****Official Bill Nye The Science Guy Thread******* (1 Viewer)

[shader]

I do agree that there should be no teaching of creation in schools. That being said, how much evolution should really be taught in schools either? How important is evolution really?

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." — Theodosius DobzhanskySome more good quotes from the prominent Russian biologist while we're at it:"I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's, method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way." — Theodosius Dobzhansky"Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. ...the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness." — Theodosius Dobzhansky

Obviously I disagree with him

 

[shader]

I know, I know...anyone who believes in a Creator is an idiot. Trust me, I've seen this schtick before. Sell it somewhere else.

That's the sad thing. If it was just little kids and backwardsass country folk that believed in this hoopla I really wouldn't care. It baffles me how educated adults can disregard all logic and reasoning. Not to mention trying to foist it on everyone else.

Maybe they think you have disregarded logic too?Get off your high horse and respect peoples views and understand that while you have beliefs and are entitled to them, others have different beliefs. You are one of those atheists that is just as dogmatic and blinded as the biggest fundies out there.

I don't really see an issue with anyone believing in - and promoting - God. Plenty of scientists believe in God or some other higher power. Believing and pushing Creationism? Horrifying levels of stupidity. I'm not sure when the religious lunatics started making this such a big deal but it needs to be stopped and openly ridiculed. Anyone who values education and intelligence should be absolutely disgusted and alarmed by the Creationism movement. I don't know why fighting against creationism became one in the same with attacking religion in the eyes of the nutjobs but they're not the same thing. Sure, they often go hand in hand but they are definitely two different issues.

Well I guess it depends on what you define as Creationism. Typically creationism is associated with a 6,000 year earth, and I agree that kind of view and agenda is not helpful.I do agree that there should be no teaching of creation in schools. That being said, how much evolution should really be taught in schools either? How important is evolution really? Certain aspects of evolution are important, but how important is it to modern science that a bunch of cells floating in primordial goo evolved to humans? To me that is more important to people on a personal level.

I'd rather kids be taught math, and physical sciences, such as physics and chemistry. Those should be the focuses.

Too often I see atheists and agnostics broadly act as if evolution is this huge part of science, when in reality, I don't believe thats the case. Give me the science that designs airplanes, rockets, helps us go to Mars, etc. You can keep the science that analyzes skull fragments and then gets writers of science journals to design fanciful artist depictions of what they THINK the animal MAY have looked like. Is that a branch of science? Sure. But it's not a branch I have any interest in.

Kids are taught those things. You don't believe they should be taught Biology because of your own personal misunderstanding of evolution? You do realize that once upon a time the fields of physics, astrophysics, and aeronautics were misunderstood and challenged just like evolution is today?

Of course they should be taught biology.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Most people believe in creation event. Scientist call it Big Bang. An event where all energy and mass was created out of well... nothing. So why is God being a creator any more stupid than believing the universe came from nothing?

Because God encompasses quite a bit more than the Big Bang. The two are no where close to equivalent.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Well I guess it depends on what you define as Creationism. Typically creationism is associated with a 6,000 year earth, and I agree that kind of view and agenda is not helpful.

I do agree that there should be no teaching of creation in schools. That being said, how much evolution should really be taught in schools either? How important is evolution really? Certain aspects of evolution are important, but how important is it to modern science that a bunch of cells floating in primordial goo evolved to humans? To me that is more important to people on a personal level.

I'd rather kids be taught math, and physical sciences, such as physics and chemistry. Those should be the focuses.

Too often I see atheists and agnostics broadly act as if evolution is this huge part of science, when in reality, I don't believe thats the case. Give me the science that designs airplanes, rockets, helps us go to Mars, etc. You can keep the science that analyzes skull fragments and then gets writers of science journals to design fanciful artist depictions of what they THINK the animal MAY have looked like. Is that a branch of science? Sure. But it's not a branch I have any interest in.

Genetics, medicine, agriculture, and virtually any other subject dealing with living organisms uses all or part of evolutionary theory. The thing is Creationists don't care about that - they only care when it challenges their dogma that Adam was made from clay and Eve was made from his rib.

We obtain far more information by reverse engineering life (top down) rather that bottom up (evolution). Evolution is nearly worthless as predictor of something which will occur in the future. Evolution takes credit for the things that have already happened. If something is fast - evolution did it, If it slow evolution did it. All things are explained by evolution because it does not predict, it just explains what what we see after the fact.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Of course they should be taught biology.

