Org Mobile Site
At my school biology was compulsory until Standard Grade level and there were exams at the end of each year.
Being a butcher does not require a vegetarian to eat meat. Being a biologist should not require a total acceptance of all elements of Darwin's theory.
Being a butcher does not require a vegetarian to eat meat. Being a biologist should not require a total acceptance of all elements of Darwin's theory.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
At my school biology was compulsory until Standard Grade level and there were exams at the end of each year.
Being a butcher does not require a vegetarian to eat meat. Being a biologist should not require a total acceptance of all elements of Darwin's theory.
Why can't evolution and Christianity go together? It's worked for me......At my school biology was compulsory until Standard Grade level and there were exams at the end of each year.
Being a butcher does not require a vegetarian to eat meat. Being a biologist should not require a total acceptance of all elements of Darwin's theory.
Yes, hence why you can still pass the exam.
Become a biochemist or something. But if you don't believe in evolution it's hard to see how exactly you would pursue a career as an evolutionary biologist.
To pick another analogy, would I be likely to pass exams to be ordained as a vicar if I maintain throughout that I do not believe in God?
Become a biochemist or something. But if you don't believe in evolution it's hard to see how exactly you would pursue a career as an evolutionary biologist.
To pick another analogy, would I be likely to pass exams to be ordained as a vicar if I maintain throughout that I do not believe in God?
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Freedom of religion except when they indoctrinate children against their religious beliefs by forcing them to answer exam papers writing answers which totally contradict their own ideas. And this is the norm in state schools?
What? Your freedom of religion is to be able to worship openly without government persecution. It is not your freedom to put religion into public schools because you want to. Not everyone thinks like you do, not everyone prays to the same God or read the same scripture. I've been forced to write papers on things I did not agree with, I did it anyway, I passed. When you're in a school, you must expect to be told what to do. I'm sure there are plenty of private schools that will teach religion to kids in Britain, but in a public school, not everyone believes the same thing. This is where the line is drawn.Freedom of religion except when they indoctrinate children against their religious beliefs by forcing them to answer exam papers writing answers which totally contradict their own ideas. And this is the norm in state schools?
Originally Posted by :
Should I fail biology because I wouldn't write that man evolved from apes/monkeys/whatever? Because I know if I write that then God will judge me for it.
How do you know God will judge you for writing about evolution? You deny evolution, write the damned paper anyway. It all comes down to what you believe in, be it the Bible or the Textbook. If you feel strongly about failing a class because you didn't want to write one paper on a subject you don't agree with, then you deserve to fail the class.Should I fail biology because I wouldn't write that man evolved from apes/monkeys/whatever? Because I know if I write that then God will judge me for it.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
At my school biology was compulsory until Standard Grade level and there were exams at the end of each year.
Being a butcher does not require a vegetarian to eat meat. Being a biologist should not require a total acceptance of all elements of Darwin's theory.
It should require the knowledge of the evolutionary theory though... At my school biology was compulsory until Standard Grade level and there were exams at the end of each year.
Being a butcher does not require a vegetarian to eat meat. Being a biologist should not require a total acceptance of all elements of Darwin's theory.
Otherwise you can throw subjects like history out of the window as well.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Freedom of religion except when they indoctrinate children against their religious beliefs by forcing them to answer exam papers writing answers which totally contradict their own ideas. And this is the norm in state schools?
Should I fail biology because I wouldn't write that man evolved from apes/monkeys/whatever? Because I know if I write that then God will judge me for it.
Of course, most things we are taught should be fine. No problems with physics (at a school level anyway), chemisty, and most of biology...
I already addressed this. I said that plenty of people have no trouble doing both. Lots of kids are already "indoctrinated", as you would put it, in the Christian religion YEARS before they are public school students learning about evolution. So, going with your line of argument, if their faith is so weak that mere exposure to evolution without the teacher saying "now now, remember that creationism is the real truth and we just have to teach this evolution baloney" that they would completely lose their religion over it, then it wasn't that sincere to begin with was it?Freedom of religion except when they indoctrinate children against their religious beliefs by forcing them to answer exam papers writing answers which totally contradict their own ideas. And this is the norm in state schools?
Should I fail biology because I wouldn't write that man evolved from apes/monkeys/whatever? Because I know if I write that then God will judge me for it.
Of course, most things we are taught should be fine. No problems with physics (at a school level anyway), chemisty, and most of biology...
