Education's Greatest Crime!

[Newby]

This is incorrect. You have not genuinely studied evolution. This is *proof.*

I don't need to prove that you have more studying to do, you've just done it for me. And for the record - you know that as well. You must, unless you're sick or something.

I never claimed to study evolution, to be an expert on it, nor have I denied the science of evolution. Your article denies creationism, yet at the same time says that the origin of life has no place in a discussion on evolution. So which is it? Then quit calling it 'creationism'. I agree that creationism and evolution aren't mutually exclusive... Life originated somehow, someway, the theory of evolution has no bearing on that one way or the other. Those who believe in evolution seem to think that it also proves no intelligent design for some reason, I'm not sure how that logic works? There is no proof of species evolving into other species, which is the other subject your article tried to expound on, that there's really no difference between macro and micro evolution, as if it's that simple to make a statement such as that. Actually, the person that Oliver wrote the article for gave a very good rebuttal down in the blog comments. I suggest you go read it.

Also, anyone that writes an article from his lofty pedestal, looking down on people who believe differently than he does, and makes insulting comments about them is immediately dismissed on my part. As was pointed out further down in the blog, it's like it's some kind of war to bring people over to his side, as if to 'save' them... sound familiar??? What saving do they need? They die and return to dust, what possible difference does it make to an atheist what anyone believes since it's all irrelevant in the end?

Evolution isn't a belief, it's a fact. You can continue on about the blog; but then, you're skipping the Smithsonian, and the other sources. They are minutia to the underlying theory. But anyways,

Like you said, you've not studied it. Anyone who's studied it (without an agenda, mind you!) knows that it's a fact.

Believe it or not, the "scientific community" despite being dragged into politics and having its name libeled? Is its own harshest critic.

In order to learn truth, you always have to play devil's advocate with your own beliefs. Until a person is willing to do that, they'll never be able to reach their own learning potential.



Lastly - I don't give a shit about what you project atheists' motives are. For one, I'm not an atheist I'm an agnostic which is the only rational belief on these matters in the context of current human knowledge, and two: you're making assumptions.

Your article was belittling and attacking people of faith, I never brought faith into the discussion at all. Any 'scientific' article that has to rely on that bullshit to prove a point is a waste of my time.

 

[G.T.]

From your 'Missing Link Fallacy' article...



Seriously? Are we in an 'in between' stage of evolving right now? Aren't we constantly evolving into whatever the next stage is? Is it going to be difficult for future scientists to prove this stage existed? That's the most ridiculous argument that I've seen to date. Thanks for the chuckle..

It takes millions of years. Your argument makes no sense. You do know that we have MANY of the fossils of human evolution, don't you? That alone proves that we are still evolving.

Yes, the human species has evolved into different forms of human species...

You have no clue what the human species supposedly 'evolved' from, you have no proof that a single cell organism can evolve into the complex forms of life that exist today. And as was pointed out in the blog, a species that changes via evolution is due to a loss of genetic information, it does not change due to new genetic information. How does that fit with the single cell organism evolving into life as it exists today? If anything, it's the exact opposite of what evolution tries to infer about creationism.

No, I do have a clue!~ There's just not a fossil found.

Hey, did you know, that before a great deal of the human fossil record WAS even found, it was PREdicted to exist!?!?!?! Somehow, magically, it its exact form!

Howww deeyyy dooo dattt?

The Science of Evolution.

It is not faith based.

It's not about having the fossils and that's It, or else. That's simply an ignorance of evolution, speaking.



They have recreated evolution, in a lab, under a microscope.

You have admitted/agreed humans have evolved.

You have all of the information at your fingertips. You just need to care enough to vet it, source it, interpret it properly, and boom! You'll soon discover why evolution isn't much "debatable" but is merely "accepted" on what you ignorantly find to be "faith."

 

[G.T.]

Your article was belittling and attacking people of faith, I never brought faith into the discussion at all. Any 'scientific' article that has to rely on that bullshit to prove a point is a waste of my time.

It makes the salient point that persons of faith are contradictory, in nature.

Like, the Pope accepts evolution and you don't. Is that your faith? Is he an authority within your faith? Are you?

 

[Newby]

It takes millions of years. Your argument makes no sense. You do know that we have MANY of the fossils of human evolution, don't you? That alone proves that we are still evolving.

Yes, the human species has evolved into different forms of human species...

You have no clue what the human species supposedly 'evolved' from, you have no proof that a single cell organism can evolve into the complex forms of life that exist today. And as was pointed out in the blog, a species that changes via evolution is due to a loss of genetic information, it does not change due to new genetic information. How does that fit with the single cell organism evolving into life as it exists today? If anything, it's the exact opposite of what evolution tries to infer about creationism.

