First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Evolution and Creationism in School
maffoo 
66807 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / England
Offline
Posted 3/8/10

Allhailodin wrote:

A theology class would be fine as an elective, but these idiots want creationism as a mandatory class.


And christianity is nothing more than a bunch of fairy tales, We want facts taught in our schools, not fiction, why would we teach children utter lies ? Wy teach kids about some stupid magical man, who preformed cheap magic tricks, got some retarded followers and then got killed by them. That crap is fine for people to waste time learning about on their own. We have rather low standard test scores, religion will just make those scores lower. Teaching some idiots that the world was created in 7 days is pointless and stupid, all that will do will make our kids stupider and less intelligent as they start to believe in that crap.

A theology class is fine, but not as a mandatory class, as an elective would be cool. But as long as it's not forced onto these morons we have in school now.


Interestingly, in the UK Church of England schools generally do well in the school league tables (to the point where some parents apparently miraculously convert so their children can get into them ) I don't think religion makes people stupid, though stupid people may be attracted to fundamentalist religion, where every question can be answered with "[insert holy text] says this so it must be true!" without any need for critical thought.

Going back to the original topic, I don't think creationism should be "taught" in schools as such, but it deserves a mention, if only so it can be compared with scientific theory and the evidence (or lack thereof) for each idea discussed. This IMO is how science education needs to work, present the ideas and the evidence and let the students make up their own minds.

402 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Gotham
Offline
Posted 3/16/10
I don't think creationism should be in school because all of its arguments and evidence are logical fallacies and lies
1814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/16/10 , edited 3/16/10
To wrench246: Where is your proof that they (all creationist arguments) are fallacies and lies? Please check the information I have given and continue to give. Most of it is from the mouths of evolutionists.

Part 2 of 4 Creationism vs. Evolution: Problems with Evolution

As a reminder -- these are the four tenants of evolutionistic "faith" that I am working with:



Get ready for a long reading!

Can life scientifically come from non-life?

The Origin of Life

The evolutionist will claim that life came from non-life, from matter or dead chemicals.

Evolutionists call this chemical evolution. In the 1800s this was called spontaneous generation. Although they changed the terms, the meaning was exactly the same: life came from non-life through the right mixture of chemicals. Louis Pasteur and others proved that wrong through experimentation.

“Finally in the mid 1800s, Louis Pasteur designed an experiment that disproved the spontaneous generation of microorganisms. From that time on, biogenesis, the idea that living organisms come only from other living organisms, became a cornerstone of biology.” (Glencoe Biology, 2006, pg. 381)

“Biologists have accepted the concept of biogenesis for more than 100 years.” (Glencoe Biology, 2006, pg. 382)

“Historically, the point of view that life comes only from life has been so well established through the facts revealed by experimentation that it is called the Law of Biogenesis.” (Biology: a search for order in complexity, Moore and Slusher, 1984)

Question #1
“Isn’t biogenesis a law of science?”

In spite of this fact, students are taught the contrary: abiogenesis, life comes from non-life.

Question #2
“Is abiogenesis (life from non-life) scientific?” (Has it ever been observed?)

The evolutionist tries to get around this:

“Scientists disagree about the details of the process that led to the origin of life. Most scientists, however, accept that under certain conditions, the basic molecules of life could have formed spontaneously through simple chemistry.” (Holt Biology, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 2006, pg. 256)

How is the rejection of a universally accepted and proven law (the law of biogenesis) scientific? In order for life to come about as the evolutionist says a law of natural science must be disregarded. An “unnatural” reaction must occur – is this not problematic for a supposedly “naturalistic” science?

Question #3
“If chemical evolution isn’t happening today, how do we know it happened in the past?”

In 1953 two scientists by the name of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey performed an experiment in a laboratory for the purpose of trying to create life from chemicals. Under controlled conditions, drawing on years of experience, they designed the experiment to produce the best possible results, yet they only produced two amino acids, which actually bond with tar and are toxic to life. Yet many claimed the experiment proved it could have happened.

Not only did Pasteur prove that life doesn’t form from nutrient chemicals today, but the decades of evolutionists trying (and failing) to reproduce abiogenesis so far supports the contention that abiogenesis could never happen.

