Thats an interesting site. Nice to see a site that can acknowledge both current real science and the Judea/Christian faith. As fare as I'm concerned, I dont need science to validate faith, but I always like to stay on top of current scientific findings and research.
I just dont understand the level of disrespect and posturing that goes on in these threads. If someone errors, cant correction come in more diplomatic termand not synical remarks and mockery?
It's hard not to be cynical when such basic mistakes are not just being made but actually
taught. We've seen this, what, 3 or 4 times by now - the same errors, the same basic mistakes, and the same unwillingness to listen. Yeah, it is a bit rude, and it is a bit of a turkey shoot, but to be frank I lost any sense of respect for that sort of intentional and willing blindness a long time ago and if an idea is stupid and idiotic I'm damn well going to say so.
I mean, we are talking about a thread where Zman posts some keyword, I have to look up what he actually (I presume) means by it, post why it's scientifically proven to be wrong with example sof the reasearch, and the response is
[q]Ill post the science pages when Im done with school.
And if youre asking why I havent posted it yet, its because i have a life beyond HLP..
And everything that was in the article I was gunna write is in the science book so theres no use in writing it. you can just read the pages yourself... Of course, youre gunna make up some other bullcrap "the books wrong, im right, your stupid!!!" kinda arguments. go ahead. Im ready for it..[/q]
Bullcrap. 200 years(+) of human endeavour, dismissed as 'bullcrap' because some bloody creationist propaganda textbook says so. Moreso, that book, I bet, will claim to 'prove' this using scientific results, and in effect aim to disprove something using the standards set by science, and having to actually break or ignore those standards in order to do so (such as selectively picking evidence to predetermine a conclusion, or ignoring contradictory proofs).
So yeah, maybe some of the replies have been rude, etc. But can you really blame people for getting pissed off? This genuinely threatens human progress - justnow it's evolution, and that might not seem to immediately disasterous for societal welfare, but just wait until it turns to things like medicine (where it kind of has begun to already) and we end up praying rather than getting prescriptions.
NB: i missed this earlier;
does anyone wanna explain, without using evolution, how there are many different races, all of which a directly descended from a single white (according to many religious paintings) couple? )I presume this is a quote?)
When a new generation was born, people went in different directions...
If you went where there was more sunlight, then you had darker skin..
Dude, its so possible...
So why are babies
born black to black parents? And mixed-colour to mixed-race parents? Wouldn't changing skin colour (to be precise, the preservation of a skin colour change due to it having a natural advantage) in response to the environment, and then maintaining that skin colour
across generations, even when the people have moved to different climates ala to the UK, be evidence of evolution?
Yes. Yes it would, and is. I believe the/a theory is that skin colour effects things like Vitamin D intake, and that lighter skin is beneficial in 'cold' areas as it allows greated Vitamin D intake from the reduced sunlight, whereas darker skin is advantageous in warm areas as it
blocks Vitamin D, which can be toxic in high concentations (the initial darker skin evolution is possibly a response to the loss of hairy bodies, which in turn is IIRC likely due to the evolution of sweat glands that would soak hair and cause heating problems, etc). So not only does evolution address and predict such a change as a selected adaptation, science also provides a proper solid reason. Evolution
also explains why we don't see white people who emigrate to Africa turn black overnight - or the converse - as evolution moves fastest in smaller populations where genetic changes are able to more rapidly propagate across that population.
In a way I can't blame them. It'd be like if somebody one day were to start trying to argue to me that little gremlins make lights glow. Obviously I'd dispute and respond with theories about electrons. But really, I'd just be going by what I'd been taught - I personally haven't done an experiment on the scale of an electron.
That's a fair point, but it has to be heavily tempered with the fact that science is peer-reviewed and transparent; the results and methodology are not just cross-checked, but published so they can be checked. It's also open to revisal, provided there is sufficient grounds provided (i.e. evidence gathered using the scientific method). whereas something like Id goes the opposite way, as we've seen already. Just look at that 'humans are closest to chickens' type quote going back to about page 2. Now, we're meant to take that on face value. But if you look into it, there is
no supporting evidence provided, no basis given, and that extends beyond the usage of quoting what sounds like an explicit fact but turns out to be completely unfounded and have, literally, as much factual basis as me just declaring 'fish are bicycles'. And it's not as if the very proponent of that 'fact' hasn't been challenged to provide evidence, because he has - and has failed. I believe it was Gish, actually (Gish is an Id/creationist spokeperson masquerading as a scientist; from what i understand he's a pretty good orator who specialises in fault science and 'debates' with selectively picked opposition).
That's why I'm so confident this vaunted science book will be, to quote myself, a 'creationist propaganda textbook'; because everything Zman has put so far has been a sort of buzzword or set of buzzwords, with no elucidation (presumably because he has none - he just takes it at face value because the book does) or explanation, and where even the most basic cursory examination proves it (or rather, what you'd presume to be it, because 'it' is undefined) to be scientifically proven wrong and even delberately misleading or faked. And because each rubuttal receives no attempt to scientifically response, it implies to me Zman - or Charismatic - don't actually have any scientific understanding of the reason they give, let alone why it is copiously wrong. So we get that response quoted at the top.
It's frustrating as hell not to have any scientific debate here, but i guess inevitable because even a cursory understanding or wish to understand reveals how wrong the creationist theories are
proven to be, so Id works very hard to make sure it's young proponents are unwilling to listen. But if the Vatican can not only allow but endorse evolution, I think that says a lot about theological validity - would God give us brains, free will, curiousity, rationality and not let us use them? I doubt it, even if I am an aetheist.
