What can we do?

[Alzael]

Argumentum ad Hominem : the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of the individual(s) who is/are advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument.

No, BS. It isn't.

First there was no attack on anyones character. Second it was a perfect addressing of the argument. You claimed that ID does not try to promote the christian god. I pointed out that every major player in ID is a Chirstian who has stated specifically that they are talking about the Chtistian god.

As I've said before however, you're free to try and prove me wrong. Though we all know you'll run away from your spurious claim instead.

Ironically enough it's your statement that could constitute an ad hominem.

Good going.

By the way, I looked over the material you cited, and to be honest, I'm not impressed.  You seem to have a habit of trying to let other people's words speak for themselves, except that they don't.  You see, citing a source is meaningless unless you incorporate it into the main thread of your own argument.  That means you write your argument and cite sections of your source material in order to support it, not simply pile several citations together and present them as an agglomerated post with nothing of your own to serve as a framework.

He's never made a coherent argument of his own in his entire history here. That's why he quotes.

[One Above All]

Ironically enough it's your statement that could constitute an ad hominem.

Good going.

Not only that, but his accusation of an ad-hominem suggests that he believes that those people's christianity is a negative thing.

[nogodsforme]

BS, could you respond to my post #22 where I point out that the modern TOE (as opposed to what your references call "Darwinism") is valid because it works in application? The TOE is the basis for modern life sciences, all over the world, not just among atheists in the US or some such group.

What evidence is there that something called ID works in application? How does the idea that "some intelligence" lies behind the design of living beings help us to figure out disease or to grow more crops? If we decide that some supernatural being designed the human eye, for example, how does that help us cure eye diseases?

Back in the ancient times when most of the people on the planet believed in "intelligent design" there was no science and life was pretty nasty. Since ID was no help in terms of helping make things better, people developed real science. And things got better!

What is the purpose in teaching such a theory in schools? How would it help students know more about the world? It seems to me that you would have to know what the designer was trying to do, and that would depend on who the designer was. How do we figure out anything about the designer that is not just imagination and speculation?

I looked at the site you linked and none of the articles I saw were original research, or even summaries of original research.  The articles are opinion essays using a religious point of view to critique actual science. How does this give us any new information? All these articles do is raise questions that are not answerable using the scientific method.

For example, if a supernatural being indeed designed the human eye, is that the best possible eye? Of course not. There are better and worse eyes in different animals. Why not give every being really wonderful, perfect eyes? Why do flies have compound eyes? Why give dogs eyes that don't see color? Why does the human eye have a blind spot? Why can't humans see as well as eagles? Why do we get farsighted as we get old? What causes cataracts?

The only answer we can give is "because the designer made it that way". But is we are using the scientific TOE framework, we can tell exactly why the human eye is the way it is, and test various ways to improve it (telescopes, glasses, contacts, surgery, etc.).

With ID you have to make up stuff that we have no evidence for and pretend that it is real. I don't know where you can go with that--Vishnu, or Jehovah or Allah made the human eye. So what?  I don't know how you learn more about the world that way.

[Alzael]

Ironically enough it's your statement that could constitute an ad hominem.

Good going.

Not only that, but his accusation of an ad-hominem suggests that he believes that those people's christianity is a negative thing.

That's true as well.

Also interesting to note is that he apparently is just copy/pasting the definition from somewhere else rather than do it himself. So even he's actually too lazy/stupid to even make his own lazy/stupid arguments. He has to quote from elsewhere.

[monkeymind]

Also interesting to note is that he apparently is just copy/pasting the definition from somewhere else rather than do it himself. So even he's actually too lazy/stupid to even make his own lazy/stupid arguments. He has to quote from elsewhere.

Maybe not so stupid. I think he may be trying to get us to do all the heavy lifting (in fact, he's been pretty successful at that). He has no intention of an honest intellectual discussion. He is only trying to hone his "skill" and use the best responses to train his fellow parrots and fellow IDiots.

I can see a room full of these guys.
Polly want a cracker, Polly want a cracker, Polly want a cracker....


I feel like I am only enabling him at this point. Good thing I held back my best material. 