The Law of Biogenesis
“There is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell.” (Simpson and Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology, 1965, pg. 144)

Irreducible Complexity
We live in a world full of complexity. The smallest cell is more complex than the most complex machine man has invented, the space shuttle. Yet evolution demands that we go backwards in time to where things were less complex. But almost everything has to be complex or it won’t work.

It has been said that it is more likely that a tornado going through a dump containing all the parts of a Boeing 747 should leave in its wake a completed plane than that through random chance even one single celled organism given all the parts to assemble itself should spontaneously generate. This comparison is often unfairly attacked using such arguments as “you’re using only non-living items assembling more non-living parts” or “life is not made up of machined parts” or “life will find a way.” These arguments are easily dismissed: 1) Consider this: is it not more probable that non-living items would produce more non-living items than that non-living items could produce living creatures? After all even within the sphere of the living an apple tree can only create more apples not any other kind of fruit. 2) DNA is so intricately formed that it is hard to describe it in any other way than that it was “machined” or created for its exact purpose. Everything that we are comes from pre-existing information in our DNA. Where did this information come from? 3) Certainly life may “find a way,” but wouldn’t it be necessary for life to exist in the first place? This still does not answer how life could come from non-life.

More questions for the evolutionist to ponder:
“If scientist could create life in a laboratory, how does that prove that it doesn’t take intelligence to create life?”
“Which evolved first, plants, or the insects that pollinate them?”
“Is the design and irreducible complexity of all living systems really the result of random chance?”
“How can we explain the random development of the human eye, reproductive system, digestive tract, brain, heart, and lungs?”


Quotes and more Arguments:

“All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.” (Urey, Harold C., quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, pg. 4)

“Origin of Species Not addressed in 1859, and is still a mystery in 1998 ... Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remains unknown.” (Alfred G. Fisher, evolutionist Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia 1998, fossil section)

“The idea of life coming from non-life, spontaneous generation, was a popular idea from the time of the Greek philosophers.” (Evolution Exposed, by Roger Patterson, pg. 139)

“In the past the idea that decaying meat produced maggots, mud produced fished, and grain produced mice were reasonable explanations for what people observed occurring in their environment. After all, they saw maggots appear on meat and young mice appear in sacks of grain. Such observations lead people believe in spontaneous generation – the idea that non-living material can produce life.” (Glencoe Biology, 2006, pg. 380)

“As David Kirk correctly stated: By the end of the nineteenth century there was a general agreement that life cannot arise from the nonliving under conditions that now exist upon our planet. The dictum ‘All life from pre-existing life’ became the dogma of modern biology, from which no reasonable man could be expected to dissent ... The experiments that formed the ultimate basis of this law were first carried out by such men as Francesco Redi (1688) and Lazarro Spallanzani (1799) in Italy, Louis Pasteur (1860) in France, Rudolph Virchow (1858) in Germany. It was Virchow who documented that cells do not arise from amorphous matter, but instead come only from pre-existing cells. The Encyclopaedia Britannica states concerning Virchow that “His aphorism ‘omnis cellula e cellula’ (every cell arises from a pre-existing cell) ranks with Pasteur’s ‘omni vivum e vivo’ (every living thing arises from a pre-existing living thing) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology.” (Bert Thompson, The Bible and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Biogenesis, 1973, pg. 35)

If the first cells arose from chemicals without a Creator, how could it have come up with the most efficient container of information imaginable?

“DNA molecules contain the highest known packing density of information. This exceedingly brilliant storage method reaches the limit of the physically impossible.” (Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 1997, pg. 195)

Does not the fact that DNA started out with the perfect solution for getting the greatest amount of information in the smallest space indicate that it had a very exceptional designer?

