If you don't want any federal money going towards teaching matters of faith, can we defund every women's and gender studies program in the nation? I mean, talk about anti-science, they can't even tell the difference between men and women.


I accept the theory of evolution but it makes me laugh a bit when I see people so threatened by the idea that someone would even teach Creationism side by side. Why is that so scary? If our theories are so superior and sound and Creationism is backwards, you have nothing to worry about in the marketplace of ideas.


As for the attacks on Liberty U, many great schools have a religious basis, Notre Dame, BYU, Baylor. Is it the faith that bothers you or the conservative leanings? Do you feel the liberal choke hold on academia starting to slip or something?

Gender is a social construct. Sex is biological. Creationism isn't science. It's like wanting to teach pottery in a math class. If you want to learn Creationism take a religion studies course.

---

No posting pictures of that religion based textbook please!!

It was a serious scientific textbook explaining a scientific theory....

---

Gender is a social construct. Sex is biological. Creationism isn't science. It's like wanting to teach pottery in a math class. If you want to learn Creationism take a religion studies course.

 

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Gender is a social construct. Sex is biological. Creationism isn't science. It's like wanting to teach pottery in a math class. If you want to learn Creationism take a religion studies course.

If you present both ID and Evolution together, Evolution should win hands down, shouldn't it? Evolution doesn't deal with cosmology, so you could believe in both God and evolution, am I right? So, given that, isn't is reasonable to say that theology and science intersect at some point for many people? Maybe the goal here shouldn't be to tell people what to believe but instead to present ideas and let people make up their own minds. Evolution is pretty settled science to me but the big bang is much less so, and even the big bang theory doesn't do anything to disprove God; it just explains the expansion of the universe, not the why. 

 

Gender is not fluid. Sex is biological. 

---

Calling Deshawn Watson a future bust since 3/19/17. If I eat crow, I will keep this in here and proclaim JackCity a genius. 

If you present both ID and Evolution together, Evolution should win hands down, shouldn't it? Evolution doesn't deal with cosmology, so you could believe in both God and evolution, am I right? So, given that, isn't is reasonable to say that theology and science intersect at some point for many people? Maybe the goal here shouldn't be to tell people what to believe but instead to present ideas and let people make up their own minds. Evolution is pretty settled science to me but the big bang is much less so, and even the big bang theory doesn't do anything to disprove God; it just explains the expansion of the universe, not the why. 

 

Gender is not fluid. Sex is biological. 

 

Agreed, though without the existence of any "missing link," evolution is certainly not "settled" science.  Also, evolution would mean the ancestors don't typically carry on (all evolve, not just "some.")  So the evolution argument works against itself in that sense.  Certainly topics worth continued teaching and open discussion.

 

It also must be very confusing for our resident fake scientist to reconcile what it means being year 2017.

 

I don't think he truly understands the meaning/reasoning behind it.

 

Because supposedly there's no religion and science together and all.  To leave religion out of schools would be to erase most of human history.  Not just US history, but the history of the world.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Agreed, though without the existence of any "missing link," evolution is certainly not "settled" science.  Also, evolution would mean the ancestors don't typically carry on (all evolve, not just "some.")  So the evolution argument works against itself in that sense.  Certainly topics worth continued teaching and open discussion.

 

It also must be very confusing for our resident fake scientist to reconcile what it means being year 2017.

 

I don't think he truly understands the meaning/reasoning behind it.

 

Because supposedly there's no religion and science together and all.  To leave religion out of schools would be to erase most of human history.  Not just US history, but the history of the world.

I'm an agnostic myself but taking religion out of schools is actually detrimental to the students. Like it or not, two of the main pillars of Western Civilization have been the family unit and religion. If you are going to understand the Western tradition, you need to understand Christianity; If you don't know your Bible stories, you will miss many of the references in literature. Trying to erase that from history is pure revisionism.

 

 Evolution wouldn't be just some evolving it is everything. The idea is that we would have a common ancestor with say chimps. It isn't saying we evolved directly from what we call chimps today. Everything is always evolving, when some genes are past on and others are not, that's the essence of it right there. We may not have every missing piece to the puzzle but it does paint a rather convincing picture when you look at the overall body of work. 

