MOVED FROM OUTREACH: Scary Evolution O.O

[Pats]

Maybe this thread should've gone to GA?

 

[NASAg03]

Maybe this thread should've gone to GA?

Every discussion of creationism vs. evolutionism turns into a philosophical debate, because the very nature of each view speculates on our origins. Any discussion of origins will at some point speculate the existence (or lack there of) of a creator. Origins is rooted in philosophy, and you can't really separate the two.

If creationism / ID isn't tought in school, then neither should evolutionism. Both are nothing more than interpretation of the facts, and speculation. Humans didn't exist billions of years ago to witness the formation of our universe and planet. Christians believe humans did account for the creation of the universe 6000 years ago, but evolutionists (and some Christians) dont believe that account as true or literal.

Sciece is rooted in questions, hypotheses to test those questions, experiments to test the hypotheses, and data to interpret. From all that, a theory is concocted, and it is up to the individual to decide if that theory answers the question at hand.

Teaching evolution in high school, and only evolution, leads to the conclusion that the data we have can only be interpreted one way. That is closing off many possibilities, and goes against the principles of science. But atheists state prooving the valility of the Bible and God's existence is also outside the rhelm of science.

 

[RealityCheck]

Every discussion of creationism vs. evolutionism turns into a philosophical debate, because the very nature of each view speculates on our origins. Any discussion of origins will at some point speculate the existence (or lack there of) of a creator. Origins is rooted in philosophy, and you can't really separate the two.

If creationism / ID isn't tought in school, then neither should evolutionism. Both are nothing more than interpretation of the facts, and speculation. Humans didn't exist billions of years ago to witness the formation of our universe and planet. Christians believe humans did account for the creation of the universe 6000 years ago, but evolutionists (and some Christians) dont believe that account as true or literal.

Sciece is rooted in questions, hypotheses to test those questions, experiments to test the hypotheses, and data to interpret. From all that, a theory is concocted, and it is up to the individual to decide if that theory answers the question at hand.

Teaching evolution in high school, and only evolution, leads to the conclusion that the data we have can only be interpreted one way. That is closing off many possibilities, and goes against the principles of science. But atheists state prooving the valility of the Bible and God's existence is also outside the rhelm of science.

One could just as easily say, "Teaching gravitation in high school, and only gravitation, leads to the conclusion that the data we have can only be interpreted one way."

I don't see anyone asking for alternatives to gravity to be taught in school, however.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If creationism / ID isn't tought in school, then neither should evolutionism. Both are nothing more than interpretation of the facts, and speculation. Humans didn't exist billions of years ago to witness the formation of our universe and planet. Christians believe humans did account for the creation of the universe 6000 years ago, but evolutionists (and some Christians) dont believe that account as true or literal.

Sciece is rooted in questions, hypotheses to test those questions, experiments to test the hypotheses, and data to interpret. From all that, a theory is concocted, and it is up to the individual to decide if that theory answers the question at hand.

Teaching evolution in high school, and only evolution, leads to the conclusion that the data we have can only be interpreted one way. That is closing off many possibilities, and goes against the principles of science. But atheists state prooving the valility of the Bible and God's existence is also outside the rhelm of science.

So -- would you support the Invisible Pink Unicorn theory of origins taught in schools?

How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

my personal favorite: The universe was created by Iggy the Magic Elf?

Which "interpretations" of the data don't make the cut if we decide that Creationism/ID (kudos for mentioning them slashed; they are, after all, the same thing) is good enough to be considered a "competing" theory?

 

[michabo]

Any discussion of origins will at some point speculate the existence (or lack there of) of a creator.

Spoken like someone ignorant of what evolution actually says.

Heck, evolution was used by preachers as evidence for God! Just because you can't seem to understand that evolution can be compatible with theism doesn't mean that no one else can.

If creationism / ID isn't tought in school, then neither should evolutionism. Both are nothing more than interpretation of the facts, and speculation.

What nonsense. Creationism is based on rejecting facts.

Teaching evolution in high school, and only evolution, leads to the conclusion that the data we have can only be interpreted one way.

No, the data that we have leads to the conclusion that evolution is the only way to interpret the data. If you were aware of even a tiny percent of the data supporting evolution, you might understand this.

