United States Texas State Board of Education Adopts an Optional "Bible Infused" Curriculum for Public Schools.

[Abhorsen]

Yes, but you believe in evolution as a theory of origins, don't you?

Yes, I believe that God didn't try to lie to us by fucking around with the geological record nor fossil record. The idea that the theory of evolution is wrong because they don't have a perfect explanation for something outside that (the initial origin), is not a good approach to science. Evolution is the explanation from the first life to the current state of life. How the first life happened needs a different method, and science knows this, and are working on probable guesses for it, that will be confirmed or non-confirmed by experimentation.

 

[Captain X]

That's a retarded take when literally every urban area in the U.S is fucking collapsing in real time.

They literally let thieves, and rapists and sometimes even murderers out on the fucking streets in a matter of days.

And that seems to work fucking well *hurr durr.*

based on how it has turned out for most people's lives? it really hasn't in the long run. it only seemed to for a brief while till the cracks began to show in how it weakened the foundations of society.

Because education is no longer actually secular anymore. Also, I wouldn't know about urban areas as I've only ever lived in rural areas.

Yes, but you believe in evolution as a theory of origins, don't you?

No, the scientific theory of origins would be abiogenesis. Evolution explains how life can change over time. Hell, even when I was religious I never saw a conflict between my religious beliefs and evolution, largely because I never took the creation story to be literal in the way others seemed to.

 

[Rorschach]

Yes, I believe that God didn't try to lie to us by fucking around with the geological record nor fossil record. The idea that the theory of evolution is wrong because they don't have a perfect explanation for something outside that (the initial origin), is not a good approach to science. Evolution is the explanation from the first life to the current state of life. How the first life happened needs a different method, and science knows this, and are working on probable guesses for it, that will be confirmed or non-confirmed by experimentation.

I mean it's actually pretty easy to reconcile a literalist interpretation of the bible with the theory of evolution.

Edit: And I do mean this as a challenge to all smugtheists out there, find me one contradiction out there that I can't easily reconcile.

 

[LordsFire]

No, the scientific theory of origins would be abiogenesis. Evolution explains how life can change over time. Hell, even when I was religious I never saw a conflict between my religious beliefs and evolution, largely because I never took the creation story to be literal in the way others seemed to.

I'm aware Abiogenesis is the particular term.

The fact remains that Abiogenesis and macro-evolution are completely unscientific dogmas, so deeply entrenched in our academic establishments that they have overwhelming institutional power, in spite of the overwhelming proof that it's nonsense.

You did not attend a-religious schools. You attended religiously atheist schools.

 

[King Arts]

I'm aware Abiogenesis is the particular term.

The fact remains that Abiogenesis and macro-evolution are completely unscientific dogmas, so deeply entrenched in our academic establishments that they have overwhelming institutional power, in spite of the overwhelming proof that it's nonsense.

You did not attend a-religious schools. You attended religiously atheist schools.

And what do you have to show that is is nonsense? After all if micro evolution is true, then by definition macro evolution would also be true if given enough time.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

(Sigh)

Birds are dinosaurs, specifically an outgrowth of the therapods. The fossil record shows how these incremental changes happened over millions of years, with some things remaining remarkable similar to the ancient past (the legs of a Chicken and a T-Rex are remarkably similar), and others wildly different (flight, in a manner quite different from the Pterosaurs).

Mankind itself has dramatically changed down the years. Homo Erectus and Neanderthalis are so closely related to us but so different. Things naturally change and adapt over time, from entire species to language. Evolution is quite a watertight theory, and it doesn’t undermine the faith in the way some Christians seem to think it does.

I mean it's actually pretty easy to reconcile a literalist interpretation of the bible with the theory of evolution.

Edit: And I do mean this as a challenge to all smugtheists out there, find me one contradiction out there that I can't easily reconcile.

The Bible somewhat gets the general gist of it, but that birds were made first alongside sea creatures is wildly off the mark. Pigeons did not co-exist with Trilobites.

Then again, these people didn’t have palaeontology or a fossil record, so it’s an understandable error.

 

[Scottty]

The deists are the initial explicitly Christian empiricists seeking God's will in natural law.

Thomas Aquinas and the school of medieval philosophy he founded would like a word there.

They were not apostates because they did not disaffiliate from it, no matter how many say they "don't count" for rejecting revelation as a source of knowledge.

A person who ceases to believe in the core tenets of the Christian faith has by definition become an apostate, whether or not he formally hands in his membership card.

 

[Scottty]

Special pleading is the informal fallacy of demanding an exception from the general case, which is what deities are

Whatever do you mean by this?