---

Calling Deshawn Watson a future bust since 3/19/17. If I eat crow, I will keep this in here and proclaim JackCity a genius. 

Agreed.

 

It also must be very confusing for our resident fake scientist to reconcile what it means being year 2017.

 

I don't think he truly understands the meaning/reasoning behind it.

 

Because there's no religion and science together and all.

 

His perspective is the penultimate of nihilism, there is nothing that means anything. Everything we do has no meaning only raw biological purpose. That belief creates dissonance in his brain when he tries to reconcile that belief with his concepts of good and evil, concepts that exist independent of the world he thinks is reality.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

His perspective is the penultimate of nihilism, there is nothing that means anything. Everything we do has no meaning only raw biological purpose. That belief creates dissonance in his brain when he tries to reconcile that belief with his concepts of good and evil, concepts that exist independent of the world he thinks is reality.

 

I see it more as egocentricism.  The new faux intellectuals believe they are some sort of gods among men, they are the supreme and that there can't be any higher order than themselves.  No perspective, no humility.  Only false self pride in the flawed belief that they know more or better than others, when so much of what they think they know isn't even true.

 

Yet, stand on such shifting, unstable sand they completely loose historical perspective, and overlook even the most basic of concepts (such as the sun being our world's thermometer.)

 

Cliffs notes education without a proper foundation of knowledge, and no real world experience.  A nearly complete detachment from reality.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

#IMASCIENTISTGUYS

---

I don't think religion should be taught to kids.


Wait until they are adults so they can make their own opinion on what is what.

---

If you present both ID and Evolution together, Evolution should win hands down, shouldn't it? Evolution doesn't deal with cosmology, so you could believe in both God and evolution, am I right? So, given that, isn't is reasonable to say that theology and science intersect at some point for many people? Maybe the goal here shouldn't be to tell people what to believe but instead to present ideas and let people make up their own minds. Evolution is pretty settled science to me but the big bang is much less so, and even the big bang theory doesn't do anything to disprove God; it just explains the expansion of the universe, not the why. 

 

Gender is not fluid. Sex is biological. 

 

Your first question, yes you could. I certainly do. 

 

Theology and science can intersect. Also true, and for many people.

 

But religion is still not science. There is evidence of a "big bang" studying cosmic inflation and the redshifting of distant stars. Lectures or discussions on the intersectionality of religion and science should be in a forum designed to handle this....such as a philosphy class. 

 

The Big Bang does not prove or disprove the existence of God. That is why open-minded skeptics are usually agnostic, and not athiest. 

 

Gender is fluid. Society dictates gender roles. There is no biological mechanism that pre-determines that a woman should cook, clean, wear dainty dresses and wash dishes; just as there are none that pre-determines that a man must like the color "blue" or grill red meat on Saturdays. Society precribes what is appropiate for men and women (our sexes) from the time we are born. Society runs into problems when individuals either display intersex characteristics or they don't fit into our narrowly defined views on gender. Try going to work wearing a dress. When someone asks you why you are wearing a dress, think carefully. Who decided it was inappropiate for a man to wear a dress? Biology didn't, that's for sure. 

---

There are no "both" theories of evolution. There is one theory, that has been empirically observed and measured.


Also creationism doesn't focus on the changes in biology over time, it addresses the origin of the Universe itself and everything in it. Evolution does not address the origin of the Universe, it addresses changes in biology over time.

Liar liar. Macro evolutionary theory hasn't been fully empirically observed, moreover a good number of the major predictions in the origin of species have been disproved or lack corroboration. That's why they had to develop the theory of punctuated equilibrium to explain the relative stasis in both the observed and fossil records.

---

Gender is a social construct. Sex is biological.

And these people want to be the final arbiters of what is and is not science.... Lol.

---

Your first question, yes you could. I certainly do. 

 

Theology and science can intersect. Also true, and for many people.

 

But religion is still not science. There is evidence of a "big bang" studying cosmic inflation and the redshifting of distant stars. Lectures or discussions on the intersectionality of religion and science should be in a forum designed to handle this....such as a philosphy class. 

 

The Big Bang does not prove or disprove the existence of God. That is why open-minded skeptics are usually agnostic, and not athiest. 

