|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/1/2008 11:26:39 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
If it so happens that teaching observed truth
Well, at least we all know you're definitely not talking about evolution.
quote:
There are plenty of religions that are fully compatible with evolution.
Doesn't mean they are right.
quote:
Perhaps you should try one so you can stop embarrassing yourself and rejecting reality because it's mentally inconvenient for you.
Embarrassing myself? I wouldn't be here if I was embarrassed.
Rejecting reality? What reality? YOURS?! (cough cough)
quote:
because it's mentally inconvenient for you.
Nothing is more mentally inconvenient than rejecting God and His Word! My prayers are still lifted up for you wayward.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/1/2008 11:29:02 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1064
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
Does the legality of a ham sandwich indirectly attack Jews and Muslims and their beliefs?
There is a difference. Me eating a ham sandwich does not set a moral absolute by which all in my state much live by. Me eating my ham sandwich is my own preference, one which I do not impose on other. The law passed by the state IS a moral absolute required by all to accept.
The particular law you mentioned will not require anyone to marry anyone of the same sex, nor will it require churches to officiate at a same sex wedding. The legal availability of ham, liquor and pornography at my local grocery store is not a moral absolute that requires me to consume it.
As gluadys noted, teaching evolution is not teaching atheism. It is teaching science. It is knowledge. Other knowledge taught in history class or in English may "directly affect the value one places on oneself and society". So be it. The alternative is enforced ignorance.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/1/2008 11:51:39 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
nor will it require churches to officiate at a same sex wedding.
Not YET, at least. There has been plenty of talk of homosexuals demanding to be married in church in California. There was even an organization started to inform pastors of this problem, and provide assistance and advice as to avoid lawsuits. If I had time, I would give links to this information, but it is getting late, and I have to get up early tomorrow.
quote:
The legal availability of ham, liquor and pornography at my local grocery store is not a moral absolute that requires me to consume it.
Ok, but in some states (thank God Illinois got it right!) smoking is allowed in nearly every building, forcing citizens to unwillingly inhale their smoke. And although the law itself doe not impinge on citizens, the results do, and therefore the law does indeed attack those who are allergic to cigarette smoke, even though the law does not state "this law attacks non-smokers" in the description.
quote:
As gluadys noted, teaching evolution is not teaching atheism. It is teaching science. It is knowledge.
Well, whether you believe it or not Method, it teaches MUCH more than just science. You are just going to have to grow up and accept that.
quote:
The alternative is enforced ignorance.
No, the alternative is to teach both sides of the story, or none at all. As we have it now, it is enforced ignorance. A change to the system would change this however. But, I'm sure no one wants to go there.  That would be a dead horse I do not wish to beat again right now. I've said what I needed to.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/2/2008 12:34:10 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
There is no public school curriculum at any level that prescribes teaching atheistic evolution. If I found any teacher, even a prof teaching a PhD program, who taught that evolution requires acceptance of atheism, I would work to have that instructor disciplined.
You don't understand the point I am trying to make. No, my biology teacher never stated "God does not exist", but his teachings implied a non-existence of God,
Did they really? Or did you mistakenly infer that they did.
quote:
Evolution implies a nonexistence of God UNLESS He is purposely inserted into the lecture,
No more so than a lecture on magnetism or photosynthesis or thermodynamics. By your standards, explaining the formation of hurricanes would imply the non-existence of God unless he is purposely inserted into the lecture.
quote:
Evolution teaches Atheism unless it is explicitly taught otherwise, such as theistic evolution.
Nonsense. It would be just as wrong for science teachers to teach theistic evolution as to teach atheistic evolution. Science teachers should teach evolution. If the question is ever raised in class, the response should be that there is only one theory of evolution, and some people who accept it are theists and some people who accept it are atheists. (The same can be said for those who reject it.) The theory is the same no matter what a person's perspective on God is. Biologists who are theists and biologists who are atheists work with the same scientific evidence and the same scientific theories.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/2/2008 12:53:49 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1064
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
nor will it require churches to officiate at a same sex wedding.
