The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

MooseJam

The winner will be the first person to eat 18 donuts - OMG only in America, gluttony anyone

J C

robindch wrote: »

Here's the DI on Florida's now-defunct "Academic Freedom Act", in which -- gosh! -- evolution is the only thing singled out for criticism:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/prepared_remarks_for_florida_a.html

I'm sure they've produced similar "remarks" for the current Louisiana gig. Utah and a few more states are doing similar things.

...and they're more than word games too. Most of these bills are intended to intimidate teachers .........

....so WHAT did this Bill ACTUALLY do...this is what Casey Luskin said about it:-

"Simply put, it guarantees the academic freedom rights of teachers and students to discuss both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution without having to fear being fired or suffering other negative consequences.

It’s important to point out that this bill equally protects the rights of all teachers and students, both those who favor Darwin’s theory and those who question it.

Evolution proponents commonly complain that some teachers are fearful of presenting the evidence for evolution because of public pressure. This bill protects the rights of those teachers just as much as it protects the rights of teachers who want to present scientific information challenging parts of evolutionary theory.

Predictably, Darwinists are opposing the bill by promoting a lot of misinformation.

First, they are claiming that the bill would sneak religion or creationism into the classroom. Wrong. This bill only protects the teaching of "scientific information,” and the bill expressly provides that it “shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine.”

Critics of this bill need to read the text of the bill, because it invalidates their fear-mongering.

Some critics have also claimed that the bill is intended to decide the debate over whether intelligent design is science and should be taught. Wrong again.

There are a growing number of scientists at universities and research institutions who believe that intelligent design raises legitimate scientific questions. But that’s a debated opinion right now, and this bill does not decide that debate one way or another.

What this bill does decide is that teachers and students should have the right to discuss things currently considered scientific in the classroom even if it happens to be critical of modern Darwinism.

So what are some examples of scientific information that can be discussed under this bill?

- You could talk about the Cambrian explosion, biology’s so-called “Big Bang” where over 500 million years ago nearly all of the major animal phyla appear in the same level of the fossil record without any clear evolutionary precursors.

- Or you might discuss the scientists who believe that the practical contribution of evolutionary biology to science is minimal. In the words of National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell, “None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution--it provided no support.”

- Or you might talk about the failure of Darwinian natural selection and random mutation to account for much of the highly-ordered complexity we see in biology, a failure admitted by many evolutionists themselves. For example, National Academy of Sciences biologist Lynn Margulis has acknowledged that “new mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”
So what else is the opposition saying to this bill? Well, Florida Citizens for Science went so far as to call academic freedom, “smelly crap.”

Academic freedom is not “smelly crap.” It’s the foundation of a free society.

Unfortunately, current proponents of evolution don’t seem to understand that fact.

Again, they could learn something from Charles Darwin himself: “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”

.....so the Bill allows EVOLUTIONISTS to question ASPECTS of Evolution......and protects THEIR Academic Freedom to do so!!!!!

......and it actually implements Charles Darwin's OWN idea that the facts and arguments on both sides of each question should be FREELY discussed!!!!

........PLEASE DO REMEMBER that the ONLY thing being protected by this Bill is the right of teachers and students to FREELY discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Evolution......Creation Science would STILL remain BANNED from the classroom in Florida under this Bill!!!!

......as I have already said the Materialists are just as hostile to ID Evolutionists (if not even more so) than they are to Creationists.......

Creation Scientists have no strong views on what should be taught to children in science classes......it is the Evolutionists (of the ID and Materialist varieties) that are 'fighting it out' AMONGST EACH OTHER on this Bill!!!!:D

.....and isn't it amazing HOW DEEPLY COMMITTED the Atheists ARE to their FAITH in Spontaneous Evolution ......which they hold to with a Religious Fervour that would put most Chrisitians to shame!!!!

.....just have a look over this thread......the Atheists are all over it like a rash......and debating as if their very lives depended on Evolution being true!!!

.....most of the Christians initially joined the Materialists in scoffing at me (as a Creation Scientist)......and most of them have been silent since it began to become obvious just how LITTLE evidence or logic exists in support of 'Muck to Man Evolution'......

.....it would appear that most 'modern' Christians are into 'feel good' feelings about Jesus Christ....but they are completely unable to defend His Word in the Bible.....and many end up JOINING the Atheists whenever they are scientifically or logically challenged......

.....using phrases like 'religion and science are different realms' they concede the science of 'origins' to the Atheists......and soon the religion is also conceded.....as the 'drop out' rates amongst young people in most mainstream churches testify each Sunday.....
.......at this stage you have 80% older people in most churches .....and most of the children present are only there because their GRANDPARENTS have dragged them along!!!!

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....so the Bill allows EVOLUTIONISTS to question ASPECTS of Evolution......and protects THEIR Academic Freedom to do so!!!!!

They already have that right. They already exercise that right. No bill is required in that regard.

J C wrote: »

......and it actually implements Charles Darwin's OWN idea that the facts and arguments on both sides of each question should be FREELY discussed!!!!

That has been "implemented" for the 150 years since Darwin and prior to his work also. No new laws are required in the US to allow this.

J C wrote: »

........PLEASE DO REMEMBER that the ONLY thing being protected by this Bill is the right of teachers and students to FREELY discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Evolution......

At high school level this is not appropriate, any more than challenging the conventional understanding of gravity. Academic freedom is a concern of university students and researchers.

J C wrote: »

Creation Science would STILL remain BANNED from the classroom in Florida undef this Bill!!!!

However the bill allows for the possibility of arguing that creation science is one of the valid arguments against evolution. Bans may be overturned.

J C wrote: »

......as I have already said the Materialists are just as hostile to ID Evolutionists (if not even more so) than they are to Creationists.......

Scientists are, and always should be, hostile towards any and all ideas which either make untestable assumptions or which do not fit observations.

J C wrote: »

Creation Scientists have no strong views on what should be taught to children in science classes......it is the Evolutionists (of the ID and Materialist varieties) that are 'fighting it out' AMONGST EACH OTHER on this Bill!!!!:D

Rubbish, creationists want creationism taught in schools. Ultimately they would like to see creationism predominate. The day that happens, the world is in bad shape.

J C wrote: »

.....and isn't it amazing HOW DEEPLY COMMITTED the Atheists ARE to their FAITH in Spontaneous Evolution ......which they hold to with a Religious Fervour that would put most Chrisitians to shame!!!!

I have never met an atheist with faith. Nor have I ever met an atheist who believes in "spontaneous evolution", nor anyone at all who does. Hardly surprising since it is your invention.

J C wrote: »

.....just have a look over this thread......the Atheists are all over it like a rash......and debating as if their very lives depended on Evolution being true!!!

Consider that in recent years, the western world has seen a resurgence of diseases for which we have had good vaccines for decades. All because one poorly-conceived study suggested a link between autism and the MMR vaccine when dozens did not. No religion drove this, but un-reason prevailed and continues to. We knew the link to be non-existent but irrational thinking, fear, is hard to break through. If even a few people have died as a result of that incident, that has meaning for scientists.

Make no mistake, J C, lives very much do depend on the outcome of the conflict between reason and un-reason. Evolution is the first step. If evolution is allowed to be buried simply to pander to some people's simplistic notions on Christianity, if we bow to that fear, then it opens the door for so much more.