No, I do have a clue!~ There's just not a fossil found.

Hey, did you know, that before a great deal of the human fossil record WAS even found, it was PREdicted to exist!?!?!?! Somehow, magically, it its exact form!

Howww deeyyy dooo dattt?

The Science of Evolution.

It is not faith based.

It's not about having the fossils and that's It, or else. That's simply an ignorance of evolution, speaking.



They have recreated evolution, in a lab, under a microscope.

You have admitted/agreed humans have evolved.

You have all of the information at your fingertips. You just need to care enough to vet it, source it, interpret it properly, and boom! You'll soon discover why evolution isn't much "debatable" but is merely "accepted" on what you ignorantly find to be "faith."

Where I have refuted that humans have evolved? I'm not refuting evolution, yet you seem to keep assigning that role to me for some reason. I simply asked from what species we evolved from, yet you can't seem to give me a simple answer. You just keep dancing around it with links and videos where words from your fingertips on the keyboard would work just fine. So, please, just tell us all what we were before we became 'human'? If you don't know, then just say 'I don't know', it's really not that hard.

 

[Newby]

Your article was belittling and attacking people of faith, I never brought faith into the discussion at all. Any 'scientific' article that has to rely on that bullshit to prove a point is a waste of my time.

It makes the salient point that persons of faith are contradictory, in nature.

Like, the Pope accepts evolution and you don't. Is that your faith? Is he an authority within your faith? Are you?

Where did I ever say that I didn't accept evolution? And you've never defined what evolution you're referring too either, why is that? Or do you believe that macro and micro evolution are one and the same?

 

[G.T.]

Yes, the human species has evolved into different forms of human species...

You have no clue what the human species supposedly 'evolved' from, you have no proof that a single cell organism can evolve into the complex forms of life that exist today. And as was pointed out in the blog, a species that changes via evolution is due to a loss of genetic information, it does not change due to new genetic information. How does that fit with the single cell organism evolving into life as it exists today? If anything, it's the exact opposite of what evolution tries to infer about creationism.

No, I do have a clue!~ There's just not a fossil found.

Hey, did you know, that before a great deal of the human fossil record WAS even found, it was PREdicted to exist!?!?!?! Somehow, magically, it its exact form!

Howww deeyyy dooo dattt?

The Science of Evolution.

It is not faith based.

It's not about having the fossils and that's It, or else. That's simply an ignorance of evolution, speaking.



They have recreated evolution, in a lab, under a microscope.

You have admitted/agreed humans have evolved.

You have all of the information at your fingertips. You just need to care enough to vet it, source it, interpret it properly, and boom! You'll soon discover why evolution isn't much "debatable" but is merely "accepted" on what you ignorantly find to be "faith."

Where I have refuted that humans have evolved? I'm not refuting evolution, yet you seem to keep assigning that role to me for some reason. I simply asked from what species we evolved from, yet you can't seem to give me a simple answer. You just keep dancing around it with links and videos where words from your fingertips on the keyboard would work just fine. So, please, just tell us all what we were before we became 'human'? If you don't know, then just say 'I don't know', it's really not that hard.

^ The mere question comes from a position of ignorance.

You don't jump from one species to the next in one step, it takes a series of genetic mutations within a species until the mutated genome can no longer mate with the parent species.

Don't follow?

Good.

You said you're not arguing against evolution. So you already accept that humans came from somewhere else. We're on the same page, unless you ARE going to argue that they didn't, in which case, you ARE arguing against evolution. Odd way to try to have a conversation.

 

[G.T.]

Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions

Where We Came From

1. Did we evolve from monkeys?

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

 

[NYcarbineer]

From what did we evolve from that gave us that trait? What animial posesses a moral compass or worries about right and wrong?

The desire to survive is not a moral issue. The instinct to survive is not a moral issue. Mortality is the survival problem; a religious belief that conquers mortality is the survival solution.

I don't believe I ever said that the instinct to survive was or wasn't a moral issue, never mentioned religion. You are arguing with yourself.

I asked a simple question..

From what did we evolve from that gave us that trait?

Can you not read your own posts?

From what did we evolve from that gave us that trait? What animial posesses a moral compass or worries about right and wrong?

You described 'that trait", i.e. the survival instinct, as a moral compass.

 

[Newby]

No, I do have a clue!~ There's just not a fossil found.

Hey, did you know, that before a great deal of the human fossil record WAS even found, it was PREdicted to exist!?!?!?! Somehow, magically, it its exact form!

Howww deeyyy dooo dattt?

The Science of Evolution.

It is not faith based.

