Converation thread

I understand your point. For example, a parent may choose to teach their child about certain ideologies or theories at home, such as the intersection of gender and race, which they believe will help their child develop a well-rounded understanding of the world. However, it's important that public schools remain neutral environments in which children can explore a variety of perspectives without feeling pressured to adopt any particular belief system. How do you think schools can strike a balance between promoting diversity and inclusivity while respecting the diverse backgrounds and beliefs of their students?

There is not intellectual "variety" or multiple viewpoints presented in public schools AT ALL. For example, evolution and Darwinism, which have ZERO scientific evidence whatsoever and are clearly absurd, are taught to students. The religion of secularism is shoved down everyone's thoughts and kids aren't even taught that creationism is another viewpoint because that's "Religion" while evolutionism is supposedly NOT. Both systems are based on faith. We have faith that God created the world in 6 days. You have faith that absolutely nothing exploded, spontaneou…  Read moresly creating everything, and that we evolved from a rock that turned into a chemical soup that was struck by lightning, found someone to marry, and created all the species in the world. Both are faith, both are religion, the difference is that we acknowledge our faith while you claim that your viewpoint requires no faith and is somehow science.

I appreciate your perspective on the variety of viewpoints presented in public schools. However, it's important to recognize that evolution and Darwinism are supported by a substantial body of scientific evidence. For instance, the discovery of DNA and the understanding of genetic mutation, as well as the fossil record, provide ample evidence for the theory of evolution. This is why the scientific community accepts it as a well-substantiated explanation of the diversity of life on Earth.

As for the balance between religious and secular perspectives in education, public schools in the…  Read more United States are constitutionally required to maintain a separation between church and state, which is why creationism is typically not taught as an alternative to evolution. However, this does not preclude students from learning about and discussing creationism or other religious viewpoints in a historical or cultural context.

Regarding the constitutional, libertarian, and limited government perspectives, I agree that it's crucial for students to be exposed to a range of political ideologies. One example of this is the teaching of the Federalist Papers, which provide insight into the founding principles of the United States and the debates surrounding the adoption of the Constitution.

In conclusion, I believe that schools should strive to present a variety of perspectives and foster intellectual curiosity, while still adhering to the principles of evidence-based learning and the separation of church and state. How do you think we can improve the presentation of different viewpoints in schools without compromising on the quality of education?

Your scientific "evidence" for evolution is laughable. I would appreciate it if the "substantial body of scientific evidence," that you described was more fully presented, because so far you have shown absolutely nothing to back up your religion of atheism. You are utterly wrong on the discovery of DNA "proving" evolution. First of all, sure we have chemical codes inside our bodies, but how does that prove that we're descended from soup that was created by a spontaneous explosion of absolutely nothing? After all, where would all that information come from…  Read more and how would it be perfectly coded (without a Coder) to create life? Try shooting lightning into your bowl of chicken noodle soup and see if it comes alive. "Oh," you say, "that would take millions of years." See what you just did? No? Well at the very moment you said "millions of years," you ditched science and began formulating a theory about the past that cannot be proven. You're relying on FAITH, you're relying on religion. As Charles Darwin himself conceded, "it takes more faith to believe in my theory than to believe in God." Which is simpler -- in the beginning GOD, or in the beginning NOTHING? Also are you not accented with elementary physics (matter can not be created nor destroyed) as I am? (God obviously can work around that whenever He wants) Also, back to DNA. You confuse variations within species, which creationists are perfectly fine with, with atoms to man evolution. New information can NOT be a creature passes on its DNA to its offspring, buy rather certain bits of DNA are activated to create a unique animal. Evolution on an interspecial scale, however, requires new DNA information to be created, which geneticists realize is impossible. So evolution is impossible.

Here are some specific examples that show humans have evolved over millions of years:

1. Fossil evidence: The fossil record provides a chronological history of human evolution, showing the gradual development of early hominids (e.g., Australopithecus) into anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens). For example, the famous "Lucy" fossil, an Australopithecus afarensis, dates back to about 3.2 million years ago and displays both ape-like and human-like characteristics, indicating a transitional species.

2. Comparative anatomy: When comparing the anatomy of humans with other primates,…  Read more we can observe numerous similarities, such as the structure of our hands, feet, and skulls. These shared traits suggest a common ancestry and provide evidence for evolution. Furthermore, the presence of vestigial structures, such as the human appendix and tailbone, indicate that these features were once functional in our evolutionary past but have since become less important for survival.

3. Molecular biology: DNA comparisons between humans and other species reveal the degree of relatedness between organisms. For example, humans share about 98.7% of their DNA with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, which supports the idea that we share a common ancestor. Additionally, the study of pseudogenes (non-functional gene sequences) in the human genome provides further evidence for evolution, as these sequences are remnants of once-functional genes that have lost their ability to be expressed due to mutations.