“If they eventually make a computer as small as a cell with a huge information storage capacity like DNA, and I scoff and claim, ‘You didn’t do that! It just came about by accident,’ they will rightly consider me a fool.” (Thomas F. Heinze, How Life Began, 2002, pg. 107)

“If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (H. J. Lipson, F. R. S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, “A physicist looks at evolution” Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol. 31, pg. 138)

The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts ... it is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution ... if the beginning of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” (Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist and mathematician, Cambridge University)

“If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of non-biological nature you please. Pump any gasses over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at all, except possibly tar sludge composed of amino acids and other organic chemicals. How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing man on the Moon.” (Hoyle, Sir Fred, The Intelligent Universe, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1983, pgs. 20-21)

Points to Consider:
• A mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids is a poison to life.
• All biological proteins (all life) contain 100% left-handed amino acids.
• When a living organism dies, the natural property of amino acids to revert to a mixture (left-handed and right-handed).
• When a solution of left-handed amino acids is left alone, the amino acids slowly alter until the solution becomes approximately a mixture of 50/50 right-handed and left-handed amino acids.

There is a wealth of quotes that could continue to be added; however, for the purpose of proving the underlying problems with the belief in evolution more than enough information has already been given. It is a sad fact that the most damning statements against evolution have been made by evolutionists.

Recent findings in the Antarctic have led to telling statements about primordial soup: "One takeaway here is that life is possible in extreme conditions. That said, in the absence of ideal conditions, life can evolve without begetting plants or birds or cuddly mammals or sentient beings who write blogs on the internet; it just begets a glob of ooze."

http://www.good.is/post/science-rules-antarctic-glacier-has-five-story-blood-red-waterfall-of-primodial-ooze?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+good%2Flbvp+%28GOOD+Main+RSS+Feed%29

To finish, here is an article where scientists admit the failure of the idea of “primordial soup.” It is most interesting that due to scientists presupposed assumption that life came from non-life another equally insubstantial theory has appeared to take primordial soup’s place.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/02/15/Primordial-soup-rejected-as-lifes-start/UPI-65921266260650/

As a closing statement -- The creationist can easily explain the issues that have been raised here. A supernatural being created natural laws. As a supernatural being, God can easily supercede the natural laws that He has created. The Creator is always greater than the creation -- this is a simple concept that anyone should be able to understand, for even the greatest computer will never be more complex than the mind that created it.
Posted 3/16/10 , edited 3/16/10

meezermex wrote:



As a closing statement -- The creationist can easily explain the issues that have been raised here. A supernatural being created natural laws. As a supernatural being, God can easily supercede the natural laws that He has created. The Creator is always greater than the creation -- this is a simple concept that anyone should be able to understand, for even the greatest computer will never be more complex than the mind that created it.
You know what? I personally have a problem with easy solutions, when they're just so uninspiring and dull at the same time. Because seriously, if the Wright Brothers were a bunch of creationists, we wouldn't be able to build flying machines like we should. When according to you creationists, if God meant for us to fly He would had gave humans wings, instead of just for the birds.

So here's a better idea, let's just forget about creationism, something that's not about nature itself due to its supernatural stance. And observe nature again as what it is for ourselves. Because that's what the Renaissance and the human innovations are all about.
1814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/17/10 , edited 3/17/10

DomFortress wrote:


meezermex wrote:



As a closing statement -- The creationist can easily explain the issues that have been raised here. A supernatural being created natural laws. As a supernatural being, God can easily supercede the natural laws that He has created. The Creator is always greater than the creation -- this is a simple concept that anyone should be able to understand, for even the greatest computer will never be more complex than the mind that created it.
You know what? I personally have a problem with easy solutions, when they're just so uninspiring and dull at the same time. Because seriously, if the Wright Brothers were a bunch of creationists, we wouldn't be able to build flying machines like we should. When according to you creationists, if God meant for us to fly He would had gave humans wings, instead of just for the birds.

So here's a better idea, let's just forget about creationism, something that's not about nature itself due to its supernatural stance. And observe nature again as what it is for ourselves. Because that's what the Renaissance and the human innovations are all about.


You know, although you have already consistently proven yourself to be a troll, I'm going to answer you at great length anyway. You made one uninformed statement after the other. God didn't make us to be dum -- he gave us a brain to use. It's silly to say that if He wanted us to fly then He'd have given us wings. Only people who are thoroughly ignorant of the Bible would make such ridiculous statements -- so if you saw or heard a creationsist say that I apologize, but I don't even remotely think that way. I do however subscribe to the idea of Occam's razor -- the simplest answer is generally the correct one.