 

[MewtwoX]

Every discussion of creationism vs. evolutionism turns into a philosophical debate, because the very nature of each view speculates on our origins. Any discussion of origins will at some point speculate the existence (or lack there of) of a creator. Origins is rooted in philosophy, and you can't really separate the two.

Well, actually I think this is a problem of the points themselves.

Creationism is one idea that tries to answer all the questions of origins with positing a deity. Evolutionary Theory answers the question of origins of species specifically. This causes a large asymmetry between Creationism and ToE, as one tries to argue parts the other theory doesn't even elaborate on. I think that this is the reason why the misunderstanding of "Evolution = Abiogenesis, Evolution = Big Bang, Evolution = Atheism" continues on today.

It's because people see Creationism and assume that both theories deal with all the origins, when in fact they do not.

If creationism / ID isn't tought in school, then neither should evolutionism. Both are nothing more than interpretation of the facts, and speculation. Humans didn't exist billions of years ago to witness the formation of our universe and planet. Christians believe humans did account for the creation of the universe 6000 years ago, but evolutionists (and some Christians) dont believe that account as true or literal.

1. They are not mere interpretations of the facts. The fact remains that Creationist "interpretation" is usually misunderstanding the Scientific data or using outright false data. Evolutionary Theory remains the only theory that accounts for the data we see today coherently.

2. We don't need to be alive back then to "see" Evolution occuring. This idea is a misunderstanding of Science needing to observe the data to make conclusion. "Observations" don't require direct perception by the five senses, but applications of other techniques to arrive at observations as well. We can observe homology and ERVs rather than having to see populations evolve in order to know they occured.

3. "Christians" do not necessarily believe in the 6000 year model. That's why people call themselves TEs...

Please don't associate Christianity with Creationism, as it will only work against you as you see Christian after Christian defending the ToE.

Sciece is rooted in questions, hypotheses to test those questions, experiments to test the hypotheses, and data to interpret. From all that, a theory is concocted, and it is up to the individual to decide if that theory answers the question at hand.

No, not really. Science is rooted in questions. Hypotheses are made to answer the questions and these answers are tested with experiments and data collection for potential falsification. If the data collected many times over conforms nicely with a hypothesis and evidence is also presented with shows this hypothesis to be the only valid explanation then the hypothesis graduates to either a Theory or Law, depending upon the nature of the hypothesis.

Teaching evolution in high school, and only evolution, leads to the conclusion that the data we have can only be interpreted one way. That is closing off many possibilities, and goes against the principles of science. But atheists state prooving the valility of the Bible and God's existence is also outside the rhelm of science.

The problem is that there is only one valid interpretation at the moment and presenting sides that aren't scientific is a violation of science. Also, Scientists and those who understand science state that proving or disproving the Bible's validity (in respect to supernatural claims) or God's existence is outside the realm of Science.

 

[RealityCheck]

If evolution should not be taught in schools because Creationism or ID is not taught in schools...

... or if we require that schools teach creationism alongside evolution...

... then churches ought to be required to give equal time to evolution alongside creationism in Sunday Services...

... it's only fair, after all.

 

[Colabomb]

If evolution should not be taught in schools because Creationism or ID is not taught in schools...

... or if we require that schools teach creationism alongside evolution...

... then churches ought to be required to give equal time to evolution alongside creationism in Sunday Services...

... it's only fair, after all.

No ma'am. A school is a Public organization, and thus is forced to represent the will of the people. Including teaching creationism.

Churches are private, and can teach whatever they want.

 

[OdwinOddball]

No ma'am. A school is a Public organization, and thus is forced to represent the will of the people. Including teaching creationism.

Churches are private, and can teach whatever they want.

Correct in part. However, if the will of the people was that gravity was caused by angels pushing down on you, this would not be acceptable as a valid addition to curriculum.

The people believe in a lot of things that aren't based in reality. Such can have a place, but it must be in the proper place. You don't teach Shakespeare in a Cheimstry class, and you don't teach Theology in a Biology class.

Evolution is science, Creationism is not. Evolution belongs in science class, Creationism does not.

 

[steen]

Actually thats the other way around. Evolutionists severely attack creationists points of view.

nope.

A creation merely tries to defend a creation point of view , and points out the flaws of evolutionary thinking.

The evidence? What is wrong with the Scientific Evidence for Evolution? Where is the Scientific Evidence for creationism?

