Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
398 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, DrJones*, Faith, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Tangle, Theodoric (9 members, 389 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,694 Year: 21,730/19,786 Month: 293/1,834 Week: 293/315 Day: 49/77 Hour: 3/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 1323 (574115)
08-14-2010 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by bluescat48
08-14-2010 1:14 AM


Reproduction is micro-evolution

no it is not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by bluescat48, posted 08-14-2010 1:14 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Theodoric, posted 08-14-2010 1:47 PM archaeologist has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6877
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 107 of 1323 (574182)
08-14-2010 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by archaeologist
08-14-2010 3:40 AM


Gee a justification for you statement might be nice.

I mean if you can of course.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by archaeologist, posted 08-14-2010 3:40 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by archaeologist, posted 08-15-2010 12:44 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 1323 (574258)
08-15-2010 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Theodoric
08-14-2010 1:47 PM


to say reproduction is micro-evolution is over generalizing an nonexistent process. all you have done is taken the reality of life and slapped a secualr science label over it and made the definition of the label fit what you want it to cover.

you also ignore the fact that how God designed genes to operate will allow for some change but that is due to the combination not a process. i know that you all call evolution in any form- change but that is incorrect and is just a blanket definition to get around things you cannot explain.

if the process of evolution were true, there would be no need for reproductive systems and the process would not know to carry on till it got reproductive organs, it would not know how to design them, and why make the women's vaginal canal so small so that she feels pain--are you going to tell a pregnant woman that she feels pain because she hasn't fully evolved?---good luck with that one.

the details of life are too complicated to be left to a process that has no morals, no creativity, no knowledge, no thinking, no feeling, no strength, no guidance... etc.

then to say these things came out of nothing, like life or the universe, well that that is more of a fairy tale than God, who has morals, creativity, knowledge, thinking, feelings, strength, guidance...etc. creating everything from His power.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Theodoric, posted 08-14-2010 1:47 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by bluescat48, posted 08-15-2010 10:34 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 110 by Kapyong, posted 08-15-2010 4:33 PM archaeologist has responded
 Message 950 by evolutionfacts, posted 05-08-2017 1:50 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2524 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 109 of 1323 (574313)
08-15-2010 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by archaeologist
08-15-2010 12:44 AM


if the process of evolution were true, there would be no need for reproductive systems and the process would not know to carry on till it got reproductive organs, it would not know how to design them, and why make the women's vaginal canal so small so that she feels pain--are you going to tell a pregnant woman that she feels pain because she hasn't fully evolved?---good luck with that one.

I can fully see your problem now. You think that we on the evolution side think that evolution has design and direction. That is the problem it doesn't. That is what natural selection is. the best genes procede the lessor do not. There is no direction and no goal involved. What's more many altering show a total lack of design.
Check out http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?control=msg&t=14695 for this.


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 108 by archaeologist, posted 08-15-2010 12:44 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 1777 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 110 of 1323 (574394)
08-15-2010 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by archaeologist
08-15-2010 12:44 AM


Gday,

archeologist writes:

to say reproduction is micro-evolution is over generalizing an nonexistent process.

Pardon?
Micro-evolution is directly observed, every day.
Uni 101 students do micro-evolution in a petri-dish.

archeologist writes:

all you have done is taken the reality of life and slapped a secualr science label over it and made the definition of the label fit what you want it to cover.

Pardon?
Science has observed and explained evolution.

archeologist writes:

if the process of evolution were true, there would be no need for reproductive systems

Why not?
Please explain in detail.

archeologist writes:

and the process would not know to carry on till it got reproductive organs,

There is NO "knowing" in the process at all.

archeologist writes:

it would not know how to design them,

There was NO knowing, there was NO design.

archeologist writes:

and why make the women's vaginal canal so small so that she feels pain

Because evolution has nothing to do with being perfect, or reaching any goal - it's just whatever is good enough.

What is YOUR explanation?
That God made it that way to cause pain deliberately?
That God bungled?
What, exactly?

archeologist writes:

--are you going to tell a pregnant woman that she feels pain because she hasn't fully evolved?---good luck with that one.

So, are YOU going to tell a pregnant woman that she feels pain because God's designs are incompetent ?---good luck with that one.