The problem I have with this is that by downplaying evolution, you're downplaying IMO the most broadly useful part of biology. For most people, the parts of a cell and growing stuff in petri dishes is a waste of time, whereas evolution is something that you can easily see all around you.I see this is as similar to the way we make kids grind through trigonometry (useless except for students who will go on into physics or engineering) instead of statistics (useful for everybody).

 

[shader]

Well I guess it depends on what you define as Creationism. Typically creationism is associated with a 6,000 year earth, and I agree that kind of view and agenda is not helpful.

I do agree that there should be no teaching of creation in schools. That being said, how much evolution should really be taught in schools either? How important is evolution really? Certain aspects of evolution are important, but how important is it to modern science that a bunch of cells floating in primordial goo evolved to humans? To me that is more important to people on a personal level.

I'd rather kids be taught math, and physical sciences, such as physics and chemistry. Those should be the focuses.

Too often I see atheists and agnostics broadly act as if evolution is this huge part of science, when in reality, I don't believe thats the case. Give me the science that designs airplanes, rockets, helps us go to Mars, etc. You can keep the science that analyzes skull fragments and then gets writers of science journals to design fanciful artist depictions of what they THINK the animal MAY have looked like. Is that a branch of science? Sure. But it's not a branch I have any interest in.

Genetics, medicine, agriculture, and virtually any other subject dealing with living organisms uses all or part of evolutionary theory. The thing is Creationists don't care about that - they only care when it challenges their dogma that Adam was made from clay and Eve was made from his rib.

Agreed that much of evolutionary theory is used in those fields. I don't disagree with that. Just because I believe some of evolutionary theory doesn't require that I buy into every bit of current thinking does it? I don't believe that a cell evolved into modern man through nothing more than random selection and mutation. Not buying it. Someone pointing out "well see here, we have this bacteria that learned how to eat nylon so that proves that you creationists are wrong" is faulty logic, imo.

 

[sn0mm1s]

No. The theory of causation is that one thing causes another. The only way to break the theory of causation is that something has to be eternal - either God or the Universe. So which is eternal, the universe or God? I think it is easy to show the Universe had a beginning scientifically.

It is impossible to show that a God even exists (unlike the Universe) you are again equating things that are fundamentally different. It isn't like you can point to God and say either he or the Universe exists - because you can't point to God.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Most people believe in creation event. Scientist call it Big Bang. An event where all energy and mass was created out of well... nothing. So why is God being a creator any more stupid than believing the universe came from nothing?

Because God encompasses quite a bit more than the Big Bang. The two are no where close to equivalent.

What? Creating everything from nothing is creation. Call it big bang or call it a God event, the results are the same - all scientific laws where broken when it happened.

 

[The Flying Elvis]

Most people believe in creation event. Scientist call it Big Bang. An event where all energy and mass was created out of well... nothing. So why is God being a creator any more stupid than believing the universe came from nothing?

Because God encompasses quite a bit more than the Big Bang. The two are no where close to equivalent.

What? Creating everything from nothing is creation. Call it big bang or call it a God event, the results are the same - all scientific laws where broken when it happened.

The "Big Bang" didn't create everything from nothing. All scientific laws were not broken.

 

[shader]

Of course they should be taught biology.

The problem I have with this is that by downplaying evolution, you're downplaying IMO the most broadly useful part of biology. For most people, the parts of a cell and growing stuff in petri dishes is a waste of time, whereas evolution is something that you can easily see all around you.I see this is as similar to the way we make kids grind through trigonometry (useless except for students who will go on into physics or engineering) instead of statistics (useful for everybody).

I agree you can see things happening all around you. All you have to do is look at dog breeding to realize that. But I'm not buying the full-blown theory. The problem is that the word games are played with evolution and it confuses the issue.At work we have a project, and we can't get the project completed because no one can agree on what the word "done" means. Everyone is spinning their wheels trying to discuss why we aren't done, what things have gone wrong, but I can't get anyone to see that the problem is that everyone shares a different definition of what the word "done" means.I agree with all parts of evolution that are shown to occur and even the staunchest of fundamentalists probably do as well. In fact, the YEC need evolution to occur really quickly due to their beliefs and the large number of species of animals in the world. Where I disagree is that I don't feel whales learned to live on dry ground, birds were land animals who "grew" wings, etc. I feel the major aspects of most animals were designed and engineered. I'm obviously not alone in this belief, but really which side has the most numbers is pretty irrelevant.

