MOVED FROM OUTREACH: Scary Evolution O.O

[Edial]

All theists think that, not all of them believe in your god much less your creation story.

I understand that. This is what I am asking.

If you, Edx, believe that there is life outside of what we see and know, why do you say there is no God?

 

[Skaloop]

I understand that. This is what I am asking.

If you, Edx, believe that there is life outside of what we see and know, why do you say there is no God?

Not to speak for anyone, but I would say that there is no God because life anywhere else in the universe arose just as it did on Earth; spontaneously.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, why do many Christians attack Evolution like its a plague?

Hello Ead --- nice to meet you!

I'd like to share with you a footnote from my study Bible:

God finally answers Job, but He does so with about seventy-seven rhetorical questions, not one of which has anything to do with the sufferings of Job, or the sufferings of anyone else. Evidently the purpose of the book of Job, in spite of the opinions of most commentators, is not to answer the question as to why righteous people suffer.
...
Instead, His questions all have to do with His great creation, and man's responsibility thereto. That, evidently, is God's great concern. He is rebuking Job (and all men, indirectly), not for sinning or for lack of faith, but for his inability to answer His questions about the creation.

An improper interpretation of God's Creation can lead to junk theology.

 

[Edial]

But which Creation story from these billions of God believers should we teach? I assume you only want yours taught.

No.
I am not saying "Teach Christianity in public schools".

I am saying that if evolution is taught in science classes, since it uses science to support herself regardless of how legitimate these evidences might be, creationism should also be taught in perhabs Literature or History classes, yet not as myth, since there are miracles of Jesus Christ and his direct statements.

And since Dictionaries throughout the world present that he was a real historical figure, and since we use the dictionary definitions as reliable references in schools, this presents a real possibility that what Christ said is true.

Christianity should not be taught as an exclusive religion, since it's place is in Church.

Yet existance of God is another matter - the Supernatural that is evidenced by miracles of Jesus Christ, evidenced by Judaic literature, and all of the literature of humanity should not be discarded, since we freely admit the possibility of higher and unknown life that we regularly search for hoping to discover while teaching this hope in schools as a real possibility.

To teach Supernatural as myth defeats our own methodology of teaching, which presents that there is life outside of what we see, know, understand and control.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Yes it is a quote mine, and poorly attributed, it is apparently from a 1968 paper called Paleoecology and Uniformitarianism.

[[SIZE=-1]The part Wallace quoted is in [/SIZE]black[SIZE=-1], parts omitted or discrepant are [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]in [/SIZE]red]
"Boundary conditions are the limits within which the theory is applicable. Thus there does not seem to be any compartmentalization of attitudes as Scott suggests; evolutionary theory deals with biology in the present, and uniformitarianism permits the use of present processes to explain past events. The concept of uniformitarianism does not enter the picture until the attempt is made to use evolutionary theory (biological present) to explain the fossils record (paleobiological past). 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. When an effort is made to explain the fossil record (whether it be taxonomic differences or changes in response to ecological factors) in terms of Darwinian evolution the concept of uniformitarianism is essential, for it allows us to use the present to explain the past. This should be its main purpose, to allow us to reconstruct the past on the basis of a theory or theories founded on nonhistoric events." [Ronald R. West, "Paleoecology and Uniformitarianism", The Compass of Sigma Gamma Epsilon, Vol. 45, No. 4, May 1968, p. 216]

source

 

[Edial]

Why would someone allow themselves to be caught out with such a bare faced lie?

You are either very angry or very delusional

The bit I highlighted being the easily disprovalble lie.

It is laughable that someone thinks they can post that Darwin suggested that all life evolved from amoeba, which aren't even prokaryotes, on a board stuffed with scientists.

Where did life come from, as per Darwin?

 

[Skaloop]

And since Dictionaries throughout the world present that he was a real historical figure, and since we use the dictionary definitions as reliable references in schools, this presents a real possibility that what Christ said is true.

Please provide one legitimate dictionary definition of Jesus that specifically describes him as a real historical figure who performed the miracles attributed him.

Yet existance of God is another matter - the Supernatural that is evidenced by miracles of Jesus Christ,

Which miracles, and how have they been documented? You've mentioned previously that the Pharisees documented some miracles; where are their accounts found?