 

[Morphic Tide]

Thomas Aquinas and the school of medieval philosophy he founded would like a word there.

The application of empiricism to his philosophy is so extremely post-facto that it acquired important differences simply because epistemology wasn't a field until centuries of commentaries later. You can consider him the "ur-example", but the use of Neoplatonism for the underlying information structure being learned about makes for quite the difference in approach from the derivatives that empiricism was coined by and for. I imagine cladistic taxonomy would be rather more troublesome to reach, for instance.

A person who ceases to believe in the core tenets of the Christian faith has by definition become an apostate, whether or not he formally hands in his membership card.

A group initially distinguished entirely by epistemology with such being the overwhelming cause of contention with the "proper" faith is considerably closer to Arianism than Islam or Mormonism. And given how long it took to settle the second being a separate faith, the centuries long trend of Christian Deism very much seems to fit heresy better than apostacy.

It may seem incomprehensible for a group vocally rejecting scripture to be Christian, but that's the theology they started out seeking to prove by other means and kept coming back to. Hence why "Christian Deist" exists as a term in the first place, because it very much started out as trying to prove Christianity with observation of natural law.

Whatever do you mean by this?

The role of deities in religion is actors not bound to the limitations ascribed to general persons. For example, knowing the whole of any among a surprisingly large number of areas of logic requires either coming into being with infinite knowledge or performing logical operations in zero time due to incompleteness proofs and proven infinities, neither of which is permitted of "normal" actors for many reasons.

And such features frequently in why the beneficiary of the special pleading ought to be listened to. YHWH is defined as knowing better than any human ever can about all things and so to disagree is definitionally equivalent to being wrong. To accept the premise makes it utterly incoherent to argue against the conclusion.

Which has lead to visible contortions of the theology attempting to correct for what would in "ordinary" logic be seen as demonstrations the premises are incorrect, such as arbitrarily virtuous pagans being damned solely for lack of hearing "the good news" or the recurrent failures to define the Trinity.

 

[LordsFire]

And what do you have to show that is is nonsense? After all if micro evolution is true, then by definition macro evolution would also be true if given enough time.

No it isn't. 'I can jump over a six foot ditch' does not logically correlate to 'given enough time, I can jump over the Grand Canyon.'

This is one of the key bits of atheistic dogmatic rhetorical lying on the topic. 'Any evidence whatsoever of variation in species equals concrete 100% proof that evolution exists.' AKA 'If any sign of micro-evolution, macro-evolution is conclusively proven.'

No.

No it is not.

And the evolutionists have been lying about this basically from the start.

To be fair to the first generation of evolutionists, they thought the cell was basically an undifferentiated mass of protoplasm. They had no clue how sophisticated and complex life is. I'll give them that grace.

The standard evolutionist defense to any of the (massive, gaping) holes in their theory being pointed out, is to just say 'that doesn't count.'

The fossil record was supposed to show evidence of gradual shift from one species to another. It doesn't. Much of 20th century paleontology was obsessed with finding the 'missing link' between monkey and man, to the point where multiple frauds were created by 'scientists.'

There is no feasible known mechanism for abiogenesis, but lots of blatant lies about how it could work have been taught, and some atheists propose that aliens seeded life on Earth, like that solves the basic issue of entropy and irreducible complexity.

The number of irreducibly complex mechanisms in life is absolutely staggering. That there are irreducibly complex structures in mono-cellular life was one of the many death knells to the theory having any actual credibility, but the dogmatic atheists do not care.

The response is 'nuh-uh, evolution totally did an end-run around through an extremely complex incremental process that we have no evidence of actually having happened, but because we theorize it is possible, evolution must still be taught as fact!'

It is probably the second-longest running lie of the modern era, after Rousseau's popularization of the idea that man is basically good, and it's just society that makes him evil. It's hard to say which has been more destructive, especially since the worst people in modern history so often believe in both of these lies.

 

[Captain X]

I'm aware Abiogenesis is the particular term.

The fact remains that Abiogenesis and macro-evolution are completely unscientific dogmas, so deeply entrenched in our academic establishments that they have overwhelming institutional power, in spite of the overwhelming proof that it's nonsense.

"Macro-evolution." Your use of that term severely undermines you. It is simply evolution, and there is all kinds of evidence of it. There are plenty of things in science that are dogmatic with no real reason behind it, but that isn't one of them. The fact you and so many other Christians don't know this is exactly why I would like religion in general to be kept out of school curriculum.

You did not attend a-religious schools. You attended religiously atheist schools.

