• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

How were you taught Evolution?

How were you taught evolution?

  • With an explicit denial of God's involvement

  • With an explicit affirmation of God's involvement

  • Without either an affirmation or denial of God's involvement


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
But that viewpoint seems to exist only in your head, not in the real schools that real children attend. Perhaps you should address the issue with the imaginary teachers who are promoting this imaginary view.


You're absolutely correct. The imaginary viewpoint being promulgated in your imaginary schools is atheistic. I'd love to help you stamp it out, but I'm only able to deal with real-life teachers, not imaginary ones.


Quite incorrect. I don't reject that teaching because that teaching doesn't exist. See, I work with real scientists, not your imaginary ones.


Because it has nothing to do with the scientific content of the statement. And you didn't answer the question: why should every statement about evolution mention God? Why?


Of course not. I'd answer that evolution produced humans by a gradual series of random mutations, filtered by natural selection and affected by genetic drift -- because that's what the evidence says. I wouldn't comment about the presence or absence of a divine role unless I was talking to someone interested in my religious views. Mostly when I'm talking about evolution, even with other Christians, I'm doing so in a professional context, where the religious dimension is irrelevant.


Your question has nothing to do with my statement. "Creationism" has a specific meaning in English, and that's not how you're using the word.


I have no idea what this distinction is supposed to mean.


We see mutation, selection and drift occurring all the time. We see the clear record of those same forces changing our common ancestor with other animals into humans.


Quite. Everyone agrees with you on that. What you haven't shown is that anyone is teaching the atheist version anywhere. In fact, everyone tells you they're not. In response, you assert over and over again that the simple statement of evolution is inherently atheist, without being able to offer any kind of sane justification.


Yeah, I know? So what? You're still confusing physical mechanisms (small genetic changes) with ultimate ones.


No, it doesn't. The viewpoint teaches nothing of the sort. The viewpoint in your head does, but that's not the one we're dealing with in the real world.


And so it continues . . . Not mentioning God does not equal asserting that God wasn't involved. Talking about physical mechanisms for the creation of humans does not rule out God. These are illogical beliefs you hold and that we don't hold. So no, we really can't "easily see".

When the naturalistic mechanisms are presented as complete, adequate and the only explanation for the creation of all of life from a single life form of long long ago, that's eliminating God by implication. Not mentioning God does not equate with a neutral position on God's involvement, a take Him or leave Him viewpoint. The viewpoint which teaches that only, solely, totally, completely naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient for the creation of all life we observe today quickly eliminates God.

Atheistic creationism.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And so it should be. There's nothing wrong, indeed everything right, about admitting to having only vague ideas and not being sure about something.

Some people around here seem to think its wrong to admit to uncertainty under any and all circumstances, including the presence of actual uncertainty.

Are the ideas behind the viewpoint that only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago and produced humanity, vague ideas?
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Why don't do as we are doing now? tell them what we do know.

Do you know that all of life, including humanity, was created only, solely, totally, completely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. Do you know that the only impetus needed for the creation of humanity is a naturalistic impetus?
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What do we teach them then nothing? why don't we just carry on teaching science and encourage creationists to home school their children until creationism just dies out naturally? after all we can't run the villafe just to suit the village idiot.

Why teach them Godless creationism to satisfy an atheistic agenda.

Oh....and creationism hasn't died out in several thousand years so your hope there is pretty well nil.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What part of "All physical evidence we have points toward natural occurrence." is beyond your comprehension?

Does it point to only a natural occurrence? Natural occurrences solely responsible for the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago?

Why would you want atheistic creationism taught in our schools?
 
Upvote 0
D

DerelictJunction

Guest
Sure it's being taught. The creationist viewpoint that only, totally solely, completely naturalistic mechanisms created all life, including humanity, from a single life form of long long ago is being taught. The creationist viewpoint that naturalistic mechanisms are adequate in and of themselves to create all life, including humanity from a single life form of long long ago is being taught.
No it's not. See? We could do this all day long continuing until we have a How were you taught Evolution (1005) thread.

Or...maybe....just maybe....

You could produce some evidence that what you are saying is true.

Of course you can't do that, because what you are saying is false.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No it's not. See? We could do this all day long continuing until we have a How were you taught Evolution (1005) thread.

Or...maybe....just maybe....

You could produce some evidence that what you are saying is true.

Of course you can't do that, because what you are saying is false.

How about identifying what's not being taught in the following.....

