How were you taught Evolution?

[Naturalism]

First, the suggestion of common ancestry is taking similarities and concluding that life came from one single life form of long long ago. There is no science for that, only a series of guesses and suppositions.

We don't need to run, we can walk first.

Suppose I showed you DNA evidence that demonstrated the genetic similarities you have with other humans. Suppose it's a paternity court case of "Who's the daddy?" in which you're skeptical a girl is actually yours. You were with the mother around a year prior to when the child was born so the math works out.,

In this we can observe, since DNA is hereditary based, the shared genetic markers between both parents in the offspring to conclude their relations. We can see the shared genes the girl has with you, resulting in a 99.99% likely match that you're the father.

This is all a hypothetical example so bear that in mind. Suppose we find that after analyses it shows you're the father. Would you doubt the results?

Now, the same type of genetic analysis can be used further out across all humans showing greater degrees of relatedness.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/human-journey/

The same further can be used for extant living organisms to determine how closely they are related to each other and other species (showing common ancestry).

Phylogenetic Trees and Monophyletic Groups | Learn Science at Scitable

The same nested hierarchy that is created is evident in genetics (genetic phylogeny trees) as it is in Cladistics.

Secondly, and in my opinion more importantly, is the question of how indescribably complex and varied life today was created. The answer is, nobody knows, it all depends on one's faith-based creationist view. A single life form from which all plants and animals were created is only a supposition, a guess.

It's not a guess when you have a preponderance of empirical evidence that is consistent and points in one direction and only one direction.

The conclusion is that the creationist worldview taught in schools today, and it is a creationist theory, is based on less than concrete evidence.

Suppose I ask, what evidence would you expect to see if common ancestry is true?

 

[AV1611VET]

Even the way you put it is better than telling children a magic man did it all.

Chriss Angel?

 

[justlookinla]

We don't need to run, we can walk first.

Suppose I showed you DNA evidence that demonstrated the genetic similarities you have with other humans. Suppose it's a paternity court case of "Who's the daddy?" in which you're skeptical a girl is actually yours. You were with the mother around a year prior to when the child was born so the math works out.,

In this we can observe, since DNA is hereditary based, the shared genetic markers between both parents in the offspring to conclude their relations. We can see the shared genes the girl has with you, resulting in a 99.99% likely match that you're the father.

This is all a hypothetical example so bear that in mind. Suppose we find that after analyses it shows you're the father. Would you doubt the results?

Now, the same type of genetic analysis can be used further out across all humans showing greater degrees of relatedness.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/human-journey/

The same further can be used for extant living organisms to determine how closely they are related to each other and other species (showing common ancestry).

Phylogenetic Trees and Monophyletic Groups | Learn Science at Scitable

The same nested hierarchy that is created is evident in genetics (genetic phylogeny trees) as it is in Cladistics.



It's not a guess when you have a preponderance of empirical evidence that is consistent and points in one direction and only one direction.



Suppose I ask, what evidence would you expect to see if common ancestry is true?

I'm not sure what particular evidence would prove common ancestry as true. It's not offered today though.

And you haven't offered evidence that all of life is the result of only, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Most of the time folks quickly jump to common ancestry and fail to address the real issue. Who/what created humanity and how?

 

[justlookinla]

Even the way you put it is better than telling children a magic man did it all.

How about telling the children in class the truth? "We don't know".

 

[Naturalism]

There's much that the current creationist worldview being taught today cannot explain. Explanation isn't the same as guessing, with guessing being a large part of the Darwinist creationist worldview. Could have been this, could have been that, maybe this, maybe that....isn't anything but an opinion.

But you understand the model is technically a work in progress, no? That is how science works.

Intelligent Design does address the issues of the tremendous complexity and variety of life and the likelihood that this life arose entirely, solely, only, completely by random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless (other than procreation and directionless naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

By addressing what does is offer as the necessary testable explanation? It asserts a designer did something. OK, then what processes & mechanisms did this designer use so it can be tested for and shown false if it's wrong? Offering an assertion that is not testable and thus not falsifiable is not addressing anything.

