What do I do?

[Ark Guy]

notto....just what planet are you from?

Anti-God Evolution is force fed to us.

 

[notto]

notto....just what planet are you from?

Anti-God Evolution is force fed to us.

So, have you read Origin of a Species yet? What parts of it are anti-God? Are the parts where Darwin discusses the Creator the anti-God parts or where he discussess the gloriousness of the Creators creation?

Why should evolution (biology) be approached any differently than any other subject in school which is approached by teaching the most widely accepted, peer reviewed, and supported theories and evidence.

If this is what you mean by 'force fed', then I guess all of science is 'force fed' to us. Strange definition of force fed though. Not sure what you think school and education should do if not to 'force feed' us the best information available at the time.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Ark Guy, your hostility and anger speak more then your sentances. You seem to be afraid of something. A scientific theory? Maybe not. More likely the idea that your world view could possibly be incorrect. IF you were so confident, then why such a nasty reaction to any challengers?

ANd when you say "true beleivers" I assume that you mean only christians who would agree with your literal interpretation of Genesis. I agree, a poll of many christians on the evolution question would be helpfull. BUt I am concerned that you would automatically call any christians who accept evolution as not being true believers.

 

[Ark Guy]

What part is anti-God?

Well the part that says God what not required...duh.

Or can you show me a public school text book that says God was behind the formation of the universe, formation of the planet, abiogenesis and the director behind the making of man from primitive life.

Now if you can't, then hush up.

It is a known fact that evolution is anti-God and shoved down our throats.

 

[notto]

What part is anti-God?

Well the part that says God what not required...duh.

Or can you show me a public school text book that says God was behind the formation of the universe, formation of the planet, abiogenesis and the director behind the making of man from primitive life.

Now if you can't, then hush up.

It is a known fact that evolution is anti-God and shoved down our throats.

Darwin didn't think that God was not required or that evolutionary theory states this.. I don't think that God was not required or that evolutionary theory states this. That would seem to falsify your statement that it is anti-God.

It is comments like yours that can damage the faith of people like the opening poster as they learn what evolutionary theory really is and what good science is. If you keep telling them that to accept evolution is to reject God, then you will most likely leave them only one intellectually honest way to go - they will reject God.


Can you show us a text book that says that God is not required? Can you show me a public school text book that says God was NOT behind the formation of the universe, the formation of the planet, abiogenesis and the director behind making of man from primitive life?

Now, if you can't, then hush up.

The theory of evolution describes what is, not what should be and not any spiritual connection, causation by a deity, etc.

Is the theory of planetary motion 'shoved down our throats' because the textbooks don't say that God is pushing the planets along and created them all?

Again, why should biology be any different than any other subject which simply teaches the best scientific theories and explainations for observed phenomena?

Should we be teaching that God is responsible for each hurricane and lighting bolt as well? If we don't, does that mean that meteorology is being 'shoved down our throats'?

You should read Darwin. He obviously did not think that evolution was anti-God. There are many scientists and Christians who do not think it is anti-God or that it dictates that God is not required. It is simply one of dozens of scientific theories that describe the creation and how the creation operates.

 

[Ark Guy]

I don't really care what Darwin thinks.

I care what evolution says, and how they say it. Currently evolution says there is no need for a God and this view is shoved down our throats.

Let me ask you this, do you believe in Intelligent design ? Behe style? or are you in the camp of the other 99% of evolutionist who argue against Behe claiming God had no part in evolution?

 

[notto]

I don't really care what Darwin thinks.

I care what evolution says, and how they say it. Currently evolution says there is no need for a God and this view is shoved down our throats.

Let me ask you this, do you believe in Intelligent design ? Behe style? or are you in the camp of the other 99% of evolutionist who argue against Behe claiming God had no part in evolution?

Where does eovlution currently say there is no need for a God? Please be specific?

I don't accept Inteligent Design as a scientific model because it lacks any substantial predictive power or repeatability in experimentation (you can't put God in a test tube).

Can you show us where your 99% figure comes from? I wasn't aware that the criticism against Behe was arguing that God had no part in evolution. I certainly haven't seen that criticism. I believe the arguents against ID from a scientific perspective are because it is poor science and does nothing to further scientific discovery because again, you can't put God in a test tube.

Do you have a reference that suggests that the criticisms of ID coming from scientists are based on the belief that God had no part in evolution? Please be specific.

Of course, I'm not sure why you ask because you would of course still have the same opinion of me regardless of if I am a theo/evo or an old earth ID proponent. Am I right in this assumption?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Ark Guy, I have asked you on a previous thread a couple of months back to show any scientific theory that requires God. And I am asking you again.

Are there any scientific theories of any kind that require God?
And
Just because a scientific theory does not require God, how does that make it anti-God?

