Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Teacher Fired for Disagreeing With Literal Interpretation of Bible
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 61 of 78 (437356)
11-29-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Beretta
11-29-2007 9:07 AM


Re: The Plot Thickens A Bit
Er, racism and the idea that other groups are inferior was present long, long, long before Darwin came along.
quote:
Yes and the concept of evolution and survival of the fittest propogates it.
So you agree that racism is all throughout the bible, correct?
The ToE has been misused, just as religions have, to promote racism, it is true. The ToE itself, contrary to many religions, is not racist.
Please explain how, "the change in allele frequencies in populations over time" is a racist statement.
The quoted phrase above is a basic definition of evolution.
We see it right there in the Bible, in fact. Plenty of slavery, racism, hatred of women, hatred of gentiles, bloodthirsty genocidal cruelty done in God's name by his chosen people, etc. are in the Bible.
quote:
All very human which is why the ten commandments were given - to show us what we should be doing so that we can see why we need a saviour when we keep screwing up.
Except that the rape, pillage, slavery, genocide, and murder happens before, during, and after the ten commandments are given to Moses, IIRC.
God's a bloodthirsty, cruel tyrant all over the OT, Beretta.
quote:
So God allowed rampant evil to be destroyed, why can't he, he made us.By the way, he's coming back. In the meantime, men kill men because they don't believe God,
Oh? Like in Ireland, The Balkans, and the middle east?
Those Atheistic lands?
The point is, Beretta, Darwin and Evolution didn't usher in a whole new age of genocide, racism, or cruelty. Your Bible and lots of other religions were doing the genocide and murder and slavery things for thousands of years before Darwin.
Why don't you try being honest about the violent and genocidal and cruel history of your own religion instead of blaming everything on a scientific theory.
You might as well blame the 9/11 WTC bombings on the Wright Brothers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2007 9:07 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Beretta, posted 12-02-2007 9:00 AM nator has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 62 of 78 (437969)
12-02-2007 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by nator
11-29-2007 7:20 PM


Re: The Plot Thickens A Bit
Please explain how, "the change in allele frequencies in populations over time" is a racist statement.
The ToE is a philosophy with racist connotations -it is not a fact . If it's not true (which of course I believe) then it is a destructive philosophy in the hands of some.
So you agree that racism is all throughout the bible, correct?
Human cruelty is throughout the Bible, yes.That's because we have free will and choices that we make. The Bible is history as it happened, not necessarily God's will, just a rundown of what happens when we do what we want to do instead of doing things God's way.
Except that the rape, pillage, slavery, genocide, and murder happens before, during, and after the ten commandments are given to Moses
Yes, that's history and it isn't a very nice story in that sense but the truth is not always nice.The people that did what God told them to do were not cruel though. It's like a history lesson of how well we do on our own -the ten commandments is how things should work, not how they did work.
Oh? Like in Ireland, The Balkans, and the middle east?
Religion kills because of people. Christianity is not a faith that advocates killing.I'm sure you must know what it says about loving your neighbour etc. - unfortunately people are the cause of their own misery because once again it doesn't suit them to do what God says -like the stories throughout the Bible.That's why the Bible says repent (turn away from doing it your own way). It's religion that kills because people listen to the pope and the imam and the cult leader instead of listening to what the Bible says is the cure.
There are some religions that advocate killing -like Islam "turn or die" and yes, people kill in the name of their religion but that's not doing what God said to do, so we can't blame it on God if we choose to do what's wrong.
Also in contradiction to evolution, the Bible says that man has been created separate from the animals - we have a spirit that can communicate with God -that's something the animals don't have.
Anyway my point is that believing that you are just an advanced animal and that the Bible is not true allows for relative morality. Everyone chooses their own way -there are no rules; if evolution is true we just have a consensus on what is right and what is wrong and that changes all the time. God doesn't change however and his law is perfect and it's written in our consciences which is something we were given by God so we have the ability to know what's right and what's wrong. Even if we don't listen, we know.
Darwin and Evolution didn't usher in a whole new age of genocide
You're right -it's just a new religion that tells people that what God wrote is not true and we are just animals so we shouldn't feel guilty if we behave like animals. That's not to say that evolutionists are any worse than other religious people -it's just that belief in evolution helps people avoid God and ignore the Truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by nator, posted 11-29-2007 7:20 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Vacate, posted 12-02-2007 10:20 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 64 by Chiroptera, posted 12-02-2007 12:43 PM Beretta has replied
 Message 65 by nator, posted 12-02-2007 4:53 PM Beretta has not replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 63 of 78 (437976)
12-02-2007 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Beretta
12-02-2007 9:00 AM


