Get Ready For New Requirements In Faith

[Sentinel947]

If science can be taught without creationism theory, why can't it also be taught without evolution theory.  It was done so for billions of years before Darwn.  

Why not teach without the theory of gravity? It was taught without it before. 

[Stosh]

Gravity is a known force of nature, evolution is not.

 

Which brings us full circle.  How can any of the evolution tradition believers out there be qualified to determine the "correctness" of my creationist tradition beliefs?

 

So for 17+ pages of posts, I have been told I am ignorant, incorrect, etc. because my belief tradition is not the same as yours.  That really doesn't bode well for the future of the Scout is Reverent which is supposed to lead a scout to a level of tolerance and respect for other's beliefs.  Of course my anti-evolution beliefs don't count in that scenario because everyone knows how utterly ridiculous believing what the Bible says is totally irrational and basically, ignorant mythology.  So everyone who doesn't buy into Socrates' philosophy that religion is a myth pretty much has to reject the 12th Law as even necessary or even valid to begin with.

 

All along I have said evolution is a philosophical argument that has rather large gaps which have remained unanswered by a rather large majority of opportunities to do so.  I happen to believe in a tradition that has been around for a very long time and has more of a valid track record over time, religious traditions, and social significance than has Darwin's reiteration of a 2 millennium discussion on the "origins" of humanity that hasn't really made much of a dent in the religious traditions of 3 major religions accepted by people today.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Gravity is a known force of nature, evolution is not.

 

The effects of both can be measured.

 

What do you say about the long-term e. coli experiment where one strain evolved the ability to digest citrate?

1) Do you say it wasn't an example of evolution

2) Do you say it didn't happen

3) Other?

[Renax127]

Gravity is a known force of nature, evolution is not.

 

Which brings us full circle.  How can any of the evolution tradition believers out there be qualified to determine the "correctness" of my creationist tradition beliefs?

 

So for 17+ pages of posts, I have been told I am ignorant, incorrect, etc. because my belief tradition is not the same as yours.  That really doesn't bode well for the future of the Scout is Reverent which is supposed to lead a scout to a level of tolerance and respect for other's beliefs.  Of course my anti-evolution beliefs don't count in that scenario because everyone knows how utterly ridiculous believing what the Bible says is totally irrational and basically, ignorant mythology.  So everyone who doesn't buy into Socrates' philosophy that religion is a myth pretty much has to reject the 12th Law as even necessary or even valid to begin with.

 

All along I have said evolution is a philosophical argument that has rather large gaps which have remained unanswered by a rather large majority of opportunities to do so.  I happen to believe in a tradition that has been around for a very long time and has more of a valid track record over time, religious traditions, and social significance than has Darwin's reiteration of a 2 millennium discussion on the "origins" of humanity that hasn't really made much of a dent in the religious traditions of 3 major religions accepted by people today.

Well as I see it the reason creationism shouldn't be taught is multi-faceted. First science is not religion and is not supposed to be taken on faith, it also changes as new evidence is presented. So the current theory may be change soon or never depending. Religion is about faith and by it's nature can not be prove and if it could what's the point in calling it faith. Finally, which creation tradition do we teach? There and at least 20 different ones (I'm sure WAY more) do you propose that we spend all of our time in biology teaching a couple of dozen creation traditions?

 

Oh wanted to add this just for fun; http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060714-evolution.html.

Though as I understand it a lot of the opposition to evolution is the "lizard to bird" type so this doesn't really help with that. My personal favorite is that dolphins started in the ocean, moved to land as a dog like thing, then back to the ocean, still find that one unlikely despite my belief that evolution actually happened.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Renax127

[moosetracker]

So for 17+ pages of posts, I have been told I am ignorant, incorrect, etc. because my belief tradition is not the same as yours.  That really doesn't bode well for the future of the Scout is Reverent which is supposed to lead a scout to a level of tolerance and respect for other's beliefs.  Of course my anti-evolution beliefs don't count in that scenario because everyone knows how utterly ridiculous believing what the Bible says is totally irrational and basically, ignorant mythology.  So everyone who doesn't buy into Socrates' philosophy that religion is a myth pretty much has to reject the 12th Law as even necessary or even valid to begin with.

 

All along I have said evolution is a philosophical argument that has rather large gaps which have remained unanswered by a rather large majority of opportunities to do so.  I happen to believe in a tradition that has been around for a very long time and has more of a valid track record over time, religious traditions, and social significance than has Darwin's reiteration of a 2 millennium discussion on the "origins" of humanity that hasn't really made much of a dent in the religious traditions of 3 major religions accepted by people today.

