Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution

[abu afak]

You have become the PRIME EXAMPLE with that wishful slip of thought. There is no place for religion such as atheism in the science section. It just goes to show that you do not understand science when you use wishful thinking. You should be banned from S&I for bringing the atheist religion to this forum when science does not back it up. 2 weeks? A month would make me lol for weeks lol.

It's no wonder in the years I've known you that you do not bring any experiments here and expound on them. This is another topic that belongs in The Rubber Room.

For example, I've been looking at mag-lev technlogy and former POTUS Donald Trump supported it to be used more in the US.

`

-

the OCD troll 'ding' is now on ignore due to endless stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat and already answered baits.
Recently even following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, to do the same. ie,
Look at his 4/5 (now 50/60, and counting) vengeful out of control/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies.'
Juvenile last-worder GOT to have his grudge sated.

`

 

[ding]

Atheism has elevated Darwinism to a religion. Too bad the fossil record doesn't support it. The fossil record shows long periods of stasis followed by rapid change.

 

[Hollie]

Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution​

Gob smak’em.

Evolution Education in the U.S. Is Getting Better

The percentage of public school bio teachers who present it as the broad consensus view among scientists—without presenting the creationist “alternative”—has increased markedly since 2007

www.scientificamerican.com

Between 2007 and 2019, there definitely was progress: from 51 percent of high school biology teachers reporting emphasizing evolution and not creationism in 2007 to 67 percent in 2019. It was matched by a drop from 23 to 12 percent of teachers who offer mixed messages by endorsing both evolution and creationism as a valid scientific alternative to evolution, from 18 to 15 percent of teachers who endorse neither evolution nor creationism, and from 8.6 to 5.6 percent of teachers who endorse creationism while not endorsing evolution.

Credit: National Center for Science Education

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I see your faith is blinding you, the laws don't work everywhere in the universe good God you act like God or dare I say a narcissist

No faith here. Sorry. Your weak attempt to place scientific knowledge on the same shelf as your magical horseshit has never worked and will never work, so you can stop wasting your time.

Same goes for ding the desperate charlatan, whose whiny crap about atheim being a religion has been relegated to an anonymous message board where he shouts it to himself.

 

[Wyatt earp]

No faith here. Sorry. Your weak attempt to place scientific knowledge on the same shelf as your magical horseshit has never worked and will never work, so you can stop wasting your time.

Same goes for ding the desperate charlatan, whose whiny crap about atheim being a religion has been relegated to an anonymous message board where he shouts it to himself.

Once again you claimed the laws work everywhere in the Universe, write a paper and get laughed at

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Once again you claimed the laws work everywhere in the Universe, write a paper and get laughed at

Go ahead and write a paper saying they were different on earth's surface 4 billion years ago.

See who gets laughed at. Hint: it will be you.

 

[ding]

No faith here. Sorry. Your weak attempt to place scientific knowledge on the same shelf as your magical horseshit has never worked and will never work, so you can stop wasting your time.

Same goes for ding the desperate charlatan, whose whiny crap about atheim being a religion has been relegated to an anonymous message board where he shouts it to himself.

That's exactly the type of behavior one would expect to see from a religious fanatic who felt his religion was being attacked. But for the record I'm not challenging biological evolution. I'm challenging the mechanism of biological evolution.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's exactly the type of behavior one would expect to see from a religious fanatic who felt his religion was being attacked. But for the record I'm not challenging biological evolution. I'm challenging the mechanism of biological evolution.

Haha, predictable ding self soothing platitude. Getting called "militant" in 3...2...1...

 

[ding]

Haha, predictable ding self soothing platitude. Getting called "militant" in 3...2...1...

Your truculent behavior is self evident. It's a hallmark of your personality. You're an angry dude.

 

[james bond]

Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution​

Gob smak’em.

Evolution Education in the U.S. Is Getting Better

The percentage of public school bio teachers who present it as the broad consensus view among scientists—without presenting the creationist “alternative”—has increased markedly since 2007

www.scientificamerican.com

Between 2007 and 2019, there definitely was progress: from 51 percent of high school biology teachers reporting emphasizing evolution and not creationism in 2007 to 67 percent in 2019. It was matched by a drop from 23 to 12 percent of teachers who offer mixed messages by endorsing both evolution and creationism as a valid scientific alternative to evolution, from 18 to 15 percent of teachers who endorse neither evolution nor creationism, and from 8.6 to 5.6 percent of teachers who endorse creationism while not endorsing evolution.

Credit: National Center for Science Education

This is heavily BIASED science as evolution isn't settled science as macroevolution was disproved. All it's based on is those papers that today's atheist scientists wrote to further their careers.

I was reading about magnetic levitation and found today's high speed trains can get us from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 45 mins. It is about 383 mi. or 617 km by car which takes 5 hrs 30 mins. That's prolly faster than by air taking into consideration airport/airline logistics. It is about 383 mi. or 617 km by car which takes 5 hrs 30 mins.