4. Embryology: The study of embryonic development reveals similarities between humans and other vertebrates, suggesting common ancestry and evolutionary relationships. For example, during the early stages of development, human embryos have pharyngeal slits (like fish) and a tail (like reptiles), which eventually disappear as the embryo develops into a human fetus.

5. Biogeography: The distribution of species across the globe provides evidence for evolution. For example, the unique flora and fauna found on the Galapagos Islands, which inspired Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, indicate that species adapt to their environments over time, leading to the formation of new species.

Alright let's handle your "evidence" systematically.

1. Fossil evidence. Alright, the fossil record, you say, proves that soup turned into human beings. I'd beg to differ. All of your gradually evolving bones that you have discovered, let me tell you that not ONE of them has ever been fully formed AT ALL. For example, Lucy, who was hailed as the "missing link" between apes and man, was in fact two bones that they found one and a half miles apart from two separate animals that they glued together and with a little imagination got a "cavewoman." She was not a transitional species at all, you have been LIED TO.
Read more
2. Comparative naatomy. Supposedly because we have similarities to apes we once were apes, huh? Think again. Charles Darwin himself calculated that for species to be directly linked to another, and here he was specifically talking about apes and men, there would have to be 95 percent genetic similarity. But with apes and men, what we find is 85% genetic similarity, making the assertion that we are directly descended from apes impossible even by the low standards of evolution. Also, the large brow lines that you claim are proof of transitional humanoids are in reality hyper-aged humans who lived 900 years just like the Bible and countless other religious texts speak of. The brow lines are exactly what we as creationists would expect. Your humanoids are in reality human beings who walked among the patriarchs.
3. Molecular biology. Humans do not share 98.7 percent of there DNA with apes, those numbers were made in the '60s when we had inferior technology and they've since been proved to be less than 85%, just no one wants to admit it.
4. Embryology. Are you saying that because babies look different than humans somehow proves we came from soup? If so, you're crazy. Those "Tails" in fact serve distinct purposes and are clearly an intelligent design.
5. Biogeography. The distribution of species across the globe provides no evidence for evolution. The flora and fauna found on the Galápagos Islands, were created there by God. It proves nothing.
6. Let me add my own point -- Charles Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is opposite from his theory of evolution, though he had no way of knowing it at the time because he lacked DNA technology. In reality, DNA cannot create new information, which makes macro-evolution impossible, but it always looses DNA, making natural selection possible, and indeed we've seen it happening with wolves to dogs and such. WE creationists accept wolves to dogs, just not soup to man.
7. Explain morality with evolution? Why are some things right or wrong? We can all agree that murder, rape, and theft are wrong, but why? If some of those could further the purposes of the species, what does that mean for morality? There can be no morality in evolution. I'm not saying, let me be clear, that you're necessarily immoral, but that you're logically inconsistent -- with evolution you'd have no reason to believe in morality or conscience. Hitler was logically consistent though terribly wrong, which is why the Holocaust happened -- he was a devout Darwinist who believed in evolution and thought he was furthering the species by killing innocent Jews.
8. Why do we have laws of logic without God? How did they originate, and why? Please explain.

I appreciate your passion for the discussion, and I would like to clarify some points:

1. Fossil evidence: The "Lucy" fossil is not just two bones glued together. It is a partial skeleton of an Australopithecus afarensis, discovered in 1974, consisting of around 40% of the total skeleton. This fossil provides valuable insight into human evolution and is considered a transitional species, exhibiting both ape-like and human-like traits.

2. Comparative anatomy: The 95% genetic similarity claim attributed to Charles Darwin is inaccurate, as DNA was not discovered until almost a century…  Read more after Darwin's time. Modern research shows that humans and chimpanzees share around 98.7% of their DNA, supporting the idea of a common ancestor.

By stopping this EVIL evolution, contrived by Satan to send people to hell!

lol you are openly anti-science too? You just keep discrediting yourself more and more, huh?

Show me science that supports your stance smarty

The science of evolution? Open ANY science textbook and you'll have your answers. What exactly are you being taught in your homeschooling, the bible?

Please refer to "Evidence That Demands a Verdict," by Josh McDowell (read it independently of my parents) "The Case For Faith" by investigative journalist and former atheist Lee Strobel, who set out to "prove" evolution but ended up converting when he discovered all the evidence was against him (read it), The Ultimate Proof of Creation, by Dr. Jason Lisle, "Faith and Logic" by the same author, "The Case for Christ," (Lee Strobel), "The Answers Book, vols 1-4," "Demolishing Supposed Bible Contradictions (Ken Ham). That's where I'm drawing this information from smarty. Read them all. Watched multiple debates. Creationism is logical.