 

Stosh - I feel bad that you feel we have been calling you ignorant, especially if you feel I was part of it..  I have not seen anyone here calling you ignorant or stupid.. For me, you are simply a rare find of someone I have heard about but never before met..  Then in an open discussion stating what I believe to see where we differ.. But, then sometimes you moved away from religious beliefs to state other beliefs you hold...  The majority of Americans do not believe in evolution. That either creationism theory should be taught in school or evolution not taught in school.. Those are not a part of your religious beliefs, but more a discussion of religion being taught at public schools (and if so whose religious belief).. And a debate over what the majority of this country believes about evolution. Again not calling you ignorant, but definitely feeling a change between an open discussion on our religious belief to being able to disagree with you on these subjects.

[Stosh]

The hard-sell proof of the atheist's stance that all religions are myths is the "proof" of evolution.  That concept is first proposed officially in the writings of Socrates when he made such a statements against the pantheistic Greek gods of his time.  Over the years there have been many atheistic disciples of Socrates who have made the same argument.  Darwin, an educated theologian, was later in life a converted atheist who in his anger against the Catholic church revived Socrates' argument as the basis for his treatise on the Origins of the Species "proving" his hypothesis on the non-existence of God.  When his writings first came out the biggest opponents of this treatise were not the members of the religious community, but those of the scientific community.  Over the years with further refinement by others, the scientific community has learned to assume a lot of what these ideas represent.

 

All in all over the years, further manipulation of the material continues just as it has since the time of Socrates as the basis for the non-existence of any kind of religious god(s).  Dress it up, give it a new "scientific" emphasis and name, and run it up the flagpole.

 

While I do not argue against the proven scientific evidence of mutational changes within species, i.e. Minnesota's three-legged frog population (those ponds can be dangerous places) and 20 years of not being able to identify the mutational trigger, does not give evidence to evolution of the species.

 

Since his appearance on earth, how many different species of humans have there been?  Just the one Homo Sapien  and that hasn't changed for how many years? and how are those years measured?

 

There are some who say God can't create the world in six days, but they can't measure the age of a rock.  Carbon dating has it's problems too.  

 

For those who are interested, the Greeks had a title for those who supported Socrates' philosophical stance against religion,  It was called Gnosticism.  The premise behind it was the knowledge of humanity and it's collective insights have negated the need for humanity to retain it's reliance on god represented mythology.  It is of no surprise to anyone that such "mythology" hasn't gone away no matter how convincing the atheistic disciples of Socrates have tried to be.

 

I don't think it's necessary to teach the Judean/Christian/Islamic teachings of creationism in public schools because that would establish a state religion, but teaching the anti-Judean/Christian/Islamic teachings of evolution in public schools does just that.  I don't really like the idea of Gnosticism being the religion of America and will speak out against it as they continue their attempts to squelch main line religious distracters.

 

Moosetracker: maybe I'm a bit out of the ordinary when it comes to comparative religions, but I am also very well read on the topic and understand it more than the average person.  So until the proponents of Gnosticism can come up with a better more reasonable argument for their cause, I'm sticking with my beliefs.  I'm open to change, just show me the evidence.  The problem is, there is no evidence to support their non-religion as there is to support my religion.  That's why Gnosticism and it's evolution dialog are really a faith based belief system and not a true science.

 

And by the way, scientists have been able to replicates the 3-legged frog phenomena of Minnesota over and over again in scientific labs using the pond water the frogs live in.  But after 20+ years they haven't figured out what it is in the water that is causing the mutations.  So how long is it going to take before scientists say that 3-legged (and other deformities) frogs are a new species?  I don't see many jumping on that bandwagon.

 

http://www.sciencebuzz.org/blog/mystery-freaky-frogs

[DuctTape]

Science is not anti-religion nor is it pro-religion. Evolution, gravity, magnetism, etc... are not theory, they exist. Science looks to explain the process by which they operate, this part is scientific theory which is always incomplete. Scientific knowledge increases/changes etc... in the understanding of the specific process, the "how". Religion does not seek to understand the how, for the most part religion seeks to answer the "why" (sometimes "who").

[Stosh]

Humans are genetically quite similar in many respects to an ear of corn.  Dogs and horses, too.

 

Starting from that premise, I can prove scientifically just about anything I want and call it evolution. 

[Gone]

God is omniscience,  man is not. 

 

Barry

 

Tell that to some politicians.

[Stosh]

Science is not anti-religion nor is it pro-religion. Evolution, gravity, magnetism, etc... are not theory, they exist. Science looks to explain the process by which they operate, this part is scientific theory which is always incomplete. Scientific knowledge increases/changes etc... in the understanding of the specific process, the "how". Religion does not seek to understand the how, for the most part religion seeks to answer the "why" (sometimes "who").

