Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1011 of 2073 (827098)
01-17-2018 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1008 by creation
01-17-2018 10:08 AM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
creation writes:
What is in the fishbowl of earth and the solar system area is not relevant to what time is like is deep space.
And you know this how?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1008 by creation, posted 01-17-2018 10:08 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1014 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 4:07 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1017 of 2073 (827207)
01-19-2018 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1014 by creation
01-19-2018 4:07 PM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
creation writes:
percy writes:
And you know this how?
--Percy
Because we need reason to claim it is so. You have none. So we don't know. That means you can't claim time is a certain way there.
We've provided you evidence and rationale and you've responded with nothing but denial. As Tangle notes, it isn't impossible that we're wrong, but so far all the evidence points in one direction, that the laws of nature are the same throughout the universe across all time at least as far back as the Big Bang.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1014 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 4:07 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1023 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:28 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1018 of 2073 (827209)
01-19-2018 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1015 by creation
01-19-2018 4:11 PM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
creation writes:
percy writes:
There's no reason to try again. I and others have already explained how we know that the laws of nature are the same everywhere we look in the universe.
No. You have not even addressed what time is like in the far universe.
But we have. The explanations you've requested have been provided, explanations that anyone can see in these threads, and your denials don't change that.
That can't be done by simply noting what it is like here, in the light we see here in time here.
Why do you think it can't be done? Light arrives here from anything that emits light, which includes objects at great distances, such as moons, planets, stars and galaxies. That light can be analyzed, and it tells us that the laws of nature out there are the same as here.
True - so what? Voyager 1 is about .7 of a light day away. Is a light day your threshold? If a probe reaches a distance of a light day from the sun and still perceives things out there as being the same as here, will that settle it for you? Because in about 15 years Voyager 1 will be about a light day away.
What is known is my threshold. You may speak only of what it is like where it is known, and that is, as you say, .7 of one light day away at the moment. If you want to speak of a whole light day, come back in 15 years!
Well, you're certainly consistent with the history of religion, where their claims of what is true of the real world continuously shrink as scientific knowledge increases. So your threshold today is .7 light days, and in 15 years it will be 1 light day, and a hundred years later it will be 2 light days, then 3, then 4. Of course, not to worry, Voyager 1's plutonium power source is running down and will be dead long before that, and your descendants can continue claiming, "Nope, nope, nope, one light day, that's it, further away you know nothing. That light arriving from distant stars tells us nothing. Amen."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1015 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 4:11 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1022 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:27 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1033 of 2073 (827312)
01-22-2018 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1022 by creation
01-21-2018 2:27 PM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
creation writes:
No you have not addressed what time is like, or even what it is here actually.
I never claimed to have "addressed what time is like," either here or elsewhere. But I did address how we know that the effects of space-time are the same both here and throughout the universe in Message 678 of the thread Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A).
Light arrives, yes. Then we see it! Where? Here! Always here. Only here. Nowhere else ever. So all you see is light here. Not there. Only here.
Why do you think a photon of light is different depending upon its point of origin and where it is observed?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1022 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:27 PM creation has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1034 of 2073 (827313)
01-22-2018 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1023 by creation
01-21-2018 2:28 PM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
creation writes:
No you have not provided any evidence of what time is like at all actually. You talk of light here. Well, that is irrelevant.
I don't think we know much about the nature of time. We know that motion tells us time is passing.
Light, more accurately electromagnetic radiation, is how we make observations (gravity is one other way). We know how space-time behaves - the theory is called relativity. It's been verified to behave the same throughout the universe.
What has any of this to do with the topic about whether we should teach evolution and religion in school? You seem to be discussing the same thing in every thread you join. Instead of splattering the same discussion across multiple threads, maybe you should just start a new thread to discuss this thing that interests you about how we can only know how the world in our immediate vicinity behaves.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1023 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:28 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1036 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 10:03 AM Percy has replied
 Message 1045 by creation, posted 01-27-2018 2:34 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1039 of 2073 (827513)
01-26-2018 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1036 by creation
01-26-2018 10:03 AM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
creation writes:
percy writes:
..
I didn't say ".." I guess you can't even get a cut-n-paste right.
That is quite an admission, not knowing much about time.
Congratulations on commenting on something I didn't say. Next time get the quote right, then maybe you won't end up making a useless comment.
I said that I don't think we know much about the nature of time. For instance, even though the equations of physics are symmetrical for time running either backwards or forwards, time seems to run in only one direction (that would be forwards, in case there was any doubt). We don't understand why that is.
Then admitting you use light here!
Is this some kind of big "Aha!" moment for you, that I use light here?
This discussion doesn't belong in this thread, whose title is Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? and resides in the Education and Creation/Evolution forum. You should reply in an appropriate forum and thread. This is a Big Bang and Cosmology kind of topic, so the Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A) thread is probably best. The Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread is in the Dates and Dating forum, and your topic doesn't really fit there.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1036 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 10:03 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1042 by creation, posted 01-27-2018 2:28 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1048 of 2073 (827560)
01-27-2018 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1042 by creation
01-27-2018 2:28 PM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
creation writes:
Then tell us what is time exactly?
Time in physics has a clear and unambiguous definition. A second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of a radiating cesium atom.