Kap


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by archaeologist, posted 08-15-2010 12:44 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by archaeologist, posted 08-16-2010 5:54 AM Kapyong has not yet responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 1323 (574474)
08-16-2010 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Kapyong
08-15-2010 4:33 PM


this will be my final post in the science forum as the response demands an answer. from now on find me in the non-science forums and discuss with me there:

Pardon?
Micro-evolution is directly observed, every day.
Uni 101 students do micro-evolution in a petri-dish.

no, such actions are attributed to micro-evolution, and there is no way to prove that process even exists, let alone responsibl;e for the changes that take place.

Science has observed and explained evolution.

no it hasn't. it has assumed, attribted, extrapolated, speculated, conjectured but it has never observed or explained evolution.

Why not?
Please explain in detail.

if life started on its own, it certainly did not need an invisible process to alter its mechanism of producing life and make it the same as the Biblical way. have you ever noticed how close the evolutionary theory has changed to be more like th eBible--that is because if it didn't, people would stop believing in the theory.

There is NO "knowing" in the process at all.

and you want to trust something that doesn't know anything yet guides life to all these creative varities? why would you follow something that didn't know anything and provided nothing? no security or hope in that.

There was NO knowing, there was NO design.

so you put your faith in nothing then. not smart.

That God made it that way to cause pain deliberately?

no,it was a curse from God because of eve's sin. we have a reasonable and legitimate answer that explains it all plus shows that women do not get away from being punished in God's kingdom whenthey commit sin.

that tells us that God is fair, just and will discipline whereas with the theory of evolution, you have no answer, no reason, no justice, no discipline, and so on. i willtake the Bible over evolution any day.

are YOU going to tell a pregnant woman that she feels pain because God's designs are incompetent ?---good luck with that one.

God did not design it that way, He changed it to be that way because eve sinned. it is a good leson for women to learn , that if they sin, they cannot bat their eyes, lower their blouse to show cleavage, hike a skirt and be allowed to skate punishement with God and it makes men feel better for they know that womenwill be punished like they are when they sin. kind of keeps the relationships on an even keel, don't you think?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Kapyong, posted 08-15-2010 4:33 PM Kapyong has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Coyote, posted 08-16-2010 10:09 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 113 by misha, posted 08-17-2010 11:11 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 115 by Coragyps, posted 08-22-2010 7:59 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 08-22-2010 8:44 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 117 by anglagard, posted 08-23-2010 2:30 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 441 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 112 of 1323 (574516)
08-16-2010 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by archaeologist
08-16-2010 5:54 AM


...don't you think?

What I think, after reading this amazing post, is that you should seek professional help.

You appear to have lost all touch with reality.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by archaeologist, posted 08-16-2010 5:54 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
misha
Member (Idle past 2962 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


(2)
Message 113 of 1323 (574704)
08-17-2010 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by archaeologist
08-16-2010 5:54 AM


no,it was a curse from God because of eve's sin. we have a reasonable and legitimate answer that explains it all plus shows that women do not get away from being punished in God's kingdom whenthey commit sin.

But all the other placental mammals feel pain during childbirth as well. Its not a human thing. Its a mammal thing. Have you ever seen a dog give birth. Its definitely painful for the dog. They don't just lay down and have the puppies crawl out. Did God curse the dogs, cats, bears and whales along with Eve?

I'm not sure if there is pain in laying eggs for oviparous animals like birds and reptiles. But i'd imagine that there is some pain from pushing out an egg. Did God curse the robins, hawks and crocodiles as well?

if life started on its own, it certainly did not need an invisible process to alter its mechanism of producing life and make it the same as the Biblical way. have you ever noticed how close the evolutionary theory has changed to be more like th eBible--that is because if it didn't, people would stop believing in the theory.

The Theory of Evolution has NOT changed to become more like the Bible. I've read Darwin and I've read the Bible (countless times). I've also read many recent papers and books on the Theory of Evolution as it stands currently. There is no significant trend of the Theory of Evolution toward Biblical congruency. The Theory of Evolution has changed toward better explanations of life as we see it through scientific inquiry. Thats what a theory does. Thats what Gravitational, Atomic, Nuclear, Evolutionary and Relativity Theories ALL do. They change to better explain the natural universe. If they didn't do THIS then people would stop believing them as we have with many previous theories like Aether, Cold Fusion and Geocentricism.

Please stop telling people you are a Christian. You're ruining it for many of us.

Or maybe you should read some St. Augustine.