 

[shader]

No. The theory of causation is that one thing causes another. The only way to break the theory of causation is that something has to be eternal - either God or the Universe. So which is eternal, the universe or God? I think it is easy to show the Universe had a beginning scientifically.

It is impossible to show that a God even exists (unlike the Universe) you are again equating things that are fundamentally different. It isn't like you can point to God and say either he or the Universe exists - because you can't point to God.

Correct, we can't physically prove to you that God exists. You have to decide for yourself based on the evidence. Obviously, you aren't convinced. What's your point.

 

[Marvin]

Now I remember what Shader and MoO remind me of.

 

[sn0mm1s]

We obtain far more information by reverse engineering life (top down) rather that bottom up (evolution). Evolution is nearly worthless as predictor of something which will occur in the future. Evolution takes credit for the things that have already happened. If something is fast - evolution did it, If it slow evolution did it. All things are explained by evolution because it does not predict, it just explains what what we see after the fact.

This is again completely untrue - did you not understand the prediction of transitional fossils earlier in the thread? Not to mention, there is plenty of research where people search for specific organisms based on the theory that if they live in a certain climate, ecosystem, etc. etc. that they have evolved a mechanism to deal with what is in their particular ecosystem. Extremophiles/thermophiles are examples of this. Some drug research uses a shotgun approach of taking a base molecule/compound and the subjecting it to hundreds or thousands of single changes in the hopes that one of the resulting compounds would be a drug that is more effective than the original.

 

[matuski]

I do agree that there should be no teaching of creation in schools. That being said, how much evolution should really be taught in schools either? How important is evolution really?

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." — Theodosius DobzhanskySome more good quotes from the prominent Russian biologist while we're at it:"I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's, method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way." — Theodosius Dobzhansky"Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. ...the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness." — Theodosius Dobzhansky

Obviously I disagree with him

You disagree with a preeminent biologist on the topic of biology?

 

[shader]

We obtain far more information by reverse engineering life (top down) rather that bottom up (evolution). Evolution is nearly worthless as predictor of something which will occur in the future. Evolution takes credit for the things that have already happened. If something is fast - evolution did it, If it slow evolution did it. All things are explained by evolution because it does not predict, it just explains what what we see after the fact.

This is again completely untrue - did you not understand the prediction of transitional fossils earlier in the thread? Not to mention, there is plenty of research where people search for specific organisms based on the theory that if they live in a certain climate, ecosystem, etc. etc. that they have evolved a mechanism to deal with what is in their particular ecosystem. Extremophiles/thermophiles are examples of this. Some drug research uses a shotgun approach of taking a base molecule/compound and the subjecting it to hundreds or thousands of single changes in the hopes that one of the resulting compounds would be a drug that is more effective than the original.

Irrelevant to the major topic at hand. No person would deny that drug companies do that. Why bring it up? It doesn't prove anything in regards to the entire "theory of evolution" as a whole. You're using it to try and prove the whole theory and that is disingenuous.

 

[matuski]

Oh sure, it didn't make a splash..Except for all the people who saw it and wrote about it. But they don't count!

Could you list a few people in this world who you would believe when they claim they witnessed a dead man/ghost walking around, after an angel moved the stone off his grave?

I ask because I'm trying to figure out whether believing in ghosts and people that see ghosts is a common thing for you, or (more likely) you hold the bible to a lower standard of critical reasoning and common sense than you do anything else in your everyday life.So if you could give us the short list of reputable eye witnesses of dead people, that would help. TIA.

 

[shader]

I do agree that there should be no teaching of creation in schools. That being said, how much evolution should really be taught in schools either? How important is evolution really?

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." — Theodosius DobzhanskySome more good quotes from the prominent Russian biologist while we're at it:"I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's, method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way." — Theodosius Dobzhansky"Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. ...the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness." — Theodosius Dobzhansky

Obviously I disagree with him

You disagree with a preeminent biologist on the topic of biology?

Yes. I disagree with his personal musings on the universe.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Wrong. Gradualism <> P.E. When Gould introduced P.E. it was stating that the fossil record does not support gradualism. In truth the fossil record does not support gradualism which Gould more or less admitted.

The God event is when you obtain a massive entropy spike which mathematically, or statistically, is impossible for all practical purposes. Which makes the event indistinguishable from a God event or a miracle.

