Vote for Creationism or Evolutionism or Both for Schools to Teach?

[pek1]

Nawww, you shot yourself in the foot as usual. It is apparent that you haven't even bothered to read any definitions, just scream personal assertions.

Were you sober on the 17th, Beowulf?

 

[Beowulf]

Were you sober on the 17th, Beowulf?

Lol, nope.

 

[web730]

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them ... For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse ... Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools ...

– Romans 1:19-20,22

 

[MorriganTait]

John 3:12
New International Version (NIV)

I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

 

[Teresh]

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them ... For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse ... Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools ...

– Romans 1:19-20,22

What the heck does this even have to do with the discussion? Go find a passage that's relevant.

 

[MorriganTait]

...for God hath shewed it unto them ... For the invisible things of Him ...are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made...Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools ...
– Romans 1:19-20,22

Teresh - I think the quote was on point - break it down to these phrases. It makes a bit more sense.

Basically, it says "God has shown you what he has done and the evidence of what he did is in the creations", and it also says "people who called themselves wise were proven to be foolish."

Now, to me, this only proves our point about the evidence of the fact of evolution being apparent by examining living things. I am sure that's not the intended point, but that seems to be what the passage is saying anyway. Once again, we run into the problem of interpreting scripture that was not originally written in English and has been translated and retranslated. It is easier to understand in context.

 

[Boult]

Teresh - I think the quote was on point - break it down to these phrases. It makes a bit more sense.

Basically, it says "God has shown you what he has done and the evidence of what he did is in the creations", and it also says "people who called themselves wise were proven to be foolish."

Now, to me, this only proves our point about the evidence of the fact of evolution being apparent by examining living things. I am sure that's not the intended point, but that seems to be what the passage is saying anyway. Once again, we run into the problem of interpreting scripture that was not originally written in English and has been translated and retranslated. It is easier to understand in context.

nodding in agreement

 

[MorriganTait]

In context - here are the passages in a New International Version translation.
Romans 1:18-32
God's Wrath Against Mankind
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

 

[Boult]

If you subscribe to "The Week" Magazine and in the March 17th issue in Health & Science section. There is two article that mention evolution

one was about a family that all walked on all fours all their life! and other article was about "How Blonde evovled"

I am not able to link to those two to http://www.theweekmagazine.com/ because there is no "Health & Science" online meaning you will have to subscribe to their magazine to get whole section than partial shown online.

anyway, I'll type both;
"The family that time forgot"
Scientists have discovered a starling evoluntionary throwback n Turkey --- a family whose members walk on all fours, like man's prehistoric ancestors. Five siblings, who live with their parents in a remote village, suffer from a genetic form of brain damage that causes retardation and affects balance and coordination. Unable to walk normally, they have reverted to a form of locomotion used by hominids before they stood upright. "However they arrived at this point," evoluntionary psychologist Nicholas Humprhrey tells the London Times, "we have adult human beings walkng like ancestors several million years ago. It's an extraordinary window on our past." All five siblings - two sons and three daughters whose age range from 18 to 34 - walk bent at the waist, scurrying along ontheir hands and feet. "It is physically possible," says Humphrey, "but no one would have guessed from the human skeleton." Evolutionary scientists are now studying the family for clues about how our ancestors walked, and what genes enabled them to stand upright.

==============

"How blondes evolved"
The well-known male prefernce for blondes isn't new. In fact, says a new study, it began with cavemen and cavewomen, back in the Ice Age. About 10,000 years ago, food was very scarce, and northern European men had to spend months away from home tracking bison and mammoths. Many died during the rigors of the hunt. When the few remaining men came home, women had to compete fiercely to find an available mate. Nearly all of them had the dark brown hair and dark eyes seen in the rest of the world, but at this time, a random mutation gave some women blond hair. Their exotic new look helped them to stand out from their brunette competitors, and when they successfully mated, they gave birth to more blondes. "We can tell that they were considered attractive," anthropologist Peter Frost tells the London Times, because the population spike of blondes "over a short span of evolutionary time indicates somekind of selection." If blondes hadn't been so favored, the genes would probably have blended backin with the brunette population long ago.

===============
Well there you go!

