Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
His raison d'etre is to troll Michael. Put him on ignore as most do.


Dear StanJ,

Noguru and Kdall aren't trolls. No way. They are Christians without much belief in the Creation account. They'd rather be led by science. That's too bad. They seem to be evolutionists.

StanJ, you're kind of new here. I don't want to put anyone on ignore unless I absolutely have to. How else can I hear their viewpoints.

Much Love, In Christ,

Michael

:) :rapture:
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
You did not answer the question.

So you think science should teach your theological beliefs?

Yes, science should include the history of the Creation theory, along with their other stuff, like evolution is a theory. It gives students a chance to choose what they want to believe in. You must have just got on TOL here.

God Be With You, noguru,

Michael

:) :rapture:
 

DavisBJ

New member
… Yes, I believe in reincarnation, if that's what you're wondering. I think we keep being born again until we get all of it right.

Michael
Michael, you often approve of those who profess a belief in Christianity. But of the Christians who are actively participating in this thread, I wonder specifically which of them concur with you in thinking that reincarnation is true.

Let’s see which of them will declare whether they agree or disagree with you on reincarnation.

noguru?

6days?

The Barbarian?

Stripe?

Kdall?

patrick jane?

everready?

Yorzhik?

StanJ?

way 2 go?
 

noguru

Well-known member
Michael, you often approve of those who profess a belief in Christianity. But of the Christians who are actively participating in this thread, I wonder specifically which of them concur with you in thinking that reincarnation is true.

Let’s see which of them will declare whether they agree or disagree with you on reincarnation.

I do not know.
 

Kdall

BANNED
Banned
No, it's not science. It's God!!

Michael

Here's the problem with proclaiming something as "God did it" prior to any sort of investigation, Michael:

Let's say I go outside today, and I see a big hole in the ground. I can either give up on finding a non-supernatural reason for it and declare the hole is God's work, or I can look around for evidence. When I choose the latter, I look and eventually see a badger crossing a road nearby. What makes more sense? That God dug the hole? Or that the badger did?
 

Kdall

BANNED
Banned
So you think science should teach your theological beliefs?

Yes, science should include the history of the Creation theory, along with their other stuff, like evolution is a theory. It gives students a chance to choose what they want to believe in. You must have just got on TOL here.

God Be With You, noguru,

Michael

:) :rapture:

Science does teach about creation theory, but in the history part of it. It's listed as an outdated theory alongside Lamarckism. Evolution due to natural selection, unlike the other two, stood up to the decades of scrutiny
 

noguru

Well-known member
Yes, science should include the history of the Creation theory, along with their other stuff,

It was covered in the science history classes I had.

like evolution is a theory.

A theory in science is an overarching explanation that explains all the evidence parsimoniously. It does not translate into 100% certainty. Though there is what can be termed provisional accuracy, or a likelihood based on the evidence. This nuance and depth is understood by people who truly understand science.

It gives students a chance to choose what they want to believe in. You must have just got on TOL here.

No educator has ever held a gun to my head in order to make me believe anything I have learned. Understanding something does not mean one has to believe it. For those who don't accept what the evidence suggests, I would be concerned about safety issues with them. Because being oblivious to reality can cause serious collateral damage.

On the other hand, there are many Christians who like to use the threat of hell as a way to intimidate others into following the party line.
 

Kdall

BANNED
Banned
Michael, you often approve of those who profess a belief in Christianity. But of the Christians who are actively participating in this thread, I wonder specifically which of them concur with you in thinking that reincarnation is true.

Let’s see which of them will declare whether they agree or disagree with you on reincarnation.

noguru?

6days?

The Barbarian?

Stripe?

Kdall?

patrick jane?

everready?

Yorzhik?

StanJ?

way 2 go?

I personally don't. But there's no way to prove or disprove it, no evidence to suggest either at all. So it's all opinion
 

alwight

New member
So you think science should teach your theological beliefs?

Yes, science should include the history of the Creation theory, along with their other stuff, like evolution is a theory. It gives students a chance to choose what they want to believe in. You must have just got on TOL here.

God Be With You, noguru,

Michael

:) :rapture:
Michael, I personally accept when science is correct because it works, is repeatable and because the evidence based conclusions are rational and reasonably more convincing than not.
The theory of evolution is taught in science classes because there is testable physical evidence to support it, not because Darwin wrote a book, but because there is evidence to be demonstrated, based entirely on the laws of physics.
The theory of evolution is a formal scientific theory that could be falsified by evidence if it conflicted with it. It is an explanation of that evidence which for over 150 years best describes all of it.
The "theory of creation" otoh is an informal theory because it doesn't stand or fall by physical testable evidence, it exists only because that is what some unverifiable ancient words say.