The fossil record supports both. There are instances of gradual changes in a species over millions of years (such as the whale fossils) and periods of rapid change. Hell, with plants, we have seen speciation events in a single generation. The bolded is just gibberish that has no basis and means absolutely nothing.

Wrong. Plant speciation: Polyploidy (gene duplication) happens mostly with plants, specifically grasses. This is called secondary speciation because the plant can not breed with its predecessors. But it is not the kind of speciation that evolution needs. Evolution needs new information to create something new. Duplication information is not new information. For the most part polypoidy is a harmful mutation because the species has to support more DNA it can even be lethal

Fossil record doesn't support either.

As far as gibberish goes, it shows you don't follow the literature. DNA = information.

 

[shader]

Oh sure, it didn't make a splash..Except for all the people who saw it and wrote about it. But they don't count!

Could you list a few people in this world who you would believe when they claim they witnessed a dead man/ghost walking around, after an angel moved the stone off his grave?

I ask because I'm trying to figure out whether believing in ghosts and people that see ghosts is a common thing for you, or (more likely) you hold the bible to a lower standard of critical reasoning and common sense than you do anything else in your everyday life.So if you could give us the short list of reputable eye witnesses of dead people, that would help. TIA.

I don't know what you are trying to accomplish here. Very boring sub-topic. I get it. You think Jesus wasn't resurrected. Can we move on?

 

[sn0mm1s]

Agreed that much of evolutionary theory is used in those fields. I don't disagree with that. Just because I believe some of evolutionary theory doesn't require that I buy into every bit of current thinking does it? I don't believe that a cell evolved into modern man through nothing more than random selection and mutation. Not buying it. Someone pointing out "well see here, we have this bacteria that learned how to eat nylon so that proves that you creationists are wrong" is faulty logic, imo.

It pretty much does require you to buy in because there is no reason why evolutionary theory just stops being valid. When you stop believing it when it challenges Genesis you are just being intellectually dishonest.

 

[shader]

Wrong. Gradualism <> P.E. When Gould introduced P.E. it was stating that the fossil record does not support gradualism. In truth the fossil record does not support gradualism which Gould more or less admitted.

The God event is when you obtain a massive entropy spike which mathematically, or statistically, is impossible for all practical purposes. Which makes the event indistinguishable from a God event or a miracle.

The fossil record supports both. There are instances of gradual changes in a species over millions of years (such as the whale fossils) and periods of rapid change. Hell, with plants, we have seen speciation events in a single generation. The bolded is just gibberish that has no basis and means absolutely nothing.

Wrong. Plant speciation: Polyploidy (gene duplication) happens mostly with plants, specifically grasses. This is called secondary speciation because the plant can not breed with its predecessors. But it is not the kind of speciation that evolution needs. Evolution needs new information to create something new. Duplication information is not new information. For the most part polypoidy is a harmful mutation because the species has to support more DNA it can even be lethal

Fossil record doesn't support either.

As far as gibberish goes, it shows you don't follow the literature. DNA = information.

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/futureoftech/book-converted-dna-then-read-show-bio-digital-storage-947354

I thought the above was incredibly interesting.

 

[shader]

Agreed that much of evolutionary theory is used in those fields. I don't disagree with that. Just because I believe some of evolutionary theory doesn't require that I buy into every bit of current thinking does it? I don't believe that a cell evolved into modern man through nothing more than random selection and mutation. Not buying it. Someone pointing out "well see here, we have this bacteria that learned how to eat nylon so that proves that you creationists are wrong" is faulty logic, imo.

It pretty much does require you to buy in because there is no reason why evolutionary theory just stops being valid. When you stop believing it when it challenges Genesis you are just being intellectually dishonest.

When it gets away from every day use and gets into hypothetical situations and changes that allegedly occur over millions of years, thats where I don't buy in hook, line and sinker.

 

[MasterofOrion]

No. The theory of causation is that one thing causes another. The only way to break the theory of causation is that something has to be eternal - either God or the Universe. So which is eternal, the universe or God? I think it is easy to show the Universe had a beginning scientifically.

It is impossible to show that a God even exists (unlike the Universe) you are again equating things that are fundamentally different. It isn't like you can point to God and say either he or the Universe exists - because you can't point to God.

Just because you can't touch or see something does not mean it does not exist. God leaves finger prints as evidence of his existence. By your logic George Washington didn't exist. But we know he did because he left finger prints of his existence.

 

[matuski]

Oh sure, it didn't make a splash..Except for all the people who saw it and wrote about it. But they don't count!

