quote:

I would take your comment to infer the teaching of evolution versus creationism. But evolution is still a theory and by definition a theory is: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. It would be more intellectually honest to teach it as thus, and discuss historically the many varying beliefs surrounding the mystery of existence. Since none of us were here when the world began producing life, none of us can truly claim we know the truth, and in practicality, it matters far less how we got here and far more where we are going.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I would take your comment to infer the teaching of evolution versus creationism. But evolution is still a theory and by definition a theory is: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. It would be more intellectually honest to teach it as thus, and discuss historically the many varying beliefs surrounding the mystery of existence. Since none of us were here when the world began producing life, none of us can truly claim we know the truth, and in practicality, it matters far less how we got here and far more where we are going.

A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation is called a scientific hypothesis. A theory is a model constructed on the basis of evidence and subject to modification if new evidence warrants. Let's be clear on the difference. The adapatation of disease causing bacteria to antibiotics is ample support for the model of evolution.

Furthermore, you are confusing evolution with abiogenesis [as do most creationists] Evolution is not a theory about the beginning of life on this planet. It is a threat to the biblical belief in the special creation of humankind and for that reason creationists [now gussied up as intelligent design] offer the dodge that there is a scientific controversy, where none exists in reality.

quote:

Really? There is no attempt by the 'new atheism' to use politics for any means? So my son can organize a voluntary prayer group on school property? You can have a statue of the ten commandments in a U.S. court room? (Which incidentally, I wouldn't have the slightest problem if they had another statue of Hammurabi's code sitting right next to it)

quote:

And I strongly suggest you go over to dictionary.com and look up the word theory which is precisely where I got the definition from. I don't disagree that adaptation of disease causing bacteria to antibiotics is a reality, but I've still yet to see a human give birth to something that wasn't human, or an animal give birth to something that wasn't its own species.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Ultimately, any aggression, intellectually or physically, is almost certainly rooted in a deep seated insecurity about the underlying beliefs from either side.

What a self-serving fantasy. So no disagreement is possible, whatever the original claim? No physical defense possible, whatever the original action?

No wonder you admire Narcissus.

I never said disagreement isn't possible, that is taking quite a leap from what I said. What I said was aggression. If you need to remove civility from your discussion, you're nothing but a bully, and eventually, every bully gets socked in the eye.

quote:

And in anticipation of your answer about the slow drift of genetics over millions of years, if that is the case, then none of us will be alive to know the truth so it makes it a relatively moot point. It isn't rooted in any practicality and can be no more disputed than whether or not Moses was really talking to God in a burning bush.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Really? There is no attempt by the 'new atheism' to use politics for any means? So my son can organize a voluntary prayer group on school property? You can have a statue of the ten commandments in a U.S. court room? (Which incidentally, I wouldn't have the slightest problem if they had another statue of Hammurabi's code sitting right next to it)

You are bothered by the seperation of church and state? And I do believe voluntary prayer groups are allowed on school property at a time along with other student activities and not during classroom time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterG2kTR


I think we need a "Hey I'm Off My Meds" forum....y'know?!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Ultimately, any aggression, intellectually or physically, is almost certainly rooted in a deep seated insecurity about the underlying beliefs from either side.

What a self-serving fantasy. So no disagreement is possible, whatever the original claim? No physical defense possible, whatever the original action?

No wonder you admire Narcissus.

I never said disagreement isn't possible, that is taking quite a leap from what I said. What I said was aggression. If you need to remove civility from your discussion, you're nothing but a bully, and eventually, every bully gets socked in the eye.

You might stop practicing it, if that's how you feel.

You're an author. You keep telling us how smart you are. Surely you understand the implications of your statement about intellectual aggression. It's a sweeping position. In fact, many great classical pieces are precisely well-thought attacks on positions that don't stand. Academic publishing is with the understanding that one will be shot at, hence either refining or reconsidering the original position. It's the heart of dialectic.

