Are creationists polluting the minds of our youth?, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 5-4-2008 @ 06:26 PM by TheRedneck
reply to post by Neiby
Woefully incomplete. Well, obviously, I would have a hard time summing up in two paragraphs all the works that have been written on the subject, both pro and con. Darwin's work alone took quite a few pages, and that was only the origin of the theory. However, I think I did a little better than:
Actually, I will present a short summary: "God did it."


Not a bad tactic though. If someone cannot meet the expectation of being able to recant every nuance of a theory in a debate, simply state they do not understand and toss out all arguments made.

I was taught evolution in school, just like, I assume, everyone else here. Unlike most of those who have responded to me, I do not believe everything I am told. I examine the issues. I have examined evolution and found some circumstantial (non-repeatable, non-recordable) evidence in its favor. I have also found several potential problems with the theory that have not been resolved to my satisfaction. From a scientific standpoint, I see something similar in certain aspects of creationism. Some circumstantial evidence seems to support it, while other areas have problems, the biggest if these being that there is no (and I believe can be no) direct evidence of God.

This means that, to my eye, the theories are pretty much equivalent in their scientific standing, although due to the excessive amount of study involved with evolution, it would obviously have the edge in that respect. But, I believe there is a God. That sways the balance for me, since it explains in a non-scientific way the potential problems that a scientific examination of creationism has.

The question before us here is not whether one or the other is 'correct', but rather should one be taught while the other is not? I say both are theories, and should therefore be taught as such. Evolution is already taught, exclusively in many schools. Apparently, creationism should be as well, since it seems no one arguing against it has any idea what it even is... except of course, for your 'complete' answer: "God did it."

TheRedneck


reply posted on 5-4-2008 @ 06:32 PM by TheRedneck
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
furthermore, it cannot have supporting evidence because it could only be proven by proving the existence of said designer...


Furthermore, evolution cannot have any supporting evidence because it could only be supported by proving a species change over time can happen...

TheRedneck



reply posted on 5-4-2008 @ 07:50 PM by idle_rocker
Consider this:

Simple unicellular creatures are very different from a higher animal like a man, for instance. This is quite true...yet neither the amoeba nor the paramecium is as simple an animal as it would appear.

These small creatures have been studied for well over a century. One of the earliest and most famous investigators of their behavior was H. S. Jennings who in 1910 (mind you) published a book on his findings. He had been observing them for some years, spending hours on end with his eye glued to a microscope. His conclusions are significant.

He discovered that amoeba displayed signs of highly advanced forms of behavior which, as he put it, were they to be magnified to the size of a dog they could only be interpreted as anger, determination, frustration, hesitation, attentiveness, and according to Jennings, even intelligence!

Another early observer, J. Boyd Best, fully confirmed Jennings' conclusions, and added to the list such emotions as boredom, rebellion, and even "cognitive awareness" (which effectively is simply consciousness)!

Now, how can you deny a creator when early offerings in science such as this exist?

By protoplasm is simply meant the stuff of life, and when it is said that protoplasm appears in forms that are effectively immortal, it does not mean that such forms cannot die, it only means that such forms need not die. Protected from mortal hazards external to them, these creatures simply do not die. They just go on dividing and multiplying ad infinitum. It is only accidental death that prevents them from overwhelming the earth. They do not die of old age — as we do and as most animals familiar to us do as a matter of course, including our pets. They never die a "natural" death.

So, in the case of Adam, God evidently endowed his body with just such a property as this, a potential for endless continuance. The processes of self renewal and repair could have gone on for ever. It is clear that he could die, since we know that he did die — though not without first surviving for almost a thousand years. But it is equally clear that he would never have died if he had not sinned. If this were not true, the penalty threatened for disobedience would have been no threat at all. You cannot discourage disobedience with a threat of "punishment" in a form that will happen anyway whether there is disobedience or not.

Instead of teaching evolution alone, does it not make more sense to teach other thought processes as well? Not to the evolutionist...because that is the only theory of which he espouses. There seems to be no openness of mind to simply view any other way as scientific.

most material taken from Custance.org



[edit on 4/5/08 by idle_rocker]


reply posted on 5-4-2008 @ 08:46 PM by TheRedneck
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
not at all equivalent to what i said. the intelligent design theory is inherently supernatural. even behe said that you'd have to make astrology science if you put ID into the realm of science.


Of course it's not the equivalent. If it were, you would not be able to argue your point.

...and there has been proof of speciation.


Ahhhh, now you've got my interest! I scanned over the links as best as I could in my limited time available, and they will indeed prove interesting reading. On the con side, I see much reference to hybridization, which to my thinking would actually prove the necessity of some intelligent manipulation of the original genetics to produce the offspring. I did however see some references to naturally-generated mutation into new species, based on the BSC definition.

In short, I will have to peruse this information more thoroughly before I can give you an intelligent response. In the meantime, thank you. Someone is finally being scientific here!

TheRedneck


reply posted on 5-4-2008 @ 09:46 PM by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by TheRedneck



eh, normally it would be mel doing all the sciencing, but i think he has some real life science stuff to take care of, so i guess i've adapted to fill that niche for this thread.


reply posted on 6-4-2008 @ 09:25 AM by TheRedneck
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Well, I must say that you do a pretty good job in his absence.

I looked over the examples in your links. This is the first time I have seen evidence for a true species change, and at this point I cannot refute it. Good job, and a RESPECTED foe button for you.

The problem is that, while you have proven species change is possible, all of the changes appear to be of a lateral nature, based solely on the BSC species definition. I do agree with the BSC, based in large part to the fact that it is the least subjective definition. But overall evolutionary theory states that species not only evolve laterally, but progressively. Otherwise, how could an amoeba become a dog?

So while you have proven a point here, it does not change my view that evolution is not the sole method of new species creation.

TheRedneck



reply posted on 14-4-2008 @ 11:46 PM by riley
reply to post by Jack Thomas Chick


Could you please stop referring to evolutionists as satan/devil worshipers with no conscience? [seen your other posts]. It's antagonistic and false. There are MANY christians who accept ToE so you're disrespecting them as well.

..and it's evolution not evilution. Calling us evil doesn't make us so, [in your language] thats just claiming false witness.

[edit on 14-4-2008 by riley]


reply posted on 15-4-2008 @ 12:42 AM by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by TheRedneck



So you disagree with the notion of speciation. Okay. Now to validate that, define "species." Bet you can't - at least, you can't and still be scientifically accurate.

You know, I hate to be the broken record here, buut evolutionary science is decades beyond the arguments that its critics keep trying to bring forth. I'm still seeing Piltdown Man as "evidence against" for crying out loud.

Darwinian evolution has been found to be flawed and incomplete. It may shock those creationists who imagine that evolution is a religion and Darwin its messiah, but, really? It was a good first try. So was Pliny's attempt at taxonomy. Do you see anyone using Pliny's system any more? Things that fly are birds (even insects), things that swim (such as otters) were fish, etc? No? Me either. Nice first attempt, needs a little tinkering.

We've moved on, gentlemen, please come and join us.


reply posted on 15-4-2008 @ 12:45 AM by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Jack Thomas Chick



Oh, this looks like a fun game.

Is Avril Lavigne getting a record deal also caused by evolution? Was Gandhi assassinated because of teaching evolution? When the Germans bombed pearl harbor, was it because of teaching evolution? Is my torn cuticle caused by teaching evolution?


reply posted on 15-4-2008 @ 01:24 AM by Jack Thomas Chick
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to
post by Jack Thomas Chick



Oh, this looks like a fun game.

Is Avril Lavigne getting a record deal also caused by evolution? Was Gandhi assassinated because of teaching evolution? When the Germans bombed pearl harbor, was it because of teaching evolution? Is my torn cuticle caused by teaching evolution?


You really could benefit form a good Bible college son. Because it was the Japanese not the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. I remember it like it was yesterday. Eviloution wasn't being taught like it is today when Pearl Harbor was bombed. If it was I would say you have a point. Take care of your finger now.


reply posted on 15-4-2008 @ 09:58 AM by dave420
reply to post by Jack Thomas Chick



First of all, maybe you should watch Animal House, then you'd get the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor reference.

Secondly, you should read this book, then you'd understand how ridiculous the rest of your post is. Seriously. You sound like one of those 50s-style preachers screaming that their parents weren't chimps. You're doing your argument a great disservice by not even bothering to understand what it is you're slamming (which illustrates your motives for doing so).

Evolution WAS taught back then like it is now. It just didn't get you all annoyed as it does now. Why you think it's evil is beyond me, seeing as many tens of millions of Christians around the world believe it to be so.

Put away your bronze-age farmer's manual and actually learn something. Deny Ignorance. Or do you think the best use of God's gift of your brain is to turn it into mush by ignoring the very methodology that allows you to live as long as you currently are? If God created the universe, then he created the scientific method. To call it evil seems a bit hypocritical to me.


reply posted on 16-4-2008 @ 12:34 PM by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Jack Thomas Chick



It's an Animal House reference. Perhaps you could squeeze it in between your Billy Graham marathons.

Of course evolution wasn't being taught at the time. Also at the time American blacks were seen as inferior creatures with lesser rights. By your logic, there's a correlation between the lack of evolution teaching and Jim Crow.


reply posted on 16-4-2008 @ 01:53 PM by dave420
reply to post by OhZone



Scientists already admit they don't know how life started. They do, however, know how life has come from there to here. Creationists know neither, and yet claim they do. At least Science doesn't have an ego to dent or feelings to hurt and can readily accept its short-comings.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 19 days ago with 24 member flags
"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
The meaning or point of existence or life
  Posted 12 days ago with 2 member flags
Sand Castles and Science
  Posted 11 days ago with 2 member flags