I really don’t know how to respond to something like this, since this is exactly what us non-creationists have been pushing for all along, and exactly what the creationists have been fighting against all along. This isn’t a compromise-this is an unconditional and total win for the side of science and reason. Do you actually know creationists that consider this to be a reasonable compromise?
Isn’t this the compromise that “our” side has offered that has been rejected? There is no effort that I’ve ever heard of to get evolution taught in churches, but there are widespread efforts to do the reverse.
Or what he said, upon edit.
Hope you don’t mind me dropping you in the frame there - it looked as though Kanicbird was on the verge of making an assertion with some degree of empirical falsifiability.
If the assertion is indeed that you need merely say some specific words, after which, some supernatural and palpable outcome is guaranteed, are you up for it?
No he wasn’t saying something empirically falsifiable. He just said that if you said the magic words the magic being might choose to show up. Any time the words are said and the magic being doesn’t show up, you know **Kanicbird **is just going to say it chose not to.
Isn’t there a board rule against wishing death on people?
I’d like to see the really hard-core, deliberate, lying conspiracists suffer for their sins. Small of me, I admit, but that’s the way it is. Not the run-of-the-mill man-in-the-street, the guy who has doubts. But the leaders, the ones who use word-processors to change “creationism” to “intelligent design” in order to disguise their true intentions. The ones who promote lies about Darwin.
(Actually, I’d like to see most of the world’s extremists punished somehow. But I guess that opinion is, itself, a bit extreme!)
More and more, I think that tdn genuinely doesn’t know anything about creationists or what they’ve been doing. They seem to be coming from some viewpoint of “there’s two sides, so each must be equally right & equally wrong, and they could just all get together and be happy if they tried”.
Cite, please?
I’m fully aware of what they’ve been doing, and I agree that it’s reprehensible. I just don’t see much value in letting them drag us down to their level. Wrestling with pigs, etc.
When the pig is taking a dump in your livingroom, you don’t try to negotiate with the pig or try to meet it half way-you kick the damn pig out of the house ASAP and lock the door.
Sure. You don’t retaliate by taking a dump in the pig’s living room.
And as others have pointed out repeatedly your analogy is invalid because no one is proposing going to churches and insisting that evolution be taught in Sunday School-the inappropriate intrusions come from one side only.
We’re going around in circles. I’m done here.
Right. The compromise you suggested is what us anti-creationists are already doing. So we probably are done.
I’m afraid you were done when you tried to turn this into a “both sides are doing the same thing-why not compromise” situation, when it was abundantly clear that only one side had facts on their side. Here’s a good analogy: A man steals your name and does his best to ruin your reputation. You go before a judge with copies of your birth certificate, bills in your name and friends that will swear that you are who you say you are. Then your opponent stands up and says, “No-I’m tdn!”, then sits back down. The judge says, “What we have here are two people making the same claim. I think they should get together and calmly find a way to compromise so that nobody comes away empty handed.”
Sound fair to you?
Then why are you pushing for educating them when you’ve found them to be unteachable on this topic?
Look, what we have here is a classic example of Religion vs. Science. It’s a longstanding battle with perhaps the best-known examples centering around Galileo and Darwin. The thing is, they are two different facets of life, apples and oranges. Science can’t tell us about Religion (e.g., Science cannot prove or disprove that God exists), and Religion can’t tell us about Science.
These aspects are not naturally pitted against each other. There are plenty of scientists who believe in God, and plenty of Christians (and adherents of other religions) who accept evolution. The problem is there are some, typically fundamentalist Christians, who will not let Science and Religion coexist. Their feelings about their religion perceive Science as a threat to it, and they insist on attacking Science on that basis.
The funny thing is, they routinely accept what we have learned through Science on so many other matters. The knowledge we’ve acquired that manifests in bridge construction, medical treatments, television, and automobiles is not questioned. But the knowledge we’ve acquired about (some aspects of) geology and historical biology, even though derived from the same application of observation and intelligence, are not accepted by them. Why? Because they don’t want it to be true.
And it would be fine if they would keep their beliefs to themselves, but they won’t settle for that. They want everyone else to follow – not just recognize – these unsubstantiated beliefs at the expense of the facts. If you don’t see the peril in conceding to them, I’m not sure I can teach it to you. And if you discover a way to teach them not to impose their viewpoint on the rest of the world, I’d love to hear it.
You’re doing the same thing actually. Science can tell us about religion, and has; it’s just the answer is always that religion is wrong. You’re just taking the position that it doesn’t count when science demonstrates religion to be wrong. And yes, that includes God; God violates numerous physical laws (and for that matter is generally portrayed in an outright logically impossible fashion) and as such is impossible according to science; but people don’t want to admit that and so they claim that doesn’t count.
They aren’t “two different facets of life”; religion is simply wrong, and as our best method of discovering facts science by its nature continuously underlines that.
Wow. Can’t say I agree.
Some things associated with religion, such as people declaring the Earth to be only about 6,000 years old based on Biblical chronology, are certainly wrong factually. No argument there. But to say religion itself is wrong, which is what I read from your statement, strikes me as value judgment that is not supported, or even addressed, by science.
The roots of religion are deep in human history, arguably as old as humankind. If I’m not mistaken, all cultures from all times have religion. There is more to religion than trying to explain physical phenomena, an area where scientific knowledge serves us better. There is a spiritual aspect to humanity that embraces religion which is beyond the scope of science. Granted not all humans have the same depth of feeling about it, but its existence cannot be denied. To say it is simply wrong puts one at odds with a huge chunk of what it means to be human.
When you can provide a scientific proof that God does not exist, let me know. I won’t be holding my breath.
Sounds fair enough. I’ll get to working on that as soon as you can tell me whether zhenfiddles are blue or red.
All the ones I can find seem to be clear – you can see right through them as if they weren’t even there. 
Cute answer, but I do hope you get the point: Asking someone to prove or disprove something for which a solid definition does not exist just isn’t very sporting, is it?