Is this some kind of big "Aha!" moment for you, that I use light here?
If you use it to tell us about time far far away where the light comes from, it is an admission of truly not knowing.
We can see it. We know. Your "fishbowl" is a fiction.
So, with all the things science doesn't know regarding the old ages they claim for evolution, NO it should not be taught in schools.
In public school science classrooms we teach the scientific consensus. Evolution has so much evidence that a scientific consensus has formed around the theory.
Most of the evolving/adapting that is in the fossil record and used for evolution happened long ago and in what nature we don't know.
There is overwhelming evidence that the natural physical laws of the universe have been unchanged for billions of years.
There is no way we can claim evolution worked as it now does.
Where is your evidence that evolution ever worked any differently? Given that evolution is based upon fundamental principles such as heredity and adaptation, how could it ever work differently?
Specifically, we cannot claim man left any remains in the former nature,...
Human fossils over a couple hundred thousand years old have been found.
...that evolving took any great time then,...
So you accept evolution but believe it used to happen much faster? Any evidence of this, or is this just another idea you're making up.
...or even that the offspring were the primary way creatures changed.
You're proposing that organisms evolved during their lifetime? How do you imagine this happening? There are all kinds of problems. How do all the cells in the organism change in the same way at the same time. When an organism evolves into a new species, there will be no organisms of the opposite sex to mate with. And so on.
For all we know the living animal could have evolved in that time.
There's a certain consistency in the vacuity of your ideas, and it's because you think them up without first seeking supporting evidence.
Science may not use any of the present state realities and life processes as a gauge to how things were because science does not know what laws were in place then.
Yes, science does know what "laws were in place" in the past. There is no evidence they were ever any different.
Science therefore is religion on these issues and should not be taught at all on origin issues.
So when you want to say something bad about science you call it a religion? Way to go!
Public school science classes should continue to teach the scientific consensus on all subjects.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1042 by creation, posted 01-27-2018 2:28 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1052 by dwise1, posted 01-28-2018 4:27 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1057 by creation, posted 01-28-2018 4:38 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1049 of 2073 (827561)
01-27-2018 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1045 by creation
01-27-2018 2:34 PM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
creation writes:
percy writes:
I don't think we know much about the nature of time. We know that motion tells us time is passing.
Observing that time is passing now is all well and good for the here and now. It does not tell us what will pass in the future. The arrow of time may be a short shot for all we know!
If every day over the past 13.5 billion years (the age of the universe) you had placed a bet that the arrow of time would end the next day, you would have lost that bet about 5 trillion times. If you would like to place a bet with me that the arrow of time will end tomorrow I will take that bet every single day from now on. We can double the bet each day so that if you eventually win then you'll make your money back, though ironically without an arrow of time I won't have the time to pay you.
There's no evidence to suggest that "the arrow of time may be a short shot". This is just another of your ill-advised ideas.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1045 by creation, posted 01-27-2018 2:34 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1055 by creation, posted 01-28-2018 4:24 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1059 of 2073 (827662)
01-29-2018 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1055 by creation
01-28-2018 4:24 PM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
Replying to a number of your messages...
Regarding your Message 1054 to Modulous:
creation in Message 1054 writes:
mod writes:
Relativity says its the same entity. So, yes actually - for the far universe.
In your dreams. Prove it.
It's appropriate that you say "in your dreams," because everything you say is in your dreams. You're asking for proof that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by distant objects is still the same (adjusted by the rules of relativity) when it arrives here.
But you're asking the question the wrong way around. The entire history of observation tells us that the electromagnetic radiation arriving here is a true representation of what is out there. We saw the moon, went there, and discovered that it really was the moon, something no one ever doubted. And we saw Mars, went there via probes, and discovered that it really was Mars, something no one ever doubted. The same for Mercury and Venus and Jupiter and Saturn and Pluto and the distant boundaries of the solar system where the Voyagers are now.
Your idea is that what we see in the form of electromagnetic radiation arriving here from distant objects beyond some distance (i.e., outside your "fishbowl") is not the same electromagnetic radiation emitted by those distant objects, that it is modified in some way. There are a several fatal problems with this:
  1. There is no evidence for your "fishbowl."
  2. Our observations of distant objects are completely consistent with the natural physical laws we uncovered here on Earth.
  3. You need some mechanism that takes whatever really happened with those distant objects (you don't say what that is) and transforms it into electromagnetic radiation completely and totally consistent with what we expect according to the natural physical laws uncovered here on Earth.
Until you address these fatal problems your "fishbowl" is just a dream of fantasy.
Another problem is that you're approaching the question of the "fishbowl" backwards, a fallacy of the first degree. One doesn't ask for proof that there *aren't* unicorns dancing on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri. Rather, one asks for evidence of these unicorns. In the same way, one doesn't ask for proof that there *isn't* a "fishbowl." Rather, one asks for evidence of this "fishbowl." So far you have no evidence, and your "fishbowl" is just a silly idea.
creation writes:
Example of something predicted in deep space? Gravitational lensing won't do. You see that effect out there is not known in detail, since we have so many unknowns. Distances to the stars and how big whatever is seeming to bend the light...for example.
Those aren't unknowns.
Known by religious belief doesn't count even if you claim it is science falsely.