[Alzael]

Maybe not so stupid. I think he may be trying to get us to do all the heavy lifting (in fact, he's been pretty successful at that). He has no intention of an honest intellectual discussion. He is only trying to hone his "skill" and use the best responses to train his fellow parrots and fellow IDiots.

I can see a room full of these guys.
Polly want a cracker, Polly want a cracker, Polly want a cracker....


I feel like I am only enabling him at this point. Good thing I held back my best material. 

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you with what he's doing. It's what he's always done. But trust me, he's also really stupid.

Not to mention not very good at what he's trying to do. He could go about such a goal much more efficiently and do it much better. That's why he's so amusing in such a nauseating way. Even at trying to feign incompetence, he's extremely incompetent.

A better way to do hone his own arguments would be to actually make his own. You don't hone anything by just quoting.

[ParkingPlaces]

Okay guys, a question. One of BibleStudent's links was to a video by a guy named John Walton, an old testament scholar in Scotland who also has two PhD's in chemistry, who talked for an hour about how the chances of any particular protein chain forming pre-life combinations are infinitesimally small. He tossed around numbers like 10⁵³ and 10¹⁰³, numbers that even I recognize as being larger than my paycheck. To me, the obvious flaw in his argument is that he is assuming only one possible combination of proteins would work to create a precursor to life, but not being a chemist or a biologist, I thought I'd better see what others have said about his talk. And I can't find anything. Is anyone aware of responses to his talk? He seems like a decent guy, and though he is an old testament scholar he seems to accept that evolution occurred. He's just not big on what he considers scientifically feeble attempts to say what abiogenesis must have been, given that we don't know. And he of course assumes some sort of intelligent design was involved.

Can anybody find scientists who have responded to his claims? I can't.

[monkeymind]

^^^I could only sit through about half of his talk. About to where he was asking how could the right RNA appear....chances to form a cell were 10^130.
He asks:
"Are you willing to bet your belief system on it?"
MM: I am.

But not JUST on those odds. It seems silly to me that people will run all this math on the obvious that we are here regardless of the odds.

I found these responses to JohnBoy Walton:
http://isearch.avg.com/search?cid={2474D7DF-7F75-4902-B242-5F0599EE9375}&mid=16b603760e267075effbd372bf6532cc-ac9fa4c6c05ad47a6f6b2facbfe212cc8c8bb77e&ds=AVG&lang=en&v=9.0.0.18&pr=fr&d=2011-09-24%2011:29:31&sap=dsp&q=responses+to+John+Walton

I have not read any of those links.   yet

ADDED: I don't know if there is anything specifically about what you are asking for, but it is fun to see IDiots and theistic evolutionists arguing.

[monkeymind]

OK, I spent some time looking for a response to Walton's probability question. Couldn't find anything other than the discussion  about Genesis and the argument weather Genesis account of creation was termed in "material" or "functional "language. Who cares? I don't.

John Walton started off the vid with the question which came first enzymes or DNA? That is the real argument, I think, that leads to the probability stuff.

The way I understand it is...The chain of life is something like this....chemicals, amino acids, proteins, RNA, DNA...

Enzymes synthesize RNA and DNA

Ribosomes link amino acids in a specific order to make a specific protein

DNA instructs the ribosomes

RNA makes proteins, but proteins are used to make RNA

Enzymes are needed to form ATP, but ATP is needed to make enzymes

DNA is required to make enzymes, but enzymes are required to make DNA

The argument:
All this had to happen within the cell and all at once because a cell cannot live without DNA, etc. Each  component couldn't have evolved from non living matter separately and didn't have even a day to evolve, let alone millions of years.


Andrew Knoll from Nova - How Did Life Begin
Is it hard to go from these little building blocks to a full-fledged organism?


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/how-did-life-begin.html

Well, we don't know how hard it is to go from the simplest bricks, if you will, in the wall of life to something that is complicated, like a living bacterium. We know that it happened, so it's possible. We don't really know whether it was unlikely and just happened to work out on Earth, or whether it's something that will happen again and again in the universe.

Do we know how this all came about? Not yet.