St. Augustine of Hippo writes:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are

Pay attention because while many scientists are laughing at your error many Christians are pained by the hubris your error has developed in you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by archaeologist, posted 08-16-2010 5:54 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
evolutionfacts
Junior Member (Idle past 851 days)
Posts: 12
From: Long Beach, CA
Joined: 08-22-2010


Message 114 of 1323 (576094)
08-22-2010 7:34 PM


In high school, my Physics teacher tried to give us religious kids (myself included) a chance to debate our creationist views. He quickly backed out on this, probably because the school board thought it would be a bad idea. I am wishing it would have went through with it. I would have understood evolution much earlier in life.

Edited by evolutionfacts, : No reason given.

Edited by evolutionfacts, : No reason given.

Edited by evolutionfacts, : Clarification


  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5410
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 115 of 1323 (576101)
08-22-2010 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by archaeologist
08-16-2010 5:54 AM


He changed it to be that way because eve sinned. it is a good leson for women to learn , that if they sin, they cannot bat their eyes, lower their blouse to show cleavage, hike a skirt and be allowed to skate punishement with God and it makes men feel better for they know that womenwill be punished like they are when they sin. kind of keeps the relationships on an even keel, don't you think?

No, but I think that you are one sick puppy, Arch. 'Course, that whole "original sin" bullshit is pretty sick.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by archaeologist, posted 08-16-2010 5:54 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 116 of 1323 (576109)
08-22-2010 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by archaeologist
08-16-2010 5:54 AM


no, such actions are attributed to micro-evolution, and there is no way to prove that process even exists, let alone responsibl;e for the changes that take place.

Sure there is.

It is to do the experiment, which is constructed in such a way that the experiment has only two outcomes, one of which is possible only under microevolution.

If that's the outcome you get, then the experiment proves the existence of microevolution. It's actually quite simple.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by archaeologist, posted 08-16-2010 5:54 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2203
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 117 of 1323 (576170)
08-23-2010 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by archaeologist
08-16-2010 5:54 AM


Fanatics are Quite Similar
archaeologist writes:

{sic} God did not design it that way, He changed it to be that way because eve sinned. it is a good leson for women to learn , that if they sin, they cannot bat their eyes, lower their blouse to show cleavage, hike a skirt and be allowed to skate punishement with God and it makes men feel better for they know that womenwill be punished like they are when they sin. kind of keeps the relationships on an even keel, don't you think?

Taliban


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by archaeologist, posted 08-16-2010 5:54 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Nij, posted 08-23-2010 2:46 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 3224 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 118 of 1323 (576171)
08-23-2010 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by anglagard
08-23-2010 2:30 AM


Yes, they are.
Hang on: women are punished for a woman's sin by having all of these silly specific rules assigned to them, and some stupid addition of enormous pain during childbirth.
But men receive absolutely nothing despite the man doing exactly the same thing as the woman did?
Yeah, that's almost a perfectly balanced relationship, isn't it? Well, except for stuff like the complete imbalance.

Further evidence that


  1. the story was written by or for a patriarchal society,
  2. that this god is not worth spitting on, let alone believing in, and/or
  3. that it's pure nonsense.

Edited by Nij, : Playing nice for now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by anglagard, posted 08-23-2010 2:30 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Tempo
Junior Member (Idle past 3279 days)
Posts: 2
From: United States
Joined: 08-24-2010


Message 119 of 1323 (577190)
08-27-2010 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by extent
05-04-2010 7:22 PM


Religion, or more particularly, creationism, should not be taught in schools. This is because there are too many variations of creationism, since there are so many different religions. None of these are supported by observed evidence or data.

Evolution is backed up with biological data and the fossil record, but even more importantly, evolution is a theory that effectively demonstrates the scientific method. For these reasons, it should be taught in schools.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by extent, posted 05-04-2010 7:22 PM extent has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 1184 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


(1)
Message 120 of 1323 (577376)
08-28-2010 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 4:51 AM


"Why are you even here?"
Why are you even here?

to present you with the truth so that you are without excuse come judgement day.

Yes, the division between the sheep and the goats will be based not upon one's treatment of his fellow man, but rather it will be based upon whether or not one is capable of suspending reason and accepting a clearly contradicted interpretation of the most obscure part of an ancient text.

And who is it bearing this message?

Someone who is self-sent because of misreading a commission given to somebody 2000 years ago and imagining that it really was intended to apply to an individual yet to be born 2000 years hence..

OK, I'm convinced, where's my kool aid?..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 4:51 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019