Not YET, at least. There has been plenty of talk of homosexuals demanding to be married in church in California. There was even an organization started to inform pastors of this problem, and provide assistance and advice as to avoid lawsuits.
Plenty of talk, yes; and yes, an organization got started to face this non-existent threat. But the current situation does not require it, nor do I know of any organized effort to change that.
quote:
Well, whether you believe it or not Method...
Hey, you're getting your smart and handsome people confused.
quote:
No, the alternative is to teach both sides of the story, or none at all.
If teaching evolution, or Huck Finn, or the Holocaust causes students to "directly affect the value one places on oneself and society," there is no 'other side' that can be taught that will put the genie back in the bottle. The only choice is none at all -- as I said, enforced ignorance.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/2/2008 1:52:31 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
First, when a state of the US passes a law allowing homosexual marriage, it indirectly attacks Christians and their belief. Although the law itself does not TECHNICALLY say ANYTHING about Christianity and/or their belief, it does attack Christians.
It most certainly doesnt attack Christians and that is a preposterous notion. Such silliness really speaks to the level of paranoia that you have been pushed too.
quote:
Whether or not a law mentions a certain aspect does not limit it to only what it mentions. Evolution, under the guise of science, claims NO religious or moral implications, but that does not change the fact that when a 12 year-old (such as myself when I was that age) hears the teacher tell them he was an accident, that 12 year-old feels completely worthless and "anti-unique."
Perhaps thats because warped ideologies indoctrinate children with notions that if evolution is true, then they are worthless. That would be your ideology. And it would be grievously mistaken by any rational persons standards. But as it is, I evolution doesnt say that. I dont know of any evolutionist who would say or infer such a thing.
quote:
I could care less what evolution CLAIMS it does/does not speak of. You can claim whatever you want and not change reality.
Second, when I was speaking of evolution, I was talking to you (you're not a Christian) and was therefor referring to YOUR style of evolution (Atheistic, naturalistic, humanistic). Yes, Gluadys can always insert the "God factor" into the conversation to make evolution more morally acceptable, but that is not a luxury you hold. Your evolutionism (which is the ONLY evolutionism allowed to be taught in our public schools - no theistic evolution is allowed) is the evolution that indirectly teaches kids how unimportant they are.
Evolution is the same whether your Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or Bhuddist. And the importance or unimportance of human life isnt included anywhere in the theory at all. If kids are being misled into thinking that if they evolved that they are worthless, it is the fault of your warped ideology.
quote:
Whether you like it or not, Creationists did not make this up.
They most certainly do. Imaginary conspiracy theories because it is blessed to be persecuted. You want this like you want the rapture.
quote:
This is something many of them (such as myself) WITNESSED while in elementary and high school. There is much truth to what I have said, most of which comes from first hand experience (I taught classes where kids would come up to me and ask what the point to life is if we existed by accident. ONE WAS EVEN SUICIDAL because Atheistic evolutionism indirectly drilled into his brain the unimportance and pointlessness of life!!!
Yea right. 
quote:
This is a fact that happens all accross the world, so I'd quit denying it if I were you) and perhaps you should ponder on it a while, before simply dismissing it as dogmatic, unintelligent rants. That is selfish to those kids who suffer from the teachings of evolution. You are right in that the ToE does not DIRECTLY speak on these issues, but that DOES NOT exclude it from doing so.
Teaching math doesnt directly speak on these issues, nor does it exclude the possibility that god doesnt exist. We better stop teaching it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/2/2008 2:52:39 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
Perhaps thats because warped ideologies indoctrinate children with notions that if evolution is true, then they are worthless. That would be your ideology. And it would be grievously mistaken by any rational persons standards. But as it is, I evolution doesnt say that. I dont know of any evolutionist who would say or infer such a thing.
True. The only place children are taught that evolution means they are worthless is in Christian churches---not in the public schools.
quote:
This is something many of them (such as myself) WITNESSED while in elementary and high school. There is much truth to what I have said, most of which comes from first hand experience (I taught classes where kids would come up to me and ask what the point to life is if we existed by accident. ONE WAS EVEN SUICIDAL because Atheistic evolutionism indirectly drilled into his brain the unimportance and pointlessness of life!!!