 

[LinuxGold]

I'm for both. Personally I do not believe in evolution as changing from monkeys into humans. I do believe that things DO change in order to adapt to the circumstances that occur to them. For instance, immunization system in our bodies or animals. A baby was born with low immunization system until that child encountered some illness, then new defensive systems get developed, in effect, it evolves. Mountain people has larger lungs to accompany thin oxygen in that atmosphere. Little things like that protrays the LARGER part in nature, human and animals. The nature of how things react around here are developed by intelleuct design without them there would be no common traits on how things are created by themselves, i.e. development of a child in mother's womb, how organs are organized and developed and things like that. How do chemistry know to produce penis and vagina in a way that they are used to mate to reproduce? Must be a miracle for chemistry, alone, to do that. And lastly, how do we scientifically define the phenomenon of foresights, the ability to briefly prophesy the future occurence around you, that are built into us?

Hence the verse:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 

[MorriganTait]

Personally I do not believe in evolution as changing from monkeys into humans.

And this is a common misconception - no one in the scientific fields which study evolution claim "Man came from Monkey" but rather, all living things trace thier ancestry back to simpler, less evolved living things, and that over time, there is a greater diversity of living things, which would seem to indicate some similar species evolved from the same origins. Monkeys are not considered the be "lower" on the evolutionary scale - a modern chimp is the most evolved chimp, and a modern human is the most evolved human, and a modern paramecium is the most evolved paramecium.

To me, there is nothing in evolution that contradicts a Judeo/Christian concept of creation - because no where is God's specific method of creation described - just that God DID create.

 

[Boult]

I'm for both. Personally I do not believe in evolution as changing from monkeys into humans. I do believe that things DO change in order to adapt to the circumstances that occur to them. For instance, immunization system in our bodies or animals. A baby was born with low immunization system until that child encountered some illness, then new defensive systems get developed, in effect, it evolves. Mountain people has larger lungs to accompany thin oxygen in that atmosphere. Little things like that protrays the LARGER part in nature, human and animals. The nature of how things react around here are developed by intelleuct design without them there would be no common traits on how things are created by themselves, i.e. development of a child in mother's womb, how organs are organized and developed and things like that. How do chemistry know to produce penis and vagina in a way that they are used to mate to reproduce? Must be a miracle for chemistry, alone, to do that. And lastly, how do we scientifically define the phenomenon of foresights, the ability to briefly prophesy the future occurence around you, that are built into us?

Hence the verse:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

There is no such thing from "monkey to man" nope.. I don't know why you put that in your sentence. but we can say that monkey, ape, gorilla and chimpanzee were the descendant of our ancestor that we came from. Our scientist around the world are working on the family tree of us to find out where they branched off from our ancestor.

 

[Reba]

If you subscribe to "The Week" Magazine and in the March 17th issue in Health & Science section. There is two article that mention evolution

I do get that magazine.

"The family that time forgot"
Scientists have discovered a starling evoluntionary throwback n Turkey --- a family whose members walk on all fours, like man's prehistoric ancestors. Five siblings, who live with their parents in a remote village, suffer from a genetic form of brain damage that causes retardation and affects balance and coordination...

I don't think that is an example of evolution. The family members have "brain damage" for crying out loud. If anything, this supports my point that mankind's physical condition is getting worse, not better.

"How blondes evolved"
The well-known male prefernce for blondes isn't new. In fact, says a new study, it began with cavemen and cavewomen, back in the Ice Age. About 10,000 years ago, food was very scarce, and northern European men had to spend months away from home tracking bison and mammoths. Many died during the rigors of the hunt. When the few remaining men came home, women had to compete fiercely to find an available mate. Nearly all of them had the dark brown hair and dark eyes seen in the rest of the world, but at this time, a random mutation gave some women blond hair. Their exotic new look helped them to stand out from their brunette competitors, and when they successfully mated, they gave birth to more blondes....

Wouldn't some of the men need to have the "blond" gene also in order to produce blond/blonde children?

Of course, I previously pointed out that Adam and Eve carried all the hair color gene combinations possible for all their descendants, so hair color doesn't prove evolution.

 

[MorriganTait]

I previously pointed out that Adam and Eve carried all the hair color gene combinations possible for all their descendants, so hair color doesn't prove evolution.

But how then do you explain that people of Nordic descent tend to have lighter eyes, skin and hair and come from a region with less sunlight, and therefore a need to absorb more of it for proper Vitamin D synthesis, as opposed to people of Equatorial descent having darker eyes, skin and hair and a need to absorb less of the harsh equatorial sunlight? People desended of dessert regions have flatter nostrils to prevent the entry of dry dirt and sand into the lungs and people descended of mountain climates larger, more open nostrils to allow the intake of more oxygen - and that these traits, all of them, have been observed to change over time. All evolution says is that over time, living things have become different, and more differentiated, from the ancestors they have descended from - and that these differences appear to come about largely out of necessity for survival.