There are still some great mysteries. People sometimes think that science really takes away mystery, but I think there are great scientific mysteries and causes for wonder and, most importantly, things that will, I hope, stimulate biologists for years to come. We don't know how life started on this planet. We don't know exactly when it started, we don't know under what circumstances.

It's a mystery that we're going to chip at from several different directions. Geologists like myself will chip at it by trying to get ever clearer records of Earth's early history and ever better ways of interrogating those rocks through their chemistry and paleontology. Biologists will chip at it by understanding at an ever deeper level how the various molecular constituents of the cell work together, how living organisms are related to one other genealogically. And chemists will get at it by doing new experiments that will tell us what is plausible in how those chemical correspondences came to be.

[jetson]

These probability arguments are empty.  Life is here.  Probability = 1.  We don't have a clear understanding of how life started, so we are working on different hypotheses, one of which is this chemical replication idea.  And for someone to come along make the claim that the probability that some specific combination of chemicals and replication is far too low to have started life, they would have to show their math, and all of the variables involved, and how no other combinations could be considered.

This reminds me of the ultra-stupid idea that humans could not be here without the exact set of conditions we find ourselves in.  And then they continue this stupidity by then claiming that the odds of this perfect combination of conditions being what they are, are 10^-5000000, or some other stupidity.  It never occurs to them that the conditions happen to allow what we now see, instead, they insist that the conditions were made this way on purpose.  Fucking stupidity and willful ignorance is unbelievable.

[monkeymind]

Yeah^^^agreed.

Math is magic to me, but maybe someone here can analyze this. Another answer to these probability issues may lie in fractal scaling.


http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0004340

Classical scaling principles are based on the notion that the underlying process is uniform, filling an interval in a smooth, continuous fashion, and thereby giving rise to finite averages and variances. The new principle is one that can generate richly detailed, heterogeneous, but self-similar structures at all scaling. Thus, length, area, and volume are not absolute properties of the system but are functions of the units of measure

[BibleStudent]

These probability arguments are empty.  Life is here.  Probability = 1.  We don't have a clear understanding of how life started, so we are working on different hypotheses, one of which is this chemical replication idea.  And for someone to come along make the claim that the probability that some specific combination of chemicals and replication is far too low to have started life, they would have to show their math, and all of the variables involved, and how no other combinations could be considered.

This reminds me of the ultra-stupid idea that humans could not be here without the exact set of conditions we find ourselves in.  And then they continue this stupidity by then claiming that the odds of this perfect combination of conditions being what they are, are 10^-5000000, or some other stupidity.  It never occurs to them that the conditions happen to allow what we now see, instead, they insist that the conditions were made this way on purpose.  Fucking stupidity and willful ignorance is unbelievable.

With all due respect, Jetson, these comments point to severe willful ignorance on your part. Probability is a branch of mathematics that you have just trivialized into a meaningless form of stupidity….. and I’m sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, of well educated people who would serve you up a good verbal lashing for your comments. Cripes, probability theory is even used in theoretical biology.

[monkeymind]

Prebiotic soup isn't the only theory either:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/05/metabolism-first-and-origin-of-life.html

There are several competing hypotheses about the origin of life. Most people know about the Primordial Soup scenario; that's the one where complex organic molecules are created by spontaneous chemical reactions. Over time these complex molecules, such as amino acids and nucleotides, accumulate in a warm little pond and eventually they come together to form proteins and nucleic acids.

The RNA World scenario is similar except that nucleic acids (RNA) are thought to form before proteins. For a while, RNA molecules are the main catalysts in the primordial soup. Later on, proteins take over some of the catalytic roles. One of the problems with the RNA world hypothesis is that you have to have a reasonable concentration of nucleotides before the process can begin.

The third hypothesis is called Metabolism First. In this scheme, the first reactions involve spontaneous formation of simple molecules such as acetate, a two-carbon compound formed from carbon dioxide and water. Pathways leading to the synthesis of simple organic molecules might be promoted by natural catalysts such as minerals and porous surfaces in rocks. The point is that the origin of life is triggered by the accumulation of very simple organic molecules in thermodynamically favorable circumstances.

