Total posts: 3,192
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Without justification, this is a bald assertion. There is no obvious reason why a random reality requires or needs observation of the metaphysical. Maybe you can reason you way there, but the steps are not at all obvious, so as it is it is an assertion without justification.
My lack of explanation, for the record, does not render the assertion to be without "justification" or "reason." Randomness as an epistemological construct is necessarily a subjective heuristic. One must always consider that the lack of observed structure or pattern in any given phenomena may be an issue with the observer, whether it be methodology yet to be sophisticated, or inconsistency with a formula. In other words, randomness is an abstract in epistemological considerations much like imaginary numbers are in mathematics (then again, mathematics itself is abstract.) When you are using "random" to state that there is no pattern or structure to the phenomena, this is necessarily an ontological statement. One is stating that there must be no regulation to this phenomena, observation notwithstanding. In order to inform such a statement, one must have the capacity to observe the metaphysical, which in an of itself is contradictory.
You have it backwards. My implication was not that evolutionary theory works like other branches of science because it is a branch of science. My implication was that evolutionary theory is science because it works like other branches of science.
Enough with the sophistry. All branches of science according to your rationale can abandon the "branch" and simply be related directly to science. We are not talking about the scientific method; we're talking about the development of theories and the consensus which informs natural selection. Consensus isn't scientific at all, and that's my point. The evidentiary differences between orthogenesis and natural selection don't match your claims, and the explanations differ prominently through their premises. Once again, had the evidence suited the natural selection explanation better, consensus wouldn't have mattered.
So the fossil record is not evidence of dead organisms? The fact that most species in the fossil record are no longer extant is not evidence of extinction of those species? The distribution of fossils in rock layers is not evidence of species changing over time?
Feel free to state and justify otherwise. Repeating rhetorical questions doesn't strengthen your argument.
What else would "variety in evolution" mean but "variety of species in nature" in the context I used it?
It's not up to me to guess your meaning. And once again, and I've already rebuffed this: evolution isn't merely a statement of change. It's a postulate seeking to delineate the mechanism which regulates change. "Variety in a species" means nothing more or less than "variety in a species."
Historical accounts support my position, including the article I cited. Thus far you have provided no source to support your position.
I have no intention of getting into a contest of citing sources. All you could've done by citing a source is to have listed someone else who parroted your position. Like I've stated many times over, feel free to verify of falsify any of my statements. They're either true or false (in their entirety or in some parts.) And frankly, it's of no consequence whether or not you're convinced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
'God' is a 3-letter word; more precisely it is the sort of word we call a name. We use names to denote a particular object.The object denoted has a set of attributes.That is to say keithprosser denotes an object that (inter alia) is 5'10"tall, currently lives in Croydon, likes cats etc etc. (obviously etc etc stands for a long list of my attributes I can't be arsed to write out).Athias denotes an object with a different set of attributes. Names are convenient because it is obviously much quicker and easier to say keithprosser than to say 'the object that is5'10" tall,livesin Croydon, likes cats... (etc etc)'.The question 'does keithprosser exist?' is a convenient way of asking 'does the object 5'10"tall, living croydon, likes cats etc etc exist'?Hence the question 'does God exist'? is really asking if the object with a certain set of attributes exists. The issue becomes what are the attributes of God?
This point is easily countermanded by positing the existence of multiple objects with either identical names/titles or identical attributes (e.g. identical twins/triples/quadruplets, etc.) For example, I share a name with two other members of my family. Would my name then be a necessary reference to my attributes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I'm trying to make it harder to play word games. I hate exchanges like 'you believe in money, money is a god therefore you believe in god so you are not an atheist'.Imagine sorting everything in the world (including imaginary things!)into two piles - 'gods' and 'not-gods'. What rules would be best to decide which pile to put something?intuitively, Zeus is a god, Biggles isn't, and neither is a pair of spectacles. Can we turn intuition into rules?
Everything we've ever called "gods" have been called gods because we've called them gods. It isn't a word game. Though in the context you present, god is a predicate for that and/or those who are worshiped.
I would put you in the not-god pile!
Even if I'm worshiped?
Unless you did have the powers you claim then you'd probably qualfy was a god, ofcourse.
The Bible states God has his described abilities. The Bible never states that God had to have those abilities to set a standard for other gods. So again, entertain the thought experiment: even if the Bible were lying about God's abilities, would that therefore mean that God did not exist?
The fictional character
God is as "fictional" as any other historical character.
you described goes in the god pile, but you yourself don't.
I still don't understand how I'm incapable of being a god. You don't want to play word games, yet your standard for that which constitutes "a god" is solely dictated by words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Yes.Would you say that 'Zeus is God' is wrong?
My view is that God (ie with a capital G) is the proper name of a particular god, like 'Zeus' or 'Marduk', which are also capitalised. 'God' just happens to be confusingly similar to the generic term 'god'! Thus 'God' never refers to, say, Zeus or Marduk - God always refers to 'yhwh' or his nt equivalent.It matters a bit because of questions like 'Did you believe in g/God?'. A deist or Hindu believes in a god, but not in God.
I agree.
As an atheist, I don't believe in God, and I don't believe in any other god either.
Would that also translate into your believing God does not exist? Gnostic atheists have always elided the absurdity of interaction with the non-existent. In other words, if God didn't exist, what information about his nonexistence would be available for anyone to perceive? That is, if God didn't exist, one wouldn't know God didn't exist because God would not exist. So then it begs the question, at least epistemologically, if we acknowledge God, then how does God exist? (Not whether or not God exists.) Does God have an abstract existence? Material? Imaginary?
Most atheists I've encountered in actuality are just materialists. The irony being that materialism is informed by the physical sciences, which are informed by abstracts (e.g. Mathematics.)
A problem is that people say things like 'money is a god' - does that mean I have to disbelieve in money? Clearly not, but it's not easy to say - or put into words - what it is I don't believe in!
Yet money has a very real yet materialistically/physically unobservant influence.
Calling something a god doesn't make it a god.
Why not?
i think something has to have a minium set of properties to qualify as a god.
Since when do God/gods have formulas?
