Arkansas inflicts child abuse on its school children

[McBell]

Already been over all that in this thread

Really?
What post number?

 

[McBell]

It’s reality and the only song and dance left.

Your bold empty threat is not reality.
If it were reality, it would not be a bold empty threat.

Perhaps you can stop trying the sad attempt at diversion and address the point:

I never have been able to figure out why creationists are stuck 150 years in the past.
But this is a prime example of why religion needs to remain outside the science class room.
​

 

[Jose Fly]

Already been over all that in this thread

Clearly you don't want to talk about this. So be it.

 

[metis]

First, the idea of a linear progression in evolution is a lie, and yet you still see that picture everywhere, of apes gradually walking more upright until we get to humans.

That is a misunderstanding of why that linear progression is used.

Evolution is sloppy, and the best way to understand it is what I coined "mosaic evolution" many decades ago, and it goes like this: Mosaic evolution involves many different societies within a species, each evolving at least somewhat differently, only some of which may evolve into new species.

The only reason they try to fit the species together is that they are already committed to the evolution theory.

False, as that not how science works. If I publish a peer-reviewed article, and what I write contains some questionable conclusions, I will definitely hear about it from others. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean I was wrong and they were right, but what it does do is to put a burden of proof on me to show I'm correct, but also puts a burden of proof on them to show where my supposed mistake was.

 

[metis]

This is problematic because scientist have been wrong, scientists can have the latest testing equipment and in a couple years find out that they were wrong when better equipment comes out. So you end up teaching a lie and make excuses for it.

Frankly, that's much more a problem within religion than it is with science. In science, there are all sorts of checks & balances so as to catch mistakes, accidental or intentional, even if it takes some time such as with Piltdown.

But with religion, exactly how does one go about proving that there are deities, singular or plural? And how does one go about proving that a deity/deities teach X and Y or didn't teach X and Y? How many charlatans have been within Christianity or any other religion.

So, is Christianity a "lie"? I don't think so even though I cannot establish what I believe as being objectively correct.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Clearly you don't want to talk about this. So be it.

You can go back, but said there are common subjects parents agree on that should be taught to everyone. Leave the rest out.
Evolution as far as the same species or virus changing over time is obvious and don’t think anyone has a disagreement.
The term evolution meant things similar to Darwin’s theory which was man evolved over time from some organism over millions of years, was an ape and eventually a man. That there was no Creator and no God, no Designer. All creation points to a Creator.

 

[Wildswanderer]

False, as that not how science works. If I publish a peer-reviewed article, and what I write contains some questionable conclusions, I will definitely hear about it from others. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean I was wrong and they were right, but what it does do is to put a burden of proof on me to show I'm correct, but also puts a burden of proof on them to show where my supposed mistake was.

But in the field all are already committed to the evolution paradigm. So it doesn't matter if someone disagrees with your exact conclusions they still aren't going to step outside the box.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yeah it is. It happens, right before our eyes, all the time.

What happens are subtle changes within populations. A coyote is bigger than some areas than in other areas because he is adapting to the environment. A fox develops hair on his feet in some areas and not in others because of his environment. That all happens with no new information added to their DNA.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Irrelevant to the definition of "evolution" in biology today. When biologists say "the population evolved a new trait", we all understand what that refers to. No biologist thinks that refers to universal common ancestry.

Then why should we believe in universal common ancestry?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Teach kids they are just dumb animals and nothing matters, and what do you expect them to do?

I showed you the definition of "animal" and showed that according to that definition, we are "animals". We are pretty smart animals. I don't think anyone would suggest otherwise. As far as "nothing matters", you infer a philosophy to the science of biology where that philosophy does not fit. I've yet to read stories of evolutionary biologists committing mass murder, for example.

There's so many holes in the ToE it's tottering and about to fall.

Silly, wishful thinking.

The computer you are typing on is a lot less complex than your DNA, but you would think I was insane if I said your computer was the result of random processes.

News Flash: Computers are not biological organisms.

First, the idea of a linear progression in evolution is a lie, and yet you still see that picture everywhere, of apes gradually walking more upright until we get to humans. The theory has had to be modified into a wild bush with millions of branches instead of a straightforward tree. And those branches are missing most of their sections that connect them to other species. The ones that are supposed to make the connections are all highly debatable.

the "branches" are simplifications for educational purposes. They are not inaccurate; they are incomplete. The real "tree of life" actually looks more like a web.

The supposed ancestor of the dog and cats for example, consists of a few teeth and leg bones. Step outside the Evolution paradigm and it all looks like nonsense.

Of course it looks like nonsense; to those who are not versed in Taxonomy. But those who give form and "fill in the blanks" certainly are versed in taxonomy. A computer programming script would also look like nonsense ... to someone not versed in programming. A blueprint for a microchip would look like nonsense ... except to those who are versed in microchip architecture.

But it's not proven true. Just because populations adapt, doesn't equal molecules to man evolution.

Adaption IS Evolution.

Would like to see how you make the conclusion that because human beings adapt to their environment that this proves that an ape became a man eventually.

Nope. We conclude that man IS Ape.

This is problematic because scientist have been wrong, scientists can have the latest testing equipment and in a couple years find out that they were wrong when better equipment comes out.

