Battle Against Teaching Evolution in Texas Begins: Should creationism win out, textbooks throughout

Originally posted by SevenThunders
reply to post by keeb333

 

Perhaps if you saw someone raised from the dead or healed miraculously you would change your viewpoint. Jesus lives! Those who saw his resurrection were willing to die for what they saw.

Besides the science that you worship changes it's foundation every couple of generations or so. It's about as stable as this years fashion trends. Why I believe it was the Scientific American that published a debunking of the Wright brothers heavier than air flight after they had already demonstrated it in front of many witnesses.

As it stands I have a Ph.D and two masters degrees in science and engineering. I can confidently state that everything you believe about the universe will be proven wrong within a hundred years or so. Evolution has resisted the trend only because it is unthinkable for hard core atheists to admit to the existence of a designer.

Just so you are fully aware of this. Science has a malleable foundation. Always has. The very definition of the scientific process is one of change. I'm sure that within 100 years everything everyone believes will be proven wrong. Did you know most people believe that black holes suck you into a different dimension, and yet there is no science backing that up at all? Most people in general have HUGE misconceptions of what science does and doesn't know. And how it deals with the data they receive. You seem to think that we somehow designed a system to be flawless, when all we can do is our best as humans. It's a process not a belief system.

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. Properly executed experiments use controls. Controls are needed to eliminate alternate explanations of experimental results. Using this simple and linear logic we can narrow down the existence or non-existence of any phenomena known to man, provided we have the adequate means to test any given hypothesis or contested portions of a theory.
Nowhere in there does it say end God.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by projectvxn]

reply to post by projectvxn

Nowhere in there does it say end God.

Darwinist Biologist P.Z. Myers’ : '…"greater science literacy, which is going to lead to the erosion of religion, and then we’ll get this nice positive feedback mechanism going where as religion slowly fades away we'll get more and more science to replace it and that will displace more and more religion which will allow more and more science in and we’ll eventually get to the point where religion has taken that appropriate place as a side dish rather than the main course. And if you separate out the ethical message from religion — what have you got left — you got — you got a bunch of fairy tales, right?"

reply to post by Howie47


Do you know that atheism is a minority group even within the scientific community? It is doubtful science will destroy the spiritual connection with god. It may even help to strengthen it. Furthermore, I will repeat this, Darwinism is NOT Evolutionary science as we know it today. And Charles Darwin never sought to end god. He was a devour Christian after all.

reply to post by projectvxn


"He was a devour Christian after all. "
I'm sorry that is just too funny. He sure wanted to devour those
Christians!
Science is ruled over by an elite group; a cadrea of atheist. You aren't aware of this?

reply to post by projectvxn

Furthermore, I will repeat this, Darwinism is NOT Evolutionary science as we know it today. And Charles Darwin never sought to end god. He was a devour Christian after all.

Freudian slip?

If this is turning into a science vs. religion thread, I need to point something out. Science is the search for truth. Religion is the search for wisdom. Neither one denies the other, but each needs the other.

Consider this analogy: Knowledge is like owning a lumber yard full of lumber. Wisdom is like having the knowledge to build a house. Without that wood, you will never build a house, despite your talent. Without that knowledge, all the wood in the world is just a bunch of worthless planks. To build a house, you must have both.

No scientist who holds a belief so strongly that he will distort experiments or misquote facts to make his point will ever contribute to anything in the long run. No religious fanatic who refutes every discovery and concept in a desperate effort to 'protect' his faith will ever contribute either. Only men who are willing to accept both science and faith will ever find the truth they search for.

True science can never condemn a true faith; only uphold it.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Mister Redneck, I haven't always agreed with things I've seen you post, but here's a star

Your simple way of putting it, 'truth' versus 'wisdom' just seems to say it all.

You are a lucky man, indeed....you are wise, and you have a daughter (see, I've been reading!) who has you for a father...and sure she is going to seek truth and wisdom, based on your brilliant guidance...don't be surprised, though, if she imparts a little guidance in the other direction as well!

WW

reply to post by Howie47


Scientists Find A Fingerprint Of Evolution Across The Human Genome

ScienceDaily (Apr. 9, 2008) — The Human Genome Project revealed that only a small fraction of the 3 billion “letter” DNA code actually instructs cells to manufacture proteins, the workhorses of most life processes. This has raised the question of what the remaining part of the human genome does. How much of the rest performs other biological functions, and how much is merely residue of prior genetic events?

www.sciencedaily.com...

reply to post by weedwhacker

Mister Redneck, I haven't always agreed with things I've seen you post, but here's a star

Agreement is not a requirement to learn from each other. In many cases, it is a hindrance.

You are a lucky man, indeed....you are wise, and you have a daughter (see, I've been reading!) who has you for a father...and sure she is going to seek truth and wisdom, based on your brilliant guidance...don't be surprised, though, if she imparts a little guidance in the other direction as well!

There's that word again. I wish I were as wise as people here seem to think me.

And my daughter has already taught me many things. I'm proud to say that she is an independent thinker as well, and so is my son, just a few years behind her. Lucky, though, I'll agree with. I've truly been doubly blessed. Thank you for the compliment, WW.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by Christian Voice

Evolution is totally theory and not fact. Evolution can no more be proven than creationism can

Why didn't you adress the actual points Johnsky made?

What he said about the difference between theory and fact.

WHat he said about fossil records as fact.

His gravity analogy.

I'd love to see a real reply from you. If you're going to use modern terms like "fact" "theory" and "proven", then you have to play by the rules of the game dude.

Originally posted by keeb333

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Actually that isn't really reflective of my belief...I was trying to speak from 'the other side' I guess. As a Panentheist I believe God is both interconnected with everything in Nature, and is also outside of Nature. So I believe Nature is divine in itself

How can something be outside of Nature? It it exists it is part of Nature. Therefore, if god exists, god is part of nature, and should be discernible through scientific observation

Well that is certainly a fundamental reductionist viewpoint.

I stated earlier I believed God was both a part of and not a part of. So I guess I believe that is half correct. Well I believe that is fully correct, I would just add the element of God also exsisting 'outside of nature' hehe.

Since I stated I believed God was a part of nature in the sense that God was inter-connected with all that is in nature, I would say everything you observe in nature, through science, is evidence of God.

I could attempt to list what I believe is evidence for God also existing 'outside of nature', and elaborate on my belief in general.. but I am not thinking that's really what you were wanting me to do

"God", how did this entity come into existence and why?

How did physical reality come into existence and why?

Keep in mind science doesn't say there was nothing pre-Big Bang! In fact, there was something pre-Big Bang.

So even from a scientific standpoint, the Big-Bang doesn't answer the 'How" part of your question of 'existence' coming into being, it only addresses the 'how' of the Universe coming into being.

What is the scientific ToE? Elaborate this.

We are all still figuring it out. But both parties have wonderful ideas and evidence supporting both God and non-God theories.

Christians say that God always was and always will be, but this does not make any sense unless time is not linear.

First off, does QM models suggest more towards time being linear or non-linear??

Secondly, Elaborate on a scientific model that has 'made sense' of the fundamental existence of existence

Both parties are still figuring it out. Both.

And by both I don't mean Christians versus Scientists. Christians are not the only ones that believe in 'God'. Your wording shouldn't reflect it like that...

[edit on 123030p://11u10 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I don't think Christian Voice understands that there is DATA backing up Evolution. Whereas creationism, I'm saying this as a Christian now, is BS.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

 

I don't think Christian Voice understands that there is DATA backing up Evolution. Whereas creationism, I'm saying this as a Christian now, is BS.

No I don't think he even understands how the modern thinking world even uses the terms 'evidence' and 'proof'. Stuck in a specific mental-framework this one is.

There is, as other members are saying, mountains of evidence to support the proof of evolution. And as Johnsky said, fossils are fact.

I myself am more inclined to call myself an ID'er Uh oh!!

Creationism however, I think is

Creationism is not necessarily the same as ID! There are many ID theories that have no Christian underpinnings

[edit on 103030p://10u06 by Lucid Lunacy]

Originally posted by Christian Voice
Evolution is totally theory and not fact. Evolution can no more be proven than creationism can. If evolution is going to be tought in public schools it should be tought as theory, not as fact. Creationism makes far more sense to me, but should be tought by parents and Sunday school workers. Both theories, both unproven.

Okay, I'll bite.
I want you to pick up a fossil... now disprove it's existence.

In fact. Go to a local museum, stand by one of the skeletons of a homo-erectus, and try to tell people it's not really there. Then go looking for fossils of modern humans from that time period... you'll never find them, because back then we hadn't evolved yet, those homo-erectus were the humans.

It's not a theory. It's quite simply fact.

As I mentioned, the theory is the HOW.
We know it happened, thats fact, we are still debating HOW it worked, thats the theory.

As for Creationism... it's something that was written in a book with no data to back it up. The definition of that is fiction.

reply to post by johnsky


Not to mention that every day more and more evidence to support the fact mounts. The reason we look at genes and track changes in the code is because we're looking for the very fundamental mechanism that caused our evolution. Like I said before, most of the fundamentalists are still arguing against Darwinism when the rest of the world has move far beyond it.

reply to post by projectvxn


project, to add to what you just said...

there is evidence of a 'merging' of human chromosome pairs, sometime in our past....but these two genes merged at one point....but are still separate in the Chimpanzee's genome.

I saw this somewhere, maybe you can elaborate.

Humans have 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent, whilst most other primates have 48 chromosomes.... I remember now, there is series of online lectures by Ken Miller, and it explains much better than I......

gist is, we humans have 46 chromosomes because, two fused together, at some time in our evolutionary past.........and the markers to prove that fact are still there....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by projectvxn

 

project, to add to what you just said...

there is evidence of a 'merging' of human chromosome pairs, sometime in our past....but these two genes merged at one point....but are still separate in the Chimpanzee's genome.

I saw this somewhere, maybe you can elaborate.

Humans have 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent, whilst most other primates have 48 chromosomes.... I remember now, there is series of online lectures by Ken Miller, and it explains much better than I......

gist is, we humans have 46 chromosomes because, two fused together, at some time in our evolutionary past.........and the markers to prove that fact are still there....

I really don't know..I'm not a geneticist. If I tried answering that I'd be lying to you.

reply to post by projectvxn


I'm not a geneticist either, of course....

However, I'd recommend looking up this chap, Ken Miller, because he know genetics, and, even though he's a Roman Catholic, he knows how to reconcile his faith, with his science.

I think it's splendid, and worth a look.

WW

As usual the materialistic media gives a terribly misleading headline.

"Battle Against Teaching Evolution in Texas Begins: Should creationism win out, textbooks throughout the country–not just Texas–will challenge the theory of evolution in science curricula"

The battle is starting to loom in many states, not to teach creationism or any religion. But to stop the teaching of the religion of dogmatic materialism, and it's wedge doctrine of Darwinism. Which is disguised as
Evolution. The cry is for academic freedom! To tare down the wall, that keeps scientist, teachers and students from exploring any and all ideas concerning the origins and ultimate reality of the material world!
The old guard just wants to maintain the status quo of Godless materialism. That is far more important to them, then science discovering
truth and knowledge. Darwinist want to obfuscate the truth! While the true searchers and hungers of new knowledge are bursting at the gates
of the walls, that Godless Materialist have erected, that keeps them confined within the fortress of strict materialism.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by Howie47]

[edit on 11-4-2008 by Howie47]

[edit on 11-4-2008 by Howie47]

[edit on 11-4-2008 by Howie47]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Orrrrrrrr. A very efficient Creator. Who created man last. Started with the chromosome of mans closest animal relative. Modified it a little, Added a little here, subtracted a little there; and wallah. Instantly turned
a Ford Falcon into a GT40!
Of course there have been changes in the chromosomes of man since his conception. Maybe man started with the ability to manufacture his own
vitamin C. But because He had knowledge to eat fruit when he was deficient of C. God fussed the two separate chromosomes to serve a better purpose.
Anything makes more sense. Then, "everything evolved from a common ancestor, which chemically evolved in a hostel environment, and blah blah blah."

reply to post by Howie47


Howie? 'a very efficient creator'? Are you actually serious?

Then you go off on a description of how maybe we could manufacture vitamin C in our own bodies, but that changed, so we have to eat citrus....your logic escapes me!

A perfect 'creator' would make us much better than we seem to be....what we seem to be, is an organism, much like most other organisms on Earth, susceptible to disease an death.

Bees can see in the Ultraviolet, by we can't?

Whales and dolphins have good hearing underwater, but ours sucks. Why?

Why do we have to excrete waste in the manner we do? I could of a better way, if I were an all-powerful, all-knowing creator.

Maybe he has stock in a toilet-paper company....

that was a joke...

like most of these people who support Creationism....purely a joke....