Re: The Plot Thickens A Bit
You're right -it's just a new religion
Lets assume this is true.
Haven't you killed your own position?
it is a destructive philosophy in the hands of some.
So some people will use an idea to support their cruel ideals.
Religion kills because of people.
So even though evolution says nothing about racism or violence or genocide; some people will twist this religion because thats what some people do.
Yes, that's history and it isn't a very nice story in that sense but the truth is not always nice
Exactly.
That's not to say that evolutionists are any worse than other religious people -it's just that belief in evolution helps people avoid God and ignore the Truth.
Much like all the other religions that have used them as an excuse for violence. When someone ignores the actual message, "the change in allele frequencies in populations over time", and reads "asians are superior to whites", they are simply idiots. There is no racist connotations in evolution:
just a rundown of what happens when we do what we want to do
Thanks for the support, we can all agree now that idiots in a population do not define the population. Correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Beretta, posted 12-02-2007 9:00 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 78 (437993)
12-02-2007 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Beretta
12-02-2007 9:00 AM


This is off-topic, but....
The ToE is a philosophy with racist connotations....
Actually, it's not. The theory of evolution is a description of a phenomenon, nothing more. The theory of evolution is simply the statement of the facts that in a natural population some individuals produce many offspring, some produce few offspring, and some produce none at all; in a natural population, this difference in reproduction is because of variations in the physical characteristics; these physical variations are inherited; so in the next generation, more individuals will have the physical characteristics associated with the production of more offspring, and fewer individuals will have the physical characteristics that produce fewer offspring; over time, the population will eventually consist solely of individuals with the characteristics that produce many offspring, and no individual will have the characteristics that produce few offspring; and that new variations appear. Furthermore, the theory of evolution states that that the many species that we know derived from a single ancestral population several billion years ago through this process of differential reproduction due to inherited physical characteristics.
See? The theory of evolution is simply a description of a phenomenon. There is nothing in this description that labels some actions as "good" or other actions as "bad", nor does it imply any sort of ideology or philosophy.
This is much like Newton's theory of gravity is simply a description of a phenomenon. It does not imply that people should live in low valleys and avoid hilltops; it does not state that flying in airplanes or living in tall buildings is wrong. It simply describes how objects will fall to the ground; it does not imply that humans should leap off of cliffs because that is the "natural thing to do".
-
Religion kills because of people.
Exactly. People will be racists and will commit acts that we think are morally wrong. They will then justify their beliefs with the explanatory framework that is available to them. In present day North America, white supremists are Christians. They found justification for their racism with their interpretation of the Bible. In the early 20th century, eugenicists were more scientifically minded. They justified their racist views with their interpretations of biology.
-
...so we can't blame it on God if we choose to do what's wrong.
Nor can we "blame it on evolution" when we do wrong.
-
if evolution is true we just have a consensus on what is right and what is wrong and that changes all the time.
That is what happens anyway. Most religious societies are simply the result of a consensus of what's right and wrong.
-
God doesn't change however and his law is perfect....
Which is an opinion that seems to be confined to those followers of God, and hence isn't an unbiased opinion.
-
God doesn't change however and his law is perfect and it's written in our consciences which is something we were given by God so we have the ability to know what's right and what's wrong. Even if we don't listen, we know.
Okay. So I know that abortion is right; preventing a woman from terminating her pregnancy is wrong. I know this. Is this because God wrote this in my conscience?
-
...-it's just a new religion that tells people that what God wrote is not true....
Actually, it is a reasonable and logical explanation of the physical evidence that we see around us, evidence that is so overwhelming that one can only refuse to accept it by perversely sticking to one's religious beliefs. The data simply show that the events recorded in the first two chapters of Genesis (as well as the chapters describing a global flood) did not happen. If God did indeed write Genesis, then, yes, I'm afraid that what God wrote is not true.
I can see how you would be troubled with the idea that God might write something that is not true; I'll leave it to you how to deal with it. I will suggest, though, that simply dismissing the overwhelming abundance of evidence that supports the theory of evolution isn't a particularly rational way of dealing with this, and it's possible that this sort of emotional avoidance of issues that you find unpleasant might be harmful in other situations. But that's your call.
Edited by Chiroptera, : typo
Edited by Chiroptera, : Fixed a parody of a quote to use the same word.

