Why do evolutionist lie?

[Sender]

I really don't understand why evolutionist lie, short of trying to keep their bogus theory alive. How can anyone belive in evolution(macro)? Please enlighten me.

[Chimp]

If you mean the original topic questions...

Why do evolutionist lie?
and
What advances have been made because of this theory?

I don't really see them as debatable without clarification.


-non debate personal blurt...serious debaters disregard
I think we ARE making progress. I think we define it differently though.
I have spent many hours reading all kinds of material, posts and rants
from all sides of the various debates here. At one point, I was slated to
be a doctor and was required to delve into all the bio/sciences stuff. Even
if I fail to persuade or even just make a total ass of myself...I'm learning
all kinds of stuff I wouldn't otherwise be learning. I believe in challenging
my faith. Foundations built on rock etc...
For me...my faith is about a walk, not a boat full of animals or people
made of mud, or really big lizards. Can't say it any simpler.

[micatala]

In reference to my saying we don't know where the energy of the Big Bang came from . . .

So if you don't know, you have to believe something happened in order for the event to take place. You also have to take a leap of faith about intermediate fossils. Life origination you also never witnessed nor can you repeat it. So my whole point is you have to take macro evolution on faith. Therefore, it is religiuos in nature.

You are jumping to conclusions based on what I said.

I said we don't know what happened before the Big Bang.

I would also say we don't know exactly how life arose.

However, we do know quite a bit about the history of life and yes, there are intermediate fossils. Just because you don't have the remains of ALL your ancestors doesn't mean you assume the remains you don't have never existed.

We have lots of evidence for macro evolution.

We also have at least some reasonable, though admittedly speculative in their details, hypotheses regarding the origin of life. We may or may not be able to make our explanations on this one more concrete, in time.

You are still jumping from " we don't know how A happened" to "therefore we must not really know about how B, C, etc. happened."

Evolution is not based on faith, it is based on the evidence we do have of the fossil record, genetics, molecular biology, geology, etc. We don't know about what happened before the Big Bang because there is (probably anyway) no evidence that survived from before the Big Bang.

[Lotan]

Why am I an inacurate source? Where did I "prove" that?

I always believe in answering question already on the table before moving on to the next one.

Me too. I have asked you several times now to provide evidence for your claim that "kids are taught it (the peppered moth) is an example of evolution". You gave a reference to a textbook, even the page number but sadly, no quote.

Everyone else has avoided the questions.

I haven't, but you have.
Anyway, the answer to the above question is...
Here.

The peppered moth. One of the great examples of evolution.

But when I corrected you, you agreed...

You are correct it is an example of "natural selection".

Now, if you can't even get that right, why should we believe that page 5 of Allyn and Bacon General Science 1989 will show conclusively that kids are taught that the peppered moth is an example of evolution?

Quote me..."it is in the textbooks today"!

Surely such damning evidence should be all over the net, but it's not.
Please provide your evidence or withdraw your claim.

[jwu]

chimp& jwu, I would say definitely put Christianity back in, in history class if nothing else.

Depending on what you want to teach, that'd be fine.

The 50% is mostly because Christian are uninformed.

That argument cuts both ways...

If they knew what I knew, we would get that number higher.

No offence, but since you confused macroevolution with abiogenesis and didn't even hear of ERVs and Cytochrome C yet as it seems, you may not know as much about evolution as you think.

But this country was founded on Christian principles, and we are still a Christian nation.

No, it wasn't, and albeit the majority of the population is Christian, that doesn't make it a Christian state...the whole seperation of state and church business.
From the treaty of tripoli:

Article 11

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Signed (by Tripoli)november 1796 at the end of Washington's last term, later approved by the Senate and signed by President Adams

[Jose]

Ok men, I am resting my case on this issue. The only answer I was given was "I don't know". Everyone else has avoided the questions. I have presented my arguements, I am done responding to this thread. Thank you for your insights and candor, I do appreciate that. See you in other threads, but I am done for good on this one.

Don't be silly. No one has avoided your questions--they just haven't given you the answers you wanted. But that's no reason to take your ball and go home. I'll assume you're still browsing this thread, and that you'll come back eventually.