It's not about having the fossils and that's It, or else. That's simply an ignorance of evolution, speaking.



They have recreated evolution, in a lab, under a microscope.

You have admitted/agreed humans have evolved.

You have all of the information at your fingertips. You just need to care enough to vet it, source it, interpret it properly, and boom! You'll soon discover why evolution isn't much "debatable" but is merely "accepted" on what you ignorantly find to be "faith."

Where I have refuted that humans have evolved? I'm not refuting evolution, yet you seem to keep assigning that role to me for some reason. I simply asked from what species we evolved from, yet you can't seem to give me a simple answer. You just keep dancing around it with links and videos where words from your fingertips on the keyboard would work just fine. So, please, just tell us all what we were before we became 'human'? If you don't know, then just say 'I don't know', it's really not that hard.

^ The mere question comes from a position of ignorance.

You don't jump from one species to the next in one step, it takes a series of genetic mutations within a species until the mutated genome can no longer mate with the parent species.

Don't follow?

Good.

You said you're not arguing against evolution. So you already accept that humans came from somewhere else. We're on the same page, unless you ARE going to argue that they didn't, in which case, you ARE arguing against evolution. Odd way to try to have a conversation.

Yeah, okay, well list which species the human species were derived from, and where is the evidence of these 'in between' mutations?

If we're constantly evoloving, should there not be 'in between mutations' of different species living and identifiable right this very minute?? Where are they?

I accept that humans have evolved within the human species. I do not accept that we evolved from some mutation between two other species. Whenever you have evidence of that, let me know.

 

[Newby]

The desire to survive is not a moral issue. The instinct to survive is not a moral issue. Mortality is the survival problem; a religious belief that conquers mortality is the survival solution.

I don't believe I ever said that the instinct to survive was or wasn't a moral issue, never mentioned religion. You are arguing with yourself.

I asked a simple question..

From what did we evolve from that gave us that trait?

Can you not read your own posts?

From what did we evolve from that gave us that trait? What animial posesses a moral compass or worries about right and wrong?

You described 'that trait", i.e. the survival instinct, as a moral compass.

No, you described it that way, not me, I simply asked about it. You stated that you saw morals (i.e. a path to salvation) as a survival instinct. I simply asked where that trait came from.

If you are capable of believing in things for which there is no evidence, and what you believe is a comfort,

you ought to spend more time being thankful for that, and less time defiling it with arrogance and spite.

What the heck is that terrible smell......????

Oh...it's you.

Isn't it somewhat odd that I, the heathen, tend to sound more Christian than you,

the professed Christian?

The other irony, more to the topic, is that religion, particularly Christianity,

seeks salvation,

but the seeking of salvation itself is a manifestion of our instinct for survival,

which is a trait we acquired through Evolution.

From what did we evolve from that gave us that trait? What animial posesses a moral compass or worries about right and wrong?

Let's try again, I asked two separate questions. I wanted to know from what species we acquired the trait that you described in your post (seeking salvation), and I asked what animal posesses a moral compass that we had to obviously have inherited as well?

 

[G.T.]

Where I have refuted that humans have evolved? I'm not refuting evolution, yet you seem to keep assigning that role to me for some reason. I simply asked from what species we evolved from, yet you can't seem to give me a simple answer. You just keep dancing around it with links and videos where words from your fingertips on the keyboard would work just fine. So, please, just tell us all what we were before we became 'human'? If you don't know, then just say 'I don't know', it's really not that hard.

^ The mere question comes from a position of ignorance.

You don't jump from one species to the next in one step, it takes a series of genetic mutations within a species until the mutated genome can no longer mate with the parent species.

Don't follow?

Good.

You said you're not arguing against evolution. So you already accept that humans came from somewhere else. We're on the same page, unless you ARE going to argue that they didn't, in which case, you ARE arguing against evolution. Odd way to try to have a conversation.

Yeah, okay, well list which species the human species were derived from, and where is the evidence of these 'in between' mutations?

If we're constantly evoloving, should there not be 'in between mutations' of different species living and identifiable right this very minute?? Where are they?

I accept that humans have evolved within the human species. I do not accept that we evolved from some mutation between two other species. Whenever you have evidence of that, let me know.

I thought you would have studied up on evolution now, since you're so curious.

Here are some, as YOU call them, lol, "in between mutations."

https://www.google.com/#q=transitional+fossils

They are called transitional fossils.


And again, you wont see the evolution of one species into another before your eyes, it takes millions of years. wtf...

 

[G.T.]

I don't believe I ever said that the instinct to survive was or wasn't a moral issue, never mentioned religion. You are arguing with yourself.

I asked a simple question..

From what did we evolve from that gave us that trait?

Can you not read your own posts?