Progress in human affairs has come mainly through the bold readiness of human beings not to confine themselves to seeking piecemeal improvements in the way things are done, but to present fundamental challenges in the name of reason to the current way of doing things and to the avowed or hidden assumptions on which it rests. -- E. H. Carr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Beretta, posted 12-02-2007 9:00 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Beretta, posted 12-03-2007 9:43 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 65 of 78 (438062)
12-02-2007 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Beretta
12-02-2007 9:00 AM


Re: The Plot Thickens A Bit
quote:
The ToE is a philosophy with racist connotations
The ToE is not a "philosophy", it is a scientific theory of Biology.
I am sorry, but you haven't answered the question.
Please explain how, "the change in allele frequencies in populations over time" is a racist statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Beretta, posted 12-02-2007 9:00 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 66 of 78 (438181)
12-03-2007 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Chiroptera
12-02-2007 12:43 PM


Re: This is off-topic, but....
The theory of evolution is a description of a phenomenon, nothing more
The phenomenon is described relying on micromutational change. Macromutational change is believed to have occurred not because it has been observed but because it has been extrapolated from the micromutational evidence. Micromutation is provable, macromutation is inferred.Apart from that, macromutation is not at all well supported by the evidence.
As Gould stated -
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1.Stasis -they appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear;morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed."
In short, the outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution.Yet, it is 'believed' despite the lack of evidence.
As a result of this lack of evidence, Gould and Eldredge proposed a new theory to deal with that fact -punctuated equilibrium.
Punctuated equilibrium achieves its purpose by making the process of change inherently invisible.
the theory of evolution states that that the many species that we know derived from a single ancestral population several billion years ago through this process of differential reproduction due to inherited physical characteristics.
but the evidence fails for the most part to support this contention.
There is nothing in this description that labels some actions as "good" or other actions as "bad", nor does it imply any sort of ideology or philosophy.
That's true but nonetheless the theory allows people to imagine that there is no God in which case who makes the rules? We do and let's face it, we're not good at that as evidenced by the state of this world and its rapidly declining morality.Since the theory is not well supported by the evidence -it is a philosophy.
This is much like Newton's theory of gravity is simply a description of a phenomenon.
Except the theory of gravity is not a philosophy since it is fully supported by the facts. We cannot call it a philosophy by any stretch of the imagination so it belongs in a completely different category.
In present day North America, white supremists are Christians. They found justification for their racism with their interpretation of the Bible.
I agree and that is why so many cults spring up all over -they interpret according to what they want to believe, not what the Bible actually says.For example, theistic evolutionists happily interpret 'day' to mean millions of years and fit it into their philosophy. God gave us brains and languages, not to confuse us but so we can be personally responsible for the choices we make. Days has to mean days -otherwise nobody can be held responsible for not choosing the correct philosophy.Even Hebrew scholars, though they might not believe the Bible personally, have stated that the clear implication of the Bible is that the world was created in 6 literal 24-hour days
Nor can we "blame it on evolution" when we do wrong.
But teaching that philosophy as fact without presenting the evidence for creation/ID as an alternative philosophy, leaves people with no choice -they think its fact and that science has proven it and their lives are affected by it.Philosophy affects people.
Most religious societies are simply the result of a consensus of what's right and wrong.
Agreed -taking what they want and leaving out what does not suit them.
God doesn't change however and his law is perfect....
Which is an opinion that seems to be confined to those followers of God, and hence isn't an unbiased opinion.
No less than evolution is an unbiased opinion since it is based on a philosophy.
Okay. So I know that abortion is right; preventing a woman from terminating her pregnancy is wrong. I know this. Is this because God wrote this in my conscience?
No, I really don't think so -society justifies it by opinion -if you think of an unborn baby as a separate life and really give it some thought, I do not think that an unseared conscience can come to that conclusion. I know however that many people believe it. I believed that consensus opinion before I realized that evolution is a philosophy and God is a very real possibility. Now I feel differently. My conscience tells me that I justified that belief by listening to people' opinions on the matter.
evidence that is so overwhelming that one can only refuse to accept it by perversely sticking to one's religious beliefs
Unless the evidence is actually underwhelming at best and the religion that one sticks to is evolution blinding one to other possibilities that actually, in my unbiased opinion make more sense.
The data simply show that the events recorded in the first two chapters of Genesis (as well as the chapters describing a global flood) did not happen
Unless one looks at the fossil lack of evidence for evolution and is not blinded by the uniformatarian assumptions of geology and looks at so many other things like the human brain and the eye and all the things that make gradualism look suspect at best.
If God did indeed write Genesis, then, yes, I'm afraid that what God wrote is not true.
Though we cannot prove Genesis neither can we prove the big bang, abiogenesis and so many other so called 'facts' of evolution -its an alternative philosophy and a closer look at the Bible shows many provable facts of history supported by historical accounts as well as by archeological finds. Not to mention the alignment of nations that currently want to annihilate Israel exactly as foretold in many chapters of the Bible where the end times are mentioned.
All the nations prophesied as attempting to wipe Israel out are Muslim nations and these things were written centuries before Mohammed started the Muslim religion.An alliance primarily of Russia and Iran with many other Muslim nations taking part with one main intention is happening right before our eyes.They will try to annihilate Israel -of that I have no doubt.Who could have known these things but One who is outside of time and can see the beginning as well as the end?
and it's possible that this sort of emotional avoidance of issues that you find unpleasant might be harmful
Is there any possibility that the emotional avoidance may be just what evolution is all about. It did replace creation and people theorized about an old earth long before radiometric dating with all its inherent assumptions conveniently came to the fore and apparently proved what had already been decided by men that clearly hated the Bible. I'm not speaking of Darwin -in that sense he wasn't such a good Darwinist himself, he had some serious reservations about his own theory while others ran with it and built on it.
As a last thought on the matter, everyone on this site calls for evidence for ID and seem very opposed to evidence against evolution being held as evidence for creation but it is precisely the evidence against evolution that most strongly points toward creation and it is that evidence that leaves evolution open to serious question.
-
-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Chiroptera, posted 12-02-2007 12:43 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by JB1740, posted 12-03-2007 10:07 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 70 by AdminNosy, posted 12-03-2007 10:13 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 71 by Chiroptera, posted 12-03-2007 10:26 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 73 by Rahvin, posted 12-03-2007 11:19 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 78 by Chiroptera, posted 12-04-2007 3:26 PM Beretta has not replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 67 of 78 (438188)
12-03-2007 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Beretta
12-03-2007 9:43 AM


