Tenn. Senate OKs Bill To Allow Anti-Evolution Talk In Classrooms

#626
#626
rjd970 said:
I don't want to presume how much education you have had on this subject, all I know is my background and education...and none of what you are saying is true.

Your second sentence represents a categorical misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. It does not address the origin of life in any way shape or form. It addresses what happened after life began. They are separate areas of study.

What alternate scientific theories would you suggest be taught in science classes?
Click to expand...

This.
 
#627
#627
Danl said:
You can try as long and hard as you like to present the particular views of religion from The Possum Holler Church of Snake Handling as science, but you just come off more and more pathetic.
Click to expand...

I don't present my views as science or fact. I guess your reading comprehension sucks, or you are too lazy to read the whole thread. Definitely one of the two. My belief in Creation requires great faith, and cannot be observed. Your belief that you came from. Rain washing over rocks to create a protein rich soup takes great faith as well. The difference is I don't take my unobservable theory and lump it together with real observable science and force it down kids throats. I would never trade beliefs with you. You believe you came from a rock and this brief, sin cursed life is all you have to look forward to. I believe we were created by an omnipotent God, and I will spend eternity with Him. Not only does your science suck, as its not true factual science and abandons the scientific method...your version of reality sucks as well. Good luck with that.
 
#628
#628
marcusluvsvols said:
I don't present my views as science or fact. I guess your reading comprehension sucks, or you are too lazy to read the whole thread. Definitely one of the two. My belief in Creation requires great faith, and cannot be observed. Your belief that you came from. Rain washing over rocks to create a protein rich soup takes great faith as well. The difference is I don't take my unobservable theory and lump it together with real observable science and force it down kids throats. I would never trade beliefs with you. You believe you came from a rock and this brief, sin cursed life is all you have to look forward to. I believe we were created by an omnipotent God, and I will spend eternity with Him. Not only does your science suck, as its not true factual science and abandons the scientific method...your version of reality sucks as well. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Do you believe in the Creation story as laid out in Genesis?
 
#630
#630
therealUT said:
Do you believe in the Creation story as laid out in Genesis?
Click to expand...

Do you believe your great great great great great great etc grandpa was a monkey?

I do not believe in the six 24 hour day creation. I don't believe my ancestors were monkeys either.

i do believe in some form of creation.
 
#631
#631
Gramps said:
Do you believe your great great great great great great etc grandpa was a monkey?

I do not believe in the six 24 hour day creation. I don't believe my ancestors were monkeys either.

i do believe in some form of creation.
Click to expand...

wait for it.......wait for it.......gravity created the universe
 
#635
#635
Gramps said:
Do you believe your great great great great great great etc grandpa was a monkey?

I do not believe in the six 24 hour day creation. I don't believe my ancestors were monkeys either.

i do believe in some form of creation.
Click to expand...

I am not sure that I believe that my ancestors were ever monkeys per se; I think it is reasonable to believe that my ancestors were less evolved and less sophisticated primates and much prior to that were single-celled organisms.
 
#636
#636
OE these people can argue over and over ad nauseum that evolution and the origin of life are separate issues. Someone new pops in the thread every few days, never bothers to read the whole thread, then makes the same point.
What they don't understand is that I agree with them. Most creationists do as well. We get it. Evolution, micro and macro does occur. I believe that firmly. That is not oppose
d to Gods word in any way IMO. Following the scientific method, one can duplicate and observe many of these things taking place. Micro evolution, variation in species, etc. Can peacefully coexist with scripture.
The problem is that textbooks today use the broad term of evolution to include the origin of life. These hardheaded people will argue to the bitter end that they do not. There is factual, concrete evidence that what I say is true. CSE shows the textbooks, the page numbers, the actual texts and diagrams used. Many are outdated by 40 or 50 years and have proven to be false BY YOUR RESPECTED SCIENTiSTS. Some were even part of Hitlers propaganda machine. Specific examples of that are the pictures where a human embryos picture is altered to have "gill slits" and shown next to a tadpole etc. The text accompanying the diagram says "see...the similar appearance and presence of gill slits shows a common ancestor between humans and amphibians." There are many more examples like this, from textbooks used today, which are absolutely fabricated lies. You can argue all you want, the textbooks exist, they are part of the curriculum.
If you truly value your theory and want it to be properly represented, shouldn't this anger you as well? If you believe your theory to be logical and sound shouldn't it upset you that others are manufacturing evidence and using diagrams known to be flawed or false? It upsets me when some loon says he sees Jesus in his pancakes or something and the national media mocks Christians based in this falsehood. It should upset you when the publishers of these books use absolute garbage to push a theory of the origin of life as a fact. They also imply that evolution must be "accepted as a whole" rather than leading children to think critically and draw their own conclusions.
 
#637
#637
marcusluvsvols said:
I don't present my views as science or fact. I guess your reading comprehension sucks, or you are too lazy to read the whole thread. Definitely one of the two. My belief in Creation requires great faith, and cannot be observed. Your belief that you came from. Rain washing over rocks to create a protein rich soup takes great faith as well. The difference is I don't take my unobservable theory and lump it together with real observable science and force it down kids throats.
Click to expand...

We have already discussed how some of the steps have been observed earlier in the thread. Those should be taught.

marcusluvsvols said:
I would never trade beliefs with you. You believe you came from a rock and this brief, sin cursed life is all you have to look forward to. I believe we were created by an omnipotent God, and I will spend eternity with Him. Not only does your science suck, as its not true factual science and abandons the scientific method...your version of reality sucks as well. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

How did you jump to this conclusion?
 
#638
#638
marcusluvsvols said:
OE these people can argue over and over ad nauseum that evolution and the origin of life are separate issues. Someone new pops in the thread every few days, never bothers to read the whole thread, then makes the same point.
What they don't understand is that I agree with them. Most creationists do as well. We get it. Evolution, micro and macro does occur. I believe that firmly. That is not opposed to Gods word in any way IMO.
Click to expand...

You are doing some major backpedaling from what you stated earlier in this thread.


marcusluvsvols said:
The problem is that textbooks today use the broad term of evolution to include the origin of life.
Click to expand...

We have went over this; it is simply not true.
 
#639
#639
marcusluvsvols said:
OE these people can argue over and over ad nauseum that evolution and the origin of life are separate issues. Someone new pops in the thread every few days, never bothers to read the whole thread, then makes the same point.
What they don't understand is that I agree with them. Most creationists do as well. We get it. Evolution, micro and macro does occur. I believe that firmly. That is not oppose
d to Gods word in any way IMO. Following the scientific method, one can duplicate and observe many of these things taking place. Micro evolution, variation in species, etc. Can peacefully coexist with scripture.
The problem is that textbooks today use the broad term of evolution to include the origin of life. These hardheaded people will argue to the bitter end that they do not. There is factual, concrete evidence that what I say is true. CSE shows the textbooks, the page numbers, the actual texts and diagrams used. Many are outdated by 40 or 50 years and have proven to be false BY YOUR RESPECTED SCIENTiSTS. Some were even part of Hitlers propaganda machine. Specific examples of that are the pictures where a human embryos picture is altered to have "gill slits" and shown next to a tadpole etc. The text accompanying the diagram says "see...the similar appearance and presence of gill slits shows a common ancestor between humans and amphibians." There are many more examples like this, from textbooks used today, which are absolutely fabricated lies. You can argue all you want, the textbooks exist, they are part of the curriculum.
If you truly value your theory and want it to be properly represented, shouldn't this anger you as well? If you believe your theory to be logical and sound shouldn't it upset you that others are manufacturing evidence and using diagrams known to be flawed or false? It upsets me when some loon says he sees Jesus in his pancakes or something and the national media mocks Christians based in this falsehood. It should upset you when the publishers of these books use absolute garbage to push a theory of the origin of life as a fact. They also imply that evolution must be "accepted as a whole" rather than leading children to think critically and draw their own conclusions.
Click to expand...

None of this answers my question. Do you take the Bible as literal truth?
 
#640
#640
therealUT said:
I am not sure that I believe that my ancestors were ever monkeys per se; I think it is reasonable to believe that my ancestors were less evolved and less sophisticated primates and much prior to that were single-celled organisms.
Click to expand...

I have read many of your posts since you returned to this forum and I respect your intellect. You seem to have a vast knowledge of philosophy, perhaps science as well. I support your freedom to believe that you came from a single celled organism. As Americans we are free to believe as we choose.
Will yoube the first to admit that your beliefs require faith? I freely admit that mine do. It takes faith to believe in anything that cannot be observed with the 5 senses. Not a single poster in this forum who rejects Creation will admit this. Not one. Please be the first, you strike me as honest and unashamed of your beliefs.
None of the rest will admit this bc they know faith is not scientific. There is no room for it in the scientific method. They fear the slippery slope that if their theory requires faith it cannot be beyond reproach. Have you seen the title of this thread? These people were absolutely amazed that evolution could be questioned in this day and age. That is preposterous. Science is questioning...questioning the what and how of everything around us. Hope you are different. It would be a breath of fresh air.
 
#641
#641
PKT_VOL said:
You are doing some major backpedaling from what you stated earlier in this t.hread.




We have went over this; it is simply not true.
Click to expand...

You are lying.period. I can see and hear. If you can too...then you can watch the video at CSE which shows the books, pages, diagrams etc. You can't deny hard physical evidence unless you are either a liar or an idiot. Period.
 
#642
#642
marcusluvsvols said:
I have read many of your posts since you returned to this forum and I respect your intellect. You seem to have a vast knowledge of philosophy, perhaps science as well. I support your freedom to believe that you came from a single celled organism. As Americans we are free to believe as we choose.
Will yoube the first to admit that your beliefs require faith? I freely admit that mine do. It takes faith to believe in anything that cannot be observed with the 5 senses. Not a single poster in this forum who rejects Creation will admit this. Not one. Please be the first, you strike me as honest and unashamed of your beliefs.
None of the rest will admit this bc they know faith is not scientific. There is no room for it in the scientific method. They fear the slippery slope that if their theory requires faith it cannot be beyond reproach. Have you seen the title of this thread? These people were absolutely amazed that evolution could be questioned in this day and age. That is preposterous. Science is questioning...questioning the what and how of everything around us. Hope you are different. It would be a breath of fresh air.
Click to expand...

I will be the first to state that I do not claim to have knowledge of anything other than logical forms and that I am somehow privy to experiences of appearances. Everything after that is either faith or opinion.

However, there is certainly a difference between rational faith and irrational faith; this difference is founded in the principle of non-contradiction. Two things that contradict each other cannot both be true (some neo-Hegelians argue against this point, though, and base their argument on the "Liar Paradox"; I cannot defeat their argument, so maybe there is no truth). There are no internal contradictions in the Theory of Natural Selection (commonly referred to as the Theory of Evolution), thus it is reasonable to believe in the theory. There are internal contradictions in the Bible and, more specifically, in the Biblical account of Creation. There are two contradictory accounts of Creation in Genesis (if one takes both literally). That presents a major problem.

Either, I accept one account over the other simply on preference, but in doing so, I also make the judgment that the Bible is not literally true. Or, since I have made the judgment that the Bible is not literally true, I am free to take it in its entirety as an allegory; thus, freeing myself up to follow the claims of science (as they do not contradict with the claims of the Bible, since those claims are of allegorical truth). Augustine says as much in The Confessions.
 
#643
#643
Perhaps you have no issue "admitting your faith" because talking snakes, angles with flaming swords, and big ships sailing the flooded earth usually require that sort of thing.

Christians spend their lives believing a set of parables, commandments, and gods/angels/devils/demons in hopes of eternal salvation. Evolutionists have no purpose for believing we came from a primordial pool; no goal.

That is why evolution doesn't require faith.
 
#644
#644
marcusluvsvols said:
You are lying.period. I can see and hear. If you can too...then you can watch the video at CSE which shows the books, pages, diagrams etc. You can't deny hard physical evidence unless you are either a liar or an idiot. Period.
Click to expand...

I am talking about your position about the validity of micro vs macro evolution, and it being compatible with the Bible.

I watched half of the video you posted. Some things he has a credible point others he does not.
 
#645
#645
DinkinFlicka said:
Perhaps you have no issue "admitting your faith" because talking snakes, angles with flaming swords, and big ships sailing the flooded earth usually require that sort of thing.

Christians spend their lives believing a set of parables, commandments, and gods/angels/devils/demons in hopes of eternal salvation. Evolutionists have no purpose for believing we came from a primordial pool; no goal.

That is why evolution doesn't require faith.
Click to expand...

Eh. He is right to a degree. Science (evolution) requires faith too. Problem is that it is a different kind of faith.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top