J C wrote: »

.....most of the Christians initially joined the Materialists in scoffing at me (as a Creation Scientist)......and most of them have been silent since it began to become obvious just how LITTLE evidence or logic exists in support of 'Muck to Man Evolution'......

Evolution does not say that muck turned into man. We would not expect to find evidence that it did. There is plenty of evidence for the theory of evolution itself, but it rather frightens you to look at it.

J C wrote: »

.....it would appear that most 'modern' Christians are into 'feel good' feelings about Jesus Christ....but they are completely unable to defend His Word in the Bible.....and they end up JOINING the Atheists whenever they are scientifically or logically challenged......

Jesus didn't write Genesis.

J C wrote: »

.....using phrases like 'religion and science are different realms' they concede the science to the Atheists......and soon the religion is also conceded.....as the 'drop out' rates amongst young people in most mainstream churches testify each Sunday.....
.......at this stage you have 80% older people in most churches .....and most of the children present are only there because their GRANDPARENTS have dragged them along!!!!

Only reason can lead people to atheism. It offers few rewards, spiritual or emotional. If evolution aids that conversion, then it must seem reasonable to an increasing number of people.

J C

Flamed Diving wrote: »

My friend is a microbiologist Phd, and she made a mistake back in Jan of which she only realised now. So basically the past six months have been for nothing. I'm telling ya, no amount of hugs could console her.

.......for the past 150 YEARS the Evolutionists have been 'barking up the wrong tree'........so THAT is why they emit 'howls of indignation' following ANY questioning of their unfounded idea that they are 'glorified pondslime'......with nothing added but time.....and MUTATIONS!!!!!:pac::):D

......having spent the best part of twenty YEARS believing in Evolution myself, I was also inconsolable, when I first realised that it might all be scientifically invalid!!!!!:)

.....and my girlfriend at the time (who has since become my wife).....provided great consolation........with plenty of huggs and kisses!!!

.....anyway, I eventually stood manfully up, I dusted myself down......and I became a Creation Scientist.....and I haven't looked back since!!!!:eek::)

.....and these days, when I go to the Zoo ......I go to see the ANIMALS......and NOT to visit my extended FAMILY!!!!:eek::)

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

This thread has demonstrated that the only manner in which one may effectively challenge evolution is by attacking semantics or pretending that it is a moral philosophy. Even then, there seems to be no compelling justification for the supposed sole alternative.

......Evolution is an unfounded amoral philosophy.....and little more than that.....because there is neither logic nor evidence to suggest that it EVER occurred!!!!:D

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
......anyway, your points boils down to :-

Evolutionist Speculation---- GOOD!!!

Creation Science

---

NOT GOOD!!!

AtomicHorror
Must you always grossly over-simplify everything? It's little wonder you have so much difficulty with the theory of evolution. Or that you insist on rendering all situations into dichotomies.

......yes, that is roughly what the Evolutionists believe......and they are prepared to .....and do....use the full force of law to follow through on their idea that 'Evolution is good' and 'Creation Science is not good'.....to the point of completely BANNING any discussion on the many weaknesses of Evolution ......and PROHIBITING, even the mention of Creation Science, within the institutions that they control!!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote:

How can unfaith be considered a religious worldview? Religions demand faith in the unknowable. Atheism demands belief only in the tangible. Your statement is self-contradictory.

Atheism demands faith in the ABSENCE of God........and Atheism is now RECOGNISED as a belief system i.e. a faith by the British Government in their new Religious Education programme.......and Secularists have full consultancy status, like the Mainstream Churches and other Religious representatives in the development of the syllabus!!!!:D
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/feb/15/uk.schools1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/17/religion.schools
......under these circumstances it is all the more bizzarre that Spontaneous Evolution (which is the 'origins explanation' of Atheism) is a mandatory requirement for the teaching of ALL children of ALL faiths in science class......
.....amazingly, Atheism can freely teach it's nihilistic philosophy in science classes to ALL children.....but Christians cannot even teach their 'origins explanation' to Christian children in the same schools.......
Atheism and Evolutionism have become a new 'legally-approved religion' in American Public Schools......and ALL other 'origins explanations' and religions are prohibited BY LAW from within the school precincts!!!!!:D:)

.....so the Atheists want it BOTH ways.....they want to teach their 'origins explanation' in science classes......and their religious philosophy in religion classes......and Christians are BANNED from teaching EITHER their 'origins explanation' OR their religious viewpoint in American Public Schools!!!!!!!:eek:

AtomicHorror wrote:

As to wanting to induct all to their world view... I have to wonder how they'd expect anyone to accept their world view without compelling evidence. No benevolent God, no cozy afterlife, no objective morality or objective meaning. That's a hard sell. And it's hard to imagine why anyone would want to accept it or promote it without compelling evidence.

.....it is amazing indeed that Humanity largely rejects the loving all-powerful God who gave them life.....but that is how Humans tend to think!!!!

........yes, atheism is indeed bleak......and one could wonder why some people reject God .......but then many people (who aren't atheists....and some who are) take drugs, engage in high risk sexual activity, drive dangerously......and take part in many other self-destructive behaviours.....all the way down to suicide .......so I guess rejecting God could be quite easy for some people!!!:eek:

AtomicHorror wrote:

For power? Far easier to invent a new God, a new faith. The human mind much prefers patterns and meaning after all.

.........which raises the question of why a Human Mind that supposedly evolved from Pondslime would prefer or indeed expect patterns and meaning to life!!!!!:)

AtomicHorror wrote:

Please. Spontaneous evolution is a phrase that you invented. A concept that you created in order to give you a softer target than the theory of evolution.

......it is an appropriate descriptor of Materialistic Evolution.......as distinct from it's 'Theistic' variety......although many 'Theistic Evolutionists' seem to believe in very significant levels of 'spontaneity'......when it comes to Evolution!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote:

Show me a scientific paper, not a quoted personal opinion, which demands the elimination of faith. Secularism does not demand this and secularism is all that the "evolutionists" are looking for.

......secularism is a FAITH itself (in the independence of Humans from God).......so it is no surprise that secularism doesn't demand the elimination of faith in itself!!!!
......when it comes to the issue of 'origins' some secularists have become quite 'heavy handed'........with laws promulgated in some countries that prohibit the discussion in schools of ANY alternative 'origins explanations' to the secularist one (of Spontaneous Evolution).

AtomicHorror wrote:

Science is the opposite of faith. It is the belief in nothing that cannot be observed. It does not deny God, as God cannot be measured. It merely focuses on that which can be measured. Is that not a reasonable practice? There is no basis for your claim that evolution is based on any form of faith.

.....I accept that science is about what can be repeatably OBSERVED and MEASURED .......so ...
.....where has life been observed to arise by abiogenesis?
.....where has life been observed to evolve from Slime to Man?

.........NEITHER has EVER been scientifically observed......so they can ONLY be believed in through FAITH......but this is the ONLY FAITH (and 'origins explanation') that can be taught with impunity to children of ALL faiths in Science Classes.......because the Secularists say so......and they are prepared to use full criminal sanctions against anybody who even questions their right to do so ......while ironically simultaneously protesting their belief in equalty and diversity!!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote:

Why then, have creation scientists spent the bulk of their time attempting to re-interpret published, peer-reviewed and tested science? Their primary argument, and yours, is that the establishment are suppressing the truth. They have no motive to do so, given the adversarialism of science. The positive evidence presented in favour of creation is thin on the ground and falls apart at a mere breath of reason.