I have heard of young people raised in the belief that evolution means you are worthless (something their church drilled into them) becoming depressed and even suicidal once they realized evolution is true. I have never heard of this happening to people who were not exposed to this religious teaching first. That is another thing that makes this religious perspective so dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/2/2008 6:09:02 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
Well, at least we all know you're definitely not talking about evolution.
So you're going to make blanket statements and back them up with "I don't want to steer the thread off topic or get into "design requires a designer" right now.
That's telling.
quote:
Doesn't mean they are right.
Doesn't mean they're wrong either. Your point?
quote:
Embarrassing myself? I wouldn't be here if I was embarrassed.
Sorry, you're actually quite correct. In order to actually be embarrassed yourself you'd have to be a tad bit more self aware.
I should have simply said that you should stop giving people reasons to be embarrassed for you.
quote:
Rejecting reality? What reality? YOURS?! (cough cough)
Well, mine and apparently God's. It is His creation that revealed the truth of our origins to us. I'd be quite surprised if He was a liar or a prankster, hiding genetic data and fossil evidence all over the place for us to one day discover and "reject" to show our "faith".
What a crock
quote:
Nothing is more mentally inconvenient than rejecting God and His Word! My prayers are still lifted up for you wayward.
Yeah that was my point. I know it's mentally inconvenient. I'm not appealing to you to reject God though. I'm appealing to your sensibilities to come out of the bronze age and see, for once, just see. I don't care what you believe. I just get nervous when there are people around who can't see. Someone or something has convinced you that accepting evolutionary theory, even tentatively, constitutes a waver in your faith. That is utter nonsense. What it constitutes is you using the adult mind you've been given to gaze upon the world and simply SEE things as they are.
If you're willing to reject what you can physically see on the basis that you can't see the very first time it happened then you're willing to undermine the very foundational method by which we determine that anything is "true".
When you advance the argument from "unobservable = unobservable" you surrender victory to your debate opponent in the first minute of the debate. It is simply not true and it is easily assumed by your debate partner that you DO NOT live by the standard you are applying to this debate, because no one can. The instant he can identify you as applying a double standard, his intellectual duty is to walk away, victorious, because you broke the first rule of sincere debate.
Now, perhaps you're wondering what I mean by "no one can". No one can live by the standard you're applying that "any unobservable thing is as likely to be true as any other unobservable thing". As I recently mentioned in another thread, a proof is little more than a logically deduced argument, not an empirical one. So you've got me there, or more correctly, you've got science.
But science knows this about itself. That is, it knows that to be a "proof" arguments must demonstrate that their proposition is true in all cases to which they apply, without a single exception. An unproven proposition believed or strongly suspected to be true is known as a conjecture. And outside of mathematics and logic, everything is a conjecture.
With no infinitely old society of observers to learn from, we can never have other than tentative knowledge of ANYTHING. In an empirical world where proof is forever unavailable to us, we must depend on other tools for establishing confidence in any conjecture. We are fortunate to have such tools, and we call them evidence and reason. At this point evry1needsgod's eyes are glazing over and he's skipping to the end to say "we do have an eternal observer to learn from, His name is God" But perhaps someone else will read on without the assumption that "evidence" and "reason" are dirty words.
The "truth" is that they allow us to reach conclusions with great confidence, but that confidence must always remain tentative and provisional. If we didn't use them to reach what we call functional or operational truth, then we would wander around claiming "welp, can't ever prove it so we just don't know anything".
Each individual observation of a thing constitutes another piece of evidence. There are over 60 species of upright ape fossils found to date and the field has been well disciplined for just over 50 years. Each one, as well as each primate, including humans, having 100% unique finger prints, as well as apes and humans sharing 100% identical hemoglobin, as well as chimps and humans sharing 98.4% of their DNA, as well as MOUNTAINOUS amounts of other more detailed and technical data arrived at through painstakingly disciplined practices amounts to an additional piece of evidence for evolution.