No doubt Intelligent Design demands a supernatural impetus. It does not demand adherence to any supernatural creationist worldview though.

Great, so show how we scientifically test for the supernatural then? I know it cannot be done, but I will humor you. You don't know, that since the supernatural can supposedly subvert any natural laws that it's impossible to know as a scientist if what you're observing is true or deception as a result yes?

The current concept of creation taught today isn't supported by science either.

Which parts not supported by science? When they study DNA that is something that is - physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

The Darwinist creationist view of today is based on a series of guesses and suppositions, could be's, might have been's, ect.

Guesses, like what?

We don't know what processes and mechanisms the designer used.

So exactly how can you test it if you don't know the means by which it's asserted to be created by?

 

[Naturalism]

I'm not sure what particular evidence would prove common ancestry as true. It's not offered today though.

So you're not sure on what particular evidence would prove common ancestry, but you're sure it's not offered today.

Internally contradict much?

If you're not sure on what would need to be known true in order for common ancestry to be true you can't assert it's not offered.

What evidence would prove to you the shared common ancestry with H. Sapiens and other Primates (Chimpanzee's) for instances? Again, if you can't comment on a definitive goal & how we would know one way or the other you can't possible state it's wrong or even the overall model is wrong or should not be taught.

And you haven't offered evidence that all of life is the result of only, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

My response would be the same as the comment on common ancestry What evidence would convince you that this premise above is true? If all of life is the result of natural processes, what do you expect & why?

 

[justlookinla]

But you understand the model is technically a work in progress, no? That is how science works.

Guesses and suppositions?

By addressing what does is offer as the necessary testable explanation? It asserts a designer did something. OK, then what processes & mechanisms did this designer use so it can be tested for and shown false if it's wrong? Offering an assertion that is not testable and thus not falsifiable is not addressing anything.

The same demands should be demanded of those who postulate that all of life we observe today, in it's infinite complexity and variety, is only, solely the result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form of long long ago.

Both would be found lacking.

Great, so show how we scientifically test for the supernatural then? I know it cannot be done, but I will humor you. You don't know, that since the supernatural can supposedly subvert any natural laws that it's impossible to know as a scientist if what you're observing is true or deception as a result yes?

You make conclusions by considering the evidence offered. Again, take a human. Dissect the life form, examine it, analyze the yet totally understood complexity, study the interconnectedness, and then make conclusions based on the result. Is the human a creation of a collection of random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless processes acting on a single life form from long long ago, or is a human the product of more than that.

Which parts not supported by science? When they study DNA that is something that is - physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

The part that is not supported by science is the part which claims that all life is only, solely, totally, completely the result of random mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Guesses, like what?

Beginning with the beginning, the guess there was a single life form from which all of life we observe today, plant and animal, was created.

So exactly can you test it if you don't know the means by which it's asserted to be created by?

Test it by experimentation and observation. Science.

 

[MuchWiser]

Test it by experimentation and observation. Science.

You obviously do not know what science is if you want teachers to stand in front of a science class and say 'we don't know', you must really be naive if you think teacher teach students things that have not been shown to be true, that only happens in religious classes.

You and I are only here today because of science and what people working in science have achieved, if some people hadn't gone against religion people now would still be living as they did in the dark ages.

 

[Naturalism]

Guesses and suppositions?

We are able to fly planes around the earth & rockets to the moon from an understanding of gravity. We're able to produce vaccines which mitigate death and harm. Those are just two instances, those derived from the work in science. You call that guesses in suppositions?

Both would be found lacking.

Evolution has natural processes that are testable. What processes that ID/creationism proposes are testable?

You make conclusions by considering the evidence offered

You stated ID rests on the supernatural being the cause. So show how we scientifically test for the supernatural then?

The part that is not supported by science is the part which claims that all life is only, solely, totally, completely the result of random mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

That is not a part, that is a loaded statement by you.

...the guess there was a single life form from which all of life we observe today, plant and animal, was created.

My response would be the same as the comment on common ancestry What evidence would convince you that this premise above is true? If all of life is the result of natural processes, what do you expect & why?

Test it by experimentation and observation. Science.