.......science exists to question ITSELF.......and many Creation Scientists are eminently qualified conventional scientists........
........and Evolution has so many questions overhanging EVERY aspect of itself .....that Creation Scientists are unlikely to run out of work .....or questions about Evolution anytime soon!!!!

Although the questioning of Evolution could provide an endless source of work (and fun) for Creation Scientists......they tend to expend most of their energies doing scientific research into aspects of Creation.....and that is why they are called Creation Scientists....after all!!!!:D

AtomicHorror wrote:

It's well-documented that creationist writings have been recycled and modified for use by the ID lobby. The differences between the movements are little more than PR. Their similarly unfalsifiable initial assumptions will naturally be rejected by scientists.

....... Creation Science and ID Research employs top class scientists .......and they make use of each others findings......as well as the results of research carried out by Spontaneous Evolutionists.....but each discipline pursues their own fields of research INDEPENDENTLY of each other!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote:

Assuming for a moment that you are correct, why should God be brought into educational institutions on anything other than an academic level? Your notions of God are no more compelling and have no greater right to be taught as truth than any other. A secular education system should be a fundamental right as surely a religious freedom should be.

........it is just as wrong to 'force feed' Spontaeous Evolution to a Christian child as it would be to 'force feed' Creation Science to an Atheist child.......and that is one of the reasons why Creation Scientists do NOT believe that Creation Science should be taught in Science Classes in Secular Schools!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote:

Wake up. If you think that some atheist conspiracy exists you are deluded. If you think that such a conspiracy controls education here or anywhere then you are equally deluded.

.....a conspiracy implies secrecy........and the Evolutionists are quite OPEN about their views on the 'origins question'.....

It is clear that they want THEIR 'origins explanation' to be the ONLY one which can be taught in Science Classes......and they have OPENLY promulgated laws to this effect in some countries.......so an atheist conspiracy DOESN'T exist.......but they DO wish to OPENLY ensure that their 'origins explanation' is the ONLY 'origins explanation' taught in public schools to ALL children!!!!:pac::):D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.....so the Bill allows EVOLUTIONISTS to question ASPECTS of Evolution......and protects THEIR Academic Freedom to do so!!!!!

AtomicHorror
They already have that right. They already exercise that right. No bill is required in that regard.

........such a right (to question Evolution) may exist in THEORY in academia......but to do so might not be good for ones 'career health'!!!!:eek::)

....it is certainly clear that such a right (to question Evolution) DOESN'T exist in either theory or practice in American Public Schools.....which is the objective of this Bill!!!:D

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
......and it actually implements Charles Darwin's OWN idea that the facts and arguments on both sides of each question should be FREELY discussed!!!!

AtomicHorror
That has been "implemented" for the 150 years since Darwin and prior to his work also. No new laws are required in the US to allow this.

......not so....in relation to American Public Schools......see above!!!!:D

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
........PLEASE DO REMEMBER that the ONLY thing being protected by this Bill is the right of teachers and students to FREELY discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Evolution......

AtomicHorror
At high school level this is not appropriate, any more than challenging the conventional understanding of gravity. Academic freedom is a concern of university students and researchers.

......I see....so you believe that Academic Freedom, which is actually freedom of thought........ONLY applies to University students and researchers.....and then ONLY to Evolutionist University students and researchers.....

........what arrogance.......to deny freedom of thought to second level teachers and their students!!!!!!!!!!!eek::D

wrote:

AtomicHorror
However the bill allows for the possibility of arguing that creation science is one of the valid arguments against evolution. Bans may be overturned.

......so what if it does.......such a ban shouldn't be there in the first place, in a free society that respects the equality and diversity of ALL of its citizens!!!!

wrote:

AtomicHorror
Scientists are, and always should be, hostile towards any and all ideas which either make untestable assumptions or which do not fit observations.

.....then they must have serious difficulties with 'Muck to Man Evolution' .....which NOBODY has ever observed......and NOBODY can even imagine how it might occur!!!!:D:eek:

wrote:

AtomicHorror
Rubbish, creationists want creationism taught in schools. Ultimately they would like to see creationism predominate.

.......Creationists would naturally like everyone else to become Creationists............but Creation Scientists DON'T want to legally force any children to receive information about Creation Science in school, against the wishes of themselves and their parents!!!!

wrote:

AtomicHorror
Consider that in recent years, the western world has seen a resurgence of diseases for which we have had good vaccines for decades. All because one poorly-conceived study suggested a link between autism and the MMR vaccine when dozens did not. No religion drove this, but un-reason prevailed and continues to. We knew the link to be non-existent but irrational thinking, fear, is hard to break through. If even a few people have died as a result of that incident, that has meaning for scientists.

.............the practical contribution of evolutionary biology to science is minimal........but could I defer to National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell on this one .... “None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution--it provided no support.”

wrote:

AtomicHorror
Make no mistake, J C, lives very much do depend on the outcome of the conflict between reason and un-reason. Evolution is the first step. If evolution is allowed to be buried simply to pander to some people's simplistic notions on Christianity, if we bow to that fear, then it opens the door for so much more.

.........now you are going into 'chicken licken' mode.......NOBODY is talking about burying Evolution......but I think that it may very well scientifically 'bury itself'......as the latest findings begin to be examined objectively!!!!
.....one way or another, Evolutionists will be granted the privilege of deciding whether to resuscitate Evolution ......or to give it a descent burial!!!!!!!

wrote:

AtomicHorror
There is plenty of evidence for the theory of evolution itself, but it rather frightens you to look at it.

.....there is little evidence....and even less logical support for Evolution......and the only one running scared in 'chicken licken' mode about the 'origins issue' is yourself!!!!:D

wrote:

AtomicHorror
Jesus didn't write Genesis.

.......Genesis is the inspired Word of God....and Jesus is the second person of the Triune God.....so Jesus DID inspire the writing of Genesis by Moses.....and He fully supported it's veracity when He was here on Earth!!!

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Can you point to which organisation was behind any attempt to ban evolution? Or are you just assuming it?

Well if you define the Creationist movement as a movement that started after the supreme court had ruled (a number of times) that you can't ban evolution from being taught in science classes, obviously the examples are going to be some what limited :rolleyes:

Good summary here

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-08-14-evolution-teach_x.htm

I think your definition of the movement is nonsense, but some what unsurprisingly, there are still the odd example to be found.

1999, the Kansas school board deletes all mention of evolution from the required school curriculum. A ban you say? Not exactly (remember a ban is illegal), but it allows individual teachers to simply not teach any evolution if they so wish.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/12/kansas.evolution.flap/

The interesting thing about this decision in the context of later excuses for the Creationist movement, the excuse of considering all different theories can't be applied to this one. Unlike a lot of later Creationist tactics, this one wasn't a move to require Creationism or ID to be taught alongside evolution, it was a move to remove evolution completely.

The school board was voted out and the decision was reversed, but not after Kansas became a laughing stock for a bit.

An isolated case perhaps, not to be associated with the wider Creationist movement who only have honourable goal of getting ID included along with evolution?