Because God gave me a brain I question evolution based on the grounds of its own circular reasoning, conflicting ideas, and self-delusion. It seems as though you disregarded the statements of all the evolutionists and decided to take apart my closing statement based on your own presupposed ideas. Creationists do observe nature as it is. Within it's suprememly orderly structure we see nothing of the chaos of random chance that evolution suggests brought it about. I know you will most likely severely dislike my use of Bible verses, but these verses best express what creationists observe in nature: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard." Psalm 19:1-3

As to the Renaissance there are several arguments as to why and how it started. However, everyone agrees that Martin Luther's 95 Theses played a large role. The Renaissance was not about observing nature as it is; it was about questioning the corrupt status quo which any reasoning being should be allowed to do. Martin Luther questioned the myriad extra-biblical practices that Catholicism was based on. During his life-time he was hated for his biblical beliefs -- much as creationists are now. As I have mentioned before in other forums many of the greatest scientists ever were Christians and creationists. Evolutionists today conveniently forget that fact.

Concerning the supernatural stance of creationism -- at least we admit that we have such a stance. Evolutionists for the most part are not so honest. For evolution to have occurred every law of nature would have had to be broken -- which by definition would be supernatural. Allow me to remind you of a statement in my first post on this issue:

"[The Big Bang] represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle-transcending physical principle." (Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981, pg. 161)

How is the belief of evolution any different from the belief in specific creation? For it [evolution] to have occurred all the natural laws that it verbally clings to have to be disregarded. At it's core evolution is based on a supernatural act by it's capricious and unseen deity known as "Random Chance." Evolutionists have become so self-deluded that they have no right whatsoever to look down on creationists. As I stated before -- at least the creationist is up front about his core beliefs instead of trying to hide it in scientific jargon!
Posted 3/17/10 , edited 3/17/10

meezermex wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
You know what? I personally have a problem with easy solutions, when they're just so uninspiring and dull at the same time. Because seriously, if the Wright Brothers were a bunch of creationists, we wouldn't be able to build flying machines like we should. When according to you creationists, if God meant for us to fly He would had gave humans wings, instead of just for the birds.

So here's a better idea, let's just forget about creationism, something that's not about nature itself due to its supernatural stance. And observe nature again as what it is for ourselves. Because that's what the Renaissance and the human innovations are all about.


You know, although you have already consistently proven yourself to be a troll, I'm going to answer you at great length anyway. You made one uninformed statement after the other. God didn't make us to be dum -- he gave us a brain to use. It's silly to say that if He wanted us to fly then He'd have given us wings. Only people who are thoroughly ignorant of the Bible would make such ridiculous statements -- so if you saw or heard a creationsist say that I apologize, but I don't even remotely think that way. I do however subscribe to the idea of Occam's razor -- the simplest answer is generally the correct one.

Because God gave me a brain I question evolution based on the grounds of its own circular reasoning, conflicting ideas, and self-delusion. It seems as though you disregarded the statements of all the evolutionists and decided to take apart my closing statement based on your own presupposed ideas. Creationists do observe nature as it is. Within it's suprememly orderly structure we see nothing of the chaos of random chance that evolution suggests brought it about. I know you will most likely severely dislike my use of Bible verses, but these verses best express what creationists observe in nature: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard." Psalm 19:1-3

As to the Renaissance there are several arguments as to why and how it started. However, everyone agrees that Martin Luther's 95 Theses played a large role. The Renaissance was not about observing nature as it is; it was about questioning the corrupt status quo which any reasoning being should be allowed to do. Martin Luther questioned the myriad extra-biblical practices that Catholicism was based on. During his life-time he was hated for his biblical beliefs -- much as creationists are now. As I have mentioned before in other forums many of the greatest scientists ever were Christians and creationists. Evolutionists today conveniently forget that fact.