But the supernatural cannot be scientifically tested! That is the whole point.

 

[justlookinla]

You obviously do not know what science is if you want teachers to stand in front of a science class and say 'we don't know', you must really be naive if you think teacher teach students things that have not been shown to be true, that only happens in religious classes.

Are you suggesting that the only viewpoint which should be taught to the students is the viewpoint that all of life we observe today is the result of only, solely, completely, totally naturalistic mechanisms acting on a life form from long long ago? Are you suggesting that teachers present that particular view as fact, without question?

You and I are only here today because of science

Not the issue. Are you and I here today because of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form of long long ago?

and what people working in science have achieved, if some people hadn't gone against religion people now would still be living as they did in the dark ages.

I don't think anyone here is against science, but the issue is about creationism. At some point in the past, there was no humanity. Now there's humanity. How?

 

[MuchWiser]

I don't think anyone here is against science, but the issue is about creationism. At some point in the past, there was no humanity. Now there's humanity. How?

A magic man did it? seriously? is that what you think?
You can dress it up in as many fancy words as you like but you think a magic man did it, don't you?

 

[AV1611VET]

A magic man did it? seriously? is that what you think?

At least you got the gender right.

 

[PsychoSarah]

At least you got the gender right.

So god can't manipulate its gender then?

 

[AV1611VET]

So god can't manipulate its gender then?

Not to your satisfaction.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Not to your satisfaction.

I didn't ask if it would do it for me, only if it could. I find it very interesting that the being you believe created everything can't manipulate its own body.

 

[bhsmte]

Not to your satisfaction.

How do you know?

 

[justlookinla]

We are able to fly planes around the earth & rockets to the moon from an understanding of gravity. We're able to produce vaccines which mitigate death and harm. Those are just two instances, those derived from the work in science. You call that guesses in suppositions?

This is yet another popular evasive tactic from atheistic Darwinists.

Try to stick with the issue at hand. No humanity. Now humanity. How?

Evolution has natural processes that are testable. What processes that ID/creationism proposes are testable?

No observational and experimental tests (science) has proven that all of life, including humanity, is only, solely, totally, completely the result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a singe life form from long long ago.

Why is it being taught in our schools?

You stated ID rests on the supernatural being the cause. So show how we scientifically test for the supernatural then?

Look, don't teach ID in schools. Don't teach atheistic creationism either. Deal?

That is not a part, that is a loaded statement by you.

Sure this is a part. Identify anything in the statement which is in error.

"The part that is not supported by science is the part which claims that all life is only, solely, totally, completely the result of random mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago."
​

My response would be the same as the comment on common ancestry What evidence would convince you that this premise above is true? If all of life is the result of natural processes, what do you expect & why?

I would expect observation and experimentation (science) to offer evidence that naturalistic mechanisms are the only, sole, complete impetuses needed and required to produce all of life we observe today, including humanity, acting on a single life form from long long ago.

But the supernatural cannot be scientifically tested! That is the whole point.

There are guesses and suppositions from the Intelligent Design perspective which have the same level of evidence as the guesses and suppositions from the atheistic creationism camp.

Why not teach them both, offering the guesses and suggestions from both views and allow the students to decide for themselves? Why should only one worldview based on guesses and suppositions, the atheistic creationist view, be taught in our schools?

If you have a problem with that, instead of arguing about Intelligent Design, drop the current atheistic creationist worldview being taught in our schools today and teach nothing concerning an alleged, unseen, unknown, figment of imagination single life form of long long ago becoming humanity.

The atheist agenda isn't going to allow that though....until the courts change it.

 

[justlookinla]

A magic man did it? seriously? is that what you think?
You can dress it up in as many fancy words as you like but you think a magic man did it, don't you?

You can dress it up in 'science', but you think you're a freak of nature, don't you?

 

[justlookinla]

I didn't ask if it would do it for me, only if it could. I find it very interesting that the being you believe created everything can't manipulate its own body.

What body?

 

[PsychoSarah]

You can dress it up in 'science', but you think you're a freak of nature, don't you?

Calling it names won't stop the fact that human existence wasn't intentional.