[_ Old Earth _] Should evolution be allowed in the text books?

[Dave Slayer]

Should evolution be allowed in the text books?

 

[Heidi]

Should evolution be allowed in the text books?

Since it's an abominable lie, then no it should not. But one can't expect much from science textbooks in the secular world since scientists are in a search for the truth because they don't already know it. ;)

 

[Nick]

Yes, as long as it's tought about what it is - a theory. Children need to be exposed to all areas of learnig and to society to make up their minds for themselves about what to believe. Critical thinking is, well - critical!

 

[Heidi]

Yes, as long as it's tought about what it is - a theory. Children need to be exposed to all areas of learnig and to society to make up their minds for themselves about what to believe. Critical thinking is, well - critical!

Why should children be exposed to lies? :gah If children are taught that it's even possible for animals to turn into people (which is a lie), then how is that going to help their trust in people (especially teachers) when they find out it's a lie? 2 Since monkeys don't turn into people in reality, then the only reason that anyone believes that monkeys (or imaginary animals) turned into people is because everyone has been brainwashed with that lie for over a century. It never helps people to deceive them.

 

[Nick]

Yes, as long as it's tought about what it is - a theory. Children need to be exposed to all areas of learnig and to society to make up their minds for themselves about what to believe. Critical thinking is, well - critical!

Why should children be exposed to lies? :gah If children are taught that it's even possible for animals to turn into people (which is a lie), then how is that going to help their trust in people (especially teachers) when they find out it's a lie? 2 Since monkeys don't turn into people in reality, then the only reason that anyone believes that monkeys (or imaginary animals) turned into people is because everyone has been brainwashed with that lie for over a century. It never helps people to deceive them.

If you read my post more carefully, you'll notice that I said "as long as it's taught as a theory". Because that's what evolution is - a theory. I never said the theory was a fact. We get taught evolution at school, but as a theory, and a lot of atheists think it's a load of crap.
We should let people make up their own minds about what to believe. Children are exposed to lies everyday - are you saying that we should just not expose that to them, but expose them to what we believe is right? Yes, let's expose them to Christianity and what we believe, because we believe it is the right way, but let them make up their mind for themselves. Let them 'weigh up the evidence'.

 

[lordkalvan]

Yes, as long as it's tought about what it is - a theory. Children need to be exposed to all areas of learnig and to society to make up their minds for themselves about what to believe. Critical thinking is, well - critical!

Why should children be exposed to lies?

You seem to be as confused about the meaning of 'lie' as you are about the meaning of 'delusion' and 'scientific'. A lie is an intentionally false statement. Teaching the theory of biological evolution is quite clearly not the act of making an intentionally false statement as the evidence that supports it is extensive and persuasive.

If children are taught that it's even possible for animals to turn into people (which is a lie), then how is that going to help their trust in people (especially teachers) when they find out it's a lie?

If children are taught this, then their teachers are terminally confused and their pupils should most certainly question them closely. However, I doubt that any science teacher teachers any such thing. The theory of evolution does not suggest that 'animals...turn into people.'

Since monkeys don't turn into people in reality...

Indeed, they don't. They never have, nor never will.

...then the only reason that anyone believes that monkeys (or imaginary animals) turned into people...

No one who is familiar with and properly understands evolutionary theory 'believes that monkeys...turned into people.' This is a foolish misrepresentation founded on ignorance.

...is because everyone has been brainwashed with that lie for over a century.

Not by the scientists, they haven't.

...It never helps people to deceive them.

Then why are so assiduous about promoting such a deceptively misleading caricature of evolutionary theory?

 

[Heidi]

No one who is familiar with and properly understands evolutionary theory 'believes that monkeys...turned into people.' This is a foolish misrepresentation founded on ignorance

And since Darwin himself doesn't know the origin of man, then his followers can't possibly know where humans came from either. ;) That's why of course, evolutionists can't explain their story then claim we don't understand it. You're too funny.

 

[lordkalvan]

And since Darwin himself doesn't know the origin of man, then his followers can't possibly know where humans came from either. That's why of course, evolutionists can't explain their story then claim we don't understand it. You're too funny.

Not nearly as funny as your misunderstanding of what Darwin wrote and your inexplicable belief that in the 150+ years since he wrote it no further research has been undertaken and no greater understanding developed. Are you sure you're not a Poe?

 

[Heidi]

And since Darwin himself doesn't know the origin of man, then his followers can't possibly know where humans came from either. That's why of course, evolutionists can't explain their story then claim we don't understand it. You're too funny.

