Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

It's easy to "elevate" the findings of science, because they can be observed, described, identified, and explained. It's methods always seeks to improve on its findings through investigation, and has a way to improve on the knowledge of our environment and natural phenomenon.

Other people are a very important part of our environment. Would you like them to be observed, described, identified, and explained?

1 Reply

@spendius,

we do it all th time spends.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Yeah--using the usual "dip your toe in" method.

It said "explained". There's no such thing as itsy-bitsy explanations. They are just job creation schemes for the sons and daughters of the new money.

Your deviousness with language is mind-boggling in a scientist. By "explanation" you mean one that it is to your satisfaction. Many well-to-do people, who one assumes are an elite, go to experts to have themselves explained.

I don't suppose you would welcome an explanation of yourself.

Stop cheating us all with your weasel words.

1 Reply

@spendius,

yeh we do it all the time spends

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Dream on. You're just flattering yourself.

Again.

0 Replies

@spendius,

What strawman would that be Spendis. Are you claiming that none of the bible thumpers claim the bible proves the earth is only 6,000 or so years old?

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

What strawman would that be Spendis. Are you claiming that none of the bible thumpers claim the bible proves the earth is only 6,000 or so years old?

He is claiming that it is impossible for him to defend the errant claims of others. That's pretty much what the strawman fallacy is about. Anyone with 3rd grade reading ability who opts to look at Genesis 2:4 will note that the creative days are indefinite time periods. Add to that the oft overlooked fact that the 7th day has not yet ended and you now have many years for the creative process, which BTW, did not start until Genesis 1:2.

2 Replies

@neologist,

I get a kick out of the titLe of this threAd AND THEN WE SEE HOW ITS DEGRADED INTO A DISCUSSION OF THE VALIDITY OF genesiS?
check please!!

1 Reply

@neologist,

No. The strawman fallacy isn't about "errant claims of others."
You wrote,

Quote:

look at Genesis 2:4 will note that the creative days are indefinite time periods

If they are "indefinite time periods," why did god rest on the 7th day? Why are the periods of creation based on "days?"

Quote:

The Days Of Creation

Here's a list of what God created on each of the six days of creation:

Day 1: The heavens, the earth, light and darkness.

Day 2: Heaven

Day 3: Dry land, the seas, and vegetation.

Day 4: The sun, the moon and the stars.

Day 5: Living creatures in the water, birds in the air.

Day 6: Land animals and people.

Day 7: God "rested".

and

Quote:

Day 1 begins with the creation of light (and, by implication, time). God creates by spoken command and names the elements of the world as he creates them. In the ancient Near East the act of naming was bound up with the act of creating: thus in Egyptian literature the creator god pronounced the names of everything, and the Enuma Elish begins at the point where nothing has yet been named.[2] God's creation by speech also suggests that he is being compared to a king, who has merely to speak for things to happen.[1]
And God said, “Let there be a rāqîa between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the rāqîa and separated the water under the vault from the water above it, and it was so, and God called the rāqîa “heavens”, and there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

In fact, what you are doing is a straw man fallacy. You must prove from the bible - not what others say or how they interpret it is what counts.

USE THE BIBLE.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I get a kick out of the titLe of this threAd AND THEN WE SEE HOW ITS DEGRADED INTO A DISCUSSION OF THE VALIDITY OF genesiS?
check please!!

I agree, Farmer. And I'm sorry to have had a part in derailing this fine thread. I have many other places where I have tried to bait, er, encourage discussion on Bible related topics, but everybody seems to enjoy camping here. I noticed CI has a juicy response just below your last post. I will leave him be and hope he will find one of my threads to thrash about in.

BTW, I do enjoy your posts.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

I agree, Farmer. And I'm sorry to have had a part in derailing this fine thread.

Do not feel bad about derailing this thread because I am almost certain that Farmer has participated in this type of activity more than once in this thread himself but to be truthful I am willing to bet that he will not try and challenge my claim. Wink

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

You are probably right so I wont even ask of what youre speaking

0 Replies

Who but farmerman and spendius can have followed all 675 pages of this thread?

Not me.

So I'm returning to ask a simple question that may very well be simplistic:

What is incongruent with the notion that evolution is a methodology of God?

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Thats a decent fall back position after you have accepted that evolution is an evidence based phenom.
IS it natural or god driven? I really dont have any answers to that .
If it is god driven, we are doing apretty good job following his building plans. If you think about it a little clearly you will see that science, has no place in its investigations in which to insert a series of questions like"Hmm, I wonder whether a god did this?", and even if it could, why would it?
The real goal of science is to understand the evolutionary process , disassemble it, and uncover its route of action. If you "need a god or two" to validate nature, have at it, but you probably wont see many chapels in a lab. Many labs at LASalle University in Philly still have Crucifxes attached to the walls but thats about it.

Most modern religions confess a belief in a god (and hi family) that has a pretty much"Hands off policy" to the universe. What I find so lovably naive about all the theistic forms is that they can have it any way they wish and nothing important suffers.

Read some works by Ken Miller, hes spent half his career defending his beliefs (and its mostly because we atheistic scientists have driven him to his confessory). I mile a bit but it givs Miller a good feeling so why quibble.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Who but farmerman and spendius can have followed all 675 pages of this thread?

My defence is my ADD.

I'm interested in why so many people are determined to miss the point. It is about rumpy-pumpy and it is about nothing else.

There are large economic interests which benefit from discrediting Christian sexual morality. And we know, or should do by now, what they are and the methods they use.

Nobody would give a damn about the matter were it otherwise.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

It is about rumpy-pumpy and it is about nothing else

Actually, in your mind, it is the magically ordained results of rumpy pumpy that has so many starched leaders of fundamentalist churches stewing. Are you a fundamentalist leaner spends?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

There are large economic interests which benefit from discrediting Christian sexual morality

CHRISTIAN SEXUAL MORALITY=dont do as I the priest is doing, do what I say instead.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

And when they hide the perpetrators and send them to other locations to protect them and their church, that's worse than the worst sinners in their church. They've done that for many decades.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You should see what's going on here in the secular world. Someone lifted the lid and its swarming out.

I find it hard to believe that all the diddled lads you mention were outraged at the time and that every of them was too ashamed or frightened to tell anyone. Protesting that is the case, with hindsight, does require us to suspend the validity of the evidence of our experience of our fellow creatures.

There are hundreds of thousands of people, including many kids, and mothers, who have been blasted to smithereens in the time frame you have drawn our attention to.

Methinks your boiling-point on the matter has been adjusted downwards to suit other conveniences of yours. I presume that the ones who follow your example will have the same conveniences in mind.

Those of us who have our priorities in some sort of sensible order think your obsession is a very minor matter.

You seem a bit uptight about being diddled. Does the subject obsess you?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I'm more fundamental than the most fundamental fundamentalist you have ever met fm. They are pussy-cats. They do gigs.

1 Reply

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know