To teach Supernatural as myth defeats our own methodology of teaching, which presents that there is life outside of what we see, know, understand and control.

That's the methodology of religious teachings. I was never specifically taught, in a public school setting, that there is necessarily anything outside of what we see, et al. Now, even if that were to be taught, what specific teachings can be offered beyond "there may or may not be life outside what we see, know, understand, and control?" What information relating to that assertion should be presented?

 

[Baggins]

Where did life come from, as per Darwin?

other life.

The origin of Species makes no claims about how life began. The theory of Evolution explains the diversity of life but has a presupposition of life already existing.

As has been explained by others, you are trying to conflate two theories ( or an hypothesis and a theory ) one being Abiogenesis and the other Evolution.

These are both fascinating subjects and even if you have trouble with them for theological reasons it would be a good idea to learn what they both state so that you don't start your objections from a point of ignorance that can be easily dismantled.

 

[Psudopod]

Where did life come from, as per Darwin?

What dawin thought is largely irrelvent. Darwin died a 150 years ago, theree's plendy of things we have discovered since then. A better question is where did life come from according to science?

 

[Pats]

No.
And since Dictionaries throughout the world present that he was a real historical figure, and since we use the dictionary definitions as reliable references in schools, this presents a real possibility that what Christ said is true.

I am a Christian who believes that Christ's words were true. But I have to tell you, this is the worst "logic" I have ever heard in my life.

First of all, dictionaries may state facts that are believed to be true, but they themselves are not evidence.

Secondly, Charles Manson is a real person, does that make what he says true? Proof that Christ existed is not evidence for the validity of his claims.

Christains need to be much more careful than this with their appologetics.

 

[Pats]

An improper interpretation of God's Creation can lead to junk theology.

How true that is.

 

[Pats]

I say - a comparison of something that NO ONE believes in (Pink Unicorns) with that to God, in whom BILLIONS believe in, disqualifies your suggestion not due to fallcious argument on my part, but to that that you have NO argument, since "NO ONE" as compared to "BILLIONS" is not a popularity advantage, since there is NO ONE that believes in Pink Unicorns in order to challenge.

So, wich God should we inject into science class?

First off, literature and phillosephy classess do include teachings that have to do with religion and/or possibility of God. That is where talk of God should begin and end in school. I am fully prepared to teach my children anything else about God, I'd thank the public school system to hold all opinions.

Because while countless people do believe in God, wich God do you want taught in school? Allah? Budah? Dharma? Yaweh? Zeuss?

School can and should inform children about poetic referances to God/s, cultural beliefs, literary referances, etc. School should not present any religious view as a truth to children. I'd rather keep the government out of my religious practices. I'll be happy to keep them as seperate as possible.

 

[levi501]

No.

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

My response was appropriate.

If by appropriate you mean falacious in logic... then I agree.

 

[Edx]

No.
I am not saying "Teach Christianity in public schools".

I am saying that if evolution is taught in science classes, since it uses science to support herself regardless of how legitimate these evidences might be, creationism should also be taught in perhabs Literature or History classes, yet not as myth, since there are miracles of Jesus Christ and his direct statements.

If you teach it in Literature or History classes you have to also teach other world religions otherwise you ARE teaching Christianity. Lots people really believe their particular religion to be true, yet you want all their religious beliefs taught as myth yet yours to be treated as historial fact. Thats the problem with this plan.

And since Dictionaries throughout the world present that he was a real historical figure, and since we use the dictionary definitions as reliable references in schools, this presents a real possibility that what Christ said is true.

Oh wow a dictionary? I refer you to a fellow Christian, Pats, who also sees how ridiculous this logic is. Since evolution is in the dictionary I guess that means evolution is correct by default. Oops. see how bad that logic is? I wouldnt be surprised if you didnt.

And btw, who cares if Jesus was a historial figure? I even told you I thought he was. Recently Ive seen evidence uncovered that shows some of places talked about in Greek myths to be real places. But even if there were real people and places doesnt mean the mythology and legends associated with them are true.

Yet existance of God is another matter - the Supernatural that is evidenced by miracles of Jesus Christ, evidenced by Judaic literature, and all of the literature of humanity should not be discarded, since we freely admit the possibility of higher and unknown life that we regularly search for hoping to discover while teaching this hope in schools as a real possibility.