This isn't a religious thread. Your religious beliefs are your religious beliefs, and they deserve to be respected, but this is a science thread where evidence for your position is a requirement.
Science will never know everything, but not knowing everything is not the same as knowing nothing, as has been explained to you several times. You're drawing a false equivalence between not possessing omnipotent knowledge and not knowing anything. As Modulous indicates when he comments, "Those aren't unknowns," there is much we do know about gravitational lensing, distances to stars, and the bending of light by gravitation.
Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, Black Holes, Redshift, the behaviour of binary pulsars, gravitational waves.
None of those things matter or mean what you think unless time exists out in far space as it does here. Gong!
Everything Modulous listed is evidence that space-time (not time, a mistake you keep repeating) is the same out there as it is here. If you have evidence to the contrary then this is your opportunity to present it.
Regarding your Message 1055 to me:
creation in Message 1055 writes:
The issue is not that time progresses here now or not.
You just said it was an issue. You said, "The arrow of time may be a short shot for all we know!"
The issue is whether our current nature complete with time as it is now will always exist and always has!
That's the same as what you said before, except you added a clause about whether time has always existed.
Once again, it is space-time, not time. Space can not be separated from time - they are completely interdependent. The space-time of our universe has not "always existed," and did have a beginning about 13.5 billion years ago.
Regarding your Message 1057 to me:
creation in Message 1057 writes:
percy writes:
Time in physics has a clear and unambiguous definition. A second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of a radiating cesium atom.
No. How long an atom in the fishbowl takes here to do something is not time. That is a clock in the fishbowl!.
I already distinguished between "time" and "the nature of time." You're asking about the nature of time, for which we do not a have a good answer. But as far as just plain old time, something clocks measure, we define the second according to the number of vibrations of a cesium atom. There is no evidence that cesium behaves any differently at distant locations than it does here.
There is no evidence for your "fishbowl."
Since the fishbowl just refers to how far man has been and what he knows, it is not fiction in any way.
Our knowledge is not limited by "how far man has been," so if you want to define your "fishbowl" by drawing a false equivalence, that makes it not just a fiction but a fallacy.
What you see, whether an atom or light, is here in the fishbowl! Time here dictates it unfold or behave a certain way in time. That tells us diddly squat about what time is like far far from the fishbowl. That should be obvious.
Who cares what time is like "far far" from a fictitious concept. You need evidence for your "fishbowl" before you begin building arguments around it.
In public school science classrooms we teach the scientific consensus. Evolution has so much evidence that a scientific consensus has formed around the theory.
They can teach whatever beliefs the local consensus may desire. They may not teach it as anything but beliefs!
We're talking about the consensus of science (not "local consensus"), which is frameworks of understanding constructed around bodies of evidence. Science has real world evidence and conceptual theory. It is you who have nothing but belief.
There is overwhelming evidence that the natural physical laws of the universe have been unchanged for billions of years.
Great, so post it. You sure haven't yet.
I, and others, have already posted a great deal of evidence. You had a single response to all of it, calling it just belief. Until you begin considering the evidence and/or presenting some of your own evidence, there can't really be any meaningful discussion.
One place you could start would be with the spectral lines of hydrogen. If what we observe here is not what actually happened at some distant star, then explain to us what really did happen, and explain how the original electromagnetic radiation from the distant star was modified in such a way as to directly reflect the same natural physical laws we observe here on Earth.
Where is your evidence that evolution ever worked any differently? Given that evolution is based upon fundamental principles such as heredity and adaptation, how could it ever work differently?
All you are doing is confirming your present state bias. 'Gee, things always must have been as they are..'
Our understanding of evolution as change over time is reflected in the fossil record going back billions of years. That's evidence, not bias. If you have evidence that something different happened then you need to present it. Otherwise you're still just making things up. The answer to your question, "Says who?", is not a who but a what, and that what is evidence, something you don't seem to have. All you have is unsupported belief that is strongly at odds with the evidence.
Human fossils over a couple hundred thousand years old have been found.
The flood was probably more like 70 million so called science same state past belief based years ago. You fossils are decidedly post flood therefore irrelevant to the issue.
If you have evidence for the flood and when it occurred, this is your opportunity to present it. Of course you won't do that. It is abundantly obvious that you're just stating your religious beliefs. But despite your emphasis on religious beliefs at the expense of science, don't you at least think it important that there be evidence behind what is taught in science class?
So you accept evolution but believe it used to happen much faster? Any evidence of this, or is this just another idea you're making up.
Yes. I cannot see how all the species we now have were on the ark. I assume the rapid evolving of many kinds took place. Bus as for the evo idea we came from animals or are kin to potatoes..etc..phooey.
"Phooey," huh. How incisive.
The relatedness of all life is what the evidence suggests, given that it's all based on DNA with commonality a function of relatedness. Your assumption about rapid evolution is driven by your religious beliefs, not evidence - you need evidence in this thread.
You're proposing that organisms evolved during their lifetime? How do you imagine this happening? There are all kinds of problems. How do all the cells in the organism change in the same way at the same time. When an organism evolves into a new species, there will be no organisms of the opposite sex to mate with. And so on.
Easy. Just lose the shackles of current physics. Now imagine a different set of forces acting on those atoms that made up those cells...!