Evolutionists seem to think that science and the bible cant go hand in hand, when there is actually a great deal of science in the bible.

Such as? What part of the Bible was derived through the application of the Scientific method? or do you even know what science is?

Not to mention that our founding fathers of most of our fields of science were devout christians, ans based all their therios with a biblical foundation.

And? What kind of silly implication are you trying for here? It is almost as if you are trying to say that if one accept the Scientific Theory of Evolution, then they are atheists? That would be plain nonsense, of course.

One of the best websites i have found for creation was ken hams website answersingenesis.org That website is hit over 1 million times a month. That is an amazing number of hits . So many people looking for answers, and they all are.

Really? I find them rather short on actual science.

Their website and ideal are under constant fire from people, but they never go out of their way to attack other website sites of different views.

Oh, now there is a flat-out false claim. How lame.

 

[steen]

No ma'am. A school is a Public organization, and thus is forced to represent the will of the people. Including teaching creationism.

I find it disturbing that you have such scetchy knowledge of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

 

[Edial]

to Edx ...

...

...
So, you are an atheist because there no evidence (to you) that there is God ... yet there is an evidence (to you) for evolution in a context that all came from ameba.

And you personally have an evidence that one-cell organism ameba came from ... what?

Abiogenesis is the field of science that looks into these questions. But its irrelevant, im not at atheist becuase I think I know the answers.
...
If it were you wouldnt need faith to believe it, and I dont want faith becuase that means it cant it be taken on its own merits.

You are an atheist, you believe in evolution in the Darwinian context, while NO ONE can prove where the ameba came from.
You believe that abiogenesis will resolve these things.
OK.

Are you certain you do not use faith in all this?

And if you do believe that our science is quite advanced that one can have faith in it, would you explain me this?

Jesus said some 2000 years ago that we could not even turn one hair from white to black ...
MT 5:36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black.
... and 2000 years later our science developed hair dye.
Are you certain that putting faith in science is a reliable thing to do?
The next tsunami can wipe out about anything we make in about half an our.
We cannot even predict weather.

We do not know what life is.
Our answer to life is 75 years.
We sense eternity in our beings, just to be assured (quite sternly, I should add) that eternity is impossible, because we do not know it.

We spin around the orbit of the Earth and the Sun with a breakneck speed and say - we are in control of our destiny.

Why not put faith in Jesus Christ, who delivered all that he promised?

If you put faith in science - one would need a lot more faith than to becaome a follower of Christ.

...

...
How would you disprove the grandiose miracles of Jesus Christ?
Never happened?

How would you disprove other miracles performed in other holy texts?

Much, much easier than you think.

1. Ask a non-partial source whether these trhings happened.
In Christianity we ask the arch-enemies of the Christ at the times, who recorded that these miracles indeed happened.

2. Look at the main source of these revelations and see whether they have prophecies (futuristic events) recorded that would be fulfilled perfectly in the future and recorded in that same book.
No religion has ALL the prophecies that were fulfilled 100% in their own writings. NONE.
In Christianity, the Bible was written during the span of over 1500 years. Things were written in the beginning and were fulfilled 1 thousand years or hundereds of years later to the minutest of the details - betrayed for 30 peaces of silver, born in Bethlehem, of specific "last name" (line of David), entered Jerusalem on a donkey.
There are many, many more.
It was written in OT, fulfilled in NT.

NO other religious book supports it's own authority by proven miracles, except by eloquent writing, but that'a about it.

...

We are conned today by illusionists that perform these tricks all the while actually saying "this is a illusion, this isnt real, this is psychological". People seeing these 3,000 years ago and being told they are real would believe it. Im not saying Jesus was a master illusionist, just that people can really believe they saw something that never actually happened. Most of the reason we think Jesus did miracles comes soly from the Bible, there is no contempory accounts written by anyone.

So, you are not saying that Jesus was a con-man or an illusionist, but that people wanted to see these and seen them.

The Pharisees definitely DID NOT want to see these, yet they were interviewing the ones that were born infirm and healed, the former dead, shriveled hands made whole, 5000 fed, and then 4000 fed.

A dead man walking is not an illusion.

A person born blind and seeing cannot be an illusion.

...You cant use the Bible to prove the Bible.