Re: This is off-topic, but....
Beretta wrote (about ToE):
But teaching that philosophy as fact without presenting the evidence for creation/ID as an alternative philosophy, leaves people with no choice
1. I'm ignoring my issues with your assertion here that ToE is a philosophy (dealt with elsewhere).
2. To teach ToE as a fact is wrong, I agree. This is because ToE is not a fact. ToE serves to explain facts (observations with error). If teachers teach ToE as a fact they aren't doing their students a service, but that is because they (the teachers) apparently don't understand how science works, NOT because of any supposed problems with ToE.
3. If we're going to teach alternative creation myths with ToE (also ignoring here that abiogenesis and ToE are different), WHICH creation myth do we teach (I'm a pretty big fan of the Hopi one myself)? How much time do we have to give each one? We could spend less time on the Lakota one and the Maori one than those put forth in the Abrahamic faiths because they are less detailed, but if we did so isn't that tacitly implying greater trust in one of the Abrahamic ones?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Beretta, posted 12-03-2007 9:43 AM Beretta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by jar, posted 12-03-2007 10:10 AM JB1740 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 68 of 78 (438189)
12-03-2007 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by JB1740
12-03-2007 10:07 AM


Re: This is off-topic, but....
You would think that the name "Theory of Evolution" might have been a clue.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by JB1740, posted 12-03-2007 10:07 AM JB1740 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by JB1740, posted 12-03-2007 10:12 AM jar has not replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 69 of 78 (438191)
12-03-2007 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by jar
12-03-2007 10:10 AM


Re: This is off-topic, but....
You would think that the name "Theory of Evolution" might have been a clue.
Sigh...one might logically think that...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by jar, posted 12-03-2007 10:10 AM jar has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 70 of 78 (438192)
12-03-2007 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Beretta
12-03-2007 9:43 AM


Off Topic and in need of support
{qsbut the evidence fails for the most part to support this contention.[/qs]
You have been asked before. Now you are being told.
This is both OFF TOPIC and in need of support.
Since all those who actually study the biology involved accept that 99.999 % of the evidence available does in fact support the contention it is now up to you to open a thread and start working your way through the evidence to show how it does not support it.
Your next off topic post or assertion like this without support will result in one of a number of suspensions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Beretta, posted 12-03-2007 9:43 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 78 (438196)
12-03-2007 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Beretta
12-03-2007 9:43 AM


Continuing this off-topic digression.
(Content hidden -- I just saw Ned's warning.)
I will unhide this part, since I think it is relevant:
...a closer look at the Bible shows many provable facts of history supported by historical accounts as well as by archeological finds. Not to mention the alignment of nations that currently want to annihilate Israel exactly as foretold in many chapters of the Bible where the end times are mentioned.
Wow! You really can't stick to a topic, can you? You can't even stick to the topic of your own digressions.
Have you ever considered that this inability to focus on a given topic for any length of time is a sign that maybe your somewhat confused about the topic and issues?
Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.
Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.
Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Edited the last sentence to try to make it sound less insulting. But maybe it still is, I dunno.

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Beretta, posted 12-03-2007 9:43 AM Beretta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by AdminNosy, posted 12-03-2007 10:45 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 72 of 78 (438200)
12-03-2007 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Chiroptera
12-03-2007 10:26 AM


Re: Continuing this off-topic digression.
Thank you Chiro. I came here, based on your topic title to give you a short suspension.
Why don't you help even more by actually stating a topic for Beretta?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Chiroptera, posted 12-03-2007 10:26 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 73 of 78 (438204)
12-03-2007 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Beretta
12-03-2007 9:43 AM