Try this thought experiment: let's entertain the notion that the Bible or any tome on deities lied about their descriptions of their god/gods. Let's also consider that I tell you lies about myself: I can fly, I can transcend physical logic, I can part seas, etc. Do I not exist even though you believe me incapable of my claims?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I think that the difference between "God" and 'god' could be a matter of semantics or nomenclature. As it concerns semantics, "God" and "god" can simply differentiate between two implied articles, i.e. "the" God and "a" god. As it concerns nomenclature, the difference in case may suggest its being a name. God is a god; Zeus is a god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
you cannot prove that God exists, no matter how much you scream and shout the opposite.
He cannot prove that God exists? How's that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You're going to have to provide more details if you want answers to those peripheral tangents.More to the point,Would you feel better about, "Science renders provisional conclusions with available data. When new data is available those conclusions have the option to be refined, but even those newer conclusions are considered provisional, pending additional data."This one's easy, it's just a "yes" or "no".
I don't answer questions about how "I feel." My feelings are irrelevant. That's the final time I'll make that clear.
As for more "detail," you need only go back to your previous comments.
In other words, you can debunk it with a counter-factual. Please present one.
Non sequitur.
I believe you suggested it had equal validity to holy scripture.Please answer with a "yes" or a "no".
Quote where I at least once mentioned the validity of evolution and/or "holy scripture."
Do you believe that creationism and the theory of evolution are of equal validity?
Religion is no less rational than Evolution. If you intend to transmute my arguments with semantic tampering, then I'll leave you to it alone.
Are you kidding me?
No.
You have repeatedly made comments about how scientific consensus is subjective.
And, by reason of consensus, it in and of itself is logically fallaciously when it is used to inform verification.
Are you suggesting that "subjectivity" invalidates scientific theories?
No. I'm stating that consensus doesn't produce substance of any sort.
Are you suggesting anything at all?
Yes.
This is a simple "yes" or "no" question.
I see no reason to answer it at all (since you failed to provide one.) At best, it's tangential.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So you're not going to address the absurdity of your non sequitur? Or the negative you claimed I inferred? Or your reference of stating a simple fact? That's fine."Science renders provisional conclusions with available data. When new data is available those conclusions have the option to be refined, but even those newer conclusions are considered provisional, pending additional data."
The theory of evolution is based on a hypothesis that is supported by and verified by falsifiable data and logic.
In other words, it's an assumption/interpretation despite it's being qualified as "educated."
Some people make unscientific assumptions and draw unscientific conclusions and interpretations "based on" the theory of evolution, but those do not invalidate the theory itself.
Non sequitur; I never stated once that the theory was invalid.
"Please (EITHER) demonstrate how creationism is logically sound (OR) demonstrate how the theory of evolution is NOT logically sound (perhaps by pointing out a counter-factual or specific logical error)."
Non sequitur.
You seem to be disparaging "subjective"
Seem is your impression based on your own projection. I'm not responsible for your impressions.
you get defensive when I ask you about the obvious alternative (objectivity).
How did I get "defensive" about something you didn't ask? You asked about objectivity as an "obvious" alternative to provisional, not subjectivity.
ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT SOME FACTS ARE "OBJECTIVE"?
Once again, where are you getting that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
As far as I'm concerned your one-lined commentary is irrelevant. I'm going to ignore you, now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
No it doesn't. If you think it does, you need to do better than a bald assertion.
"Bald assertion"? We are discussing the nature of knowledge, and therefore what proof, other than reason, could I possibly provide which would make my "assertion" less "bald"?
Repetition is sometimes unavoidable when debating a repetitious person.
Duly noted.
I never made the argument that the theory of evolution came about due to evidence because it is a branch of science. That would be a fallacy of division. What I said was the theory of evolution came about due to evidence just like other branches of science. Then I listed evidence.
You listed no evidence. You gave only description. And your fallacy of division was not committed when you stated that the theory of evolution came about due to evidence because it is a branch of science, a claim I never claimed you made (not to mention it doesn't make much sense.) Your fallacy of division was committed when you stated:
My point was that evolutionary theory works just like any other branch of science. Theories do not ultimately change because people's ideologies change. Theories change to fit current evidence.
You were using a supposed truth of a whole (Science) to inform a supposed truth about its part (evolution.) Your claim has nothing to do with the development of evolutionary theory individually, but more so your generalizations of science. That is textbook fallacy of division. (And I should've mention this before: no one claimed that the theory changed. Evolution is the theory. I claimed that its ideology changed (e.g. orthogenesis to natural selection.))
This fossil record is evidence, it is not a description. Mendelian inheritance is evidence, it is not a description.
The fossil record is evidence only unto itself (not to mention, its riddled with loss of information); and mendelian inheritance is evidence only unto itself. Your reference to them without contextualizing their significance in evolutionary theory (and no, not that sophistry "things change over time") renders your mention as description.
Oh please. I never implied that evolution can be described by and obeys a concise mathematical equation, which would be required for it to be a law. What I said was that population genetics showed in the 1930's that natural selection combined with Mendelian inheritance over millions of years was sufficient to account for the variety of species in nature.
See, the great thing about arguing on forums is the typed record. Your words can be quoted verbatim:
Up to the 1930's, the biggest weakness for natural selection was the lack of a mechanism for inheritance. It was only once population geneticists demonstrated mathematically that the variety in evolution could be accounted for with Mendelian inheritance that natural selection became the overwhelming consensus.
Or are you going to retroactively suggest that you meant "variety of species in nature"?
Fisher's interpretation became popular because it fit the facts better
No it did not. That is your interpretation and assumption. If it fit the facts better then a shift in "consensus" would be trivial.
not because Fisher persuaded people to change their values.
Well, Fisher may have or may have not persuaded others, but I did not claim that he persuaded others to change their values. I said he "popularized" natural selection through modern synthesis, spurring the ideological shift (in consensus) from orthogenesis to natural selection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You're inferring a negative.
Which negative have I inferred?
I am not asserting anything more than simple fact.
Which fact have you stated.
You seem to be making a critical error here making an unwarranted prediction that "a solution" will at some point be "discovered" and furthermore that it is even necessarily "discoverable".
"Seem," once again, is not an argument. And where did I make a "prediction"? Considering a possibility is not the same as making a prediction. It's epistemological protocol to consider possibility, which leads us to this ironic statement of yours:
Science renders provisional conclusions with available data. When new data is available those conclusions will be refined, but even those newer conclusions are considered provisional, pending additional data.
