Scrambles

randman,

This thread isn't supposed to be about PE. It is supposed to be about how you will not accept anything as transitional even if it is.

Can't you please respond to the OP.
Also, If you want to you can give your definition of "kind". But first RESPOND TO THE OP!!!!

Scrambles

randman

I dare you to read even more propoganda???
Look, we were all taught evolution in school. I find it amusing that ya'll want even more of people's time.
Let's deal with what I was taught first. It was a lie.
The fossil record does not show species evolving, especially on a macro-level.
You believe it happened, but the fossil record does not document the actual transitions.
If evolutionists want to have any credibility with me, they will need to start acknowledging they have been teaching a lie to the American public. They are leaving a false impression upon America's school-children, and it is disgusting.
Reminds me of the old Pravda.

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

scigirl

HOLY SHIT you guys, randman found us out. How is that possible? I thought our evil conspiracy was a secret!!!

Yep, you are right randman. Evolution is one big scientist conspiracy, and has been a very successful one for over 100 years. Scientists from all over the world with all sorts of religions, beliefs, and cultures who disagree on political systems, health care delivery, and damn near everythig else, have by some miracle all agreed to promote this "lie of evolution."

Meanwhile, the USA fundamentalist christian groups, who of course never have a political agenda, and of course consider scientific truth to be much more important than the Bible (a book clearly not meant to be a science text), are much more likely to promote and discover "The Truth" (TM).



In an astonishing move today, the US goverment has forbid the prosecution of murderers. Their line of reasoning goes like this: "Unless we have an actual videotape of Joe killing Fred, we cannot be sure that Joe actually did kill Fred. Evidence such as blood found on the suspect, motive, and no alibi are no longer sufficient to prove someone's guilt."

randman, the evidence that descent with modification did indeed occur is astounding. We don't need to see a videotape to know that it happened. Furthermore, YEC is clearly wrong (read anything from talkorigins), and we have known that YEC is clearly wrong for over 100 years. You know what - I think the burden of proof is on you. Prove that macroevolution is impossible. You are now the defense attorney, and you have to explain away not only each piece of evidence that supports descent with modification, you also have to provide a theory that DOES work to explain the evidence. YEC and OEC are both completely inadequate. Go this talkorigins site: <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#conc" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#conc</a> and scroll down to the part that says "Conclusion: What does the vertebrate fossil record show?" and read it.

If by the word "lie" you simply meant, "watered-down science taught to kids because local school boards are more interested in whether their child can pray in school than ensuring that their kids actually learn how to think critically about scientific issues," than yes, randman, many schools do teach lies. And whose fault is that? Certainly the scientific community is partially to blame, for not playing a bigger role in educating the public. But who else is to blame for the shoddy science training in USA schools? Think long and hard about this question, randman.

I agree that science education is lacking in this country - children are taught how to memorize facts instead of how to think. But evolution is not a lie. It is a scientific theory that works well to explain a lot of data, it fits in with other scientific theories such as the age of the earth, and it makes testable predictions which do come true.

Unfortunately, scientific theories are rarely black and white, like math proofs. Thus, it is difficult to teach them.

And yes, unfortunately, scientists occasionally act like human beings, and become dogmatic about their theories. But the process of scientific discovery works to disprove theories, so that the truth can be more easily ferrreted out.

Let's take a history lesson: When a scientist comes up with a new theory that proves old theories wrong, what do (some) scientists do? Well some of them say, "yeah right," and perhaps the paper doesn't get published, until more data is accumulated.

What do (some) churches do, when a scientist comes up with a theory that proves certain religious tenets wrong? They are placed under house arrest. Or they are accused of being in league with Satan!

Randman, if you can show me one Christian church that encourages questioning, that attempts to prove itself wrong, and that will finally admit that their theories are wrong at least in part, than you can come talk to us about how scientists are all promoting a lie.

scigirl

Scrambles

Ok, this is freaking me out. Randman doesn't seem to be replying at all to the OP. I criticise what I assume to be his concept of transition. He doesn't reply, doesn't tell me it's a strawman, doesn't acknowledge my existence. Then he uses the term "transition" in his last post. Considering I am criticising his understanding of the term I think that using it before answering my criticism is both rude and stupid. (I suppose now he'll complain about evilutionists using "ad-hominem" arguments now)

Is it because I am a lurker for so much of the time that I have become invisible or something?

No more chances randman. Please answer the OP.

Scrambles