Re: This is off-topic, but....
The phenomenon is described relying on micromutational change. Macromutational change is believed to have occurred not because it has been observed but because it has been extrapolated from the micromutational evidence. Micromutation is provable, macromutation is inferred.Apart from that, macromutation is not at all well supported by the evidence.
Explain the difference between "micromutational change" and "macromutational change." These are made-up terms that don't appear anywhere in a scientific description of the Theory of Evolution - they are made up by Creationists who want to pretend that small changes can't possibly add up to large ones after multiple iterations. What mechanism do you propose that prevents small generational differences from resulting in a descendant that is vastly different from its distant ancestor? It's like you're claiming that if a person starts walking in the correct direction from Washington, DC they won't eventually wind up in New York. Small steps add up to large distances.
As Gould stated -
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1.Stasis -they appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear;morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed."
Right, but Gould is a discredited idiot. What he's essentially saying is that he wants to see all of the steps between points A and F. We have steps A, C, D, and F. The fossilization process means that fossils are extremely rare in comparison to original population sizes (out of a hundred thousand individual organisms, you may only find one fossil, or even fewer), and so we don't expect to see every single permutation.
Also, he keeps moving the goalposts. For example, Archaeopteryx is a perfect example of a transitional species between birds and reptilian dinosaurs. When presented with this extremely strong evidence, morons like Gould demand that scientists show him every single generational change between a reptilian ancestor and Archaeopteryx. It's an impossible demand, and doesn't even come close to falsifying evolution.
In short, the outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution.Yet, it is 'believed' despite the lack of evidence.
Blatantly false. Every single fossil ever found has supported exactly what Evolution predicts: every feature of every species should not be wholly unique. Rather, all features should be modified versions of the same feature found in other species. This is borne out by every fossil ever found, as well as every currently living species.
but the evidence fails for the most part to support this contention.
No, it doesn't. Rather, the entire body of the evidence supports the contention that all life on this planet descended from a common ancestor. There are no unique features on this planet. All features of every organism existing or that we have evidence of having existed in the past are modified versions of the same feature in other species.
That's true but nonetheless the theory allows people to imagine that there is no God in which case who makes the rules? We do and let's face it, we're not good at that as evidenced by the state of this world and its rapidly declining morality.Since the theory is not well supported by the evidence -it is a philosophy.
What rules? Morality? Humans do, obviously. As we always have. Even when your supposed deity gave instructions, humans continued to define morality on their own. You say the world is declining morally? I say we've come a long way in fighting against racism and slavery, in treating women fairly, in the treatment of the ill (physically and mentally), and tolerance of homosexuality and other sexual differences. If you'd really like to go back to a more "moral" time as defined in religious texts, feel free to ship out to Pakistan and join up with the remnants of the Taliban.
Evolution, once again, has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy. Evolution is in no way the same as "social Darwinism." Evolution is a model describing an observed phenomenon. No conclusions can be taken from Evolution as to human behavior, any more than the Theory of Gravity can tell you how to treat your fellow man.
Except the theory of gravity is not a philosophy since it is fully supported by the facts. We cannot call it a philosophy by any stretch of the imagination so it belongs in a completely different category.
"Philosophy" does not mean "an idea unsupported by facts." Please consult your dictionary.
I agree and that is why so many cults spring up all over -they interpret according to what they want to believe, not what the Bible actually says.For example, theistic evolutionists happily interpret 'day' to mean millions of years and fit it into their philosophy. God gave us brains and languages, not to confuse us but so we can be personally responsible for the choices we make. Days has to mean days -otherwise nobody can be held responsible for not choosing the correct philosophy.Even Hebrew scholars, though they might not believe the Bible personally, have stated that the clear implication of the Bible is that the world was created in 6 literal 24-hour days