You're making up physics to accommodate your religious beliefs. There is no evidence that physics in the past was any different from today. When we look out into the universe, which is a window into the past, we can see physical processes taking place billions of years ago that follow natural physical laws that are the same as those on Earth today. And your "forces acting on those atoms" is irrelevant - it is the structure of DNA that is important.
What you describe is not physics but a miracle, one you're making up. If you're going to insist on intruding religion into a science thread you might at least stay true to the Biblical narrative - there's nothing like you describe in the Bible.
And the problems remain. When a creature "evolves" into a new creature, it would need a creature of the opposite sex to "evolve" identically. Sounds like another miracle. And all the DNA in all the cells changing identically at the same time so the creature doesn't die sounds like another miracle. And what causes the creature to change physically, given that its altered cells are in a body they weren't intended for? Another miracle? And so on.
There's a certain consistency in the vacuity of your ideas, and it's because you think them up without first seeking supporting evidence.
No. It is because they fit all scientific evidences as well as God's written record!
Well now you're just lying. If your ridiculous ideas had any scientific evidence then a) You'd be gleefully describing this evidence for us; and b) Creationists wouldn't be forced to do pretend science in order to hoodwink those unfamiliar with science.
Yes, science does know what "laws were in place" in the past. There is no evidence they were ever any different.
Or that they were the same. Don't kid a kidder.
Much evidence has been presented to you that natural scientific laws were the same in the past as they are now. You've dismissed the evidence instead of considering and rebutting it. The best you've been able to come up with is this incredibly weak strategy of calling all evidence "belief." You're just avoiding discussion of what's really important, which is evidence. Whatever the evidence shows, that's what science builds consensus and theory around, and that's what gets taught in schools.
So when you want to say something bad about science you call it a religion? Way to go!
I never asked them to oppose God or base all past models on a belief. Don't blame me for their badness.
Don't blame who for their badness? The only one here making your ludicrous arguments is you. It was you who criticized science by calling it a religion, thereby invalidating your position's basis, which is religious.
Public school science classes should continue to teach the scientific consensus on all subjects.
As baseless beliefs that are diametrically opposed to Christ the creator...sure.
This is a science thread, and the science being taught in public school science classrooms is based upon evidence. It's clear that you would rather religion be taught in science class, and ignore the evidence.
Regarding your Message 1058 to Coyote:
creation in Message 1058 writes:
I deny no evidence ever.
That's all you've done is deny evidence. You call it belief.
I simply expose the belief based methodology that you spray and dunk all evidence in, and still try to call the colored result evidence.
Look, there you are denying evidence by calling it belief.
When you teach creation science in science class, wouldn't you like to have evidence so that you can say things like, "We know the flood happened because of this evidence I'm going to describe for you now," and then proceed on to describe the evidence? And like, "We know there was rapid evolution after the flood because of this evidence I'm going to describe for you now," and then proceed on to describe that evidence? And like, "We know the Earth is young because of this evidence I'm going to describe for you now," and then proceed on to describe that evidence?
Where's your evidence?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1055 by creation, posted 01-28-2018 4:24 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1064 by creation, posted 10-02-2018 2:01 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 1982 of 2073 (889264)
11-13-2021 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1977 by EWolf
11-12-2021 10:16 PM


If you want to quote something, you can use this style of quoting:
[quote]
This is what I'm quoting.
[/quote]
Which becomes this:
quote:
This is what I'm quoting.
Or you can use this style of quoting, which optionally allows you to include the name of the person you're quoting:
[qs=Percy]
This is what I said.
[/qs]
Which becomes this:
Percy writes:
This is what I said.
Responding now to what you said:
E Dunn writes:
quote:
More importantly the question is whether sectarian dogma should be presented as fact in schools - when the evidence is greatly against it,
I'm speaking of truth in its purity, not sectarian dogma.
How do you tell the difference? Your truth is someone else's sectarian dogma, and vice versa, and neither of you have any objective criteria for making such judgments, not to mention that you may as well be arguing about elves and ogres.
Have I not previously said that all decisions and actions are based on ones religion whatsoever it may be, thus making it impossible to act apart from it? Even the person that claims to have no religion lives by his religion of "no religion."
If "no religion" is a religion then try telling the guy with "no hair" that he has hair, or the guy with "no car" that he has a car. I wonder, is "no God" a god? If I say there's "no Jesus," does that mean there's a Jesus?
quote:
How should we react to people who reject science while claiming to be "scientists"? And the dishonesty noted among creationists hardly helps.
Does the attainment and support of scientific knowledge that supports Biblical truth disqualify the scientist that acquired it to the point that he should be counted as a quack? Should the knowledge gained be counted as sectarian dogma?
Scientific research that supports some aspect or another of the Bible does not lose scientific legitimacy simply because of its topic or conclusions. It loses legitimacy because it is invariably science in name only, following methods and reasoning bearing no resemblance to science. "Hey, trust me, I'm telling you the honest truth about the science," said ICR members Andrew Snelling, Henry Morris and Duane Gish (among many others), otherwise known as liars for Christ. Ken Ham was once part of ICR, but he branched off and formed Answers in Genesis, building an ark in Kentucky.
quote:
As for my question, "Why do many teachers tend to prefer to teach evolution in the absence of Biblical truth?",
You answered, "Because they prefer to teach the truth over false sectarian dogma."