You may say "because thats how God designed it", and what I can say to that is, evolution does not attempt to explain away the presence of a creator - it is entirely neutral on this in-fact. It simply attempts to explain observable patterns, and describe the environmental and biological reasons they may have come about. Not the theological reasons. Science doesn't really concern itself with that as it is not pertinent.

 

[Reba]

But how then do you explain that people of Nordic descent tend to have lighter eyes, skin and hair and come from a region with less sunlight, and therefore a need to absorb more of it for proper Vitamin D synthesis, as opposed to people of Equatorial descent having darker eyes, skin and hair and a need to absorb less of the harsh equatorial sunlight?

How do you explain it?

What happens when "Equatorial" people move to "Nordic" regions now, and vice versa? Do they continue to evolve?

...these differences appear to come about largely out of necessity for survival.

Or God moved people into climates that best suited them.

You may say "because thats how God designed it", and what I can say to that is, evolution does not attempt to explain away the presence of a creator

If evolution isn't attempting to explain away the presence of a Creator, then what is the point of this entire debate?

 

[Reba]

What the heck does this even have to do with the discussion? Go find a passage that's relevant.

Do you mean something relevant to the discussion like Denver Broncos, drinking on St. Patty's day, Kryptonite, and eating rocks?

I think it is a very relevant verse.

 

[Beowulf]

Whatever you do, folks, do NOT go to Iran.
Or Arkansas.

 

[MorriganTait]

How do you explain it?

I explain it, in part, using the theory of natural selection. There are several other related and more complex theories that come into play, but basically, it boils down to living things with genes that make them well adapted to their environment have a tendency to reach maturity and reproduce more readily than those that do not - certainly with major notable exceptions.

What happens when "Equatorial" people move to "Nordic" regions now, and vice versa? Do they continue to evolve?

Well, yes, given enough time. Keep in mind, evolution is not one creature evolving in itself - it is a group of similar creatures evolving over many generations. At a certain point in the evolution of birds, certain birds stopped needing the ability to fly, but started needing the ability to dive for food under water - hence the adaptation of penguins. At a certain point of lizard evolution, small numbers of iguanas developed the ability to swim - but these iguanas live in only one place on earth. Iguanas in other places don;t need to swim, so they haven't adapted to do so. And we are not just talking about iguanas that "learned" to swim - we are talking about iguanas with genetics that make them more well suited to swimming.

Or God moved people into climates that best suited them.

Except then he stopped caring where people live and he lets them migrate all over the globe now?

If evolution isn't attempting to explain away the presence of a Creator, then what is the point of this entire debate?

The point of the debate is that Creationism is attempting to explain away evolution.

It is very easy for Creationists to disregard the science of evolution because there is a general lack of understanding about what evolution is, what it is attempting to do, and the science behind it - even people who acknowledge evolution tend to have only a rather cursory grasp of it.

I was hoping someone would have read this thread by now - in the hopes of becoming informed on what "evolution" actually is (and isn't).
http://www.alldeaf.com/showthread.php?t=25989

Of course, I previously pointed out that Adam and Eve carried all the hair color gene combinations possible for all their descendants, so hair color doesn't prove evolution.

Do you also feel this is the case for eye color? Yes? No?

 

[MorriganTait]

http://www.wiu.edu/users/mfb100/evolution.htm

Please follow the link for larger print.

SOME PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES

I have stated previously a definition of science, and the basic assumptions scientists work under. If you have more questions or time, here are some philosophical issues to think about.

DO SCIENTISTS IGNORE THE SUPERNATURAL BECAUSE THEY DISLIKE IT?

NO. Scientists cannot deal with the supernatural because that is not what scientists do. Science assumes naturalism, a series of cause and effect relationships. For example, if an experiment cannot be conducted to gather data to disprove a question, then there is no scientific question. Scientists practice methodological naturalism – as a working scientist, you assume there is a real physical world outside of your body that has laws and properties which can be observed, understood, and tested. Scientists cannot deal with the supernatural because, by its very definition, it is “beyond nature.” Nobody can test or falsify the existence of God; you cannot weigh God, touch God, feel God, see God, etc., in the physical senses of these words. It does not follow that there is no God, just that, as a working scientist, that is something you cannot do.

DOES ACCEPTING THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION LEAD TO ATHEISM?

NO. Some people allow methodological naturalism to be carried over into a philosophy about the nature and purpose of the universe. If you believe that all things can be explained by cause and effect relationships, and if you assume that all there really is in the universe is matter and energy, you are practicing philosophical naturalism, which some people label Atheism. But the two systems ARE NOT INTERCONNECTED. Some scientists make this mistake – they combine their methodological naturalism with their belief system, and fail to see the difference between the two. Many scientists, who accept the theory of evolution, are devout Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. They practice methodological naturalism at work, but in their private lives have many different philosophical and religious views, and have no internal or external conflict with this. Something to keep in mind is that just because life may have evolved, and just because we may have evolved from primates, does not mean there is no God, or no values or morals, etc.