The Bible says a great many things that, taken literally, are completely false. Like 6-day Creationism. There is literally zero evidence supporting that position except for a collection of old books written to preserve an oral tradition of stories made up by pre-historic humanity. Primitive nomads like the early Hebrews could certainly be forgiven for thinking the Sun orbits the Earth - but they were still wrong.
But teaching that philosophy as fact without presenting the evidence for creation/ID as an alternative philosophy, leaves people with no choice -they think its fact and that science has proven it and their lives are affected by it.Philosophy affects people.
Creationism and ID are not the only competing ideas. Science, as it is taught in classrooms, consists of the general consensus of the scientific community. The most accurate model for the observed changes in allele frequency over generations, including the apparent relationships of all species currently extant and every fossil dug from the ground, is the modern Theory of Evolution. This model has been supported by countless experiments, and its predictions are used in laboratories literally every day without being falsified.
Flying Spaghetti Monster Creationism is a competing idea. It says that Flying Spaghetti Monster created the entire universe, with all of our memories intact, etc, last Thursday, beginning with a midget on a hill.
One of these belongs in a science classroom. The other does not. Guess which category Christian Creationism belongs in? How about ID?
Philosophy may affect people. Scientific Theories are not intended to affect people's relationships with each other. If some moron decides that the Theory of Gravity means that obese people, with their stronger personal gravitational fields, are somehow "better" than smaller individuals, this is hardly the fault of the Theory of Gravity, and it certainly doesn't make the Theory any less accurate. It just means some people are idiots.
No, I really don't think so -society justifies it by opinion -if you think of an unborn baby as a separate life and really give it some thought, I do not think that an unseared conscience can come to that conclusion. I know however that many people believe it. I believed that consensus opinion before I realized that evolution is a philosophy and God is a very real possibility. Now I feel differently. My conscience tells me that I justified that belief by listening to people' opinions on the matter.
Quite to the contrary - the more I think on the matter, the more I realize that a fetus is not yet a full human being, and it is in effect a parasite living in the body of a fully developed human being. The fetus' right to exist is overridden by the woman's right to control her own body. Nobody has the right to force a woman to go through a pregnancy and childbirth, or to force her to continue to host a parasite in her body that she wants removed.
Even if the parasite will, in 9 months, grow to become a human being.
Unless the evidence is actually underwhelming at best and the religion that one sticks to is evolution blinding one to other possibilities that actually, in my unbiased opinion make more sense.
Evolution is a scientific Theory, not a religion. The evidence for its accuracy is so "underwhelming" that it's predictions have been borne out throughout the fossil record, as well as in countless laboratory experiments. Nearly all of modern Biology is based on Evolution, right down to modern medicines, antibiotics, and scores of other real-world solid verifications. If the Theory of Evolution was not an accurate model describing the observed allele changes over generations, none of these would exist.
Your opinion is hardly unbiased. You're ignoring volumes of evidence in support of a very old superstition. The correct word, I think, is "delusional."
quote:
de·lu·sion /dlu’n/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-loo-zhuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
  —"Dictionary.com"
Unless one looks at the fossil lack of evidence for evolution and is not blinded by the uniformatarian assumptions of geology and looks at so many other things like the human brain and the eye and all the things that make gradualism look suspect at best.
Gradualism is an observed fact. We can see, for example, the yearly depositing of layers of sediment on lakebeds. Care to provide a mechanism by which millions of these identical layers could have been created in some other way, and then magically started to be an annual event as we currently observe, all while maintaining an identical pattern?
