Evolution and Creationism

#1
turambar85

turambar85

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
1,636
Likes
1,810
#1
Given the connections to public debate, school curriculum, etc., I thought that a thread on this would be justified.

How does anybody still believe that creationism should each be taught in the schools, let alone with equal time given??? Is the 'actually being science' aspect of a science class optional?
 
Last edited:
#4
#4
watch
I thought this was very interesting. Jesus was a sun God:

YouTube - Was Jesus a Sun-God??? part 3 (wrong)

YouTube - Merry Christmas! - Jesus Christ is the latest SUN God

YouTube - Religion Comes From Ancient Astrology and Sun Worship 1 of 3
 
Last edited:
#7
#7
In the simplest terms, creationism or intelligent design is no more or less a theory than big bang.
 
#10
#10
IBlvNTmWrk said:
In the simplest terms, creationism or intelligent design is no more or less a theory than big bang.
Click to expand...

ugh, you confuse cosmology and evolution! The theory of evolution is moving from simple life to complex. The big bang is not the equivalent of ID! And, even if it were, the big bang can be feasibly falsified. It is still in the right realm.
 
#13
#13
turambar85 said:
ugh, you confuse cosmology and evolution! The theory of evolution is moving from simple life to complex. The big bang is not the equivalent of ID! And, even if it were, the big bang can be feasibly falsified. It is still in the right realm.
Click to expand...

I took plenty of advanced/AP stuff in high school. I can't recall a class where the Big Bang would really fit into the curriculum. Natural selection and the adaptation of species should be taught in biology. I'd be fine with a teacher going over the evidence in the fossil record leading people to believe man evolved from ape, but it shouldn't be presented as fact at this point. Darwin's exploits on the Beagle and the influence of Christianity should both be presented in history classes. If kids want to get more in depth into that stuff, there are anthropology, evolutionary biology, and religious studies courses in college.
 
#14
#14
I think this fits in the discussion.

All you transitional fossil deniers should even be able to appreciate this. They even named the fossil "Darwinopterus" because of its significance.

Pterodactyl fossil fills gaps in evolutionary tale - CNN.com

Read closely now:

"We had always expected a gap-filler with typically intermediate features such as a moderately elongate tail -- neither long nor short -- but the strange thing about Darwinopterus is that it has a head and neck just like that of advanced pterosaurs, while the rest of the skeleton, including a very long tail, is identical to that of primitive forms,"....

....The researchers say more study is needed to substantiate the idea of that evolution could occur relatively quickly, and that whole parts of a plant or animal's body could change at once.
Click to expand...
 
#15
#15
kptvol said:
I took plenty of advanced/AP stuff in high school. I can't recall a class where the Big Bang would really fit into the curriculum. Natural selection and the adaptation of species should be taught in biology. I'd be fine with a teacher going over the evidence in the fossil record leading people to believe man evolved from ape, but it shouldn't be presented as fact at this point. Darwin's exploits on the Beagle and the influence of Christianity should both be presented in history classes. If kids want to get more in depth into that stuff, there are anthropology, evolutionary biology, and religious studies courses in college.
Click to expand...

Again, the big bang is cosmology. A course on cosmology is where it might fit in; it is neither necessary nor important in any course dealing with biology or evolution. Also, it is a mere hypothesis, while evolution is an established scientific theory.
 
#16
#16
kptvol said:
I took plenty of advanced/AP stuff in high school. I can't recall a class where the Big Bang would really fit into the curriculum. Natural selection and the adaptation of species should be taught in biology. I'd be fine with a teacher going over the evidence in the fossil record leading people to believe man evolved from ape, but it shouldn't be presented as fact at this point. Darwin's exploits on the Beagle and the influence of Christianity should both be presented in history classes. If kids want to get more in depth into that stuff, there are anthropology, evolutionary biology, and religious studies courses in college.
Click to expand...

Any scientific theory should be taught from the facts and evidence. My experience was evolutionary theory wasn't taught as fact anymore than Einstein's theories were taught as fact. Is gravity caused by space-time bending? That's what Einstein said, and the fact that during an eclipse it was shown that the mass of the sun caused a beam of light to curve illustrates a pretty strong case. Did man evolve from ape? That's what Darwin said, and fossil records, DNA mapping, and a whole mountain of other evidence points that way.

Sure a theory could be wrong, but it has to be taught on the merits of its evidence and facts. Some are stronger than others and evolution is as close as we've got to explaining our ancestoral origins.
 
#17
#17
Who is to say that they are not opposite sides of the same coin! That one is the function of the other. That our limited intelligence in such matters is governed by the very things that we profess to be determinable. To accept the fact that we are as infants along the path to discovery in this debate is one of the most freeing Epiphanies I have ever experienced.
We are just to limited to argue with the lack of concatenations knowledge that is the subtle, intangible, and explicability of either side of the arguments.
 
#18
#18
orangeblooded2 said:
Who is to say that they are not opposite sides of the same coin! That one is the function of the other. That our limited intelligence in such matters is governed by the very things that we profess to be determinable. To accept the fact that we are as infants along the path to discovery in this debate is one of the most freeing Epiphanies I have ever experienced.
We are just to limited to argue with the lack of concatenations knowledge that is the subtle, intangible, and explicability of either side of the arguments.
Click to expand...

Uhm, I am to say, lol. Cosmology is not the functional equivalent of evolution - they are different sciences. Further, ID is presented as opposed to evolution, not any cosmological argument. Now, if they want to argue against a cosmological view, that is fine, and it is often that they do so, though they misrepresent the discussion and lump it all under their preposterous term "darwinism".
 
#19
#19
Jesus is a Sun God


  • The sun "dies" for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north.
  • In some areas, the calendar originally began in the constellation of Virgo, and the sun would therefore be "born of a Virgin."
  • The sun is the "Light of the World."
  • The sun "cometh on clouds, and every eye shall see him."
  • The sun rising in the morning is the "Savior of mankind."
  • The sun wears a corona, "crown of thorns" or halo.
  • The sun "walks on water."
  • The sun's "followers," "helpers" or "disciples" are the 12 months and the 12 signs of the zodiac or constellations, through which the sun must pass.
  • The sun at 12 noon is in the house or temple of the "Most High"; thus, "he" begins "his Father's work" at "age" 12.
  • The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30°; hence, the "Sun of God" begins his ministry at "age" 30.
  • The sun is hung on a cross or "crucified," which represents its passing through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter, at which time it is then resurrected
 
#21
#21
turambar85 said:
Uhm, I am to say, lol. Cosmology is not the functional equivalent of evolution - they are different sciences. Further, ID is presented as opposed to evolution, not any cosmological argument. Now, if they want to argue against a cosmological view, that is fine, and it is often that they do so, though they misrepresent the discussion and lump it all under their preposterous term "darwinism".
Click to expand...

Cosmology had a beginning and an evolutionary development that spans billions of years, one that continues today. ID is complementary and a functional component of evolution. Thus the premise my post laid out. I find the insistence that they are different or strictly separate components an argument that mirrors and justifies my argument that we are just to limited. I do understand your argument. I just have a different view.
I guess you could say I have "faith" that an explanation beyond our capacity exist....
 
#22
#22
orangeblooded2 said:
Cosmology had a beginning and an evolutionary development that spans billions of years, one that continues today. ID is complementary and a functional component of evolution. Thus the premise my post laid out. I find the insistence that they are different or strictly separate components an argument that mirrors and justifies my argument that we are just to limited. I do understand your argument. I just have a different view.
I guess you could say I have "faith" that an explanation beyond our capacity exist....
Click to expand...

No, you don't understand my argument. My argument was only, in that post, that IDers are disingenuous when they conflate evolution and the big bang, because they are different sciences. And, by contrast, ID cannot simply say: aha, evolution is false, ID can say how we got here and you cannot!!!

ID, if properly expressed, can only say "yeah, you're right, but I know how it happened: magic!" Fine, perhaps right, but not falsifiable, not testable, and not science.
 
#23
#23
Not a believer, but...

oklavol said:
Jesus is a Sun God


  • The sun "dies" for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north.Not true. It never "stops" because it is caused by the tilt of the Earth, and the Earth doesn't "stop" rotating around the Sun for 3 days. While the date that the winter solstice is reached varies a little, once the subsolar point reaches the Tropic of Capricorn, it begins moving back North. It doesn't stay there for 3 days. The reason why Dec. 25 was the day of an old pagean holiday is because they waited until the third day of "growing light" in the Northern hemisphere to be sure winter was truly halfway over. It has nothing to do with the subsolar point "stopping"
  • In some areas, the calendar originally began in the constellation of Virgo, and the sun would therefore be "born of a Virgin."I have never heard of an area where the calendar doesn't begin with Aries on the Vernal Equinox. I could be wrong, but it just wouldn't make any sense to start the zodiac calendar at a random point in late Northern hemisphere summer. I call BS on this.
  • The sun is the "Light of the World."
  • The sun "cometh on clouds, and every eye shall see him."
  • The sun rising in the morning is the "Savior of mankind."
  • The sun wears a corona, "crown of thorns" or halo.
  • The sun "walks on water."
  • The sun's "followers," "helpers" or "disciples" are the 12 months and the 12 signs of the zodiac or constellations, through which the sun must pass.I wasn't aware Jesus was born from one of his disciples... Doesn't seem to jive with the earlier little piece.
  • The sun at 12 noon is in the house or temple of the "Most High"; thus, "he" begins "his Father's work" at "age" 12.
  • The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30°; hence, the "Sun of God" begins his ministry at "age" 30. Simply: No it doesn't. At least not in any way that I can interpret this question. If you mean the angle in the sky it is in it doesn't, and if you mean the sun's azimuth, that is dependent on the latitude of the observer and certainly wouldn't be the same angle for all the signs of the zodiac at any one place.
  • The sun is hung on a cross or "crucified," which represents its passing through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter, at which time it is then resurrected
Click to expand...
 
#24
#24
rjd970 said:
Any scientific theory should be taught from the facts and evidence. My experience was evolutionary theory wasn't taught as fact anymore than Einstein's theories were taught as fact. Is gravity caused by space-time bending? That's what Einstein said, and the fact that during an eclipse it was shown that the mass of the sun caused a beam of light to curve illustrates a pretty strong case. Did man evolve from ape? That's what Darwin said, and fossil records, DNA mapping, and a whole mountain of other evidence points that way.

Sure a theory could be wrong, but it has to be taught on the merits of its evidence and facts. Some are stronger than others and evolution is as close as we've got to explaining our ancestoral origins.
Click to expand...

There is so much of this that is incorrect. First of all, Darwin did not say man evolved from ape, and your reference to a mountain of evidence is also false. Rather, he believed, based on years of research in the fields of biology and comparative anatomy, that anatomically similar species such as humans, apes, and monkeys probably evolved, over a period of many thousands of years, from a common, ape-like ancestor, now extinct. He also believed (based on his theory of natural selection) that favored races such as the Caucasian would one day "in the not too distant future" triumph over the races of man that he saw as being closer to the ape-like ancestor from which they descended. Does anyone have a problem with this being taught in schools as "science"? I would certainly hope so.

Now, for the purpose of clarification, there is a major difference in micro-evolution (which has supporting evidence) and macro-evolution which remains theoretical at best and I'm assuming is the reference for this discussion. I mentioned big bang simply because macro-evolution has no basis without a pre-existence, so "big bang" or "abiogenesis" (10 plus billion years of accidental, random atomic collisions resulting in the formation of some simple, initial form of living organism) has to be part of the overall theory.

The evolution of man pervades as the accepted paradigm on the origin of man within the scientific community. However, this isn't because it's been proven scientifically, but because alternative viewpoints bring with them metaphysical implications that go against the modern naturalistic paradigm. A closer examination of the "evidence" reveals evolution to be increasingly less scientific and more reliant upon beliefs, not proof. There is no empirical proof for abiogenesis or macro-evolution.
 
#25
#25
heres a grand thought, what about natural selection as a mechanism set in place by the Creator, you know kinda like gravity?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top