SCIENCE – THE AUTO MECHANIC ANALOGY

This analogy is adapted from Eugenie Scott at the National Center for Science Education. One way to explain the narrowness of science is by comparing it to auto mechanics. An auto mechanic assumes methodological naturalism. He/she assumes a priori that there is a reason based in the physical universe as to why your car runs or does not run. Let’s say you were out late one night having an affair with someone you weren’t married to. The next morning, your car won’t start. It could be that a god was punishing you for sinning, but when you have the car towed to the mechanic, he/she is not allowed to assume that. They will look for a physical cause (i.e., low battery voltage) for why the car does not run. He/she cannot prove or disprove that a miracle made the car stop, or that the gods exist or do not exist or are angry with you. It is not within his/her narrow discipline of auto mechanics. You would not pay for a diagnosis such as, “Sorry, the battery died because you sinned.” This example may sound silly or exaggerated, but people accept the limits of auto mechanics to a cause and effect sequence of events firmly grounded in the laws of chemistry (combustion) and physics (brakes), and yet expect so much more from science.

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND MORALITY

Many people misunderstand science and the Theory of Evolution because most of what they see around them and think is science is really technology. Rocket science is an oxymoron – we did not discover a single new physical law or theory by sending a rocket to the moon. We used Newtonian physics, the gas laws, etc., to design space ships, but it took imagination on the part of the scientists who were applying the laws of chemistry and physics to build the machines. These machines were inventions and creations, conceptually not any different than Beethoven using music theory and his imagination to create the 3rd Symphony.

Remember that science discovers generalizations about the universe such as the gas laws. If you heat a gas, it will expand. This knowledge has no moral value and is amoral. However, if you use the gas laws to build a gun or a stove, those inventions (technology) do have moral value. Science itself has no moral value; it is a narrow discipline that produces generalizations about the physical universe (i.e., how the universe and things in it work and why). Technology is applied science and has moral value. Technology uses the generalizations of science to make products and inventions that can be used for good or bad purposes.

Does this mean scientists are somehow “off the hook”? No, but neither is the general public. Scientists are human beings with their own hopes, wishes, beliefs, and morals, and scientists make moral judgments about technology and its application just like everyone else. Science itself is amoral – it only tells you what is possible. Scientists and the public are not amoral. Understanding what science is and is not is important in making decisions about technology, its use, and the implications of future research on everyone’s lives.

 

[Reba]

I explain it, in part, using the theory of natural selection. There are several other related and more complex theories that come into play, but basically, it boils down to living things with genes that make them well adapted to their environment have a tendency to reach maturity and reproduce more readily than those that do not - certainly with major notable exceptions.

That seems pretty "hit or miss". Whole races of people or species of animals could die out before they "hit" it just right. It makes more sense to put the people and animals in climates that suit them.

... At a certain point in the evolution of birds, certain birds stopped needing the ability to fly, but started needing the ability to dive for food under water - hence the adaptation of penguins.

How come all the penguins didn't die from starvation prior to getting their ability to dive for food? Waiting a few thousand (million?) years for the next meal would make some pretty skinny birds.

At a certain point of lizard evolution, small numbers of iguanas developed the ability to swim - but these iguanas live in only one place on earth. Iguanas in other places don;t need to swim, so they haven't adapted to do so. And we are not just talking about iguanas that "learned" to swim - we are talking about iguanas with genetics that make them more well suited to swimming.

Or God made certain lizards with the ability (and right parts) for swimming.

Except then he stopped caring where people live and he lets them migrate all over the globe now?

Oh, God cares. As people multiplied, they spread out over the globe. As people moved into new regions they modified their dwellings, clothing, farming methods, etc., to fit their new homes. People changed things; the things didn't change people.

The point of the debate is that Creationism is attempting to explain away evolution.

Creationism doesn't have to "explain away" anything because Creation existed first. The theory of evolution is the newcomer on the block, and its proponents are trying to "explain away" Creation.

...there is a general lack of understanding about what evolution is, what it is attempting to do...

It's true that many people don't realize how belief in evolution supports acceptance of abortion, euthanasia, racism, and denial of man's sin nature. After all, man is just another "animal".

Do you also feel this is the case for eye color? Yes? No?

Yes, all physical characteristics.