 

Gender is fluid. Society dictates gender roles. There is no biological mechanism that pre-determines that a woman should cook, clean, wear dainty dresses and wash dishes; just as there are none that pre-determines that a man must like the color "blue" or grill red meat on Saturdays. Society precribes what is appropiate for men and women (our sexes) from the time we are born. Society rnto problems when individuals either display intersex characteristics or they don't fit into our narrowly defined views on gender. Try going to work wearing a dress. When someone asks you why you are wearing a dress, think carefully. Who decided it was inappropiate for a man to wear a dress? Biology didn't, that's for sure. 

This transtrender stuff is a fad. Gender dysphoria exists but it is a mental illness, nothing more. Instead of treating it as such with some pimozide and counselling, the left is playing into their delusions to create a civil rights issue for political gain. 

---

Calling Deshawn Watson a future bust since 3/19/17. If I eat crow, I will keep this in here and proclaim JackCity a genius. 

If you present both ID and Evolution together, Evolution should win hands down, shouldn't it? Evolution doesn't deal with cosmology, so you could believe in both God and evolution, am I right? So, given that, isn't is reasonable to say that theology and science intersect at some point for many people? Maybe the goal here shouldn't be to tell people what to believe but instead to present ideas and let people make up their own minds. Evolution is pretty settled science to me but the big bang is much less so, and even the big bang theory doesn't do anything to disprove God; it just explains the expansion of the universe, not the why.


Gender is not fluid. Sex is biological.

As it stands right now there is no explanation for the origin of life or matter (existence). The big bang theory puts an age on the universe. If every tenant of the theory is true then the moment at t=-10^10000000000000 is unaccounted for

---

Liar liar. Macro evolutionary theory hasn't been fully empirically observed, moreover a good number of the major predictions in the origin of species have been disproved or lack corroboration. That's why they had to develop the theory of punctuated equilibrium to explain the relative stasis in both the observed and fossil records.

Evolution is evolution whether you are a bacterium, a finch, or a human. The only difference is the timescales on which they happen. Bacteria can accumulate mutations in only a few generations but they also have a extremely short replication process. A bird or a human may require 1000s of generations which can range anywhere from 5,000 to 30,000 years.

---

As it stands right now there is no explanation for the origin of life or matter (existence). The big bang theory puts an age on the universe. If every tenant of the theory is true then the moment at t=-10^10000000000000 is unaccounted for

There was no time before the Big Bang.

---

The Big Bang theory has problems too. Some of the more recent physics are leaning back towards the Static universe theory. I don't take any of it as gospel but it's neat debate. 

 

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantu...verse.html

---

Calling Deshawn Watson a future bust since 3/19/17. If I eat crow, I will keep this in here and proclaim JackCity a genius. 

Evolution is evolution whether you are a bacterium, a finch, or a human. The only difference is the timescales on which they happen. Bacteria can accumulate mutations in only a few generations but they also have a extremely short replication process. A bird or a human may require 1000s of generations which can range anywhere from 5,000 to 30,000 years.

Evolution (general definition): The change in allele frequencies over time.  This is as simple as redheads representing 4% of the population in one generation and 3.5% of the population in the next generation. 

 

Common ancestry is the idea that organisms, within a population, over time, through certain evolutionary changes (mutation only being one proposed mechanism), will become reproductively isolated as a separate species (biological definition of species & the process of speciation.) 

 

The lack of stasis in allele frequencies doesn't inherently extrapolate to speciation level change, let alone the kind of massive speciation level change espoused by the idea of UNIVERSAL common ancestry.  We do know that within a given reproductively isolated population of organisms (species) that certain traits become more or less prevalent over time as a result of both chance (meosis in sexual reproduction and conjugation in unicellular asexually reproduction) and external reproductive pressure.  This natural ebb and flow doesn't mean that within that population a new trait will magically emerge and cause a subset of organisms to achieve a new level of reproductive isolation and the formation of a new species. 

 

As an analogy, just because my legs are capable of achieving mechanical work against the force of gravity (jumping) doesn't mean that I can achieve escape velocity (jump to the moon).  Just because my cells exhibit certain properties of regeneration (healing) doesn't mean that I can recover from an infinite amount of injuries to critical parts of my anatomy (wolverine.) 

