How were you taught Evolution?

[Atheos canadensis]

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...

Yeah, it's getting pretty absurd. I'm pretty much done with him. Why continue a discussion with someone whose posts would quite possibly fail the Turing Test? No matter what I ask he gives the same vague and tenuously related answer.

No wonder he defended Once's evasive posting style; it's downright direct compared to his.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

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.



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



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."​

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



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".

Okay, you've stopped even pretending to address the questions I ask you. I have had more pertinent responses from Cleverbot. This thread has established firmly that most Christians do not agree with your delusion and that science classes are metaphysically ambiguous. I think I'll leave you to gnash your teeth in impotent fury at the evil atheist science being taught to children and delude yourself that the courts will get your back any day now.

I'll be happy to re-engage if you actually provide direct answers to the questions you've been backing down from for so long:

1. How does one teach the natural processes of evolution but also teach that they are not sufficient to produce our biota while not mentioning any non-natural processes? Your persistent refusal to answer shows that you have no answer.

2. If evolution by natural processes is atheistic, why do so many Christians here believe that our biota is the product of natural processes driven by God? If you respond yet again by saying that Christians don't believe in atheistic creation, a claim I have never made, you will be proving you have no actual response.

3. When you say you believe in evolution, what do you mean? You seem incapable of providing an answer besides "the kind supported by science", so maybe just answer these questions instead:

3(a). Do you believe birds evolved, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, from dinosaurs?

3(b). Do you believe crows and ostriches evolved, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, from a common ancestor?

3(c). Do you believe sparrows and chickadees evolved, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, from a common ancestor?

3(d). Do you believe crows and ravens evolved, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, from a common ancestor?​

So there are some questions for you. I would be enormously surprised if you actually answered them directly instead of spraying me with the same copy and paste repetition you have been for almost the entire thread and would be happy to continue a discussion with you. I suspect you won't though, in which case I leave you to your argumentum ad nauseum strategy and the hollow claims of victory you will no doubt spout when that strategy comes to fruition.

 

[bhsmte]

Okay, you've stopped even pretending to address the questions I ask you. I have had more pertinent responses from Cleverbot. This thread has established firmly that most Christians do not agree with your delusion and that science classes are metaphysically ambiguous. I think I'll leave you to gnash your teeth in impotent fury at the evil atheist science being taught to children and delude yourself that the courts will get your back any day now.

I'll be happy to re-engage if you actually provide direct answers to the questions you've been backing down from for so long:

1. How does one teach the natural processes of evolution but also teach that they are not sufficient to produce our biota while not mentioning any non-natural processes? Your persistent refusal to answer shows that you have no answer.

2. If evolution by natural processes is atheistic, why do so many Christians here believe that our biota is the product of natural processes driven by God? If you respond yet again by saying that Christians don't believe in atheistic creation, a claim I have never made, you will be proving you have no actual response.

3. When you say you believe in evolution, what do you mean? You seem incapable of providing an answer besides "the kind supported by science", so maybe just answer these questions instead:

3(a). Do you believe birds evolved, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, from dinosaurs?

3(b). Do you believe crows and ostriches evolved, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, from a common ancestor?

3(c). Do you believe sparrows and chickadees evolved, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, from a common ancestor?

3(d). Do you believe crows and ravens evolved, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, from a common ancestor?
​

So there are some questions for you. I would be enormously surprised if you actually answered them directly instead of spraying me with the same copy and paste repetition you have been for almost the entire thread and would be happy to continue a discussion with you. I suspect you won't though, in which case I leave you to your argumentum ad nauseum strategy and the hollow claims of victory you will no doubt spout when that strategy comes to fruition.

You have a better chance at winning lotto that getting direct answers to your questions.

Fundamentalists don't like direct questions, too much risk of exposing the soft underbelly of their belief.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

You have a better chance at winning lotto that getting direct answers to your questions.

Fundamentalists don't like direct questions, too much risk of exposing the soft underbelly of their belief.

I just put them out there as a standing challenge. I fully expect him to provide the same non-answers or not answer at all, then claim victory and possibly reiterate his fondly-held delusion that the courts are coming to back him up any day now.

 

[bhsmte]

I just put them out there as a standing challenge. I fully expect him to provide the same non-answers or not answer at all, then claim victory and possibly reiterate his fondly-held delusion that the courts are coming to back him up any day now.

I understand, I have done the same many times on this board with fundies and the response is quite predictable.

They are in non-stop protection mode and that is what you get.

 

[AV1611VET]

I understand, I have done the same many times on this board with fundies and the response is quite predictable.