"The creationist viewpoint that only, totally solely, completely naturalistic mechanisms created all life, including humanity, from a single life form of long long ago is being taught. The creationist viewpoint that naturalistic mechanisms are adequate in and of themselves to create all life, including humanity from a single life form of long long ago is being taught."​
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
When the naturalistic mechanisms are presented as complete, adequate and the only explanation for the creation of all of life from a single life form of long long ago, that's eliminating God by implication. Not mentioning God does not equate with a neutral position on God's involvement, a take Him or leave Him viewpoint. The viewpoint which teaches that only, solely, totally, completely naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient for the creation of all life we observe today quickly eliminates God.

Then how about this justloo? The many disciplines of science have investigated and found that empirical evidence and only empirical evidence describes how life begin and evolved through natural means. However, there is a non-testable hypotheses that has been around for a few thousand years that suggest "an intelligent designer" did it by merely speaking words and it happened. At such time said non-testable hypothesis becomes a testable hypothesis, it will be investigated.
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟35,902.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Do you know that all of life, including humanity, was created only, solely, totally, completely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. Do you know that the only impetus needed for the creation of humanity is a naturalistic impetus?

Glad to come back after a few months of hard work and see that nothing changed: people still making the same word salads with no meaning.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Then how about this justloo? The many disciplines of science have investigated and found that empirical evidence and only empirical evidence describes how life begin and evolved through natural means. However, there is a non-testable hypotheses that has been around for a few thousand years that suggest "an intelligent designer" did it by merely speaking words and it happened. At such time said non-testable hypothesis becomes a testable hypothesis, it will be investigated.

First, there is no evidence on how life began. Second, there is no evidence that humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟35,902.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
First, there is no evidence on how life began.

Yes, life is here, therefore it began.

Second, there is no evidence that humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Yes, there is a mountain of it. Denial won't change this fact. Fossils, DNA = physical e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes, life is here, therefore it began.

Slow down. Read the statement. Notice the word "how" in it?



Yes, there is a mountain of it. Denial won't change this fact. Fossils, DNA = physical e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.

Explain how that's evidence for the viewpoint that all life we observe today is the result of only, solely, totally, completely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Yes, life is here, therefore it began.



Yes, there is a mountain of it. Denial won't change this fact. Fossils, DNA = physical e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.

Taking denial away from a fundy, is like taking a pacifier away from a baby.

It is a rudimentary defense mechanism, but quite effective, at least for periods of time. It is their opiate and the core to how they can survive the cognitive dissonance.
 
Upvote 0
D

DerelictJunction

Guest
How about identifying what's not being taught in the following.....

"The creationist viewpoint that only, totally solely, completely naturalistic mechanisms created all life, including humanity, from a single life form of long long ago is being taught. The creationist viewpoint that naturalistic mechanisms are adequate in and of themselves to create all life, including humanity from a single life form of long long ago is being taught."​
Let's assume that you mean in the U.S. public school system.

Since a creationist viewpoint is not being taught in any U.S. public school system, then none of that is being taught.

Do you have evidence that it is being taught?
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
First, there is no evidence on how life began. Second, there is no evidence that humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Sure there is, you just don't like what the evidence suggests for both of these things. The evidence doesn't frankly care you don't acknowledge it, it will still be there regardless as to whether or not you choose to see it.
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟35,902.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Slow down. Read the statement. Notice the word "how" in it?

Yes, through chemistry.

Explain how that's evidence for the viewpoint that all life we observe today is the result of only, solely, totally, completely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Two words: nested hierarchy.
 
Upvote 0

Naturalism

Skeptic
Jun 17, 2014
536
10
✟23,259.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Does it point to only a natural occurrence? Natural occurrences solely responsible for the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago?

Yes. I would have to ask what other occurrences are there other than natural though?

Why would you want atheistic creationism taught in our schools?

I would prefer whatever is best supported by the evidence to be taught as science, regardless of what names are affixed to it (rightly or wrongly).
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,844
7,867
65
Massachusetts
✟394,673.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
When the naturalistic mechanisms are presented as complete, adequate and the only explanation for the creation of all of life from a single life form of long long ago, that's eliminating God by implication. Not mentioning God does not equate with a neutral position on God's involvement, a take Him or leave Him viewpoint. The viewpoint which teaches that only, solely, totally, completely naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient for the creation of all life we observe today quickly eliminates God.

Atheistic creationism.
Your complete failure to engage with anything I said is noted, as is your inability to formulate a rational argument for your position. That's all for me, I'm afraid.
 
Upvote 0

EternalDragon

Counselor
Jul 31, 2013
5,757
26
✟28,767.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Sure there is, you just don't like what the evidence suggests for both of these things. The evidence doesn't frankly care you don't acknowledge it, it will still be there regardless as to whether or not you choose to see it.

I agree completely with justlookinla. Similarities doesn't mean evolution.

The evidence for evolution is supposed to be repeatable and observable but above you are using the word "suggests". That is the same as assuming.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.