Pretty good case against evolution:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

Thoughts?

Ggazoo, evolution is a theory that best fits the facts as we have discovered them . Without going thru that entire comic (that puts anyone who does not subscribe to christian rhetoric in an extremely bad light), even IF evolution is wholly misguided, this does not lend any credibility to any biblical claims as the comic (published on a biblical site) would seem to allude to.

The comic is a marketing scheme designed to perpetuate the fear that religions continue to stir in humans to pursuade loyalty and blind faith.

Typical creationist distortion and delusion.

I don't know which was more despicable -- the inaccuracies about evolution, or the caricature of the ranting pro-evolution teacher.

It’s just more of the typical anti-intellectualism that’s so common among fundamentalist Christians.

I like the statement that "proves" gluons don't exist: no-one has seen or measured them.
And that would apply also to... guesses anyone?

Some of the greatest scientists in history were Christians.

Some of the greatest scientists in history were Christians.
And that statement, in and of itself, would indicate some weren't. The point?

Some of the greatest scientists in history were Christians.

No doubt, but Christianity was the defacto ideology of the time... to claim anything different, at best, earned one a rat infested jail cell, and at worst, a torturous death.

If they were alive now, do you think they'd claim to be Christians? I can't say, but my hunch is, no.

~String

Pretty good case against evolution:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

Thoughts?

Using chick tracts to make a case against evolution is like using a squirtgun to fight a wildfire.

Catholics were the coercers, not the Protestants.

Some of the greatest scientific minds in history have been Christian, it's a fact of history, that's the way it is.

Some of the greatest scientists in history were Christians.

Yeah, if you want to look back over the last 500. Today, most of the best scientists are atheists. Also, you'll note that I said fundamentalist Christians. Can you name any great scientists who were fundamentalist?

They believed the Bible, is that "fundamentalist?"

There are many Christians in the hard sciences, where the rubber meets the road.

They believed the Bible, is that "fundamentalist?"


By "Fundamentalism" I was referring to the protestant religious movement that began in North America early in the 20th century. Were you really too stupid to realize this, or are you just hoping to stretch the term "fundamentalist" to fit the great scientists of the 18th century?


There are many Christians in the hard sciences, where the rubber meets the road.
About 60% of scientists are atheists. Among eminent scientists, the number is closer to 90%. I don't have any statistics handy for fundamentalism specifically, but I would bet any amount of money that only a very, very tiny percentage of practicing scientists are fundamentalist Christians.

If you don’t believe that modern fundamentalism is strongly anti-intellectual, then you are clearly very out of touch with modern fundamentalism.

Hey Nasor, what supposedly made the North American Christians of the 20th century different from those of the 18th century?

Oh Nasor, there are millions of Christians in the sciences, get a grip.

Hey Nasor, what supposedly made the North American Christians of the 20th century different from those of the 18th century?
If you really aren’t familiar with the rise of the Fundamentalist Christian movement in North America in the early 20th century, all I can do is suggest that you go out and read a history book.



Oh Nasor, there are millions of Christians in the sciences, get a grip.I never disputed this. But it doesn't change the fact that:

1) While there are many scientists who are Christian, the percentage of scientists who are Christian is far lower than the percentage of the general population that is Christian.

2) The best scientists of today - the ones who win Nobel prizes and are admitted to the national academy of science - are overwhelmingly atheist.

What role does their Atheism play in such high accolades?

What role does their Atheism play in such high accolades?
I don't know.

Pretty good case against evolution:


Thoughts?

A pretty good case, one that would stand up in court no doubt.
Erm.....or not.
:rolleyes:

I don't know which was more despicable -- the inaccuracies about evolution, or the caricature of the ranting pro-evolution teacher.


Which is pretty much how many atheists tend to portray Christians... it's not fun when the shoe is on the other foot now, is it? :rolleyes:

Yes, I'm sure Liege would agree that the Darwinite ranters are likewise despicable.

Some of the greatest scientific minds in history have been Christian, it's a fact of history, that's the way it is.


This is indisputably true, of course. But how is that relevant to this topic? Does it have some bearing on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the cartoonish tract linked above?


Which is pretty much how many atheists tend to portray Christians... it's not fun when the shoe is on the other foot now, is it? :rolleyes:


That metaphor only works if the shoe actually fits on the other foot. Can you actually find a real-life example of a pro-evolutionary scientist or teacher behaving like the teacher in the tract above? I daresay such ranting behavior is more common in the creationist camp. By no means am I saying it's the norm for creationists, but there is a certain subsection for which it is true. Furthermore, you don't see evolutionists trying to prove their views with silly cartoons. They have peer-reviewed journals for that.