I attended public schools in a red state. I was also hardly raised an atheist, having been raised Lutheran and remaining one into adulthood.

 

[LordsFire]

"Macro-evolution." Your use of that term severely undermines you. It is simply evolution, and there is all kinds of evidence of it. There are plenty of things in science that are dogmatic with no real reason behind it, but that isn't one of them. The fact you and so many other Christians don't know this is exactly why I would like religion in general to be kept out of school curriculum.

The only thing me being a Christian has to do with my objections to evolution as a theory of the origin of species, is that I care about Truth, or put another way, Facts.

Evolution is an utter farce on every scientific level. That's why I don't believe in it.

There are plenty of Christians out there who accept the day/age theory, the 'guided evolution' concept, etc. I could have been one of them.

I'm not, because my objection to evolution is not religious, it's scientific.

That evolution isn't laughed out of every university and every classroom is just proof of how Haidt was right about people more often using their intellect to rationalize what they want to believe, than to rationally recognize what is actually real.

 

[Captain X]

Evolution is an utter farce on every scientific level. That's why I don't believe in it.

There is a ton of evidence for it that has been found. Your religious beliefs have everything to do with your ignorance on the subject. You are the one who is rationalizing. "Intelligent Design" is a pseudo-science that is constructed entirely from rationalizing. Much like the "science" behind the current climate hysteria, the conclusion has been decided on beforehand, and any "evidence" for it that has not just been made up has been cherry-picked to support the conclusion.

 

[LordsFire]

There is a ton of evidence for it that has been found. Your religious beliefs have everything to do with your ignorance on the subject. You are the one who is rationalizing. "Intelligent Design" is a pseudo-science that is constructed entirely from rationalizing. Much like the "science" behind the current climate hysteria, the conclusion has been decided on beforehand, and any "evidence" for it that has not just been made up has been cherry-picked to support the conclusion.

Literally the opposite of the truth.

Let's try this; what is the standard of falsification for the theory of evolution?

IE, what proof would be needed to say 'this theory is disproven'?

 

[Morphic Tide]

This is one of the key bits of atheistic dogmatic rhetorical lying on the topic. 'Any evidence whatsoever of variation in species equals concrete 100% proof that evolution exists.' AKA 'If any sign of micro-evolution, macro-evolution is conclusively proven.'

Why can't non-commutativity of interfertility apply temporally when we have present examples of it applying spatially with ring species? Why must the spectacular things we've done to domestic species be completely inapplicable to natural variance? Once you accept "micro" evolution, it inevitably becomes just a question of scale to reach speciation, because we can see all the requirements today.

The fossil record was supposed to show evidence of gradual shift from one species to another. It doesn't.

It does, you're just not satisfied because you're a totalizing fool who needs completeness to be satisfied. There are many identifiable trends in the fossil record where no-longer extant forms gradually become like still-extant ones.

Much of 20th century paleontology was obsessed with finding the 'missing link' between monkey and man, to the point where multiple frauds were created by 'scientists.'

We've found opposable-toe hominins with plenty between them and us, and have now-useless musculature relating to this today. Humans being highly derived Great Apes or monkeys is not desperately clinging at straws, most of the neighboring populations noticed the similarities and mythologized them as some relative of humanity.

There is no feasible known mechanism for abiogenesis, but lots of blatant lies about how it could work have been taught, and some atheists propose that aliens seeded life on Earth, like that solves the basic issue of entropy and irreducible complexity.

Your crippling inability to accept "we don't know" as a valid position is not a disproof, it's you being a totalizing fool incapable of grasping that most people don't need an all-encompassing Truth because most people are fine with admitting knowledge is incomplete. And the alien-seeding is literally just the Watchmaker God interpretation under materialism, the exact same question of "where did the alien come from?" applies to Him no matter how much special pleading you make.

The response is 'nuh-uh, evolution totally did an end-run around through an extremely complex incremental process that we have no evidence of actually having happened, but because we theorize it is possible, evolution must still be taught as fact!'

Then what's your explanation for all the trends in the fossil record showing obvious morphological trends across what appears to be millions of years of sedimentation as predicted by a wide variety of geophysics frequently backed by measurements in the historic record?

Let's try this; what is the standard of falsification for the theory of evolution?

IE, what proof would be needed to say 'this theory is disproven'?

Spontaneous generation of novel organisms, mostly.

 

[LordsFire]

Spontaneous generation of novel organisms, mostly.

So literally just 'if we don't record magic in the lab, evolution is true by default.'

That's not science, that's dogma.

 

[Captain X]

Literally the opposite of the truth.