Not nearly as funny as your misunderstanding of what Darwin wrote and your inexplicable belief that in the 150+ years since he wrote it no further research has been undertaken and no greater understanding developed. Are you sure you're not a Poe?

Many popular myths last longer than that. ;) All you prove is that most people believe the theory only because some scientists do. That's why they never challenge it regardless of how ridiculous it is. That's called hero-worship. ;)

 

[jasoncran]

heidi at least read and try to understand the the theory of evolution so that we can have an intellegent debate on this, i dont believe in it either, but i would like to counter the fallacy of it on a more scientific level, using apolgetics.

i will be reading the origen of the species for myself and other literature so that i can understand the thought and at least present an intellegent debate, Nick is right i have heard a mathemetician who a devout aethist that stated he didnt beleive in it either.

creatonists have some wierd beliefs on the dinosaurs as well. and imho it's all conjecture but that's another thread and when i'm up to it i will defend that.

however I DO BELIEVE IN MICRO EVOLUTION, AS EACH SPECIES DO CHANGE TO ADOPT BUT STILL ARE THE SAME, IE DIFFERENT COLORS, LENGTHS , BEAKS SIZE ETC.

I AGREE WITH NICK, MOST OF THE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS HERE DO TEACH THAT, BUT THEY ALSO TEACH THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT AS WELL.


Is it wrong to ask and search for the origins of life, and people do? is it wrong to study the world around us. Do i agree with the current thought, no. My current influence in this area is http://www.csi.org. They are a creationists with a museum and do take tours to fossils site and give their pov and also teach children and are on the radio for one hour at 7pm est on this site http://www.reachfm.org

jason

 

[lordkalvan]

Many popular myths last longer than that.

Indeed they do and amongst the leading examples of which is the creation myth of Genesis.

All you prove is that most people believe the theory only because some scientists do.

I am interested in how you conclude from my previous post that I have 'prove[d]...that most people believe the theory only because some scientists do.' I do not know what 'most' people believe, although I am fairly certain that most do not believe the Genesis tale of creation. On the other hand, most of the people I know or am aware of who accept the ideas underpinning evolutionary theory do so because they have been persuaded of its soundness by the weight of evidence that supports it.

That's why they never challenge it regardless of how ridiculous it is.

Simply stating something to be ridiculous because of personal incredulity and apparent ignorance does not make that something ridiculous, no matter how much you wish it was. Not many people challenge the molecular theory either, but I doubt that this is because they have been 'brainwashed' into accepting it.

That's called hero-worship.

No, it's called reaching a reasoned conclusion on the basis of the weight of the evidence available.

 

[Heidi]

Simply stating something to be ridiculous because of personal incredulity and apparent ignorance does not make that something ridiculous, no matter how much you wish it was. Not many people challenge the molecular theory either, but I doubt that this is because they have been 'brainwashed' into accepting it.

It's not believable because it doesn't happen in reality nor can it be documented in history. So the only reason to believe it is because you have been brainwashed to do so. The story of evolution is pure conjecture because it comes from the imaginations of men. that makes it a fairy tale. Sorry. ;)

 

[lordkalvan]

Simply stating something to be ridiculous because of personal incredulity and apparent ignorance does not make that something ridiculous, no matter how much you wish it was. Not many people challenge the molecular theory either, but I doubt that this is because they have been 'brainwashed' into accepting it.

It's not believable because it doesn't happen in reality...

Evidence, please? Your statement of disbelief based on personal incredulity alone is not credible.

...nor can it be documented in history.

Many things in the past cannot 'be documented in history' - for example, if they occurred before the development of writing - but this does not mean that they did not happen. A simple thought experiment shows that neither you nor I can identify our ancestors of 2,000 years ago, but the fact that no record exists of these ancestors does not mean that their existence is thereby rendered unbelievable or not 'happen[ing] in reality.'

So the only reason to believe it is because you have been brainwashed to do so.

Repeating a falsehood does not make it any less of a falsehood. Understanding is based on the best available evidence, which supports the tenets of evolutionary theory to the extent that that theory informs most of the medical and pharmacological advances currently underway.

The story of evolution is pure conjecture because it comes from the imaginations of men.

Not just men. And no, it doesn't come form imagination. It comes from a careful and methodical examination of evidence and using the ability for rational thought and intelligent reflection that I presume you believe was given to us by God for a reason.

that makes it a fairy tale.Sorry.

And I am sorry that you are so poorly-informed on the subject of evolutionary theory and research and so badly understand it that you labour under such a narrow, medieval understanding of the natural world.

 

[Heidi]

Not just men. And no, it doesn't come form imagination. It comes from a careful and methodical examination of evidence and using the ability for rational thought and intelligent reflection that I presume you believe was given to us by God for a reason.