I use the testimony of Pharisees (not from the Bible) that Jesus performed Supernatural miracles.

And, although one cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible, one can use the Biblical prophecies and their perfect fulfillment as an establishment of the authority of the Bible and it's reliability.

Bible is reliable, because it proved to be reliable by stating concerning things to come and historically proving these things as come to past.

...Why would I think that? Creationists are the ones that usually tell me we are alone in the universe, that the universe was made for our benefit and for us alone. I think other life has to exist elsewhere, even if its a rare event, the universe is just too big for the conditions never to be repeated. That sounds vastly improbable to me. Perhaps this is not the question you meant to ask..

Oh, this is definitely the question that I meant to ask.

I am a "Creationist" in the context that God created all during an unknown period of time.

Also, nowhere in the Bible it is stated that we are alone.

Some "Christians" as well as some evolutionists like to invent things to push their point.

So, if you believe that there is other life in the Universe that is unknown to us, why do you say God does not exist?

...Mass faith in something doesnt impress me, evidence does.

So because people believe in something, it therefore exists? What kind of screwed up logic is that?..

No.
It means that there something to it.

No one believes in Santa Claus nor a Tooth Fairy.

And do you really believe that we and what we see are the only life in Universe?

And if we are not alone, how can you say that God does not exist while there are miracles of Jesus Christ and billions of Christians and reasonably speaking life outside of what we see?

...

...
And do you really believe that we and what we see are the only life in Universe?

And if we are not alone, how can you say that God does not exist while there are miracles of Jesus Christ and billions of Christians and reasonably speaking life outside of what we see?

God does not exist?
People believe Jesus Christ. That is why they are Christians.

Now, why would a reasonable person disbelieve Jesus Christ concerning matters he personally has no idea about, such as the Supernatural, when Christ claimed to come from God, performed mind-numbing miracles of perfect quality and was never convicted of any sin by the Pharisees that knew him since he was a boy?

It is more reasonable to believe than to disbelieve.

You think this sounds like a logical and reasonable argument? This is nothing more than rhetorical apolgistic doublethink. What do you think any of that actually means?

No, it is logical.
And it is based on evidences that I presented, since it is impossible to prove Supernatural in a Natural lab, since there are no "tools" to do so.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[NASAg03]

Creationism is one idea that tries to answer all the questions of origins with positing a deity. Evolutionary Theory answers the question of origins of species specifically. This causes a large asymmetry between Creationism and ToE, as one tries to argue parts the other theory doesn't even elaborate on. I think that this is the reason why the misunderstanding of "Evolution = Abiogenesis, Evolution = Big Bang, Evolution = Atheism" continues on today.

Realize the word I am using is "evolutionism", which encompases the whole philosophical standpoint that the universe and life came into existence without any intervention from a creator. ToE is contained within "evolutionism" or "naturalism", along with abiogenesis, the big bang, singularity, etc. I realize the difference between all these processes, and what each one entails, but I know very FEW people that believe in evolution and reject abiogenesis (along with seeding, implantation, and any other theory that avoids the question at hand and shifts the discussion to a different world, literally).

It's because people see Creationism and assume that both theories deal with all the origins, when in fact they do not.

[WIKI]Evolutionism[/WIKI]

Evolutionism does deal with origins. Evolution might not, but it does lead to the arguement of "where did the first form of life come from". There is no distinct break between abiogenesis and evolution, because then you have to take a position on when life begins (self-repication?).

1. They are not mere interpretations of the facts. The fact remains that Creationist "interpretation" is usually misunderstanding the Scientific data or using outright false data. Evolutionary Theory remains the only theory that accounts for the data we see today coherently.

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” - David B. Kitts, "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology

2. We don't need to be alive back then to "see" Evolution occuring. This idea is a misunderstanding of Science needing to observe the data to make conclusion. "Observations" don't require direct perception by the five senses, but applications of other techniques to arrive at observations as well. We can observe homology and ERVs rather than having to see populations evolve in order to know they occured.

Personal bias will color any view of the data, especially data that we didn't observe. You think all the trials in the court system make the correct call based on evidence. Both sides of the argument use the data peices of evidence, and both sides see opposite stories. When a person is on trial, few people know the truth, and it is up to the rest of the people in the jury to weigh the evidence and find the truth.