What I think people would have trouble doing in the present educational structure is being an ignorant fundamentalist. Which, if that is the aim of shoving creationism into schools, is even more abhorrent.
Originally Posted by SwedishFish:
Not everyone thinks like you do, not everyone prays to the same God or read the same scripture.
Not everyone thinks like Darwinists but they are made to be taught their theories as fact anyway.Not everyone thinks like you do, not everyone prays to the same God or read the same scripture.
Also when you say you believe in evolution what do you mean? I believe in evolution and not just microevolution. But I don't believe humans evolved from other creatures.
Anyway I wasn't a Christian when I took biology so I'm talking hypothetically.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Not everyone thinks like Darwinists but they are made to be taught their theories as fact anyway.
There is a lot of evidence to back up evolution, while Christianity has our Bible.Not everyone thinks like Darwinists but they are made to be taught their theories as fact anyway.
Originally Posted by :
Also when you say you believe in evolution what do you mean? I believe in evolution and not just microevolution. But I don't believe humans evolved from other creatures.
I believe evolution to be God's way of changing the ever changing environment, if that makes any sense. About humans, I am undecided. I mean, for all we know, Eve being created from the rib of Adam could very well be a metaphor of evolution in itself Also when you say you believe in evolution what do you mean? I believe in evolution and not just microevolution. But I don't believe humans evolved from other creatures.
.Evolution is PROVEN. We can't say with absolute 100% certainty exactly what humans came from, or sharks came from, or whatever. That part is guesswork and research. But we do know evolution is real. Diseases are evidence of it, and the fact that diseases are becoming resistant to medications and treatments. Bacteria and viruses go through generations so much faster than macroorganisms that we can see the evolutionary changes they go through whereas change is much slower relatively speaking for organisms that live years at a time. To deny that it is real and occurs in living things is the worm resisting the wheel.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Not everyone thinks like Darwinists but they are made to be taught their theories as fact anyway.
Also when you say you believe in evolution what do you mean? I believe in evolution and not just microevolution. But I don't believe humans evolved from other creatures.
Anyway I wasn't a Christian when I took biology so I'm talking hypothetically.
(Bold added by me)Not everyone thinks like Darwinists but they are made to be taught their theories as fact anyway.
Also when you say you believe in evolution what do you mean? I believe in evolution and not just microevolution. But I don't believe humans evolved from other creatures.
Anyway I wasn't a Christian when I took biology so I'm talking hypothetically.
You really don't understand the scientific method do you?
They are taught that given observable evidence, natural selection is the most plausable scientific theory available to us right now to explain evolution of life on Earth. And they are taught this in a science class, where the scientific method is treated as the acceptable way of doing things. Because (this next concept is a difficult one, I'll grant you) IT'S A FREAKING SCIENCE CLASS!
If you want your kids to take a religion class where they are taught based on faith (rather than the scientific method) that intelligent design is the most plausable explanation for why they are what they are, then that's fine. But stop trying to inject your mythology into my kids' science class.
Christ-almighty, if I went into Sunday school with a science book and started explaining to children that everything their pastor was teaching them about God was absolute lies because none of it was testable via the scientific method, you'd lose your fricking mind. So why should you be free to try to inject your religion into science classes?
Originally Posted by Goofball:
(Bold added by me)
You really don't understand the scientific method do you?
They are taught that given observable evidence, natural selection is the most plausable scientific theory available to us right now to explain evolution of life on Earth. And they are taught this in a science class, where the scientific method is treated as the acceptable way of doing things. Because (this next concept is a difficult one, I'll grant you) IT'S A FREAKING SCIENCE CLASS!
If you want your kids to take a religion class where they are taught based on faith (rather than the scientific method) that intelligent design is the most plausable explanation for why they are what they are, then that's fine. But stop trying to inject your mythology into my kids' science class.
Christ-almighty, if I went into Sunday school with a science book and started explaining to children that everything their pastor was teaching them about God was absolute lies because none of it was testable via the scientific method, you'd lose your fricking mind. So why should you be free to try to inject your religion into science classes?
If faith-based thinking is an acceptable substitute for science I would like to know how the faith-based community intends to solve problems such as energy dependence and disease. Prayer doesn't count. :)(Bold added by me)
You really don't understand the scientific method do you?