"You 'seem' to be making a critical error here making an unwarranted prediction that ['new data'] will at some be 'discovered' and furthermore that it is even necessarily 'discoverable'."
Do you see the absurdity in repeatedly arguing non sequitur?
The theory of evolution is based on data and logic.
The theory of evolution is based on an assumption/interpretation of data and logic.
If you look at a dictionary, "rational" is a synonym of "logical".
Why are we for umpteenth time arguing over semantics? Rational is "of reason" and logical is "of logic."
Please (EITHER) demonstrate how creationism is logical (OR) demonstrate how the theory of evolution is NOT logical (perhaps by pointing out a counter-factual or specific logical error).
All arguments are logical. Whether they are sound or fallacious is another matter (Note that when I criticized your argument, I did not characterize it as "illogical," but rather "fallacious.") And once again, you're arguing non sequitur. I did not state creationism was "logical," and/or that evolution was "not logical." Your semantic gymnastics is unwarranted.
Please provide an example from "the bible" that is not nakedly assertortic.
"Assertortic" informs the form of a proposition. Once again, explanatory "power" is contingent on the scope of ones standards. But if you demand an example(s), biblical diets would be one.
It's call "the marketplace of ideas".
All the more reason it's subjective, no?
Are you suggesting that some facts are "objective"?
Where are you getting that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm retracting and claim of "randomness" and REPLACING it with a claim of "no detectable or decipherable order or pattern"."No detectable or decipherable order or pattern" would seem to be an epistemologically defensible claim.
It's not epistemologically defensible because you're still asserting the negative using the lack of evidence toward the affirmation. That's the reason I specifically worded it as "yet to be discovered." Consider the possibility that the tools used have yet to become sophisticated enough to render a conclusion on either.
A stated goal.
Perhaps that goal is reinforcing one's own notions?
So is your "argument" that because you don't find the theory of evolution personally useful, that it is not useful to anyone?
Not even remotely.
If "it's all trivial" in your opinion, then why do you even bother engaging?
I never sought to argue the content of evolution (i.e. what is it? functional arguments, etc.) I sought to argue the logic (i.e. the structure, its premises, its conclusions, etc.) Once again, my contention isn't the content of evolution. My contention is that evolution is allegedly more rational.
Please point out specific logical errors
Where did I state logical error. I stated "teleology," which isn't necessarily erroneous as it concerns logic.
and or provide counter-factuals to the theory of evolution.
Why would I do that? Is that the nature of my onus?
Both "nothingness" and "the bible" have ZERO predictive or explanatory power.
Incorrect. The Bible has plenty of explanatory "power." It depends on the scope of one's standards.
You attempted to critique "the theory of evolution" by suggesting that if it was reliable enough, they'd make it a "law".
Not even close. Scientific Law is mathematically "proven;" Scientific Theory is not. Stronn erroneously stated that evolution was mathematically demonstrable. That is sophistry because he attempted to conflate Mendel's Laws of Inheritance, which are mathematical demonstrable, with evolution which isn't, using modern synthesis as his premise. Not to mention, Stronn mentioned earlier that evolution was a "phenomenon." That also is incorrect. If one is going to argue on behalf of "science," then it would prudent that one understands standards of science.
Furthermore, I've not once presumed values for others. If evolutionary theory is a "reliable" explanatory device for you, then that's your prerogative. Is it reliable for me? Not at all. Then again, neither is "Creation."
The "theory of evolution" does not pretend to "explain everything perfectly". Perfection is not the goal of science.
Non sequitur.
The "theory of evolution" only has to be "better" than any competing theories.
Why? It's subjective isn't it?
All science is provisional.
Not all of it. Laws, Theories, and Hypotheses are; facts aren't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yet to be discovered evidence of an order or pattern is not proof of the contrary. That would be an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantium.)Please explain.
The standard is efficacy.
Efficacious toward what?
Do you have a more elegant or more precise explanation for variations in plants and animals?
No. It's all trivial in my opinion. Then again, I never sought to explain it.
Evolution only has to be "better" than nothing (or "the bible").
It's fine if you like the theory of evolution better than "nothing" (or The Bible.) That however does not mean it's more rational.
Perfection is not the goal of science.
Non sequitur.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@disgusted
Would you be more comfortable
Once again, my comfort is irrelevant.
with "no detectable or decipherable order or pattern"?
That is logically fallacious.
@disgusted:
Have you read the title and OP of this thread?
Yes.
Never mind.
This afterthought defeats the point once you still decide to submit your comment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Models that incorporate randomness can closely match reality. I would not call that insignificant.
What you call it is insignificant as well. A "random" reality necessitates observation of the metaphysical which Epistemics has yet to demonstrate any capacity to incorporate.
If you are as versed in evolutionary theory as you claim you ought to know this. For natural selection to be random it would have to select genetic variants purely by chance. But the theory says the opposite. Genetic variants are selected based on proclivity to produce viable offspring, not on chance.
This is virtually no different from your argument six days ago.
And, in fact, evolution is a phenomenon, and is as inevitable as water flowing downhill. The first thing to realize is that it is not survival that matters in evolution. Rather, it is offspring production. Sure, organisms must survive to produce offspring. But they could survive forever and if they produce no offspring they are an evolutionary dead-end.Once you realize that evolution is about offspring production, it becomes a simple math exercise. If you produce more than an average number of viable offspring for your species, then the gene variants you carry increase in frequency in the population. If you produce fewer than average viable offspring, then the gene variants you carry decrease in frequency. That is, in fact, the very definition of evolution: a change in allele frequency in a population over time.
We've now come full circle.
Discussing how science in general works is hardly irrelevant when discussing a particular branch of science.
In this case it is. The criticism levied is one not against "Science" but a single theory. Your arguments are deflecting these criticisms with fallacies of division.
Your assertion that we have no observable data about the past is just flat out wrong. The past has left evidence all over the Earth, in fossils, geologic formations, and radioisotopes, just to name a few. We can figure out a vast amount about the past based on evidence it left behind.
All the evidence shows is that those exist. The rest is an assumption.
Yes, it does. I've given four lines of evidence that support natural selection over orthogenesis,
No, you've given four lines of description, not evidence.
none of which you even attempted to address,
Because I'm not arguing against your description.
merely dismissing them as mere "semantics". Sorry, but calling something "semantics" is not a refutation.