Does truth fear falsehood or is it the other way around? Truth has no problem when presented beside the falsehood that it exposes.
What counts is how you establish what is true and what is false. If you're relying solely upon real world data then your answers have a far better chance of being correct than if they're based upon myths and prayers.
quote:
That's an example of creationist dishonesty - perhaps not on your part, you may well have been deceived yourself. Nevertheless it is a fact that honest science overwhelmingly supports evolution,
Would you please inform me of a scientific or a mathematical law that supports evolution? It only takes one law to disprove it.
If evolution lacks scientific validity then it should not be taught in public school science classrooms. It's that simple. If you can show that evolution lacks scientific validity then you should seek out an appropriate thread, or start a new one, and begin making your case.
As for which is the truthful and which is the deceiving side, whether that which promotes evolution as science or that which supports the Bible, are we not more than sufficiently equipped to discern? We travel life's journey only once.
The Bible and science do not contradict each other. One revolves around spiritual knowledge, the other scientific.
Although true that mishandling of Biblical truth abounds, does that excuse us to despise that which is genuine? That would only make us vulnerable to be drawn deeper into error. Shouldn't we beware of the possibility that scientific knowledge and its authority may also be corrupted to be used as a weapon to promote Godless tyranny?
I think it's safe to say we all oppose tyranny of any type, and that we all in favor truth over falsity. Science has a method for creeping closer and closer to establishing what is true and what is false. While science isn't perfect (no human endeavor is), as long as we limit ourselves to teaching what science has established as likely true then we're on pretty safe ground.
Don't we both agree that sin is the cause of the chaos I stated above? But what other than Biblical truth should we depend on for controlling sin? Please?
The South used Biblical truth to argue for the goodness of slavery for decades, and that's just one example. The history of Biblical truth is more one of driving sin than of controlling it.
The first amendment protects the free exercise of good religion...
What an interesting amendment you've made to the First Amendment. Do I need to quote it for you? What constitutes "good religion" to you? Christianity, no doubt, but what about Islam, Hindu, Buddhist and Judaism? What about the ancient Roman, Greek and Norse gods? What about ancient Aztec ritual sacrifice? What about Mormon polygamy - why wasn't that protected by the First Amendment?
...based on good conscience against governmentally imposed dogma that would compromise it.
None of that is in the First Amendment either.
Please note the terms, "free exercise." Should the free exercise of good action based on good conscience be prohibited?
You sure like the word "good." One person's good is another man's evil. Good is relative. There's nothing in the First Amendment about good. If you've got a religion then in this country you have the right to practice it as long as it obeys the law, whether others think it good or not.
But why do we have unbiblical humanistic dogma forced on us especially in our schools by our government that violates the first amendment right to abide by the Biblical mandate?
Is this about evolution? If so, evolution is based upon mountains of evidence and represents the best scientific thinking we have explaining species change over time and so merits a place in public school science classrooms.
Should we be led to believe that the Biblical mandate is bad so that unbiblical behavior may appear and thus promoted as good?
If Biblical behavior is the standard for good then we're in trouble. Fortunately we're a country of democratically established laws, not of some religion's interpretation of their holy book in the way of Isis, the Taliban and Iran. Perhaps you should read The Handmaid's Tale.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1977 by EWolf, posted 11-12-2021 10:16 PM EWolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1984 by Phat, posted 11-13-2021 6:54 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1996 by EWolf, posted 11-15-2021 11:12 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1983 of 2073 (889265)
11-13-2021 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1978 by EWolf
11-12-2021 10:28 PM


E Dunn writes:
Have you considered these statements made by Isaac Newton and Johann Kepler?
Newton?
"I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
Johann Kepler said he was “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” when once asked what he was doing in his scientific work.
Can I guess that you'll accept anything said by a famous scientist that you agree with, but not by one you disagree with? Stephen Hawking said, "The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator." What now?
I don't think a battle of quotes makes any sense. You should try to argue your position based on the facts.
Where does any truth including that which is scientific come from but from God?
And where is your scientific evidence for this statement?
Without conscience governed by Biblical truth, what would stop a scientist from performing destructive experiments on live humans?
Apparently "conscience governed by Biblical truth" represents no obstacle to "destructive experiments" at all. The Nazis were not godless, yet Joseph Mengele's experments happened anyway. American scientists are not godless, yet the Tuskegee Experiment happened anyway.
I expect this is where we'll see the familiar Christian excuse that if a Christian does something bad then he isn't really a Christian. Alas, such a tragedy that we can only know the true Christians from the false after the fact. Until they go wrong they look, act and speak just like all other Christians.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1978 by EWolf, posted 11-12-2021 10:28 PM EWolf has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1985 by Phat, posted 11-13-2021 7:01 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1999 of 2073 (889316)
11-16-2021 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1995 by EWolf
11-15-2021 10:23 PM


EWolf writes:
Biblical truth is settled and as unmovable from debate as pi is unmovable from the value of 3.14.
This is such a relief. So how did it finally come out? Are we saved by faith or works?
If the Biblical truth revealed to us cannot be trusted as reality then what hope do you and I have for redemption from our fallen nature and the consequent corruption around us?