Concerning the supernatural stance of creationism -- at least we admit that we have such a stance. Evolutionists for the most part are not so honest. For evolution to have occurred every law of nature would have had to be broken -- which by definition would be supernatural. Allow me to remind you of a statement in my first post on this issue:

"[The Big Bang] represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing.It represents a true miracle-transcending physical principle." (Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981, pg. 161)

How is the belief of evolution any different from the belief in specific creation? For it [evolution] to have occurred all the natural laws that it verbally clings to have to be disregarded. At it's core evolution is based on a supernatural act by it's capricious and unseen deity known as "Random Chance." Evolutionists have become so self-deluded that they have no right whatsoever to look down on creationists. As I stated before -- at least the creationist is up front about his core beliefs instead of trying to hide it in scientific jargon!
Because evolution favor humans to have creativity, I reason that we may as well created the concept of supernatural. When there's no natural evidence of a God, while religious groups all entitling that themselves and no one else have the one true God.

And if I were you, I would watch my own motive of accusing others in open public. For it would just make me look like an extremist.

"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."- John 8:32
1814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/17/10

DomFortress wrote:


meezermex wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
You know what? I personally have a problem with easy solutions, when they're just so uninspiring and dull at the same time. Because seriously, if the Wright Brothers were a bunch of creationists, we wouldn't be able to build flying machines like we should. When according to you creationists, if God meant for us to fly He would had gave humans wings, instead of just for the birds.

So here's a better idea, let's just forget about creationism, something that's not about nature itself due to its supernatural stance. And observe nature again as what it is for ourselves. Because that's what the Renaissance and the human innovations are all about.


You know, although you have already consistently proven yourself to be a troll, I'm going to answer you at great length anyway. You made one uninformed statement after the other. God didn't make us to be dum -- he gave us a brain to use. It's silly to say that if He wanted us to fly then He'd have given us wings. Only people who are thoroughly ignorant of the Bible would make such ridiculous statements -- so if you saw or heard a creationsist say that I apologize, but I don't even remotely think that way. I do however subscribe to the idea of Occam's razor -- the simplest answer is generally the correct one.

Because God gave me a brain I question evolution based on the grounds of its own circular reasoning, conflicting ideas, and self-delusion. It seems as though you disregarded the statements of all the evolutionists and decided to take apart my closing statement based on your own presupposed ideas. Creationists do observe nature as it is. Within it's suprememly orderly structure we see nothing of the chaos of random chance that evolution suggests brought it about. I know you will most likely severely dislike my use of Bible verses, but these verses best express what creationists observe in nature: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard." Psalm 19:1-3

As to the Renaissance there are several arguments as to why and how it started. However, everyone agrees that Martin Luther's 95 Theses played a large role. The Renaissance was not about observing nature as it is; it was about questioning the corrupt status quo which any reasoning being should be allowed to do. Martin Luther questioned the myriad extra-biblical practices that Catholicism was based on. During his life-time he was hated for his biblical beliefs -- much as creationists are now. As I have mentioned before in other forums many of the greatest scientists ever were Christians and creationists. Evolutionists today conveniently forget that fact.

Concerning the supernatural stance of creationism -- at least we admit that we have such a stance. Evolutionists for the most part are not so honest. For evolution to have occurred every law of nature would have had to be broken -- which by definition would be supernatural. Allow me to remind you of a statement in my first post on this issue:

"[The Big Bang] represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing.It represents a true miracle-transcending physical principle." (Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981, pg. 161)

How is the belief of evolution any different from the belief in specific creation? For it [evolution] to have occurred all the natural laws that it verbally clings to have to be disregarded. At it's core evolution is based on a supernatural act by it's capricious and unseen deity known as "Random Chance." Evolutionists have become so self-deluded that they have no right whatsoever to look down on creationists. As I stated before -- at least the creationist is up front about his core beliefs instead of trying to hide it in scientific jargon!
Because evolution favor humans to have creativity, I reason that we may as well created the concept of supernatural. When there's no natural evidence of a God, while religious groups all entitling that themselves and no one else have the one true God.

And if I were you, I would watch my own motive of accusing others in open public. For it would just make me look like an extremist.

"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."- John 8:32


The natural evidence of God is all around us if we open our eyes. He is obvious in the order of nature, the creativity of man, the delicate balance that is life.