There simply is no place in science classes for something that has no regard for physical evidence, which by definition does not have any practical science to be put to the test and validated by students, that cannot be experimented on, that simply requires a belief alone, that is often a quite different belief in other parts of the world.

Nobody is saying that religions cannot be taught, just that religious belief is not science and does not belong in science classes. :nono:
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Here's the problem with proclaiming something as "God did it" prior to any sort of investigation, Michael:

Let's say I go outside today, and I see a big hole in the ground. I can either give up on finding a non-supernatural reason for it and declare the hole is God's work, or I can look around for evidence. When I choose the latter, I look and eventually see a badger crossing a road nearby. What makes more sense? That God dug the hole? Or that the badger did?


Dear Kdall,

Of course, the badger most likely did it. You are not representing yourself very well here. It's totally different than what I was talking about.

Michael

:duh: :rapture:
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Science does teach about creation theory, but in the history part of it. It's listed as an outdated theory alongside Lamarckism. Evolution due to natural selection, unlike the other two, stood up to the decades of scrutiny


Dear Kdall,

Big deal. Scrutiny! And the creation theory is not outdated.

Michael
 

Kdall

BANNED
Banned
Dear Kdall,

Big deal. Scrutiny! And the creation theory is not outdated.

Michael

How is something judged other than by peer scrutiny, Michael?

And yes, if a theory relies on a supernatural element, then as a scientific theory is it wholly outdated. You keep tryingto conflate science and religious belief, and that's just not how it is


I noticed that you jumped to creationism's defense, but not to Lamarckism's. Why is that?
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
It was covered in the science history classes I had.
You're lucky. It wasn't included in mine. I learned mine in Sunday School at Church.

A theory in science is an overarching explanation that explains all the evidence parsimoniously. It does not translate into 100% certainty. Though there is what can be termed provisional accuracy, or a likelihood based on the evidence. This nuance and depth is understood by people who truly understand science.
Oh, I understand science alright. It's just that I don't agree with evolution. There's a lot of other science I believe.

No educator has ever held a gun to my head in order to make me believe anything I have learned. Understanding something does not mean one has to believe it. For those who don't accept what the evidence suggests, I would be concerned about safety issues with them. Because being oblivious to reality can cause serious collateral damage.

On the other hand, there are many Christians who like to use the threat of hell as a way to intimidate others into following the party line.

It's just a different reality for some. I've not had a gun pointed to my head either and I understand what evolution is trying to say, but I don't believe it. No collateral damage with me. I also won't use the threat of hell on you. You're Christian, as far as I know. You just don't believe the Bible on some issues. Nothing to be alarmed about. The only sticking point is Creation or Evolution.

God Grant You Understanding,

Michael

:think: :rapture:
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I personally don't. But there's no way to prove or disprove it, no evidence to suggest either at all. So it's all opinion


Dear Kdall,

How do you reconcile what is written in Rev. 20:5, "But the rest of the dead did not LIVE AGAIN until the thousand years were finished?" There you go again forgetting what the Bible says, just like you do with the Creation account. It's fine with me if that's what you want to do.

Michael
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Michael, I personally accept when science is correct because it works, is repeatable and because the evidence based conclusions are rational and reasonably more convincing than not.

Al, you don't have any theology in your life, right? Did you go to any church when you were younger? You might then understand what is going on regarding Creation vs. Evolution.

The theory of evolution is taught in science classes because there is testable physical evidence to support it, not because Darwin wrote a book, but because there is evidence to be demonstrated, based entirely on the laws of physics.
From what I remember in school, they only taught evolution because they had books that claimed Darwinism. It was pretty basic stuff, but not necessarily true or tested.

The theory of evolution is a formal scientific theory that could be falsified by evidence if it conflicted with it. It is an explanation of that evidence which for over 150 years best describes all of it.
The "theory of creation" otoh is an informal theory because it doesn't stand or fall by physical testable evidence, it exists only because that is what some unverifiable ancient words say.

The theory of Creation has been around for a couple thousand years instead of 150 years. I'll take God anytime.

There simply is no place in science classes for something that has no regard for physical evidence, which by definition does not have any practical science to be put to the test and validated by students, that cannot be experimented on, that simply requires a belief alone, that is often a quite different belief in other parts of the world.
What is to be experimented on to conclude that evolution is correct? Sure we dissected frogs and possums, and we made hydrogen test tubes race across the floor in test tubes. We studied different rocks, etc. There were no experiments to substantiate evolution.

Nobody is saying that religions cannot be taught, just that religious belief is not science and does not belong in science classes. :nono:

That's too bad, but it's fine if you go to Church and learn about the Creation account also. It doesn't need to be taught in science classes I guess. It would be nice though if they gave theology a chance also, but whatever. They just present one side of the argument and muddle up the thoughts of young, impressionable children.

Best Wishes, alwight,

Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top