Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2017 5:35 AM
467 online now:
frako, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, vimesey (5 members, 462 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Happy Birthday: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,961 Year: 6,567/21,208 Month: 2,328/2,634 Week: 516/572 Day: 2/61 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1920212223
24
Author Topic:   Key points of Evolution
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15472
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 346 of 356 (502862)
03-13-2009 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by alaninnont
03-13-2009 4:34 PM


Re: Getting back to the original topic...
By including these in the same category you are saying that there is a significant controversy over these ideas and that alternative explanations exist.

No, that is not what I am saying. That is why I didn't say anything remotely like that in any way.

I thought that my point was quite simple. The absence of "creator based evolution" from high-school curricula does not make evolution "atheistic" any more than the absence of a "creator based periodic table" from high-school curricula makes chemistry "atheistic".

---

I don't see how the existence of "significant controversy" changes that. If you think it does, here's some questions for you.

If some religious cult were to arise in the future that objected to the periodic table on religious grounds, would it as a consequence become "atheistic"?

Some people still object to Copernicanism on religious grounds. Is that "atheistic"? How about the proposition that the Earth is not flat? There are still some hold-outs, again on religious grounds --- so is it "atheistic"? And if so, will the round Earth stop being an "atheistic" concept with the death of the last Flat-Earther?

If that "controversy" isn't "significant" enough to make the round Earth an "atheistic" concept, then the question arises: how many religious kooks does it take to make a scientific concept "atheistic"?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by alaninnont, posted 03-13-2009 4:34 PM alaninnont has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by alaninnont, posted 03-14-2009 4:04 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 2832 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 347 of 356 (502899)
03-13-2009 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by platypus
12-11-2006 2:41 AM


Reply to First Post
quote:
[renumbered]
1) One Family Tree unites all of life and
2) Species change through time and place

Of these two points of evolution, Dr. Roughgarden makes two claims.

3) These two ideas must be taught in every science curriculum.
4) Neither of these ideas are directly in conflict with the Bible.

I tend to agree with this sentiment. Any objectors?


1. God man man in his own image, so man is unique. Point number one undermines this truth from the bible.
2. No species changes outside the genetic and viral programs that God designed. The genetic program is variable by design.
3. We don't want evolutionists dictating to us. That's why we homeschool our kids. We don't want our taxes spent on evolutionary research either. That's just a recipie for enslavement to a totalitarian elite and newspeak. Long live the empire! Learn what you want, teach what you want, but don't involve us or our hard earned money.

4. They most certainly contradict the bible. The bible charges parents with the responsibiltiy of teaching God's commandments to children. That means the Sabbath, which is the sign that God created the world in six days.

5. What ought to be taught is biblical chronology as in "torah" and "times", because the who difference between evolutionists and creations boils down to "time". Biblical chronology stands on its own, without contradiction, and is self verifying (like with prophecies that come true on time). It demonstrates the sheer nonsense of the evolutionary philosophy.


Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by platypus, posted 12-11-2006 2:41 AM platypus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by bluescat48, posted 03-13-2009 11:56 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1539 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 348 of 356 (502903)
03-13-2009 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by Daniel4140
03-13-2009 11:20 PM


Re: Reply to First Post
1. God man man in his own image, so man is unique. Point number one undermines this truth from the bible.

Biggest ego trip. Man made God in his image. The bible is at best alligorical, at worst mythology.

That's just a recipie for enslavement to a totalitarian elite and newspeak.

That is what occurred under the Bush Whitehouse, with is faith based inititives and disregard to the Constitution.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Daniel4140, posted 03-13-2009 11:20 PM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2786 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 349 of 356 (502970)
03-14-2009 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Dr Adequate
03-13-2009 6:56 PM


Re: Getting back to the original topic...
I thought that my point was quite simple. The absence of "creator based evolution" from high-school curricula does not make evolution "atheistic" any more than the absence of a "creator based periodic table" from high-school curricula makes chemistry "atheistic".

You missed my point. You are right. Evolution is not atheistic. There are some who believe that evolution happened with the aid of a creator and some who believe that it happened without. As far as I am aware, the evolution that is taught in school is without, atheistic evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-13-2009 6:56 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-14-2009 4:14 PM alaninnont has not yet responded
 Message 351 by Taq, posted 03-14-2009 8:59 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15472
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 350 of 356 (502971)
03-14-2009 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by alaninnont
03-14-2009 4:04 PM


Re: Getting back to the original topic...
You missed my point. You are right. Evolution is not atheistic. There are some who believe that evolution happened with the aid of a creator and some who believe that it happened without. As far as I am aware, the evolution that is taught in school is without, atheistic evolution.

And there are some who believe that carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid without divine intervention. And they are called chemists.

Is this atheistic chemistry?

If it is atheistic to ascribe natural effects to natural causes, then the whole of science is atheistic, by the very nature of the enterprise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by alaninnont, posted 03-14-2009 4:04 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 351 of 356 (502981)
03-14-2009 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by alaninnont
03-14-2009 4:04 PM


Re: Getting back to the original topic...
You missed my point. You are right. Evolution is not atheistic. There are some who believe that evolution happened with the aid of a creator and some who believe that it happened without. As far as I am aware, the evolution that is taught in school is without, atheistic evolution.

You would be wrong. God is never mentioned, nor is God ruled out of the process. As you state, the role or non-role of God in evolution is a belief, not a finding of science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by alaninnont, posted 03-14-2009 4:04 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 12:34 AM Taq has not yet responded

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 2832 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 352 of 356 (502988)
03-15-2009 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by Taq
03-14-2009 8:59 PM


Re: Getting back to the original topic...
Divine intervention is scientific. Science means "knowledge", so if we reasonably find that God intervented, then it is scientific. QED.


Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology
This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Taq, posted 03-14-2009 8:59 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Theodoric, posted 03-15-2009 2:20 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded
 Message 354 by Coragyps, posted 03-15-2009 6:22 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded
 Message 355 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2009 8:00 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5700
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 353 of 356 (502990)
03-15-2009 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 12:34 AM


Re: Getting back to the original topic...
Divine intervention is scientific.

So which definition is the same as supernatural intervention.

Science
because I think I missed it.

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 12:34 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5266
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 354 of 356 (502997)
03-15-2009 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 12:34 AM


Re: Getting back to the original topic...
Science means "knowledge",

An etymology is not a definition, Daniel. "Testify" means to swear an oath upon one's testicles - but they even let women be witnesses in court these days. And besides, for "divine intervention" to exist, the divine would need to exist. I haven't seen it yet.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 12:34 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15472
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 355 of 356 (503002)
03-15-2009 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 12:34 AM


Re: Getting back to the original topic...
Divine intervention is scientific. Science means "knowledge", so if we reasonably find that God intervented, then it is scientific.

And since we don't, it isn't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 12:34 AM Daniel4140 has not yet responded

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 885
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 356 of 356 (503005)
03-15-2009 8:23 AM


Closure
Since the topic has drifted and we are way overdue. I'm closing this one down.
  
RewPrev1
...
1920212223
24
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017