How were you taught Evolution?

[super animator]

I find it interesting that some theists and even some atheists, equate evolution to nihilism.

 

[justlookinla]

Is it also misleading to not mention God when talking about gravity?

Ah, the ole common gravity diversion attempt.

This is about how non-humanity produced humanity. Creationism. Specifically theistic creationism vs. atheistic creationism.

 

[justlookinla]

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.

And since the viewpoint that humanity was created from non-humanity only, totally, completely, solely by naturalistic forces acting on a single life form from long long ago, there results atheistic creationism.

Why should a science class teach creationism? That's the question which will be asked in the courts.

 

[sfs]

I'll try one more round, just because I like futility.

justlookinla, I think it likely that "all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations". I also believe that God creates all species, just as God creates all individual humans.

Now, are you willing to acknowledge that there is a least one human being who believes both? Are you willing to acknowledge that I exist?

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

1. Was never actually taught abiogenesis to begin with, I independently investigated it and I am well aware we aren't talking about it.

2. My class, when learning the material, was told that since some people feel that evolution conflicts with their beliefs, that we should inform our parents and if they sign a slip we won't be taking it. No one took that option, but it was there. Beyond that, the theory was never presented as supporting or clashing with the involvement of a deity, it was neutral.

3. Nothing besides evolution was taught, but since my school isn't religious nor are there any prevailing theories on the subject which are at the level evolution is, that shouldn't be an issue. The option not to take it was there. God wasn't mentioned in math as making 2+2=4 either, but we weren't told math wouldn't work if deities existed either.

4. Since people had the option of not taking evolution, that means not learning any impetus for how life came to be as it is on earth was an option, something you seem to not want to recognize as an option at all. That option being not learning anything on the subject. Sure, not exactly an option people think is particularly great, but it is there.

5. Evolution lessons don't start until middle school, religion is most firmly established at early ages, meaning that at this point in their lives anyone who is actually religious isn't going to ruin their faith just because of the lessons even if they did think they clashed with their faith.

 

[bhsmte]

Has the mouse found the piece of cheese yet? Or has he discovered, the piece of cheese does not exist?

 

[quatona]

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?

No, in science class you are only, solely, exclusively taught the natural processes involved (because everything else isn´t subject to science).
Which is not the same as being told that only, solely, and exclusively natural processes are involved.

You need to understand that difference.
As long as you keep equating the two you won´t overcome your confusion.

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?

In science classes? None. Simply because non-natural processes wouldn´t be subject to science,per definition of science.

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

It would be a pleasurable surprise to see you coming up with a new question.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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.

No, in science class you are only, solely, exclusively taught the natural processes involved (because everything else isn´t subject to science).
Which is not the same as being told that only, solely, and exclusively natural processes are involved.

You need to understand that difference.

As long as you keep equating the two you won´t overcome your confusion.


In science classes? None. Simply because non-natural processes wouldn´t be subject to science,per definition of science.


It would be a pleasurable surprise to see you coming up with a new question.

I agree........



.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There is just one problem. God never said he used evolution nor long ages to create life. He said he created all the varieties, fully grown and mature, in six, 24 hour days. Humans and plants as well. Jesus confirms that part of the bible in the NT as true history.

There is just one problem. The record of the past life and the evolutionary past is there for us to see. Your decision to frame your religion in terms of denying evolution is simply your decision to believe incorrect things as part of your religion. You can do that, I cannot.

 

[justlookinla]

I'll try one more round, just because I like futility.

justlookinla, I think it likely that "all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations". I also believe that God creates all species, just as God creates all individual humans.

Now, are you willing to acknowledge that there is a least one human being who believes both? Are you willing to acknowledge that I exist?

I'm going to assume you exist, I hope that makes you happy.

Now, would you please point out, in the phrase "all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations" where there is acknowledgement of anything other than only, solely, completely, naturalistic processes?

You're seemingly wishing to modify the definition.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

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?

And you gripe at me about leading questions? As Quatona and numerous others have pointed out, teaching only the natural processes by which the current biota arose is much different than teaching that the current biota arose only by natural processes. Your question is formulated to conflate these two different statements, something which has been indicated to you repeatedly.

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?

This is just a silly question. You have been informed by religiously and secularly-educated people alike that science classes only discuss natural processes because anything else is beyond the scope of science.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I'm going to assume you exist, I hope that makes you happy.

Now, would you please point out, in the phrase "all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations" where there is acknowledgement of anything other than only, solely, completely, naturalistic processes?