[BibleStudent]

First of all, educated does not mean right.

I will be keeping this comment for future reference.

We are compelled to conclude that the origin of the first life was a unique event, which cannot be discussed in terms of probability."The University of London cell biologist Dr. Ambrose

Of course not, since it did happen it can  not be discussed as a probability, it is a certainty.

You really have not given much effort to examining ID science, have you. If you had, you would not be making comments like this. Furthermore, you are trashing a branch of mathematics for no reason other than to further your own personal agenda.

I see the human genome not simply as providing detail, but more importantly, as the beginning of a conceptual enlightenment in biology."

So what do you think this means?

It means that attempts to use the Human Genome project as a means of furthering the ToE have failed.

[monkeymind]

You really have not given much effort to examining ID science, have you. If you had, you would not be making comments like this. Furthermore, you are trashing a branch of mathematics for no reason other than to further your own personal agenda.

Wasn't me it was Dr. Ambrose.
ADDED: Anyways it's not math getting trashed it's the application of it. It has already been pointed out to you that if something has happened the probability is = 1.
The only agenda is the truth, and so far you haven't offered anything.

I see the human genome not simply as providing detail, but more importantly, as the beginning of a conceptual enlightenment in biology."

So what do you think this means?

It means that attempts to use the Human Genome project as a means of furthering the ToE have failed.

No, they haven't.

[monkeymind]

Dr. Sutherland and his colleagues Matthew W. Powner and Béatrice Gerland were able to create an RNA nucleotide in only 10 years randomly combining chemicals.

Wonder what the probability of that was?


ADDED: BTW, I already addressed your question about studying ID. It doesn't depend on what you or I think about it anyways. It boils down to science vrs faith. So far you haven't offered anything other than faith.  So, until you can offer a testable theory you're just wasting my time.

[DVZ3]

These are all post within days of each other on www.sciencedaily.com of just this year alone.... How can anyone willfully ignore information like people like BS and argue against very obvious data trends!? Why would anyone today cling to the bible today as the story of truth.... wow, just wow....

Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step (Jan. 17, 2012)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120117144330.htm

Simpler Times: Did an Earlier Genetic Molecule Predate DNA and RNA? (Jan. 9, 2012)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120109103029.htm

Evolution Is Written All Over Your Face (Jan. 11, 2012)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120111223744.htm
How Viruses Evolve, and in Some Cases, Become Deadly -(Jan. 26, 2012)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120126224526.htm

Life Beyond Earth? Underwater Caves in Bahamas Could Give Clues -Jan. 26, 2012
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120126131511.htm

NASA's Kepler Announces 11 New Planetary Systems Hosting 26 Planets - (Jan. 26, 2012)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120126155915.htm

Chemists Synthesize Artificial Cell Membrane  - (Jan. 25, 2012)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120125132822.htm

Alzheimer's Neurons from Pluripotent Stem Cells: First-Ever Feat Provides New Method
to Understand Cause of Disease, Develop Drugs -(Jan. 25, 2012)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120125131029.htm

Scientists Discover New Clue to Chemical Origins of Life -(Jan. 24, 2012)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124092930.htm

Life Discovered On Dead Hydrothermal Vents-(Jan. 24, 2012)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124184208.htm

Researchers Develop Gene Therapy That Could Correct a Common Form of Blindness-(Jan. 23, 2012)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120123163412.htm

Unusual 'Tulip' Creature Discovered: Lived in the Ocean More Than 500 Million Years Ago(Jan. 18, 2012)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120118173659.htm

World's Most Extreme Deep-Sea Vents Revealed: Deeper Than Any Seen Before, and Teeming With New Creatures (Jan. 10, 2012)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120110114434.htm

[BibleStudent]

BS, could you respond to my post #22 where I point out that the modern TOE (as opposed to what your references call "Darwinism") is valid because it works in application? The TOE is the basis for modern life sciences, all over the world, not just among atheists in the US or some such group.

No one is saying the ToE has no validity. The dispute arises when proponents of evolution starting stretching what we know and have observed into things like micro=macro. That’s where things start getting tangled up.