 

The change in allele frequencies has been directly observed and is not in question.  In fact it is Corroborated in the book that shall not be named.  The mechanisms by which one species changes into another have not and are more a matter of faith.  At the time Darwin wrote the origin of species, he didn't have to write it in the context of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and the vast complexities that come along with it.  At that time it was still thought that if you leave cheese in the corner of a room, that the cheese over time turned into the mice that were eating it (spontaneous generation.)  At that time he theorized that a small subset of gradual mutations over long periods of time would lead to a gentle arc of macro-evolutionary change.  This would be evident through enumerable links in the fossil record.  Those predictions have been found wanting over the last century and a half.  To explain the relative stasis in the biological record and contemporary observations we have developed the theory of Punctuated equilibrium (the magic monster).  This theory calls for massive violent periods of radical mutation (x-men). 

 

So the idea that the full implications of secular evolutionary doctrine have been empirically verified is a little bit of a stretch. 

 

That says nothing about the actual origins of life itself.  The theory of spontaneous generation was disproven in the 19th century.  It is a matter of natural law (biogenesis) that all living systems generated from previous living systems.  The idea of non living inanimate matter becoming a living system (abiogenesis) isn't even theorized.  IT's a fig leaf hypothesis with no observations or plausible theories. 

 

Between the law of conservations of energy and the law of biogenesis it is not only reasonable for someone to adopt the belief that forces greater than our current scientific understanding have played a role in the existence we all experience, it's the current state of our scientific understanding that forces we cannot currently account for are responsible. 

---

Evolution (general definition): The change in allele frequencies over time. This is as simple as redheads representing 4% of the population in one generation and 3.5% of the population in the next generation.


Common ancestry is the idea that organisms, within a population, over time, through certain evolutionary changes (mutation only being one proposed mechanism), will become reproductively isolated as a separate species (biological definition of species & the process of speciation.)


The lack of stasis in allele frequencies doesn't inherently extrapolate to speciation level change, let alone the kind of massive speciation level change espoused by the idea of UNIVERSAL common ancestry. We do know that within a given reproductively isolated population of organisms (species) that certain traits become more or less prevalent over time as a result of both chance (meosis in sexual reproduction and conjugation in unicellular asexually reproduction) and external reproductive pressure. This natural ebb and flow doesn't mean that within that population a new trait will magically emerge and cause a subset of organisms to achieve a new level of reproductive isolation and the formation of a new species.


As an analogy, just because my legs are capable of achieving mechanical work against the force of gravity (jumping) doesn't mean that I can achieve escape velocity (jump to the moon). Just because my cells exhibit certain properties of regeneration (healing) doesn't mean that I can recover from an infinite amount of injuries to critical parts of my anatomy (wolverine.)


The change in allele frequencies has been directly observed and is not in question. In fact it is Corroborated in the book that shall not be named. The mechanisms by which one species changes into another have not and are more a matter of faith. At the time Darwin wrote the origin of species, he didn't have to write it in the context of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and the vast complexities that come along with it. At that time it was still thought that if you leave cheese in the corner of a room, that the cheese over time turned into the mice that were eating it (spontaneous generation.) At that time he theorized that a small subset of gradual mutations over long periods of time would lead to a gentle arc of macro-evolutionary change. This would be evident through enumerable links in the fossil record. Those predictions have been found wanting over the last century and a half. To explain the relative stasis in the biological record and contemporary observations we have developed the theory of Punctuated equilibrium (the magic monster). This theory calls for massive violent periods of radical mutation (x-men).


So the idea that the full implications of secular evolutionary doctrine have been empirically verified is a little bit of a stretch.


That says nothing about the actual origins of life itself. The theory of spontaneous generation was disproven in the 19th century. It is a matter of natural law (biogenesis) that all living systems generated from previous living systems. The idea of non living inanimate matter becoming a living system (abiogenesis) isn't even theorized. IT's a fig leaf hypothesis with no observations or plausible theories.


Between the law of conservations of energy and the law of biogenesis it is not only reasonable for someone to adopt the belief that forces greater than our current scientific understanding have played a role in the existence we all experience, it's the current state of our scientific understanding that forces we cannot currently account for are responsible.

If I showed my advisor/professor this, who is an evolutionary geneticist, he would die from laughter. I if took this post to Biology Reddit you would be massacred. You simply have no idea what you're talking about, but the funny thing is you think you do.

---