Unfortunately not.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/striking.evolution.ap/index.html

In Georgia states school board is attempting to ban "evolution" What is that you say? How can they ban it! The supreme court long ago said they can't. Well they are looking to ban the word "evolution" from the curriculum, while still teaching that changes over time are possible in species.

What? This certainly left a lot of people confused. Why bother. But it only make sense in relation to Creationism, which teaches that species change within kinds, but that this isn't Darwinian evolution. Ironically this point was missed by even some Creationist groups who (like yourself and JC up to last year) obviously hadn't gotten the memo from AiG that they now accept that species can change.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......Evolution is an unfounded amoral philosophy.....and little more than that.....because there is neither logic nor evidence to suggest that it EVER occurred!!!!:D

You can keep saying there's no evidence for evolution all you like, it won't make it true. Why don't you point me to a primary paper which disproves evolution.

J C wrote: »

......yes, that is roughly what the Evolutionists believe......and they are prepared to .....and do....use the full force of law to follow through on their idea that 'Evolution is good' and 'Creation Science is not good'.....to the point of completely BANNING any discussion on the many weaknesses of Evolution ......and PROHIBITING, even the mention of Creation Science, within the institutions that they control!!!!!

No, what they're trying to do is prevent creationism from being taught in science classes. Their logic is that creationism is not a science and thus has no business there.

J C wrote: »

Atheism demands faith in the ABSENCE of God........

That's not Atheism. Atheism is the position that the existence of God is of negligible likelihood, based on logic and the available evidence.

J C wrote: »

...and Atheism is now RECOGNISED as a belief system i.e. a faith by the British Government in their new Religious Education programme.......and Secularists have full consultancy status, like the Mainstream Churches and other Religious representatives in the development of the syllabus!!!!:D

That's a very simplistic view. Equality of status is not the same as equality of substance.

J C wrote: »

......under these circumstances it is all the more bizzarre that Spontaneous Evolution (which is the 'origins explanation' of Atheism) is a mandatory requirement for the teaching of ALL children of ALL faiths in science class......

"Spontaneous evolution" is not taught in any schools anywhere. The theory of evolution is taught in second level science classes because it represents one element of the current scientific consensus.

J C wrote: »

.....amazingly, Atheism can freely teach it's nihilistic philosophy in science classes to ALL children.....but Christians cannot even teach their 'origins explanation' to Christian children in the same schools.......

That isn't true, the Genesis may be taught in schools. Its place is in religion classes. Evolution is no more nihilistic than the laws of gravity. Neither contains morality but neither is intended to.

J C wrote: »

Atheism and Evolutionism have become a new 'legally-approved religion' in American Public Schools......and ALL other 'origins explanations' and religions are prohibited BY LAW from within the school precincts!!!!!:D:)

Where is the combination of atheism and evolution referred to or accepted as a 'legally-approved religion'? Show me the laws.

J C wrote: »

.....it is amazing indeed that Humanity largely rejects the loving all-powerful God who gave them life.....but that is how Humans tend to think!!!!

A cop-out explanation which allows you to justify any thinking that contradicts your specific interpretation of God's Word.

J C wrote: »

........yes, atheism is indeed bleak......and one could wonder why some people reject God .......but then many people (who aren't atheists....and some who are) take drugs, engage in high risk sexual activity, drive dangerously......and take part in many other self-destructive behaviours.....all the way down to suicide .......so I guess rejecting God could be quite easy for some people!!!:eek:

Drug taking, sexual activity and dangerous driving offer hedonistic appeal to some. Activities which bring pleasure at a cost. There's an obvious motive for each activity. There's an obvious motive for suicide. Take away the notion for simple rejection of God and these actions don't suddenly become unintelligible.

The comparison to atheism only works if you think that rejection of God is a motive. You do of course. And you use that to explain away actions and beliefs that you are not imaginative enough to understand.

J C wrote: »

.........which raises the question of why a Human Mind that supposedly evolved from Pondslime would prefer or indeed expect patterns and meaning to life!!!!!:)

One example would be that the ability to recognise patterns and causality will help an organism to evade predators. There are countless survival advantages.

J C wrote: »

......it is an appropriate descriptor of Materialistic Evolution.......as distinct from it's 'Theistic' variety......although many 'Theistic Evolutionists' seem to believe in very significant levels of 'spontaneity'......when it comes to Evolution!!!!

The theory of evolution does not consider God. I recognise that there are those that like to bring a theistic element into evolution and that could validly be called "theistic evolution". No qualifier or descriptor is required for the theory of evolution itself. Adding "spontaneous" is inaccurate. Since you seem determined to mislead people, I will continue to correct you.

J C wrote: »

......secularism is a FAITH itself (in the independence of Humans from God).......so it is no surprise that secularism doesn't demand the elimination of faith in itself!!!!

By that definition, secularism is only a faith if one actually believes in God. Beyond that, secularism is based on the observation that church and state function best in isolation. No faith, at least not in the religious sense.

J C wrote: »

......when it comes to the issue of 'origins' some secularists have become quite 'heavy handed'........with laws promulgated in some countries that prohibit the discussion in schools of ANY alternative 'origins explanations' to the secularist one (of Spontaneous Evolution)

If they would present your version of events, then why not all creation stories? That's going to take a lot of time and effort. The current policy in most education systems is to take the best-accepted knowledge, the conventional wisdom, and teach that. Understanding critical learning, debate, these are worthwhile. But should we have second level students question everything? There's a time for that, it isn't high school.

J C wrote: »

.....I accept that science is about what can be repeatably OBSERVED and MEASURED .......so ...
.....where has life been observed to arise by abiogenesis?

Not a part of evolution and also not a theory. However, various parts of this process have been reproduced in laboratories using the materials that were present on earth during various time frames. Much remains to be understood about abiogenesis, which is why it is presented cautiously when taught.

J C wrote: »

.....where has life been observed to evolve from Slime to Man?

From slime? That's poorly-defined. As for speciation, that's been observed in the fossil record, in the genomes of all living organisms, and in the laboratory.

J C wrote: »

.........NEITHER has EVER been scientifically observed......so they can ONLY be believed in through FAITH......

Abiogenesis has not be observed and hence we do not contend that it certainly happened. It seems likely but the mechanisms involved are not clear. We do not have faith in abiogenesis.

Evolution has been observed. All observations made to date fit the theory, so the theory stands and we consider it true.

J C wrote: »

.......science exists to question ITSELF.......and many Creation Scientists are eminently qualified conventional scientists........
........and Evolution has so many questions overhanging EVERY aspect of itself .....that Creation Scientists are unlikely to run out of work .....or questions about Evolution anytime soon!!!!

And yet their publications are few, their new discoveries refuted quickly. They seem to work harder on propaganda, misinformation and politics than on science, if you could call it that. Plenty of work for them sure, but no scientific work that I've ever seen.

J C wrote: »

Although the questioning of Evolution could provide an endless source of work (and fun) for Creation Scientists......they tend to expend most of their energies doing scientific research into aspects of Creation.....and that is why they are called Creation Scientists....after all!!!!:D

Funny how they rarely seem to produce novel results. They seem to prefer to attack established science rather than generate new science. A scientist, faced with such a dearth of supporting data, would abandon his hypothesis and form a new one. Impossible for creationists of course.