Could you list a few people in this world who you would believe when they claim they witnessed a dead man/ghost walking around, after an angel moved the stone off his grave?

I ask because I'm trying to figure out whether believing in ghosts and people that see ghosts is a common thing for you, or (more likely) you hold the bible to a lower standard of critical reasoning and common sense than you do anything else in your everyday life.So if you could give us the short list of reputable eye witnesses of dead people, that would help. TIA.

I don't know what you are trying to accomplish here. Very boring sub-topic. I get it. You think Jesus wasn't resurrected. Can we move on?

You do know what I'm trying to accomplish here, it isn't complicated.Is there any other example in your life where you believe a man was resurrected? Is there any other example of people saying they saw a man resurrected that you believe?If not, what process do you use to allow yourself to believe the account in the bible? Why would you approach the bible's claims differently? eta - It gets to the heart of why I can't accept religion. In order to do so I have to completely turn off the questioning, reasoning, and critical thought I apply to every single other part of my life. So i always try to get people to explain how they manage this. Like you, most dodge it.

 

[matuski]

No. The theory of causation is that one thing causes another. The only way to break the theory of causation is that something has to be eternal - either God or the Universe. So which is eternal, the universe or God? I think it is easy to show the Universe had a beginning scientifically.

It is impossible to show that a God even exists (unlike the Universe) you are again equating things that are fundamentally different. It isn't like you can point to God and say either he or the Universe exists - because you can't point to God.

Just because you can't touch or see something does not mean it does not exist. God leaves finger prints as evidence of his existence. By your logic George Washington didn't exist. But we know he did because he left finger prints of his existence.

I love you man!!!!

 

[IvanKaramazov]

By your logic George Washington didn't exist. But we know he did because he left finger prints of his existence.

Please stop helping.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Most people believe in creation event. Scientist call it Big Bang. An event where all energy and mass was created out of well... nothing. So why is God being a creator any more stupid than believing the universe came from nothing?

Because God encompasses quite a bit more than the Big Bang. The two are no where close to equivalent.

What? Creating everything from nothing is creation. Call it big bang or call it a God event, the results are the same - all scientific laws where broken when it happened.

The "Big Bang" didn't create everything from nothing. All scientific laws were not broken.

Before the big bang - no matter or energy.After the big band - all matter and energy.Where did all this matter and energy come from?Laws broken: First and second laws of thermodynamics, relativity and even quantum mechanics was broken.

 

[Ranethe]

Of course they should be taught biology.

The problem I have with this is that by downplaying evolution, you're downplaying IMO the most broadly useful part of biology. For most people, the parts of a cell and growing stuff in petri dishes is a waste of time, whereas evolution is something that you can easily see all around you.I see this is as similar to the way we make kids grind through trigonometry (useless except for students who will go on into physics or engineering) instead of statistics (useful for everybody).

I agree you can see things happening all around you. All you have to do is look at dog breeding to realize that. But I'm not buying the full-blown theory. The problem is that the word games are played with evolution and it confuses the issue.At work we have a project, and we can't get the project completed because no one can agree on what the word "done" means. Everyone is spinning their wheels trying to discuss why we aren't done, what things have gone wrong, but I can't get anyone to see that the problem is that everyone shares a different definition of what the word "done" means.

I agree with all parts of evolution that are shown to occur and even the staunchest of fundamentalists probably do as well. In fact, the YEC need evolution to occur really quickly due to their beliefs and the large number of species of animals in the world.

Where I disagree is that I don't feel whales learned to live on dry ground, birds were land animals who "grew" wings, etc. I feel the major aspects of most animals were designed and engineered.

I'm obviously not alone in this belief, but really which side has the most numbers is pretty irrelevant.

Wow, it's this type of thinking I find so frightening.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Wrong.

Plant speciation: Polyploidy (gene duplication) happens mostly with plants, specifically grasses. This is called secondary speciation because the plant can not breed with its predecessors. But it is not the kind of speciation that evolution needs. Evolution needs new information to create something new. Duplication information is not new information. For the most part polypoidy is a harmful mutation because the species has to support more DNA it can even be lethal

Fossil record doesn't support either.

As far as gibberish goes, it shows you don't follow the literature. DNA = information.

Evolution doesn't *need* a *type* of speciation. If it can't breed with its predecessors it is an entirely new organism - which is the point of me bringing it up.

Evolution doesn't need new information - so your whole point about duplication is irrelevant.