If you thought it was ok to say you don't know, why didn't you answer me 100 post ago. Of course it is ok to say that. I knew your answer before we started. [to which I would ask: then why ask the question????] Heck, I say it all the time. So if you don't know, you have to believe something happened in order for the event to take place. [sure, something did, but we've said we don't quite know what it is.] You also have to take a leap of faith about intermediate fossils. Life origination you also never witnessed nor can you repeat it. So my whole point is you have to take macro evolution on faith. Therefore, it is religiuos in nature. So take it out of the class room, or put Creation back in. The tax base alone should be enough to do that, because 79% of tax payers claim to be Christian. Teach both. Can I get an amen from you guys, because I am working hard and more and more of you keep coming at me, and I believe I proved my point, that they are both religious in nature.

You've revealed more misconceptions. One concerns intermediate fossils. There are lots of them. Fortunately, there's a thread on intermediate fossils here, so you can discuss them with us even if you abandon this thread. I'll ask you: just what is an intermediate fossil?

A second misconception is that nothing can be shown or accepted as a reasonable explanation unless someone witnessed it and someone can repeat it. Let's see here...that rules out a lot of things, from Creation to the simple question of whether I was born of immaculate conception or of my parents having sex. Look: much of what we know and understand is put together from evidence from which we can reconstruct events of the past (or events that are too small to see, or too fast, or too slow, or too big, or too small). No one calls these things "faith" or "religion." They only attack the few findings that contradict a narrow interpretation of Genesis.

You may, if you like, say that you must take macroevolution on faith. I'd guess that many people do because they haven't bothered to look at, and understand, the data themselves. Therefore, they accept the word of people who have examined the data. Their "faith" is that these "experts" have gray matter between their ears, and not buzzard puke. I assure you that if you, personally, examine the data, and learn the basic science (like genetics), you'll see that there's no faith involved in macroevolution. It's merely the simplest explanation of the data.

Now, you could teach creation alongside. The trouble is, you'd be done in a few seconds. All you'd need to say is "or maybe god did it." End of story. If you were to go into the actual data, and compare the data with the account of Genesis, you'd end up demonstrating that Genesis doesn't account for the features that god built into his creation. I'd think you wouldn't want that.

You can't put every Tom Dick and Harry in there. But this country was founded on Christian principles, and we are still a Christian nation. Another option...give me a voucher for my kids(mine are already in college), and let me take my kids and put them in a school of my choice. It would bring competition to the public school, and would raise the bar as far as improving the system. Right now the public school system is a FAT CAT. Lazy, complacent, and satisfied. And as a result, we have been sliding world wide when compared to the rest of the world for years.

I think, legally, you'd have to put in every Tom, Dick, and Harry--or else you'd be favoring one religion over others.

Regrettably, you've got it backwards about the public school system. I spend a lot of time working with school teachers. They are paid poorly, and often have to get summer jobs in order to make ends meet. The job they do is tremendously difficult (would you want to face my kids every day?), and doesn't end when the kids go home in the afternoon. That's when the teachers start examining the homework and in-class assignments. Most new teachers bail out within five years. There is no other job that is so important, yet so poorly supported both financially and culturally.

And, of course, no one is willing to pay the taxes that it takes to fix it. Some of the science teachers I know have an annual budget for their classes of--get this--a whopping $600. From this, they have to purchase all of the stuff they need for laboratories, and pencils, paper, etc and all of the other stuff that classrooms need just to function. They pay for most of what they need from their own pockets. Fat Cats, indeed.

A lot of this--and you can look this up for yourself; you don't need to take my word for it--is the result of Republican efforts to dilute and dismantle the public schools. Why would they do this? Two big reasons. First, the schools teach evolution. They teach environmental science. They teach biodiversity. These things give students the information they need (or a bit of it, anyway) to understand that Republican policies are based on short-term gain for a few rich companies and a few rich people, but lead to long-term environmental destruction. The evolution bit doesn't teach this, but it angers the religious right, who for some weird reason, have joined forces with these guys whose overall agenda is as anti-Christian as I can imagine.

The second reason is that teachers, like most people with higher levels of education, tend to be Democrats. The teachers' unions are strongly democratic, and politically reasonably powerful. What better way to destroy these unions than to pretend that vouchers are a good idea, or to invent the NCLB law which has a cute little clause that enables them to define even good schools as "failing" if their special-ed kids can't pass the same test as the kids who don't have learning disabilities? There is plenty of data that shows clearly that this kind of high-stakes testing results in worse--not better--science teaching.