They are in non-stop protection mode and that is what you get.

Please don't let that dissuade you from asking questions though.

We'd like to know what you don't know.

 

[Delphiki]

I agree it's not science. My mistake.

If you think it's not science then why are you here arguing against it when nobody here believes in this "atheistic creation science" thing you made up?

 

[bhsmte]

Please don't let that dissuade you from asking questions though.

We'd like to know what you don't know.

Asking a question often times has nothing to do with a persons knowledge of a subject AV and are often times to simply clarify a person's position so the conversation can flow.

But, I guess you didn't know that.

 

[justlookinla]

Okay, you've stopped even pretending to address the questions I ask you. I have had more pertinent responses from Cleverbot. This thread has established firmly that most Christians do not agree with your delusion and that science classes are metaphysically ambiguous. I think I'll leave you to gnash your teeth in impotent fury at the evil atheist science being taught to children and delude yourself that the courts will get your back any day now.

I'll be happy to re-engage if you actually provide direct answers to the questions you've been backing down from for so long:

1. How does one teach the natural processes of evolution but also teach that they are not sufficient to produce our biota while not mentioning any non-natural processes? Your persistent refusal to answer shows that you have no answer.

Sigh. Ok, let's take it one small step at a time, starting with your question #1. Maybe you'll comprehend then and understand you've asked quite a convoluted and twisted question.

1. "How does one teach the natural processes of evolution".
1a. One teaches the natural processes of evolution by applying science to the mechanisms being taught.

"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."​

2."but also teach that they are not sufficient to produce our biota".
2a. One must not teach they are sufficient to produce anything they aren't scientifically able to produce. Don't teach they are, or are not, sufficient to produce humanity from a single life form of long long ago if there is no science to support the viewpoint. Again, do not teach they are not sufficient, but also do not teach they are sufficient, without question, to create all life, including humanity, from a single life form of long long ago.

If the question is asked how all life came into existence (not abiogenesis), the answer should be, "we don't know".

"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."​

3. "while not mentioning any non-natural processes?"
3a. Don't mention any non-natural processes. Simple.

Don't teach any explanation of how humanity was created. Stick with 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."​

 

[justlookinla]

If you think it's not science then why are you here arguing against it when nobody here believes in this "atheistic creation science" thing you made up?

You don't believe that humanity is the result of only, solely, completely, totally, naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago?

What do you believe concerning the creation of humanity?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Sigh. Ok, let's take it one small step at a time, starting with your question #1. Maybe you'll comprehend then and understand you've asked quite a convoluted and twisted question.

1. "How does one teach the natural processes of evolution".
1a. One teaches the natural processes of evolution by applying science to the mechanisms being taught.


2."but also teach that they are not sufficient to produce our biota".
2a. One must not teach they are sufficient to produce anything they aren't scientifically able to produce. Don't teach they are, or are not, sufficient to produce humanity from a single life form of long long ago if there is no science to support the viewpoint. Again, do not teach they are not sufficient, but also do not teach they are sufficient, without question, to create all life, including humanity, from a single life form of long long ago.

If the question is asked how all life came into existence (not abiogenesis), the answer should be, "we don't know".



3. "while not mentioning any non-natural processes?"
3a. Don't mention any non-natural processes. Simple.

Don't teach any explanation of how humanity was created. Stick with science.

Doesn't seem that convoluted. But at least we have your answer: don't teach them anything about how out biota arose. Just tell them we don't know. Though in fact we do have scientific evidence that various natural processes produced our biota. NOTE: This is not the same as saying that we have scientific evidence that no supernatural processes were involved (this ties in to question 2 wherein we examine the fact that christians accept that we arose through natural processes ordained and sustained by God).

Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop posting that science definition, or at least stop posting multiple times per post. It's unnecessary and clutters things up.


So 1 is dealt with. Now let's get to the other two:

2. If evolution by natural processes is atheistic, why do so many Christians here believe that our biota is the product of natural processes driven by God? If you respond yet again by saying that Christians don't believe in atheistic creation, a claim I have never made, you will be proving you have no actual response.

3. When you say you believe in evolution, what do you mean? You seem incapable of providing an answer besides "the kind supported by science", so maybe just answer these questions instead:
3(a). Do you believe birds evolved, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, from dinosaurs?

3(b). Do you believe crows and ostriches evolved, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, from a common ancestor?

3(c). Do you believe sparrows and chickadees evolved, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, from a common ancestor?

3(d). Do you believe crows and ravens evolved, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, from a common ancestor?

