Post Reply
Page 12 of 22  •  Prev 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 22 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Religious extremists at it again.....
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 2:29PM #111
rabello
Posts: 22,235

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:18PM, Erey wrote:


Evolution can describe how a horse evolved from a much smaller creature or how a elephant came from a wolly mamoth.  But can it explain why there are horses and elephants?




An unequivacal YES!


Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:18PM, Erey wrote:


Why do near death experiences exist across all cultures and religions?  What evolutionary purpose might they serve?




There is no "purpose".  These are manifestations of having a complex brain and nervous system -- a "side effect" if you will


Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:18PM, Erey wrote:


Some of these things are alot more interesting than you came from a monkey creature.




Complete misrepresentation of Evolution by the process of natural selection.

Black Lives Matter
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 2:33PM #112
mountain_man
Posts: 40,587

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:23PM, Rgurley4 wrote:

FIRST...define "Religious Extremists"...ain't no such organized beast! ..only your derogatory term!


A religious extremist would be someone that wants to push religious dogma on school kids and use the laws of the state to do so. They are organized; it's called the Republican Party.


SECOND..."it"... USSCt doctrine of "separation of church and state" is a false and manufactured one! "free exercise of religion" is what is protected by the US Constitution!


Right, and forcing religious dogma on school kids is taking away their rights to "free exercise of religion."


Oh ...I see..OTHERWISE...stifle enquiring[sic] young minds who now have the power of the internet to compare theories!


There is no comparison. One, evolution, is a fact, the truth. The other is religious dogma that has no place in public schools.


Ahem..BS!...PURE evolutionary THEORY cannot be proven scientifically! Just ask Darwin and his disciples! Where's the missing links?


And you would be wrong. Evolution has been proven beyond a doubt. The only objections are religious.


The USA educational system is way beyond "forcing" anything on students.
A liberal USSCt and 100's of lawsuits and Fed money to schools have seen to that!
Giving alternative points of view / theories is enlightening...not "forcing".


It is when that "alternative point of view" is purely religious dogma.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 2:39PM #113
lucaspa
Posts: 557

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:18PM, Erey wrote:


Genysis story Creationism vs. Evolution is hardly the only or even most likely subject for discussion.  You are going to have many, many subjects for discussion. 


Topics like why is our world so perfectly positioned for life when all around us are plants with no life.  Why, if we were closer or further from the Sun would we be able to sustain life?  How did all this happen out of just a random bang.  Can the laws and constants of physics conspire in such a way, a remarkable way to make our world inhabitable?


Evolution can describe how a horse evolved from a much smaller creature or how a elephant came from a wolly mamoth.  But can it explain why there are horses and elephants?


Why do near death experiences exist across all cultures and religions?  What evolutionary purpose might they serve?


everyday Science is showing us the wonder of the creator God, every day science uncovers the mystery a little bit and then also finds more mystery.


Some of these things are alot more interesting than you came from a monkey creature.



Erey, thank you for providing such a perfect example to GirlChristian of why the law is so bad.  Do you see that you are trying to misuse science to promote a religion?


There are answers to all of your statements that do not involve God.  For instance, you are looking at planets in our solar system.  Every solar system has a "liquid water zone".  In the sol system, earth happens to be the only planet in it.  However, there are a hundred billion stars just in our galaxy.  Other stars will have planets in the liquid water zone.  With all those stars and such wide zones, it is inevitable that many planets are going to be in the zone.  Earth just happens to be that planet in the Sol system.


The Big Bang was not "random". Nor are the processes we have discovered since "random".  After all, gravity is not "random". It is ALWAYS attractive.  The selection portion of natural selection is the opposite of random -- it is pure determinism. 


Yes, evolution explains why there are horses and elephants. :) As you noted, they are the present products of an evolutionary history.  Do you mean whether evolution explains why there is life?  Evolution doesn't do that; it assumes life exists.  Chemistry explains how life arose from non-living chemicals. 