Just because the evidence is presented in the most logiacl fasion doesn't mean it's correct 100% of the time.

Personal bias colors your view of the facts, plain and simple.

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” - Ronald R. West, “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.”

The problem is that there is only one valid interpretation at the moment and presenting sides that aren't scientific is a violation of science. Also, Scientists and those who understand science state that proving or disproving the Bible's validity (in respect to supernatural claims) or God's existence is outside the realm of Science.

The problem is, public schools are teaching abiogenesis along with evolution. They do this because any discussion of life will involve the question of "where did life come from?" I have no problem with them teaching micro-evolution in school, teaching how a species can adapt to the environment by changing or dropping peices of data. I dont even mind if they show that mutations can change the DNA and cause peices of existing data to be copied.

But I do mind when they start claiming that new information is added to DNA, resulting in beneficial mutations and macroevolution. This has not been seen. Beaks change size, irradiated flies develope extra wings, but that proves nothing.

Anything else is extrapolation of data outside the given evidence and based on personal bias and speculation. In the same manner that I speculate we came from God, abiogenesists speculate we came from a chemical bath. If God has no place in the classroom, then abiogenesis has no place in teh classroom.

Regardless, students are going to ask the question of "where did we come from". If a teacher isn't allowed to answer "from God", then they shouldn't be able to answer "from a pool of chemicals". Again, this goes back to point of origins.

 

[Edial]

One could just as easily say, "Teaching gravitation in high school, and only gravitation, leads to the conclusion that the data we have can only be interpreted one way."

I don't see anyone asking for alternatives to gravity to be taught in school, however.

One "sees" gravity and measures gravity.

One does not see how ameba came to be.

 

[Edial]

So -- would you support the Invisible Pink Unicorn theory of origins taught in schools?

How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

my personal favorite: The universe was created by Iggy the Magic Elf?

Which "interpretations" of the data don't make the cut if we decide that Creationism/ID (kudos for mentioning them slashed; they are, after all, the same thing) is good enough to be considered a "competing" theory?

NO ONE believes in Invisible Pink Unicorns.

BILLIONS of people believe in God.

 

[Edial]

Spoken like someone ignorant of what evolution actually says.

Heck, evolution was used by preachers as evidence for God! Just because you can't seem to understand that evolution can be compatible with theism doesn't mean that no one else can.

Evolution in the context of Darwin states that all came from a single cell organism, ameba.

The Bible says that all came from certain kinds of living beings that were created - animals and man.

Animals further evolved into various types of animals dependant on the environment and other elements - bear, polar bear, Grizzly bear.

Mammals were made to be adaptable.

Since Evolutionism (as per Darwin) cannot cannot see how ameba came to be and to contain all that what is necessary for all other life to develop from it, development from various kinds of animals within it's owm kind, makes more sense, covers the evidences of evolution.

Evolutionism betrayed itself with one mistake.

It wanted to disprove God by removing creation from being created, yet could not account for a creation of an ameba.

Evolution exists within the species.

Evolution does not exist spanning the "kind" of animals.

What nonsense. Creationism is based on rejecting facts.

Creationism does not reject ONE FACT.

Creationism is NOT YEC that many believe represent Creationist Christians.

No, the data that we have leads to the conclusion that evolution is the only way to interpret the data. If you were aware of even a tiny percent of the data supporting evolution, you might understand this.

It points to evolution within a kind of an animal, not the interspecies.

And that fully agrees with a creation account of the Bible that there were "kinds" of animals that were created. The breeds evolved after that.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[RealityCheck]

Evolution in the context of Darwin states that all came from a single cell organism, ameba.

No, this is entirely incorrect. And you cannot find one actual text on evolution that states "everything came from one amoeba."

 

[levi501]

NO ONE believes in Invisible Pink Unicorns.

BILLIONS of people believe in God.

appeal to popularity.

owned.

 

[Edial]

appeal to popularity.

owned.

No.

The poster equated his disbelief in God to that of the Pink Unicorn.

My response was appropriate.

Ed

 

[Edial]

No, this is entirely incorrect. And you cannot find one actual text on evolution that states "everything came from one amoeba."

I was born in the Soviet Union, was am atheist, Darwin "Origin of Species" was a must-read for older kids.

Darwin is the Father of Evolution.

And I pressented evolution as per Darwin.

Thanks,
Ed