They are taught that given observable evidence, natural selection is the most plausable scientific theory available to us right now to explain evolution of life on Earth. And they are taught this in a science class, where the scientific method is treated as the acceptable way of doing things. Because (this next concept is a difficult one, I'll grant you) IT'S A FREAKING SCIENCE CLASS!
If you want your kids to take a religion class where they are taught based on faith (rather than the scientific method) that intelligent design is the most plausable explanation for why they are what they are, then that's fine. But stop trying to inject your mythology into my kids' science class.
Christ-almighty, if I went into Sunday school with a science book and started explaining to children that everything their pastor was teaching them about God was absolute lies because none of it was testable via the scientific method, you'd lose your fricking mind. So why should you be free to try to inject your religion into science classes?
Originally Posted by Goofball:
You really don't understand the scientific method do you?
They are taught that given observable evidence, natural selection is the most plausable scientific theory available to us right now to explain evolution of life on Earth. And they are taught this in a science class, where the scientific method is treated as the acceptable way of doing things. Because (this next concept is a difficult one, I'll grant you) IT'S A FREAKING SCIENCE CLASS!
You are missing the point. If you admit that science is exploring what appears to be the most likely cause or truth behind a concept, then why is it taught AS A FACT. You really don't understand the scientific method do you?
They are taught that given observable evidence, natural selection is the most plausable scientific theory available to us right now to explain evolution of life on Earth. And they are taught this in a science class, where the scientific method is treated as the acceptable way of doing things. Because (this next concept is a difficult one, I'll grant you) IT'S A FREAKING SCIENCE CLASS!
Gah! I believe evolution occurs within species (and over to macroevolution), but it is simply not a FACT that humanity evolved from lower forms of species. So why was I brought up believing it was? Oh yes, its because that it what I was taught at school, that it was 100% true that we evolved from tiny organisms.
Now I realise this is not a FACT. It is rather an assumption based off our analysis of the evolutionary process taking place within other species, which is not in itself conflicting with scripture.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
You are missing the point. If you admit that science is exploring what appears to be the most likely cause or truth behind a concept, then why is it taught AS A FACT.
Gah! I believe evolution occurs within species (and over to macroevolution), but it is simply not a FACT that humanity evolved from lower forms of species. So why was I brought up believing it was? Oh yes, its because that it what I was taught at school, that it was 100% true that we evolved from tiny organisms.
Now I realise this is not a FACT. It is rather an assumption based off our analysis of the evolutionary process taking place within other species, which is not in itself conflicting with scripture.
Well if you were taught what a theory was it would have been clear to you. Know evolution as a whole is theory, has more evidence supporting it then any other scientific theory. It is only a theory because there are many specifics that are not known. Some large concepts such as all life has and is evolving is fact. That includes Homosapiens.You are missing the point. If you admit that science is exploring what appears to be the most likely cause or truth behind a concept, then why is it taught AS A FACT.
Gah! I believe evolution occurs within species (and over to macroevolution), but it is simply not a FACT that humanity evolved from lower forms of species. So why was I brought up believing it was? Oh yes, its because that it what I was taught at school, that it was 100% true that we evolved from tiny organisms.
Now I realise this is not a FACT. It is rather an assumption based off our analysis of the evolutionary process taking place within other species, which is not in itself conflicting with scripture.
Just returned from the field.
Some may think that (biological) evolution is tied to the origin of life and creation of the universe. Again, it simply is not.
The basic tenets of biological evolution are:
populations, Mutations, and the factors that enhance or deter survivability.
The origin of life and creation of the universe are beyond the purview of biological evolution. Any theories offered on these topics under the guise of biological evolution are at best, speculative. I can see no reason why such theories should be taught in the public school system. That is no reason, other than the desire of a small minority of elites to use the public school system to legitimize an ideology that is not supported by science itself. If one was educated in a school system that claimed evolution provides a reliable theory concerning the origin of life and creation of the universe, as was I, then one has a first-hand example of BS foisting.
The origin of life and creation of the universe would naturally fall within the field of Physics. Although a number of theories have been posited, these have many problems and can not be considered reliable in any stretch of the imagination. I see no need for Physicists to extend explanations beyond the means to apply the scientific method, so that an elite minority may have its ideology legitimized by the state. If one was educated in a school system that claimed Physics can offer a reliable theory concerning the origin of life and creation of the universe, again more BS.
CmacQ
Some may think that (biological) evolution is tied to the origin of life and creation of the universe. Again, it simply is not.