J C wrote: »

........it is just as wrong to 'force feed' Spontaeous Evolution to a Christian child as it would be to 'force feed' Creation Science to an Atheist child.......and that is one of the reasons why Creation Scientists do NOT believe that Creation Science should be taught in Science Classes in Secular Schools!!!!

It's a religious teaching so has no place in a secular system. There's no evidence behind it so it has no place in science.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

........such a right (to question Evolution) may exist in THEORY in academia......but to do so might not be good for ones 'career health'!!!!:eek::)

Rubbish, established theories are challenged all the time. If the evidence is good, this can make a career. If it is not, it can break it. That is how science works.

J C wrote: »

....it is certainly clear that such a right (to question Evolution) DOESN'T exist in either theory or practice in American Public Schools.....which is the objective of this Bill!!!:D

The right to deny elements of the history syllabus does not not exist in second level schools either. Why should it? If evidence emerges that the syllabus is inaccurate, the correct course of action is to change the syllabus, not to have high school students engage in a debate.

J C wrote: »

......not so....in relation to American Public Schools......see above!!!!:D

And as already stated, academic freedom is not a concept relevant to second level education.

J C wrote: »

......I see....so you believe that Academic Freedom, which is actually freedom of thought

Academic freedom and freedom of thought are not the same thing. Never did I suggest that freedom of thought or expression should be limited under any circumstances.

J C wrote: »

........ONLY applies to University students and researchers.....and then ONLY to Evolutionist University students and researchers.....

I did not write or imply such a limitation in terms of subject area. In terms of education level, it is relevant. How far would we go in allowing debate of well-established knowledge? Primary school math? Challenging two plus two? If the bible told you it equaled five, perhaps.

J C wrote: »

........what arrogance.......to deny freedom of thought to second level teachers and their students!!!!!!!!!!!eek::D

Arrogance? Please explain to me how academic freedom and freedom of thought are the same thing. The first is the right to choose whatever third level courses one wishes and thereafter, the right to free inquiry and publication. The other, freedom of thought, certainly feeds into this but is a universal right in itself.

J C wrote: »

......so what if it does.......such a ban shouldn't be there in the first place, in a free society that respects the equality and diversity of ALL of its citizens!!!!

Should a free society allow the teaching of concepts to children which are unsupported by observation? Should it allow the teaching of lies? How about holistics? Holocaust denial? Diversity.

J C wrote: »

.....then they must have serious difficulties with 'Muck to Man Evolution' .....which NOBODY has ever observed......and NOBODY can even imagine how it might occur!!!!:D:eek:

There is no theory of muck to man evolution. Such an event is described in Genesis though, so were we able to demonstrate that it occurred I imagine you would seize upon this finding as support for Creation.

J C wrote: »

.......Creationists would naturally like everyone else to become Creationists............but Creation Scientists DON'T want to legally force any children to receive information about Creation Science in school, against the wishes of themselves and their parents!!!!

They seem rather more subtle in their tactics. I have little doubt that if the opportunity to ban evolution from schools were to arise, they would immediately seize it.

J C wrote: »

.............the practical contribution of evolutionary biology to science is minimal........but could I defer to National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell on this one .... “None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution--it provided no support.”

Assuming that this opinion were true, what is the relevance of it? Would it impact on my point that scientists have an obligation to rigorously pursue the truth and to expose irrationality? Would it impact on the veracity of evolution?

J C wrote: »

.........now you are going into 'chicken licken' mode.......NOBODY is talking about burying Evolution......but I think that it may very well scientifically 'bury itself'......as the latest findings begin to be examined objectively!!!!

The latest findings support evolution. By all means show me where they do not. I'd love to actually get back to talking about science rather than semantics, moral philosophy, educational policy, human rights...

J C wrote: »

.....one way or another, Evolutionists will be granted the privilege of deciding whether to resuscitate Evolution ......or to give it a descent burial!!!!!!!

The day evolution is falsified it will be discarded with no burial. The undead zombie we call Creationism will still be wandering about taking shots to the head while a new scientific theory of life rises to prominence.

J C wrote: »

.....there is little evidence....and even less logical support for Evolution......and the only one running scared in 'chicken licken' mode about the 'origins issue' is yourself!!!!:D

I'll gladly look at any scientific evidence that you have that falsifies evolution.

J C wrote: »

.......Genesis is the inspired Word of God....and Jesus is the second person of the Triune God.....so Jesus DID inspire the writing of Genesis by Moses.....and He fully supported it's veracity when He was here on Earth!!!

That is your problem and not mine. You seem to be convinced that the veracity of the Origin of Species would make your faith a lie. That's only because you lack imagination though.

AtomicHorror

Uh oh... another functional intermediate found in the fossil record. When will those pesky missing links stop going un-missing?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926643.400-flatfish-caught-evolving-thanks-to-its-roving-eye.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_mg19926643.400

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Uh oh... another functional intermediate found in the fossil record. When will those pesky missing links stop going un-missing?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926643.400-flatfish-caught-evolving-thanks-to-its-roving-eye.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_mg19926643.400

.....the BIG problem that Evolution is unable to explain ISN'T the 'migration' of flatfish eyes.....it is the production of the eyes THEMSELVES, in the first place.......and the associated complex highly integrated biochemical and neurological structures which are ALL required to produce sight!!!!

.......many structures 'move about' or change their positions in embryos/juveniles and adults .......this is evidence of the massive amount of pre-existing genetic information.......and NOT evidence of Evolution......
.......just look at caterpillars......they completely break down to a 'jelly'.....and then emerge as a Butterfly.....it puts 'migrating' eyes in the 'halfpenny place'......and Evolutionists cannot even begin to imagine HOW this transformation could occur using Spontaneous and/or Darwinian Evolutionary processes!!!!!:pac::):D

.......just imagine what a 'half baked' Butterfly ......caught between 'jelly' and 'fly'.......would look like!!!!!!!!:eek::D:)

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

When will those pesky missing links stop going un-missing?

Evidence? Tut, tut, tut -- you're still not getting this creationism lark!

To a creationist, finding a "missing link" doesn't plug a gap. Instead, it creates two new holes, where there was only one before! By such magisterial use of reason does creationism progress

Although the Bearded Wonder finds it easier just to rubbish the whole thing.

robindch

J C wrote: »

Evolution is amoral

It's taken almost four years, but you got it at last! Evolution and morality are unconnected!

I'm happy to see you understand and remember this important point. There's hope for you yet, my dear! :):)

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That isn't true, the Genesis may be taught in schools. Its place is in religion classes. Evolution is no more nihilistic than the laws of gravity. Neither contains morality but neither is intended to.

.......Genesis CANNOT be taught in ANY class in American Public Schools.....yet the 'origins explanation' of Atheism is a MANDATORY requirement for ALL students in these same schools!!!!:eek:

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Where is the combination of atheism and evolution referred to or accepted as a 'legally-approved religion'? Show me the laws.

......the COMBINATION of atheism and evolution isn't legally required to be taught in American Public Schools.......BUT the 'origins explantion' of Atheism IS legally required to be so taught.......

.......this is equivalent to mandating the teaching of Creation Science while banning the teaching of Christian Faith in school!!!!!:D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

By that definition, secularism is only a faith if one actually believes in God. Beyond that, secularism is based on the observation that church and state function best in isolation. No faith, at least not in the religious sense.

....secularism is a faith in the independence of Man from God.....Atheism is a faith in His non-existence.......
......faith and state do indeed operate best when they are separated......