What evidence is there that something called ID works in application?

Is it necessary that ID “works in application?” Here, again, we have the assertion that science is the supreme ruler and that no other discipline known to man is capable of providing legitimate hypotheses for the origin of life.

How does the idea that "some intelligence" lies behind the design of living beings help us to figure out disease or to grow more crops?

Why does hypothesizing about the origin of life have to contribute to cures for disease or the growing of crops?

If we decide that some supernatural being designed the human eye, for example, how does that help us cure eye diseases?

Same as above. Are you seriously suggesting that because ID science does not provide things like a cure for eye diseases that it should be summarily dismissed?

Back in the ancient times when most of the people on the planet believed in "intelligent design" there was no science and life was pretty nasty. Since ID was no help in terms of helping make things better, people developed real science. And things got better!

Not sure how this furthers the validity of the ToE but if you say so, then so be it.

What is the purpose in teaching such a theory in schools? How would it help students know more about the world?

This is a good question and one deserving of a through answer. In fact, I fear that any answer I might give would be woefully inadequate. However, I feel I should craft a thorough answer to this and be prepared to answer the question should it arise again. I will get back to you on this. In the meantime, consider this: Young minds form worthwhile skepticisms even in the biology classroom….particularly since, in my opinion, the ToE is not well supported by an ‘origin of life’ theory and, frankly, probably never will be. They know that the possibility of a Supreme Being (Creator) is real and deserve to know what thoughtful, educated minds can offer to support alternative views. In the end, they should be free to form their own personal conclusions based on what they deem to be valid arguments.

I looked at the site you linked and none of the articles I saw were original research, or even summaries of original research. 

Does this mean the observations and commentaries offered are incorrect, innaccurate, and formed strictly from presuppositions? If you find fault with the observations and arguments being made, then so be it….but to summarily dismiss them because they are not “original research” is being prejudicial, shortsighted, and biased.

The articles are opinion essays using a religious point of view to critique actual science. How does this give us any new information? All these articles do is raise questions that are not answerable using the scientific method.

Yes, the ‘scientific method’….the supreme ruler of all there is to know about everything and anything. So sad.

For example, if a supernatural being indeed designed the human eye, is that the best possible eye? Of course not. There are better and worse eyes in different animals. Why not give every being really wonderful, perfect eyes? Why do flies have compound eyes? Why give dogs eyes that don't see color? Why does the human eye have a blind spot? Why can't humans see as well as eagles? Why do we get farsighted as we get old? What causes cataracts?

You should really spend more time examining ID science because you are asking questions that you wouldn’t be asking. Only you can decide if ID science is a valid alternative and make a personal decision on how these questions can be answered.

[DVZ3]

Yes, the ‘scientific method’….the supreme ruler of all there is to know about everything and anything. So sad.

It's the best method we have and it works everytime even when experiments prove data trends right or prove them wrong.  Stop promoting ignorance BS.  Why oh why are you advocating superstitious caveman logic!?

[BibleStudent]

Wasn't me it was Dr. Ambrose.
ADDED: Anyways it's not math getting trashed it's the application of it. It has already been pointed out to you that if something has happened the probability is = 1.

You need to think about what is being discussed here. The probability calculations do not seek to address whether it happened or not. Much to the contrary, they offer insight on how likely it is that it occurred in a given hypothesis using the scientific data we have.

It means that attempts to use the Human Genome project as a means of furthering the ToE have failed.

No, they haven't.

Okay, if you say so.

[monkeymind]

Wasn't me it was Dr. Ambrose.
ADDED: Anyways it's not math getting trashed it's the application of it. It has already been pointed out to you that if something has happened the probability is = 1.

You need to think about what is being discussed here. The probability calculations do not seek to address whether it happened or not. Much to the contrary, they offer insight on how likely it is that it occurred in a given hypothesis using the scientific data we have.

You need to think about what is being discussed here. Probability calculations based upon god creating everything are 0, since there are no real hypothesis or theories of how god did this, or any way of testing for it.











 

[BibleStudent]

Yes, the ‘scientific method’….the supreme ruler of all there is to know about everything and anything. So sad.

