How were you taught Evolution?

[EternalDragon]

athestic creation science is an oxymoron. Grow up and use correct terminology.

Yet you posted this just a moment ago on another post.

"Special creation is also abiogenesis, life from non life."

 

[RickG]

Yet you posted this just a moment ago on another post.

"Special creation is also abiogenesis, life from non life."

Yes I did. Whether by biological abiogenesis or special creation, both are life from non life. Therefore, one in the same.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes I did. Whether by biological abiogenesis or special creation, both are life from non life. Therefore, one in the same.

Well... They go about it in different ways to an extent. Special creation is more suggestive of a creator.

 

[RickG]

Well... They go about it in different ways to an extent. Special creation is more suggestive of a creator.

The point being both are life from non life. Creationists seem to make the point that abiogenesis is life from non life, therefore it can't happen, ignoring that the biblical creation does the same. Their argument is invalid.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The point being both are life from non life. Creationists seem to make the point that abiogenesis is life from non life, therefore it can't happen, ignoring that the biblical creation does the same. Their argument is invalid.

True. That, and I have never seen anyone give a good argument that god would even qualify as alive itself.

However, special creation does have a conscious mind actively catalyzing the life from non life process, and abiogenesis retains a "no comment" on that matter.

 

[EternalDragon]

Perhaps. But it's not very likely.

Maybe. That doesn't change the fact that, most likely, you would not have any meaningful encounters with them.

Your hypothesis on what you think may happen is merely an opinion. It has no bearing on what did or would happen.

 

[lasthero]

Your hypothesis on what you think may happen is merely an opinion. It has no bearing on what did or would happen.

I'm not saying it does.

You're most likely to take up the religion dominant to the place that you grow up in. That's a statistical fact. If you grew up in a country dominated by Muslims, you would most likely be a Muslim.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm not saying it does.

You're most likely to take up the religion dominant to the place that you grow up in. That's a statistical fact. If you grew up in a country dominated by Muslims, you would most likely be a Muslim.

Not only that, if you were born in Saudia Arabia, it is law that you must be muslim.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Not only that, if you were born in Saudia Arabia, it is law that you must be muslim.

Must be rough. They have heretic trials or do people just attack anyone they suspect isn't a Muslim? The law enforcement, I mean.

 

[bhsmte]

Must be rough. They have heretic trials or do people just attack anyone they suspect isn't a Muslim? The law enforcement, I mean.

Not sure what the penalty is.

 

[justlookinla]

Surprise surprise, another evasion. You seem incapable of providing anything but the most unhelpfully vague response. How does one teach the natural processes but also teach that they are not sufficient to produce our biota while not mentioning any non-natural processes? Try a direct answer instead of simply repeating your last post.

What's vague about suggesting that only science should be taught? And you're asking the wrong question, as usual. The correct question is, how does one teach that only, solely naturalistic processes created humanity from a single life form of long long ago and call it science?

"sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."​

Evasive. Why so reluctant to actually state what you mean when you claim to believe in evolution? I suspect you're referring to microevolution or changes "within a kind". Correct? If not, please explain what you mean by "evolution" when you claim to believe in it. Don't just repeat the non-answer "any evolution supported by science"; provide an example or something.

I believe in the evolution supported by science.....

"sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."​

Good luck with that, sport. I notice you declined to support the claim that evolution doesn't fit the definition of science.

There's nothing to support the claim that all life was created from a single life form of long long ago only, solely, completely by naturalistic processes. It's not based on science.

"sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."​

Another non-answer. The societal value of learning bird origins is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. I notice you don't deny the characterization though. "Birds just appeared one day, but we don't know how *winks, points to the heavens*." That's pretty much what you want, right?

While you wink and point to.....???? Something created them, it depends on one's creationist worldview as to who/what created them.

It makes a big difference. Because you don't actually believe in evolution, you can't wrap your mind around the fact that other Christians accept that our biota was produced by natural mechanisms which were ordained and sustained by God. You don't think evolution happened with or without God's involvement so you simply refuse to accept that other Christians do.

No other Christian embraces a Godless creationist worldview. I've pointed that out many many times now.

If you can give an example of a Christian which embraces creation without God, please do.

Pretty sure that's not what I asked. The question remains; how does one teach that natural mechanisms are insufficient to produce our biota without invoking supernatural mechanisms? You are utterly unable to provide a direct answer to this question.