When you point out that UCD cannot be directly observed, you behave as though this gives you permission to literally believe anything you want about the world. In so doing you are mutilating what should be our common human understanding that nothing can be proven, and twisting to serve your needs. This is basically why scientists ignore creationists. That kind of behavior in ANY scientific field would get you laughed out of the building.
If the only tools we really have are evidence and reason, then the only way we can distinguish what is probably true from what is probably false is by the quantity and quality of those two tools. And all competing ideas can be discriminated only by their evidence and reason.
When someone says (for example) "science cannot prove the existence or non-existence of god," the only reasonable responses are first, "Duh," and second "so what?" The arguments offered on either side never depended on proof in the first place. They depended on evidence and reason. And if the evidence and reason favors one conjecture over the other, then proclaiming that "you can't prove it" is exposed as a rather decisive abandonment of the intellectual field, and this, above ALL else, is why science IGNORES religion. You should expect to not be taken seriously ANY time you abandon intellectual honesty in favor of a personally satisfying thing.
If you think you know ANYTHING at all about ANYTHING at all, then you are embracing the method of establishing functional truth that I have described. If you want to reject evolution you must reject this method of establishing functional truth, but if you do so, you must do so absolutely or begin to lose respect. In other words, abadon ALL knowledge this method has afforded you, or abandon none of it, but don't selectively abandon it and expect to be taken seriously.
< Message edited by wayward1 -- 8/2/2008 6:31:53 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/2/2008 6:16:02 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
Perhaps thats because warped ideologies indoctrinate children with notions that if evolution is true, then they are worthless. That would be your ideology. And it would be grievously mistaken by any rational persons standards. But as it is, I evolution doesnt say that. I dont know of any evolutionist who would say or infer such a thing.
True. The only place children are taught that evolution means they are worthless is in Christian churches---not in the public schools.
quote:
This is something many of them (such as myself) WITNESSED while in elementary and high school. There is much truth to what I have said, most of which comes from first hand experience (I taught classes where kids would come up to me and ask what the point to life is if we existed by accident. ONE WAS EVEN SUICIDAL because Atheistic evolutionism indirectly drilled into his brain the unimportance and pointlessness of life!!!
I have heard of young people raised in the belief that evolution means you are worthless (something their church drilled into them) becoming depressed and even suicidal once they realized evolution is true. I have never heard of this happening to people who were not exposed to this religious teaching first. That is another thing that makes this religious perspective so dangerous.
When I was in school one of my friends wore a shirt that said "evolution is polution, if you believe in evolution you're as dumb as you look". It's probably one of the biggest reasons I fell in love with science. That kid was an idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/2/2008 5:04:39 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
Gluadys, Drj11, essentialsaltes, and wayward1:
This will be my last post in the thread, for there have been misunderstandings I don't believe I can explain to the point you all will understand. I will make an attempt by restating my premise, and then I will leave.
First, Evolution DOES NOT directly say anything along the lines of morality and/or religion any more than Christianity directly speaking against Islam, since the foundations of Christianity were established over 600 years before Islam (even though Muslims claim Muhammad was not a creator of the religion, but rather a restorer of it). This is something we all can agree on. I have stated this plenty of times, but you all obviously did not get the point I was trying to make. Children are smarter than you think, and they can put two and two together. They do not NEED religion to influence their minds, and I'm SURE you all agree on that too. My mind was not influenced by religion until I was 18 years old, so to say that it is Christian's fault for putting these ideas in children's minds is completely and utterly deceiving.
Drj11, I have posted my opinion in this forum based on first hand accounts, not only in my life, but others too. Is not personal experiences a factor when one creates an opinion? I gave you my opinion, by listing experiences in my life, and you dismiss them nonchalantly. If you wish to debate, then grow up, take your fingers out of your ears, and listen. And when one gives evidence that shows you could be wrong, don't stick your head in the sand. If this is how you debate, then I will leave you to your ignorance.