"support more DNA" is another one of your jibberish terms.

The only thing you got right is that often times mutations are harmful.

It is pretty obvious that you either are completely clueless, trolling, or just willfully ignorant.

 

[shader]

Oh sure, it didn't make a splash..Except for all the people who saw it and wrote about it. But they don't count!

Could you list a few people in this world who you would believe when they claim they witnessed a dead man/ghost walking around, after an angel moved the stone off his grave?

I ask because I'm trying to figure out whether believing in ghosts and people that see ghosts is a common thing for you, or (more likely) you hold the bible to a lower standard of critical reasoning and common sense than you do anything else in your everyday life.So if you could give us the short list of reputable eye witnesses of dead people, that would help. TIA.

I don't know what you are trying to accomplish here. Very boring sub-topic. I get it. You think Jesus wasn't resurrected. Can we move on?

You do know what I'm trying to accomplish here, it isn't complicated.Is there any other example in your life where you believe a man was resurrected? Is there any other example of people saying they saw a man resurrected that you believe?If not, what process do you use to allow yourself to believe the account in the bible? Why would you approach the bible's claims differently? eta - It gets to the heart of why I can't accept religion. In order to do so I have to completely turn off the questioning, reasoning, and critical thought I apply to every single other part of my life. So i always try to get people to explain how they manage this. Like you, most dodge it.

By that logic I also have never seen whales crawl out of the seas, animals grow wings and goupy soup develop into proteins, dna and cellular creatures.But that's different I'm sure!Look man, I don't have an issue with the miracles. Why? Because I believe God created the universe. If he did that, judging by the sheer power and scale of the universe, why would resurrecting be a problem? Why would parting the sea be an issue, or healing someone that is blind? It would be childs play. I respect your beliefs, but we just don't see eye to eye here. Yes, I've never seen someone resurrected. But there's a lot of things I haven't seen. My scale of life is pretty limited to the 1970's onward.

 

[shader]

Of course they should be taught biology.

The problem I have with this is that by downplaying evolution, you're downplaying IMO the most broadly useful part of biology. For most people, the parts of a cell and growing stuff in petri dishes is a waste of time, whereas evolution is something that you can easily see all around you.I see this is as similar to the way we make kids grind through trigonometry (useless except for students who will go on into physics or engineering) instead of statistics (useful for everybody).

I agree you can see things happening all around you. All you have to do is look at dog breeding to realize that. But I'm not buying the full-blown theory. The problem is that the word games are played with evolution and it confuses the issue.At work we have a project, and we can't get the project completed because no one can agree on what the word "done" means. Everyone is spinning their wheels trying to discuss why we aren't done, what things have gone wrong, but I can't get anyone to see that the problem is that everyone shares a different definition of what the word "done" means.

I agree with all parts of evolution that are shown to occur and even the staunchest of fundamentalists probably do as well. In fact, the YEC need evolution to occur really quickly due to their beliefs and the large number of species of animals in the world.

Where I disagree is that I don't feel whales learned to live on dry ground, birds were land animals who "grew" wings, etc. I feel the major aspects of most animals were designed and engineered.

I'm obviously not alone in this belief, but really which side has the most numbers is pretty irrelevant.

Wow, it's this type of thinking I find so frightening.

I'm sorry that it scares you. Hopefully you can get some sleep tonight.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

sn0mm1s, I'd like you to meet golddigger/Konotay/MasterofOrion.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I do agree that there should be no teaching of creation in schools. That being said, how much evolution should really be taught in schools either? How important is evolution really? Certain aspects of evolution are important, but how important is it to modern science that a bunch of cells floating in primordial goo evolved to humans? To me that is more important to people on a personal level.

Aboigenisis is not evolution.

 

[shader]

I do agree that there should be no teaching of creation in schools. That being said, how much evolution should really be taught in schools either? How important is evolution really? Certain aspects of evolution are important, but how important is it to modern science that a bunch of cells floating in primordial goo evolved to humans? To me that is more important to people on a personal level.

Aboigenisis is not evolution.

I never described abiogenesis. I said "a bunch of cells floating in goo", imlplying that the cells were already there. I know you sneaky evolutionists love to jump on that point immediately so I understand why you were quick on the trigger.

 

[jdoggydogg]

No. The theory of causation is that one thing causes another. The only way to break the theory of causation is that something has to be eternal - either God or the Universe. So which is eternal, the universe or God? I think it is easy to show the Universe had a beginning scientifically.