It is when you claim semantics is evidence.
"The field of population genetics came into being in the 1920s and 1930s..." (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/population-genetics/)Population genetics signaled the final death-knell for orthogenesis. Up to the 1930's, the biggest weakness for natural selection was the lack of a mechanism for inheritance. It was only once population geneticists demonstrated mathematically that the variety in evolution could be accounted for with Mendelian inheritance that natural selection became the overwhelming consensus.
More sophistry. If evolution was mathematically demonstrable, then it would be by all scientific standards and definitions, a scientific law. (It would be the Law of Evolution rather than the Theory of Evolution.) And once again, the shift from orthogenesis to natural selection wasn't motivated by evidentiary discovery. The evidence didn't change because it was already there decades prior (Charles Darwin's conception and development of natural selection and Gregor Mendel's Laws of Inheritance.) Ronald Fisher synthesized the works of the two to create a new interpretation. That interpretation became popular among evolutionary biologists and changed the consensus. That wasn't "discovery"; that was an ideological shift.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
In the context of evolution 'random' means that mutations occur with no regard to the consequences. It doesn't mean all mutations are equally likely - they certainly aren't mathematically random! It means that whether a mutation happens or not is a 'chance event' unrelated to the benefit or damage it will cause.I'm not bothered if 'that isn't what random means'! It is what what 'random' means in this context. It is intended to imply that intelliegence and teleology play no role in determining the what and when of mutations - they happen 'randomly'.
And what/which evidence informs this contextual "randomness"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
@3RU7AL
Perhaps you'd be more comfortable with "indistinguishable from randomness"?
My comfort is irrelevant. And "indistinguishable from randomness" would necessitate an ontological statement beyond epistemological limits. Have you observed randomness to an extent where you can relate it?
Or do you have some other term in mind?
No, I do not. I've perhaps been the one person here trying to avoid disputes over semantics.
Just because we cannot know for absolute certain that randomness exists does not mean randomness is not a useful concept or an accurate way to describe some phenomena. If a process is indistinguishable from random, then treating it a random can provide an accurate model.
Randomness is an epistemological insignificance. As I told @3RU7AL, it would require ontological statements beyond your pay-grade.
Also, while it is true that evolutionary theory treats genetic variation from mutations as random, natural selection itself is decidedly non-random.
If you're asserting that it's decidedly "non-random," what is it? In other words, what significance is there in ascribing it the quality of "non-random"?
My point was that evolutionary theory works just like any other branch of science. Theories do not ultimately change because people's ideologies change. Theories change to fit current evidence.
Other branches of science are irrelevant. We are specifically discussing evolution. Your presumable lack of knowledge on the conception of modern evolutionary theory is leading you to generalize. Evolutionary theorists change the premise of their theory because their ideologies changed. Those are the parameters of this discussion, not once again, science in general. The evidence didn't change; the science didn't change. Only the consensus did. And I must stress this once more: evolution is not based on fact. Evolution is based on an assumption, especially of a past for which it lacks observable data.
Yes, orthogenesis was an entrenched idea, and it took decades for the consensus to shift to natural selection. But again, the shift did not occur because of ideological change. It occurred because it became increasingly apparent that natural selection more closely matches what we observe in nature.
No it does not. There's yet to be any observable data which informs either. Your statement is ideological projection. (Or delusion.)
Yes, I should have said population genetics.
Population genetics wasn't discovered in the 1930's either. And the conception of natural selection preceded any standards set by population genetics. Your knowledge of this is clearly lacking. Do yourself a service and peruse not just the content of modern evolutionary theory, but also its development through the centuries. Until then, I await a more cogent response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
@3RU7AL
Orthogenesis makes (teleological) claims beyond the epistemological limits of science.
Yes, it does. Natural selection does this as well through a converse construction of the orthogenesis argument, but instead having "nature" as the designer--or as it's usually disguised, "randomness." Asserting randomness is also beyond the epistemological limits of science.
Simply repeating that the shift from orthogenesis to natural selection is purely ideological does not make it so.
No it does not. So, once again, feel free to verify or falsify anything I state.
Science works by choosing among competing theories the one that best fits with observation.
Explaining how science "works" isn't necessary. We are not speaking to science in general. We speaking specifically to evolutionary theory.
The shift from orthogenesis to natural selection occurred in exactly this way. It did not occur because people's values changed, which is implied by an ideological shift.
That's the exact reason it changed. Evolutionists were receiving criticisms of teleology until Ronald Fisher popularized "natural selection" despite Charles Darwin writing about it 70 years prior. The majority of evolutionary biologists still believed in orthogenesis until the 1930's. Once again, the shift was made through consensus, not evidence. Because the "evidence" which informs natural selection was there for decades before the shift.
And what sealed the deal was the discovery in the 1930's of the genetic code, the mechanism by which natural selection operates.
The genetic code wasn't "discovered" until 1961.
If you want to engage this delusion about evolution, then by all means, do so. If you want to continue to offer explanations of how evolution and science "works" then do so. You however are still not to arguing to the effect this discussion demands. You are essentially arguing semantics. If you intend to repeat generalized descriptions and definitions, let me know now, before the arguments become tautological.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
I did.Four lines of evidence is hardly "semantics".
That isn't falsification. You've only repeated an evolutionist's modus operandi, which incorporates the "definition" of evolution. I already know the explanations and arguments for evolution. Obfuscation aside, however, the significant part of that which you argue is that there's a distinct evidentiary discovery which differentiates orthogenesis and natural selection--an ideological explanation which you have conflated with scientific law (i.e. "evolution is a phenomena.") This is not the case at all. The shift from orthogenesis to natural selection, once again, is purely ideological. The science of the two doesn't change at all. Only the ideological premise of the explanations have changed. And you're merely obfuscating by stating, "fossil record had much more branching and complexity than would be expected." That isn't discovery. And it doesn't discredit orthogenesis at all.
Once again, feel free to verify or falsify any of that which I state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I have two degrees and am doing pretty well. I think that's all that matters. Of course, depending on what a person is going for however. In my case, i didn't need to be the top of my class... i needed to socialize and get connections. It all depends on the goal which i think can be achieved through public school.