There is a scientific theory as to why the sky is blue, it is called Rayleigh Scattering (of light). Now the properties of light are well understood and even employed in everyday technology. SO the theory of Rayleigh Scattering is well supported (it IS still a theory, however). Now, the theory of Rayleigh Scattering does not require God in any way shape or form. Does this mean that it is anti-God? Does this mean that it is wrong? Perhaps the color of the sky has nothing to do with scattered light waves, they are not mentioned in the bible, and the theory does not mention God. THerefore, it must be wrong?

 

[Ark Guy]

In the bible God said he did it.

In the science books it says God didn't.

Is this really too much of a concept for you guys to grasp?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Please please please show me a science book - any text book - that specifically says God didn't do it (whether is it evolution or geology or blue sky making or whatever).

There is NO SUCH THING as a scientific theory that says there is no God.

 

[thekawasakikid]

1+1 = 2

Spelling

Punctuation

These are also 'force-fed' in school.

In high school biology (at the same age as the OP), I too was introduced to evolution. I had four years of biology, then I went to university and had another three of zoology. As my earlier post stated/implied, I fought against what I was being taught with what I believed and it gave me no end of difficulties in my classes and I believe led to poorer performance and disillusionment... to some extent. I left the course early, still vehemently believing in conservative creationism (or should that be creationISM? haha).

That was 9 years ago. A few years ago I guess, my views have softened and I think I am tending to a theistic evolution outlook... so from my own personal experience, I have been able to debunk the idea that the teaching of a THEORY causes belivers to lose their faith at the time they are taught the THEORY.

If anything, it's the frenzied paranoia of the creationist position which teaches that evolution is anti-God - in the same way it incorrectly quotes common ancestry as man coming from monkeys...

 

[ALL4J3SUS]

Well, I have decided that I will no longer study zoology, instead I actually want to study theology or maybe go to a Bible College. I do believe that evolution is anti-God. True science and the Word of God go together hand in hand.

Hitler once said that "If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough, people will begin to believe it." Isn't that true for evolution? You can't believe in God and accept evolution at the same time. Why would the God of the universe use something like evolution to create us? I am not a case of chance, I am fearfully and wonderfully made in God's image and likeness.

 

[Dracil]

Actually, I think Hitler's quote applies to Creationism. I mean, we see it here all the time, about how evolution's supposed to be incompatible with the Bible. If you tell a lie long enough...

But you're right about the part that true science and God's Word go hand in hand. Hence, Theistic Evolution, not Creationism.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Well, I have decided that I will no longer study zoology, instead I actually want to study theology or maybe go to a Bible College. I do believe that evolution is anti-God.

Really? And why is that? Where does the theory of evolution say God doesn't exist?

True science and the Word of God go together hand in hand.

They are concerned with completely different fields. If "true science" were to support a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 (it doesn't), then it would falsify Genesis 2.

Hitler once said that "If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough, people will begin to believe it." Isn't that true for evolution?

Nope. It's true of your statements that evolution is anti-God, and you can't accept both, though.

You can't believe in God and accept evolution at the same time.

Utter nonsense. I do. Therefore you are wrong, or I couldn't exist. I do.

Why would the God of the universe use something like evolution to create us? I am not a case of chance, I am fearfully and wonderfully made in God's image and likeness.

Is your image of God too small? Why can't God bring about His designs through processes that are partially reliant on chance from a scientific frame of reference?

 

[ALL4J3SUS]

Edited by RazorX

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Karl I think u should just change that coss on your status, cuz ur no Christian.

OK. Choice is yours.

Read Rule 1

Retract or I report your post.

 

[lucaspa]

Karl I think u should just change that coss on your status, cuz ur no Christian.

Pure ad hominem. You didn't address any of Karl's points, just attacked his Christianity. You didn't even show how Karl was not Christian. What part of the Nicean Creed -- how being Christian is defined for this forum -- does Karl's statements go against?

 

[Sinai]

Most educated Christians accept evolution and still manage to stay Christians. They believe Genesis is supposed to be interpreted as a non-literal theological message telling us about God and our relationship with Him, it is not supposed to be interpreted as a literal historical event.

It might be noted that the literal text of the creation story in Genesis 1 does not necessarily conflict with mainstream science, either. What conflicts is some folks interpretations based upon English translations....

 

[lucaspa]

It might be noted that the literal text of the creation story in Genesis 1 does not necessarily conflict with mainstream science, either. What conflicts is some folks interpretations based upon English translations....

How do you get around having bats and birds created before mammals and reptiles? How do you get around that solid firmament (in the Hebrew) that is supposed to cover the earth? How do you get around the sun being created after the earth or even after plants?