That is the attitude of Darwinists here, and in most classrooms.

That is the attitude of Darwinists here, and in most classrooms.


Such is the by-product of the cognitive dissonance and turmoil experienced by these "Darwinists" when their religious philosophy of evolutionism is questioned and debunked.

Nothing new under the sun, folks.

That is the attitude of Darwinists here, and in most classrooms.


Really? In most classrooms, you say?

In the tract we see the teacher drawn with fire around his head, as if to indicate he is absolutely enraged that a student is debating with him. We see this teacher yelling "get out of my classroom!" We see him snarling "I could have you jailed for that!" and "How dare you mention the Bible in this school!" We see him berating and threatening this student in an almost violent manner.

Now, you're really telling me you think this is how real teachers behave in the classroom? If so, you're even more deluded than I thought. Talk about cognitive dissonance!

The fact is, it is becoming a trend that teachers are afraid to talk about evolution at all in class, due to constant hassling from parents.

Excellent.

Such is the by-product of the cognitive dissonance and turmoil experienced by these "Darwinists" when their religious philosophy of evolutionism is questioned and debunked.


Constantly questioned; never debunked.

Such is the by-product of the cognitive dissonance and turmoil experienced by these "Darwinists" when their religious philosophy of evolutionism is questioned and debunked.

Nothing new under the sun, folks.

You wish.

I should say, it's a shame they don't talk about other forms of evolution too, such as within syngameons, there is much research to be done on this, but the mainstreamers insist on Darwinism or nothing, Soviet style education.

How would you know?

Darwinism is the only model they teach, as fact, like it's a done deal, a foregone conclusion, intellectual dishonesty to the max.

No, actually you are behind the times. These days, the primary theory is called Neo-Darwinism.

The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects:
It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.
It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.
In other words, the Modern Synthesis (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html)is a theory about how evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly with organisms, speciation and individuals. This is a major paradigm shift and those who fail to appreciate it find themselves out of step with the thinking of evolutionary biologists. Many instances of such confusion can be seen here in the newsgroups, in the popular press, and in the writings of anti-evolutionists.

I'm pro evolution, just not that kind, which is strictly theoretical in nature.

Right, you want a place for God in the system, because you think God is really great.

In the tract we see the teacher drawn with fire around his head, as if to indicate he is absolutely enraged that a student is debating with him. We see this teacher yelling "get out of my classroom!" We see him snarling "I could have you jailed for that!" and "How dare you mention the Bible in this school!" We see him berating and threatening this student in an almost violent manner.

Now, you're really telling me you think this is how real teachers behave in the classroom? The actual lesson being taught has nothing to do with Darwinian theory. The lesson is not about the non-human world at all. The lesson is about scientists and intellectuals who do not espouse Christianity.

The intellectual is exaggerated in the same way, and for the same reasons, that drawings of physical phenomena are drawn out of scale in textbooks - to make visible the essential lesson, which in this case is the true inner nature of intellectuals and people who pretend to know stuff that fundie Christians do not.

There is no such thing as "proof of evolution." As a scientific theory, evolution cannot, by definition, be proved. However, it has been confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt, which is different.

unreasonable doubt? because someone has what is considered unreasonable doubt it is then proof?

still thinking ggazoo:)

ah i have to go.....

I like the statement that "proves" gluons don't exist: no-one has seen or measured them.
And that would apply also to... guesses anyone?

No, people have seen god, but only the ones that cast themselves out into the desert without food and water until they become delusional and start hallucinating bearded men in the sky telling them to start a new world order.

Please note the sarcasm...

unreasonable doubt? because someone has what is considered unreasonable doubt it is then proof?


No matter how much the point is made, the masses just don't get it. :rolleyes:

Science does not deal in "proof." Proof is something mathematicians concern themselves with. No scientific theory can ever be "proven." All theories are provisional, forever, always open to being shown to be wrong. What science does is to refine a theory (using evidence), and refine it again, and then again, and yet again, ad infinitum, until the chances of it being shown to be wrong are vanishingly small. Then we can reasonably trust that the theory is correct.

I'm sure it'll be a matter of only hours or days before I have to point this out again to someone or other. Really, it gets rather tiring. :yawn:

Excellent.

Why is that teacher being afRAID TO TEACH A VALID, SOUND AND WELL PROVEN SCIENTIFIC theory excellent?