Entry requirement for creationists

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yeah well I think self professed atheists should be required to show that they know the difference between an atheist and an agnostic and don't cry and run away from the word agnostic like little dutch schoolgirls.

Here's the difference:

An atheist and an agnostic are applying for the same job as a mathematics instructor. The interviewer tells them, 'We have just the one question...what is 16% of 1000?'

The atheist answers first and says, 'I'm 99% confident that the answer is 160. I've never seen evidence nor heard arguments that the answer is anything BUT 160, but I suppose it could just barely be possible that some new discovery in the future would change my mind.'

The agnostic thinks for a moment and says, '16% of 1000. Hmm...what would you LIKE it to be?'

Boru

[LastPoet]

Not speaking as a mod but creationists are needed as entertainment. I need the laughs.

[Lek]

There's nowt wrong with keeping an open mind about issues that are in doubt. But if your mind is so open that you think basic biological evolution and all that it entails is anything but a brute fact, then your mind is so open that your brain is in very real danger of falling out.

Boru

I won't argue the whole process with you because I do see an evolutionary process that took place to get us to here. The fact is, though, that the theory of evolution is not a law. It can't be considered a law until it is proven that spontaneous generation, or whatever, occurred creating a living, reproducing creature from inanimate materials and that's the very first step in evolution. I'm not talking about some amino acids, but a living creature. That's one reason why I'm keeping an open mind.

[Lemonvariable72]

There's nowt wrong with keeping an open mind about issues that are in doubt. But if your mind is so open that you think basic biological evolution and all that it entails is anything but a brute fact, then your mind is so open that your brain is in very real danger of falling out.

Boru

I won't argue the whole process with you because I do see an evolutionary process that took place to get us to here. The fact is, though, that the theory of evolution is not a law. It can't be considered a law until it is proven that spontaneous generation, or whatever, occurred creating a living, reproducing creature from inanimate materials and that's the very first step in evolution. I'm not talking about some amino acids, but a living creature. That's one reason why I'm keeping an open mind.

Actually allele frequency variations with in populations is actually a law

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There's nowt wrong with keeping an open mind about issues that are in doubt. But if your mind is so open that you think basic biological evolution and all that it entails is anything but a brute fact, then your mind is so open that your brain is in very real danger of falling out.

Boru

I won't argue the whole process with you because I do see an evolutionary process that took place to get us to here. The fact is, though, that the theory of evolution is not a law. It can't be considered a law until it is proven that spontaneous generation, or whatever, occurred creating a living, reproducing creature from inanimate materials and that's the very first step in evolution. I'm not talking about some amino acids, but a living creature. That's one reason why I'm keeping an open mind.

As I said, creationists reject evolution because they do not understand it. Spontaneous generation is NOT the first step in evolution. No biologist in the modern era has every claimed that it has ANY place in evolution. The origin of life is not part of biological evolution, it never has been. Evolution is that aspect of biological science that explores the diversity of life. What you've just done is what creationists typically do. If you took your argument and stuck it in a corn field, it would frighten the crows. *rimshot*

Also, you don't seem to grasp what is meant by a 'law' and 'theory' in the scientific sense. Scientific theories, no matter how well-supported, never EVER becomes scientific laws.

Evolution has been observed, we see it happening all round us, every day. This is the factual bit. The theory (more exactly, theories) of evolution explains how it happens, and does it pretty damned well. This is what theories do - they explain the facts we observe. The technical term for this process is called 'thinking about stuff.'

Creationist don't do that. They stick to their twin-barreled guns of ignorance and dishonesty in a desperate attempt to ignore facts, not to explain them. Apparently, this is much easier than thinking.

Boru

[bennyboy]

Evolution has been observed, we see it happening all round us, every day. This is the factual bit.

Could you please give an example? I don't think this is true.