How were you taught Evolution?

[bhsmte]

The reasons I continue to request this are that the belief that such teaching is occurring is the hinge pin of your discussion, and you have not provided any evidence supporting the truth of your assertion.

At least now you are admitting that you have none. Ok

Big win for you! Judge throws the case out, for lack of evidence.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Evolution doesn't work by creating humanity from a single life form of long long ago. That particular view is a pseudo-science, faith-based atheistic creationist view.

I really need to thank you for providing that phrase in post 765. It works so well in responding to you.

More blah blah blah blah, and blah blah blah blah. Typing empty claims isn't evidence.

LOL! No it didn't. Black Death did not result in speciation....LOL!

I didn't say that.
Reading comprehension is a practiced art.
However, you did add another point to that map we are building.

Humans were humans before Black Death and humans were humans after Black Death.

With a higher percentage Black Death resistant genes within the gene pool. Thus, a slight difference in the species.

Your post is both humorous and sad at the same time. The mind of atheistic creationist will believe anything as long as it's Godless, it seems.

Wait...there's a really appropriate response to this....I remember reading it somewhere.....Oh, right, here it is:

More blah blah blah blah, and blah blah blah blah. Typing empty claims isn't evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

I really need to thank you for providing that phrase in post 765. It works so well in responding to you.

I didn't say that.
Reading comprehension is a practiced art.
However, you did add another point to that map we are building.

With a higher percentage Black Death resistant genes within the gene pool. Thus, a slight difference in the species.

Wait...there's a really appropriate response to this....I remember reading it somewhere.....Oh, right, here it is:

Tell us about Black Death and how it produced a new species again? One that is non-human.

LOL. Amazing.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I've answered over and over and over and over, but you aren't understanding. In the sense of teaching you something you apparently don't understand, I'll try again. And again. And again.

First, the teaching that only, solely, naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient in and of themselves, alone, without any other impetus, creates all of life, including humanity from a single life form of long long ago shouldn't be taught. No creationist viewpoint should be taught, including atheistic creationism.

Read this slowly. Move your lips if you must. Only teach evolutionary views which are scientific. Nothing else. Only scientific evolutionary views. What naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient for what? Depends on if they're scientific. If they are, teach them, if they're not, eliminate them.

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.​

Unhelpful. 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?

Nope, you're wrong, making a false claim. I believe evolution occurs, what I dont' believe is that humanity is the result of only, solely, totally, completely naturalistic mechanisms acting in a single life form from long long ago. My faith isn't placed in that particular faith-based creationist view.

I don't believe in atheistic creationism which produced an apple and a whale from the same life form. There's no evidence for that faith-based creationist view.

This seems like a semantic game. You explicitly stated that you did not believe that humans, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, evolved from non-humans. You explicitly stated that you do not believe that birds, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, evolved from dinosaurs. You don't actually believe in evolution.

Instead of going in circles, please briefly describe what you mean by the "evolution" you claim to accept. Please don't give me some evasive response about how you don't believe in natural processes being solely responsible blah blah blah. I'm asking you what you do believe, not what you don't.

Sure, teach evolution 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.​

Pretty sure you have given no argument to support the notion that evolution doesn't fit that definition. And again, you don't really want evolution taught. You believe in special creation, after all. your version of science class would be some thing like "Birds just appeared one day, but we don't know how *winks, points to the heavens*."

Natural mechanisms as sufficient for what? Sufficient in and of itself, the only explanation, for the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago? Don't teach that faith-based creationist view, it's not sufficient. No evidence exists which prove it's sufficient.

Teach those sufficient natural mechanisms which are based on science.....
....and trash the rest.

Evidence exists that it is by these mechanisms that out biota arose. Theists accept that it is by these mechanisms that God chose to create our biota. Your problem is you don't actually believe things evolved at all.

Of course.

So again, 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.

Do you agree that humanity is the creation of only, solely, completely, totally naturalistic mechanisms, with no other impetus, acting on a single life form from long long ago?

You're talking to an atheist, so obviously. That is not to say that there is any scientific evidence refuting the notion of supernatural influences because such influences cannot be examined scientifically.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Tell us about Black Death and how it produced a new species again? One that is non-human.

LOL. Amazing.

Wow!!! You really do have a reading comprehension problem. I even told you directly that it didn't produce a new species.

Do you also have trouble operating your television or understanding street signs?

LOL!!

 

[justlookinla]

Unhelpful. 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?

Again, teach the natural processes which are 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."​

....and do not teach viewpoints which aren't based on science, such as natural processes as the only, sole, complete mechanism needed to produce humanity from a single life form of long long ago. Teach those naturalistic processes which are based on science. 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."​

This seems like a semantic game. You explicitly stated that you did not believe that humans, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, evolved from non-humans.

That's correct.

You explicitly stated that you do not believe that birds, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, evolved from dinosaurs.

Correct.

You don't actually believe in evolution.

Incorrect.

Instead of going in circles, please briefly describe what you mean by the "evolution" you claim to accept.

Any 'evolution' which is 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."
​

Please don't give me some evasive response about how you don't believe in natural processes being solely responsible blah blah blah. I'm asking you what you do believe, not what you don't.

And I've told you over and over what I believe.

Pretty sure you have given no argument to support the notion that evolution doesn't fit that definition. And again, you don't really want evolution taught.

I don't want atheistic creationism taught. And it's going to stop.

You believe in special creation, after all.

