Who should set science curriculum ?

[McCulloch]

Who should determine the science curriculum in publicly funded schools?

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 10 by JP Cusick]

Name one functional mechanism of evolution that differs between your poorly thought out facsimile of evolution that requires a god, and the actual theory of evolution. Then, demonstrate that this mechanism exists and supports your position.

[help3434]

That was not accusation that was statement in direct response to what you said.

According to evolution around here on these boards,
there is no God and He is not needed, therefore atheistic.

Citation needed. I have read a lot of posts in the Science and religion section and from what I have seen creationists are the only ones conflating evolution with atheism.

[JP Cusick]

Citation needed. I have read a lot of posts in the Science and religion section and from what I have seen creationists are the only ones conflating evolution with atheism.

Here is one of many examples given in the comment #11 above by "Neatras" as if you did not see that one while passing on this same page.

He is demanding that evolution does not need a god, and is thereby Atheistic.

It is just ridiculous to argue about something so painfully obvious and decisive.

My view is that Atheism being so morally bankrupt then the Atheists simply do not have any moral backbone to stand up for their own beliefs and their own doctrines.

Atheism is indeed deathly challenged by the truth of God.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 13 by JP Cusick]

Wrong.

What I'm pointing out is you don't know what evolutionary theory is. You could not answer my challenge, because you take whatever flimsy justification you can to assert that God is in charge of everything.

It's not that I want to exclude God, it's that I want you to justify pushing your God into scientific topics. Do you get it now? If I talk about the theory of gravity, you can wax on about how great your God is for making gravity, but you aren't foolish enough to go around claiming God is "guiding" gravity to make us fall. You would understand that falling is a natural property of gravity. I couldn't care less if your God made that possible.

Likewise, evolution happens as a consequence of biology. I'm telling you to demonstrate that evolution is being "guided by God," and how we can tell the difference between evolution without God, or evolution with God. What you cannot do is even tell me what evolutionary theory is, what evolution entails, or what your God is doing "guiding" it.

You've not only dismissed the need to substantiate your words, you've taken a challenge and then twisted the language so that you can come up with a narrative in which you're already right and don't need to put in any of the actual effort to show you know a damn thing you're talking about.

You've gone your whole life believing that any answer that involves "God" is good enough, but it's allowed you to become scientifically illiterate, as so many of your posts on this forum demonstrate. But here's the problem, and here's what you've been trying to insist isn't the case: Clinging to any answers just because they make you feel good isn't a good thing. Skepticism allows you not only to become more cognizant of how reality works, it means that even if you are sold a comforting lie, you'll be able to brush that off and search for the truth.

If your God is responsible for life, that's fantastic. Kudos, I'll give you a kiss on each cheek when the time comes. I'm not convinced yet, but even if your God is responsible for some things, that does not mean that any claim involving "God did it" is valid. If you tell me God made 2+2=5, I would still be skeptical, even if I believed in your God.

Are you getting it now? No? Let's keep going.

Even if I believed in your God, that does not mean I am required to believe every claim about your God. And that's the crux of it. You use your "faithfulness" as a crutch so that you can intrude on debate forums, assert whatever you want, and claim that anyone who doubts you is deficient in some way. You are committing huge fallacies with each post, you are spitting on the spirit of actual debate, and you know what? I know that you're going to return with several one-line paragraphs that try to spin my post as having an "atheistic narrative," while you fail to actually justify your position, instead repeating your last statements as if repetition makes it true. Do you understand what I'm saying yet?

No. You don't.

Prove me wrong.

[help3434]

Here is one of many examples given in the comment #11 above by "Neatras" as if you did not see that one while passing on this same page.

He is demanding that evolution does not need a god, and is thereby Atheistic.

Does not require a God is not the same as saying eliminates the possibility of a God.

My view is that Atheism being so morally bankrupt then the Atheists simply do not have any moral backbone to stand up for their own beliefs and their own doctrines.