The basic tenets of biological evolution are:
populations, Mutations, and the factors that enhance or deter survivability.
The origin of life and creation of the universe are beyond the purview of biological evolution. Any theories offered on these topics under the guise of biological evolution are at best, speculative. I can see no reason why such theories should be taught in the public school system. That is no reason, other than the desire of a small minority of elites to use the public school system to legitimize an ideology that is not supported by science itself. If one was educated in a school system that claimed evolution provides a reliable theory concerning the origin of life and creation of the universe, as was I, then one has a first-hand example of BS foisting.
The origin of life and creation of the universe would naturally fall within the field of Physics. Although a number of theories have been posited, these have many problems and can not be considered reliable in any stretch of the imagination. I see no need for Physicists to extend explanations beyond the means to apply the scientific method, so that an elite minority may have its ideology legitimized by the state. If one was educated in a school system that claimed Physics can offer a reliable theory concerning the origin of life and creation of the universe, again more BS.
CmacQ
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
You are missing the point. If you admit that science is exploring what appears to be the most likely cause or truth behind a concept, then why is it taught AS A FACT.
What else should the biology teachers spend their time discussing?You are missing the point. If you admit that science is exploring what appears to be the most likely cause or truth behind a concept, then why is it taught AS A FACT.
They could spend the whole time talking about Occam's razor, inductive vs deductive logic and such but some could argue it's:
*Splitting hairs.
*A bit beyond GCSE level (I didn't study any philosophy of science until the third year of my undergraduate degree).
*Not terribly useful if you never get around to learning any actual science.
In school science pretty much everything is taught as if it were irrefutable fact. Of course many pupils come to realise as I and my classmates did that the theory being taught as fact actually gets replaced every two years by a harder theory, and so the assurances that it is irrefutable fact should be taken with a hefty pinch of salt. For instance, at key stage 3 we were taught that light consists of rays which move in straight lines. At GCSE we were taught that light is a wave which can diffract. At A level we were introduced to the concept that light is made of particles called photons, and it was hinted at that there was something called "wave-particle duality".
It wasn't until I got to the first year of my PhD that I was actually taught the current theory describing light with nothing dumbed down and no holds barred. It's a little baby called Quantum Electrodynamics and it really is horrendously complicated (and even then it's a simplification of a simplification which only applies under certain ideal conditions). Are you saying that they should lead with it in year 9 science?
School science is necessarily going to be a simplification on the real thing, the aim is mostly to give a feel for the important concepts and an overview of the prevailing theories and ideas. Suppose we spent every lesson pointing out "oh, by the way, none of this stuff is actual beyond-all-doubt FACT in the sense of the word as you understand it since that type of fact simply doesn't exist, get used the idea, by fact we merely mean that there is virtually no doubt about this given the current evidence." It would take forever, not to mention reduce the number of students going on to pursue a career in science, which you must admit does fulfill a fairly useful role in making all sorts of useful stuff even if it does have some rather funny ideas about the Universe.
EDIT:
Originally Posted by CmacQ:
Any theoriesoffered on these topics under the guise of biological evolution are at best, speculative.
Fixed for you. Any theories
However the degree of certainty we have in that speculation is important, wouldn't you say?
Incidentally, I'm still waiting for a reply in our little discussion on Compton scattering in the Science forum. Hope you can find some time for it soon.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Also when you say you believe in evolution what do you mean? I believe in evolution and not just microevolution. But I don't believe humans evolved from other creatures.
That doesn't make any sense at all. Why would God wait 4 billion years to make humans? Why would he not just make a working world to begin with and plop us in, like in Genesis?Also when you say you believe in evolution what do you mean? I believe in evolution and not just microevolution. But I don't believe humans evolved from other creatures.
Thank you sir, as you are of course correct. About the Compton scattering, it makes my head hurt to think about it (the number of factors involved). However,
Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry:
School science is necessarily going to be a simplification on the real thing, the aim is mostly to give a feel for the important concepts and an overview of the prevailing theories and ideas. Suppose we spent every lesson pointing out "oh, by the way, none of this stuff is actual beyond-all-doubt FACT in the sense of the word as you understand it since that type of fact simply doesn't exist, get used the idea, by fact we merely mean that there is virtually no doubt about this given the current evidence." It would take forever, not to mention reduce the number of students going on to pursue a career in science, which you must admit does fulfill a fairly useful role in making all sorts of useful stuff even if it does have some rather funny ideas about the Universe.