We are consistently less wrong than we were before; take, for instance, the distance to the sun from earth. Over time, as newer tools were developed and better methods were used, the Sun shrunk further and further away. But it did not shrink away, get close, go waaaay far out there only to rebound and become closer ... we get closer and closer to understanding the observable reality as our pool of knowledge and available tools grow. None have yet to falsify evolution.

You can go back, but said there are common subjects parents agree on that should be taught to everyone. Leave the rest out.

Parents need to STFU and let educators educate their children. Most educators know what they are doing.

Evolution as far as the same species or virus changing over time is obvious and don’t think anyone has a disagreement.

Then we do not have a disagreement! You are now an Evolutionist!

The term evolution meant things similar to Darwin’s theory which was man evolved over time from some organism over millions of years, was an ape and eventually a man.

Man IS Ape.

What happens are subtle changes within populations. A coyote is bigger than some areas than in other areas because he is adapting to the environment. A fox develops hair on his feet in some areas and not in others because of his environment. That all happens with no new information added to their DNA.

Can you demonstrate for me how one species must "stop" and not evolve past a certain point? Can you demonstrate this for me, please, and not quote scripture, use baseless parables or assert incredulity? Can you tell me, where is the "stop" gene that tells populations that it can't change further?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

 

[Wildswanderer]

News Flash: Computers are not biological organisms.

Miss the point much?
You believe something that is all a lot more complicated than a computer just created itself. What is the difference whether it's biological or not?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Can you demonstrate for me how one species must "stop" and not evolve past a certain point? Can you demonstrate this for me, please, and not quote scripture, use baseless parables or assert incredulity? Can you tell me, where is the "stop" gene that tells populations that it can't change further?

The stop is when an organism can not change past a certain point because it doesn't have the genetic information to do so.
All of life’s complex features,, are said to be encoded in the DNA of living organisms. Building new features thus requires generating new information in the genetic code of DNA.
There are systems which require many parts — and therefore many mutations — to be present — all at once — before providing any survival advantage to the organism.
Random mutation and unguided natural selection cannot generate the genetic information required to produce irreducibly complex structures.
In fact most mutations are shutting something off, not turning something on. So even if a mutation is beneficial, it can be a loss I'm genetic information, not a gain.
Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne — a staunch defender of Darwinism, says that “natural selection cannot build any feature in which intermediate steps do not confer a net benefit on the organism."
Darwin apparently also recognized this problem, as he wrote in Origin of Species:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Little did he know just how complex DNA would be.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The stop is when an organism can not change past a certain point because it doesn't have the genetic information to do so.
All of life’s complex features,, are said to be encoded in the DNA of living organisms. Building new features thus requires generating new information in the genetic code of DNA.
There are systems which require many parts — and therefore many mutations — to be present — all at once — before providing any survival advantage to the organism.
Random mutation and unguided natural selection cannot generate the genetic information required to produce irreducibly complex structures.
In fact most mutations are shutting something off, not turning something on. So even if a mutation is beneficial, it can be a loss I'm genetic information, not a gain.
Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne — a staunch defender of Darwinism, says that “natural selection cannot build any feature in which intermediate steps do not confer a net benefit on the organism."
Darwin apparently also recognized this problem, as he wrote in Origin of Species:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Little did he know just how complex DNA would be.

Ah! Here it is:

Problem 3: Step-by-Step Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Needed for Irreducible Complexity | Evolution News

Old and tired argument. Here is what's wrong with it:

 

[ElishaElijah]

Parents need to STFU and let educators educate their children. Most educators know what they are doing.

That’s what predators say

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Nonsense.

 

[Polymath257]

But in the field all are already committed to the evolution paradigm. So it doesn't matter if someone disagrees with your exact conclusions they still aren't going to step outside the box.

The only reason they are 'committed' is because that is where the evidence points. Someone that can show, with evidence, that they are wrong would get accolades: that is how a scientist makes a name for themselves: by proving the accepted views are wrong.

But simply making a claim without solid evidence isn't going to go anywhere. That is also how science works. EVERY idea has to go through the ringer: evolution did, relativity did, the germ theory of disease did, etc.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Adaption IS Evolution.

Not molecules to man evolution. Call it what you want, but you can't get there from an organism simply adapting with the DNA information it already contains. That's like saying if I turn the lights off in one room in my house, so my electric bill will be less (a benefit to me) that explains how the house built itself.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The only reason they are 'committed' is because that is where the evidence points. Someone that can show, with evidence, that they are wrong would get accolades: that is how a scientist makes a name for themselves: by proving the accepted views are wrong.

But simply making a claim without solid evidence isn't going to go anywhere. That is also how science works. EVERY idea has to go through the ringer: evolution did, relativity did, the germ theory of disease did, etc.

Only the evidence points to a much larger story than random mutations. The world is billions of times more complex than Darwin's silly theory allows.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Parents need to STFU and let educators educate their children. Most educators know what they are doing.

Really? Parents should just shut up and let the state teach their kids? Do you have children? Are you ok with them being indoctrinated with whatever the government wants to feed them?
Maybe we could send them away to become good little communists, then we wouldn't have to take any responsibility for them!