.....so Atheism and it's faith-based idea that Pondslime 'evolved' into Man should NOT be a State LEGAL REQUIREMENT in American Public schools then......sauce for the Goose .....and all that!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

From slime? That's poorly-defined. As for speciation, that's been observed in the fossil record, in the genomes of all living organisms, and in the laboratory.



Abiogenesis has not be observed and hence we do not contend that it certainly happened. It seems likely but the mechanisms involved are not clear. We do not have faith in abiogenesis.

......so 'Abiogenesis' and 'Muck to Man Evolution' SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT as facts in Science Class then......they should be taught in the Atheist/Secular Module of RE instead!!!!:D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

(Creation is) a religious teaching so has no place in a secular system. There's no evidence behind it so it has no place in science.

....yet the Atheists seem to be very happy to take up time in RELIGION CLASSES promoting their Nihilistic worldviews to Christian children......who are then mandatorily indoctrinated in the unfounded Atheistic BELIEF that 'Muck evolved into Man' in Science Classes!!!!:D
......goose......gander.......or perhaps Atheists believe that everyone is equal.......but Atheists are 'more equal' than everyone else????:D

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/feb/15/uk.schools1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/17/religion.schools

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....the BIG problem that Evolution is unable to explain ISN'T the 'migration' of flatfish eyes.....it is the production of the eyes THEMSELVES, in the first place.......and the associated complex highly integrated biochemical and neurological structures which are ALL required to produce sight!!!!

There's no mystery in there J C, the steps required are very easy to imagine.

Photosensitive receptors have evolved more than once in life forms. The grouping of these into light-sensitive patches confers advantage. The increase in density of these is also advantageous. Nerve connections need to be no more sophisticated than those which relay sensory information from the muscles. Formation of a depression with our light patch at the end limits damage to the photoreceptor-carrying cells by abrasion, at the cost of reducing the light available. The cost:benefit ratio will determine how deep or shallow the recess can form. Formation of a thick membrane over the opening of the recess would help to push the survival advantage firmly into the benefit end of the spectrum by helping to prevent the accumulation of debris. Over time, natural selection will favour membrane shapes which have a light-focusing effect. Musculature formation around the lens allows on-the-fly refocusing. Musculature between the skeletal system and the cells behind the photoreceptors allow the organism to change it's field of vision in a limited fashion. The formation of new clefts in the tissue around the lens and reaching down in the direction of the photoreceptors allows greater freedom of movement. Natural selection will strongly favour the extension of these clefts until a distinct eyeball is formed. And we're done.

I'm not saying that the above is how the eye evolved, I'm just illustrating that it is far from the unimaginable process that some would suggest. I'd suggest those people lack imagination somewhat.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There's no mystery in there J C, the steps required are very easy to imagine.

Photosensitive receptors have evolved more than once in life forms. The grouping of these into light-sensitive patches confers advantage. The increase in density of these is also advantageous. Nerve connections need to be no more sophisticated than those which relay sensory information from the muscles. Formation of a depression with our light patch at the end limits damage to the photoreceptor-carrying cells by abrasion, at the cost of reducing the light available. The cost:benefit ratio will determine how deep or shallow the recess can form. Formation of a thick membrane over the opening of the recess would help to push the survival advantage firmly into the benefit end of the spectrum by helping to prevent the accumulation of debris. Over time, natural selection will favour membrane shapes which have a light-focusing effect. Musculature formation around the lens allows on-the-fly refocusing. Musculature between the skeletal system and the cells behind the photoreceptors allow the organism to change it's field of vision in a limited fashion. The formation of new clefts in the tissue around the lens and reaching down in the direction of the photoreceptors allows greater freedom of movement. Natural selection will strongly favour the extension of these clefts until a distinct eyeball is formed. And we're done.

I'm not saying that the above is how the eye evolved, I'm just illustrating that it is far from the unimaginable process that some would suggest. I'd suggest those people lack imagination somewhat.

......if such a process, as you describe, produces anything at all.......it is most likely to produce a warty cancerous growth.....or a puss-filled ulcer..........
.....and it certainly has NO CHANCE of happening via a series of 'happy mutations'......an oxymoron....if ever I saw one!!!!!!:)

.......please remember that the production of just ONE SMALL SPECIFIC PROTEIN using non-intelligently directed processes would need vastly more matter and time than is suppsedly in the 'Big Bang' Universe.....so forget about thousands of specific complex proteins and other biomolecules coherently assembling themselves via ANY non-intelligently directed process!!!!:pac::):eek::D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.......Genesis CANNOT be taught in ANY class in American Public Schools.....yet the 'origins explanation' of Atheism is a MANDATORY requirement for ALL students in these same schools!!!!:eek:

One is verifiable by observation, the other is not. Seems fair to me.

J C wrote: »

......the COMBINATION of atheism and evolution isn't legally required to be taught in American Public Schools.......BUT the 'origins explantion' of Atheism IS legally required to be so taught.......

So what you're saying is that your earlier contention was untrue. Good. Atheists use evolution, but it is hardly theirs exclusively.

J C wrote: »

.......this is equivalent to mandating the teaching of Creation Science while banning the teaching of Christian Faith in school!!!!!:D

Not really because Creationism is an exclusively Christian notion. Evolution is science. It demands no particular religious predisposition, nor does it require a lack thereof.

J C wrote: »

....secularism is a faith in the independence of Man from God.....

No it isn't. It's the philosophy of separating decision-making processes from any one specific faith. It's purpose is to allow all to be governed fairly without being dictated to by a church which they may not subscribe to.

J C wrote: »

Atheism is a faith in His non-existence.......

As stated countless times, no. Atheism is the lack of faith in anything which cannot be observed. Essentially an extension of the scientific method to one's life as a whole.

J C wrote: »

.....so Atheism and it's faith-based idea that Pondslime 'evolved' into Man should NOT be a State LEGAL REQUIREMENT in American Public schools then......sauce for the Goose .....and all that!!!

Your argument relies on the notion that evolution is based on faith. It is based on observation. It also relies on the notion that evolution is the tool of some faith-based atheism. It is not, as such atheism does not exist. Education systems have an obligation to teach the truth as it is best-understood at any given time. At this time, evolution is as strongly supported by the facts as gravity. To fail to teach it would be criminal. To suggest that it is false based upon unverifiable assumptions would be irresponsible.

J C wrote: »

......so 'Abiogenesis' and 'Muck to Man Evolution' SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT as facts in Science Class then......they should be taught in the Atheist/Secular Module of RE instead!!!!:D

It's hilarious the linguistic and conceptual hoops you've had to jump through to finally reach that conclusion.

Abiogensis is not taught in schools. Muck to man evolution is not taught in schools. The theory of evolution is taught as part of biology courses in school as it is the current scientific consensus.

J C wrote: »

....yet the Atheists seem to be very happy to take up time in RELIGION CLASSES promoting their Nihilistic worldviews to Christian children......

They'll learn about Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism in RE classes too. Atheism shouldn't be in there too? RE classes don't claim any of these movements to be correct.

J C wrote: »

who are then mandatorily indoctrinated in the unfounded Atheistic BELIEF that 'Muck evolved into Man' in Science Classes!!!!:D

Muck evolving into man is not a part of the theory of evolution and is not taught in any school.