Oh, so you're on board with the invented man-made climate change, huh? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised considering you ignore all the evidence of evolution.

Let's try this; what is the standard of falsification for the theory of evolution?

I can't exactly describe something that doesn't exist, but it would have to be compelling evidence considering the amount of evidence that supports the theory. So, that being said, right back at you.

So literally just 'if we don't record magic in the lab, evolution is true by default.'

That's not science, that's dogma.

No, dogma would be to literally ignore any evidence that supports a theory you don't like and to make shit up (like "irreducible complexity") in the absence to the evidence you've ignored.

 

[King Arts]

No it isn't. 'I can jump over a six foot ditch' does not logically correlate to 'given enough time, I can jump over the Grand Canyon.'

This is one of the key bits of atheistic dogmatic rhetorical lying on the topic. 'Any evidence whatsoever of variation in species equals concrete 100% proof that evolution exists.' AKA 'If any sign of micro-evolution, macro-evolution is conclusively proven.'

No.

No it is not.

And the evolutionists have been lying about this basically from the start.

To be fair to the first generation of evolutionists, they thought the cell was basically an undifferentiated mass of protoplasm. They had no clue how sophisticated and complex life is. I'll give them that grace.

The standard evolutionist defense to any of the (massive, gaping) holes in their theory being pointed out, is to just say 'that doesn't count.'

The fossil record was supposed to show evidence of gradual shift from one species to another. It doesn't. Much of 20th century paleontology was obsessed with finding the 'missing link' between monkey and man, to the point where multiple frauds were created by 'scientists.'

There is no feasible known mechanism for abiogenesis, but lots of blatant lies about how it could work have been taught, and some atheists propose that aliens seeded life on Earth, like that solves the basic issue of entropy and irreducible complexity.

The number of irreducibly complex mechanisms in life is absolutely staggering. That there are irreducibly complex structures in mono-cellular life was one of the many death knells to the theory having any actual credibility, but the dogmatic atheists do not care.

The response is 'nuh-uh, evolution totally did an end-run around through an extremely complex incremental process that we have no evidence of actually having happened, but because we theorize it is possible, evolution must still be taught as fact!'

It is probably the second-longest running lie of the modern era, after Rousseau's popularization of the idea that man is basically good, and it's just society that makes him evil. It's hard to say which has been more destructive, especially since the worst people in modern history so often believe in both of these lies.

I don't think you know what micro evolution is. Micro evolution are small incremental changes, macro evolution is when those small changes get soo big they are big and species actually change or diverge.

To use your analogy you can jump a 6 foot ditch, and every generation you kid can jump one inch farther than the previous generation. If there isn't a limit eventually "you" not actually you but your great times 1 million grandson would be able to jump the grand canyon.

Also you are confusing abiogenesis with evolution. Evolution simply says that species change from what they once were and could not breed with their ancestors aka are no longer the same species. Abiogenisis is just trying to figure out how the first life started. Also your thoughts on aliens ironically IS a version of intelligent design. Intelligent design does not mean Christianity it means some person or being manipulated events to cause humans to come a certain way.

 

[LordsFire]

I can't exactly describe something that doesn't exist, but it would have to be compelling evidence considering the amount of evidence that supports the theory. So, that being said, right back at you.

If there is no ability to disprove it, then it's an assumed axiom, not a scientific hypothesis, much less a theory, much less a fact.

I've seen the 'evidence' that evolutionists claim, and 90%+ of it is literally just 'organisms are similar.' That isn't prove of evolution, that's proof that organisms are similar. If you want to prove evolution as an origin of species, you need something that demonstrates the mechanism works.

'Conveniently,' the timescale for evolution means positively proving that is impossible.

If you cannot have a positive proof, then you look to standards of falsification. 'Is there evidence which makes the hypothesis functionally impossible?'

The answer to that is 'yes, many times over,' due to the many, many irreducibly complex structures which life cannot exist without, and which specific organisms cannot exist without. And the issue of Abiogenesis. And the basic issue of entropy.

It's dogma. Plain and simple.

 

[ATP]

So as not to be biased by religion.

Then it is tool of state create to turn children into cannon fodder ,Big Company slaves,or both.
First state secular schools was made by prussians to brainwasch german children into beliving that they should die for Hohenzollern.And they succedd,turning normal germans into prussian automatons.

Their philosopher,Johan Fichte,openly said that goal of education is ti destroy free Will,so pupils for rest of their life were unable to even think about sometching else they following orders.

When catholics schools from medieval times developed thinking in their pupils - they must ask"why",not follow blindly.

Of course.

Just like it worked in soviets? or american public schools now?