You've just won the "Who can cram the most fictions into a singe sentence" contest.
Do we even realize that we are fallen?
Not really. Only Christians believe in original sin.
The evolution mindset hides this vital fact.
Okay, I'll bite. How does evolution hide a fiction? Does it hide unicorns, too?
What other hope is there?
That we're fallen is our only hope?
Biblical truth is not from man and my speech is not based on mere belief of man's rhetoric, but based on personal testimonies as a witness to the power of Biblical truth.
So when it comes to the Bible, you believe your interpretation of everything you read.
It's unfortunate that some Christians compromise their faith to believe evolution that counters Biblical truth.
It's unfortunate that so many Christians confuse faith with science.
If you own a good business how would you like for someone to smear it to make you appear as if evil? As for God seen as evil, I hope you read my post to Vimesey.
You evaded the issue in your reply to Vinesey, too (Message 1994). Using the blatantly obviously relevant portions of the Old Testament, make the case that God isn't evil.
And as Vimesey (I think it was him) pointed out, he didn't need God to tell him any Golden Rule. Or as Robert Fulghum said in the title of a book, "All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten." Where on Earth did you develop the fantasy that morality and goodness are the exclusive realm of religion?
As I said earlier, scientific truth is also victimized by faulty interpretation and corrupt dogma that's meant to deceive and draw us away from Biblical truth.
I think you have an inflated idea of how relevant scientists find religion to science.
We witness today the same scenario as that at the time when Adam and Eve in the Bible were deceived into doubting God's word not to eat the forbidden fruit. The fall thus resulted.
Do you still believe Mother Goose, too?
Interpretation and observations of the fossil record and the cosmos that supports evolution is the consequences of an anti-Biblical worldview.
Could you connect the dots on this one please? I think it'd be a lot of fun watching you do that.
A forgiven, redeemed life with God is far beyond sectarian dogma that I am also tired of. Such dogma is what makes the power of the cross non-effective as Paul warned in I Corinthians 1:11-17.
So true, so true. And don't forget Frodo and the power of the One Ring.
The truth of God enriches all knowledge and bring out the meaning of our lives and thus should never be removed from education.
From public education? As in a comparative religions class, or perhaps history or sociology?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1995 by EWolf, posted 11-15-2021 10:23 PM EWolf has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2004 by dwise1, posted 11-16-2021 1:44 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2001 of 2073 (889320)
11-16-2021 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1996 by EWolf
11-15-2021 11:12 PM


EWolf writes:
quote:
How do you tell the difference? Your truth is someone else's sectarian dogma, and vice versa, and neither of you have any objective criteria for making such judgments, not to mention that you may as well be arguing about elves and ogres.
If I told you the truth that water is wet, what would be your view? Is it that water is powder?
You sure are an evasive coot. Do you really need reminding that there is evidence that water is wet, but no evidence for your sectarian dogma. Now, again, how do you judge between your sectarian dogma and someone else's? It's a simple rhetorical question requiring no answer beyond, "Oh, yeah, the evidence. Now where is that, I thought it was lying around here somewhere. Well, in the meantime I'll just make more unsupported declarations and claim they're fact."
I thought that truth unites us by delivering from conflicting opinions.
You thought wrong. A growing body of evidence that increasingly points in the same direction is what causes a consensus to form within science. No such process exists in religion, which is why there are so many conflicting ones.
quote:
If "no religion" is a religion then try telling the guy with "no hair" that he has hair, or the guy with "no car" that he has a car. I wonder, is "no God" a god? If I say there's "no Jesus," does that mean there's a Jesus?
Please note the definition of "religion."...etc...more nonsense...etc...
Next you'll be telling us that not having a mythology is a mythology. Your argument isn't worthy of a response. You seem to believe many silly things.
quote:
What counts is how you establish what is true and what is false. If you're relying solely upon real world data then your answers have a far better chance of being correct than if they're based upon myths and prayers.
Although we may establish on our own what we think is true or false or right or wrong, the Bible tells us what IS true or false or whats right or wrong.
Declaring something so still leaves you with a glaring lack of evidence, the gold standard for determining what is likely true or false or indeterminate at this time.
It is written: "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But a wise man is he who listens to counsel (Proverbs 12:15)."
Used car salesmen must love you.
quote:
The Bible and science do not contradict each other. One revolves around spiritual knowledge, the other scientific.
Spiritual knowledge governs the doer of science.
Another bald declaration unsupported by any evidence or argument. That which is asserted without evidence or argument can be dismissed in exactly the same way, e.g.: Spiritual knowledge does not govern the doer of science. See how easy that was? So now what? Maybe you could try presenting evidence along with arguments to frame that evidence into a supportable position?
Our nations laws are based on the Bible. Where did we find the commandments not to kill or steal?
I think what you really meant to ask is where did our laws against killing and stealing come from if not from the Biblical commandments? They probably came from the same place as laws against killing and stealing in non-Christian countries. There's not a country in the world of any religion that doesn't have laws against killing and stealing. That killing and stealing are bad did not originate with the Bible.