If by "special creation" you mean God based creation, yes I do.

your version of science class would be some thing like "Birds just appeared one day, but we don't know how *winks, points to the heavens*."

Why even address the appearance of birds? What value does that have to society?

Evidence exists that it is by these mechanisms that out biota arose.

No it doesn't. A series of guesses and suppositions, 'could be's', possibly's, maybe so's', ect. isn't evidence.

Theists accept that it is by these mechanisms that God chose to create our biota. Your problem is you don't actually believe things evolved at all.

What difference does it make?

So again, 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.

No, the question is how does one teach that naturalistic mechanisms alone (no evidence) are sufficient to produce the complexity and variety of life we observe today from a single life form (unidentified) from long long ago.

You're talking to an atheist, so obviously. That is not to say that there is any scientific evidence refuting the notion of supernatural influences because such influences cannot be examined scientifically.

Ok.

 

[MuchWiser]

God designed healing, to a point, in us. I'm sure you've experienced it but are totally ignorant of it.

That's hilarious, but you're right I am totally ignorant of any God designed healing or God designed anything.
I feel truly blessed that my life has been God free.

 

[justlookinla]

Wow!!! You really do have a reading comprehension problem. I even told you directly that it didn't produce a new species.

Do you also have trouble operating your television or understanding street signs?

LOL!!

No, I have a problem with the suggestion that Black Death was in any way dependent on Darwinian evolution. Bringing up species as 'sightly different' is misleadingly suggesting some sort of modification which changes a human to another life form through evolution. They were human before, human afterward, no different.

Your Black Death example is laughable.

 

[MuchWiser]

No, I have a problem with the suggestion that Black Death was in any way dependent on Darwinian evolution. Bringing up species as 'sightly different' is misleadingly suggesting some sort of modification which changes a human to another life form through evolution. They were human before, human afterward, no different.

Your Black Death example is laughable.

Why didn't they either all die or all live? they were all humans but some humans were different from other humans?
with no evolution they should all have been exactly the same all of them made in Gods image, but they weren't were they?
I wonder where God went wrong? oh I forgot it's all down to the fall, silly me, people are different because of the fall.

 

[CabVet]

This thread wins for most logical fallacies per page. By a long shot.

 

[justlookinla]

Why didn't they either all die or all live? they were all humans but some humans were different from other humans?
with no evolution they should all have been exactly the same all of them made in Gods image, but they weren't were they?
I wonder where God went wrong? oh I forgot it's all down to the fall, silly me, people are different because of the fall.

Yep.

 

[bhsmte]

This thread wins for most logical fallacies per page. By a long shot.

It is also ripe with material for those dudes who use actors to recite posts on youtube from fundies.

 

[CabVet]

It is also ripe with material for those dudes who use actors to recite posts on youtube from fundies.

So, I've been a few weeks out working and traveling, is this new guy really new or a resurrected puppet of old ones? His rhetoric seems very familiar to me.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Again, teach the natural processes which are 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."​

....and do not teach viewpoints which aren't based on science, such as natural processes as the only, sole, complete mechanism needed to produce humanity from a single life form of long long ago. Teach those naturalistic processes which are based on science. Based-on-science.

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.

That's correct.



Correct.
Incorrect.
Any 'evolution' which is supported by science

And I've told you over and over what I believe.

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 don't want atheistic creationism taught. And it's going to stop.

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

If by "special creation" you mean God based creation, yes I do.



Why even address the appearance of birds? What value does that have to society?

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?

What difference does it make?

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, the question is how does one teach that naturalistic mechanisms alone (no evidence) are sufficient to produce the complexity and variety of life we observe today from a single life form (unidentified) from long long ago.

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.

 

[bhsmte]

So, I've been a few weeks out working and traveling, is this new guy really new or a resurrected puppet of old ones? His rhetoric seems very familiar to me.

Can't tell for sure, he could be a retread.

But, you have to keep in mind, fundies are very similar in how they; deny, use confirmation bias and selective reasoning, so it is easy to get them confused.

 

[bhsmte]

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.





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.




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



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?






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.



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.

Time for a Lois Lerner and plead the fifth.

 

[Dizredux]

This thread wins for most logical fallacies per page. By a long shot.

Why, oh why don't they teach logic in high school? As far as I know it is only available as an elective in college. In reality, Logic was probably one of the most useful courses I had.

In this thread, as you say, we can really see the lack and the desperate need.

Dizredux

 

[EternalDragon]

Why didn't they either all die or all live? they were all humans but some humans were different from other humans?
with no evolution they should all have been exactly the same all of them made in Gods image, but they weren't were they?
I wonder where God went wrong? oh I forgot it's all down to the fall, silly me, people are different because of the fall.

Yep.

 

[bhsmte]

Why, oh why don't they teach logic in high school? As far as I know it is only available as an elective in college. In reality, Logic was probably one of the most useful courses I had.

In this thread, as you say, we can really see the lack and the desperate need.

Dizredux

It is a desperate need and a deeply psychological one and desperation will trump logic each and every time.

Think of the chain smoker who lights up his next cigarette when he is having trouble catching his breath. He is filling a desperate need, despite his knowing he isn't doing something logical. It is the same thing with fundies, they have to ignore logic, to fill the desperate need.

 

[Split Rock]

So, I've been a few weeks out working and traveling, is this new guy really new or a resurrected puppet of old ones? His rhetoric seems very familiar to me.

I don't know... all I know is that I placed him on Ignore a while ago.