J C wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...15/uk.schools1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ligion.schools

Your links don't work.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......if such a process, as you describe, produces anything at all.......it is most likely to produce a warty cancerous growth.....or a puss-fille ulcer..........

Most likely, yes. Natural selection accounts for these. In a single organism the probability of success is very low. In millions of organisms over the course of millions of years, small probabilities are all that is required. Evolution is a massively parallel system.

J C wrote: »

.....and it certainly has NO CHANCE of happening via a series of 'happy mutations'......an oxymoron....if ever I saw one!!!!!!:)

Why not? You accept that all of the process that comprise evolution are real and work over small time scales. So you believe that a man may walk to his front door, but he cannot walk to the shops. If it were just your insistence on the time issue, I'd almost understand.

J C wrote: »

.......please remember that the production of just ONE SMALL SPECIFIC PROTEIN using non-intelligently directed processes would need vastly more matter and time than is suppsedly in the 'Big Bang' Universe.....

Where in evolutionary theory is the generation of protein from first principles mentioned? Evolution focuses on changes to what exists already.

My genome generates millions of very large and complex specific proteins every day by a non-intelligent process called protein translation. Nowhere in evolutionary theory is it claimed that proteins appeared by chance, or underwent total full sequence recombination by chance.

Why do you focus so much on proteins when they are merely the expression of evolution, and not attached to its underlying processes?

J C wrote: »

so forget about thousands of specific complex proteins and other biomolecules assembling themselves via ANY non-intelligently directed process!!!!:pac::):eek::D

If it can be done in a lab with no directed intervention over the course of days, why not outside of a lab given the same material and conditions and several billion years?

J C

All Quotes in Red = AtomicHorror

One is verifiable by observation, the other is not. Seems fair to me.
......and when has 'Muck to Man Evolution' been verified by observation???


So what you're saying is that your earlier contention was untrue. Good. Atheists use evolution, but it is hardly theirs exclusively.
.........'Muck to Man Evolution' .......via non-intelligent processes......which is what is mandated in American Public Schools...... certainly IS exclusive to Atheists and their 'fellow travellers'!!!!!:)


Not really because Creationism is an exclusively Christian notion. Evolution is science. It demands no particular religious predisposition, nor does it require a lack thereof.
.....as I have said 'Muck to Man Evolution' has never been observed, is not science, and is the 'origins explanation' of the Atheist Faith....and it's 'fellow travellers'!!!!:)


(Secularism is) the philosophy of separating decision-making processes from any one specific faith. It's purpose is to allow all to be governed fairly without being dictated to by a church which they may not subscribe to.
.......so what do you say to people who don't subscribe to the Atheist Faith (in Evolution') being dictated to by the Atheist Faith (in Evolution') ?????


As stated countless times, no. Atheism is the lack of faith in anything which cannot be observed. Essentially an extension of the scientific method to one's life as a whole.
........IF, as you say, Atheism is the lack of faith in anything which cannot be observed.......WHY does Atheism believe in 'Muck to Man Evolution' and 'Abiogenesis'......even though NEITHER has ever been observed????


Your argument relies on the notion that evolution is based on faith. It is based on observation. It also relies on the notion that evolution is the tool of some faith-based atheism. It is not, as such atheism does not exist. Education systems have an obligation to teach the truth as it is best-understood at any given time. At this time, evolution is as strongly supported by the facts as gravity. To fail to teach it would be criminal. To suggest that it is false based upon unverifiable assumptions would be irresponsible.
......so WHY do you want to criminalise teachers who question Evolution ?????:eek:

.....see my previous answer in relation to the NON-OBSERVABILITY of 'MTM Evolution' and Abiogenesis!!!!


Abiogensis is not taught in schools. Muck to man evolution is not taught in schools. The theory of evolution is taught as part of biology courses in school as it is the current scientific consensus.
......so, ARE you saying that ONLY Natural Selection and 'Genetic Drift' within Created Kinds should be taught in schools?????
.......I have no problem with that!!!!


They'll learn about Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism in RE classes too. Atheism shouldn't be in there too? RE classes don't claim any of these movements to be correct.
.....even though you don't think that Atheism should be taught in RE classes......the fact is that Atheism IS being taught as a form of RELIGION.....in RE classes.....and that is fair enough........because Atheism IS objectively a RELIGION!!!!!:D

......my only question is why any State should grant the 'origins explantion' of the Atheistic Religion special status over any other Religion's 'origins explanation'??????


Your links don't work.
.....sorry......I have now fixed it!!!:o

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Can you point to which organisation was behind any attempt to ban evolution? Or are you just assuming it?
Well if you define the Creationist movement as a movement that started after the supreme court had ruled (a number of times) that you can't ban evolution from being taught in science classes, obviously the examples are going to be some what limited

No, I'm asking you to point to a specific Creationist movement that sought to ban the teaching of evolution. Start where you like. Of course, if you want to blame today's creationist movements, it would be good to show how they also campaign for a ban. So far you have indicated only an individual or two, not any creationist organisation or movement.

Good summary here

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...on-teach_x.htm

Yes, I used that summary to gain my understanding of the accusations. You will note their use of creationists, rather than any creation organisation or movement.

1999, the Kansas school board deletes all mention of evolution from the required school curriculum. A ban you say? Not exactly (remember a ban is illegal), but it allows individual teachers to simply not teach any evolution if they so wish.

As you say, not a ban.

An isolated case perhaps, not to be associated with the wider Creationist movement who only have honourable goal of getting ID included along with evolution?

Seems so.

Unfortunately not.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01....ap/index.html

In Georgia states school board is attempting to ban "evolution" What is that you say? How can they ban it! The supreme court long ago said they can't. Well they are looking to ban the word "evolution" from the curriculum, while still teaching that changes over time are possible in species.

What? This certainly left a lot of people confused. Why bother. But it only make sense in relation to Creationism, which teaches that species change within kinds, but that this isn't Darwinian evolution.

You miss the point: this was no more than an exercise in dodging controversy, as her opponents point out:
"Here we are, saying we have to improve standards and improve education, and we're just throwing a bone to the conservatives with total disregard to what scientists say," said state Rep. Bob Holmes, a Democrat.

Social conservatives who prefer religious creation to be taught instead of evolution criticized the proposal as well.

"If you're teaching the concept without the word, what's the point?" said Rep. Bobby Franklin, a Republican. "It's stupid. It's like teaching gravity without using the word gravity."
Cox was definitely not a supporting Creationism, just hoping for the quiet life.

Ironically this point was missed by even some Creationist groups who (like yourself and JC up to last year) obviously hadn't gotten the memo from AiG that they now accept that species can change.

Really, Wickie, you do talk some rubbish. Just a little forethought or research would make your contributions 10x better.

For example, in my hand I have a copy of a 1982 book, What is Creation Science? by H.M. Morris and Gary E. Parker. On page 85, in the chapter Darwin and the Nature of Biologic Change, I read, Of course, if someone insists on defining evolution as "a change in gene frequency," then the fly example [fruit flies in Central and South America splitting up in many subgroups] "proves evolution," but it also "proves creation," since varying the amounts of already existing genes is what creation is all about.

