No, confess/tell the truth about science and evolution.
You speak of it only with mocking distortions, never accurately, never as if you truly understand it.
So I'm beginning to think that not only do you not really understand it, you also don't want to understand it.
After all, serious understanding might inhibit your constant mocking.
DoughtyOne: "It is tought as the origion of the human species over billiosn of years.
And what's more, it is taught exclusively that way, because no other "theory" is allowed in the school system."
Incorrect. In many government schools, they do have classes in religion taught by religious people, and there they discuss Genesis all they wish.
But evolution is the only scientific theory accepted and therefore appropriate for science classes.
Genesis is not natural-science, period.
Indeed, it's the opposite of natural-science and is best discussed in houses of worship or classes devoted to spiritual matters.
DoughtyOne: "So don't wax rhapsodic about what scientists do or do not claim.
That's B. S. and you know it."
First, I would not necessarily consider grade school or high school teachers to be "scientists", and I wouldn't defend what they may or may not teach in class.
Second, I'm not "waxing rhapsodic", simply reporting the facts of what science is, and what it says.
But you obviously don't comprehend it, since all you can do is distort and mock.
DoughtyOne: "And that is your basic problem, you aren't really being truthful."
Of course I'm truthful, always. But you always refuse to understand, don't you?
For example, when you are presented with actual facts about ancient fossils, your only response is mockery:
DoughtyOne: "Yawn. Yes, I was in the third grade too."
DoughtyOne: "Why we found this here fossil from 160 million years ago.
It's only 18 inches tall, but you can tell right away that it's a horse."
So, you see, nothing but distortions and mockery -- you are a true disciple of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: never engage seriously, only personalize, distort and ridicule.
DoughtyOne: "You find stages, but you don't find a smooth transition."
Just as you won't find a smooth transition between wild wolves and domestic dogs, and yet we know for certain there were transitional forms.
The fact that we can't find all the transitions today doesn't mean they never happened.
DoughtyOne: "You extrapolate out these charming story lines, but you can't prove them."
I'll repeat: outside of mathematical theorems, science never "proves" any theory, the best it can do is confirm by observation and experimentation.
So evolution is an often confirmed scientific theory, the only scientific hypothesis on the subject which was ever confirmed.
DoughtyOne: "Was it because these items came from the same amoeba, or because those building blocks were used by God during creation? "
I'll repeat what I've posted before: I believe God created every living thing on earth, using evolution as one of His tools.
So I don't look for some exceptional sign of "intelligent design", because as far as I'm concerned, everything is His Intelligent Design.
And I don't dispute the science of evolution, since I think it fully displays God's creative genius at work.
DoughtyOne: "Here you are setting me straight though.
Your theory, and that's all it is, by your own admission is nothing more than that."
By your own admission here, you have no real concept of what science is, and what it does, and so the only thing you can think to do is distort and mock.
Yes, evolution is a confirmed theory, but all those various ideas about how life first arose on Earth -- those are not even theories, they are unconfirmed hypotheses, which means basically, highly informed speculations.
If they interest you, fine, but if they don't, then no harm has been done...
DoughtyOne: "You actually thought I meant that Maple Trees were around 500 million years ago, and they transitioned to Sequoias right?"
Because that's what you said, and now are trying to weasel out of it, pretending oh, you really knew all along that your words were just jabbering nonsense!
And next you'll pretend not to understand why I've called you dishonest -- by your own words!
DoughtyOne: "You have a hypothesis. That's all you've got.."
I'll repeat: evolution is more than hypothesis, it's a confirmed theory.
But various ideas about the origin of life on earth are just hypotheses, none of them yet confirmed theories.
DoughtyOne: "Pre-human..., human like..., close enough... is there a pattern here? Yes.
You don't know if they are truly prehuman, human like, or simple close enough... at all."
Both designations, "pre-human" and "human like" accurately describe fossil-bones older than the oldest known biologically modern humans, even those which were not our direct ancestors.
Here's what we do know for certain: the older the bones, the less human-like, while the newer bones look more and more like modern humans.
We also know that the DNA of such creatures as ancient Neanderthals and Denisovans is close enough to ours that they were not really separate species, but sub-species who could and did interbreed with our own ancestors.
Of course, if you wish to believe that humans suddenly appeared out of the dust, with no pre-human ancestors, then that is your choice, go right ahead.
Just don't call your beliefs a form of "science", because they are not.
