Evolution and science SHOULD be taught in church. ( alongside ID/Creationism )

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: SuperFrog

Oh. So fun.

I have never seen God create anything in front of my very eyes but I read about it in books, seen videos, listened to teachers, and have read a lot about it on the internet.


How about Evolution? Have you seen it or just believe in it from what you have been told, books, videos, teachers, and research on the internet?

LOL

You have experience it for yourself..look in the mirror...how much have you evolved from a single cell, a fetus, a baby. a toddler, a teenager, a grown human to an old human...

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: SuperFrog

It pretty much is dude!

No, it's not.

If it was, you would know what is evolution, don't you think so?

Are you saying you know what something that is completely unproved and untested, IS ?

Methinks all along the evolution creation stories are ever trumpeted on this planet, and likely many others.

NEITHER of them are worth much thought, as they accomplish NOTHING, and gain NOTHING.

Let us turn our attentions to actually finding out what is really happening, outside of these amazing control schemes.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Ever heard of separation of church and state?

Or does that only work one way. We will not teach your ideas but you should teach our ideas.

It is not the responsibility of the church to teach ideas they don't fully support to make nonbelievers happy .


Sounds to me like you would like the state to dictate what must be taught in church but at the same time forbid the state from teaching the churches ideas. That is exactly what the constitution was forbidding , state interference in what churches teach.

Thank you for pointing obvious reason I started this topic...

Just as science/state should not tell church what to teach... religion should not try to tell science what to teach.

Now, please explain that to our religious friends here on ATS...

I really do marvel at the fact that you think no one steers "science" in any direction.

And I must admit, I think you are more had than the normal religions.

Love the claims that you know what evolution is, and that it is absolutely the truth and will lead us all to victory !

a reply to: spygeek

These same men, are spreading all kinds of "wrong" sciences, with ever changing goalposts but somehow this is ok with them, as it was before with all the other kinds of religions.

They completely gloss over the facts, and have glossed over minds, that they really have no clue as to origins or anything of consequence, and really are involved in the most boring studies of our times,

And they actually take pride in the fact their facts will change ever faster, as it is PROOF they are somehow correct.

They do not see that this is a completely sandbox way of thinking, one that will never offer them full proof, or even look for it, and often they actually are glad for this it appears.

Religion and scientific theory both, working super hard and never lifting the fog.

Science, sure go ahead. God is the ultimate scientist.

Depends on if you are talking about Evolution (change over time) vs Darwinism (descent with modification.) Darwinism is the best fit we have right now, but it doesn't lend to other biological sciences so no need to focus on it. A quick blurb about the theory and move on to the more established and testable disciplines.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Did you miss the part where I was replying to your statement that "There is no such a thing as 'missing link' "? My point before that was that evolution doesn't describe how Homo Sapiens came to be, which you agreed to (remember my examples of not believing chimpanzees or other hominids gave birth to the first Homo Sapiens?).

Sorry but this part is completely wrong. Evolution DOES describe precisely how Homo sapiens came to be. In fact there is more evidence related to human evolution than there is for many other species. "Missing link" is a misnomer. Every fossil is a link between the previous and the later species. But if you are talking specific fossils that show human evolution, there are 20 + discovered "missing links" between ancient ape and modern human. Of course a chimp didn't give birth to a human. The population slowly changed over time. Chimps are our cousins, not our ancestors.

I know chimps aren't our ancestors. That's the point I'm making, that there's no way a separate hominid species gave birth to the first genetically different hominids known as "modern humans/Homo Sapiens".

So, how does evolution say the first 2 Homo Sapiens came about? I'm talking about the first hominids with "modern humans/Homo Sapien" DNA, not just fossils that look similar but have slight differences (and completely different DNA) like what you're talking about.

There would've had to be at least 1 male & 1 female in an overlapping time period with this new "modern human/Homo Sapien" DNA. Otherwise they never could've bred & created the lineage of "pure" Homo Sapiens that existed for 10s of thousands of years before Homo Sapiens mixed with Neanderthals & Denisovans.

a reply to: SuperFrog

This is the perfect response to people suggesting creationism be taught in schools.

If religion should be taught in school, why not science in religion? Just as appropriate right,?

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Science, sure go ahead. God is the ultimate scientist.

I just love your optimism...

God is everything 'ultimate', including genocide according to bible, done by flashing it all away...

Part where this fails is - why if he 'created' all universe out of nothing, he needed ribs to create one more thing?!

Sunday school class at its best!
m.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Unity_99
Its not even a majority who attend church, so its not really important to even discuss.

Main thing is to keep religions out of schools.

They shouldn't be anything on religion in a social text.

They can take comparative religion in senior years if they're interested.

Actually, the majority of the population is christian, followed by Muslims. So I would guess that the majority "do" go to church.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
I know chimps aren't our ancestors. That's the point I'm making, that there's no way a separate hominid species gave birth to the first genetically different hominids known as "modern humans/Homo Sapiens".

Your point is simply a misunderstanding of how evolution works. There was no "first" homo sapien. The borderline between species is arbitrary, not one single point. Evolution functions via genetic mutations and natural selection for the most part. You don't have one species suddenly giving birth to a new one. You have beneficial mutations and traits that are passed down and slowly become dominant in a species (if it is helpful). When a new trait or series of traits become dominant over time, the population will become slightly different from the originals. Eventually they diverge enough to cause us to classify them differently.

So basically you have traits and mutations accumulating in a population until tiny change appears to be big change. When you have hundreds of mutations per generation and you are in a fast changing environment, you'll see faster change. There is no set point where one species gives birth to a new one, if something like that happened it would falsify evolution. Don't get me wrong, individuals can be born with big mutations, but they rarely survive long enough to reproduce, so it doesn't affect the genetic lines.

So, how does evolution say the first 2 Homo Sapiens came about? I'm talking about the first hominids with "modern humans/Homo Sapien" DNA, not just fossils that look similar but have slight differences (and completely different DNA) like what you're talking about.

I touched on this above. There was never any first 2 homo sapiens. There was a population of 10,000+, that experienced slight changes that accumulated over time to make them different enough from homo heidelbergensis or antecessor to be classified as a new species.

I hope I cleared up your questions. If I missed something, please let me know.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

There is no such thing as "speciation" where a change in species happens within a generation. So there is no such thing as the "first man/woman". If there was that would be an indication that evolution is incorrect