How were you taught Evolution?

[MuchWiser]

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

Christianity has lasted for thousands of years because very little changed in those few thousand years, that's all about to come to an end, the rot is in.

It has never had to face the freely availability information it faces today, knowledge and information will rip the soleplate out of religions starting with Christianity, I won't see it but people under 40 just might.

The first thing Christians in the US will see is the Republican party cooling towards religion, they won't be pushing religion in the next election, they will be distancing themselves from the fundies and the loony right, the likes of Sarah Palin will be stifled before they can open their mouth, even fox news will tone down the slop it puts out, just wait and see.

 

[MuchWiser]

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.

What about antibiotics? do you think they can't be seen evolving? ask your pastor about antibiotics just to see what he says.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

I agree. It is the pattern of similarities that evidence evolution, and that pattern is a nested hierarchy. We observe that evolution produces a nested hierarchy, so finding those same relationships between many species is evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.

The evidence for evolution is supposed to be repeatable and observable

The placement and sequence of ERV's in primate genomes, including the human genome, are repeatable and observable. They can be used to test whether or not humans and other primates share a common ancestor.

First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14).
Inaugural Article: Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
​

but above you are using the word "suggests". That is the same as assuming.

Finding a suspect's fingerprints on the murder weapon would suggest he is guilty. Is that the same as assuming he is guilty? No.

Obviously, you need to brush up on your English.

 

[super animator]

Christianity has lasted for thousands of years because very little changed in those few thousand years, that's all about to come to an end, the rot is in.

I literally chuckle when I read that part. I am no expert nor scholar on this, but I can tell that you're ignorant of christian history.

It has never had to face the freely availability information it faces today, knowledge and information will rip the soleplate out of religions starting with Christianity, I won't see it but people under 40 just might.

Anyone can create freely available information for the internet. Which includes bad quality/wrong information.

 

[bhsmte]

I literally chuckle when I read that part. I am no expert nor scholar on this, but I can tell that you're ignorant of christian history.

I would agree with you, that it is not about to come to an end, in regards to Christian beliefs.

Instead, what we will see, will be a continued "slow burn", as people become more educated and some will recognize they can not reconcile their previously held beliefs anymore with reality. We have seen the adjustment's many Christians have had to make in regards to the majority now accepting the TOE and that number is climbing. There are also more non-believers in general and this will continue to climb (IMO), because some will not adjust their beliefs, they will just abandon them all together.

This is why the fundamentalist groups in the US are still quite strong and quite loud. They have issues reconciling their personal beliefs with reality and as more information is available, it causes even more problems. So, what do they do? They go the other direction and just deny reality, dig in and claim those against them, are driven by evil, in many occasions.

 

[justlookinla]

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?

This thread is proof that it is.

 

[justlookinla]

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.

Nice faith-based statement you have there.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, through chemistry.

You're listing the ingredients, not "how".

Two words: nested hierarchy.

How does nested hierarchy prove that only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms created the life forms in the nested hierarchy?

 

[justlookinla]

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?

Would you please give evidence for your view that natural occurrences are solely responsible for the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago?

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).

Ok.

 

[CabVet]

You're listing the ingredients, not "how".

Through the combination of the ingredients.

How does nested hierarchy prove that only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms created the life forms in the nested hierarchy?

If a natural process can completely, totally and solely explain something (which it does), a supernatural explanation is illogical and unnecessary.

 

[justlookinla]

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.

See ya around!

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Apologies for the delayed response. I'm just now reading this post. I had to remove your URL links from your quoted posts because of an error message that popped up informing me that my post count isn't high enough to have links.

No worries. This is after all a leisure activity.

Yes. We have learned that the central unifying theme of biology is evolution, and that natural selection is the mechanism for evolution. This is the basic foundation of what my brother was taught at his Christian school as well. He's a human biology major planning on going into medicine, so my knowledge about evolution is like thimble sized in comparison to his, but he said several of his classes were similar to mine and that he received a solid preparation at St. Albans.

This is what I suspected. Good luck convincing Justlookinla of this though. The old fellow can't seem to grasp the concept that natural processes could be sufficient to produce us while believing that those natural processes are divinely ordained and even sustained.

Speaking of Wikipedia, its entry on atheistic evolution showed up in the search when I Googled "atheistic creationism" the other day. This is an excerpt from it:
"Owen Gingerich, a historian of science at Harvard University, has stated that both views (atheistic evolution and theistic evolution) are outside the domain of scientific empiricism: "Can mutations be inspired? Here is the ideological watershed, the division between atheistic evolution and theistic evolution; and frankly, it lies beyond the capability of science to prove the matter one way or the other."

Yes, both are metaphysical positions that don't belong in science class. The issue is that Just is convinced that atheistic creationism is being taught, but he instead of arguing in support of this premise he merely reiterates it ad nauseum, as you're already no doubt aware.

I just skimmed through the threads and saw that you and JustLookInLA made other posts from my quotes. I'll try to respond to them when I can.

Take your time.

 

[justlookinla]

Through the combination of the ingredients.

How were they combined?

If a natural process can completely, totally and solely explain something (which it does), a supernatural explanation is illogical and unnecessary.

A solely naturalistic process cannot completely, totally and solely explain the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago. We've never observed a naturalistic process doing such a thing.

 

[CabVet]

How were they combined?

In water.

A solely naturalistic process cannot completely, totally and solely explain the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago. We've never observed a naturalistic process doing such a thing.

News flash: you don't need to observe a natural process to know it happened. That's where physical evidence comes in.

 

[justlookinla]

This is what I suspected. Good luck convincing Justlookinla of this though. The old fellow can't seem to grasp the concept that natural processes could be sufficient to produce us while believing that those natural processes are divinely ordained and even sustained.

The evidence for solely naturalistic processes producing humanity from a single life form of long long ago.....please?

Take your time.

Ditto.

 

[HitchSlap]

A solely naturalistic process cannot completely, totally and solely explain the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago. We've never observed a naturalistic process doing such a thing.

What makes you qualified to make such a bold statement?

 

[CabVet]

The evidence for solely naturalistic processes producing humanity from a single life form of long long ago.....please?

DNA, fossils, biochemistry, embryology, biogeography, these are just a few of the fields that provide mountains of evidence. Your denial is boring.

 

[CabVet]

What makes you qualified to make such a bold statement?

Religion.

 

[justlookinla]

In water.

No, I didn't ask in what were they combined, I asked how they were combined.

(The patience one must have in discussing creationism with atheistic creationists)

News flash: you don't need to observe a natural process to know it happened. That's where physical evidence comes in.

Humanity did not exist. Now humanity exists. Where's your evidence for the impetus for humanity's existence from a single life form of long long ago?

 

[justlookinla]

What makes you qualified to make such a bold statement?

The impossibility of solely naturalistic processes to create the complex and varied life we observe today from a single life form of long long ago.

Nothing close to such a naturalistic creative mechanism has been observed.