How could anyone deny evolution?

[SLAMRAAM]

So, we're back to "evolution is true" meaning "god does not exist". There we have the crux of the matter of why some people stick their heads in the sand and do whatever they must to deny it.

Evolution is not atheism.

I never said it was, but the atheist movement uses evolution to push an anti-Christian agenda and attack the worth of the Bible.

 

[Dittohead not!]

No, unless my kid wants to be an auto mechanic, then whether he knows how the internal combustion engine works doesn't matter to me. Unless he wants to be an airplane engineer or pilot, then I don't care if he knows how an airplane works, etc. It doesn't have any relevance to his life.

The same could be said of much of what is taught in school, from K- university.

Once you've learned to read, write, and cypher, what else is needed? Say, we could save a lot of money by just having three or four years of education available.

 

[tecoyah]

If my kid grows up to be a brain surgeon, then whether or not he understands how evolutionary biology works won't make me less pround. Rather have a happy and moral kid, than a miserable atheist who thinks that knowing that "evolution is true" means he has any real intelligence or morals - it's the lesser of two evils.

I will assume your comment is not intended to be petty. But if I understand it correctly, you are implying that knowledge is an Evil, and that evolution=Atheism...makes no sense to me.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I never said it was, but the atheist movement uses evolution to push an anti-Christian agenda and attack the worth of the Bible.

"Atheist movement"?

Does that mean that, in order to protect the Bible, it is necessary to try to refute a scientific theory that has withstood a century and a half of debate and research, only to become stronger and more certain than ever? If that is so, then good luck with protecting the Bible.

No, there is no conflict between evolution and the Bible, only between evolution and some people's interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Wake]

"Atheist movement"?

Does that mean that, in order to protect the Bible, it is necessary to try to refute a scientific theory that has withstood a century and a half of debate and research, only to become stronger and more certain than ever? If that is so, then good luck with protecting the Bible.

No, there is no conflict between evolution and the Bible, only between evolution and some people's interpretation of the Bible.

I don't see how that is.

The theory of evolution directly states that man progressed from some speck of life that, mysteriously, no one knows where it came from.

That directly contradicts everything in the Bible, from Adam and Eve and the creation of the world, to Noah's arc and many other things within.

How do you think evolution cannot have any conflict with the Bible, when one proposes that man came from a procession of smaller animals, and the other proposes creation of matter and life from God?

 

[SLAMRAAM]

The same could be said of much of what is taught in school, from K- university.

Once you've learned to read, write, and cypher, what else is needed? Say, we could save a lot of money by just having three or four years of education available.

I agree with that, we should do that. We should also teach real life skills in school such as how to save and spend money responsibly, how to be a good parent to children, social skills classes, how to get a good job and be promoted at work, etc.

All abstract concepts (with the exception of American History - since it teaches a general love and respect for one's country) other than the most basic levels of math, science, etc which can be given real world uses to a layperson, should not be taught - except to students who are specifically training to be a biologist, mathematician, etc.

We need less superfluous education in schools and more hands-on, practical education. Not only would we save money, but this country would be much better of.

A person training to be say a nurse has absolutely no need to be learning say calculus, and having their potential as a college student based off of whether or not they were bored enough to memorize a bunch of abstract knowledge which has absolutely no relevance to their life or career. No wonder Einstein did so poorly in public school, I'm sure a guy as smart as him found it extremely boring and pointless.

 

[Wake]

The same could be said of much of what is taught in school, from K- university.

Once you've learned to read, write, and cypher, what else is needed? Say, we could save a lot of money by just having three or four years of education available.

I think the essentials must be taught. This includes science. However, if the theory of evolution is going to be taught in public schools I think all of the cons/"weak spots" in said theory should be elaborated on as well.

 

[tecoyah]

I don't see how that is.

The theory of evolution directly states that man progressed from some speck of life that, mysteriously, no one knows where it came from.

That directly contradicts everything in the Bible, from Adam and Eve and the creation of the world, to Noah's arc and many other things within.

How do you think evolution cannot have any conflict with the Bible, when one proposes that man came from a procession of smaller animals, and the other proposes creation of matter and life from God?

Perhaps this explains our problem within this debate...you do not quite understand what the "Theory of Evolution" actually is.

"Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature). "

Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

The issues with miracles, and Physics found in the Bible(s)...has nothing to do with Evolution.
Who says "God" didn't USE evolution to get to Adam?

 

[Wake]

Perhaps this explains our problem within this debate...you do not quite understand what the "Theory of Evolution" actually is.

"Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature). "

Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

The issues with miracles, and Physics found in the Bible(s)...has nothing to do with Evolution.
Who says "God" didn't USE evolution to get to Adam?

Because that directly contradicts much of the Bible.

Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that God used the lengthy process of evolution to make man and woman. No, the way God made Adam and Eve is explained in Genesis, as well as how God created the world.

To say that Christianity can blend with evolution, I feel, is pseudo-Christianity.

 

[tecoyah]

Because that directly contradicts much of the Bible.

Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that God used the lengthy process of evolution to make man and woman. No, the way God made Adam and Eve is explained in Genesis, as well as how God created the world.

To say that Christianity can blend with evolution, I feel, is pseudo-Christianity.

Then, I can only state we must disagree, or your Bible(S) are factually irrelevant. I suppose you can now tell me I am not Christian, it will certainly not be the first time.

To be honest, if your interpretation of these sacred texts requires me to ignore reality, physics, and virtually everything that makes sense in this world...either your version of God is a Prick, or this dream is actually a nightmare.

 

[MoSurveyor]

If my kid grows up to be a brain surgeon, then whether or not he understands how evolutionary biology works won't make me less pround. Rather have a happy and moral kid, than a miserable atheist who thinks that knowing that "evolution is true" means he has any real intelligence or morals - it's the lesser of two evils.

He won't. You can't flunk biology and still make med school.

I never said it was, but the atheist movement uses evolution to push an anti-Christian agenda and attack the worth of the Bible.

Then you should reject the printing press, computers, and the internet, too, since I'm sure all of those are also used by the atheist movement to "push an anti-Christian agenda".

 

[kenvin]

I think the essentials must be taught. This includes science. However, if the theory of evolution is going to be taught in public schools I think all of the cons/"weak spots" in said theory should be elaborated on as well.

What are those weak spots?

 

[tecoyah]

What are those weak spots?

Seconded...I would love to see new information.

Science Journals get a bit boring after awhile

 

[Jredbaron96]

Yes, the same way that neurosurgeons are probably ignorant of criminal justice, or how criminal defense attorneys are probably ignorant of quantum physics, or how quantum physicists are probably ignorant of petroleum engineering, or how petroleum engineers are probably ignorant of neurosurgery, etc etc. Who cares about "knowing something" just to know it if has absolutely no relevance to one's life or career?


Better question is to why people who have no credentials or career in evolutionary biology, are bored enough to sit around and tell everyone they know that "evolution is real" just to make their d*ck feel begger, when they could be out at the gym, having fun times with family or friends, or actually having sex on occasion.

Ahhh. I see.
My dick is beggar? I love how you insulted my sex life in an attempt to justify your attacks, and insinuate that your are superior to me in the case of sociology and physical attributes. You're a clever one.

 

[Jredbaron96]

1. It's not a fact. It is a theory. So, for example, is gravitational pull, and aerodynamics.
2. For those of faith who believe in Young Earth theory, it often comes down to a matter of Authority. God's authority beats the current scientific trends (and if you think that any scientific matter is settled please take the question up with Newton, or for that matter, increasingly with Einstein). Since science is the continual search for Truth, they figure, Science will eventually come 'round; and until then, they have got the inside scoop not because they are any better, but because He has told us the end game.

As a person of faith, I don't happen to hold that particular view - but it is logically consistent and I respect it and those who hold it.

It is a scientific theory, which means it is fact beyond any reasonable doubt.
And as for that second bit, that seems to be a personal matter that I will not dwell on.

 

[Jredbaron96]

If my kid grows up to be a brain surgeon, then whether or not he understands how evolutionary biology works won't make me less pround. Rather have a happy and moral kid, than a miserable atheist who thinks that knowing that "evolution is true" means he has any real intelligence or morals - it's the lesser of two evils.

If ignorance is bliss, then I want to be a very dull man.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

Well for one thing, not being able to breed.