 

[justlookinla]

Doesn't seem that convoluted. But at least we have your answer: don't teach them anything about how out biota arose. Just tell them we don't know. Though in fact we do have scientific evidence that various natural processes produced our biota. NOTE: This is not the same as saying that we have scientific evidence that no supernatural processes were involved (this ties in to question 2 wherein we examine the fact that christians accept that we arose through natural processes ordained and sustained by God).

Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop posting that science definition, or at least stop posting multiple times per post. It's unnecessary and clutters things up.


So 1 is dealt with. Now let's get to the other two:

2. If evolution by natural processes is atheistic, why do so many Christians here believe that our biota is the product of natural processes driven by God? If you respond yet again by saying that Christians don't believe in atheistic creation, a claim I have never made, you will be proving you have no actual response.

3. When you say you believe in evolution, what do you mean? You seem incapable of providing an answer besides "the kind supported by science", so maybe just answer these questions instead:
3(a). Do you believe birds evolved, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, from dinosaurs?

3(b). Do you believe crows and ostriches evolved, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, from a common ancestor?

3(c). Do you believe sparrows and chickadees evolved, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, from a common ancestor?

3(d). Do you believe crows and ravens evolved, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, from a common ancestor?

No, first, do you agree with my answers on #1 and if not, why? We have plenty of time to address the remainder of your questions.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

No, first, do you agree with my answers on #1 and if not, why? We have plenty of time to address the remainder of your questions.

I agree with your answer. I disagree on the degree to which we have scientific evidence for origins, but evidence for evolution is a whole other thread and is rather beyond the scope of discussing how evolution is taught in schools. Now on to the next questions.

 

[justlookinla]

I agree with your answer. I disagree on the degree to which we have scientific evidence for origins, but evidence for evolution is a whole other thread and is rather beyond the scope of discussing how evolution is taught in schools. Now on to the next questions.

This is totally about how evolution is taught in schools. That's the issue.

Before we move on, and not to belabor the point, but am I understanding that you agree with the following.....

"Don't teach they are, or are not, sufficient to produce humanity from a single life form of long long ago if there is no science to support the viewpoint. Again, do not teach they are not sufficient, but also do not teach they are sufficient, without question, to create all life, including humanity, from a single life form of long long ago.

If the question is asked how all life came into existence (not abiogenesis), the answer should be, "we don't know".​

 

[Atheos canadensis]

This is totally about how evolution is taught in schools. That's the issue.

Before we move on, and not to belabor the point, but am I understanding that you agree with the following.....

"Don't teach they are, or are not, sufficient to produce humanity from a single life form of long long ago if there is no science to support the viewpoint. Again, do not teach they are not sufficient, but also do not teach they are sufficient, without question, to create all life, including humanity, from a single life form of long long ago.

If the question is asked how all life came into existence (not abiogenesis), the answer should be, "we don't know".​

Sounds good. Except for the last part. The answer should not be "We don't know", it should be "Here are some theories". Moving on...

 

[justlookinla]

Sounds good. Except for the last part. The answer should not be "We don't know", it should be "Here are some theories". Moving on...

Why should they say "here are some theories"? If they don't know, shouldn't they simply say nothing?

And I will address the other questions, have no fear.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Why should they say "here are some theories"? If they don't know, shouldn't they simply say nothing?

And I will address the other questions, have no fear.

Because saying "We don't know" makes it seem like we have no idea when in fact we do have some theories. That you don't accept the evidence for those theories does not mean they don't exist.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The case is concerning who/what created humanity.

No humanity. Now humanity. How?

As if this statement is leading. Humanity developed over time, it wasn't really just not here and then here.

 

[justlookinla]

Because saying "We don't know" makes it seem like we have no idea when in fact we do have some theories. That you don't accept the evidence for those theories does not mean they don't exist.

Again, I am going to address your other questions, but I do want to examine this a little more.

If one doesn't say we don't know how humanity came into existence, then the assumption is that we do know how humanity came into existence. If we do know how humanity came into existence, according to various theories, then those would not be presented as anything but true and sufficient for the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago.

Am I misstating the conclusion?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Again, I am going to address your other questions, but I do want to examine this a little more.

If one doesn't say we don't know how humanity came into existence, then the assumption is that we do know how humanity came into existence. If we do know how humanity came into existence, according to various theories, then those would not be presented as anything but true and sufficient for the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago.

Am I misstating the conclusion?

You are. Positing theories is not equivalent to claiming certainty. Positing natural mechanisms does not preclude the existence of non-natural mechanisms. But saying "We don't know" makes it seem like we have no idea whatsoever, which is false.