Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 91 (8839 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-28-2018 1:05 AM
233 online now:
edge, kbertsche, PaulK (3 members, 230 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Calvin
Post Volume:
Total: 832,641 Year: 7,464/29,783 Month: 1,688/1,708 Week: 91/488 Day: 2/89 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
23NextFF
Author Topic:   What's the problem with teaching ID?
achristian1985
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 337 (547294)
02-17-2010 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JustinC
02-28-2006 6:59 PM


Genesis is an evolutionary account
I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of ignorant, misguided, and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of scientific theories (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system. In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality and Biblical truth; and are a tremendous disservice to God and His interests concerning the human race. Please objectively consider the enclosed information. May it finally put to rest the red herring of an evolution/Genesis conflict. Should you find it to be of value, feel free to disseminate it as far and wide as you wish.

The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.
Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-Creation" argument.
For we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection with them.
Now asah signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.139
To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.
If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. The paramount question, for both "evolutionists" and "Creationists," should be: "Do evolution and Genesis concur?" In other words, is Genesis (particularly Chapters One and Two) an account of the evolutionary process, as we understand it?

There are six specific categories of life formed in the six?day account: 1. Plants in the sea, 2. Vegetation (plants and trees) on the
land, 3. Life (fish) in the sea, 4. Birds over the earth, 5. Life (cattle, etc.) on the earth, 6. Man.
The order of their listing in the six?day account is in the same specific chronological order of appearance determined by scientifically derived (evolutionary) evidence:
O1. Sea-plants: Pre?Cambrian 531 million B.C.
2. Land vegetation: Mid?Silurian 365?380 million B.C.
3. Aquatic life: Devonian 255?316 million B.C.
4. Birds: Jurassic 131 million B.C.
5. Land life: Paleocene Epoch 50?60 million B.C.
6. Man: Late Tertiary Period 1?3 million B.C.

Do you really believe that this is coincidental? How did Moses know the correct order when he wrote Genesis thousands of years ago, long before the rise of the scientific methods that have objectively verified the Genesis account? The mathematical odds against this being coincidental are 720 to 1; in other words, 720 to 1 that this account is divinely inspired, since divine inspiration is the only alternative to coincidence. Truly the Bible is the inspired Word of God!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JustinC, posted 02-28-2006 6:59 PM JustinC has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2012 10:23 AM achristian1985 has not yet responded

  
swensenpower
Junior Member (Idle past 2095 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 05-31-2012


Message 182 of 337 (664341)
05-31-2012 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coragyps
02-28-2006 8:33 PM


If only facts about the origin of life were taught in school the discussion would be extremely brief. The only fact is, no one knows how life began. Why not teach the students in a non bias manor as many major ideas about it as we can. Allow the students to excursive critical thinking skills
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 02-28-2006 8:33 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by subbie, posted 05-31-2012 12:37 PM swensenpower has responded
 Message 185 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-31-2012 12:39 PM swensenpower has responded
 Message 186 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2012 2:55 PM swensenpower has responded
 Message 210 by Chuck77, posted 06-01-2012 7:15 AM swensenpower has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10620
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 183 of 337 (664343)
05-31-2012 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by achristian1985
02-17-2010 11:26 PM


Re: Genesis is an evolutionary account
delete

Edited by NoNukes, : Remove response to ancient article.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by achristian1985, posted 02-17-2010 11:26 PM achristian1985 has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 184 of 337 (664364)
05-31-2012 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by swensenpower
05-31-2012 9:35 AM


Do you have any reason to believe that students are not being taught the facts about how life began?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by swensenpower, posted 05-31-2012 9:35 AM swensenpower has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by swensenpower, posted 05-31-2012 9:33 PM subbie has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16015
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


(4)
Message 185 of 337 (664365)
05-31-2012 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by swensenpower
05-31-2012 9:35 AM


If only facts about the origin of life were taught in school the discussion would be extremely brief.