It's the best method we have and it works everytime even when experiments prove data trends right or prove them wrong.  Stop promoting ignorance BS.  Why oh why are you advocating superstitious caveman logic!?

I would never want to be so hypnotized by something simply because it is allegedly the "best we have." You may as well turn your imagination, intuition, and creativite abilities to the ‘off’ position. I feel bad for you.

[BibleStudent]

Wasn't me it was Dr. Ambrose.
ADDED: Anyways it's not math getting trashed it's the application of it. It has already been pointed out to you that if something has happened the probability is = 1.

You need to think about what is being discussed here. The probability calculations do not seek to address whether it happened or not. Much to the contrary, they offer insight on how likely it is that it occurred in a given hypothesis using the scientific data we have.

You need to think about what is being discussed here. Probability calculations based upon god creating everything are 0, since there are no real hypothesis or theories of how god did this, or any way of testing for it.
 

Yep, here we go. Argument is failing so now it's time to roll out the senseless unsubstantiated babble. Very predictable. Happens every time. Your ability to intelligently discuss this topic is tanking quickly.

[monkeymind]

ID is twu, it's twu, I just know it tiz!

How about stating in your own words, what you think it is about ID we are not getting here, BS. So far all you have done is make unsubstantiated claims that ID is a viable alternative to consider, and in the face of criticism that ID is religion not science, its math is flawed and the very foundation of it, irreducible complexity, is rejected by the majority of scientist.

edit: typos

[monkeymind]

Yep, here we go. Argument is failing so now it's time to roll out the senseless unsubstantiated babble. Very predictable. Happens every time. Your ability to intelligently discuss this topic is tanking quickly.

Sad thing is, your arguments failed from the start. You have nothing. Your logic has more holes in it than an inflatable dartboard.

ID is baseless and we have allowed you every opportunity to provide an honest attempt to make your case. Your ability to understand even the most basic science and carry on an intelligent discussion never even got off to a start.

[DVZ3]

I would never want to be so hypnotized by something simply because it is allegedly the "best we have." You may as well turn your imagination, intuition, and creativite abilities to the ‘off’ position. I feel bad for you.

BS, I've gone to church every sunday as a child and even throughout most of my teenage years.  Even when I was 7 years old in sunday school being asked by 'an adult' if "I've accepted the lord jesus christ as lord and my personal saviour..."   < I thought this was weird and creepy then but only obliged because they were an adult and my mother and father taught me to obey my elders.  Also, my mother was always the religous, and responded very emotionally to things that weren't rational or logically balanced.

My dad on the other hand was quite the opposite, extremely logical, very well read, and a college graduate.  I always admired him because he would ask me as a young boy what I learning in school.  I could tell him anything form math to science to history and he would be able to discuss this information with and answer questions with surprising accuracy even being out of school for as long as he has.  I've always admired that about him and always wanted to be like him.

My mother on the other hand could never help me with homework, she wasn't very well educated but a very good, caring and loving mother who taught me right from wrong regardless of wanting me to go church. She was devastated when I told her in my early 20's that I didn't believe in the things that she did whatsoever.  She thought she failed as a mother, she thought she let the rest of the family down.  She thought that my path in the future was destroyed....It drove a wedge within my relationship with her for while for being honest with her.  Well, it was not, not by a long shot.

Needless to say, I'm an adult now, am very well read, and a college graduate as well.  I've followed math, science, technology and engineering with great enthusiasm throughout my working career as a design engineer and now in a field that absolutely enjoy because it promotes learning and understanding of engineering.  The fact that we have science, physics and mathematical engineering principals that describe behavior of motion to the behavior of materials on a grand scale or to the very micro scale.  I enjoy 'knowing' why there was an effect on something and interrogating the cause and vice versa.  This is done every day in science and engineering to understand our world and most importantly ourselves.  It's why we drive automobiles instead of horse and buggy, it's why we can fly a 300 person passenger plane 35,000 ft in air at 350 mph and travel around the globe in mere hours.  It's how we put a man on the moon and it's how we have instant communication via the internet as we do today that you yourself even use.