As to one true God -- there is only one and he is true. Who's right? We'll find out later. I choose the narrow path that gives way to least error -- if that makes me an extremist than so be it. Why should I shrink from the word? It is a concept that is improperly used as having a bad meaning. Am I an extremist if I say that 2 + 2 can only = 4?

Accusations are odd things -- observations are often mistaken for them. Multiple observations lead to theories (except in the case of evolution of course). We act on theories and use them as presuppositions.

The truth has set me free. Have you had that experience? Within context this is speaking of the freedom gained by accepting Jesus as the only means to gain entrance to Heaven. This is its proper application -- it is always best to use scripture within context otherwise it can mean whatever the speaker desires which is contrary to commanded practice.

I am still waiting for someone to refute any of my sources or give me a decent, logical argument using solid evidence. Do not skirt the issue by launching sideways attacks. The philosophical explanation you used concerning the supernatural is merely a rabbit trail.
Posted 3/17/10
Wouldn't the two views just clash with each other?
Posted 3/17/10 , edited 3/22/10

meezermex wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


meezermex wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
You know what? I personally have a problem with easy solutions, when they're just so uninspiring and dull at the same time. Because seriously, if the Wright Brothers were a bunch of creationists, we wouldn't be able to build flying machines like we should. When according to you creationists, if God meant for us to fly He would had gave humans wings, instead of just for the birds.

So here's a better idea, let's just forget about creationism, something that's not about nature itself due to its supernatural stance. And observe nature again as what it is for ourselves. Because that's what the Renaissance and the human innovations are all about.


You know, although you have already consistently proven yourself to be a troll, I'm going to answer you at great length anyway. You made one uninformed statement after the other. God didn't make us to be dum -- he gave us a brain to use. It's silly to say that if He wanted us to fly then He'd have given us wings. Only people who are thoroughly ignorant of the Bible would make such ridiculous statements -- so if you saw or heard a creationsist say that I apologize, but I don't even remotely think that way. I do however subscribe to the idea of Occam's razor -- the simplest answer is generally the correct one.

Because God gave me a brain I question evolution based on the grounds of its own circular reasoning, conflicting ideas, and self-delusion. It seems as though you disregarded the statements of all the evolutionists and decided to take apart my closing statement based on your own presupposed ideas. Creationists do observe nature as it is. Within it's suprememly orderly structure we see nothing of the chaos of random chance that evolution suggests brought it about. I know you will most likely severely dislike my use of Bible verses, but these verses best express what creationists observe in nature: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard." Psalm 19:1-3

As to the Renaissance there are several arguments as to why and how it started. However, everyone agrees that Martin Luther's 95 Theses played a large role. The Renaissance was not about observing nature as it is; it was about questioning the corrupt status quo which any reasoning being should be allowed to do. Martin Luther questioned the myriad extra-biblical practices that Catholicism was based on. During his life-time he was hated for his biblical beliefs -- much as creationists are now. As I have mentioned before in other forums many of the greatest scientists ever were Christians and creationists. Evolutionists today conveniently forget that fact.

Concerning the supernatural stance of creationism -- at least we admit that we have such a stance. Evolutionists for the most part are not so honest. For evolution to have occurred every law of nature would have had to be broken -- which by definition would be supernatural. Allow me to remind you of a statement in my first post on this issue:

"[The Big Bang] represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing.It represents a true miracle-transcending physical principle." (Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981, pg. 161)

How is the belief of evolution any different from the belief in specific creation? For it [evolution] to have occurred all the natural laws that it verbally clings to have to be disregarded. At it's core evolution is based on a supernatural act by it's capricious and unseen deity known as "Random Chance." Evolutionists have become so self-deluded that they have no right whatsoever to look down on creationists. As I stated before -- at least the creationist is up front about his core beliefs instead of trying to hide it in scientific jargon!
Because evolution favor humans to have creativity, I reason that we may as well created the concept of supernatural. When there's no natural evidence of a God, while religious groups all entitling that themselves and no one else have the one true God.

And if I were you, I would watch my own motive of accusing others in open public. For it would just make me look like an extremist.