And last, but not least, if my memory serves me correctly, I said nothing about a teacher teaching morals/religion/worthlessness in THIS forum. I specifically left that out to prove a point - that children are smarter than you think. It does not take a religion or a teacher to show a child his/her worthlessness when that child is told he/she was an accident. Kids aren't stupid! If any of you have kids, you would know that first hand. They will surprise you every day with the questions they come home with.
So there it is. Chew it up, pounce on it, call me whatever, that is my premise and that is what I leave you all with. Have fun telling me I'm wrong! I look forward to it...PSYCH!!!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/2/2008 8:14:48 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
I have stated this plenty of times, but you all obviously did not get the point I was trying to make. Children are smarter than you think, and they can put two and two together. They do not NEED religion to influence their minds, and I'm SURE you all agree on that too. My mind was not influenced by religion until I was 18 years old, so to say that it is Christian's fault for putting these ideas in children's minds is completely and utterly deceiving.
I think we get the point. But we disagree with it. I can't speak for the others, but this is my take on it.
Yes, kids are smarter than we think. And they do pick up lots of ideas in the home, out of the home, in school, out of school, from TV and increasingly from the internet. They are also capable of thinking for themselves and making their own conclusions.
So exactly where a particular kid gets the idea that evolution is an accident or that it makes life meaningless from is an open question.
However, we also have to look at the most prevalent sources of these ideas. And what is the most prevalent source of those ideas? Anti-evolutionary creationist sources and increasingly the "science" curricula designed for home-schooling.
For example, I have never, never, never heard a biologist describe evolution as an "accident". But I have heard this over and over again from anti-evolution sources.
So, while I cannot say for sure where any kid would pick up the idea, I can say that the most probable source is a church, book, web-site or home-schooler's curriculum which opposes evolution on religious grounds. Because, in my experience, it is only in such sources that this kind of language about evolution is used.
So, if you are dealing with youth who are distraught over this issue, I do think you have the anti-evolution publishing industry and preaching to blame.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/2/2008 8:34:03 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
Gluadys, Drj11, essentialsaltes, and wayward1:
This will be my last post in the thread, for there have been misunderstandings I don't believe I can explain to the point you all will understand. I will make an attempt by restating my premise, and then I will leave.
First, Evolution DOES NOT directly say anything along the lines of morality and/or religion any more than Christianity directly speaking against Islam, since the foundations of Christianity were established over 600 years before Islam (even though Muslims claim Muhammad was not a creator of the religion, but rather a restorer of it). This is something we all can agree on. I have stated this plenty of times, but you all obviously did not get the point I was trying to make. Children are smarter than you think, and they can put two and two together. They do not NEED religion to influence their minds, and I'm SURE you all agree on that too. My mind was not influenced by religion until I was 18 years old, so to say that it is Christian's fault for putting these ideas in children's minds is completely and utterly deceiving.
I understand exactly what point you were trying to make, believe me. I tried to explain to you that its wrong, just as your gay marriage example was wrong. Society tolerating or accepting an act that was once taboo in the eyes of religion is not an attack on that particular religion, it is acceptance of a once excluded group of people. You can argue whether or not that taboo is good/bad for society, but what it isnt is an attack on those who are still free to consider the act taboo.
So should we never tell our kids about the mostly random chance encounters that began most relationships which ultimately led to their conception? After all, most relationships occur because of sheer coincidence. Right place, right time. Kids might get the wrong idea and think that because they are the product of random forces that they are worthless?
If a child gets the mistaken notion that life is worthless because evolution is true, it is up to you me and any other adult to help him understand it is not true. Kids arent that smart actually... and extremely inexperienced, and can easily misunderstand many obvious things that we take for granted. I have a feeling you are more than happy to be the devil whispering in a child's ear, encouraging the falsehood that evolution says that we are worthless, because you have been so indoctrinated with the notion that its true, you don't even question it. I wonder how many children have been on the verge of suicide because of an act they committed that may be a perfectly normal and childlike thing to do, yet they are distraught with guild because their religion told them it is evil? Should we stop teaching kids about religion?
