Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
70 online now:
PaulK, Stile_Guest (1 member, 1 guest login, 68 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,219 Year: 4,331/6,534 Month: 545/900 Week: 69/182 Day: 3/38 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 19 of 2058 (573358)
08-11-2010 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by archaeologist
08-10-2010 11:21 PM


Hello archaeologist and welcome to EvC! (are you really an archaeologist by the way?)

archaeologist writes:

we are right but secularists do not want to teach something that tells them they are wrong.


Niether do the vast majority of Christians. This is not about secularism or not, this is about who has the evidence on their side. I'm sorry to tell you, that's not the creationist side.

no. i am not a elitist and scientists do not have a monopoly on origins. scientists are not the final authority and do not provide any answers instead they are the blind leading the blind.

Really? Nothing useful has ever come out of science? What's that thing you're typing on? Do you think that didn't come about because of science?

predictions mean nothing and are not part of the equation so your comment is moot.

Of course they are. Every scientific theory must make predictions that can be tested, that's the only way to determine if it's accurate or not.

creation doesn't run by secular scientific models thus those criteria do not determine what is true or not and preditions are merely a tool of the blind to deceive the blind.

Again, this is not about secularism.

all you have to do to see that creation is true is visit a human, animal, plant nursery and you have your evidence without predictions.

When I visit a nursery, I see what nice things nature produces. Where's the evidence for a divine creation?

-----

Also, a free tip, use the "peek" button on the borrom right of this post to see how I did those nice little quoteboxes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by archaeologist, posted 08-10-2010 11:21 PM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 8:41 AM Huntard has taken no action

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 21 of 2058 (573383)
08-11-2010 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 8:19 AM


archaeologist writes:

what you miss is, that secular science does not get to make the rules of what is or isn't science...


It most certainly does.

and God does not go by secular science rules or models He goes by His will thus we do not have to predict because creation was a one time supernatural act and secular science is designed to avoid that fact.

Predictions can still be made.

all life goes according to genesis 1.

No it doesn't.

as the hybrid experiments discovered there is no breaking the boundaries God set for reproduction {or any boundary} that alone is proof that evolution did not take place.

No it isn't. It is proof however that you apparently don't know what evolution says. Hint: species incapable of reproducing with one another is exactly what evolution predicts.

the evidence is there, you just choose not to see it.

Plesae stop projecting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 8:19 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 8:48 AM Huntard has taken no action

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 62 of 2058 (573590)
08-12-2010 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 4:51 AM


archaeologist writes:

i did but i never use it as 'evidence' as i heard recently that ken ham and AIG have accepted micro-evolution.


Wait, you're denying even micro-evolution? You do realize we can directly observe micro-evolution, don't you? I don't think you can find a single creationist on this site who will support your contention that micro-evolution doesn't happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 4:51 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 5:24 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 64 of 2058 (573595)
08-12-2010 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 5:24 AM


archaeologist writes:

you do realize that micro-evolution does not exist, right?


Oh no, it does exist, very much so, just ask any creationist on this site.

what is observed is not evolution or any form of that theory/process but the results of God's genetic design at work under the influence of the sin and corruption that entered the world at adam's sin.

It's a result of mutations, so, yes, it is the result of evolution.

BUT getting back to topic, i made the comment that neither evolution nor creation should be taught in the science classroom and my reasoning behind thatis that origins is not a legitimate scientific interest.

You might be pleased to know then that evolution isn't about origins.

it is a theological/religious issue and science has intruded in on the discussion via disgruntled men like darwin and wallace.

SUre.... if origins is indeed supernatural, then science can never find out how it happened anyway, so what's your problem here? Oh, and who gets to determine what is or isn't science? You?

the source of origins comes from the Bible alone as science has no history or roots in that topic.

Sure it has. Also, you're wrong, it's in the sacred Hindu writings, which are older than the bible.

you may say it comes from the ancient 'stories' from the secular civilizations but guess where they got it from--noah and his sons and their wives.

No they didn't, they got it from Vishnu.

the bible did not have to be in existence to be the first to tell the story. which means that for all nations to have a flood or creation tale Babel and the disporia that took place there is really true. there is no other reasonable explanation for that fact.

Well, how nice of Vishnu to share that all with us, then.

remember what sherlock holmes said, via his author, and i paraphrase, ...take away all the extra and what is left, no matter how impossible, how improable (and so on) is the truth. evolution does not fit the bill.

Since evolution takes away the god part, it fits the bill more than your god does.

so i will stand with my earlier comments and say both creation and the theory of evolution should not be taught in the science classroom and those teachers can teach real science. creation is a one time supernatural act and evolution never existed thus neither belong in that room.

If it was a supernatural act science can't learn anything about it anyway, evolution has nothing to do with origins, and you don;t get to decide what was or wasn't a supernatural event.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 5:24 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 8:28 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 67 of 2058 (573646)
08-12-2010 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 8:28 AM


archaeologist writes:

if they believe that i doubt they are creationists.