"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."- John 8:32


The natural evidence of God is all around us if we open our eyes. He is obvious in the order of nature, the creativity of man, the delicate balance that is life.

As to one true God -- there is only one and he is true. Who's right? We'll find out later. I choose the narrow path that gives way to least error -- if that makes me an extremist than so be it. Why should I shrink from the word? It is a concept that is improperly used as having a bad meaning. Am I an extremist if I say that 2 + 2 can only = 4?

Accusations are odd things -- observations are often mistaken for them. Multiple observations lead to theories (except in the case of evolution of course). We act on theories and use them as presuppositions.

The truth has set me free. Have you had that experience? Within context this is speaking of the freedom gained by accepting Jesus as the only means to gain entrance to Heaven. This is its proper application -- it is always best to use scripture within context otherwise it can mean whatever the speaker desires which is contrary to commanded practice.

I am still waiting for someone to refute any of my sources or give me a decent, logical argument using solid evidence. Do not skirt the issue by launching sideways attacks. The philosophical explanation you used concerning the supernatural is merely a rabbit trail.
Really now? 'Cause you've played right into my hand, when you invoked logical argument and solid evidence.

When we created our society with incentives and addictions, what's not to say that the sense of entitlement for a supernatural higher power is the result of the ultimate imaginary high?

If you need solid evidence, then prove yourself with the reality of why your brain can get easily motivated/hijacked by your faith in God. By reading how your own nucleus accumbens anticipates to the idea of God's grace as an incentive, with the help of a fMRI scan.

And don't dodge the issue this time around, because as you can clearly see for yourself, I'm coming straight at your faith with a logic and evidence based case. Which is at the core of your argument.
Posted 3/18/10 , edited 3/18/10
They are supposed to give you knowledge/teach you about strong theory, not children' stories, I presume.
Bible should go to the literature class (art class, if we are in a college of certain type), not biology.
1814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/18/10 , edited 3/23/10

Really now? 'Cause you've played right into my hand, when you invoked logical argument and solid evidence.

When we created our society with incentives and addictions, what's not to say that the sense of entitlement for a supernatural higher power is the result of the ultimate imaginary high?

If you need solid evidence, then prove yourself with the reality of why your brain can get easily motivated/hijacked by your faith in God. By reading how your own nucleus accumbens anticipates to the idea of God's grace as an incentive, with the help of a fMRI scan.

And don't dodge the issue this time around, because as you can clearly see for yourself, I'm coming straight at your faith with a logic and evidence based case. Which is at the core of your argument.


As of yet I have not "dodged" a single issue with which you have presented me. I am still, however, awaiting the refutation of the statements made by evolutionists against evolution.

You have (as I have previously observed you do with other people in debate) gone off on a tangent. To avoid fulfilling your accusation of "dodging" the issue, I am pressed into following this tangent for the moment. Hopefully, we can soon return to the issue I actually wanted to discuss and about which I have been speaking up to this point.

First of all, I appreciate confidence, but isn't it a little early to be gloating? So you really believe (as you verbally crack your knuckles and cackle villianously) that I have fallen into your trap? Did you think I had never before heard of this "proof"? Do you think this "proof" logically sound? Do you believe this "proof" falls under the category of solid evidence? This "proof" could only be perceived as evidence from a naturalistic point of view, and even then it is scientifically shaky because there are parts that simply cannot be quantified. *edit* spelling correction

To address the subjects that have been presented let me begin with the "sense of entitlement" of which you spoke. First of all let me point out that religion and faith are not the same thing. Religion does have the tendency to exude this idea of "entitlement" -- especially exclusivist religions (by "exclusive" I mean that the religion believes that the only way a person can go to heaven is if they belong to a particular organization). Faith is an entirely different entity. By "faith" I mean a belief in something beyond myself. My faith has nothing to do with how good a person I am. I fully realize and accept that there is no good work, thought or deed that I can do that will "entitle" me to go to heaven. If anything, I recognize the sinful, sorry creature that I am. The last thing that I could ever be "entitled" to is Heaven. It is only by the grace of a loving, omnipotent God that there is a way that I could ever go to Heaven. Jesus is the one who has made the way for me; it is by accepting this that I can go to any kind of reward. For me a "sense of entitlement" is as far from my mind as possible because in and of myself I know that I deserve nothing.