 

[james bond]

`
View attachment 597401

-

the OCD troll 'ding' is now on ignore due to endless stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat and already answered baits.
Recently even following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, to do the same. ie,
Look at his 4/5 (now 50/60, and counting) vengeful out of control/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies.'
Juvenile last-worder GOT to have his grudge sated.

`

Like I said, the majority believes in creation over evolution. You lose with your own post.

 

[abu afak]

Like I said, the majority believes in creation over evolution. You lose with your own post.

argumentum ad populum

The truth is not a general poll it's Evidence and Facts,
If it's at least a more valid poll of Experts on the topic AND... only if they overwhelmingly agree.
Then it's called a consensus.
In this case an overwhelming consensus of scientists and Biologists.

`

 

[Seymour Flops]

argumentum ad populum

The truth is not a general poll it's Evidence and Facts,
If it's at least a more valid poll of Experts on the topic AND... only if they overwhelmingly agree.
Then it's called a consensus.
In this case an overwhelming consensus of scientists and Biologists.

`

Do you have a poll to show that?

Hopefully from the same source you got your poll that showed that less than a third of U.S. adults buy into Darwinian evolution as the explanation for life on Earth.

 

[abu afak]

Do you have a poll to show that?

Hopefully from the same source you got your poll that showed that less than a third of U.S. adults buy into Darwinian evolution as the explanation for life on Earth.

Maybe if you went to Liberty University's 'science'/Bio courses you would think differently?

""...Nearly all (around 97%) of the Scientific community accepts Evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Scientific associations have Strongly Rebutted and Refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by intelligent design proponents.[3].".."

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

`

 

[Seymour Flops]

Maybe if you went to Liberty University's 'science'/Bio courses you would think differently?

""...Nearly all (around 97%) of the Scientific community accepts Evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Scientific associations have Strongly Rebutted and Refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by intelligent design proponents.[3].".."

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

`

There you go!

If argumentum ad populum and argument from authority were not fallacies, you'd even have a point!

 

[abu afak]

There you go!

If argumentum ad populum and argument from authority were not fallacies, you'd even have a point!

Neither of those are applicable you IDIOT.
and you were Answered/Crushed again.

It's funny, I taught you a new fallacy/term and you don't know how to use it.
In fact you Moron, YOU asked me for a poll/a-a-p then complain when you get one!
LOL

Seymour Flops Again/Every time.
Now been LAUGHED off the board with his stupid and fallacious "apparent design."

`

 

[Seymour Flops]

Neither of those are applicable you IDIOT.
and you were Answered/Crushed again.

One or both of them is applicable. It depends on what you thought your poll proved.

It's funny, I taught you a new fallacy/term and you don't know how to use it.
In fact you Moron, YOU asked me for a poll/a-a-p then complain when you get one!
LOL

I honestly didn't think you'd be stupid enough to post another poll, your first having blown up on you so badly.

Seymour Flops Again/Every time.
Now been LAUGHED off the board with his stupid and fallacious "apparent design."

`

You obsess over me in an unhealthy way.

Please seek help.

 

[abu afak]

One or both of them is applicable. It depends on what you thought your poll proved.

I honestly didn't think you'd be stupid enough to post another poll, your first having blown up on you so badly.

You obsess over me in an unhealthy way.

Please seek help.

1. You Idiot.
YOU asked for a poll/opinion.. Then complain when get it as a-a-p! (I just taught you!)
You DISHONEST POS.

2. That Consensus (I previously mentioned AND Explained) of Scientists/experts on the Topic is ergo also NOT an 'appeal to authority' fallacy.
YOU IDIOT.
You know NOTHING.

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

appeal to authority​

​

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.​

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.​

- - - - -
- - - - -


You are so G-D STUPID it's unbelievable.

Even when refuting you one has to do it on a 6th grade level and explain every term so that you understand it.

And then you DISHONESTLY deflect it.

`

 

[Seymour Flops]

1. You Idiot.
YOU asked for a poll/opinion.. Then complain when get it as a-a-p! (I just taught you!)
You DISHONEST POS.

2. That Consensus (I previously mentioned AND Explained) of Scientists/experts on the Topic is ergo also NOT an 'appeal to authority' fallacy.
YOU IDIOT.
You know NOTHING.

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

appeal to authority​

​

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.​

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.​

- - - - -
- - - - -


You are so G-D STUPID it's unbelievable.

Even when refuting you one has to do it on a 6th grade level and explain every term so that you understand it.

And then you DISHONESTLY deflect it.

`

Clearly I should not have started responding to you again, abu.

I see now that you are not stable enough to be debating on a forum such as this. A complete mental collapse seems imminent, and I don't want to be accused of contributing to it.

Goodbye, and good luck!

 

[Hollie]

Clearly I should not have started responding to you again, abu.

I see now that you are not stable enough to be debating on a forum such as this. A complete mental collapse seems imminent, and I don't want to be accused of contributing to it.

Goodbye, and good luck!

When you can’t defend your claims and you contradict your own arguments, it’s in your best interest to, you know, run away like a girl.

Maybe open another thread:

Evidence for Design #8,341 - The Complete Guide of Contributing Nothing As Evidence For “The Gawds Did It™“​