You're seemingly wishing to modify the definition.

Can you point out where in that phrase there is a denial that other processes could exist?

Can you directly address the fact that many Christians have told you that the above definition does not conflict with their faith?

 

[justlookinla]

No, in science class you are only, solely, exclusively taught the natural processes involved (because everything else isn´t subject to science).
Which is not the same as being told that only, solely, and exclusively natural processes are involved.

Were you taught that these naturalistic processes alone were sufficient for the creation of all life? (Not abiogenesis)

You need to understand that difference.
As long as you keep equating the two you won´t overcome your confusion.

Thank you for your help.

In science classes? None. Simply because non-natural processes wouldn´t be subject to science,per definition of science.

Right. That's my understanding, thus the issue. In science class, the viewpoint is that all life (not abiogenesis) is the result of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic processes with no other impetus allowed or considered. It's taught as a fact that all life (not abiogenesis), including you little boys and girls, are without question, without a doubt, the produce of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms.

It would be a pleasurable surprise to see you coming up with a new question.

It'd be great to see folks face the reality of atheistic creationism. Some will in the courts.

 

[justlookinla]

And you gripe at me about leading questions? As Quatona and numerous others have pointed out, teaching only the natural processes by which the current biota arose is much different than teaching that the current biota arose only by natural processes. Your question is formulated to conflate these two different statements, something which has been indicated to you repeatedly.

At some point in the past humanity didn't exist. Now humanity exists. How?

It's that simple. Dance around the issue all you wish, ask meaningless and leading and misleading questions, post polls, do whatever you wish. But that is the issue at hand.

Now, how did that happen? No evasion, no dancing, how?

This is just a silly question. You have been informed by religiously and secularly-educated people alike that science classes only discuss natural processes because anything else is beyond the scope of science.

Answer the question. Stop stonewalling. How?

 

[justlookinla]

Can you point out where in that phrase there is a denial that other processes could exist?

To do that would require modification of the phrase. As it stands, there is only one impetus where all life (that includes creating humanity from non-humanity) is the result of.....now here comes the one single solitary, the only, sole reason.....naturalistic processes. Nothing else. No other impetus. The only impetus needed, the only impetus which is true, the only impetus considered is the one single solitary impetus....natural mechanisms.

[QUTOE] Can you directly address the fact that many Christians have told you that the above definition does not conflict with their faith?[/QUOTE]

Can you allow discussion on how those Christians reconcile the issue of only, solely naturalistic processes creating life with scripture?
Well, it's going to be discussed no matter if you like or not. If you don't wish to discuss it, I suggest not responding.

 

[Dizredux]

It'd be great to see folks face the reality of atheistic creationism. Some will in the courts.

The interesting thing about bringing suit in this kind of situation is that you have to show injury done. Since you have not been able to show any school teaching this, you are likely to have a very hard time getting the legal system to look at it.

If you were able and willing to pay the legal fees you probably be able to get an attorney to represent you but, at least at this point, you probably would be laughed at by the judge and you might be chastised for bringing something like this up in a suit.

I really don't think you are being being very realistic with this.

So as a starter, where is the injury and who was injured?

Dizredux

 

[Dizredux]

Now, how did that happen? No evasion, no dancing, how?

Answer the question. Stop stonewalling. How?

Simple, God guided evolution.

Dizredux

 

[quatona]

Were you taught that these naturalistic processes alone were sufficient for the creation of all life? (Not abiogenesis)

No. I don´t know how many times I need to answer this question.

Thank you for your help.

Use it wisely. Let it sink in. Consider it. Sleep over it. Think again. Make sure you have understood it. Make sure you can explain it yourself. If you feel you haven´t completely understood the difference, feel free to ask specific questions. There are plenty of people around who are willing to help you.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

At some point in the past humanity didn't exist. Now humanity exists. How?

It's that simple. Dance around the issue all you wish, ask meaningless and leading and misleading questions, post polls, do whatever you wish. But that is the issue at hand.

Now, how did that happen? No evasion, no dancing, how?



Answer the question. Stop stonewalling. How?

It happened by evolution. This we know from scientific study. It could be that evolution is a divinely ordained and sustained process, but there's no empirical evidence for that.

 

[justlookinla]

Were you taught that these naturalistic processes alone were sufficient for the creation of all life? (Not abiogenesis)

No. I don´t know how many times I need to answer this question.

What other processes, other than naturalistic processes, were taught which were part of the creation of all life? (Not abiogenesis)