I'm not really sure where you are going with this. What do you mean when you say that evolution furthers your understanding of our world? Example, please?
Pragmatically, even if a child chooses to believe in Creationism despite the facts of evolution, at least they will have a frame of reference available, should they choose to use it, to explain the state of the world. An individual's "belief" (or lack thereof) in evolution is ultimately irrelevant- so long as they do not attempt to explain the universe without it. When Creationism is applied to the world as it surrounds us, it simply does not adequately model reality. "God did it" is nice, but how does that help further our understanding of our world? Simply put: it doesn't.
[/b]
Do you have anything to back up this assertion that evolution is not "scientifically based" (I assure you that it is) "or proven" (It is suggested by all the evidence available to us. (Emphasis mine))
Have you looked at my astrological links or are you ignoring them?
Ha. ha. ha. So you are stating that young people need evolution to understand the world?
[/b]
This would leave our young people with an inability to understand the world in which they live. It is irresponsible and dangerous and I cannot believe that you would rather force future generations back into ignorance than allow your dogma to be challenged.
1. that conflicts with previous assertions that evolution does not affect the way one lives one life when I stated that "the mindset of evolution gives one a selfish and humanistic feeling of dog eat dog and survival of the fittest". when i stated this, evolutionists said that evolution is just a scientific theory and has nothing to do with the way they live their lives.
2. This makes evolution sound more like a religion than ever. You are now saying that it will dictate the way people will live their lives.
3. Christianity is more constructive in its guidance.
lucy, ota benga, pildown man, neanderthal man, to state a few
[/b]
To what are you referring?
[/b]
I assume you mean the 'piltdown man?' It is irrelevant. One man's pursuit of fame does not invalidate the rest of the supporting evidence for evolution. Unless you'd like to argue that without this Evolution is untenable? No? Then it can be ignored without much attention. There are more recently discovered fossils which provide the same support for evolution.
and nebraska man, and heidelberg man and neanderthal man. these are all fraudulent efforts that scientists have made in order to try and advance evolution.
The peppered moth expiriment is still being used in schools and so is nebraska and neanderthal man.
[/b]you have gone a far way in the opposite direction of making that point.
It is not a religion.
[/b]
I don't have the time or the patience to follow up every vague criticism you have about the theory; either give me links/keywords to these "problems" or stop talking.Nebraska man was constructed from a pig's tooth, and Neanderthal man was based on a very old man who died with arthritis.
Did i state it as fact? no, in fact i stated the opposite, i said it was "my truth".
So... because you have a story about how things work that story is automatically worthy of being called 'fact?' That isn't how it works. You get to think what you want, but you don't get to prevent others from being right.
Besides- evolution is not 'dodgy' at all.
well, i have at least 4 counts of fraud further up.
I know what you were talking about now.
"Accident of gas" made me roll on the floor whilst laughing. At best it shows a propensity towards fart jokes or at worst that you don't know what you're talking about (despite pages upon pages of my attempts to hammer the mechanics of abiogenesis into your skull- which actually led to me learning more...).
We were arguing semantics. K, logically yes, survival of the fittest happens within kinds. You were supplying evidence that it does, not that it doesn't.
that's because most christians are too incompetent to actually try to support christianity with "truthiness".
[/b]
Non-profit? That is relevant how? I mean, the government is non-profit, and they take a 'stand' on evolution. The fact is that Creationism is blatantly false (that is, it has no evidence to suggest its truthiness), while evolution has gobs of evidence in favor. There really isn't a comparison.
i think you misunderstood what i said.
Yes, you would be a fool to take a stance in opposition to the facts. I'm glad that we're settled (since I presume that you don't want to be a fool). You will henceforth cease and desist your erroneous assertions about evolution's lack of scientific credibility and your factually false insistence upon the unscientific nature of the theory itself. You may, of course, continue to believe in fairies and unicorns and giant planet covering shells of ice. I wouldn't presume to tell you what to think- only what is correct. You can be wrong all you'd like. [/B]
OK. for future reference.
disproving evolution (which is what i'm trying to do here) =/= proving christianity.