The eye is one of the best proofs of evolution. It has evolved, completely separately, on at least three separate occasions I can think of off the top of my head. We have examples of every step, from basic light-sensitive cells, right up to the fully-formed eye, present in existing species and the fossil record. See the Wiki article for a basic rundown.
Though we cannot prove Genesis neither can we prove the big bang, abiogenesis and so many other so called 'facts' of evolution -its an alternative philosophy and a closer look at the Bible shows many provable facts of history supported by historical accounts as well as by archeological finds. Not to mention the alignment of nations that currently want to annihilate Israel exactly as foretold in many chapters of the Bible where the end times are mentioned.
All the nations prophesied as attempting to wipe Israel out are Muslim nations and these things were written centuries before Mohammed started the Muslim religion.An alliance primarily of Russia and Iran with many other Muslim nations taking part with one main intention is happening right before our eyes.They will try to annihilate Israel -of that I have no doubt.Who could have known these things but One who is outside of time and can see the beginning as well as the end?
Evolution says absolutely nothing at all regarding cosmic origins or abiogenesis. Evolution describes only the change in allele frequency over generations in already-existing life. Abiogenesis is a completely different Theory and, while it has been making stunning progress itself, even if Abiogenesis is false, Evolution would not be falsified. The Big Bang Theory of cosmic origins is similarly a strong Theory, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Evolution.
Your Biblical prophesies have been made many times in the past, and have thus far failed every time.
Is there any possibility that the emotional avoidance may be just what evolution is all about. It did replace creation and people theorized about an old earth long before radiometric dating with all its inherent assumptions conveniently came to the fore and apparently proved what had already been decided by men that clearly hated the Bible. I'm not speaking of Darwin -in that sense he wasn't such a good Darwinist himself, he had some serious reservations about his own theory while others ran with it and built on it.
No. That's foolish. The Old Earth Theories were verified when radiometric dating confirmed their predictions. That's the nature of the scientific method. Step 1: observe. Step 2: hypothesize. Step 3: make a prediction based on the hypothesis. Step 4: test the prediction. If the prediction holds true, the hypothesis carries the weight of at least some evidence. If the prediction is false, the hypothesis must be revised or discarded.
Hating the Bible is irrelevant, whether it's true or false - evidence is unbiased. Of course Darwin had reservations of his new Theory - he lacked the ability to test it much further than his own observations with birds. But the predictions of his Theory have since been confirmed by later finds in the fossil record and advances in Biology and experimental capabilities. And the whole of the field of genetics with the direct observation of allele frequency changes over generations adds a mountain of support in way Darwin could never have even imagined.
As a last thought on the matter, everyone on this site calls for evidence for ID and seem very opposed to evidence against evolution being held as evidence for creation but it is precisely the evidence against evolution that most strongly points toward creation and it is that evidence that leaves evolution open to serious question.
If I prove that your eyes are not blue, does that mean they are green? This is the black/white fallacy - it's not an either/or choice. If Evolution is falsified, it means that the Evolutionary model for observed changed is traits over generations is false. That doesn't suddenly mean Biblical Creation is true. Creation, ID, and all of their silly cousins need their own evidence to back them up. Proving "A" wrong doesn't mean "B" has to be right, either.
Edited by Rahvin, : Goddammit, I just saw Nosy's post. Sorry, early-morning reflex posting.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Beretta, posted 12-03-2007 9:43 AM Beretta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by JB1740, posted 12-03-2007 11:45 AM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 75 by AdminNosy, posted 12-03-2007 12:55 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 74 of 78 (438207)
12-03-2007 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Rahvin
12-03-2007 11:19 AM