Tolken made up a carefully thought-through and methodical story in "Lord of the Rings" as well. ;) Only in his story, he at least knew who the main characters were and dotted every "i" and crossed every "t" unlike the story of evolution. So his was much better thought-through than the story of evolution.

Sorry but God gives us HIS WORD for a reason; because he says in 1 Corinthians 1 1 that the wisdom of the world is foolishness in his sight." He also tells us not to trust in man in Isaiah 2:22. So you don't believe the God of the bible. You make up a god of your imagination who does what you tell him to do. that makes him an imaginary god. ;)

Since there's no way to know if the skulls and bones they found all came from the same body without the DNA of the original animals, then the manufactured "homo-sapiens" is called artwork, not science. ;)

God also tells us that we have one teacher and that is Christ. But you don't believe the God of the bible and thus worship scientists as infallible gods. That's why you believe anything they say without ever challenging it.

Sorry friend, but scientists are as fallible and mortal as you are, which unfortunately, you'll find out on judgment day when they cannot save you. Their words will also die when they die. So no longer will we hear their words in heaven, thank God because only God's word is eternal. The words of scientists will die when they die. ;)

 

[lordkalvan]

Tolken made up a carefully thought-through and methodical story in "Lord of the Rings" as well. Only in his story, he at least knew who the main characters were and dotted every "i" and crossed every "t" unlike the story of evolution. So his was much better thought-through than the story of evolution.

Irrelevant. The Lord of the Rings has no evidential basis. The theory of ebolution, on the other hand, has a great deal of evidential support that underpins it and gives confidence in its explanatory robustness.

Sorry but God gives us HIS WORD for a reason; because he says in 1 Corinthians 1 1 that the wisdom of the world is foolishness in his sight." He also tells us not to trust in man in Isaiah 2:22. So you don't believe the God of the bible. You make up a god of your imagination who does what you tell him to do. that makes him an imaginary god.

I have no reason to suppose that your understanding of the Bible is better than anyone else's nor that your selective waving around of biblical verses bear any relation to a considered understanding of the natural world, using the reasoning powers that I am sure you believe God gave to us for a purpose. Why should I prefer your idiosyncratic understanding of what the Bible 'means' in respect of evolutionary theory over than of, say, devout Christian and evolutionary scientist Dr Kenneth Miller?

Since there's no way to know if the skulls and bones they found all came from the same body without the DNA of the original animals, then the manufactured "homo-sapiens" is called artwork, not science.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. This makes no sense. Multiple skulls cannot have come from 'the same body'. You are maybe unaware that the DNA of Neanderthals has been recovered and sequenced, which rather makes a mockery of your assertion here.

God also tells us that we have one teacher and that is Christ.

I am unaware that Christ's teachings refer to evolution at all.

But you don't believe the God of the bible and thus worship scientists as infallible gods.

I see you are a mind-reader, capable of knowing what I do and don't believe. Just because I take the view that most scientists are conscientious people who have worked hard to understand their subject does not mean that either I - or they themselves - regard them as 'infallible gods'. Where do you get such ideas?

That's why you believe anything they say without ever challenging it.

Whatever I challenge, I at least challenge on the basis of having some understanding of what it is I am challenging and why I am challenging it. You have made it quite clear that you have a very limited understanding of both evolutionary theory and the research and evidence that supports it.

Sorry friend, but scientists are as fallible and mortal as you are, which unfortunately, you'll find out on judgment day when they cannot save you. Their words will also die when they die. So no longer will we hear their words in heaven, thank God because only God's word is eternal. The words of scientists will die when they die.

Please stop calling me friend; I am not your friend. As regards the rest of this paragraph, it amounts to little more than hollow threats wrapped in preachy platitudes. It is certainly not an argument against any of the points I have raised, few of which you have even bothered to attempt to respond to anyway. A failing grade, I'm afraid.

 

[Heidi]

Irrelevant. The Lord of the Rings has no evidential basis. The theory of ebolution, on the other hand, has a great deal of evidential support that underpins it and gives confidence in its explanatory robustness.

What evidence? Animals don't turn into people in the real word, there are zero accounts from anyone in history and interpreting fossils is as subjective as interpreting a piece of art. So what evidence? :o

I have no reason to suppose that your understanding of the Bible is better than anyone else's nor that your selective waving around of biblical verses bear any relation to a considered understanding of the natural world, using the reasoning powers that I am sure you believe God gave to us for a purpose. Why should I prefer your idiosyncratic understanding of what the Bible 'means' in respect of evolutionary theory over than of, say, devout Christian and evolutionary scientist Dr Kenneth Miller?