Milk before meat so to speak. I think we all can understand this consept, even cmacq ... School science is necessarily going to be a simplification on the real thing, the aim is mostly to give a feel for the important concepts and an overview of the prevailing theories and ideas. Suppose we spent every lesson pointing out "oh, by the way, none of this stuff is actual beyond-all-doubt FACT in the sense of the word as you understand it since that type of fact simply doesn't exist, get used the idea, by fact we merely mean that there is virtually no doubt about this given the current evidence." It would take forever, not to mention reduce the number of students going on to pursue a career in science, which you must admit does fulfill a fairly useful role in making all sorts of useful stuff even if it does have some rather funny ideas about the Universe.
Originally Posted by Reverend Joe:
That doesn't make any sense at all. Why would God wait 4 billion years to make humans? Why would he not just make a working world to begin with and plop us in, like in Genesis?
You try to make a hospitable world out of dust and Hydrogen and see how long it takes .. That doesn't make any sense at all. Why would God wait 4 billion years to make humans? Why would he not just make a working world to begin with and plop us in, like in Genesis?
. But seriously given all this talk about being critical, why not take another look at Genesis and maybe compare it with Bereshit (yeah it is spelled correctly); the Torah version of Genesis... or rather what Genesis is based on.
Note there are different versions too ... but all notable older than the Bible as we have it.
The link is the Elohist version ... which IMO is rather interesting (see the use of Elohim for God[s]).
Originally Posted by m52nickerson:
Well if you were taught what a theory was it would have been clear to you. Know evolution as a whole is theory, has more evidence supporting it then any other scientific theory. It is only a theory because there are many specifics that are not known. Some large concepts such as all life has and is evolving is fact. That includes Homosapiens.
Let's not forget that a theory will alway be a theory regardless of evidences supporting it.Well if you were taught what a theory was it would have been clear to you. Know evolution as a whole is theory, has more evidence supporting it then any other scientific theory. It is only a theory because there are many specifics that are not known. Some large concepts such as all life has and is evolving is fact. That includes Homosapiens.
Originally Posted by cmacq:
If one was educated in a school system that claimed evolution provides a reliable theory concerning the origin of life and creation of the universe, as was I, then one has a first-hand example of BS foisting.
CmacQ
If that's what you meant by 'scientific creation myths', then you should've been selecting your words more carefully on a topic with 'creationism' in its title, IMO.If one was educated in a school system that claimed evolution provides a reliable theory concerning the origin of life and creation of the universe, as was I, then one has a first-hand example of BS foisting.
CmacQ
Originally Posted by Reverend Joe:
That doesn't make any sense at all. Why would God wait 4 billion years to make humans? Why would he not just make a working world to begin with and plop us in, like in Genesis?
I don't think He did wait 4 billion years. I believe evolution occurs within species since after He put them on earth. So they didn't all originate from tiny organisms.That doesn't make any sense at all. Why would God wait 4 billion years to make humans? Why would he not just make a working world to begin with and plop us in, like in Genesis?
Originally Posted by Viking:
If that's what you meant by 'scientific creation myths', then you should've been selecting your words more carefully on a topic with 'creationism' in its title, IMO.
If that's what you meant by 'scientific creation myths', then you should've been selecting your words more carefully on a topic with 'creationism' in its title, IMO.
Again perspective. If one understands the mechanics, one understands that my words were indeed precise. So-called creationism (I believe is defined as 'the origin of life and creation of the universe'), used as code for a false doctrine, is but a two edge sword. What is taught in the public school system by educators that may or may not pass themselves off as sciences, can more appropriately be called a 'scientific creation myth.' Thus, that which is called science, can also be called creationism, yet by another name.
Indeed many people may think they understand somethimg very well, however upon closer inspection, they may descover that there was neither meat nor milk to what they once thought was a solid truth.
CmacQ
Originally Posted by cmacq:
Again perspective. If one understands the mechanics, one understands that my words were indeed precise. So-called creationism (I believe is defined as 'the origin of life and creation of the universe'), used as code for a false doctrine, is but a two edge sword. What is bring taught in the public school system by educators that may or may not pass themselves off as sciences, can more appropriately be called a 'scientific creation myth.' Thus, that which is called science, can also be called creationism, yet by another name.