Your third paragraph is a continuation of the second; therefore, they will be addressed as one. On to the alleged "proof". Here is where our points of view and presupposed assumptions color our interpretation of the facts. You imply that a chemical reaction and brain activity is what causes faith, or in other words the body controls the mind. I state that faith, love, and all other emotions and thoughts cause chemical reactions and brain activity, or in other words the mind controls the body. Neither of these statements can be proven by science. This "proof" is not solid evidence because our preconceived ideas do not allow us to observe the evidence and the shortcomings of the information gathering system objectively.

1814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/18/10

LosingOrbit wrote:

Wouldn't the two views just clash with each other?


If taught objectively they should not clash at all. At least they shouldn't clash anymore than teaching politics in Social Sciences or presenting the basic tenants of Communism and Capitalism in Economics. Certainly it is an inflamatory issue, but no more than many other subjects that present opposing ideologies.

It would be most fair to present all evidences for and against each and allow the student to decide. This puts a great burden of responsibility on the teacher and the school system to be truly objective which is the real reason why this is such a controversial issue. It is very difficult not to incorporate one's personal opinion into the facts -- it takes a great deal of ethical strength.
Posted 3/20/10
I would normally say "hell yes" and just leave it at that but then again this is the extended dicussion so here we go...

I am an atheist, therefore I believe in Evolution and not whatever religious people believe. Teaching any religion in school is forcing people to believe in a certain thing, however, *transition* Isn't teaching evolution to someone who doesn't believe it also forcing them to believe something? Yes it is! Since I believe in evolution I think to deny it in school would be robbing children of the chance to learn how our species came into being, but some people might not look it that way and instead see it as children being forced to believe in evolution, which they do not think is the truth. This is a very touchy subject and it is hard for anyone to say what really should be taught to kids. However *Another Transition* there are things to back up evolution, there is proof that that is indeed what happened, and, this is the important part, nothing what-so-ever to support the theory of people being created by god. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever, therefore I conclude that evolution should always be taught in out schools! Regardless of how many misguided people don't believe in it.
17892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 3/21/10

meezermex wrote:


LosingOrbit wrote:

Wouldn't the two views just clash with each other?


If taught objectively they should not clash at all. At least they shouldn't clash anymore than teaching politics in Social Sciences or presenting the basic tenants of Communism and Capitalism in Economics. Certainly it is an inflamatory issue, but no more than many other subjects that present opposing ideologies.

It would be most fair to present all evidences for and against each and allow the student to decide. This puts a great burden of responsibility on the teacher and the school system to be truly objective which is the real reason why this is such a controversial issue. It is very difficult not to incorporate one's personal opinion into the facts -- it takes a great deal of ethical strength.



Dr. House "Rational arguments don't work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people"



Dr. House "Its not about whats fun, Its about the truth!"

Posted 3/22/10 , edited 3/22/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


meezermex wrote:


LosingOrbit wrote:

Wouldn't the two views just clash with each other?


If taught objectively they should not clash at all. At least they shouldn't clash anymore than teaching politics in Social Sciences or presenting the basic tenants of Communism and Capitalism in Economics. Certainly it is an inflamatory issue, but no more than many other subjects that present opposing ideologies.

It would be most fair to present all evidences for and against each and allow the student to decide. This puts a great burden of responsibility on the teacher and the school system to be truly objective which is the real reason why this is such a controversial issue. It is very difficult not to incorporate one's personal opinion into the facts -- it takes a great deal of ethical strength.



Dr. House "Rational arguments don't work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people"



Dr. House "Its not about whats fun, Its about the truth!"

And now even science can explain moral and ethic values scientifically with facts. Which somehow rings true with my hypothesis about life at some points.

This subsequently means religions are loosing their value worth to the natural science's method of questioning dogmatic religious practices.

And when we're controlling evolution itself by a proactive approach with our technology and design, we will be rewriting humanity itself as our own epic story of evolution.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.