You're doing nothing more than baldly declaring over and over again that, in essence, if the Bible says it it's true.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1996 by EWolf, posted 11-15-2021 11:12 PM EWolf has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2002 by jar, posted 11-16-2021 11:42 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 2003 by dwise1, posted 11-16-2021 12:10 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 2012 of 2073 (889375)
11-21-2021 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 2006 by EWolf
11-20-2021 12:24 PM


Wow, another "I have no idea how to respond so I shall just reframe the same issues I already raised" post. You're doing great.
EWolf writes:
If I assume all of you correct as for why religion should be kept from education except for comparison of religions, may I ask if there's any concern for the bad side effects shown on the following links?:
The effect of removing School Prayer
What are some statistics on children when prayer was taken out of school? - Answers
From the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
Since you're new here I gave them a quick look anyway. Where would you say you rank on the gullibility scale? Looks to me like it must be pretty high if you really believe that "Teenage pregnancy rates have gone up 500% since 1962." Here's a graph of teenage pregnancy rates for ages 15-19 for the years 1940-1918:
Would you say your guy is a bit off? If teenage pregnancy rates had really gone up by 500% since 1962 when it was about 85 per thousand, that would put it at about 500 per thousand today. It would mean half of all girls 15-19 are getting pregnant. Does that sound right to you? Does it sound even remotely possible given that only 40% are sexually active (not counting those who are married)?
So how far off is your guy? The figure today is actually about 17 per thousand, so he was 3000% off. He also had the trend precisely backward. Since 1962 when the Supreme Court ruled on school prayer the teenage pregnancy rate has been steadily falling, not rising.
Your guy is also wrong about school prayer being removed from public schools. Prayer is still allowed in schools. It just can't be prayer promoted by school officials because, you know, that would be state promoted religion.
Look, Mr. Wolf or whatever you'd like us to call you, think about what you're trying to accomplish. You're not going to be able to get away with bullshit here. All you're going to do is destroy your credibility, especially if you persist with your "I'm going to ignore rebuttals and plow ahead repeating the same questions in different ways" approach. It's just going to irritate people and invite derision and mockery. Play things straight, get your facts right, and let's have a genuine and productive discussion.
But I think your guy is right about declining SAT scores. Everyone knows that if you don't pray before an important test that you won't do well.
Let's see if your second guy fares any better. Nope, he's a liar, too: "After 1963 pregnancies increased 187% in the next 15 years." Look at the above graph. Does it look like teenage pregnancies increased after 1963 to you? Did you ever hear of vetting your sources, or do you pass stuff on as gospel if you like the sound of it?
This guy also says, "For younger girls, ages 10 to 14 years, pregnancies since 1963 are up 553%." I couldn't find figures all the way back to 1963, but here's a graph that goes back to 1970:
Look's like one of your guys is wrong again. By the way, even if other circumstances had remained the same, the pregnancy rate for girls 10-14 would have experienced upward pressure since 1960 because the age of menarche has gradually dropped, approximately from 13 to 11.
I thought I might read your links until I found something that merited comment, but right off the top they both contained significant errors, so I looked no further. If you want to discuss the rest of what these guys say then I'm willing, but you'll have to present the information yourself (rule 5 from the Forum Guidelines), provide support from reputable sources (because they've already been shown very wrong), and use your links as supporting references. Again, please present the information you found in those sources - please don't just provide the links.
Or maybe you could care less about making a case with evidence and argument. Perhaps you're one of those guys who thinks it doesn't matter if it's untrue because at least some people will end up believing it anyway. Or maybe you're one of those "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" guys.
Even though this sight includes responses that opposes, they do not negate The Biblical command that all should pray and faint not (Luke 18:1).
We already know you ignore what people have said previously, but wow! Is the fact that not everyone is Christian just lost on you no matter how many times you're reminded?
The free exercise and expression of Biblical religion is not a forced, inappropriate teaching of its doctrine, but freedom to exercise its good fruit.
It is indeed wonderful that Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists and Jews are all free to exercise Biblical religion.
"Is God murderous when He judges societies including its children,...
Uh, yeah! I guess you think being God makes it okay to commit atrocities.
...here are two helpful sights that should give insight. The first sight attempts to address the state of children that are not yet at the age of accountability.
https://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/killergod.html
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_wrath_of_god_2.html
I'm through reading your bare links. In your own words, please explain the points they make.
Unbelief toward God is not like refusal to believe there's a such thing as a horse-like creature with a single horn called a unicorn, but it's like one's denial of the presence of an elephant staring at him in his face.
Is there nothing so preposterous you won't say it? Here's an elephant staring you in the face side-by-side with a unicorn:
As for you that demand proof that God of the Bible is not a figment of imagination and that the Biblical truth I shared is not the lofty words of fallen man, I need help! Please? To show me how I shall carry out the proof you want, please show me how to prove that your house, car, and computer have builders and that the builders are real.
I guess there really is nothing so preposterous you won't say it. Here's a house being built side-by-side with God answering your prayers:
God has already proven Himself repeatedly. The proof is all around us if we care to observe.
I hope you're not going to hold up a banana and say, "There, there is your proof of God. Delicious and nutritious, opens easily, and ideally shaped to fit in our hand."
But when a person asking for the proof is asked will he believe God if proof is given to his satisfaction, his answer is generally "no." Is it really scientific proof that he wants?