Er ... it is extremely brief. Have you ever looked at a biology textbook?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by swensenpower, posted 05-31-2012 9:35 AM swensenpower has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by swensenpower, posted 05-31-2012 10:06 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10620
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 186 of 337 (664386)
05-31-2012 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by swensenpower
05-31-2012 9:35 AM


Why not teach the students in a non bias manor as many major ideas about it as we can. Allow the students to excursive critical thinking skills

Because after the brief section in which abiogenesis is discussed, the text is going to spend more time talking about evolution, and it is likely that evolution will be brought up again throughout the course.

Teaching non-scientific claptrap that does not fit with the rest of the course would not be productive. ID which is non-science, and other forms of creationism just don't belong in a science course.

If I were teaching biology I'd be more than happy to spend a few moments pointing out the laughingstock that is ID or giggling about how a jar of peanut butter disproves a-biogenesis, or rofling about how a banana disproves evolution.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by swensenpower, posted 05-31-2012 9:35 AM swensenpower has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by swensenpower, posted 06-01-2012 1:10 AM NoNukes has responded

    
swensenpower
Junior Member (Idle past 2095 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 05-31-2012


Message 187 of 337 (664424)
05-31-2012 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by subbie
05-31-2012 12:37 PM


there are no facts about how life bagan, only speculations. there is no way to conduct proper experiments now becuase there is just not enough information about what things were like on earth when life started.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by subbie, posted 05-31-2012 12:37 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by jar, posted 05-31-2012 9:48 PM swensenpower has responded
 Message 195 by subbie, posted 05-31-2012 11:30 PM swensenpower has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30368
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 188 of 337 (664425)
05-31-2012 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by swensenpower
05-31-2012 9:33 PM


Utter nonsense
Sorry but there is only one model for how life began that has any evidential support whatsoever, and that is that life began through normal, common, chemical reactions.

There is no other model.

There is no evidence of any designer.

There is no evidence of any magician.

There is no evidence of any planner.

The only evidence is of entirely natural chemical reactions.

Sorry but thems the facts.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by swensenpower, posted 05-31-2012 9:33 PM swensenpower has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by swensenpower, posted 05-31-2012 10:34 PM jar has responded

  
swensenpower
Junior Member (Idle past 2095 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 05-31-2012


Message 189 of 337 (664427)
05-31-2012 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Dr Adequate
05-31-2012 12:39 PM


I have, and it is was, short however the text did provide ideas on what the atmosphere was like, what may have been the first cell wall, and what could have been a template for the first rna. even scientist disagree and have different views on all of these subject. all that I am saying is if information and ideas are being covered that are mostly speculation why discriminate. Some of the things we believe now are wrong. have you ever sang the wrong lyrics to a song. If you can be wrong on something as simple as a song imagine what big thing you may have mis-understood. That is why everyone should learn both sides of a discussion with an open mind. What makes any method more important to teach than the other? May be it is personal belief but I honestly don't beleive that any speculation on how life began can be scientific. How can an experiment be conducted when the variables are not even known.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-31-2012 12:39 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-31-2012 10:34 PM swensenpower has not yet responded
 Message 193 by Panda, posted 05-31-2012 10:49 PM swensenpower has not yet responded
 Message 194 by Coyote, posted 05-31-2012 11:07 PM swensenpower has not yet responded
 Message 207 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-01-2012 4:47 AM swensenpower has not yet responded

    
swensenpower
Junior Member (Idle past 2095 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 05-31-2012


Message 190 of 337 (664428)
05-31-2012 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by jar
05-31-2012 9:48 PM


Re: Utter nonsense
What do you mean by normal? what we consider a normal chemical reaction may have been abnormal at that time. nobody knows what percentage of oxigen and carbon were in the atmosphere. nobody knows the percentage nitrogen that was in a noble gas form or if a large amount was bound to other elements. What do you mean by common? Nobody has ever abserved chemical reactions turn into life where previously there was none.
If life began thru un guided chemical reactions it would be anything but normal and common.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by jar, posted 05-31-2012 9:48 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by jar, posted 05-31-2012 10:41 PM swensenpower has responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3638
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 191 of 337 (664429)
05-31-2012 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by swensenpower
05-31-2012 10:06 PM


Abiogenesis speculation
All that I am saying is if information and ideas are being covered that are mostly speculation why discriminate?