So which words in this phrase can you not understand?Genesis 2:7, "For the Lord God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life." "Dust? :gah Or how about "formed"?

So why do you think that someone who re-writes that verse to say:

"For the Lord God formed the man out of the wombs of wild beasts" has a better understanding of that verse than someone who believes it word for word? :o Would you prefer that I strike out the words I don't like in the bible and add my own? if so, then that would indeed be my interpretation. ;) But I don't do that. You do. And your interpretation has nothing whatsoever to do with the original verse. it couldn't be more different. So why should I believe you over God? :o

have no idea what you are trying to say. This makes no sense. Multiple skulls cannot have come from 'the same body'. You are maybe unaware that the DNA of Neanderthals has been recovered and sequenced, which rather makes a mockery of your assertion here.

You're very naive. Look at those skulls and it can be easily seen that they are skull fragments which means there were many different pieces pieced together. ;)

 

[lordkalvan]

What evidence?

Nested hierarchies, shared traits, molecular biology, transitional features, vestigial features. I would be happy to discuss any of these aspects that interest you.

Animals don't turn into people in the real word, there are zero accounts from anyone in history...

Nor does evolutionary theory suggest that animals do 'turn into people'. You are creating a strawman out of ignorance and waving it about as if it amounts to an irrefutable argument.

...and interpreting fossils is as subjective as interpreting a piece of art.

So presumably you regard the work and testimony of forensic pathologists as entirely worthless in a court of law? The techniques used by palaeoanthropologists and palaeontologists are very similar to those used in forensic pathology.

So what evidence?

See above.

So which words in this phrase can you not understand? Genesis 2:7, "For the Lord God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life." "Dust? Or how about "formed"?

Interpretations placed on these words are not evidential. I see no reason that they should be taken literally rather than figuratively. Does Genesis tell you how God 'formed the man out of the dust of the ground.? No, you just assume a process that you have no evidence to support.

So why do you think that someone who re-writes that verse to say:

"For the Lord God formed the man out of the wombs of wild beasts" has a better understanding of that verse than someone who believes it word for word?

Strawman argument. No one that I am aware of rewrites the verse as you say, so your question is pointless.

Would you prefer that I strike out the words I don't like in the bible and add my own?

I have no preference at all about what you do or do not do, although it was a common practice amongst early Christian scribes. Do you use an absolutely literal translation of the Bible, or do you rely on the judgement of translators?

...if so, then that would indeed be my interpretation. But I don't do that. You do. And your interpretation has nothing whatsoever to do with the original verse. it couldn't be more different. So why should I believe you over God?

I'm not asking you to believe me over God. I'm pointing out that the evidence does not support a literal interpretation of Genesis. The Old Testament was written by fallible men expressing ideas in terms that a pre-scientific culture could understand.

You're very naive. Look at those skulls and it can be easily seen that they are skull fragments which means there were many different pieces pieced together.

And your point is what? That palaeoanthropologists just make stuff up to annoy people like yourself? Why would they do that?

 

[Nick]

Dave, I would be interested to hear what you're answer is to this thread; since you created it, you might as well have some input into it.

 

[Heidi]

Strawman argument. No one that I am aware of rewrites the verse as you say, so your question is pointless.

Good. Then I trust that all Christians here believe that God formed the man out of the dust of the ground instead of from the wombs of wild beasts and thus will refute the story of evolution. ;) In that case, most of them shouldn't be arguing for evolution here and this whole category is a waste of time. ;) But the reality is, that many people who call themselves Christians don't believe Genesis 2;7 as written which is why they're fighting tooth and nail to refute it as written. That's the reality. So your statement is false.

 

[Heidi]

Lorkalvan,

If you want to throw away God's word that says He formed man out of the dust of the ground, and instead, believe the stories of the secular world who rejects God, that unknown animals turned into humans which can't be verified by anyone in history, nor can it be verified biologically either, then who am I to try to stop you? If you don't believe God's word, then you won't believe me either. I've told you what God says, word for word, and that we are not to add or subtract from it or go beyond what is written. If you want to go against it, then that's between you and God. I've done my part by telling you what God says.

But I'm sick and tired of being attacked and mocked for believing God's word as written, by someone who also claims to believe God's word but tries as hard as he can to refute it. That's a house divided against itself that cannot stand. So I'll leave you to worship fallible human beings who can do nothing for you on your deathbed. I'll stick to God's words because he can and does help me on my deathbed. ;) So if you think you know better than God does how he created man, that's between you and God. But don't worry, I know you don't know better than God does. So I won't argue with you; I'll pray for you instead.