On the contrary, I find that sciences in general, evolution, cosmology, astronomy are largely fueled by a profound respect and curiosity about life and the universe. If evolution dictates that we are worthless, that what the heck are we doing studying it all? Why are we all not committing mass suicide to just get this worthless life over with? More curiously, the folks who study and use evolution day in and day out... why do they do it? So they can tell us we're worthless? Please.
quote:
Drj11, I have posted my opinion in this forum based on first hand accounts, not only in my life, but others too. Is not personal experiences a factor when one creates an opinion? I gave you my opinion, by listing experiences in my life, and you dismiss them nonchalantly. If you wish to debate, then grow up, take your fingers out of your ears, and listen. And when one gives evidence that shows you could be wrong, don't stick your head in the sand. If this is how you debate, then I will leave you to your ignorance.
Perhaps you should heed your own advice? Ignoring evidence is the creationist forte`. I just find it hard to believe a child would be suicidal over evolution if he hadnt been indoctrinated with the beliefs of young earthers before he/she learned about it.
You and others here habitually deny deny deny any evidence presented that doesnt say what you want it to say. Threads and threads are full of it, so you arent really in any position to lecture anyone about denying evidence and sticking ones head in the sand.
quote:
And last, but not least, if my memory serves me correctly, I said nothing about a teacher teaching morals/religion/worthlessness in THIS forum. I specifically left that out to prove a point - that children are smarter than you think. It does not take a religion or a teacher to show a child his/her worthlessness when that child is told he/she was an accident.
It is the creationists telling kids they are worthless random accidents if evolution is true, not evolutionists. If there is one thing that I see as a common theme in science, no matter what background beit atheist or theist, there is a profound curiosity and reverence for life.
quote:
Kids aren't stupid! If any of you have kids, you would know that first hand. They will surprise you every day with the questions they come home with.
You are right to an extent. What I find interesting is many of the questions children will unabashedly ask about god and religion. They tend to ask the tough, yet simple ones... questions that most adults don't ask anymore because it just doesnt occur to them. Questions, despite thousands of years of philosophy, arguments, wars, schisms, new religions and civilizations that have no satisfactory answer.
"Who created God" "How can you believe in God if you cant see him" etc etc.
Usually answers come in the form of meaningless word salads and wholy unsatisfying platitudes, that they are badgered to accept on faith. Then by the time they are adults they stop asking. The ones who remember to ask those questions again usually become atheists, I would think.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/3/2008 9:20:42 AM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
I have stated this plenty of times, but you all obviously did not get the point I was trying to make. Children are smarter than you think, and they can put two and two together. They do not NEED religion to influence their minds, and I'm SURE you all agree on that too. My mind was not influenced by religion until I was 18 years old, so to say that it is Christian's fault for putting these ideas in children's minds is completely and utterly deceiving.
I think we get the point. But we disagree with it. I can't speak for the others, but this is my take on it.
Yes, kids are smarter than we think. And they do pick up lots of ideas in the home, out of the home, in school, out of school, from TV and increasingly from the internet. They are also capable of thinking for themselves and making their own conclusions.
So exactly where a particular kid gets the idea that evolution is an accident or that it makes life meaningless from is an open question.
However, we also have to look at the most prevalent sources of these ideas. And what is the most prevalent source of those ideas? Anti-evolutionary creationist sources and increasingly the "science" curricula designed for home-schooling.
For example, I have never, never, never heard a biologist describe evolution as an "accident". But I have heard this over and over again from anti-evolution sources.
So, while I cannot say for sure where any kid would pick up the idea, I can say that the most probable source is a church, book, web-site or home-schooler's curriculum which opposes evolution on religious grounds. Because, in my experience, it is only in such sources that this kind of language about evolution is used.
So, if you are dealing with youth who are distraught over this issue, I do think you have the anti-evolution publishing industry and preaching to blame.