My "bolding".

It may well be hazy and highly speculative, but it is the only scientific route to pursue. And science is neither saying or denying that God was involved in abiogenesis. Personally, I say "Who cares how life on Earth originated?"

That is why everyone should learn both sides of a discussion with an open mind.

You are proposing some sort of Godly ID as an alternative? Isn't that equally, if not probably even more speculative? What are the details of the God/ID hypothesis of the origin of life? I say there are none, therefore there is no ID side of the discussion.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by swensenpower, posted 05-31-2012 10:06 PM swensenpower has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30368
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 192 of 337 (664430)
05-31-2012 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by swensenpower
05-31-2012 10:34 PM


Re: Utter nonsense
Normal is the same chemical reactions we see today. Two hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen atom to produce one water molecule.

There are models involving chemical reactions.

There is no other model.

There is no ID model.

There is no Creationist model.

If you can present the model that shows how the claimed designer influenced anything then please do so. Did the designer use duct tape, tie wraps, bubble gum? Did the designer use little waldoes?

Present the evidence for anything other than normal chemical reactions.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by swensenpower, posted 05-31-2012 10:34 PM swensenpower has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by swensenpower, posted 06-01-2012 12:13 AM jar has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1491 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(2)
Message 193 of 337 (664431)
05-31-2012 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by swensenpower
05-31-2012 10:06 PM


swensenpower writes:

all that I am saying is if information and ideas are being covered that are mostly speculation why discriminate.


Because some speculative ideas lack any evidence.
Otherwise, where should we stop?

We could spend the next 100 years teaching someone all the different unevidenced origins of life - 100 different aliens dropping seeds of life; 1000 different gods calling forth life; 10000 different wizards waving their wands.
The number of "what if"s are almost endless.
So, in science, we stick to things we have evidence of.

swensenpower writes:

What makes any method more important to teach than the other?


Evidence.
Always evidence.

swensenpower writes:

May be it is personal belief but I honestly don't beleive that any speculation on how life began can be scientific.


Despite your beliefs, yes - it can be scientific.
Experiments can be done; results can be measured; things can be learned.

swensenpower writes:

How can an experiment be conducted when the variables are not even known.


But some variables are known.
Ultimately, we may never find out the exact way that life originated on Earth, but we can investigate the different ways that life can originate.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by swensenpower, posted 05-31-2012 10:06 PM swensenpower has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 194 of 337 (664432)
05-31-2012 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by swensenpower
05-31-2012 10:06 PM


On being wrong
If you can be wrong on something as simple as a song imagine what big thing you may have mis-understood.

If you can be wrong about something as major as claims of a global flood about 4,350 years ago and an earth <10,000 years old imagine what else you may be wrong about.

That is why everyone should learn both sides of a discussion with an open mind. What makes any method more important to teach than the other?

One has evidence supporting it, while the other has belief, dogma, scripture, revelation and other squishy forms of "knowledge."


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by swensenpower, posted 05-31-2012 10:06 PM swensenpower has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 195 of 337 (664433)
05-31-2012 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by swensenpower
05-31-2012 9:33 PM


there are no facts about how life bagan, only speculations. there is no way to conduct proper experiments now becuase there is just not enough information about what things were like on earth when life started.

Setting aside all of the things about that statement that are wrong, since other people have covered them, do you think it would be possible for you to answer my question? To refresh your recollection, I asked you, "Do you have any reason to believe that students are not being taught the facts about how life began?"

If your answer is yes, please tell us what you think those facts are, referencing the specific books and facts that support your answer if possible.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by swensenpower, posted 05-31-2012 9:33 PM swensenpower has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
23NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018