Again, you're asking the wrong question. The question is, how does one teach that naturalistic mechanisms are the only, sole mechanisms which created humanity from a single life form of long long ago. If one cannot teach that the process is sufficient to create humanity from a single life form of long long ago, then the conclusion is that it's insufficient.

 

[justlookinla]

athestic creation science is an oxymoron. Grow up and use correct terminology.

I agree it's not science. My mistake.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

What's vague about suggesting that only science should be taught? And you're asking the wrong question, as usual. The correct question is, how does one teach that only, solely naturalistic processes created humanity from a single life form of long long ago and call it science?

What a worthless response. You are utterly incapable of providing a straight answer. You know there is no way to teach the natural processes but also teach that they are not sufficient to produce our biota while not mentioning any non-natural processes. If you could think of a way you would have. As it stands, your inability to answer this question shows how hollow your position is.

I believe in the evolution supported by science.....

You refuse to even articulate the "Evolution" you claim to believe in. You just repeat, even after a direct challenge no to, the same uselessly vague statement about believing in the evolution supported by science. So what is that evolution? Your refusal to give a straight answer undermines your position. Why so afraid to just come out and say what you mean by evolution basaed on sscience?

There's nothing to support the claim that all life was created from a single life form of long long ago only, solely, completely by naturalistic processes. It's not based on science.

While you wink and point to.....???? Something created them, it depends on one's creationist worldview as to who/what created them.

You also fail to explain why evolution doesn't fit the definition of science, as well as tacitly admitting that your version of science class would be to claim ignorance of biotic origins while effectively saying it was God. Twice now you have failed to indicate that this is a mischaracterization, which is rather revealing.

No other Christian embraces a Godless creationist worldview. I've pointed that out many many times now.

If you can give an example of a Christian which embraces creation without God, please do.

You have indeed, and every time it has been completely irrelevant because I have never made that claim. Rather I and various Christians have suggested to you that God could have used various natural mechanisms to produce our biota. The real issue is that you don't actually believe in evolution so you cannot accept this. That's why all you can do is repeat the irrelevant observation that Christians aren't atheists.

Again, you're asking the wrong question. The question is, how does one teach that naturalistic mechanisms are the only, sole mechanisms which created humanity from a single life form of long long ago. If one cannot teach that the process is sufficient to create humanity from a single life form of long long ago, then the conclusion is that it's insufficient.

Whatever. You have made it plain that you don't actually have an answer. You don't really want evolutionary science taught, you want teachers to say "I don't know how anything got here" and then point at a bible.

 

[justlookinla]

What a worthless response. You are utterly incapable of providing a straight answer. You know there is no way to teach the natural processes but also teach that they are not sufficient to produce our biota while not mentioning any non-natural processes. If you could think of a way you would have. As it stands, your inability to answer this question shows how hollow your position is.

You know very well that teaching naturalistic mechanisms are only, solely, responsible for the creation of humanity from a single life form from long long ago is nothing more than a faith-based Godless creationist viewpoint.

You refuse to even articulate the "Evolution" you claim to believe in. You just repeat, even after a direct challenge no to, the same uselessly vague statement about believing in the evolution supported by science. So what is that evolution? Your refusal to give a straight answer undermines your position. Why so afraid to just come out and say what you mean by evolution basaed on sscience?

Take whatever claim of 'evolution' you wish to make, support it with science and there you have science based evolution.

You also fail to explain why evolution doesn't fit the definition of science, as well as tacitly admitting that your version of science class would be to claim ignorance of biotic origins while effectively saying it was God. Twice now you have failed to indicate that this is a mischaracterization, which is rather revealing.

Teaching that humanity is the result of only, totally, completely, solely, naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago isn't science, it's faith-based atheistic creationism.

"sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."​

You have indeed, and every time it has been completely irrelevant because I have never made that claim. Rather I and various Christians have suggested to you that God could have used various natural mechanisms to produce our biota. The real issue is that you don't actually believe in evolution so you cannot accept this. That's why all you can do is repeat the irrelevant observation that Christians aren't atheists.

And Christians don't believe in a Godless creationist gospel either.