The "no true scotsman" fallacy?

Gem 1:30 said that the universe and the earth were complete in all their vast array which elimiates even micro-evolution from existence and participation in life.

Well, seems Gen 1:30 is wrong then.

no. you attribute the wrong thing.

No! You do! Hey, assertion is easy.

ven though evolutionists have altered there theory and now say that evolution simply means change...

It was never altered in that regard, it has always been about change.

the example i gave here is not evolution in action, in any form.

Yes it is.

for species do not change just the individual whose genes were more affected than someone else's.

So? And species do change.

there is no evolution at work at any time.

Of course there is, all the time in fact.

yes i already know about that but 40 years ago it was.

Then why are you saying it is about origins now?

you forget that evolutionists alter the theory when they come to problems they cannot solve.

They change it to match the evidence, yes, that's how science works. It wants to be accurate, you see.

still doesn't allow science to teach evolution for they cannot produce the evidence that proves the process exists nor can the reproduce the exact conditions evolution came in contact with life and started 'altering' it.

Evolution is not a thing that "came into contact" with life. Evolution happens because the copying process of DNA is imperfect, and because certain environments require certain things to better survive in them. Please try to at least get what evolution is right.

i am sure you wish so you could attack me on my definitions.

I can, you got the definition of evolution completely wrong, for one.

science as it is designed right now cannot accomplish that and it doesn't need to for we already know how it was done.

What? Define what it is? Of course it can, just like baseball gets to define what it is.

all evolutionists are doing is wasting time and money that could be better spent helping people get fresh water, healthier drugs (no side affects) and so many other good things.

You do realize that evolution is very important to the drug developping companies, yes? The influenza shots for example could not be made as effective as they are now without the ToE.

not really as noah came before the hindus and their writings as did adam and others.

No he didn't. Vishnu was earliest anyway, and he made everything, so there!

the rest of your post is not germane so i will let those comments pass. and speaking of chronology, if one is honest thenthey will see that God preceeds all writings and passed His words onto adam who passed them on to his childrenand so on.

Vishnu sure did!

whenmen decided to break from God thenthe stories were altered so they could be 'fee' from the correct words and live as they please.

They are loyal to Vishnu, you just hate him and don't want to believe in him! That's why you changed everything to escape from Vishnu's truth!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 8:28 AM archaeologist has taken no action

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 98 of 2058 (573915)
08-13-2010 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 5:06 AM


archaeologist writes:

if science disagrees with the Bible then science is wrong.


Here, let me fix that for you: "When science disagrees with the bible, the bible is wrong".

Or would you like us to believe that the earth has corners, that bats are birds or that the earth can stop spinning and this doesn't destroy everything on it, among other things?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 5:06 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 6:02 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1531 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 100 of 2058 (573933)
08-13-2010 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 6:02 AM


archaeologist writes:

the bible never teaches that the earth has corners


Sure it does, Isaiah 11:12:
quote:
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

where does it say the earth stopped spinning?

Well, Joshua 10:13 says this:
quote:
The sun stood still, and the moon stayed, Until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies. Isn't this written in the book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of the sky, and didn't hurry to go down about a whole day.

If the sun didn't move, the earth must have stopped spinning. Or do you think the sun goes around the earth, like this also seems to indicate?

you will need to provide chapter and verse to show the actual teaching of those ideas.

I just did. Remember, you said the bible is right and science is wrong, meaning you will have to accept the fact that the earth has corners, and bats are birds.

very funny, well a little funny but not correct.

No, it is correct.

science is a fallible field, prone to the sin and corruption that entered the world at adam's sin and run by men under the same curse and deals with limited an dmanipulated data, deceived thinking and much more.

So is the bible, being written by fallible men.

it would not be wise to listen to science when those same men could care less about you and were not present when the world was created.

Well, no one was, so I fail to see the relevance.

it is impossible for secular science to determine what happened 2,000 years ago let alone last week so they cannot say what took place when the universe originated.

Of course it is, just like it is possible to know what happened when a murder victim is found, and the police investigate. Are you telling me we shoul d let all the murderers go, afterall, according to you, we can;t be sure about events in the past.

especially when they leave God out of the picture.

Would you care to lay down a method that includes god when doing science. When I drop something, how do I put god into my observation of the dropping item? When I see someone get sic because of germs, how do I observe god in those germs?

in all of the experiments conducted , post those with links that have actual observation of the actual event.

Guess we should let those murderers go, how many observation of "the actual event" of the murder are there?

hypothesis and modern day experiments do not cut it for the conditions are different and their conclusions would be off.

Evidence the conditions were different?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 6:02 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by archaeologist, posted 08-14-2010 12:25 AM Huntard has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022