May you perhaps be a bit more detailed? I'd like see you inform how the experience you described led to acquiring two degrees. (You don't have to mention which degrees; I'd only like to get a better picture on how your public school experience produced this effect.)
Life is like the chaos found in public school, but hidden. People hide who they are as they grow... those impulses are not controlled in HS years so you get to see the wide range of differences. I don't think people that are home-schooled lack a social life... i think they would lack seeing these differences.
And how is experiencing these differences significant toward: (1) education, and (2) their life? And would it be fair to state that your outlook on life is one which concludes chaos because you assimilated to chaos when growing up? And wouldn't those who assimilated to a consistent order and structure seek such an environment later in life?
I don't think you are understanding my angle. Individuality as in a goth kid dressing up goth. Trust me, as a goth, skater, surfer kid myself... that never goes away. I'm still that person but i hide it bc i'm an "adult" now. Kids in these years don't hide it and let themselves be known. Public school is a great time to see this individuality.
That's not individuality; that's affiliating with a category. And I disagree that being an adult means being less individual. It all depends on how important one's individuality is to the individual. For example, I'm Athias in all contexts. My demeanor remains for the most part unchanged whether that be online, associating with my friends, and family, or associating with others in my employment. (I am more jovial around my friends and family.)
The way you are talking about home-schooling is very controlling.
No, it actually isn't. All I said about homeschooling thus far is that it's better because it allows the parent to oversee in full capacity the child's education. I quoted "control" to mirror your lexicon. It's no more controlling than ceding the education of one's child to the state.
You're kid will never see a skinhead and get the opportunity to observe or even talk to them to see where they are coming from. I was never a skinhead, dressed like people they disliked, and am a different ethnicity.
What benefit would it serve my child to observe and interact with a skinhead?
But, still i found a way to become friends with them and see that they are people too. Even uncomfortable at the beginning bc i thought they'd hate me. It's little things like this you are hiding them away from.
What benefit does this serve? Can they not experience meeting a diverse sample of people outside of public school?
Now... the important part is i asked people i trust what does "skinhead" mean. I knew what they stood for and who they were before trying to make friends. I knew i disagreed with them. That is the preparation i'm talking about that you need so you don't get brainwashed or manipulated... that's important too.
I still don't understand. Are you assuming one's children would prejudiced without the experience of public school? If one oversees their children's education, where would they learn this prejudice?
This is a very broad statement and not nuanced at all. There are situations in which i may agree with you... like i first said, it all comes down to the kids goals. If they want to be musicians, i'd say go to public school. If they want to be effective salesman / business, i'd say go to public school. If the kid wants to be a doctor from a prestige school, i'd say get home schooled. It all depends on the future goals.
I'm curious: how does public school benefit a music career better than homeschool? Of course, feel free to be opinionated.
I'm not saying home schooling is bad, i actually think it may get you better grades. But even there i'm not sure... i think if one an still crush it in public school with all the distractions, that's a talent within itself.
It's not impossible to, as you say, "crush it" in public school. However, that's more about the child than the environment.
So, i disagree with a general statement that home-schooling is "better." That's just not the case in every situation.
General statements do not speak to every situation. I cannot presume to know each result of every form of education. Conversely, you too cannot state that public schooling in every instance produces the effect of which you speak. So we are both being general. Would you still consider generality an apt criticism of my arguments?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Patently untrue.
No, it is in fact quite true. Feel free to verify or falsify anything I state.
It was based on observations by paleontologists that the fossil record had much more branching and complexity than would be expected if evolution proceeded only toward certain goals, on the discovery of genetics and mutations as the means by which natural selection works, on observations in nature and the laboratory of selective pressure altering traits, and on the complete failure to discover any plausible mechanism by which orthogenesis might operate.
More semantics. None of that which you've described was anything new to evolutionists, even those who purported orthogenesis. "Complexity" was nothing new. And the problem with orthogenesis as opposed to "natural selection," contrary to your non sequitur, was not a problem of evidence, but of logic. "Natural selection" does no better since it's the same teleological argument, only constructed conversely. Your very argument has fallen into a pitfall of logical error when stating that "failure to discover any plausible mechanism by which orthogenesis might operate" suggest invalidation. That is textbook argumentum ad ignorantium. There's no evidentiary difference between orthogenesis and natural selection, only the idea which evolutionists believe drive evolution--i.e. design or randomness. Regardless of the ideology, the premise is always an assumption about the past.
And this is where in my experience supporters of evolution are intellectually (and outright) dishonest, especially when making arguments against Theism/God. You conflate attempts at explanation (theory) with observation (law.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
The first thing to realize is that it is not survival that matters in evolution. Rather, it is offspring production. Sure, organisms must survive to produce offspring. But they could survive forever and if they produce no offspring they are an evolutionary dead-end.Once you realize that evolution is about offspring production, it becomes a simple math exercise. If you produce more than an average number of viable offspring for your species, then the gene variants you carry increase in frequency in the population. If you produce fewer than average viable offspring, then the gene variants you carry decrease in frequency. That is, in fact, the very definition of evolution: a change in allele frequency in a population over time.
This is the same bit of sophistry proposed by keithprosser. Evolution is not merely a statement of change. If that were the case, it would be useless as a theory given that it would consist of selecting facts which already exist (i.e. genes vary among offspring; therefore producing more offspring produces more variance.) Evolution theorizes how and why that supposedly happens. And because it attempts to do this, it cannot avoid making teleological arguments given that evolutionists lack observational proof on the past on which they base their assumptions. The shift from orthogenesis to natural selection was not AT ALL based on new scientific evidence or information; it was a shift in ideology. Hence, the shift was made through "consensus" not "discovery." Arguing over semantics doesn't change a thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
@Vader
@SupaDudz:
The entirety of liberal ideology is premised on Marxist Conflict Theory.
@Outplayz:
Or you can have an involved family.
Typically one of the parents (usually the mother) homeschools the child. "Involved" family comes with the territory.
You can have other young adults give you advise. You can send your kid to a therapist that has a young spirit and understands adolescence. With all this knowledge, you teach your kid what to look out for and what to consider with an open mind. I went to public school prepared. It was a testing ground for me. I learned how to be popular, how to get with the skin heads, how to hang out with the emo crowd (even though i almost fought them with the skinheads), how to hang out with the smart kids, the goth kids, the skater kids, surfers, etc... i was all over the place understanding a wide variety of human beings. This has translated into my life like Loki's tongue.