From what did we evolve from that gave us that trait? What animial posesses a moral compass or worries about right and wrong?

You described 'that trait", i.e. the survival instinct, as a moral compass.

No, you described it that way, not me, I simply asked about it. You stated that you saw morals (i.e. a path to salvation) as a survival instinct. I simply asked where that trait came from.

Isn't it somewhat odd that I, the heathen, tend to sound more Christian than you,

the professed Christian?

The other irony, more to the topic, is that religion, particularly Christianity,

seeks salvation,

but the seeking of salvation itself is a manifestion of our instinct for survival,

which is a trait we acquired through Evolution.

From what did we evolve from that gave us that trait? What animial posesses a moral compass or worries about right and wrong?

Let's try again, I asked two separate questions. I wanted to know from what species we acquired the trait that you described in your post (seeking salvation), and I asked what animal posesses a moral compass that we had to obviously have inherited as well?

Moral compass within the animal kingdom?

Have you ever studied the behaviors of primates? They experience: love, guilt.

Did they inherit that from us?


Also - edit to add - our sentience is where we arrive at most of our morals, but mostly using that sentience during co-habitation and observation is how we've arrived at them.

 

[rdean]

To Republicans, education itself is a "crime".

 

[PoliticalChic]

To Republicans, education itself is a "crime".

OK...you win.

I was wrong when I said your previous post was 'the stupidest.....'


This one beats it.

 

[regent]

My first degree is in History. History, as a discipline, is by and large chockfull of screaming leftists complete with posters of Che in the hallways, the occasional photo of Marx in an office, so on and so forth. Classroom discussion can range from slightly biased to full on leftist propaganda.

Here's the key to surviving that for four years:

1) Don't care what the professors say and have your own opinions.
2) Just regurgitate what they say on test day and in papers.

Absolutely, keep all thoughts shut out but one's own. The goal of any student should be to leave school as they entered, older, with less money but still have the same mind-set as when they entered.
Another part of school one must avoid is other students, some students are not as careful as conservatives and who knows what they take in. Some of those open-minds will take in ideas and want to share them with you.
So the bottom line to keep one's conservatism is to close up all the vents and avoid those who listen, talk and discuss, stay pure and remember education is dangerous.

 

[Newby]

^ The mere question comes from a position of ignorance.

You don't jump from one species to the next in one step, it takes a series of genetic mutations within a species until the mutated genome can no longer mate with the parent species.

Don't follow?

Good.

You said you're not arguing against evolution. So you already accept that humans came from somewhere else. We're on the same page, unless you ARE going to argue that they didn't, in which case, you ARE arguing against evolution. Odd way to try to have a conversation.

Yeah, okay, well list which species the human species were derived from, and where is the evidence of these 'in between' mutations?

If we're constantly evoloving, should there not be 'in between mutations' of different species living and identifiable right this very minute?? Where are they?

I accept that humans have evolved within the human species. I do not accept that we evolved from some mutation between two other species. Whenever you have evidence of that, let me know.

I thought you would have studied up on evolution now, since you're so curious.

Here are some, as YOU call them, lol, "in between mutations."

https://www.google.com/#q=transitional+fossils

They are called transitional fossils.


And again, you wont see the evolution of one species into another before your eyes, it takes millions of years. wtf...

Why is it so hard to say you have no evidence of the human species evolving from one or many other species?

 

[G.T.]

Yeah, okay, well list which species the human species were derived from, and where is the evidence of these 'in between' mutations?

If we're constantly evoloving, should there not be 'in between mutations' of different species living and identifiable right this very minute?? Where are they?

I accept that humans have evolved within the human species. I do not accept that we evolved from some mutation between two other species. Whenever you have evidence of that, let me know.

I thought you would have studied up on evolution now, since you're so curious.

Here are some, as YOU call them, lol, "in between mutations."

https://www.google.com/#q=transitional+fossils

They are called transitional fossils.


And again, you wont see the evolution of one species into another before your eyes, it takes millions of years. wtf...

Why is it so hard to say you have no evidence of the human species evolving from one or many other species?

Because there is evidence. I've posted it, you must have missed it.

You must want the actual transitional fossil, which we haven't found. It's called the missing link.

But there's a fuck ton of evidence. The fawk? Down to DNA.

Keep striving though.

 

[rdean]

To Republicans, education itself is a "crime".

OK...you win.

I was wrong when I said your previous post was 'the stupidest.....'


This one beats it.

It's not that I "win". It's the fact Republicans are working to make sure America "loses".

 

[G.T.]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw]How To Shut Up Pesky Creationists - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl89HIJ6HDo]Carl Sagan On Evolution - YouTube[/ame]