Only when a child enters school and listens to those who think they're "wise and learned" is he taught that humans are apes and that apes can breed human descendants.  Until then,he knows the difference between humans and apes and that humans breed humans and apes breed apes because he observes reality correctly.
So Jesus was right that God would reveal the simple truth to little children and hide the truth to those who claim they're "wise and learned." "He who exalts himself will be humbled." And indeed he will be. God also says that he will frustrate the "intelligence of the "intelligent." And that he does. God said he would sen unbelievers a powerful delusion so they would believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." And nothing shows God's power like the belief that monkeys turned into humans because it doesn't happen in reality. So God uses Satan to deceive the wicked and Satan does an excellent job because no one would believe that monkeys can turn into humans without Satan's power since it doesn't happen in reality.
< Message edited by Carico -- 8/3/2008 9:27:20 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/3/2008 10:05:40 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Only when a child enters school and listens to those who think they're "wise and learned" is he taught that humans are apes and that apes can breed human descendants. Until then,he knows the difference between humans and apes and that humans breed humans and apes breed apes because he observes reality correctly.
Humans are apes, so of course, human apes produce human apes just as gorilla apes produce gorilla apes and orangutan apes produce oranguatan apes, etc. I don't expect you will disagree that humans are mammals and produce human mammals just as horses produce horse mammals and whales produce whale mammals, etc. Same difference.
However, it is only from anti-evolutionists that children will learn that the biological history and classification of our species means that the mammalian primates known as humans are not made in the image of God, that they are a meaningless accident and their lives have no purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/3/2008 7:51:56 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 681
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
I know this is way off topic because it addresses the OP. Carnivorous plants are carnivorous because they need the extra nitrogen. It is a very costly and inefficient way to get nitrogen, but for some plants, it's all they got. Carnivory is not an evolutionary advantage unless the plant absolutely needs it, far from being the "dual feeders" as the author of the OP put it. That being the case, carnivorous plants have not been demonstrated (as far as my very limited research is concerned) to be evidence for or against Universal Common Descent.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/3/2008 8:06:17 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 410
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedToo
Meat eating plants such as the Venus Fly Trap are very rare indeed. If Neo-Darwinism were true, we would expect them to be the norm because they are more fit since they are dual feeders.
Obviously there aren't more Venus flytraps because the Intelligent Designers wanted them only in the Carolinas of the U.S.
quote:
But then again, Neo-Darwinism is a pure fantasy.
Wouldn't you feel badly if you found out that one of the Intelligent Designers names was Darwin or Neo?
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/4/2008 10:50:39 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3972
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
When I was in school one of my friends wore a shirt that said "evolution is polution, if you believe in evolution you're as dumb as you look". It's probably one of the biggest reasons I fell in love with science. That kid was an idiot.
LOL
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/5/2008 5:43:08 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
Not YET, at least. There has been plenty of talk of homosexuals demanding to be married in church in California. There was even an organization started to inform pastors of this problem, and provide assistance and advice as to avoid lawsuits. If I had time, I would give links to this information, but it is getting late, and I have to get up early tomorrow.
Churches are not even forced to marry HETEROSEXUAL couples as of right now.
quote:
Ok, but in some states (thank God Illinois got it right!) smoking is allowed in nearly every building, forcing citizens to unwillingly inhale their smoke. And although the law itself doe not impinge on citizens, the results do, and therefore the law does indeed attack those who are allergic to cigarette smoke, even though the law does not state "this law attacks non-smokers" in the description.
Second hand homosexuality does not give you cancer. Watching a homosexual couple kiss will not cause a tumor to grow in your lungs. The prohibition of smoking in public areas is due to public health concerns.
quote:
Well, whether you believe it or not Method, it teaches MUCH more than just science. You are just going to have to grow up and accept that.
No, it doesn't. Evolution teaches us how we got the DNA we did. That's it. What you do with that information is your business. If your religious beliefs require you to deny scientific facts that is your concern, not the concern of science. What cause, other than conflict with religious beliefs, is there to reject the theory of evolution?
quote:
No, the alternative is to teach both sides of the story, or none at all.