Whatever. You have made it plain that you don't actually have an answer. You don't really want evolutionary science taught, you want teachers to say "I don't know how anything got here" and then point at a bible.

Teachers should say "We don't have science to explain how humanity was created from a single life form of long long ago". They should say, "We don't have science to identify this first single life form". They should say, "We're teaching you a series of creationist suppositions and guesses and passing it off as science".

 

[biggles53]

Atheos....I think you are labouring under the misapprehension that others will follow your own high standards, by openly and honestly stating their case and providing data to support that case...

I hope by now that you are realising that, in many cases, this does not apply. The two most obvious examples being Once and this......person......who simply involve themselves in repetitive circularity, the chanting of mantra and having no real interest in engaging in meaningful debate...

 

[justlookinla]

Atheos....I think you are labouring under the misapprehension that others will follow your own high standards, by openly and honestly stating their case and providing data to support that case...

I hope by now that you are realising that, in many cases, this does not apply. The two most obvious examples being Once and this......person......who simply involve themselves in repetitive circularity, the chanting of mantra and having no real interest in engaging in meaningful debate...

The case is concerning who/what created humanity.

No humanity. Now humanity. How?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Again, you're asking the wrong question. The question is, how does one teach that naturalistic mechanisms are the only, sole mechanisms which created humanity from a single life form of long long ago. If one cannot teach that the process is sufficient to create humanity from a single life form of long long ago, then the conclusion is that it's insufficient.

A Christian can logically and consistently maintain that God in a wonderful, marvelous fashion created a universe with such potent natural features that life can arise and evolve into intelligent beings solely from the operation of those natural laws.

Surely you don't believe that the creation of such a universe with such wonderful, potent physical laws is beyond the ability of God?

 

[Gracchus]

The case is concerning who/what created humanity.

The overwhelming evidence indicates that humanity wasn't created, it evolved.

No humanity. Now humanity. How?

Biological evolution is how.

To return to the original question: By the time that I got to the 10th grade, I had read lots of books about biology and evolution, and had taken a course in geology in summer school, that included many field trips.

The first day of class, the teacher announced, "I teach this course based on the theory of evolution. I don't know any other way to teach it that makes sense."

And with evolution, it all did make sense.

Single celled organisms, colonies and assemblies of single cells,like the Monera, colonies becoming hollow balls, Like Volvox, then invaginating to form body cavities, like the Cnidaria, developing a mesoderm, like the worms, then a notochord, and a skull. Then watch the same process in a single mammalian embryo.

A patch of photosensitive chemicals in the one-celled Euglena, cup shaped eyes in clams, a pin-hole camera eye in the nautilus, lensed eyes in squid, and the development of mammalian eyes in embryology, all showed a path that was very plausible for the evolution of the eye.

We saw in dissections the one chambered heart of insects, the two chambered heart of fish, the three chambered heart of amphibians and the four chambered heart of crocodilians, and then traced the growth pattern of the mammalian heart in embryology, first a one chambered heart then two chambers, then three chambers, then four.

We knew little or nothing about DNA in those days, but we watched mitosis and meiosis under the microscope, and we examined, (for me it was review), the fossil record.

It was convincing then, and in the sixty years since that class the evidence has piled up in astounding profusion.

I understand that many will not accept the evidence, and will not see it if it is presented. I understand why that is, but that is another topic, for another day.

 

[MuchWiser]

And if you lived in Saudi Arabia, you probably wouldn't even meet any other Christians.

I would have been presented the gospel from God there as well. Do you think living in a particular area limits God?

There are many Christian missionaries there. There are also many Hindus and Buddhists.

If there are any missionaries in Saudi Arabia they are there illegally and under cover, if they are found they are deported.

You have obviously NEVER been to Saudi Arabia, all other religions are banned, Islam is the only religion in the country, Bibles and other religious books are confiscated at the border, those caught practising another religion are locked up then deported, when I worked there I knew of only one Filipino Catholic priest who was working as a road labourer and held services in different rooms every night.

 

[MuchWiser]

It was convincing then, and in the sixty years since that class the evidence has piled up in astounding profusion.

I understand that many will not accept the evidence, and will not see it if it is presented. I understand why that is, but that is another topic, for another day.

All of which is sadly wasted on a creationist website where denying and refusing to recognise the evidence is the norm.
Education is the key, without it creationism will thrive.