And to what effect and extent has this experience served your education?
If i was home schooled... i would have hated my parents for doing that to me. I don't understand that level of control one would want over their kid(s)... hiding them away from life.
One either assumes "control" over one's children, or cede it to an outside party; I personally prefer the former. And "hiding them away from life?" Are you under the assumption that home-schooled children lack social lives? Not exposing them to a public school environment is not the same as not exposing them to an environment of their peers at all.
Bc life will hit them in the face real hard.
Life will hit them regardless...
You can teach them all you want... but without experiencing it, they will be lost.
Life is like public school?
It's the best time to see individuality. Bc later in life, people start hiding that part of themselves.
To the contrary: public school is perhaps the worst place to see individuality as children tend to seek the formation of bonds and camaraderie through conformity. You, yourself, even insinuated this effect when highlighting your experiences with the "skinheads," the "goths," the "emos," the "smart kids," etc. Children also tend to segregate themselves anyway, so the entirety of their "life's experience" in public school would really depend on the group with which they've affiliated. I'd rather expose my children to as many positive influences as I can than to subject them to a dysfunctional public school environment where there'd be indoctrinated with state sponsored ideologies.
Without preparation however, idk, i may concede home schooling is better. But, i wonder by how much.
It's not a quantitative argument. All one needs to know is that homeschooling is better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I'm not much invested in lying to people whom I don't know. If I were a "creationist stooge," I'd take no issue submitting that information.Then I suggest you write in a way that doesn't make you come over as a creationist stooge. Personally, I believe that if you quack like a duck and walk like a duck your still a duck after denying it. It just makes you a dishonest duck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I'd say pedantry rather than sophistry.
I don't deny that one has to be a pedant to employ sophistry effectively.
I think it would be nice to know what you think. It's clear what we evolutionists believe, but what precisely do you believe? Are you YEC, OEC, ID? for all I know you could be a Lamarckian!
None. I subscribe neither to creationism nor evolution(ism.) I contend only that believing in one is no more rational than the other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
An epiphany? Care to explain?KABOOM!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Genesis may have just skimmed over exactly how god created everything...I'm not sure the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.
That's conjectural.
I've provided definitions and examples. You have explicitly refused to provide either. You seem to be the one making "an assertion without proof; or a dogmatic expression of opinion."
You've provided definitions; you've provided examples. You have not provided substance. I'm not attempting to have a semantic debate. We can operate using your definition given that my descriptions is apparently irrelevant. Now, demonstrate how scientific theory cannot be an ideology, per your definition, and not just state that they can't.
They cannot have goals.
Where's your proof. Your video didn't state that they can't have goals. It didn't even imply it (if anything, it implied the contrary.) Please elaborate on the reason they cannot have goals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You seemed to be suggesting that "natural selection" is invalid.You also mentioned that you might consider yourself a "subjective idealist".Are these two positions interrelated in your mind?Or perhaps a better question might be, why would you presume intentionality is preferable to "natural selection"?Or perhaps a better question might be, what specific logical problems can you point out regarding "natural selection"?
I continue to repeat that "seem" is not an argument because it isn't an argument. "Seem" is your impression. If I didn't state it, then I did not state it. And once again, I do not take a position. I merely observe. At best, you may be able to state that I'm characterizing both evolution and religion as comparably rational or irrational. I don't have any proclivity toward either. My original statement if you remember assessed young Christians' leaving the Church for (more) rational beliefs, and noting that Evolution was mentioned. You and some of the others took grievance with my characterizing evolution as an ideology. It only "appears" that I'm claiming invalidity if one holds the scientific method as the primary metric for discerning information about one's environment. To me, it's all the same. Science is no less abstract than religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Here's the problem.Are you suggesting that teaching the scientific theory of evolution is somehow anti-religious or anti-christian?If this is NOT your suggestion, then why are you comparing "time in church" to "time in public school"?It would appear that the one would have no effect on the other (they are not obviously in conflict).
Anti-christian in that it contradicts the account of creation in Genesis.
Scientific theories and ideologies can be mixed and matched.Understanding a particular scientific theory does not necessarily inform your ideology or vice versa.For example, an atheist might deny the validity of evolutionary theory and a theist might embrace it.The theory itself is not an ideology and therefore cannot be in conflict with an ideology (unless that ideology explicitly excludes it).
That which a person embraces has nothing to do with the quality of an ideology or scientific theory. I asked you whether or not you presume that ideology and scientific theory were mutually exclusive. You've repeatedly stated that theory is not an ideology, but fail to demonstrate even in juxtaposition to that which you do consider ideology that it isn't an ideology. Thus far, you've argued Ipse Dixit.
Here you go. [LINK]
That's not proof. Do better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
@Stronn
@3RU7AL
If we're quibbling definitions, 'evolution' means 'change over time'. Unless you believe that there has been no change in the form of any living thing since the beginning of the world you 'believe in evolution'. My guess is athias believes in evolution!Darwinian evolution is the consequence of the self-evident facts that variation between indiviuals a) affects their relative fitness and b) is at least partly heritable. Given those facts, adaptive evolution must occur - it's simple logic. It was that incredibly obvious (in hindsight) principle Darwin and Wallace gave us.I think you have to be very brave to deny the validity of a and b - I wonder if Athias is brave enough...
Nice bit of sophistry. Evolution doesn't simply state "change over time." It's an ideology attempting to explain the method and nature of this presumable change--particularly biologically.
@Stronn:
It's hard to take you seriously when you make statements like this that casually dismiss all of science.
I've dismissed nothing. And whether you "take [me] seriously" is of no consequence to me.
Are you suggesting that many or most religious people believe their idea of god is merely provisional?
No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please let me know what makes you think the "gambler's fallacy" applies to or somehow countermands valid scientific theories.
I already did.
You stated this:
If a theory provides testable predictive power and efficacy, then it is considered a valid theory.
And I responded by characterizing it as a gambler's fallacy. The gambler's fallacy can also be described as the logical fallacy in which random process become less random, and more predictable, the more often they're repeated. (That's how I incorporated the gambler's fallacy in my statement.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
@3RU7AL
How exactly does "subjective idealism" conflict with "natural selection"?