Re: This is off-topic, but....
Right, but Gould is a discredited idiot.
Is he really? That's odd considering how much of his work I had to read in graduate school. He wasn't "right" all the time to be sure (show me one scientist that is), but calling him a discredited idiot is kind of foolish.
What he's essentially saying is that he wants to see all of the steps between points A and F. We have steps A, C, D, and F. The fossilization process means that fossils are extremely rare in comparison to original population sizes (out of a hundred thousand individual organisms, you may only find one fossil, or even fewer), and so we don't expect to see every single permutation.
Actually that isn't really what he said at all. He was looking for ways to explain supposed gaps in the fossil record when the effects of taphonomy are removed.
Also, he keeps moving the goalposts. For example, Archaeopteryx is a perfect example of a transitional species between birds and reptilian dinosaurs.
No. Actually it's not. It is a really nice example of a very basal bird and it is a great example of how evolution works (if you look at it in context), but let's not make it into something it isn't. It is not a perfect example of a transitional species between birds and reptilian dinosaurs (I presume you mean non-avian dinosaurs). You need to look at non-avian taxa to find such an animal because you're already into birds with this one--they exist, but Archaeopteryx isn't one of them.
When presented with this extremely strong evidence, morons like Gould demand that scientists show him every single generational change between a reptilian ancestor and Archaeopteryx. It's an impossible demand, and doesn't even come close to falsifying evolution.
Although your last statement in this paragraph is accurate, I'm pretty sure Gould not once ever demanded that. I'm going to call BS and ask that you provide a reference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Rahvin, posted 12-03-2007 11:19 AM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by AdminNosy, posted 12-03-2007 12:56 PM JB1740 has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 75 of 78 (438218)
12-03-2007 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Rahvin
12-03-2007 11:19 AM


Suspended for 2 hours
You ignored the off topic warning. I know that it was hard to resist but you will get a light warning suspension this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Rahvin, posted 12-03-2007 11:19 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024