The South Korean Ministry of Education doesn't have anyone in charge that is smart enough to see through the idiotic arguments put forward by creationism? I think Korea needs a new Ministry of Education. Seriously.

Well, South Koreans have excellent internet access. I should imagine that'll help with the sharing of the words. :D

I bet The Flintstones passes as reality tv there :)

Uh huh. I'd be concerned about that if I thought the people who live in South Korea were dumb.

why cant people just accept that sometimes we cant all be right, and theres greater evidence for evolution than there is for creationism.

cant the creationists just compromise and think that evolution happened but god was the one who pushed it in the right direction to make us, like what loads of religious people believe.

science lessons are no place for religion-cause if christians want their creation story told as science, what about people of other religions, they would want their creation story told and then science lessons turn pretty much into re lessons.

why not leave the science lessons to the scientific theory but talk about religious creation stories in re and let students think for themselfes and debate it.

Through electronic after death communication I am convinced there is a spirit world but my question is,was this world created by the spirit world for the purpose of spiritual development?and began with evolution.If we did evolve from apes or fish and they in turn evolved from other life forms along the chain of evolution,A big IF.

It's not that big if you know what you are talking about.

Actually, Zombie, that's quite interesting. I hadn't made any connection between a possible afterlife and evolution. I'll have to some digging about.

I think I've mentioned it several times...from the implausible angle.

Ok :D

From a subjective point of view of course,as ever Chortle

Not if I'm using good science as the foundation, that's being objective. I leave the subjective to you and your broken radio, you have that particular subjective bias down to an art.

subjective:adj
Existing in the mind,placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions.


Objective:adj
undistorted by emotion or personal bias
of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc.

You have. :D

Very interesting thoughts there, zombie.

Science is fantastic athumbsup But has a lot to learn yet, I'm sure.

What's interesting about them - nothing has been proposed? Why exactly do you think is interesting? Show your working and reasoning. Then answer these questions:

At what point did we evolve to have a soul (or whatever people call the thing that is supposed to be us in the afterlife)?
At what point did we evolve to have our soul rip through the fabric of the universe?
What mechanisms were in place to allow transferral from the corporeal to ethereal?

And, the most important question of all,

Where is the evidence that the afterlife even exists on which to hazard the guess that evolution was even involved?

Clearly, it's more than science that has a lot to learn.

What really is interesting, however, is people who don't understand what the ToE actually is in the first place, and who were arguing against it in previous threads, suddenly grasp hold of it because they think it somehow supports their notions!

Answer the questions above and then we can get into an interesting discussion, rather than backing a donkey in a horse race merely because it's wearing your team's colours!

And so many more need to catch up with what science already knows, where does that leave you...sorry them.

Blimey! You can be bossy. Personally, I reckon I'd get an F in this particular exam. I can put a hazy answer in at the very first question. I find it interesting because I find all these questions interesting. I might also be tempted to change the word 'soul' to 'consciousness', but as to the rest ... I'm not sure about any of it.
Wanders off to lie down in a darkened room.

That's probably one of the nicest accusations I've ever seen levelled at a sceptic Les :lol:

Bossy.

I'm taking a course in vitriol - so as to compete with sceptics better. :D

Personally, I find things 'interesting' because I have considered the evidence that gives cause to the claim. Surely, for people to claim something that uses ToE as a cause for making something interesting then they should demonstrate some understanding of the topic that has allowed them to come to a conclusion - even if the conclusion is 'its interesting'?

In this case, and I don't mean you necessarily, Les, I suspect people found it interesting because they are happy to be flag-wavers for anyone and anything that is on their side without actually considering any aspect of what it is they claim to find interesting.

Backing the donkey in a horse race merely because it is wearing their team's colours - not because the argument holds any merit.

If that's the case, what point is there in a debate? They are clearly not interested in the truth where the truth will guide them off the path of their belief. The epitome of closed-mindedness - or, at the very least, laziness.

Closed mindedness - That goes both ways and not just on a would be believers part.

Sometimes people are unwilling to accept evidence whatever it is.

The lack of a coherent argument in your response suggests I was right.

Backing the donkey in a horse race because it's wearing your team's colours.

Really? Better take a look at your own donkey then :lol:

What does that even mean?

Well you was the one who said it so you should know :)

I absolutely know what my reference means - I have no idea what yours means. Explain it please.

Oh, come on Fells - with your intelligence you must surely know what I mean :)

Why are you dodging the question? I have absolutely no idea what you meant and I'd like to know.