Where did I state that it did?
Darwin proposed that, with the natural variations that occur in populations, any trait that is beneficial would make that individual more likely to survive and pass on the trait to the next generation. This process of natural selection could result in completely new species. Darwin did not have an explanation for how the traits could be preserved over the succeeding generations. At the time, the prevailing theory of inheritance was that the traits of the parents were blended in the offspring. But this would mean that any beneficial trait would be diluted out of the population within a few generations. This is because most of the blending over the next generations would be with individuals that did not have the trait.
I'm well aware of Darwinian evolutionary theory. With that in mind, how are traits beneficial? Beneficial toward what? And how would your explanation escape teleology? Or is benefit merely a "consequence"?
No idea. But so far your only example of a non-religious ideology has been evolution, which is not an ideology.
Then what's the point of your argument?
It is not irrelevant at all. You seem to have a conception of public schools as places where kids sit like drones all day being force-fed information. It's not that way at all. In fact, I would argue that kids take in more information from their peers than they do from teachers.
None of which you state is verifiable; therefore, you cannot qualify the effects, and their extents, of which you speak. That is completely irrelevant.
This is so overly simplistic as to be useless. For one thing, it assumes religious families only get a dose of religious information once a week when they go to church. For another, it assume kids get no exposure whatsoever to religion on days they go to school. Both are ridiculous assumptions and render the entire exercise moot.
The assumptions are not ridiculous. I do not presume to know all Christians. However, surveys on the matter would indicate that church-going Christians go once-a-week predominantly. Feel free to verify any of my claims.
Species change over time. Traits are inherited. Species have common ancestors.
Once again, what facts about evolution do aforementioned inform?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@disgusted
@disgusted:
Can you describe what you consider the word "theory" means in the context of scientific language?''
Yes, I can.
@3RU7AL
I'm not aware of any definitions of "evolution" and "ideology" that are logically compatible. However, I am willing to entertain your preferred definitions if you're willing to present them.'Evolution is merely a scientific theory. It is not a set of doctrines or ideals that people aspire to. It is not a social group that people identify themselves by.
I do not provide definitions for entertainment. Also, are you presuming that scientific theory and ideology are mutually exclusive?
If you disagree, just let me know how you match up (or redefine) these terms.
My acquiescence doesn't matter. It's either defined per my description or it's not. And clearly, you've already presumed a definition, so what's the point?
So according to your glossary,
I have a glossary? Funny, I haven't read it.
it would seem, "survival is a phenomenon associated with not dying".
"Seem" once again is not an argument.
It is not a "goal" and doesn't need to be.
Prove it.
Bacteria have no goals.
Prove it.
Survival and reproduction are characteristics of plants and insects, and they also have no goals.
The teleological issue in the physical sciences namely biology isn't that there's "no design"; it's that design isn't verifiable. This is not the same as affirming the negative, which would be argumentum ad ignorantium. If you're going to assert that there are no "goals," then you're going to have to prove it. Natural selection attempts to do this, but not sufficiently.
Adding "intentionality" does not explain anything better than "unintentionality".
Then explain the reason you just tried using the the latter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@disgusted
Your definition is of critical importance if we want to communicate with each other.
Obviously it isn't, otherwise you wouldn't have asserted this, "Evolution might be described as a hypothesis or a theory, but it most certainly does not qualify as an 'ideology'" before the fact. You're arguing either all definitions of "ideology" do not fit my description, or one which you've selected in particular is operant in this discussion. (Yes, I'm busting your chops over this because it's futile to seek definition when you've already presumed one.)
Consequences are inevitable regardless of intentionality. Water does not have a "goal" of flowing downhill. Survival is a consequence of "not dying".
Water's flowing down hill is a phenomenon, not a consequence. Consequence implies action; action implies agency. Even your statement "survival is a consequence of 'not dying'" implies a goal since it can be written as "to survive is to not die." To not die is the end of the effort to survive. Now if you're stating survival=not dying, that's another thing. But relating the two by incorporating the concept of consequence is counterintuitive.
Ok, hold up. If you're in the "intelligent designer" camp, I'm 100% Deist, so we should be able to figure this out.
I take no position. I merely observe. Philosophically, I lean toward subjective idealism.
The theory of evolution has led us to discover genetics and we have been selectively breeding plants and animals for desirable traits (intuitively) even before that.
Then the theory of evolution has led to what per se, since as you correctly assessed plants and animals have been bred long before modern consensus of evolutionary thought? And which discoveries of genetics inform Evolution?
This is called "efficacy".
You call it "efficacy."
If a theory provides testable predictive power and efficacy, then it is considered a valid theory.
Or it's nothing more than a gambler's fallacy.
And, all scientific discoveries and theories are technically "provisional" (which is a feature, not a bug).
All the more reason that believing in Evolution is no more "rational" than believing in god or gods.
You seem to be conflating "non-religious" with "anti-religious".
Seem is not an argument. And I've conflated nothing. I never once incorporated "anti-religious" into my statements. And my use of non-religious was intended to mirror Stronn's. Though I should have placed that in quotes. My bad.
Many public schools are packed with 75% to 99% christian students and teachers.
Once again, what does this have to do with the information to which children are exposed? Out of the 75 to 99% Christian students and teachers you claim exist, how many of them make their Christianity explicitly known? Do each where a cross? Or a shirt which states I'm Christian?
These students and teachers are free to talk about and act according to their personal religious beliefs and set social norms.
Teachers are actually not free to talk about their personal religious beliefs. Any discussion of religion in their capacity as teachers must follow state guidelines. In other words, it must be an "objective" account, rather than personal.
Such a school would be difficult to describe as "non-religious" but instead of being "pro-religious" I'd say it's probably more accurately described as "pro-christian", since christians are not generally "pro-religious" in any broad or general sense.
I'm speaking to function. I'm not denying that there are Christians at schools, and that they may or may not discuss their beliefs. However, the extent to which this occurs is not explicit; I can say with certainty that information about Evolution being taught to students is explicit because it's part of the school curricula. Even if 99% of the attendees are Christian, it's just as possible that only two people talk about religion as it would be with the entire school. It's conjectural. Evolution being taught at school is a fact.