It is impossible to show that a God even exists (unlike the Universe) you are again equating things that are fundamentally different. It isn't like you can point to God and say either he or the Universe exists - because you can't point to God.

Just because you can't touch or see something does not mean it does not exist. God leaves finger prints as evidence of his existence. By your logic George Washington didn't exist. But we know he did because he left finger prints of his existence.

What fingerprints?“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?”

Epicurus

 

[matuski]

Oh sure, it didn't make a splash..Except for all the people who saw it and wrote about it. But they don't count!

Could you list a few people in this world who you would believe when they claim they witnessed a dead man/ghost walking around, after an angel moved the stone off his grave?

I ask because I'm trying to figure out whether believing in ghosts and people that see ghosts is a common thing for you, or (more likely) you hold the bible to a lower standard of critical reasoning and common sense than you do anything else in your everyday life.So if you could give us the short list of reputable eye witnesses of dead people, that would help. TIA.

I don't know what you are trying to accomplish here. Very boring sub-topic. I get it. You think Jesus wasn't resurrected. Can we move on?

You do know what I'm trying to accomplish here, it isn't complicated.Is there any other example in your life where you believe a man was resurrected? Is there any other example of people saying they saw a man resurrected that you believe?If not, what process do you use to allow yourself to believe the account in the bible? Why would you approach the bible's claims differently? eta - It gets to the heart of why I can't accept religion. In order to do so I have to completely turn off the questioning, reasoning, and critical thought I apply to every single other part of my life. So i always try to get people to explain how they manage this. Like you, most dodge it.

By that logic I also have never seen whales crawl out of the seas, animals grow wings and goupy soup develop into proteins, dna and cellular creatures.But that's different I'm sure!Look man, I don't have an issue with the miracles. Why? Because I believe God created the universe. If he did that, judging by the sheer power and scale of the universe, why would resurrecting be a problem? Why would parting the sea be an issue, or healing someone that is blind? It would be childs play. I respect your beliefs, but we just don't see eye to eye here. Yes, I've never seen someone resurrected. But there's a lot of things I haven't seen. My scale of life is pretty limited to the 1970's onward.

Holy moly, I'm going to ignore your whales walking out of the sea fail, and just beg you on my knees to give a direct response that is somewhere close to on topic.I can help you, all you need to do is type one of two words for the folowing question (or any version of it ive asked repeatedly above): YES or NO. See? Easy.Do you believe anyone outside of the bible regarding dead people as ghosts and zombies?

 

[sn0mm1s]

sn0mm1s, I'd like you to meet golddigger/Konotay/MasterofOrion.

Heh, yeah, I think I am done. It seems like every 4-5 years I will hop in one of these threads to see if things ever change. You would think that with more and more info available with a simple google search that attitudes would change - but it is the same denial and rhetoric that has been around forever. It is fast and easy to make a dozen misleading or false statements and I don't have the time, inclination, or energy to debunk them.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I do agree that there should be no teaching of creation in schools. That being said, how much evolution should really be taught in schools either? How important is evolution really?

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." — Theodosius DobzhanskySome more good quotes from the prominent Russian biologist while we're at it:"I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's, method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way." — Theodosius Dobzhansky"Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. ...the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness." — Theodosius Dobzhansky

Obviously I disagree with him

You disagree with a preeminent biologist on the topic of biology?

To be fair, "nothing makes sense" is an overstatement if taken literally. Even in a world without mutation or selection, reproduction would make sense.But I think the spririt of Dobzhansky's statement is true. I can't think of anything in biology that doesn't make more sense in light of evolution than it would without an understanding of evolution. Not just "biology" narrowly understood, but psychology, medicine, etc., as well.

 

[((Morpheus))]

sn0mm1s, I'd like you to meet golddigger/Konotay/MasterofOrion.

It's not worth it.

 

[MasterofOrion]

We obtain far more information by reverse engineering life (top down) rather that bottom up (evolution). Evolution is nearly worthless as predictor of something which will occur in the future. Evolution takes credit for the things that have already happened. If something is fast - evolution did it, If it slow evolution did it. All things are explained by evolution because it does not predict, it just explains what what we see after the fact.