NDEs do not have to serve an evolutionary purpose.  By the time a person dies, they have usually had kids, so natural selection would not select for NDE's.  Just like evolution does not account for degenerative discs: they occur after we have kids. 


You say " every day science uncovers the mystery a little bit and then also finds more mystery".  And that "mystery" you say shows God.  Welcome to god-of-the-gaps.  That is SO bad as Christianity.  In fact, it is atheism. 


GirlChristian, do you see why it is a bad idea to do debate? Do you think the average high school biology teacher is prepared to handle so many misconceptions, and many of them are outside biology?

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."  Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."  James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 2:47PM #114
lucaspa
Posts: 557

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:26PM, mountain_man wrote:

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:14PM, lucaspa wrote:

As I said (see below) from 1500-1831 young earth creationism was the accepted scientific theory.


That would not be true since it was not a scientific theory to begin with. It was solely based on religious dogma. No science was involved. It was "accepted" because the church told them to accept it.



Sorry, but that isn't true.  There was evidence.  For instance, Da Vinci interpreted fossils of shellfish in rocks in the Alps as evidence of a world-wide flood. 


"There is another way to be a Creationist.  One might offer Creationism as a scientific theory....


He's wrong. Religious dogma is not, cannot, never will be, a scientific theory.



That is only denial, not evidence or argumentation.  You have to do better than restate your claim.  Especially when you have been presented with contrary evidence.


A scientific theory is not a digest of facts.  It is an imaginative statement.  It doesn't matter what the inspiration is.  For instance, Gould says that Marxism was an inspiration for punctuated equilibrium.  Creationism is inspired by Genesis 1-8, but that doesn't matter for its status as a scientific theory.   "What matters is the character of the proposals and the ways in which they are articulated and defended.  The great scientific Creationists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries offered problem-solving strategies for many of the questions addressed by evolutionary theory."


Basically, creationism offers solutions to biogeography, biostratigraphy, etc.  Flood Geology says that a material event -- a world-wide flood -- caused geology.  That is testable and falsifiable.  We can and have tested whether a world-wide flood caused geological features. 




"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."  Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."  James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 2:54PM #115
lucaspa
Posts: 557

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:23PM, Rgurley4 wrote:


SECOND..."it"... USSCt doctrine of "separation of church and state" is a false and manufactured one!
"free exercise of religion" is what is protected by the US Constitution!



That's only half of it.  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"  That "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is the "separation of church and state".  You are free, as a private citizen, to practice any religion you want.  But the government cannot have you practice a religion.


Oh ...I see..OTHERWISE...stifle enquiring young minds who now have the power of the internet to compare theories!


And, of course, everything on the internet is correct, right? NO ONE EVER posts anything false on the internet, do they?


Ahem..BS!...PURE evolutionary THEORY cannot be proven scientifically! Just ask Darwin and his disciples! Where's the missing links?



I can post series of transitional series of individuals linking species to species to species to new genera, families, orders, and classes.  That "proves" evolution.  More importantly, if falsifies creationism.  BTW, phylogenetic analsysis also proves evolution.  But I bet you don't even know what that is, do you? 


.. It is immoral to force "religious beliefs" on others...


The USA educational system is way beyond "forcing" anything on students.
A liberal USSCt and 100's of lawsuits and Fed money to schools have seen to that!
Giving alternative points of view / theories is enlightening...not "forcing".



When those "alternative points of view/theories" are falsified, or shown to be wrong, this isn't "enlightening", it's lying to our children.  Does your religion have the 9th Commandment?

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."  Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."  James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 3:03PM #116
mountain_man
Posts: 40,587

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:47PM, lucaspa wrote:

Sorry, but that isn't true.


It is absolutely true. Creationism never was a scientific theory since there was no science involved in it.


There was evidence.  For instance, Da Vinci interpreted fossils of shellfish in rocks in the Alps as evidence of a world-wide flood.


Not evidence arrived at via any kind of scientific method.


That is only denial, not evidence or argumentation....


Sorry, it's the truth. Religious dogma cannot be considered any kind of "scientific theory" since no scientific methods were used to obtain or support the claim.


This is a good time to review what the scientific method is: 1. Ask a Question 2. Do Background Research 3. Construct a Hypothesis 4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment 5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion 6. Communicate Your Results.


None of that was done for creationism. As usual, religions skip steps 1, 2, 4, and 5. They construct a hypothesis, the religious dogma, and then go right to 6.


Now, what is a scientific theory? Apparently some here are unaware of what a scientific theory really is. The imposition of religious dogma is not a scientific theory.


From Rationalwiki: A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested.


Religious dogma is not tested, it's imposed. Your anecdote about fossil seashells is an example of that.


Further from Rationalwiki; Creationist and Intelligent design proponents often like to describe the theory of evolution as just a theory. This relies on equivocating the common usage of the term theory (meaning "idea" or "guess") with the scientific meaning. Theories are the single highest level of scientific achievement and nothing is just a theory - that would be like saying Bill Gates is just a multibillionaire. Additionally, one might say that the notion of evolution is "just a theory" in the same way that Cell Theory and the Theory of Gravitation (fundamental principles of biology and physics, respectively) are "just theories."



So, no, creationism was never a scientific theory. Long strings of equivocations cannot make it one.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 3:19PM #117
costrel
Posts: 6,226

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:23PM, Rgurley4 wrote:

FIRST...define "Religious Extremists"...ain't no such organized beast!


..only your derogatory term!


It is not a derogatory term. Here are a few definitions of religious extremism:


According to Margaret L. Andersen and Howard F. Taylor in Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society, 4th edition (Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2008): "actions and beliefs that are driven by high levels of religious intolerance" (p. 462). 


According to R. Scott Appleby in The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation (Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000): "the civic and violent intolerance of outsiders" (p. 58). 


According to Azza M. Karam in the Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures: Family, Law and Politics, Volume 2 (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2005): "Religious extremism exists within all religious traditions and definitions of it vary depending on the vantage point of the researcher or institution. It is present in both the private (personal and family) sphere as well as the larger public (state and society) sphere. At is base, it can be understood as the use of religious discourse to validate violence, in a Machiavellian sense, as a means to a political end" (p. 606). 


So there are such things as religious extremists and religious extremism, and these terms are academic terms, not derogatory terms. Now, whether or not we should define these Tennessee politicians as religious extremists is another matter that is open to debate. 

Oh ...I see..OTHERWISE...stifle enquiring young minds who now have the power of the internet to compare theories!


The "power of the internet"? I suppose you mean websites like Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International and Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right: First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism


I'll let others who are more knowledgeable than me in constitutional law and evolutionary biology discuss your ideas that the "doctrine of 'separation of church and state' is a false and manufactured one" and that there are no fossilized missing links. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 4:01PM #118
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,790

Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:15PM, lucaspa wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:08PM, Girlchristian wrote:


 


I'm a 34 year old woman and not a high school student (nor, btw, am I a Christian that takes the creation story literally), but I do know from friends that are teachers that high school students are inquisitive and do ask things like "do you believe in God" or "what's the last movie you saw" or "what kind of music do you listen to" or "do you have kids" or "are you married" among many other questions. IMO, the best way to handle those questions is to answer them and then move on.


Hell, when I was in high school many, many years ago, we knew if our teachers were married or had kids or went to church simply because they weren't so rigid and if a student asked them questions they answered honestly.



I also knew many of those things, but NOT because we asked.  Instead, we would see them in church or out with their families, etc.  However, we apparently were better brought up and knew that it was not appropriate to ask them personal questions.  The appropriate answers to most of those questions is: "None of your business" and THEN move on.


BTW, WHICH creation story do you take literally? There are 3 and they all contradict each other.




I take my creation story literally as well. (I am not Christian) Should we teach that story in public schools (in science class) to your children GC? Would you like that?, would you like others not Christians teaching your child  about non Christian creation stories (as literally true, about other gods) in Public school? In the same way you want your creation story forced on children not Christian?