But the answer is not, "Generally 'no'." You're just making that up. You've been accepting lies as truth for so long that you believe you have proof in your book.
Why do we find the many commands in the Bible to believe? It is because God of the Bible that knows no other God is the only one that deserves to be believed because He is the only one true. He is THE truth. Remember this that's written: "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him (Hebrews 11:6 )."?
Thank you for that sermon, reverend.
There's no such thing as "faith versus science."
We've said that many times, including to you in this thread. Faith deals witht the spiritual and means having no evidence but believing anyway, while science deals with the real world and requires evidence, explication, replication, consensus.
One may have faith either way: faith in God and His word or faith in the words of those that promote evolution as science. The scientist shares the results of his experiments that he witnessed. Has anyone ever witnessed millions of years evolution?
You're just going down the list of long ago debunked arguments one by one. The argument that you have to see something or it didn't happen is really brilliant. When you come home to a broken living room window and a baseball on the rug do you say, "There's no way to know how this window was broken because we didn't see it happen." No, of course you don't, that would be idiotic.
And what about all the work detectives and forensic technicians do? Would you just ignore it. Would you say, "How does one know how his fingerprints got on that gun? Did you see him put them there?"
If you'd like to go to an appropriate thread and argue against evolution, hopefully using better arguments than "you didn't see it happen before your very eyes, so you don't know," you're more than welcome to.
Finally, this "terrible, terrible" guy called a creationist would like to share the advantage of having the creationist mindset. Think of the owner of a half million dollar super performance sports car that enjoys his machine that drives like a dream. His respect and appreciation not only goes toward the assemblage of materials, but toward the builder who envisioned and lovingly built it with much precision, care, skill and ingenuity for it to serve the driver at its very best. So does the believer that God created as the Bible said appreciates creation, the laws that govern, and the infinite worth and sanctity of humanity that God fearfully and wonderfully made.
Here side-by-side with a Lamborghini factory is your claimed creator of everything:
The driver that cares for the car only as an assemblage of materials is most likely to abuse it. Even though the builder of the car is paid for his work, he would see carless abuse of his creation as an act of war. The evolutionist that only sees the material side of humanity that's made in the image of God likewise is most likely to abuse it as well as himself.
And yet evangelical Christians are among the most vehement of climate change deniers. They want to be good stewards of the environment because it is God's creation, but they don't believe God's power would permit human destruction of climate and so tend to be on the side of exploitation of resources. They're in favor of use of coal and fossil fuels, and in favor of opening up national parks and pristine wildernesses to economic exploitation.
As for whether or not to believe all that I shared with pleasure, let's please remember that we all have our appointments with reality that will concretely show what really is and what really is not good and bad, hopefully not too late, to act on what reality reveals to us.
You're not looking at reality. You're reading a book of fiction and calling it real.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Punctuation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2006 by EWolf, posted 11-20-2021 12:24 PM EWolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2016 by EWolf, posted 11-25-2021 12:24 AM Percy has replied
 Message 2026 by EWolf, posted 12-09-2021 10:04 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 2023 of 2073 (889418)
11-25-2021 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 2016 by EWolf
11-25-2021 12:24 AM


EWolf writes:
I speak religion as long as we are talking about religion and education. I think I said a plenty to you guys to the point that I may now taper off unless any of you may have any more unanswered questions. But I hope you wouldn’t mind my adding what I have to say below.
Does this mean you're not going to address a single thing I said? That appears to be the the case. You're just another clueless sermonizer who didn't come here to discuss but to preach. If you're not going to show what we write any respect by responding to it, then how do you expect what you write to be shown any respect? You reap what you sow.
One of you said that you were an atheist. May I please share a few things I learned by talking with guys like you?
Judging by how much you listen to us, it seems a pretty safe bet that you didn't learn a single thing talking with atheists. I predict you're just going to preach your own opinions again. Yet another unChristian Christian here to speak his piece and ignore people.
Atheism may only be professed based on denial.
The spectrum of atheistic opinion is more varied than this. I'm no expert on atheism, but I'm sure some deny the existence of God while others merely don't believe in God or gods. But you deny the existence of God, too. You deny the existence of Allah, Zeus, Odin, Brahma, the Sikh god, etc. The only difference between you and atheists is that they believe in one fewer god than you.
Is it possible for anyone to vehemently deny what he was never informed of?
Our lengthy experience is that Christians are big on message and short on Biblical knowledge.
Scriptures tell us there’s none good--no not one (Romans 3:12)!
And scripture tells us the opposite:
Genesis 6:8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
...
Genesis 6:9 Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God.
You can find anything you like in the Bible.
Is this what leads some to the temptation to conclude that God is the cruelest of all beings and to deny His existence for apparent relief from this crushing weight?
No one here feels any crushing weight based on stories from mythology. The cruel God of the Old Testament has no more reality than minotaurs, mermaids and vampires. The God of the New Testament was equally cruel, just ask the poor fig tree and Ananias and Sapphira.
<sermon left out in the interest of brevity>
And thank you again for the sermon, reverend. You have managed to come here and learn nothing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2016 by EWolf, posted 11-25-2021 12:24 AM EWolf has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2024 by dwise1, posted 11-25-2021 5:17 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024