DoughtyOne: "And yet here we are discussing the issue as if it was settled science.
It's no more settled science than the earth being flat was settled science."
In my lifetime there were still people who claimed the earth is flat, and perhaps some still do.
So, for those people, the "science" is certainly not "settled", and will never be.
But the term "settled science" does not refer to whether or not you believe it -- your beliefs are irrelevant to science.
No, the term "settled science" simply means that most scientists accept the idea, and nobody is seriously still working to falsify it.
DoughtyOne: "Evolution is being taught as fact, and the other theory is laughed at by the brillaint scientific community."
Evolution is a theory confirmed by many, many facts, as many as any theory in science.
And there is no competing scientific theory on the subject.
Yes, many years ago, there was some scientific debate about the biological mechanism for change, but those were long ago resolved.
So today there is only one scientific theory, and that is evolution.
Yes, some people do still dispute evolution, but not on strictly scientific grounds.
Rather, they use pseudo-scientific arguments to support their religious convictions, arguments which are patently ridiculous and don't qualify as "science".
DoughtyOne: "This the same community that holds certain beliefs in mind for decades calling anyone that doesn't agree with accepted theory to be an essential heretic, but on this one we're supposed to accept everything hook line and sinker. NO!
I've watched as the two clever by half folks have had to backtrack and accept that they were wrong over and over and over again."
"Two clever by half"? Are you sure?
I'll grant you that even the most brilliant scientists don't always make the very best debaters, and even the very best debaters will never convince someone like yourself, who refuses to acknowledge even the basics, instead focusing on distortions and mockery.
DoughtyOne: "Funny, you addressed the issue spot on.
How did you do that without having any idea what that was supposed to mean?"
Probably coincidence, because I claim no great skill at decoding your mocking & distorting comments.
DoughtyOne: "Did all life come from the same source?
You statement here leaves that distinct possibility.
And frankly, that's what you guys believe.
You believe that based on common genetic codes.
Well the same thing could be the outcome of creation.
A supreme being having the genetic code knowledge..."
I'll repeat: I believe it was the outcome of God's creation, through His genetic code which evolved to make every living thing on earth, since everything which we consider truly alive has some form of DNA.
DoughtyOne: "No, you don't know yet, but you do know there are only about three theories for it, and none of them include God.
Ligthening, meteor, or volcanic activity...
I believe those are the three main theories today."
Somewhere recently I saw a listing of six or eight different hypotheses -- none are confirmed theories -- which did include "panspermia", meaning perhaps life arrived from outer space, aboard a comet or even alien space ship.
Whether such an alien could ever be considered our God, of course that's a matter which natural-science cannot address.
DoughtyOne: "Theory. That's basically what this is. Every bit of it."
No, you still don't understand!
Those are not confirmed theories, they are unconfirmed hypotheses, which means basically informed speculations.
No scientists claims to know for certain how life first rose on Earth.
DoughtyOne: "Oh yes, here you folks talk about uncertainty.
Then in the schools you teach the theory as if there is no other answer."
But there is no other scientific theory concerning evolution.
Your creationism is a religious doctrine which is properly taught in places of worship, places where one religion's doctrines will not come into conflict with others.
DoughtyOne: "You're so deathly afraid that creationism will creep in, that you feel compelled to come here and prattle on about things you honestly can't prove at all.
You even admit as much.
Then you ask me to confess.
No, you confess."
FRiend, you are only forgiven and excused from telling the truth if you honestly don't know it.
But you have now been told and taught in considerable detail, and yet your only responses have been to distort, mock and ignore the facts in favor of your own doctrines.
I said in my very first post to you that you have a serious problem with truth-telling, and you need to work on overcoming that -- yet you refuse.
So let me end this as I always do: you are entitled to believe whatever you wish to believe regarding scientific matters -- flat earth, young earth, recent deluge... whatever you want -- just so long as you don't pretend your religious convictions have something to do with science, because they don't.
DoughtyOne: "I believe in creation. I cannot prove my theory either.
My theory is not allowed to be taught.
Your theory is."
But your "theory" is not a scientific theory, it's a religious belief which is taught in every church in the world every Sunday and usually several other days of the week as well.
But by US law, your religion is not allowed to be taught in government run science classes, among other reasons because if they allowed your religious beliefs, then they would also have to provide for the beliefs of everybody else.
Probably not a good idea.
Best to teach such ideas in churches which are specifically intended for that purpose.