In your very next post you quote some examples of this.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

I think the essentials must be taught. This includes science. However, if the theory of evolution is going to be taught in public schools I think all of the cons/"weak spots" in said theory should be elaborated on as well.

the weak spots and limitations of relativity and germ theory should be elaborated on too.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I agree with that, we should do that. We should also teach real life skills in school such as how to save and spend money responsibly, how to be a good parent to children, social skills classes, how to get a good job and be promoted at work, etc.

All abstract concepts (with the exception of American History - since it teaches a general love and respect for one's country) other than the most basic levels of math, science, etc which can be given real world uses to a layperson, should not be taught - except to students who are specifically training to be a biologist, mathematician, etc.

We need less superfluous education in schools and more hands-on, practical education. Not only would we save money, but this country would be much better of.

A person training to be say a nurse has absolutely no need to be learning say calculus, and having their potential as a college student based off of whether or not they were bored enough to memorize a bunch of abstract knowledge which has absolutely no relevance to their life or career. No wonder Einstein did so poorly in public school, I'm sure a guy as smart as him found it extremely boring and pointless.

Since no one ever changes careers, that makes sense.

 

[Jredbaron96]

No wonder Einstein did so poorly in public school, I'm sure a guy as smart as him found it extremely boring and pointless.

Nevermind.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I don't see how that is.

The theory of evolution directly states that man progressed from some speck of life that, mysteriously, no one knows where it came from.

That directly contradicts everything in the Bible, from Adam and Eve and the creation of the world, to Noah's arc and many other things within.

How do you think evolution cannot have any conflict with the Bible, when one proposes that man came from a procession of smaller animals, and the other proposes creation of matter and life from God?

Since the Adam and Eve story and the Noah story are allegorical and not meant to be literal, no, evolution doesn't challenge the Bible.

God did not create matter. Matter/energy can not be created nor destroyed. Matter, like god, has always been.

No one knows what created life to begin with. Maybe it was god. The theory of evolution doesn't address that issue.

 

[Deuce]

I think the essentials must be taught. This includes science. However, if the theory of evolution is going to be taught in public schools I think all of the cons/"weak spots" in said theory should be elaborated on as well.

Which "weak spots" would those be?

We're not going over the bananas again are we?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Which "weak spots" would those be?

We're not going over the bananas again are we?

or maybe just go bananas....

 

[AGENT J]

well its not that cut and dry.

Evolution is a fact that can not be denied at all. Anybody that denies evolution "exists" is a complete and utter moron. The education system or their up bring totally failed them or they are just mentally incapable of rational logical intelligent thought.

NOW WITH THAT SAID

The evolution debate is actually not the evolution debate its a debate about the origin of life. Thats where the debate is, its about believing that life came from a god or science and chance.

And theres a large amount of people that believe in both actually, some nut jobs try to say if you believe in the science of ANY evolution then you must not believe in god LMAO but that is simply not true.

IMO I simply think its a defense mechanism to preserve faith. If the religious story how life started can be questioned or disproved then god must not exist, well I say BS to that. MAYBE we humans just got the story wrong or "tweaked" it a little LOL I mean that NEVER happens right. Not religious stories but how many people think george washington actually choped down a cherry tree? had wooden teeth? or could throw a silver dollar across the potomac?

I personally believe in god, I however do not take all the stories seriously, why would I? Some of them are complete nonsense. As an adult I couldnt even seriously defend some religious stories and take myself seriously.

I guess some peoples faith is just very fragile and vain and if others can prove parts arent true or if they let themselves question any part of it their own faith it quickly crumbles. I feel bad for them actually but to each their own.

My personal belief is that others cant do anything to my faith but i will also NEVER push my faith on others what so ever or use my faith to judge others ever. We are in AMERICA and that would be totally pompous and hypocritical.

God gave me a brain for a reason, HE WANTS ME TO USE IT!!!!!!

Evolution exists, thats a fact. The origin of life? debate away because I dont care nor do I think it matters. Proof of that one way or another wont change my faith. Maybe god made evolution the origin of life? who knows :shrug:

Just wanted to post this again with some bolded parts because it seems some still need to accept the truth.

 

[tecoyah]

Seconded...I would love to see new information.

Science Journals get a bit boring after awhile

As no reply has been forthcoming, I am assuming you do not have one..correct me if I am wrong, if not we have a winner of this silly debate.

Now...shut your bible and pray!