Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You've done nothing but post a series of empty assertions. Hopefully you understand why that sort of thing is not at all persuasive.
They do make it up as they go along, which is why they've been forced to employ four taxonomic ranks to describe all the different kinds in the world. "Kind" has essentially become a term describing any organism that is taxonomically classified as anything from an order down to a species, which is pretty useless.BINGO!!! Even a single creationist organization varies enormously when it comes to how much evolution they'll accept.
It's almost like they're making it up as they go along..........
????????? What in the world does that have to do with this thread or what you posted earlier? Remember, you asserted some sort of pre-programming model, but have yet to support it in any way whatsoever.
I guess we can say he's at least consistent with the other creationists here.
St francis stated evolution experientially very nicely what one cannot do is teach someone to experience. I can't teach taste. Science narrative isn't evolution it's a narrative. Religion refuses to understand. D this they tend to prefer there narratives over experience just like science. So it's a interpersonal issue in religion in science science. They tend to mutually agree all truth starts with the cranium their ideas they tend to simply disagree on the details. One can't paint totally broad brush religion or science because in each domain there are antimonian voices speaking reason. But these are little and generally minor voices shouted over by loud dimwits in both domains.
This thread is about creationists and how wildly varied they are in how much evolutionary change they will accept. If you want to discuss PE, start your own thread.
How in the world is that evidence for genetic pre-programming?
Correlation does not imply causality. There are plenty of poor kids, children of the proletariat, that manage to get fine educations. Blaming it all on their economic strata and ignoring their lack of the "right stuff" is just so much social justice warrior clap trap. Sure, it is easier for a rich kid, but it is still quite possible for even the poorest kid, given the a background that has developed communication skills and a love of learning.
Again, correlation does not imply causality, there is way more at work here than just economics.
You should excuse them, they mean well. Even Lenin was born into the wealthy middle-class family and embraced revolutionary socialist and was expelled from Kazan Imperial University for participating in protests against the Russian Empire's Tsarist government. I believe it was Churchill, that sion of the ruling class, who is wrongfully credited with saying, “If a person is not a liberal when he is twenty, he has no heart; if he is not a conservative when he is forty, he has no head.’ Thomas Jefferson credits a form of this this quip, to John Adams: “A boy of 15 who is not a democrat is good for nothing, and he is no better who is a democrat at 20.”
That does not make the payments through.
If they can write a powerful essay they can get a finest-kind education. The problem is that they not only lack what it takes to buy their way in, the also lack what it take to qualify for a full ride.
You are faced with a choice between obvious fairy tale and issues that are more complex than you are prepared to comprehend (creationism vs. comparative anatomy and embryology). The question boils down to: Is it more sensible to believe in magic, or to accept, on actual authority, rational explanations that the evidence indicates you would understand were you better educated? Clearly the best thing to do is to obtain the requisite education, but if you can't (for whatever reason) it is best to take it on authority from those who have done so. When you want to know how your car works do you consult your mechanic or your pastor? If you need to deal with severe bleeding do you go to the Emergency Room or to your church? If you want to understand the diversity of life is it not best to consult the consensus of the Evolutionary Biologists and similarly take it on that authority that Evolution happens?
Yes. That much is obvious if you read the OP.
You're not making any sense.
That's fine, just don't try and derail this thread.
If that's the best you can do, I'll let that speak for itself.
And in general, that is how it happens. We've seen it in real time.
More empty assertions.
They don't have to pay for it. There are plenty of published papers in the literature that describes all sorts of evolution lab experiments, and there are plenty of layperson-friendly blogs and media articles that describe them in easy to understand terms.
Poverty makes it harder, but hardly impossible. The resources are there, you need to be bright enough and hard working enough and you need to persevere.
Hold on. Evolution is a specialized discipline useful for those whose profession is oriented towards biological sciences. There is no reason for general public to pay for courses that does nothing but satisfy curiosity. School level knowledge of evolution ought to be enough for lawyers, artists or business folks. The problem is that certain religious groups are rejecting the science being taught in school for ideological reasons. If they have problems with the science, they can pay their pastors to take a course on evolution in college to understand the experimental and observational evidence in detail. Surely, if it's that important, they can cough up the dough to take such a 2 semester regular or evening course for their pastors and theologians before spending money to propagate unscientific creationist nonsense and embarrassing themselves?