I'd also like to know why you thought notions of an afterlife being a product of evolution interesting and what consideration brought you to this conclusion.

I am not dodging a question. Seems more like you're pretending not to know what I mean.

Why shouldn't the Afterlife be a product of evolution? Everything evolves, an afterlife existance could come from that - though I'm not sure it has. It's an option to think over.

I think an after life evolving along side humans presents a lot more problems from a 'how it works' position. Better off sticking with the 'it's outside space, time and our Universe' that way you can dodge all the tough questions by saying it does not conform to the natural scientific universal laws because it is not subject to them.

Of course that is a double edged sword since anything that is outside the universal laws by definition cannot exist within our Universe nor interact with it.

All the Direct voice and physical seance communicators say the spirit world is in and around ours. They ALL say that. So it's probably a case of our science not yet being forward enough to detect it.

But I am open to all thoughts on it

Or its just a case of all these people perpetuating self delusion. I know where the evidence points.

No, you're dodging the question, I genuinely have no idea what your reference meant - or maybe you're calling me a liar?

The question is, why should it? If you understand evolution then you should be able to answer this (even in a philosophical way) and then understand why it can't be.

No it does't and no, it can't. If you understand what evolution is then you will understand why.

No, it's one to file in the bin marked 'bunkum'.

What are the basic causes and mechanisms of evolution? Answering this questions will demonstrate that you have come to your conclusion of 'it's interesting' based on consideration of the science involved. Not answering it will indicate that you were doing nothing more than flag waving that donkey in a horse race merely because it was wearing your team's colours.

Sure they are - and every now and then they like to give a little wave to say "hello" - not so much 'evolved' as 'created'!!

Except the thought that it's bunkum.

I'm not calling anybody anything, Fells. Not my way.


What I will say is that whatever way we started makes no difference. I am as sure as I can be without being dead that there is an afterlife. My understanding of evolution doesn't really matter. As I said - science isn't forward enough to acknowledge it. Or maybe just doesn't want to acknowldge it. We've already seen how some scientists blatantly want to ignore any evidences.

And these pictures which keep cropping up - yes, they're funny - but also an escape not to take seriously subjects which are serious. Maybe because not understanding them makes you feel insecure.

Then why did you suggest I was lying and what did your reference mean?

It does if you decide that afterlife being an evolutionary trait is "interesting". Of course, you can just admit that you were simply flag-waving without any consideration to the science because the comment came from someone 'on your side'

Baseless assertion noted

Why would it acknowledge something for which there is zero good evidence?

No, we haven't. Your 'argument' failed.

Haha, yes, they are really funny and definitely shouldn't be taken seriously. That's 'physical mediumship' for you.

What does this mean? (no, I really haven't got a clue what you're on about and yes, I'd really like you to explain)

I didn't suggest you was lying. My mind was of the demands you so often appear to enjoy to request when there isn't the need.

And I have never much cared for demands. Seriously.

My argument on skeptic/scientist misdirection did not fail either. It wasn't properly acknowledged - most probably due to bais. There are heaps of situations in that thread I put up which have not been acknowledged. That's likely because skeptics/scientists don't want to face up to fact they too are bias in their beliefs just as anyone else can be.

There are evidences in physical mediumship. They are ignored.

I'm saying that because you understand science and it can't yet explain some paranormal phenomena, then it makes you insecure ,as it's something you don't know and can't grasp.

I think the major problem with an afterlife is an inability to comprehend eternity. It's a lot to get your head round. I find that too, but going on the life we have - we exist. It doesn't seem that long we've been here. We have today - yesterday is gone. That is life, our existance of each day, and we take it as it comes.

I still can't match up Evolution with an afterlife. If there was already an after life formed and ticking along, what the hell was the point of billions of years of evolution? Did we decide billions of years ago that 'hey look, those amino acids are coming together nicely, give it a few billion years and a lot of lucky global extinctions we'll evolve to a point where we can go down there and spend a few decades suffering so we can come back up to the afterlife and be all educated about stuff'...really?

or

Did the afterlife only come about when humans did? which simply seems narcissistic, egotistical and cut from the same cloth as 'Earth is the centre of the Universe' sort of thinking.

This is the problem when you have poorly educated, under achievers claiming to do something extraordinary, al you get are poorly educated under baked answers that go nowhere and teach nothing other than how superficial this supposed afterlife is.

Huh? Are you referring to certain psychics? I don't know about anyone else, but psychics aren't necessarily my first port of call when I research into any possible afterlife.

Of course I'm referring to psychics.