If you're feeling attacked right now, you didn't read what I just wrote. Insecurity indeed--you're talking to the mirror. Leave that crap behind, and clarify or better support your ideas--or recognize the flaws and refine them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

And in anticipation of your answer about the slow drift of genetics over millions of years, if that is the case, then none of us will be alive to know the truth so it makes it a relatively moot point. It isn't rooted in any practicality and can be no more disputed than whether or not Moses was really talking to God in a burning bush.

The truth is in the comparison of genomes between men and chimps. The truth is in the clear evidence of change in fossils, of fish with lungs and reptiles with feathered wings.

quote:

In a truly free society, you don't have to have exclusion. I'll have to check into your belief about voluntary prayer groups, but last time I checked, it was not allowed. There is room for religion or the lack thereof in public functions. To further embrace a holistic culture, people should be able to freely express their beliefs and convictions as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

quote:

And what that truth is, is not clear evidence that one changed into the other. Where are the reptiles with feathered wings today? Oh adaptation gone bad? Just because our genomes are similar does not mean one begot the other. It is still a jump, that's all I'm really saying.

quote:

In a truly free society, you don't have to have exclusion

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

In a truly free society, you don't have to have exclusion. I'll have to check into your belief about voluntary prayer groups, but last time I checked, it was not allowed. There is room for religion or the lack thereof in public functions. To further embrace a holistic culture, people should be able to freely express their beliefs and convictions as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

The purpose of seperation of church and state is to prevent the state from imposing one religion upon all by either coersion or sanction. Surely, you are not ignorant of the history that lead to the First Amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

And what that truth is, is not clear evidence that one changed into the other. Where are the reptiles with feathered wings today? Oh adaptation gone bad? Just because our genomes are similar does not mean one begot the other. It is still a jump, that's all I'm really saying.

To answer your questions:

1. they are called birds.

2. similar genomes are evidence of a common ancestrial line of begats.

quote:

Where I disagree is when it becomes something of a crime to include religions altogether.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Ultimately, any aggression, intellectually or physically, is almost certainly rooted in a deep seated insecurity about the underlying beliefs from either side.

What a self-serving fantasy. So no disagreement is possible, whatever the original claim? No physical defense possible, whatever the original action?

No wonder you admire Narcissus.

I never said disagreement isn't possible, that is taking quite a leap from what I said. What I said was aggression. If you need to remove civility from your discussion, you're nothing but a bully, and eventually, every bully gets socked in the eye.

You might stop practicing it, if that's how you feel.

You're an author. You keep telling us how smart you are. Surely you understand the implications of your statement about intellectual aggression. It's a sweeping position. In fact, many great classical pieces are precisely well-thought attacks on positions that don't stand. Academic publishing is with the understanding that one will be shot at, hence either refining or reconsidering the original position. It's the heart of dialectic.

If you're feeling attacked right now, you didn't read what I just wrote. Insecurity indeed--you're talking to the mirror. Leave that crap behind, and clarify or better support your ideas--or recognize the flaws and refine them.

And in my doctrine's teachings there is a saying, Hate the sin not the sinner. Doctrine aside, what I'm saying is, your comments attack the person not the idea. If you challenge my thinking, you are not insulting me. If you berate my intelligence, you offend.

Even in Taoism there is this: The Way of Heaven is to benefit others and not to injure.
The Way of the sage is to act but not to compete.

quote:

Again a jump. We do not currently have any intermediary species in existence. Feathered lizards are birds? Then why are birds warm blooded?
Similar genomes cannot conclusively be called evidence of common ancestral lines until we directly witness an intermediary species.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

In a truly free society, you don't have to have exclusion

How lovely to see some one coming from a religious background who can appreciate the virtue of inclusion and how damaging exclusion can be! So unusual but so welcome! Especially when Christians have spent centuries refining their exclusion of those who behaviour they disapproved of (eg queers) or those whom they felt were inferior (women) or those .... need I go on? It's a very long list. Even today these same churches vigorously defend their right to exclude ....

So please keep talking about the virtues of inclusion - to your fellow believers. They're the ones who need to get the message. Most of us non-believers got it decades ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Again a jump. We do not currently have any intermediary species in existence. Feathered lizards are birds? Then why are birds warm blooded?
Similar genomes cannot conclusively be called evidence of common ancestral lines until we directly witness an intermediary species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth