Are You Too Dumb to Understand Evolution?

CreationEvolutionHeadlines ^ | September 10, 2008

[GodGunsGuts]

Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...

[ColdWater]

You'd rather be living under the OT Law?

Why do y'all go off making these weird, unconnected, irrelevant assertions?

[mrjesse]

MrJesse, I asked you a whole series of questions (to define the parameters) that you didn't answer and you insist on me answering a yes or no question without properly defining your parameters.

If you will define all of the parameters I asked you to, I will answer your question. Otherwise it is a waste of my time.

LeGrande, I already define all the parameters I can think of - I specified that the question is about an instant in time and does not cover some time period, and I've defined that it is for an observer on our earth, and I've defined the number of degrees that the earth rotates in the time it takes light to travel one AU. What more do I need to define?

So just give me the questions again or point me to which post of yours you asked them in. How am I to know which questions you're talking about of yours that I must answer?

Were the two links (this and this) which I provided before where you had asked the "whole series of questions (to define the parameters)?"

Just tell me what I need to answer! You're not trying very hard to work with me here. As a matter of fact, if I didn't know any better, I'd say you're trying pretty hard to not work with me here!

I suspect that my "yes or no" questions are properly defined else you would say "That question is not properly defined because x y z."

Thanks,

-Jesse

[metmom]

God didn't change. Man's view of him changed.

No, not really. God told the Israelites that He was a God of mercy and love back in the OT times. Stating that man's view of God changed implies that man made up a new God. That's not the way it went.

God changed the way He dealt with us but that was His decision and He let us know about that.

[js1138]

I find it interesting that every thread devoted to discussing the validity of evolution evntually turns into a religion thread.

Any attempt to return to science is resisted.

[MrB]

Stating that man's view of God changed implies that man made up a new God.

Which, I believe, is entirely his point, though he won't state where he's coming from for an honest discussion.

By logical extension, the point is that "man made up God in the first place".

[metmom]

Don’t you understand the difference between a question and an assertion?

I didn’t assert anything. I asked.

And it was not unconnected, or irrelevant. You asked a question related to God’s method of dealing with man, that is: “Why did God feel he had to change his methods? The old ones weren’t working?” Did you really think that those methods were preferable?

[ColdWater]

No, not really. God told the Israelites that He was a God of mercy and love back in the OT times. Stating that man's view of God changed implies that man made up a new God. That's not the way it went.

I see that you are not a proponent of progressive relevation as it relates to man's view of God as described in the Bible.

[LeGrande]

So just give me the questions again or point me to which post of yours you asked them in. How am I to know which questions you're talking about of yours that I must answer?

Lets start at the beginning then. Is the apparent position the same as the actual position?

[ColdWater]

I do. I understand you injected a totally irrelevant misguided assertion in the form of a question which has an obvious answer just to provoke.

[metmom]

I find it interesting that every thread devoted to discussing the validity of evolution evntually turns into a religion thread.

That's because it's really about ideology not "science". Using science to push an agenda is just smoke and mirrors to distract people from what's really going on. The problem you evos have is that too many people on FR are aware of your tactics and not fooled by it one bit.

I can count on one hand the number of evos who haven't revealed their hostility towards religion when the surface has been scratched.

[ColdWater]

You asked a question related to God’s method of dealing with man, that is: “Why did God feel he had to change his methods? The old ones weren’t working?” Did you really think that those methods were preferable?

I asked a question, you responded with another question if I would like to live under those conditions. Totally irrelevant and misguided attempt at evading answering my query.

[metmom]

By logical extension, the point is that "man made up God in the first place".

That came across loud and clear.

And is pretty typical.

[ColdWater]

I can count on one hand the number of evos who haven't revealed their hostility towards religion when the surface has been scratched.

I think you mistake the thrust of the hostility. The hostility is directed at those that try to push their 'religion' into the science class.

[metmom]

I asked a question, you responded with another question if I would like to live under those conditions. Totally irrelevant and misguided attempt at evading answering my query.

Speaking of evading query's....

What? Living under mercy, grace, and forgiveness isn't good enough for you? You disapprove of that?

You'd rather be living under the OT Law?

God isn't allowed to change His mind?

[ColdWater]

A lot of very admired religious people support progressive relevation. It is not something the evo’s made up.

[js1138]

That's because it's really about ideology not "science".

Kindly present your citations from high school text books that deviate from a discussion of science.

My Biology textbook from 1960, which I still have, doesn't even mention evolution. The word doesn't appear anywhere in the book. And I went to a very expensive private high school.

Since these Internet debates began I have collected several high school textbooks, looking for any examples of injecting non-science into the discussion of biology, and I can't find any. Perhaps you can cites some examples, giving us title, publisher, year and page numbers.

[ColdWater]

Evasion personafied. I ask two questions and you respond with three and accuse me of evading ...

[metmom]

Why did God feel he had to change his methods? The old ones weren't working?

What do you mean by *not working*? How so?

[ColdWater]

You'd rather be living under the OT Law?

No. Are you satisfied now? Now, please answer my questions.

God isn't allowed to change His mind?

Of course. Are you satisfied now? Now, please answer my questions.

[ColdWater]

What do you mean by *not working*? How so?

He was not having the desired results.