Give someone religion and a bible with nothing else with no more information....  that is just describing 3rd world countries and the most violent parts of today's cultures on this planet today.  And here you sit, mocking the very information that gets people out of that ignorant culture. Knowing about our world lets us transcend away from thinking we will fulfill a superstitious afterlife for whatever ridiculous reason.

So BS, I think I've done a very good job of why you should feel more sorry for yourself....    I don't expect much of a response from, after all, you want people to go back to the past and pretend that we don't know anything and let superstition be are celestial guide.

[BibleStudent]

And here you sit, mocking the very information that gets people out of that ignorant culture. Knowing about our world lets us transcend away from thinking we will fulfill a superstitious afterlife for whatever ridiculous reason.

So BS, I think I've done a very good job of why you should feel more sorry for yourself....    I don't expect much of a response from, after all, you want people to go back to the past and pretend that we don't know anything and let superstition be are celestial guide.

I am not mocking anything.

I will share this little bit of personal information with you so that perhaps you gain a better understanding of what I am arguing here.

I have three children. The youngest of the three is my son who is 17 years old. Despite growing up in a Christian home and attending Sunday school, Bible studies, etc., he is highly skeptical of the existence of the Christian God. Not so long ago, he let me know this. He said the ToE provides a plausible argument  for explaining why we are alive today and how we came to be. He went on to explain that he is not totally opposed to the idea of God but that he needs to continue to weigh the arguments. Despite knowing that some of what he has been taught is false, misleading, and inaccurate, I have never once criticized him for the position he has taken nor have I or his mother tried to guilt him into reconsidering. Instead, I applaud his independence and his ability to critically analyze the information he has been presented with. I advised him that he should do just exactly what he said he would and give ear and consideration to every bit of information he could find wen seeking the truth. I love him just as much today as I did prior to his making his decision and he has, in no way, become an outcast by anyone in my family.

This is all I am seeking to afford anyone; the right to fairly see the arguments of different worldviews and make a personal decision. When I see posts like the OP, I get extremely uptight because it implies that people who don’t subscribe to the entirety of the ToE and some of the naturalistic ‘origin of life’ hypothesis are idiots. I am no idiot. My son is no idiot. You are no idiot....and neither was your mother. We simply have different personal views on matters that should be decided on a personal level. People should not be labeled as stupid, ignorant, idiots just because they do not subscribe to a worldview that you, me, or anyone else lives by.

Everyone deserves to seek out the truth on a level and fair playing field and should be respected for doing so rather than being called idiots and having certain pre-determined material shoved up their asses because they're too stupid to know what is good for them.   

[DVZ3]

^^^ Thanks for that BibleStudent, that was the most honesty I think I've heard from here.  Thank you. +1

[One Above All]

I have three children. The youngest of the three is my son who is 17 years old. Despite growing up in a Christian home and attending Sunday school, Bible studies, etc., he is highly skeptical of the existence of the Christian God.

This seems to contradict this (the bold and underlined part):

Everyone deserves to seek out the truth on a level and fair playing field and should be respected for doing so rather than being called idiots and having certain pre-determined material shoved up their asses because they're too stupid to know what is good for them.

But let's ignore that for now.

Despite knowing that some of what he has been taught is false, misleading, and inaccurate,

Specifically the parts you attempted to indoctrinate him with.

This is all I am seeking to afford anyone; the right to fairly see the arguments of different worldviews and make a personal decision.

Present these arguments and they will be weighed against the evidence.

When I see posts like the OP, I get extremely uptight because it implies that people who don’t subscribe to the entirety of the ToE and some of the naturalistic ‘origin of life’ hypothesis are idiots. I am no idiot. My son is no idiot. You are no idiot....and neither was your mother. We simply have different personal views on matters that should be decided on a personal level. People should not be labeled as stupid, ignorant, idiots just because they do not subscribe to a worldview that you, me, or anyone else lives by.

The problem is not that you don't subscribe to the ToE in its entirety. The problem is that your "worldview" completely ignores evidence, logic and reason - the very basis of reality. That is why you are labelled an idiot.