to occur naturally, offer ideas of forms that may occur naturually that might be precursors to DNA.

I am being insulted for the sake of Christ.

You aren’t being insulted at all. But your lackof knowledge is being demonstrated. Calling a rock “a rock” is not an insult to the rock. It is the truth.