Then go through the scientific peer reviewed journals and find this "other side" for us. The fact of the matter is that the theory of evolution is the only side within science. There is no other theory to teach.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/5/2008 9:03:14 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
Churches are not even forced to marry HETEROSEXUAL couples as of right now.
I never said they were forced, but they have been faced with much demands, and pending lawsuits. No, they aren't forced to...YET.
quote:
Second hand homosexuality does not give you cancer. Watching a homosexual couple kiss will not cause a tumor to grow in your lungs. The prohibition of smoking in public areas is due to public health concerns.
You can only imagine (well, try not to) the thoughts going through a teenage boy's mind when he sees a lesbian couple make out and/or touch in public. I will not go into the aspects of these lifestyles, and how they can be detrimental to society, because I do not want to go against the ToS (I'm not sure if it would, I'm just playing it safe). These are people's lifestyles, and I will not speak too negative of them here. But I'm sure you know what I mean, and I'm sure you've heard the arguments. Yes, homosexuality is often equally the same as second-hand smoke. I will leave it at that.
quote:
No, it doesn't. Evolution teaches us how we got the DNA we did. That's it. What you do with that information is your business. If your religious beliefs require you to deny scientific facts that is your concern, not the concern of science. What cause, other than conflict with religious beliefs, is there to reject the theory of evolution?
Well, we will have to agree to disagree, even though I know you are wrong! 
quote:
Then go through the scientific peer reviewed journals and find this "other side" for us. The fact of the matter is that the theory of evolution is the only side within science. There is no other theory to teach.
Say this all you want, people have tried - including Behe - and have been dis-invited from all peer review. Why is this? Why is it when evolutionists review other evolutionist's work, you assume since they agree you must hold truth? This is filtering of scientific information by social reinforcement, and you know it. You ask us to publish our findings in this "peer review journals" when people like Behe aren't even allowed! Figure that one out. There have been PLENTY of threads on this, so I will not continue, but IMO, this "peer review" is nothing more than "peer pressure." All "peer review" accomplishes is socially reinforcing evolutionist's flawed interpretations, and disallowing all others, regardless to how scientific they may be. This is hardly an expectation for Creationists. Ok, I'm off my soapbox.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/5/2008 9:19:11 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 410
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
All "peer review" accomplishes is socially reinforcing evolutionist's flawed interpretations, and disallowing all others, regardless to how scientific they may be. This is hardly an expectation for Creationists. Ok, I'm off my soapbox.
You have either been duped or you do not listen to the facts.
What are scientists reviewing exactly when they are told that something is so complicated it defies further research and should come to the dead-end philosophy that an intellligent designer must have done it somehow?
ID does not require peer review since it has it all figured out. ID er's should resign, they know all there is to know about ID. Ask them.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/5/2008 9:40:22 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
ID does not require peer review since it has it all figured out. ID er's should resign, they know all there is to know about ID. Ask them.
We've already been over this. Labeling all Creationist's and Idist's science as "religious dogma" is just keeping you head in the sand my friend. But if you don't grow up soon, you'll suffocate. Take the ear plugs out buddy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/5/2008 10:30:12 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 410
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
ID does not require peer review since it has it all figured out. ID er's should resign, they know all there is to know about ID. Ask them.
We've already been over this. Labeling all Creationist's and Idist's science as "religious dogma" is just keeping you head in the sand my friend. But if you don't grow up soon, you'll suffocate. Take the ear plugs out buddy.
I'll ask again since you didn't have an answer the first time.
What are scientists reviewing exactly when they are told that something is so complicated it defies further research and should come to the dead-end philosophy that an intellligent designer must have done it somehow? What is left to review?
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/6/2008 9:56:27 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
I never said they were forced, but they have been faced with much demands, and pending lawsuits. No, they aren't forced to...YET.
The only problem I have seen is when churches open their buildings to the public without discretion but then clamp down when homosexual couples want to get married there. I, for one, would never, ever support any legistlation that would force churches to marry anyo | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