Evolution is not a belief or doctrine. It is biology.

Atheism is indeed deathly challenged by the truth of God.

I challenge you to demonstrate this "truth of God".

[JP Cusick]

Does not require a God is not the same as saying eliminates the possibility of a God.

The point was and remains that evolution is one of the big basis of Atheism, and it is silly to deny that.

The bigger problem is that Atheism does not provide any backbone to stand up for anything, which is why "denial denial denial" is all they have for a doctrine.

Evolution is not a belief or doctrine. It is biology.

I know the nonsense = that Atheism is not a belief in anything.

Evolution is just the fallback position when Atheism is confronted. LOL.

I challenge you to demonstrate this "truth of God".

The reality of God is easy to see and to prove, but each person has to do their own homework.

I do my homework so I know very well, but other people can not cheat the system nor the process.

It is like me telling you the truth that the sky is blue and the grass is green because there is no way for me to prove that to you except that you do your own homework and look at the sky to see the blue and look at the grass to see the green.

The same reality applies to our Father God - in that when people refuse to look and refuse to see then there is no proof possible to be given.

[Bust Nak]

The point was and remains that evolution is one of the big basis of Atheism, and it is silly to deny that.

There were atheists long before evolution was a thing, evolution is not a basis of atheism. Evolution pops up in conversation between atheists and theists only because theists are fond of the "if God doesn't exist then how come...?" type questions, as if our inability to answer would support the God claim.

The bigger problem is that Atheism does not provide any backbone to stand up for anything, which is why "denial denial denial" is all they have for a doctrine.

Not a problem, it's a feature.

It is like me telling you the truth that the sky is blue and the grass is green because there is no way for me to prove that to you except that you do your own homework and look at the sky to see the blue and look at the grass to see the green.

But there is a way to prove that the sky is blue and grass green!

[help3434]

The bigger problem is that Atheism does not provide any backbone to stand up for anything, which is why "denial denial denial" is all they have for a doctrine.

Neither does afairyism or apurpleunicornism. What is the "problem"? Atheism just means a lack of belief in God or gods, it is not meant to be some all encompassing philosophy.

I know the nonsense = that Atheism is not a belief in anything.

Evolution is just the fallback position when Atheism is confronted. LOL.

More conflation between atheism and evolution. Notice that it is the creationist doing the conflation, not a non-theist. Creationists seem to have an inordinately hard time grasping both the concept of atheism and the concept of evolution. You know there are Christians and other theists that accept the science of evolution right?

I challenge you to demonstrate this "truth of God".

The reality of God is easy to see and to prove, but each person has to do their own homework.

I do my homework so I know very well, but other people can not cheat the system nor the process.

It is like me telling you the truth that the sky is blue and the grass is green because there is no way for me to prove that to you except that you do your own homework and look at the sky to see the blue and look at the grass to see the green.

The same reality applies to our Father God - in that when people refuse to look and refuse to see then there is no proof possible to be given.

What do you want me to look at? If someone asked me to demonstrate that the sky is blue and the grass is green I would not have to resort to being snide and cryptic to do so, so why do you when asked about God?

[Monta]

[Replying to post 17 by Bust Nak]

"But there is a way to prove that the sky is blue and grass green!"

There was no way to prove it to Helen Kellar.

No one can convince somebody else that a piece of classical music is beautiful and worth lots of $$ to go and hear it. A child certainly would not be interested but different when he grows up develops his appreciation of music.

[JP Cusick]

"But there is a way to prove that the sky is blue and grass green!"

There was no way to prove it to Helen Keller.

No one can convince somebody else that a piece of classical music is beautiful and worth lots of $$ to go and hear it. A child certainly would not be interested but different when he grows up develops his appreciation of music.

A person is even more blind when they do have eyes by refuse to see and they refuse to understand.

They refuse to look, refuse to investigate, and refuse to appreciate the reality of our Father God.