When I was taught evolution, I was shown how our drawings was based on little bits of skeletons. So your point is mute. Is that so hard to accept and understand? Talking about extrapolating info; you extrapolated your experience as a student into the experience of all students.
Indeed, you are correct. Certainly you are assuming the same.
See, I know what you did. All you anti-evolution people do the same. You will take a valid argument, that NO ONE WOULD OPOSE, like 'evolution should be taught with all the facts, including the ones that are lacking' ... I'm 100% sure if you posted just the part of 'evolution should be taught with all the facts' WITHOUT the wacko shit, your post would have been ignored. And I have a sneaking suspicion you know this.
Am I anti-evolution? No. Your argument is fair and I can leave it at that. They should teach evolution with all of the facts. I am good with that, as I have said in several previous posts.
Of course, if you look at the whole picture, you would understand. Obviously, you don't care to. But you are arrogant enough to believe you can give an valid opinion on a topic which you know nothing about (seriously, if all you can quote are bone fragment arguments, you obviously don't know the whole picture.
I do not and never said I did, that is why I asked here for clarification. When it came it was a mass dump of data. When I questioned that data there was a whole lot of you are an idiot responses, which leads me to believe no one here knows how to substantiate their position. This is because they all assume I am arrogant, as you have, when in fact, I am not. As I have posted before, I want the truth and even have a vested interest and motivation to find a truth contrary to my current beliefs.
In all my time debating this issue that has to be the most ridiculous point I've heard. You actually think the entire scientific community are misrepresenting their findings so that they don't have to start worrying about those pesky 10 commandments?
Yeah, that's it. You are certainly wise.
It's counter logical too. Trust me, not believing in a magical fairy that will take me away like calgon on speed, sucks. It would be so much easier to let go and let god. It's a tough path but the courageous won't stop questioning just cause it's tough.
I question things all of the time and most that "let go and let god" would probably have the same lightweight problems and easy life if they were or were not a Christian. Beyond that, there are many deeper Christians where that phrase itself has a much deeper meaning intertwined with a lot of faith and theology. Just because something seems simple on the surface, does not mean that it actually is.
False, The only side who uses safe havens is religion. Science wants to get better, learn and correct itself. Lets look at some previous religious 'safe havens',
As does any Christian that follows the teachings of the Bible.
Can you point out 1 such instance where Craig defeated Hitchens?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8"]Debate - William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens - Does God Exist? - YouTube[/ame] Start at 12 minute marker before that is all BS.
This seems purposeless in a high school curriculum.
Can't you see that this is the purpose of teaching science? The scientific method was taught in any science class I was in, and that's entirely what you seem to want here.
What I am advocating is teaching the underlying facts that were used to make the conclusions. The ways in which the scientific method was used in each specific case. They way I was taught is shameful.
Are you talking about the leap of faith to believe in macro evolution? What is the purpose of teaching this? It is what all of the evidence supports, so there is no reason to teach it as a "leap of faith". Again, this is the purpose of the scientific method...it self-corrects "leaps of faith" over time. That the scientific method lays out the intellectual basis for what you want - questioning things. You just don't like the data it provides.
Once again. Teach what we know. Teach how we know it. Teach what we believe based on this using the scintific method. It's all good, as I have said repeatedly.
If one idea makes more sense than the other, then of course you should believe in it. Yes it doesn't make it certainly true but it is still more likely to be true that the others.
Yeah, well, I prefer to know the truth or to know the basis for my presumption. I cannot believe you are advocating full belief in one thing until the next comes along, just because it, "makes sense". lol.
I feel the same way.
Your real world examples don't mean shit. As I said for the, I don't know, tenth time, you only look at the side that fits your view. "Oh look housing prices are affordable now." That's not a fucking "real world" example. Your only looking at the current situation ignoring the jobs and resources wasted as a result of the malinvestment of the housing boom. Sure prices have dropped but there are also less people with the money to buy those houses. And yes I would bet my life on the fact that malinvestments are bad as a whole, no matter how low the price falls to as a result of the liquidating market. But anyway I didn't come in this thread because I felt inclined to correct you on your previous economics bullshiting as you believe. I've already done that.
I argued that the malinvestment raised the standard of living for the poor.
Prices dropped and now everyone can purchase a home that has a job. Even those without jopbs can become underemployed and now afford the same home they could not afford when they had a great job. Amazing isn't it?
Do not try to school me on topics I am intimate with - you can school me in evolution, fine, I could care less, but housing, lending, the street level implications of this crisis. Good luck.
