education of evolution vs. creationism

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Before it "should be" taught in schools, it "oughta be" proven true. Owing to the lack of the latter, the former "should (not) be" occuring... 'your' subject, or not.

What? Is that gravity you're talking about? It hasn't been "proven true" either.

Methinks you continue to ignore the real meaning of the word theory, despite knowing better.

Freaky, do you think God would misrepresent things the way you do?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
What? Is that gravity you're talking about? It hasn't been "proven true" either.

Methinks you continue to ignore the real meaning of the word theory, despite knowing better.

Freaky, do you think God would misrepresent things the way you do?

If there were the consensus you claim, evolution would have been a foregone conclusion decades ago. Contrary to your objections otherwise, the jury of reasonable-minded people is still out... and evolution is still found wanting.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If there were the consensus you claim, evolution would have been a foregone conclusion decades ago. Contrary to your objections otherwise, the jury of reasonable-minded people is still out... and evolution is still found wanting.

Evolution is a forgone conclusion amounst reasonably minded people. Half the stuff I learn on my degree a the moment is linked to evolution. Evolution is only found wanting by people who have a conclusion beforehand that they wish to press. That conclusion is based in dogma and not reason,

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Look, I've explained this topic at length here to you many times before. You are either deliberately, knowingly lying, or a wee bit thick.

I'm fed up with your mis-representation of my subject. Do you debate diagnoses with your physician? No? Why not? Perhaps because you're not qualified and he is? Well, in this arena (evolutionary biology) you are not qualified, and I am.

Simply seeing you express your opinion does not mean everyone now
has to agree with you, no matter how highly you think of yourself or
your own opinions.
Kelly

Originally posted by severoon
But any given life form didn't pop up from nothing. It popped up from something only a very simple tweak away from something else.

Also, I feel that your previous statements indicate that you feel there is something special about abiogenesis in particular. In fact, evolution has no regard whatsoever for life. It is a process that unfolds in non-living th ...[text shortened]... Whether these are chemical compounds or advanced life forms doesn't make a bit of difference.

I don't have an issue one with small changes if that is what you
think evolution is fine, but when you promote those small changes
can do more than just small changes that is another level of change
all together. With respect to having life pop up from nothing that really
isn't evolution, but a designless view of life requires it come from
non-living material with nothing but the laws of the universe to
make it happen.
Kelly

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If there were the consensus you claim, evolution would have been a foregone conclusion decades ago. Contrary to your objections otherwise, the jury of reasonable-minded people is still out... and evolution is still found wanting.

What a load of tosh. The only people with a problem with evolution are rabid fundies like you.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Simply seeing you express your opinion does not mean everyone now
has to agree with you, no matter how highly you think of yourself or
your own opinions.
Kelly

No, but when I've explained exactly how the process is postulated to work by the people who study it, you cannot come in and claim that they are saying something else.

You are simply trying to disprove saltation. Guess what? I'm not disagreeing. Saltation is rubbish. But saltation isn't evolution, so stop claiming it is.

Originally posted by KellyJay
That is the way it has to work, it has to start with non-life and
move into life and over come all the odds to get where we are now.
I don't believe that is possible given the odds. I know you want to
say it didn't have to over come the odds all at once, but one little
step at a time, but even there you are assuming you can get here
from there doing that, and I don't buy that.
Kelly

By similar dint of logic it should be impossible to run a marathon.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Before it "should be" taught in schools, it "oughta be" proven true. Owing to the lack of the latter, the former "should (not) be" occuring... 'your' subject, or not.

*sigh* You should know by now, that science does not 'prove' anything 'true'. That is the realm of the self deluded, those who feel they can pronounce what is so, and what is not so.

Science uses constructs (such as TOE) to test reality; adjusting and modifying; able to acknowledge issues and problems, evolving, if you will, to continually get closer to reality. That is why a theory remains a theory.

Let us look at Theism. The world was declared to be 60xx years old by Mr Usher. According to the bible. But reality slowly creeps in, and now there are not many left so deluded as to maintain that Mr Usher is even close to being correct. If that was taught in schools, what chance the children of the future?

Theism has to adjust, and for the most part, it is (Even the pope acknowledges evolution). As for yourself, you can believe whatever you like, but our children deserve better, on the whole.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The trouble with the cards is you don't get to keep the good ones
and not the bad, you also don't get unlimited time to shuffle them
and get it right either. Even the start of evolution would have had to
of had taken place in a limited window of time, if the stories we have
heard about universe were true. The conditions had to be just right,
not to hot ...[text shortened]... et alone continue on and flourish
afterwards to get the variety of life we see today.
Kelly

I realised the other night where one of the key points you seem to misunderstand. You have the entire argument 180 degrees the wrong way round.

Life didn't have to be the way it is. The conditions of the past didn't have to be "perfect" to result in us. We are not a necessary outcome for evolution.

Life is the way it is because of the conditions being the way they were. If conditions had been different, life now would be different, and the odds of reaching that outcome equally similar to the odds of reaching this one.

We are the result, not the necessary outcome, of the conditions.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I realised the other night where one of the key points you seem to misunderstand. You have the entire argument 180 degrees the wrong way round.

Life didn't have to be the way it is. The conditions of the past didn't have to be "perfect" to result in us. We are not a necessary outcome for evolution.

Life is the way it is because of the c ...[text shortened]... ds of reaching this one.

We are the result, not the necessary outcome, of the conditions.

Precisely. We could be a hundred feet tall, green, warty, with eyes on our knees, and KellyJay would still be saying isn't it incredible that we've hit the right code on the combination lock.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
By similar dint of logic it should be impossible to run a marathon.

Not at all, no one is saying you cannot do small things by making
small moves, even your computer fluctuates current and voltages
and it isn't evolving into a mainframe, your computer by design
handles small fluctuations within a certain spec to work. You may
run a great distance, but there are places you cannot run like to
the moon, across an ocean, and so on, just as small mutations in
random manners cannot get several independent systems to act in
unison unitizing starts and stops mechanisms, not to mention
all the issues we run into with things like different sexes not only
showing up at the same time, but maintaining balance throughout
time. Random mutations do not lead to keeping things balanced
they tend to break things, or put them into states of unbalance, and
can lead to consumption of resources in inopportune places more
often than not.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, but when I've explained exactly how the process is postulated to work by the people who study it, you cannot come in and claim that they are saying something else.

You are simply trying to disprove saltation. Guess what? I'm not disagreeing. Saltation is rubbish. But saltation isn't evolution, so stop claiming it is.

That is the point isn’t it? You explained exactly how you think is it all working,
or did work which does not mean I have to accept your point of view. I can and
do say you or they can be wrong or just expressing opinion, we can both
express our beliefs and relate what we believe are factual statements to the other,
that does not necessitate the other must dismiss their stance and accept the other’s
point of view.

Please don’t tell me I’m am claiming someone is saying something they are not,
if I misquote you or another bring it to my attention, but typically mind reading
and misrepresenting positions are common place here, but I don’t think I’m am
the one doing it! “saltation” what is that, and what are you suggesting I’m saying?
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
What a load of tosh. The only people with a problem with evolution are rabid fundies like you.

Does that make you feel better believing that, running down people who
disagree with you? You cannot respect someone who disagrees without
doing some type of harm to their reputation on this topic? You have to
make this some type of personal issue, with this us against them?
Kelly

Originally posted by Green Paladin
Precisely. We could be a hundred feet tall, green, warty, with eyes on our knees, and KellyJay would still be saying isn't it incredible that we've hit the right code on the combination lock.

I'll speak for me thank you.
Kelly