How were you taught Evolution?

[Atheos canadensis]

Oh...wait....we haven't heard the last from this. Be patient because we both know what's coming.

Heh, I'm pretty sure only one of us does. I'm not psychic, it's just that we've already gotten the answer from three different people. Yet you are still convinced that they're going to change their answers! Poor Just.

 

[justlookinla]

I'm so glad not to be him right now. From the very beginning of this thread he has been proven wrong and it's only gotten worse for him with more voters. And now that people are explicitly stating that the definition of Darwinism he posted aligns with their Christian school lessons, he is in even worse shape! He understands that this refutes his notion that evolution is inherently atheistic, so he just keeps asking them the same question over and over in the desperate hope that they'll change their answer.

LOL. Your evasion and leading and misleading questions is a great example of why the challenge to atheistic creationism being taught in our schools will prevail. There's not going to be such evasion in the courts.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm so glad not to be him right now. From the very beginning of this thread he has been proven wrong and it's only gotten worse for him with more voters. And now that people are explicitly stating that the definition of Darwinism he posted aligns with their Christian school lessons, he is in even worse shape! He understands that this refutes his notion that evolution is inherently atheistic, so he just keeps asking them the same question over and over in the desperate hope that they'll change their answer.

Denial is the wonder drug for some.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Denial is the wonder drug for some.

Heh, indeed. He will go to his deathbed certain that the courts are going to stop us nasty atheists any day now.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Are you saying that this was, or was not, taught.....

Predicted answer: yes

 

[Atheos canadensis]

LOL. Your evasion and leading and misleading questions is a great example of why the challenge to atheistic creationism being taught in our schools will prevail. There's not going to be such evasion in the courts.

Please provide the posts in which I am evasive. I suspect you will decline this challenge.

 

[justlookinla]

Please provide the posts in which I am evasive. I suspect you will decline this challenge.

You begin the thread with evasive leading and misleading questions, evading the issue. The question isn't about God being mentioned, or not mentioned, in the classes, those are your evasive questions. The question is, and always has been, about teaching exclusively the sufficiency of only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic mechanisms to produce all of life we observe today from a single life forms of long long ago.

 

[SnowyMacie]

As I suspected (two other Christian-educated people have given the same answer). Would you agree that this disproves Just's desperately-maintained belief that the definition I posted is inherently atheistic?




Thanks.

Well, it's still small sample, but the statistics are in your favor so far.

Are you saying that this was, or was not, taught.....

"Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. "​

There were no conclusions in your class that naturalistic mechanisms were the impetuses behind the creation of all of life we observe today? And that they were not totally sufficient in and of themselves as the driving force behind Darwinist evolution? (Not abiogenesis).

What other impetuses were provided other than entirely naturalistic impetuses, if any?

Your question is about whether or not it was entirely naturalistic forces, not whether or not is is a natural process. We were taught that evolution is a natural process yes, much like how gravity or the nervous system is a natural process. I'm tired of this KGB interrogation and am going to watch Sunday afternoon baseball.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

You begin the thread with evasive leading and misleading questions, evading the issue. The question isn't about God being mentioned, or not mentioned, in the classes, those are your evasive questions. The question is, and always has been, about teaching exclusively the sufficiency of only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic mechanisms to produce all of life we observe today from a single life forms of long long ago.

I think you'll find that I formulated this poll before you started saying that sciences classes were teaching atheistic creationism implicitly. Thus the questions do not reflect this. In any case, followup questioning in the thread has refuted your contention of an implicit atheist metaphysic.

 

[justlookinla]

Well, it's still small sample, but the statistics are in your favor so far.



Your question is about whether or not it was entirely naturalistic forces, not whether or not is is a natural process. We were taught that evolution is a natural process yes, much like how gravity or the nervous system is a natural process. I'm tired of this KGB interrogation and am going to watch Sunday afternoon baseball.

Wait....you haven't answered my questions!

Maybe later? Hopefully?

 

[justlookinla]

I think you'll find that I formulated this poll before you started saying that sciences classes were teaching atheistic creationism implicitly. Thus the questions do not reflect this. In any case, followup questioning in the thread has refuted your contention of an implicit atheist metaphysic.