It should be discussed in philosophy class or religion studies classes, not in science classes.

To teach Supernatural as myth defeats our own methodology of teaching, which presents that there is life outside of what we see, know, understand and control.

The supernatural isnt science, yet Creationists think science should be able to incorporate such things. You yourself said you can prove the supernatural in a natural lab. Well, how would you do that?

Ed

 

[Edx]

Are they? Would you mind giving an example of a lesson plan that shows Abiogenesis on the schedule? No? Uhum, exactly as I thought. I have NEVER heard of any public school teaching about Abiogenesis.

Actually this is pretty much the only thing he has said that is actually somewhat correct. Some text books do confuse abiogenesis with evolution. The reason is usually because in school science books they are just a brief introduction to the topics, if you went to degree level texts I really doubt it would be the same story.

 

[Edial]

other life.

The origin of Species makes no claims about how life began. The theory of Evolution explains the diversity of life but has a presupposition of life already existing.

As has been explained by others, you are trying to conflate two theories ( or an hypothesis and a theory ) one being Abiogenesis and the other Evolution.

These are both fascinating subjects and even if you have trouble with them for theological reasons it would be a good idea to learn what they both state so that you don't start your objections from a point of ignorance that can be easily dismantled.

Man did not come from ameba, as per Darwin's theory?

This world into which Darwin led us is certainly very different from the world of the higher superstition. In the world of Darwin man has no special status other than his definition as a distinct species of animal. He is in the fullest sense a part of nature and not apart from it. He is akin, not figuratively but literally, to every living thing, be it an ameba, a tapeworm, a flea, a seaweed, an oak tree, or a monkey—even though the degrees of relationship are different and we may feel less empathy for forty-second cousins like the tapeworms than for, comparatively speaking, brothers like the monkeys. This is togetherness and brotherhood with a vengeance, beyond the wildest dreams of copy writers or of theologians.

http://sciphilos.info/doc%20PAGES%20/docSimpsonDarwin.html

Ed

 

[OdwinOddball]

Man did not come from ameba, as per Darwin's theory?

This world into which Darwin led us is certainly very different from the world of the higher superstition. In the world of Darwin man has no special status other than his definition as a distinct species of animal. He is in the fullest sense a part of nature and not apart from it. He is akin, not figuratively but literally, to every living thing, be it an ameba, a tapeworm, a flea, a seaweed, an oak tree, or a monkey—even though the degrees of relationship are different and we may feel less empathy for forty-second cousins like the tapeworms than for, comparatively speaking, brothers like the monkeys. This is togetherness and brotherhood with a vengeance, beyond the wildest dreams of copy writers or of theologians.

http://sciphilos.info/doc%20PAGES%20/docSimpsonDarwin.html

Ed

No we did not, and this passage does not say that we did.

It says that we are related to(kin=related), not that they are out ancestors.

We are related to every other organism past present and future which lives on this planet.

Evolution is a tree, not a ladder.

 

[Edial]

But one can certainly see and measure Evolution.

One can see certain changes indeed.

But one cannot maximize these changes to mean that ameba is one of our distant cousins.

There is NO REASON for that, outside of having a certain backup agenda.

The Bible flatly states that animals were created according to their kinds - it eliminates a possibility that man's cousin is ameba.

The Bible does not reject that animals evolve within itself. They do breed. Polar bears, "regular" bears.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[OdwinOddball]

The Bible flatly states that animals were created according to their kinds - it eliminates a possibility that man's cousin is ameba.

By making this statement you disqualfy yourself from being able to state anything as a scientific conclusion about this subject. You are making an a-priori assumption based on a 2000+ year old book that conflicts with the evidence in the world around us. You are making the same statement that AIG makes, a statment that is not compatable with any search for knowledge.

 

[Edial]

No we did not, and this passage does not say that we did.

It says that we are related to(kin=related), not that they are out ancestors.

We are related to every other organism past present and future which lives on this planet.

Evolution is a tree, not a ladder.

So, this statement means what?

forty-second cousins like the tapeworms than for, comparatively speaking, brothers like the monkeys.

A tree or a ladder?