It goes on to say that it is the extrapolation of such change within type that divides the 'evolution' we accept from that of the evolutionist. These authors were leaders of the Creationist movement, so your allegation that the belief that species can change is new to Creationism is just ignorant nonsense. It was there from as long as I have been reading up on it, and for as long as I can find in looking over old creationist material.

Do you have any specific reference in a creationist publication that denies that species can change?

J C

All Quotes in Red = AtomicHorror

In a single organism the probability of success is very low. In millions of organisms over the course of millions of years, small probabilities are all that is required. Evolution is a massively parallel system.
......Evolution is actually a massive serial system.......each organism is at the end of a SERIES of succeeding generations!!!
....so the mathematical probabilities of ANY such SERIES producing ANYTHING using non-intelligently produced processes rapidly disappears to 'vanishing point'......EVEN with massive numbers of parallel trials!!:D
......and the reason .......for the mathematicains amongst you ......is that serial probablilities are multiplicative......and parallel probabilities are additive!!!!

....and THAT is WHY we DON'T use non-intelligently controlled processes to produce complex products in factories.......
.....and what is true about factories.......is ALSO true about life!!!!!:D


Why not? You accept that all of the process that comprise evolution are real and work over small time scales. So you believe that a man may walk to his front door, but he cannot walk to the shops. If it were just your insistence on the time issue, I'd almost understand.
......the processes that comprise Evolution are confined to the pre-existing genetic information content of the organism concerned.....
.....and that is why we find fossils in supposedly hundred million year old rocks......that are IDENTICAL to organisms living today.....
.....and that is why we find Bacteria in 500 million year old Cambrian Rocks....that are IDENTICAL to today's Bacteria!!!

.....to borrow your analogy..........Evolution is like extrapolating that because a Man can walk to his front door......he can therefore sprout wings and fly to the shops!!!!!:eek::D
....could I gently point out that the reason why he can walk....but not fly......is because walking is within his pre-existing genetic information capacity......while sprouting wings and flying is NOT!!!:D:eek:


Where in evolutionary theory is the generation of protein from first principles mentioned?
....probably nowhere......so HOW did ALL these highly specific proteins arise then......when even producing one small protein using non-intelligently directed mechanisms is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE????


Evolution focuses on changes to what exists already.
.....I accept that 'Evolution' occurs within Kinds using infomation that exists already!!!!:)
.....but that doesn't explain HOW the information arose in the first place....

......hint......functional information has ALWAYS been observed to have an INTELLIGENT ultimate source!!!:D


My genome generates millions of very large and complex specific proteins every day by a non-intelligent process called protein translation. Nowhere in evolutionary theory is it claimed that proteins appeared by chance, or underwent total full sequence recombination by chance.
....that is like saying that because some Intelligently Designed industrial robotic process produces large complex products .........it is therefore somehow 'logical' to conclude that the whole factory erected ITSELF spontaneously, using non-intelligently directed processes!!!!

.....you are confusing immediate autonomy with ultimate cause......and the two are very distinct and separate concepts!!!!


Why do you focus so much on proteins when they are merely the expression of evolution, and not attached to its underlying processes?
.....ANY complex specific biomolecule is equally IMPOSSIBLE to produce by (ultimately) non-intelligently controlled processes.....so it doesn't have to be proteins....I could also point to ANY biochemical cascade as equally IMPOSSIBLE!!!!:)


If it can be done in a lab with no directed intervention over the course of days, why not outside of a lab given the same material and conditions and several billion years?
WHAT was done WHERE???:)

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

......two questions:-

1. Why do you have a signature of a plane 'going down in flames'......is it perhaps a subconscious expression of how you REALLY feel about Evolution????

2. Are you 'related' to 'Atomic Kitten'?????:pac::):D:eek:

wolfsbane

Dates for your diary:
Dr. Don Batten's Unlocking the Mysteries of Life Tour
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5816

Friday 24 October, 7.30pm, public meeting, Dromore Reformed Presbyterian Church, Brewery Lane, Dromore, Co. Down, NI. Enquiries phone: (0289) 2690155

Saturday 25 October, 7.30pm, public meeting, Donaghadee Baptist Church, 2 Millisle Road, Donaghadee, Co. Down, NI. Enquiries phone: (0289) 1889595

Sunday 26 October, 11.30am, public meeting, Covenantors Memorial Free Presbyterian Church, Melmount Road, Victoria Bridge, Co. Tyrone, NI BT82 9JG. Enquiries phone: 0287 1883433

Sunday 26 October, 6.00pm, public meeting, Dunluce Christian Fellowship, Dunluce Avenue, Portrush, Co. Antrim, NI BT56 8BF. Enquiries phone: 0282 5647864

Tuesday 28 October, 7.30pm, public meeting, Stonepark Baptist Church, Brookeborough, Co. Fermanagh, NI. Enquiries phone: 02889 531773

Wednesday 29 October, time(s) tbs, public meeting, Buckna Presbyterian Church, Buckna, Ballymena, Co. Antrim, NI. Enquiries phone: 01274 545558

Bio. of Dr. Batten:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3499

godspenis

hi,

just wanted to introduce myself

xoxox

MooseJam

hey JC isn't muck to man exactly how the creation myth says god created adam, perhaps you should refer to it as muck to man creationism hence forth

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

......two questions:-

1. Why do you have a signature of a plane 'going down in flames'......is it perhaps a subconscious expression of how you REALLY feel about Evolution????

They're engines.

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

Dates for your diary:
Dr. Don Batten's Unlocking the Mysteries of Life Tour
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5816

Friday 24 October, 7.30pm, public meeting, Dromore Reformed Presbyterian Church, Brewery Lane, Dromore, Co. Down, NI. Enquiries phone: (0289) 2690155.....from ROI phone (048) 9 2690155.

Saturday 25 October, 7.30pm, public meeting, Donaghadee Baptist Church, 2 Millisle Road, Donaghadee, Co. Down, NI. Enquiries phone: (0289) 1889595.....from ROI phone (048) 9 1889595.

Sunday 26 October, 11.30am, public meeting, Covenantors Memorial Free Presbyterian Church, Melmount Road, Victoria Bridge, Co. Tyrone, NI BT82 9JG. Enquiries phone: 0287 1883433.....from ROI phone (048) 7 1883433.

Sunday 26 October, 6.00pm, public meeting, Dunluce Christian Fellowship, Dunluce Avenue, Portrush, Co. Antrim, NI BT56 8BF. Enquiries phone: 0282 5647864.....from ROI phone (048) 2 5647864.

Tuesday 28 October, 7.30pm, public meeting, Stonepark Baptist Church, Brookeborough, Co. Fermanagh, NI. Enquiries phone: 02889 531773.....from ROI phone (048) 89 531773.

Wednesday 29 October, time(s) tbs, public meeting, Buckna Presbyterian Church, Buckna, Ballymena, Co. Antrim, NI. Enquiries phone: 01274 545558.....from ROI phone (0044) 1274 545558.

Bio. of Dr. Batten:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3499

...if phoning from the Republic of Ireland (ROI).....see phone numbers in blue, above.

godspenis

You'll find all your answers to your silly questions here :eek:

http://www.catholic.ie/


:pac:

J C

godspenis wrote: »

hi,

just wanted to introduce myself

xoxox

Hi, Mr Penis......I'll shake hands with you......
.......but please wait until I first put on a heavy rubber glove!!!!!:pac::):D

godspenis

Lol,

right so you only act like a christian?