Now, here's a little story that may help you see why we've been sliding compared to the rest of the world. When my son was in 7th grade, we met with his teachers, with the principal, and with the guidance counselor in a parent-teacher conference. We asked why they didn't give homework. I'd expected an answer like "too much work" or something along the lines you'd implied (see quote above). Nope. They said "we can't give homework. The kids don't do it, and then the parents complain when we give the kids bad grades." And this is in a town that is heavily Christian--that is, the people who are forcing the lowering of standards include Christians like you. They probably include dorks like me, too--I'm not implying that Christians are to blame, just that they are not immune from blame. In short, the dumbing down of US schools has been driven, in part, by parents complaining about their kids getting bad grades.

The current administration's solution is to take money away from the schools. That is, set up a system of multiple-choice tests, and if the school's least-able population can't pass the test, label the entire school as "failing" and give each of the students $2000 of the school's budget to leave it and go somewhere else--i.e. vouchers. But, whatever you do, don't actually fund the programs that your clever law said it would fund to help improve the teaching.

At the same time, give speeches supporting the teaching of non-science (more accurately, anti-science) in science classes. Ignore scientific findings in setting national policies. Talk about US pre-eminence in science and technology, but do what you can to trash the teaching of science, the better to ensure that our scores in TIMSS continue to decline. After all, by the time the effects of the policies are evident, you'll be out of office, you and your buddies will have reaped the financial benefits of the policies, and someone else will be stuck with trying to fix it. By then it may be too late--but who cares? You're rich.

[palmera]

Quote:
Though infallible,


Gosh, I sure hope you meant NOT infallible...

Ha! I definitely meant fallible. I bet you thought I was crazy! Have a good day.

-palmera

[Wyvern]

Well as far as your two unanswered questions, that we came from rocks, and where the energy from the big bang came from I will take them one at a time.

As far as us coming from rocks, sounds mostly like you are taking an infinite regression argument if so all you had to do was go a few more steps and you could have said we all came from the big bang. Rocks come from previously exploded stars. Stars form from large fields of interstellar hydrogen which originated eventually from the big bang.

For what was around before the big bang the simple answer is we don't and can't know. This is not a failing of science, after all if we knew everything scientists would be very bored. The fact is that science is based on observation and making predictions based on those observations.

The actual point is that these questions are not questions that evolution have anything to do with, the discipline that deals with these questions is cosmology.

[Cathar1950]

Jose

I'd guess that many people do because they haven't bothered to look at, and understand, the data themselves. Therefore, they accept the word of people who have examined the data. Their "faith" is that these "experts" have gray matter between their ears, and not buzzard puke. I assure you that if you, personally, examine the data, and learn the basic science (like genetics), you'll see that there's no faith involved in macroevolution. It's merely the simplest explanation of the data.

One of the reasons they want to dismantle public schools.
If people are ignorent enough they will buy anything.

A lot of this--and you can look this up for yourself; you don't need to take my word for it--is the result of Republican efforts to dilute and dismantle the public schools. Why would they do this? Two big reasons. First, the schools teach evolution. They teach environmental science. They teach biodiversity. These things give students the information they need (or a bit of it, anyway) to understand that Republican policies are based on short-term gain for a few rich companies and a few rich people, but lead to long-term environmental destruction. The evolution bit doesn't teach this, but it angers the religious right, who for some weird reason, have joined forces with these guys whose overall agenda is as anti-Christian as I can imagine.

Nothing worse then the truth. They joined forces because there is money to be made and the poor dumb Christians don't know any better.
I am suprised they don't want to burn evolutionist and democrates at the stake. Nothing like a mob mentality.

The current administration's solution is to take money away from the schools. That is, set up a system of multiple-choice tests, and if the school's least-able population can't pass the test, label the entire school as "failing" and give each of the students $2000 of the school's budget to leave it and go somewhere else--i.e. vouchers. But, whatever you do, don't actually fund the programs that your clever law said it would fund to help improve the teaching.

It is another way of distroying the public education system. Mostly it was created to make factory workers. Private schools(at least the good ones that the rich can aford)will teach the sciences to the rich who could care less about the bible except for control and give the jobs in science to those that have a stake in materialism.
Why do Christian fundamentalist bible belivers lie?
Because they don't know any better.