You are either ignorant or lying about exposure to religion that a child experiences in a religious household
Where have I lied or demonstrated ignorance?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
@3RU7AL
You said the resources of the state far outweigh the resources of a single church, implying that government resources are being used to promote non-religious ideologies. The truth is, many government resource go toward promoting religion.
More so than non-religious ideologies?
Yes, and in those public schools they are exposed to other students, 75% of whom are Christian, and teachers, 75% of whom are Christian.
What does that have to do with anything? First, we are discussing exposure to information, not to people who's religious affiliation may or may not be made explicit. Do these children conduct daily sermons at school? No? Then your argument is irrelevant.
It means that the first, most formative years of children's lives are spent being exposed to religion.
Let's apply a simple calculus: the first eight years of a child's life are its formative years. Let's say it's exposed to religious information once a week as is typical. That means that over its first eight years, that child is exposed to religious information during 416 days of his or her life. Now let's be generous and presume that children typically begin state-sponsored schooling at the age of five for five days a week. That means over the first eight years of that child's life, he or she spends 780 days exposed to state sponsored ideologies, much of which occurs over a three-year span.
This is astonishingly ignorant. Not one single fact, really? No fossils, or DNA, or morphological similarity, or vestigal organs, or shared genes? None of these are facts? Genetic traits are an assumption??? I guess the fact that some people have blue eyes and children tend to look like their parents are just assumptions.
What fact about evolution do fossils, DNA, Vestigal Organs, or shared genes inform?
Evolution might be described as a hypothesis or a theory, but it most certainly does not qualify as an "ideology".Please present your preferred definition of "ideology".
My definition does not matter since your argument has already operated on one which you've already selected, or is there are reason you quoted, "ideology"?
Evolution is the exact opposite of a teleological argument. Survival is not a "goal" it is merely a consequence.
No it isn't. Natural selection was a response to the criticisms of teleology in evolutionary thought, which was based on orthogenesis. And perhaps you mean to say, "Survival is a statement," since consequence would still imply a goal.
ORTHOGENESIS : noun Biology The hypothesis, now largely discredited, that the evolution of species is linear and driven largely by internal factors rather than by natural selection. [LINK]Evolution is a framework of efficacious, testable predictions based on systematic scientific observations.
The discredit of orthogenesis was done through consensus in an effort to assimilate to naturalist ideology, not any scientific rigor. Natural selection is no more substantive than orthogenesis. The only real difference is that more scientists agree with the naturalist ideology. Factual verification favors neither. And that brings us to your description of evolution, which is just another way of stating that you're making provisional statements of fact based on that which you assume you know about your environment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Any evidence? There are some public schools that are actually good.
"Good" toward what? Getting one's adolescent into another school to be inculcated with more state-sponsored ideologies, where they're indexed and categorized by their taxable earning potential?
Yes it is, you dont have money for good education
You continue to mention "good education" without informing your qualification of good. Good toward what?
Evidence? and are you going to try and solve the problem
What do you want evidence for? That one is actually sending their children to the wolves; that's just a metaphor. If you want statistics on performance differentials among home-schooled children and public schooled children, there are plenty of those online. This however is not a quantitative argument; hence, I'm not submitting said statistics. As for solving the problem, I've already told you: homeschool your children.
Yeah, I get, homeschool is amazing with no flaws.
Non sequitur. I'm not interested in that which you wish to emote, only that which you wish to argue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
I see no evidence of a state-sponsored anti-religious marketing campaign in the U.S.
Where did I say it was "anti-religion"?
Religious organizations receive huge government subsidies, not the least of which is tax exemption.
What does this have to do with the information to which a child is exposed?
And the fact that 75% of people in the U.S. are Christian refutes your contention that young people are exposed more to anti-religious ideologies than religious ones.
It refutes nothing; 91% of children go to public school typically for five days a week, as opposed to the 75% you claim who typically go to church for one day a week.
Most of those young people grew up in a religious home, after all.
That can mean anything. I, too, grew up in a religious home.
Also, evolution is not an ideology any more than atomic theory is an ideology. There is nothing about evolution that inherently precludes religion.
Evolution is an ideology. It's one on-going teleological argument without a single fact as its premise. It's a series of presumptions based on assumptions (e.g. orthogenesis, and genetic traits.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
It does fix the problem. When one sends one's children to public school, one is sending them to be inculcated with state-sponsored propaganda and curricula, which doesn't exclude marginalizing male students by either punishing their natural behavior, or medicating them out of it. Being poor is no excuse. You are sending your children to the wolves when you send them to public school. When one homeschools one's children, one has full capacity in overseeing their education. And if one can't afford to homeschool one's children, then they've been doomed to start. Perhaps, that can serve as a cautionary tale in whether one should have children before one has all their eggs in the basket.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
"What, then, is the real reason young Christians (and other religious believers) leave the faith? The answer lies in a prior, 2016 Pew Research Center survey which allowed respondents to answer in their own words. In this study, most “nones” said they no longer identified with a religious group because they no longer believed it was true. When asked why they didn’t believe, many said their views about God had “evolved” and some reported having a “crisis of faith.” Their specific explanations included the following statements:"
“Learning about evolution when I went away to college”
“Religion is the opiate of the people”
“Rational thought makes religion go out the window”
“Lack of any sort of scientific or specific evidence of a creator”
“I just realized somewhere along the line that I didn’t really believe it”
“I’m doing a lot more learning, studying and kind of making decisions myself rather than listening to someone else.”
The mention of learning evolution should be the glaring factor. A child is taught a process of his environment which is different from the one he learns in church. Not to mention, he's exposed to the ideology of evolution far more than he is to his own religion. It's not a difference in "rational thought;" it's a difference in marketing and exposure. And given the resources of the state when juxtaposed with the resources of a single church, the state can sponsor any ideology with efficacy. It's like comparing NIKE to Sketchers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Homeschool your children. The U.S. education system, particularly the public school system, is nothing more than a glorified syndicate of reeducation camps. Children don't learn there; they're indoctrinated with Marxist dogma.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I believe in freedom/small government on:-Guns-Homosexuality-Insurance-Religion-Military-Ideology-Possibly more things.
These serve as the premise of bias not principle.
Should organ donation be mandatory? No.
Created: