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

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby
a reply to: SuperFrog

Well I edited it out, but here is a link that might help you: en.wikipedia.org...

Also, in the set [0, 1] (sadly my curly brackets are not showing up?) under normal rules of modulo addition, 1 + 1 = 0.

EDIT: And if you want to be picky, what is the "root" of 4? Square root? Cube root? Perhaps your language could be more well-defined.

Really, should define that I did not mean binary arithmetic, so you prove - I did not define it to you...

Let's go that route - in binary arithmetic - is 1+1 always 0 or not? Is this well defined question now??

And to cut the chase... what is your point in original post? Can you please define it bit better?

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby
a reply to: SuperFrog

Well I edited it out, but here is a link that might help you: en.wikipedia.org...

Also, in the set [0, 1] (sadly my curly brackets are not showing up?) under normal rules of modulo addition, 1 + 1 = 0.

EDIT: And if you want to be picky, what is the "root" of 4? Square root? Cube root? Perhaps your language could be more well-defined.

Really, should define that I did not mean binary arithmetic, so you prove - I did not define it to you...

Let's go that route - in binary arithmetic - is 1+1 always 0 or not? Is this well defined question now??

And to cut the chase... what is your point in original post? Can you please define it bit better?

Nowhere did I mention binary. You jumped to that from my example that happened to only use 0 and 1. If I had said in the set [0, 1, 2] that 1 + 2 = 0 would you have assumed I was talking about binary? (I hope not...) My original point was my original post in this thread. After that I simply responded to your responses.

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby
a reply to: SuperFrog

Well I edited it out, but here is a link that might help you: en.wikipedia.org...

Also, in the set [0, 1] (sadly my curly brackets are not showing up?) under normal rules of modulo addition, 1 + 1 = 0.

EDIT: And if you want to be picky, what is the "root" of 4? Square root? Cube root? Perhaps your language could be more well-defined.

Really, should define that I did not mean binary arithmetic, so you prove - I did not define it to you...

Let's go that route - in binary arithmetic - is 1+1 always 0 or not? Is this well defined question now??

And to cut the chase... what is your point in original post? Can you please define it bit better?

Nowhere did I mention binary. You jumped to that from my example that happened to only use 0 and 1. If I had said in the set [0, 1, 2] that 1 + 2 = 0 would you have assumed I was talking about binary? (I hope not...) My original point was my original post in this thread. After that I simply responded to your responses.

No, you said modulo addition in first example with 1+1=0 where nowhere I mentioned it in original question?!

Still no not relevant to how your post explains anything, except creating some woodoo mysticism...

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby
a reply to: SuperFrog

Well I edited it out, but here is a link that might help you: en.wikipedia.org...

Also, in the set [0, 1] (sadly my curly brackets are not showing up?) under normal rules of modulo addition, 1 + 1 = 0.

EDIT: And if you want to be picky, what is the "root" of 4? Square root? Cube root? Perhaps your language could be more well-defined.

Really, should define that I did not mean binary arithmetic, so you prove - I did not define it to you...

Let's go that route - in binary arithmetic - is 1+1 always 0 or not? Is this well defined question now??

And to cut the chase... what is your point in original post? Can you please define it bit better?

Nowhere did I mention binary. You jumped to that from my example that happened to only use 0 and 1. If I had said in the set [0, 1, 2] that 1 + 2 = 0 would you have assumed I was talking about binary? (I hope not...) My original point was my original post in this thread. After that I simply responded to your responses.

No, you said modulo addition in first example with 1+1=0 where nowhere I mentioned it in original question?!

Still no not relevant to how your post explains anything, except creating some woodoo mysticism...

My point was, and I am quoting from my first entry in this thread: "Everything is belief/faith."

My example was in response to you asking if I knew 1 + 1 = 2. Apparently, bringing in mathematics (you know, that pesky thing scientists happen to rely on) is "woodoo mysticism".

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: SuperFrog

I am well aware of the fairy tales of which you speak. In the sixth grade I watched a cartoon in which the fish repeatedly threw themselves onto the beach in a vane attempt to breath out of water. Thankfully, when one of the fish was finally able to take a breath, he grew feet and walked into the jungle where he some how gave birth to chickens. Honestly, the only evolution I see happening is the evolution of Darwin's idea.

Glad it got to you....

Much easier to imagine poof and everything created then believe those silly scientist that it took almost 4 billion years of evolution to get here, after 5 mass extinction events, and one going on right now...

Thankfully, you don't have to watch cartoons anymore...

To get to the other side? I am guessing there was probably some water over there

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...

48 of the 50 states forbid the teaching of creationism in public schools, a few allow it in charter schools.
However, for the most part it is already illegal.

So why the big deal?

If 48 of 50 states, the majority of the US and only 2 of the smaller states allow it, then it is basically outlawed to teach creationism in 95% of all American public education classrooms.

So why are you so hyped up about it, except to demand
that churches teach evolution.

Weird and really extreme anti-religious paranoia
about "Christians" forcing their views on you,
when in fact it is against the law 95% of the time.

a reply to: SuperFrog

...

I don't understand what you mean here. You expect religious institutions to preach things that have nothing to do with their tenets? You realize that churches and mosques are voluntarily attended, right? In other words, people choose to attend them because they want to practice their faith or learn more about it.

Why not start voluntary "science & evolution" clubs & teach about them there? Otherwise that's like expecting voluntary golf clubs to teach plate tectonics or the secrets of Taoism.

Super frog there are roughly 4 billion people on the planet who are believers in one of the three Abrahamic religions...That is more than half of the planet and growing.

Good luck changing all of their minds.

Religious people make more babies because God gives them the choice to embrace this true richness of life. So not a decision based on their wallets or if we are going to be comfortable living 5 in a 2 and half or if we can buy ipods for everyone on xmas. I am not saying that all the non believers are cash loving vain vanity chasing men an woman, but numbers don't lie. And I know many who have big families and strong values and are Atheists.

You seem to know something about math. Do the math.

Nothing is being forced upon, especially in first world countries where freedom is there and they can fully decide to practice what they want. They (practising immigrants) are invited to fill in the void caused by low birth rates which is a problem in Canada, US, etc. We need to collect those taxes you know and the collectors don't care if you love God or not or if you learn Evolution or Genesis.

Are you outraged that religions exist, even though in Canada and in the US, these religions, which were taught as little as 25 years ago, are virtually non present in schools today? Seriously what is your point?

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby
My point was, and I am quoting from my first entry in this thread: "Everything is belief/faith."

My example was in response to you asking if I knew 1 + 1 = 2. Apparently, bringing in mathematics (you know, that pesky thing scientists happen to rely on) is "woodoo mysticism".

Woodoo mystcism is claim that everything is belief/faith... as for math, pretending like you did not know why I asked you if 1 + 1 = 2 or what I meant is just bit off topic and dishonesty... no worries, I am sure we understand each other...


a reply to: grandmakdw

So 2 states that should fix their law, what you're saying, right?

There should be no states to teach magic and fairy tales and pretend it is science.

originally posted by: onthedownlow
To get to the other side? I am guessing there was probably some water over there

Exactly, evolutionary advantage that makes this little fish invasive nightmare...

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: SuperFrog

...

I don't understand what you mean here. You expect religious institutions to preach things that have nothing to do with their tenets? You realize that churches and mosques are voluntarily attended, right? In other words, people choose to attend them because they want to practice their faith or learn more about it.

Why not start voluntary "science & evolution" clubs & teach about them there? Otherwise that's like expecting voluntary golf clubs to teach plate tectonics or the secrets of Taoism.

Actually, few members mentioned that this would be state imposed rule, not sure why, but this brings completely new light to something religious preachers are missing - honesty...

How can you possibly teach something you know is not true and pretend it is true?!

I mean, everyone who read the bible know that for example killing of firstborn in Egypt is nothing short of a revenge/genocide/crime/wrongdoing... and teach it as it actually means something else???

Why not teach something we know we have evidence, and why they don't mention all the time - this is strictly our belief, most people in western world, except USA don't believe this?!

Starting to believe in Karma...

There was no pretending when addressing your snarky rebuttal asking me if I knew 1 + 1 = 2. I was merely trying to reinforce my statement that everything is belief/faith. Different viewpoints provide different "answers".

You seem to be very convinced that evolution is the answer to how our current form of life has come to be. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I am also not trying to convince anyone else that evolution is the one true answer. You seem to be taken in by this idea that science has all the answers. Why? Has science ever been wrong/revised? Are the only two things that are infinite the universe and human stupidity? (Quick answer to that last one, no. Even a cursory understanding of theories of infinity should resolve that one for you.)

The thing is - science is designed to be constantly revised, and rewritten with evidence, while religion, not so much... Not that there isn't an evolution of religion - there most definitely is - but religion isn't rewritten on evidence, and peer review, but rather rewritten by cultural momentum. A good example of "micro" religious evolution would be Judaism to Christianity, while an example of "macro" religious evolution would be Judaism to the FDLS - both sects have the same foundation but vastly different beliefs and traditions, and those differences in beliefs and traditions happened with smaller cultural changes over a long period of time

Even scientology would not have been formed without the prior (financial) success of religions before them.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SuperFrog

I see what you are doing here, but I really don't like it. You are lowering yourself to the level of the assholes who refuse to educate themselves on evolution and how science works and insist that Creationism is a valid competing scientific theory against evolution. But here's the thing, your idea breaks religious freedom, AND it opens the door for Creationists to continue to pretend like the theory of evolution is a religion.

The level of assholes?

You are a peach

I wouldnt ever sink to the level I have to call people names because they disagree with my beliefs, religious or otherwise

You are a really sad individual, to get your jollys running others down to make yourself fell good.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Actually, few members mentioned that this would be state imposed rule, not sure why, but this brings completely new light to something religious preachers are missing - honesty...

How can you possibly teach something you know is not true and pretend it is true?!

I mean, everyone who read the bible know that for example killing of firstborn in Egypt is nothing short of a revenge/genocide/crime/wrongdoing... and teach it as it actually means something else???

Why not teach something we know we have evidence, and why they don't mention all the time - this is strictly our belief, most people in western world, except USA don't believe this?!

Starting to believe in Karma...

Ok, so once again, why not start voluntary "science & evolution" clubs & teach about them there?

Besides, who says modern evolution and modern science are true? Science is filled with more than its share of theories that were later proven false. It wasn't too long ago when Newton's theory of gravity was considered fact, as was Luminiferous ether. And Eugenics & the scientific racism fields were accepted as fact too. Then there's Hawking w/his belief that all matter was destroyed upon reaching a black hole (which he's rejected now). And why should churches & mosques teach about dark matter & dark energy when scientists can't even agree on them? Also, tell me this, how does evolution say the first Homo Sapiens came to be? Did other hominids give birth to them, did other distantly related primates give birth to them, or did they just appear?

(Oh snap! While typing this I found a few articles to prove my point even more. )

10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Were Later Debunked
Superseded scientific theories
The top 10 most spectacularly wrong widely held scientific theories

The beautiful thing about science is that a single new discovery or observation can overturn centuries-old theories. In other words, virtually everything we're currently taught about science could be proven completely wrong in the future. So how can you ridicule the teachings of religions when your own dogma has such a storied history of being wrong?

a reply to: TycoonBarnaby


No, evolution does not cover how live comes to be, but describes how it changed to current form. There are hypothesis how live came to be, but it has not yet been proven to work. (some research is closing near it, but still nothing concrete)

In some cases science does hold answers, but I agree, science is evolving and new discoveries rarely render old one, most of the time they just prove old one and build upon already known. For example, in times of publishing 'Origin of Species', Darwin had no idea about DNA, and later DNA research provided additional proof for evolution.

Sure, there is a lot more to learn, but placing mythical creatures to explain something science did not explain yet... sure, goes well with Einstein's quote... while we at quotes, here is one of my favorite by Sir Clarke:

The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Ok, so once again, why not start voluntary "science & evolution" clubs & teach about them there?

Besides, who says modern evolution and modern science are true? Science is filled with more than its share of theories that were later proven false. It wasn't too long ago when Newton's theory of gravity was considered fact, as was Luminiferous ether. And Eugenics & the scientific racism fields were accepted as fact too. Then there's Hawking w/his belief that all matter was destroyed upon reaching a black hole (which he's rejected now). And why should churches & mosques teach about dark matter & dark energy when scientists can't even agree on them? Also, tell me this, how does evolution say the first Homo Sapiens came to be? Did other hominids give birth to them, did other distantly related primates give birth to them, or did they just appear?

(Oh snap! While typing this I found a few articles to prove my point even more.

)

10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Were Later Debunked
Superseded scientific theories
The top 10 most spectacularly wrong widely held scientific theories

The beautiful thing about science is that a single new discovery or observation can overturn centuries-old theories. In other words, virtually everything we're currently taught about science could be proven completely wrong in the future. So how can you ridicule the teachings of religions when your own dogma has such a storied history of being wrong?

Why not teach in church, if for religious folks is so important to learn about fairy tales in science class?? (see irony??)

As for theory being true, yes, theory has to be verifiable and testable to be theory - so result would be that it is true. Just for example ToE has been verified and later with DNA and genetics proven to be correct - so yes - it is true. Will it change with more discoveries - yes... it gets better defined with time, but it has not yet been proven wrong.

BTW, evolution does not cover how life got here, but it does cover how our kind evolved through time to modern humans. New science actually confirmed something we did not know before - for example that we interbreeded with Neanderthals and Denisovans.

There is no clear cut where our ancestors gave birth to modern humans, process is gradual and takes lots of time. Best explained by Dr. Dawkins, just imagine if you and all your ancestors hold hand to hand and you move back in time. Change is minimal between close ones, but further you go, more different you are from where we started.

There is no such a thing as 'missing link'

a reply to: SuperFrog

I don't think anything should be taught in a church, but maybe that's just me.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: TycoonBarnaby
Why not teach in church, if for religious folks is so important to learn about fairy tales in science class?? (see irony??)

As for theory being true, yes, theory has to be verifiable and testable to be theory - so result would be that it is true. Just for example ToE has been verified and later with DNA and genetics proven to be correct - so yes - it is true. Will it change with more discoveries - yes... it gets better defined with time, but it has not yet been proven wrong.

BTW, evolution does not cover how life got here, but it does cover how our kind evolved through time to modern humans. New science actually confirmed something we did not know before - for example that we interbreeded with Neanderthals and Denisovans.

There is no clear cut where our ancestors gave birth to modern humans, process is gradual and takes lots of time. Best explained by Dr. Dawkins, just imagine if you and all your ancestors hold hand to hand and you move back in time. Change is minimal between close ones, but further you go, more different you are from where we started.

There is no such a thing as 'missing link'

Ok, so you're just being facetious? I thought you were trying to have a real discussion about this. Silly me. You completely overlooked most of the points I made. And definitely overlooked the simple question I keep asking you: Why not start voluntary "science & evolution" clubs & teach about them there?

And once again, you keep going on about science & evolution being fact, but they're not. Some elements of them are proven, but not all by a long shot. Plus I gave you 3 links which describe the most famous scientific theories that have been proven to be false. Who's to say today's major theories won't be on those lists 20 years from now?

And what's the point in teaching evolution in religious institutions when you just admitted evolution can't even answer the simplest question of them all, "where did we come from?" That's one of the first things people ask in religious settings, and your proposal fails at the starting line.

And 3 things about Homo Sapiens mixing w/Neanderthals & Denisovans.

1. Almost no Sub-Saharan Africans have DNA from those groups.

2. The Mbenga/"pygmies" of Central Africa actually have traces of a previously unknown hominid in their DNA.

3. This proves my point about science being wrong! Just 100 years ago, Western science taught the exact opposite! "White" races were supposedly the only "pure" humans while "black/Negro" races were supposedly "not pure", sub-humans, part animal, etc. Now it turns out the only "pure" Homo Sapiens are the very ones who were branded as sub-human (I'm part Muscogee & had a white slave owner/forefather in my bloodline, so I'm mixed w/Neanderthal too) That's why I brought up Eugenics, the scientific racism fields, and science's history of being ridiculously false.

Obviously sciences can have major truths to them. But how can you honestly expect people to replace their beliefs with something that can be nullified by literally anyone in the scientific fields? In fact, you don't even have to be a "scientist" to stumble across a new discovery or observation that will prove tested theories as false. How's that supposed to give someone spiritual stability? LOL

Oh & you said there is no such thing as a missing link, right? Is that your view or the common belief in evolution? And do you have scientific facts to back that up or are you just guessing? I'm asking this because you can't put down religions in favor of pushing "truths" when you're really just pushing your opinions.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Ok, so you're just being facetious? I thought you were trying to have a real discussion about this. Silly me. You completely overlooked most of the points I made. And definitely overlooked the simple question I keep asking you: Why not start voluntary "science & evolution" clubs & teach about them there?

Just being bit sarcastic with recent posts on ATS. Why not teach science and evolution in church? Why in clubs as you suggested??

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
And once again, you keep going on about science & evolution being fact, but they're not. Some elements of them are proven, but not all by a long shot. Plus I gave you 3 links which describe the most famous scientific theories that have been proven to be false. Who's to say today's major theories won't be on those lists 20 years from now?

Some of them where just hypothesis, until proven false, yet some are there to stay, being proven over and over, for example evolution, which is topic here. It is rare that theory is completely proven wrong, just because today it has to be tested, and most likely it gets upgraded with new knowledge, rather then completely proven wrong.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
And what's the point in teaching evolution in religious institutions when you just admitted evolution can't even answer the simplest question of them all, "where did we come from?" That's one of the first things people ask in religious settings, and your proposal fails at the starting line.

This is good example why we should teach evolution there - because more then once here even is mentioned that it is not evolution that has to prove how life come to be, but how it evolved once it was there. See, little sunday class about basic of meaning of evolution would help here.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
And 3 things about Homo Sapiens mixing w/Neanderthals & Denisovans.

1. Almost no Sub-Saharan Africans have DNA from those groups.

2. The Mbenga/"pygmies" of Central Africa actually have traces of a previously unknown hominid in their DNA.

3. This proves my point about science being wrong! Just 100 years ago, Western science taught the exact opposite! "White" races were supposedly the only "pure" humans while "black/Negro" races were supposedly "not pure", sub-humans, part animal, etc. Now it turns out the only "pure" Homo Sapiens are the very ones who were branded as sub-human (I'm part Muscogee & had a white slave owner/forefather in my bloodline, so I'm mixed w/Neanderthal too) That's why I brought up Eugenics, the scientific racism fields, and science's history of being ridiculously false.

There is no such a thing as 'pure' homo-sapiens.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Obviously sciences can have major truths to them. But how can you honestly expect people to replace their beliefs with something that can be nullified by literally anyone in the scientific fields? In fact, you don't even have to be a "scientist" to stumble across a new discovery or observation that will prove tested theories as false. How's that supposed to give someone spiritual stability? LOL

Explain spiritual stability.
Why is hard to imagine that people don't require religious belief to live and prosper. Religions are just another thing that divided humans to point of wars, hate, genocides...

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Oh & you said there is no such thing as a missing link, right? Is that your view or the common belief in evolution? And do you have scientific facts to back that up or are you just guessing? I'm asking this because you can't put down religions in favor of pushing "truths" when you're really just pushing your opinions.

Missing link? What do you mean, 'missing'?

a reply to: SuperFrog

Just being bit sarcastic with recent posts on ATS. Why not teach science and evolution in church? Why in clubs as you suggested??

I answered that in my first post in this thread, when I originally asked it.

Some of them where just hypothesis, until proven false, yet some are there to stay, being proven over and over, for example evolution, which is topic here. It is rare that theory is completely proven wrong, just because today it has to be tested, and most likely it gets upgraded with new knowledge, rather then completely proven wrong.

So you ignored the links I listed?

This is good example why we should teach evolution there - because more then once here even is mentioned that it is not evolution that has to prove how life come to be, but how it evolved once it was there. See, little sunday class about basic of meaning of evolution would help here.

Let me get this straight. People gravitate to religious institutions in order to learn more about their religious tenets & to practice their faiths. People also seek solutions to the dilemmas in their lives, as well as the answers to simple questions like "where do we come from?".

Evolution has nothing to do with religious tenets, doesn't help people practice their faiths, and doesn't help people find solutions to the dilemmas in their lives. Oh, and it can't answer the simple questions like "where do we come from?". Therefore, you conclude it should be a part of religious services? O.o What does evolution have to do with a question about the Prophet Moses/Musa or the Sermon on the Mount?

There is no such a thing as 'pure' homo-sapiens.

Is that your opinion or is that science? Because right now, science says nearly all Sub-Saharan Africans have only Homo Sapien DNA. I thought you were pushing "facts" here?

Explain spiritual stability. Why is hard to imagine that people don't require religious belief to live and prosper. Religions are just another thing that divided humans to point of wars, hate, genocides...

Yeah, we get it. You don't like religions. Blah blah blah. If a person feels they don't require religious beliefs, they'll be atheist or non-religious. However, apparently most people on the planet believe they do require religious beliefs of some sort, hence the voluntary religious institutions like churches, mosques, and temples.

Also, humans will commit atrocities whether religions exist or not. Rapes, child abuse, robberies, wars, theft, and every other crime will be committed by people regardless. Or did you forget the 10s of millions of people killed in WWI, WWII, the Vietnam War, the different African wars of independence during the Cold War, etc. What did religion have to do with them? And 1 in 6 American women has been or will be raped. Is that because of religion or in spite of it?

Missing link? What do you mean, 'missing'?

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?).

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.

a reply to: SuperFrog

The church would not last a month after the first session of evolution/science.