 

Darwin's treatise's full title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. For the sixth edition of 1872, the short title was changed to The Origin of Species.

 

Rather politically incorrect by today's standards and the focus is not on evolution but on the ORIGIN of SPECIES, which emphasizes natural selection instead of the Church's stand on Creationism.

 

I particularly like the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.  So do all the proponents of mass genocide..

 

This is why I'm not putting any of my eggs in these kinds of baskets.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Stosh

[Gone]

Science is not anti-religion nor is it pro-religion. Evolution, gravity, magnetism, etc... are not theory, they exist. Science looks to explain the process by which they operate, this part is scientific theory which is always incomplete. Scientific knowledge increases/changes etc... in the understanding of the specific process, the "how". Religion does not seek to understand the how, for the most part religion seeks to answer the "why" (sometimes "who").

 

Science also gave us leaches, plating, an upright walking T-Rex, heliocentrisim, opening windows during a tornado to prevent your house from imploding or exploding due to air pressure and other such things that were all later proven to be wrong. There are many things in which science expects people to take on faith too. Often very long-established scientific principles turn out to be very wrong.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The hard-sell proof of the atheist's stance that all religions are myths is the "proof" of evolution.

 

That's nonsense, since there are plenty of Christians and members of other religions who have no problem with evolution, like Francis S. Collins.

 

Darwin, an educated theologian, was later in life a converted atheist who in his anger against the Catholic church revived Socrates' argument as the basis for his treatise on the Origins of the Species "proving" his hypothesis on the non-existence of God.

 

Ridiculous.  He wrote it to explain "the origin of species".

 

Since his appearance on earth, how many different species of humans have there been?  Just the one Homo Sapien  and that hasn't changed for how many years? and how are those years measured?

 

So should we not teach that Pluto orbits the sun?  Its orbital period is ~247 years, but it was first seen in 1930, so it hasn't been observed to orbit once yet.

 

There are some who say God can't create the world in six days, but they can't measure the age of a rock.  Carbon dating has it's problems too.  

 

Name them.

 

I don't think it's necessary to teach the Judean/Christian/Islamic teachings of creationism in public schools because that would establish a state religion, but teaching the anti-Judean/Christian/Islamic teachings of evolution in public schools does just that.

 

No, it doesn't.  Teaching that the earth is round and orbits the sun contradicts some people's interpretations of the bible, but that doesn't (and shouldn't) prevent schools from teaching that the earth is round and orbits the sun.  Hobbling science to the lowest-common-superstition-denominator is just intellectual suicide.

 

And by the way, scientists have been able to replicates the 3-legged frog phenomena of Minnesota over and over again in scientific labs using the pond water the frogs live in.  But after 20+ years they haven't figured out what it is in the water that is causing the mutations.  So how long is it going to take before scientists say that 3-legged (and other deformities) frogs are a new species?  I don't see many jumping on that bandwagon.

 

Do you even know what "species" means?  It appears not.

 

Now, since you haven't answered my question about e. coli evolution, do you think schools can teach the earth is round, even though this contradicts some people's religious beliefs?  If yes, why should your beliefs be treated any differently?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Science also gave us leaches, plating, an upright walking T-Rex, heliocentrisim, opening windows during a tornado to prevent your house from imploding or exploding due to air pressure and other such things that were all later proven to be wrong. There are many things in which science expects people to take on faith too. Often very long-established scientific principles turn out to be very wrong.

 

Heliocentrisim is wrong?  True, the entire universe doesn't orbit our sun, but it's way better than geocentrism.

 

There are many things in which science expects people to take on faith too.

 

No, any real science is peer-reviewed.  People who can't understand it might have to take it on faith, but science doesn't expect anyone to do so.

 

By the way, do you have a problem with learning from past mistakes?  Religions tend to be really bad about ever admitting they were wrong about anything.

[AZMike]

Now, since you haven't answered my question about e. coli evolution, do you think schools can teach the earth is round, even though this contradicts some people's religious beliefs?  If yes, why should your beliefs be treated any differently?

 

Which religion has taught that the earth is flat?

[packsaddle]

About those frogs: in case anyone wanted to know, they're not mutations at all and this is fairly well understood.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribeiroia_ondatrae

And this is just the tip of a much larger topic area involving parasite ecology.

 

Yes, wikipedia...for the primary literature go to the citations.

 

Edit: The earth IS flat. As evidence I invite any of you to merely get a map of the world and unfold or unroll it onto a table. See? Flat.

Edited April 27, 2015 by packsaddle