Science classes are teaching atheistic creationism, implicitly.

It seems that when questioned beyond your leading and misleading questions, that the issue of all life being only, totally, completely, totally, solely the result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago isn't a view that one can reconcile with....

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Those folks always seem to disappear when specifics about what they were taught is discussed.

Next!!

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Science classes are teaching atheistic creationism, implicitly.

It seems that when questioned beyond your leading and misleading questions, that the issue of all life being only, totally, completely, totally, solely the result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago isn't a view that one can reconcile with....

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Those folks always seem to disappear when specifics about what they were taught is discussed.

Next!!

Or maybe they just get tired of answering the same question over and over after they state that the wiki definition aligns with what they were taught. Three different people have already explicitly answered yes when asked if that definition is what they were taught in Christian schools, so I'm no exactly worried here. But your misplaced confidence is amusing to me.

 

[justlookinla]

Or maybe they just get tired of answering the same question over and over after they state that the wiki definition aligns with what they were taught. Three different people have already explicitly answered yes when asked if that definition is what they were taught in Christian schools, so I'm no exactly worried here. But your misplaced confidence is amusing to me.

When questioned further, they seemed to not want to talk about it though, for some reason. Yes, there's much more to the story than your leading and misleading questions.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

When questioned further, they seemed to not want to talk about it though, for some reason. Yes, there's much more to the story than your leading and misleading questions.

When you say "questioned further", you really mean just asking them the same question over and over in the hope that you'll finally get a response that doesn't prove you wrong. I see Quatona has certainly become frustrated with your "discussion" tactic of merely repeating some variation of the same question over and over. How many times does he have to give the same answer before you accept that you're wrong?

 

[PsychoSarah]

But, but..............................the questions are leading and misleading.

So basically, once your poll didn't get the results you wanted, you looked up ways to try to make it out to be flawed.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

So basically, once your poll didn't get the results you wanted, you looked up ways to try to make it out to be flawed.

My poll, technically. But yes, he didn't like the almost 100% rejection of his premise. And now that the Christian posters are affirming that the wiki definition of Darwinism was taught in their Christian schools he is trying to badger them into changing their answer. Most recently he is claiming victory when they get tired of answering the same question over and over and stop responding.

 

[justlookinla]

So basically, once your poll didn't get the results you wanted, you looked up ways to try to make it out to be flawed.

It was obvious from the beginning that it was based on leading and misleading questions. I pointed that out several days ago.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It was obvious from the beginning that it was based on leading and misleading questions. I pointed that out several days ago.

Then how would you word these questions then, retaining the option of people making choices which don't agree with your position? These aren't leading questions, sorry, in fact of anything just because your position was listed first it should have a slight advantage over the other answers.

In any case I have had extensive training in locating leading questions, bad polls, and the like, and this shows none of the signs. Get over it, you were wrong.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, it's still small sample, but the statistics are in your favor so far.



Your question is about whether or not it was entirely naturalistic forces, not whether or not is is a natural process. We were taught that evolution is a natural process yes, much like how gravity or the nervous system is a natural process. I'm tired of this KGB interrogation and am going to watch Sunday afternoon baseball.

And since the TOE is a scientific theory and science only looks at natural processes, it only makes sense you were taught this in science class.

Thanks for your input.

 

[justlookinla]

Then how would you word these questions then, retaining the option of people making choices which don't agree with your position? These aren't leading questions, sorry, in fact of anything just because your position was listed first it should have a slight advantage over the other answers.

In any case I have had extensive training in locating leading questions, bad polls, and the like, and this shows none of the signs. Get over it, you were wrong.

Make sure it's understood that this isn't about abiogenesis, then......

First question. Were you taught that all of life (not abiogenesis) is the result of anything other than naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago?

Second question. If naturalistic processes included other impetuses, what additional impetuses were taught in addition to naturalistic processes, which resulted in all life we observe today?

Depending on the answer to those simple questions, we then can examine the answers....and ask more questions to clarify, if needed.