This is again completely untrue - did you not understand the prediction of transitional fossils earlier in the thread? Not to mention, there is plenty of research where people search for specific organisms based on the theory that if they live in a certain climate, ecosystem, etc. etc. that they have evolved a mechanism to deal with what is in their particular ecosystem. Extremophiles/thermophiles are examples of this. Some drug research uses a shotgun approach of taking a base molecule/compound and the subjecting it to hundreds or thousands of single changes in the hopes that one of the resulting compounds would be a drug that is more effective than the original.

What transition fossils? There about 7 really good transition fossils. This list is outdated: Tiktaalik has been tossed. You would think that if evolution were true the fossil record would be full of transition fossils - it isn't.

The shotgun approach does not prove or disprove evolution. We know empirically what the mutation rate of disease is. Statistically it is likely one medicine will be defeated by shear quantity of the parasites.. So we use a shot gun approach.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Every fossil is transitional.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Every fossil is transitional.

You sound like an evolutionist.

 

[shader]

Oh sure, it didn't make a splash..Except for all the people who saw it and wrote about it. But they don't count!

Could you list a few people in this world who you would believe when they claim they witnessed a dead man/ghost walking around, after an angel moved the stone off his grave?

I ask because I'm trying to figure out whether believing in ghosts and people that see ghosts is a common thing for you, or (more likely) you hold the bible to a lower standard of critical reasoning and common sense than you do anything else in your everyday life.So if you could give us the short list of reputable eye witnesses of dead people, that would help. TIA.

I don't know what you are trying to accomplish here. Very boring sub-topic. I get it. You think Jesus wasn't resurrected. Can we move on?

You do know what I'm trying to accomplish here, it isn't complicated.Is there any other example in your life where you believe a man was resurrected? Is there any other example of people saying they saw a man resurrected that you believe?If not, what process do you use to allow yourself to believe the account in the bible? Why would you approach the bible's claims differently? eta - It gets to the heart of why I can't accept religion. In order to do so I have to completely turn off the questioning, reasoning, and critical thought I apply to every single other part of my life. So i always try to get people to explain how they manage this. Like you, most dodge it.

By that logic I also have never seen whales crawl out of the seas, animals grow wings and goupy soup develop into proteins, dna and cellular creatures.But that's different I'm sure!Look man, I don't have an issue with the miracles. Why? Because I believe God created the universe. If he did that, judging by the sheer power and scale of the universe, why would resurrecting be a problem? Why would parting the sea be an issue, or healing someone that is blind? It would be childs play. I respect your beliefs, but we just don't see eye to eye here. Yes, I've never seen someone resurrected. But there's a lot of things I haven't seen. My scale of life is pretty limited to the 1970's onward.

Holy moly, I'm going to ignore your whales walking out of the sea fail, and just beg you on my knees to give a direct response that is somewhere close to on topic.I can help you, all you need to do is type one of two words for the folowing question (or any version of it ive asked repeatedly above): YES or NO. See? Easy.Do you believe anyone outside of the bible regarding dead people as ghosts and zombies?

Sorry guys, after getting a couple laughs, I realize whales didn't crawl out of the water, they crawled into the water. Silly me for not keeping track of which fable is established scientific fact.I believe the bible's account of resurrection. It's that simple.

 

[matuski]

By that logic I also have never seen whales crawl out of the seas, animals grow wings and goupy soup develop into proteins, dna and cellular creatures.

But that's different I'm sure!

Oh yea?How did that get there?

Next you are going to tell me this used to be a worm lol!

 

[mad sweeney]

sn0mm1s, I'd like you to meet golddigger/Konotay/MasterofOrion.

After they meet maybe they can get together for a nice cup of tea and TALK SOME CHEMISTRY,!!!

 

[matuski]

I believe the bible's account of resurrection. It's that simple.

I'm going to keep trying. Is there any other account of resurrection outside the bible you believe?

 

[shader]

I believe the bible's account of resurrection. It's that simple.

I'm going to keep trying. Is there any other account of resurrection outside the bible you believe?

I'm not aware of any other accounts.

 

[mad sweeney]

Now I remember what Shader and MoO remind me of.

Despite having a pretty big black hole at the far end of his thinking, Shader is pretty reasonable and open minded. I don't think it's quite fair to lump the two together.

 

[shader]

Now I remember what Shader and MoO remind me of.

Despite having a pretty big black hole at the far end of his thinking, Shader is pretty reasonable and open minded. I don't think it's quite fair to lump the two together.

 

[JZilla]

Sorry guys, after getting a couple laughs, I realize whales didn't crawl out of the water, they crawled into the water.

Actually they did both