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 4:45PM #119
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,701

Apr 5, 2012 -- 4:01PM, mainecaptain wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:15PM, lucaspa wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:08PM, Girlchristian wrote:


 


I'm a 34 year old woman and not a high school student (nor, btw, am I a Christian that takes the creation story literally), but I do know from friends that are teachers that high school students are inquisitive and do ask things like "do you believe in God" or "what's the last movie you saw" or "what kind of music do you listen to" or "do you have kids" or "are you married" among many other questions. IMO, the best way to handle those questions is to answer them and then move on.


Hell, when I was in high school many, many years ago, we knew if our teachers were married or had kids or went to church simply because they weren't so rigid and if a student asked them questions they answered honestly.



I also knew many of those things, but NOT because we asked.  Instead, we would see them in church or out with their families, etc.  However, we apparently were better brought up and knew that it was not appropriate to ask them personal questions.  The appropriate answers to most of those questions is: "None of your business" and THEN move on.


BTW, WHICH creation story do you take literally? There are 3 and they all contradict each other.




I take my creation story literally as well. (I am not Christian) Should we teach that story in public schools (in science class) to your children GC? Would you like that?, would you like others not Christians teaching your child  about non Christian creation stories (as literally true, about other gods) in Public school? In the same way you want your creation story forced on children not Christian?




MC, you obviously have not read all the posts, because if you would you would know that I don't take the creation story literally and I don't reject evolution nor have I advocated for the teaching of creationism. Please quit mistating what I'm saying.

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 5:41PM #120
IreneAdler
Posts: 2,849

Ya know, I too question this ‘protection’ of teachers whose students wish to discuss points of view counter to theory of Evolution. Foothold indeed!


Any theory “worth its salt” can stand up to critical examination. Sound theory is based on solid, substantiated, verifiable, repeatable data in as controlled an environment as possible to reduce confounding variables. The true skeptic provides rigorous critical assessment of that theory; what survives is of robust nature. Skepticism is of benefit to science- when that skepticism is based on reason.


As to allowing students to use Creationism or ID to refute Theory of Evolution, I would posit that students be allowed to bring this into discussion. Not as a segue into a discussion of religion in the classroom; rather as a lesson on how to refute or counter properly.  The science student must learn that the provenance of one’s evidence must be ascertained; the source of facts presented must be vetted by qualified scientists before it can be considered a proper challenge to any theory (and the work by said scientists must be peer reviewed as well). Student will quickly discover that “my Bible tells me so” or “I’ve been told” are woefully inadequate counters in any scientific discussion. Cite a paper, carry out a well-controlled experiment. Science is about verified facts –not beliefs or customs or old wives’ tales. Just cuz something is written down –or published- doesn’t make it a fact nor does it make it correct. Biblically-derived is not an automatic pass to validity. Theories or counterpoints derived from questionable data are worthless. It would be made clear very quickly that Biblically-derived arguments lack solid data, peer reviewed substantiation and are worthless. In the words of DUO: “do better!”.  Hopefully the whole issue of creationism as an adequate counter-theory to Evolution can be laid to rest in minutes.  


And, this isn’t to say that theories must never change. Who’s to say that, tomorrow, some field scientist will happen upon a discovery that might alter our understanding of Evolution (note: I did not say ‘refute’ Evolution)? But, this discovery would be well-studied and properly vetted by a whole lot of qualified people before that even begins to happen (ahem, Piltdown Man, anyone?). Science ain’t done yet. We are always learning.


In short, it would be a lesson for the student in prudent judgment - know your sources. Learn to employ sound evidence to properly bolster one’s position. But I will concede that it is a great deal easier on the teacher to simply restrict any mention of belief-based theories of origin. Some folks just will not accept the premise that good science is never based on beliefs- no matter how divine the origin. This can make such discussion very difficult-not trying to create an undue burden on teachers. And, while this might open up the classroom to all kinds of notions (dowsing anyone?), I would hope it would impart to students the importance of reasoning.


 


Just my 2 cents.


 


Irene.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 12 of 22  •  Prev 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 22 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook