• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What kind of twisted explicit sexual perversions are schools now teaching?

Rich2018 said:
So dump it into social studies classes - if there's a specific religion class, I believe a parent should have the right to opt their child out of it.
Click to expand...

Any religion survey class in a public school by law must be optional.

Theistic religion is mentioned in history or social studies because it has been part of human civilization.
 
Rich2018 said:
He didn't - he noted how different groups of Finches are different species
Creationists assume this - they assume that anatomically similar elephants - like the African and Indian - are the same species

Creationists group creatures together because the behave similarly - which is why the Bible refers to a bat as a bird


Now Darwin didn't know about DNA so he may have regarded a species as being in a wrong group - I wouldn't know. Ultimately though it is his concept of common origins that is groundbreaking
DNA shows conclusively (or about as conclusive as you can get) that thee is common ancestry.
Click to expand...

Species classifications are not scientific facts. Humans classify species and there may be 3 dozen different methods different groups use to sort out species by their separate methods. Calling a bird by one species name today and another tomorrow is not evolution of the species, it is evolution of dictionary definitions.
 
Rich2018 said:
There is no such thing as a Darwinist.

Evolution is science fact - it's as close to proven as anything can be proven

DNA proves this - you don't even need Darwin - there are no examples of scientific evidence or your scientific "facts" that contradict Evolution
Click to expand...


I assume someone taught you that DNA proves humans are related to animals. How you came to believe that nonsense is not my concern. I happen to know for a fact that you yourself cannot prove DNA similarity proves humans have common ancestors with animals.
 
Lisa said:
No, it wasn't designed by leading scientists. Drop the lies and try to tell the truth, even occasionally.
Click to expand...

The first supporters of the Piltdown fraud were prominent evolutionist scientists, none of whom wanted later to take the blame for supporting the fraud. Those early respectable scientists were guilty of two major scientific fraud: 1. They promoted the Piltdown Man as a genuine evolutionary missing link, and 2. They gave their consent to the cover up of the Cattedown fossils and the Cattedown Man, which amazing fossil find proved evolutionist assumptions wrong, and many leading scientists knew it.
 
Lisa said:
DNA creates a genetic roadmap that you want to ignore because its conclusions are in opposition to your bible.
Click to expand...

Evolutionists make many erroneous assumptions about DNA which cause them to think evolution is fact, not the fiction crap that it is.
 
Lisa said:
They can teach about the Christian religion in public schools, as long as it is taught with the other religious myths of Zeus, Ra, Jupiter, and Thor.
Click to expand...

False science should not be taught in schools no matter whether schools teach religion or not. Evolution is not science, it is a lie which has almost reached divine status among deluded Darwinists.
 
Lisa said:
Yes, teach critical thinking in public high school as a graduation requirement.


All religions are equally mythical, despite what their various believers have been convinced of. If religion is taught in public high school then it has b to be taught as a 3rd party critical survey class with all religions receiving the same mention and none being endorsed in any form. It cannot be taught as a bible study class with non-Christian religious being criticized and the Christian religions being portrayed in a positive light.
Click to expand...

Evolution is not religious. It is atheistic theory which relies on very bad scientific assumptions, erroneous interpretations of data, and ridiculous proposals which will never be verified by scientific data or facts.
 
marke said:
False science should not be taught in schools no matter whether schools teach religion or not. Evolution is not science, it is a lie which has almost reached divine status among deluded Darwinists.
Click to expand...

Every time I read your posts I now imagine them coming from Floyd R. Turbo.
 
marke said:
Evolution is not religious. It is atheistic theory which relies on very bad scientific assumptions, erroneous interpretations of data, and ridiculous proposals which will never be verified by scientific data or facts.
Click to expand...

There is nothing religious about evolution because science is the opposite of religion due to the fact that beliefs are not part of the process. Every step in the process must be supported by empirical facts.

Evolution is support by facts. The idea that you don't agree doesn't mean that it isn't true because your agreement or that of your religion isn't part of the scientific method. The fact that you have been lied to by AiG doesn't change the reality that evolution is the most rigorously proven ideas of science. Is gravity an unproven idea because "it's only a theory" Stand under a ladder while I drop a bowling ball on you if it's just a theory".

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
 
marke said:
Species classifications are not scientific facts. Humans classify species and there may be 3 dozen different methods different groups use to sort out species by their separate methods. Calling a bird by one species name today and another tomorrow is not evolution of the species, it is evolution of dictionary definitions.
Click to expand...


It is the evolution of our knowledge

As we know more we can change how we group or classify animals

It is done through a scientific method


...I assume someone taught you that DNA proves humans are related to animals. How you came to believe that nonsense is not my concern. I happen to know for a fact that you yourself cannot prove DNA similarity proves humans have common ancestors with animals....
Click to expand...


Humans ARE animals

Human are Apes

There's that pesky scientific classification for you


And no, you do not know for a fact that DNA can't prove human ancestry with other animals because it does (or at least prove it as close as anything can be proved).

"Analysis of DNA sequences now plays a key role in evolutionary biology research. If Darwin were to come back today, I think he would be absolutely delighted with molecular evolutionary genetics, for three reasons. First, it solved one of the greatest problems for his theory of evolution by natural selection. Second, it gives us a tool that can be used to investigate many of the questions he found the most fascinating. And third, DNA data confirm Darwin's grand view of evolution."


Darwin would have loved DNA: celebrating Darwin 200



So when we say Humans are related to chimpanzees or gorillas or bananas it means if you go back in time far enough, we have a common ancestor.


Theists will often ask if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes. But we didn't evolve from the apes you see today - we had a common ancestor species who split into 2 or more species.
 
Last edited:
Lisa said:
There is nothing religious about evolution because science is the opposite of religion due to the fact that beliefs are not part of the process. Every step in the process must be supported by empirical facts.

Evolution is support by facts. The idea that you don't agree doesn't mean that it isn't true because your agreement or that of your religion isn't part of the scientific method. The fact that you have been lied to by AiG doesn't change the reality that evolution is the most rigorously proven ideas of science. Is gravity an unproven idea because "it's only a theory" Stand under a ladder while I drop a bowling ball on you if it's just a theory".

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American
Click to expand...

How does science support the assumption that humans shared common ancestors with plants and animals? By bad science. Deluded Darwinists assume that DNA similarity demands assumptions of inherited genetic commonality with other life forms. That assumption is false. Human and mice DNA is very similar, which is why scientists do lab experiments on mice, for example. But humans and mice do not share a common genetic blood line ancestor. That is mythology and is only believed by gullible people who simply don't care to search out the truth and facts.
 
Rich2018 said:
It is the evolution of our knowledge

As we know more we can change how we group or classify animals

It is done through a scientific method





Humans ARE animals

Human are Apes

There's that pesky scientific classification for you


And no, you do not know for a fact that DNA can't prove human ancestry with other animals because it does (or at least prove it as close as anything can be proved).

"Analysis of DNA sequences now plays a key role in evolutionary biology research. If Darwin were to come back today, I think he would be absolutely delighted with molecular evolutionary genetics, for three reasons. First, it solved one of the greatest problems for his theory of evolution by natural selection. Second, it gives us a tool that can be used to investigate many of the questions he found the most fascinating. And third, DNA data confirm Darwin's grand view of evolution."


Darwin would have loved DNA: celebrating Darwin 200



So when we say Humans are related to chimpanzees or gorillas or bananas it means if you go back in time far enough, we have a common ancestor.


Theists will often ask if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes. But we didn't evolve from the apes you see today - we had a common ancestor species who split into 2 or more species.
Click to expand...

I am not fooled by fancy definition tricks by Darwinists. They have at least 3 dozen different standards by which they identify species, leading to what is commonly known as THE SPECIES PROBLEM, which can be examined in a Wikipedia article by that title.
 
marke said:
How does science support the assumption that humans shared common ancestors with plants and animals? By bad science. Deluded Darwinists assume that DNA similarity demands assumptions of inherited genetic commonality with other life forms. That assumption is false. Human and mice DNA is very similar, which is why scientists do lab experiments on mice, for example. But humans and mice do not share a common genetic blood line ancestor. That is mythology and is only believed by gullible people who simply don't care to search out the truth and facts.
Click to expand...

Humans and mice are both vertebrate mammals, therefore, we do share a common ancestor from millions of years ago.

Gray Wolf Evolution
 
Lisa said:
Humans and mice are both vertebrate mammals, therefore, we do share a common ancestor from millions of years ago.

Gray Wolf Evolution
Click to expand...

That's the lie you have been told. What you have not been told is how in the world can you, the person deceived by the lie, prove the lie to be true when no lies can be proven true?
 
marke said:
That's the lie you have been told. What you have not been told is how in the world can you, the person deceived by the lie, prove the lie to be true when no lies can be proven true?
Click to expand...

You couldn't possibly mean the tales we can read in a certain 'ancient' text, now could you?
 
marke said:
That's the lie you have been told. What you have not been told is how in the world can you, the person deceived by the lie, prove the lie to be true when no lies can be proven true?
Click to expand...

Those statements of genetic lineage can be replicated by anyone of any rational religion who are capable of understanding the science involved and they are based on empirical fact. Unlike your bible that is based on plagiarized myths.

Young Earth Creationism Is Essentially the Position That All Modern Science 90% of Living Scientists and 98% of Living Biologists All Major University Biology Department Every Major Science Journal the American Academy of Sciences and Every Major Science Organization in the World Are All Wrong Regarding the Origins and Development of Life but One Particular Tribe of Uneducated Bronze Aged Goat Herders Got It Exactly Right Chuck Easttom | Meme on ME.ME
 
Last edited:
Somerville said:
You couldn't possibly mean the tales we can read in a certain 'ancient' text, now could you?
Click to expand...

Why worry about other things when you are first trying to explain how DNA proves humans are blood-related to bananas or bonobos?
 
Lisa said:
Those statements of genetic lineage can be replicated by anyone of any rational religion who are capable of understanding the science involved and they are based on empirical fact. Unlike your bible that is based on plagiarized myths.

Young Earth Creationism Is Essentially the Position That All Modern Science 90% of Living Scientists and 98% of Living Biologists All Major University Biology Department Every Major Science Journal the American Academy of Sciences and Every Major Science Organization in the World Are All Wrong Regarding the Origins and Development of Life but One Particular Tribe of Uneducated Bronze Aged Goat Herders Got It Exactly Right Chuck Easttom | Meme on ME.ME
Click to expand...

Dummies say DNA proves humans and bananas share a common ancestor but that is because they are dummies. Bananas don't know how to think and neither do evolutionists but that does not mean they share a common ancestor.
 
marke said:
Dummies say DNA proves humans and bananas share a common ancestor but that is because they are dummies. Bananas don't know how to think and neither do evolutionists but that does not mean they share a common ancestor.
Click to expand...

"Evolutionist" is used by creationists in a weak attempt to equate those who know a little something about science and therefore accept the ToE as true, as being sort of an anti-theist religion. Funny how so many people who have religious beliefs accept the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation for life on this planet. Creationism is primarily an American evangelical belief, though there are some fundamentalist Muslims who also hold to creationism.

Found this on Quora where a Professor of Biology answered the question: What kind of evidence would falsify evolution?

Evolution is falsifiable in principle, but not falsified by any of the data that is known today.
A theory isn’t a theory unless it’s at least conceivable to falsify it. Falsifiability is one of the major criteria for distinguishing science from nonscience and pseudoscience. This is why the idea of fiat creation by an omnipotent deity cannot be a science—there is no conceivable way to falsify it (although the numerous claims of “scientific creationists” are indeed individually falsifiable).

As for evolution, it is conceivable to falsify it, but it would take a lot of evidence in diverse fields of biology, geology, and palaeontology to do so. This is because evolution now rests on such a huge body of multidisciplinary data.
Click to expand...

DNA
If scientists looked for biochemical similarities in DNA and proteins and found them to be completely random instead of following any sensible phylogenetic tree—human DNA closer to that of a petunia than to a gorilla, we’d have serious doubts. We might start seeking reasons . . . if all the molecular phylogenies were nonsensical and not even close to the fossil or anatomical phylogenies, evolutionary theory would be in deep trouble.
Click to expand...

When marke provides us with the 'evidence' showing that some dinosaur fossils were dated to only 50,000 years old, yet only one group of creationists with a known history of denying and falsifying 'evidence' has ever published any paper making such a claim -- not that their study was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal.

Find a Pre-Cambrian rabbit fossil and you will have destroyed the Theory of Evolution

evolution pyramid.jpg​
 
Somerville said:
...Evolution is falsifiable in principle, but not falsified by any of the data that is known today.
A theory isn’t a theory unless it’s at least conceivable to falsify it. Falsifiability is one of the major criteria for distinguishing science from nonscience and pseudoscience. This is why the idea of fiat creation by an omnipotent deity cannot be a science—there is no conceivable way to falsify it (although the numerous claims of “scientific creationists” are indeed individually falsifiable).

As for evolution, it is conceivable to falsify it, but it would take a lot of evidence in diverse fields of biology, geology, and palaeontology to do so. This is because evolution now rests on such a huge body of multidisciplinary data.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Creation by Transcendent Power (somewhat different from your straw man Creationism) is at least as "falsifiable in principle, but not falsified by any of the data that is known today" as is evolution. Evolution is in fact immune to falsification because, like Marxism and Freudianism, the theory itself subsumes (explains away) all contradictions to the theory. The selfsame immunity holds for Creation by Transcendent Power. Both are a matter of faith, and both are, to the faithful, "falsifiable in principle"; and both are, to the faithless, unfalsifiable.

What imaginable defeater is there for the theory of evolution?
What imaginable defeater is there for belief in Creation by Transcendent Power?

The answer is the same for both questions: None.
 
marke said:
I am not fooled by fancy definition tricks by Darwinists. They have at least 3 dozen different standards by which they identify species, leading to what is commonly known as THE SPECIES PROBLEM, which can be examined in a Wikipedia article by that title.
Click to expand...

Once again, there is no such thing as a Darwinist.

It's actually the species concept - where do you see a problem ?

Species concept - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
What imaginable defeater is there for belief in Creation by Transcendent Power?
Click to expand...

A veritable MOUNTAIN of scientific evidence.

DNA alone proves evolution - in so much as anything can be proved

On top of that we have fossils and dating techniques


Evolution is a fact. a science fact.
 
Rich2018 said:
A veritable MOUNTAIN of scientific evidence.

DNA alone proves evolution - in so much as anything can be proved

On top of that we have fossils and dating techniques


Evolution is a fact. a science fact.
Click to expand...
Go tell it on the mountain, man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom