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

[BenGrimm]

There are different versions of creation in every religion around the world. So if you grow up as a Christian you learn about Adam and Eve. If you are an aborigine you think a great serpent spit man out of the dreamtime.

However, the fossil evidence is the same across the entire globe. It cannot be denied.

According to Newsweek, 99.85% of American earth and life scientists accept biological evolution as a fact. They acknowledge the gaps or "missing links" and are constantly striving to find the answers. It should be taught in public schools in science class at face value.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

There are different versions of creation in every religion around the world. So if you grow up as a Christian you learn about Adam and Eve. If you are an aborigine you think a great serpent spit man out of the dreamtime.

However, the fossil evidence is the same across the entire globe. It cannot be denied.

According to Newsweek, 99.85% of American earth and life scientists accept biological evolution as a fact. They acknowledge the gaps or "missing links" and are constantly striving to find the answers. It should be taught in public schools in science class at face value.

I give absolutely no weight to a magazine article or a percentage of humans that believe something. If 100% percent of any population believe a lie it does not make it truth. A couple hundred years ago I'm sure 99.85% of scientists believed the earth was flat. They were wrong about that too. While your scientists are working hard to fill the huge gaps...like the total lack of evidence life has ever occurred by chance...we are working to spread the Gospel. I don't understand the " we are working hard to support our theory" defense for pushing your beliefs on kids. The bottom line is evolutionists are doing exactly. What they fought against Christians for in the scopes trials- pushing a faith based theory as fact on the masses. We can go back and forth forever but the truth is still the truth. It takes faith to believe you came from a rock....that astronomical odds were defeated over and over and over endlessly. There is absolutely no evidence for your claims of spontaneous accidental generation of life. Until there is evidence or it can be reproduced in a scientific method it is fiction, not fact. The fact that your theory seems logical to you changes nothing.

 

[BenGrimm]

You cannot use the flat earth as an example of flawed science. There was never, to my knowledge, a scientific community trying to prove the earth was flat it was just a common assumption. Once scientist started studying it they figured it out.

Scientists have never created cellular life in a laboratory from scratch because the technology simply does not yet exist to manipulate molecules with the precision required to create all of the inner workings of a cell.

However, many of the important building blocks of life have indeed been created in a laboratory, including amino acids and self-replicating RNA molecules, which are profound steps toward the goal of one day creating life.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

You cannot use the flat earth as an example of flawed science. There was never, to my knowledge, a scientific community trying to prove the earth was flat it was just a common assumption. Once scientist started studying it they figured it out.

Scientists have never created cellular life in a laboratory from scratch because the technology simply does not yet exist to manipulate molecules with the precision required to create all of the inner workings of a cell.

However, many of the important building blocks of life have indeed been created in a laboratory, including amino acids and self-replicating RNA molecules, which are profound steps toward the goal of one day creating life.

The problem is while you readily admit the technology does not exist to create life....you want to tell kids that it has already happened. Accidentally...trillions of times...millions of years ago. Which is OK, as long as you present it as an idea and not a fact. Incredibly precise instruments are not quite precise enough to do something that "rock soup" did accidentally. And then there's the ever present "we are working hard on it" or "we are close to doing it"....doesn't make your idea a fact.

 

[BenGrimm]

I have to ask, do you believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis?

 

[marcusluvsvols]

I have to ask, do you believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis?

I believe in the literal interpretation of all Gods word. I believe it not in part but as a whole. I believe that through prayer asking for understanding that the answer to all lifes questions are in His word. I believe that while many of the customs of times past do not apply to today...that His word should be taken seriously and considered carefully. I am not some sanctimonious self righteous judgmental person. I try to never judge other people or force my beliefs on them. I believe that I am a sinner who deserves nothing but Hell, but I have been given a free pardon of sin by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. I believe that other people have every right to believe differently than me. Freedom. I just don't think you can push your belief in your theory on kids and call it fact. I am still waiting on the first evolutionist to admit their theory requires faith.I am honest that my theory requires a lot of faith. Why can evolutionists not do the same? Put a mathematician and an evolutionist in the same room... id love for some genius to figure out the statistical probability of random life occurring. Ill be the first to admit I could never figure those equations.

 

[Danl]

Only pertaining to variation in species and a few other exceptions. There is absolutely no evidence....whatsoever...of evolution being the origin of life. No scientist, now or ever, has witnessed or documented so much as a single protein organizing itself randomly from minerals etc. When it comes to the origin of life there is exactly as much hard physical evidence as there is to support Creation. Zero.

You didn't answer the questions:

Do you know the scientific definition of the term "theory"?

Do you not agree that there exists a huge number of scientific facts within the scientific theory of evolution? i.e. fossil records of ancient species that are now extinct and have been for millions of years?

These are not hard questions. These are not trick questions.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

You didn't answer the questions:

Do you know the scientific definition of the term "theory"?

Do you not agree that there exists a huge number of scientific facts within the scientific theory of evolution? i.e. fossil records of ancient species that are now extinct and have been for millions of years?

These are not hard questions. These are not trick questions.

Read the whole thread bud. I answered them.

 

[Danl]

I believe in the literal interpretation of all Gods word. I believe it not in part but as a whole. I believe that through prayer asking for understanding that the answer to all lifes questions are in His word. I believe that while many of the customs of times past do not apply to today...that His word should be taken seriously and considered carefully. I am not some sanctimonious self righteous judgmental person. I try to never judge other people or force my beliefs on them. I believe that I am a sinner who deserves nothing but Hell, but I have been given a free pardon of sin by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. I believe that other people have every right to believe differently than me. Freedom. I just don't think you can push your belief in your theory on kids and call it fact. I am still waiting on the first evolutionist to admit their theory requires faith.I am honest that my theory requires a lot of faith. Why can evolutionists not do the same? Put a mathematician and an evolutionist in the same room... id love for some genius to figure out the statistical probability of random life occurring. Ill be the first to admit I could never figure those equations.

Again, you didn't answer a very straightforward yes/no question? Why is that?

 

[marcusluvsvols]

The radioactive carbon dating by which scientists arrive at these ages for artifacts is a crapshoot full of inconsistencies. The fictional theory of evolution as the origin of life frequently relies on circular reasoning to justify outcomes. In short, I probably disagree with about 90% of what you believe to be true about micro and macro evolution and absolutely nothing about evolution as the origin of life. You are entitled to your faith based theory. Just don't call it a fact until it can be demonsrated. According to you it won't be long. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Can you read? Can you conclude by me saying that I believe in all Gods word literally as a whole that that includes Genesis?

 

[Danl]

The radioactive carbon dating by which scientists arrive at these ages for artifacts is a crapshoot full of inconsistencies. The fictional theory of evolution as the origin of life frequently relies on circular reasoning to justify outcomes. In short, I probably disagree with about 90% of what you believe to be true about micro and macro evolution and absolutely nothing about evolution as the origin of life. You are entitled to your faith based theory. Just don't call it a fact until it can be demonsrated. According to you it won't be long. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

Unsurprisingly, your understanding of what methods scientist use to date artifacts to millions of years ago is completely lacking. You're just parroting crap you've been told. You've obviously done no research on your own.

 

[rjd970]

Anybody in this thread stating that evolution doesn't address the origin of life is absolutely correct. It states what happened after life began.

Stating because it has holes it shouldn't be taught, or that it is on equal scientific footing as creationism is an epic fail. The specifics and mechanisms involved are still under lively and fascinating debate. The overall theory, however, is accepted across the board. It has stood the test, continually, of unknown data after theory was proposed and still works. Again, the specifics may largely be a mystery, but if the theory itself is wrong, mother nature has a lot of explaining to do.

Creationism has no scientific validity at all and addresses how life began, which is an entirely different matter.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Again, you didn't answer a very straightforward yes/no question? Why is that?

Again you still deny that believing you accidentally came from a rock requires faith. Believing in anything you cannot quantify with your 5 senses requires faith. You still will not admit it. Maybe if I make it a yes or no question you will feel compelled to be honest with yourself.

Do you believe it takes faith to believe that you came from rain washing over rocks millions of years ago and accidentally arranging molecules in exactly the right way trillions of times to spontaneously make a living organism on a lifeless planet? Yes or no?

 

[Danl]

Can you read? Can you conclude by me saying that I believe in all Gods word literally as a whole that that includes Genesis?

OK. That's fine by me, really.

Just be honest and don't pretend that you have any scientific objections to the science of evolution. You reject evolution because it doesn't fit your faith.

Again, that's fine by me.

 

[Danl]

Again you still deny that believing you accidentally came from a rock requires faith. Believing in anything you cannot quantify with your 5 senses requires faith. You still will not admit it. Maybe if I make it a yes or no question you will feel compelled to be honest with yourself.

I haven't denied anything. I have not expressed anything about the origin of life. The subject is evolution and whether it should be taught as a scientific theory, full of scientific facts, to our children.


Do you believe it takes faith to believe that you came from rain washing over rocks millions of years ago and accidentally arranging molecules in exactly the right way trillions of times to spontaneously make a living organism on a lifeless planet? Yes or no?

I do not believe that I came from "from rain washing over rocks millions of years ago". Your strawman sucks.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

I do not believe that I came from "from rain washing over rocks millions of years ago". Your strawman sucks.

Then where did life come from? The "rock soup" theory is the only one in the textbooks. The problem is not that parts of evolution are taught in public schools. Virus and bacteria evolving to become resistant to antibiotics can be be demonstrated and found to be scientificly sound. The problem is that evolution as the origin of life is lumped together with the rest and forced on the kids as fact. My high school biology teacher, using a Holt biology book (1992?) Did exactly that. The teachers and textbooks present the "primordial soup" theory as fact. Its part of the books, part of the curriculum. Then people seem appalled that evolution even be questioned in science class..as the thread title suggests. Unless the kids come from Christian homes they will likely never even question whether or not they came from a rock/ primate.

 

[BenGrimm]

"Dennis Venema says there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple. He says with the mapping of the human genome, it's clear that modern humans emerged from other primates as a large population — long before the Genesis time frame of a few thousand years ago. And given the genetic variation of people today, he says scientists can't get that population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history.

To get down to just two ancestors, Venema says, "You would have to postulate that there's been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence."

Venema is a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group that tries to reconcile faith and science. The group was founded by Francis Collins, an evangelical and the current head of the National Institutes of Health, who, because of his position, declined an interview."

Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve : NPR

Marcus, whether you wish to accept it or not the near complete majority of the scientific community, those that find and examine the evidence, accept it. Public schools teach it at face value, a scientific theory that is supported by a plethora of scientific evidence.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

"Dennis Venema says there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple. He says with the mapping of the human genome, it's clear that modern humans emerged from other primates as a large population — long before the Genesis time frame of a few thousand years ago. And given the genetic variation of people today, he says scientists can't get that population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history.

To get down to just two ancestors, Venema says, "You would have to postulate that there's been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence."

Venema is a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group that tries to reconcile faith and science. The group was founded by Francis Collins, an evangelical and the current head of the National Institutes of Health, who, because of his position, declined an interview."

Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve : NPR?

Marcus, whether you wish to accept it or not the near complete majority of the scientific community, those that find and examine the evidence, accept it. Public schools teach it at face value, a scientific theory that is supported by a plethora of scientific evidence.

Please don't mistake me for someone with their head stuck in the sand living in denial. I have no doubt that the majority of scientists believe in your views. Even what you posted has huge holes in it however. How is logical to throw out one aspect of genetic diversion due to overwhelming probabilities against it but hold to spontaneous generation of life when the odds of it occurring are even longer? Again, where do you believe life came from? Where did the 10,000 primates come from? How did the lucky single cell that sprang to life replicate and turn into millions of different species of animals when a single protein out of place in a single strand of DNA has fatal consequences? Why is your unproven theory beyond reproach and mine is not even allowed in school? I hope you don't feel like I'm attacking you personally, I have no fault with you. My issue is with the legislation that mandates the curriculum in these classrooms and the textbooks that intentionally mislead the children into believing that an unproven theory is fact.

 

[Gramps]

"Dennis Venema says there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple. He says with the mapping of the human genome, it's clear that modern humans emerged from other primates as a large population — long before the Genesis time frame of a few thousand years ago. And given the genetic variation of people
today, he says scientists can't get that population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history.

To get down to just two ancestors, Venema says, "You would have to postulate that there's been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence."

Venema is a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group that tries to reconcile faith and science. The group was founded by Francis Collins, an
evangelical and the current head of the National Institutes of Health, who, because of his position, declined an interview."


Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve : NPR

Marcus, whether you wish to accept it or not the near complete majority of the scientific community, those that find and examine the evidence, accept it. Public schools teach it at face value, a scientific theory that is supported by a plethora of scientific
evidence.

We can now close the thread, if Dennis Venema said it, it has to be the gospel truth.

I do not see zero way that this earth and all in it came from nothing. i think there was some type of intelligent design.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You have to either have a great amount of faith or be absolutely terrible at math to believe that elements lined up perfectly - accidentally- to make the very first protein. The odds of this happening are astronomical. The fact that this had to happen trillions of times in a row by pure chance... and then the proteins AGCandT to line up in the exact right order in a double helix DNA..to create a single cell. Any mathematician would tell you that these probabilities are right next to impossible to create a single cell.

The flaw with the calculations you are referencing is that they all assume "perfect chance" in their interactions between all entities involved. It is pretty clear that this is not true.

This is not to say that we know exactly how amino acids came together to form the first basic proteins. However, we are pretty sure that scientists for years have been looking at the situation completely wrong. Thinking it was random chance that amino acids formed the 150 amino acid simple proteins we see today. We are realizing that this association was most likely not completely random and that the first proteins were most likely not 150 amino acids long. We are actively pursuing this new outlook.

Science is an arduous process with many pitfalls along the way. Accepting an obviously incongruous myth when scientific pitfalls occur for the sake of doubling down (Pascal's Argument) on a possible judgmental God in a possible afterlife is asinine.

Then all those cells have to function perfectly together to make a single organ. Then all the organs have to work perfectly together to make a system (I.e. respiratory, digestive etc) and if all these systems don't work together the organism dies. If any one of these trillions upon trillions of things go even slightly wrong...death. all of these astronomical probabilities strung together with absolutely no direction or planning....that doesn't take faith? Please.

The hierarchy of life has absolutely nothing to do with the argument against evolution. Most people of faith, including the Catholic Church, actually acknowledge the validity of evolution but deny a non-divine abiogenesis or non-divine telos (especially for humans) of evolution. The creation argument is completely annihilated at every level if abiogenesis is replicated in the lab. That hasn't happened yet, but I believe it will happen in my lifetime (I'm 24).

It takes more faith to believe that you came from "rock wash" than to believe I came from the Creator. I know you won't admit it...you don't need to. 1 unbiased observer here already pointed out the impossible odds facing your implausible "theory".

That "rock soup" was the infamous Miller–Urey experiment of 1952. It proved conclusively, that inorganic materials can spontaneously produce the materials essential for life.

My theory has experiments and is supported by facts which have been and can be (in the future) reproduced in laboratories all around the world. Does your Christian (there are many, many creationist theories) theory have replicative experiments to support it?

 

[PKT_VOL]

This post is so full of fail. I don't even know where to begin.

The problem here is that the scientific method does not apply to evolution being the origin of life.

Umm...the Miller–Urey experiment? Is that not scientific enough for you? It is not abiogenesis in a laboratory environment but it is a part of the answer.

Scientific method requires hard evidence of an experiment that caan be duplicated and demonstrated by others.

The Miller–Urey experiment? It has be replicated all over the world.

While technology today can fit an entire computer that used to be the size of a small house into this little phone, the best scientists in the world cannot even create a single celled living organism.

Utterly false. We have created a completely new organism (single celled) from scratch. By scratch, I mean we computer generated a completely new genetic code, engineered that code into DNA and transplanted it successfully into a cell. We created our own species.

Not only can they not create life, they have never been able to produce even a single BENEFECIAL mutation in an insect or animal that already exists.

False. We have been able to improve the genetics of several animals. Probably not to your level of sophistication, but a beneficial "mutation" nonetheless. Not to mention we have been doing it forever on plants and microorganisms; then again, they don't count...right?

Much publicity was given to a team of scientists that tried everything they could...radiation, chemicals, electricity, etc. To improve a simple fruit fly. Look it up. 99% of the changes they made caused death...the closest they came was to engineer a fly with an extra set of wings. IT COULD NOT EVEN FLY.

I hope you remember that poor mutilated fly if a loved one of yours is ever effected by a developmental or genetic condition. Those experiments are the only reason we know as much about development and genetics disorders of humans.

The truth is that in these experiments having even a single protein out of place or altering even a single portion of the strand of DNA resulted in instant death.

This is preposterous. If you knew anything about biology, cellular biology, microbiology, biochemistry, medicine, etc. you would be embarrassed.

You choose to believe that the "genetic dice" rolled a pair of 6's trillions upon trillions of times successively without ever coming up wrong. With no designer or external influence.

Not "genetic dice" and not without external influence; that influence is called natural selection.

Choose to believe whatever you want to but don't claim its scientific fact and shove it down kids throats. Its not fact. Its an idea. And to many Americans its a dumb idea. I don't believe your kids should be taught Creation in public schools...I won't allow mine to have a flawed idea be pushed on them as fact.

If you would offer up a shred of scientific evidence for creationism, I would love to hear it. I don't mind creationism being taught in school (aside from philosophy) as long as there is science to back it up. Evolution has science and a lot of it.

 

[PKT_VOL]

No need to call me names just because there is no more evidence to support your belief than mine. I grow weary of the "intellectual elitism" defense mechanism as well. Just bc I don't believe your theory doesn't mean you're smarter than me...or that I am confused. Do you understand that when mathematical probabilities are grouped together in the same function ( I.e. proteins lining up to make a single cell). That those odds become exponentially longer and longer? The odds of a single living cell happening accidentally are about like you standing in the same spot in your yard and getting struck by lightning about about a billion times . On a sunny day. And living to tell about it. You believe what you believe bc if there actually is a creator then YOU are not the center of the universe and master of your own destiny. You are on a train headed for a cliff and it doesn't matter if you believe in the train...or the cliff . Its going to wreck and you are eventually going to die. Then, just like me, you will stand before God and answer for what you've done in this world. You don't have to believe in God in order to be judged by him. Every man is appointed once to die, and then the judgment. Jesus Christ is the only path to salvation. He will welcome you with open arms.

I was not calling you a name.

I was saying that you are being hypocritical. You cannot on one hand flat out reject evolution and on the other hand enjoy the fruits of scientists' labor in the theory of evolution. It is a contradiction. The definition of hypocrisy.

Btw...if there is a judgement day, I look forward to it.

 

[BenGrimm]

We can now close the thread, if Dennis Venema said it, it has to be the gospel truth.

I do not see zero way that this earth and all in it came from nothing. i think there was some type of intelligent design.

My point by posting that was to show that the Christian faith can coexist with the science behind evolution. Just because you accept to science behind it does not eliminate God out of the equation.

However, science cannot support creationism as literally derived from the bible. That is that the entire worlds population derived from 2 people that were created out of nothing.

 

[milohimself]

This is what happens when creationism runs up against science.

Physical proof of the divine is impossible. And IMO, your repeated attempts make a mockery of the concept of faith.