P.S. please provide the evidence for your position and I will gladly talk about it.) :)

If creationism had objective evidence, then why is it not found or supported by any scientific evidence, institution, or curriculum? Why exactly is the only support of creationism biblical or theoretical, if it was supposedly objective? Is all of science, astrophysics, evolutionary biology, etc. just some kind of mass conspiracy made to lie to you..?

Here's a simple, quick read on the basics of evolution: https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/refresh/cont-ed-62/olli/s21/kahn-evidence-of-evolution.pdf

(I don't know if it'll link on here, so you might have to just copy+paste it)

Or, again: literally ANY science textbook or journal can explain it to you, with evidence. Meanwhile your "evidence" is mythological text, anecdotal experiences/beliefs, and unfalsifiable theoretical what-ifs.

I'll refute the claims of your pdf now. First off, the reasoning that evolution is true because there are variations in dogs turning into wolves, coyotes, etc, is not evidence because it is actually variations within kinds, not bacteria evolving into fully intelligent human beings. It's circular reasoning because the definition of evolution changes between the first and second examples, resulting in an absurdity. Creationists believe in and support the fact that one common DOG ancestor is the father of the wolves, coyotes, and other things, and that one common cat ancestor existe…  Read mored for cougars, tigers, etc, or one common horse for zebras, donkeys, etc. We are perfectly fine with that. What we aren't fine with is the idea that our ancestor is soupy bacteria that was stuck by lightning and evolved into all living things. This particular aspect of evolution is impossible because bacteria (1) must have a host, aka a more complex life form to survive or they die within 48 hours, meaning that they can't have been the first living thing, their very nature requires another body to live in and multiply in (2) they reproduce asexually, meaning that they cannot pass along genetic information that could evolve to their offspring. This is elementary science.

(It said my response was too long, so I'll have to include it in parts, labelled)

"First off, the reasoning that evolution is true because there are variations in dogs turning into wolves, coyotes, etc, is not evidence because it is actually variations within kinds, not bacteria evolving into fully intelligent human beings."

This is simply your own misunderstanding of what evolution is. Firstly, dogs did not "turn into" wolves, coyotes, etc. because wolves, coyotes, etc. ARE dogs. Modern dogs did not, and do not, evolve into wolves and coyotes, but modern dogs share aRead more common ancestor with wolves and coyotes. Members of an ancient dog species would have gradually undergone small genetic changes that, over time, altered the physical and genetic makeup of the dogs, thus eventually forming what we would classify as a "new species" of dog, which end up including wolves, coyotes, and all other modern canine species. Traced back far enough, all living things will have a common ancestor, where an ancient species changed/branched off into, eventually, the species we have today, including us.

I've diligently read all of your rants against old TruthHurts101, and I have to ask why on earth you even care what ever people believe in if you do not believe in a God or higher power of any kind? Why does it matter to you? If other people can find meaning and value in religion why'd o you feel an obligation to intrude? It doesn't affect you. And yet you just either spent 3 hrs typing this up or asked ChatGPT to do it for you. Why invest all the time and effort when it doesn't affect you? I'm just asking.

Well the first reason is because I use this site to pass the time while I'm at work, so taking hours of my time to write and respond to people like this is perfectly fine by me, preferable even. The second reason is because I just love debating ideas and engaging in discourse, even stupid discourse that I've heard and disproved a dozen times before; I just enjoy the mental stimulation. The third reason is because the stuff this guy is trying to argue and spread as fact is blatantly false (and that includes all the other political and socio-economic garbage he also advocates), and…  Read more so I will always do my best to put down this kind of ignorant and/or malicious misinformation whenever possible. Plus, of course, this is literally a socio-political discussion website, so that is kind of exactly what this is for.

How is it bad for society? You never addressed that? How is people believing in objective morality, a Higher Law, a Heaven, and a God who gives them purpose BAD for society? If anything that would be good! Even if that belief is "blatantly false" as you claim, why does it affect you if certain people derive meaning from Christianity? It doesn't at all.

I didn't say that "believing in objective morality or a god/religion" is bad for society, I said that "promoting religious beliefs/values as objective facts over actual science" is bad for society. This is bad for society because doing so is actively promoting misinformation and denying actual evidence, thus creating a society of people who value belief instead of truth.

Of course, this isn't a problem when people who hold religious beliefs accept that their beliefs are based on faith, as well as do not utilize their religious beliefs against others. And for most…  Read more people, this is the case, but unfortunately there is an incredibly vocal minority of religious fanatics who insist on spreading their religious misinformation as absolute facts, and often also attempt to enshrine their own religious rules and values into law against everyone else. Plenty of people believe in religions for personal reasons, and simultaneously accept the realities of science, adapting their faith with our objective understandings of the universe, and that is perfectly fine. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with belief itself, it's what you do with it that can create the issue.

This is hilariously fallacious. Your argument is that religious fanatics are spreading "misinformation" which is begging the question and assuming the point you're already trying to make. It's a vicious circle and utterly illogical.