CmacQ
What scientific theory is this "scientific creation myth"? You see creationist lump the origin of the universe and the beginning of life in one hypothesis. Science does not.Again perspective. If one understands the mechanics, one understands that my words were indeed precise. So-called creationism (I believe is defined as 'the origin of life and creation of the universe'), used as code for a false doctrine, is but a two edge sword. What is bring taught in the public school system by educators that may or may not pass themselves off as sciences, can more appropriately be called a 'scientific creation myth.' Thus, that which is called science, can also be called creationism, yet by another name.
CmacQ
Evolution is science. The Big Bang theory is science. No myth about them only evidence to support them.
Originally Posted by m52nickerson:
What scientific theory is this "scientific creation myth"? You see creationist lump the origin of the universe and the beginning of life in one hypothesis. Science does not.
Evolution is science. The Big Bang theory is science. No myth about them only evidence to support them.
Sorry sir, you're wrong on all counts. You might want to research this in a bit more depth.What scientific theory is this "scientific creation myth"? You see creationist lump the origin of the universe and the beginning of life in one hypothesis. Science does not.
Evolution is science. The Big Bang theory is science. No myth about them only evidence to support them.
CmacQ
Originally Posted by cmacq:
Sorry sir, you're wrong on all counts. You might want to research this in a bit more depth.
CmacQ
Really, care to explain how I'm wrong. If you read early in the thread I lied out exactly how the study evolution fit into the scientific method. That makes it science. Every website or argument I've ever seen, yes I've seen quite a few, that tries to say evolution is not science misrepresents the theory, misrepresents science and or misrepresents the evidence. I find that most people who argue against evolution do not understand the theory. The same goes with the Big Bang.Sorry sir, you're wrong on all counts. You might want to research this in a bit more depth.
CmacQ
So, if you feel I'm wrong please point out exactly were and them I will show you that I am not.
Originally Posted by cmacq:
Again perspective. If one understands the mechanics, one understands that my words were indeed precise. So-called creationism (I believe is defined as 'the origin of life and creation of the universe'), used as code for a false doctrine, is but a two edge sword. What is bring taught in the public school system by educators that may or may not pass themselves off as sciences, can more appropriately be called a 'scientific creation myth.' Thus, that which is called science, can also be called creationism, yet by another name.
Indeed many people may think they understand sometime very well, however upon closer inspection, they may descover that there was neither meat nor milk to what they once thought was a solid true.
CmacQ
It would be nice if you were a bit more concrete. What are you referring to? The Big Bang theory? Theory of evolution? Something else? More importantly, can you give examples that does not conflict with religious views?Again perspective. If one understands the mechanics, one understands that my words were indeed precise. So-called creationism (I believe is defined as 'the origin of life and creation of the universe'), used as code for a false doctrine, is but a two edge sword. What is bring taught in the public school system by educators that may or may not pass themselves off as sciences, can more appropriately be called a 'scientific creation myth.' Thus, that which is called science, can also be called creationism, yet by another name.
Indeed many people may think they understand sometime very well, however upon closer inspection, they may descover that there was neither meat nor milk to what they once thought was a solid true.
CmacQ
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
I don't think He did wait 4 billion years. I believe evolution occurs within species since after He put them on earth. So they didn't all originate from tiny organisms.
That is possibly the silliest dodge I have ever seen for accepting evolution.I don't think He did wait 4 billion years. I believe evolution occurs within species since after He put them on earth. So they didn't all originate from tiny organisms.
Originally Posted by ShadesPanther:
That is possibly the silliest dodge I have ever seen for accepting evolution.
We see evolution happening, most Christians accept this. Where in the Bible does it say "creatures shall not adapt to their surroundings". Of course humans did NOT evolve from lower creatures as some suggest, because they were created directly by God.That is possibly the silliest dodge I have ever seen for accepting evolution.
Since God commanded all animals to spread over the earth from Babel, it would surely be necessary they have the ability to evolve biologically to adapt to their surroundings.
The problem is when Darwinists say "oh look that fruit fly mutated, therefore we must be mutated apes/whatever".
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
We see evolution happening, most Christians accept this. Where in the Bible does it say "creatures shall not adapt to their surroundings". Of course humans did NOT evolve from lower creatures as some suggest, because they were created directly by God.
Since God commanded all animals to spread over the earth from Babel, it would surely be necessary they have the ability to evolve biologically to adapt to their surroundings.
The problem is when Darwinists say "oh look that fruit fly mutated, therefore we must be mutated apes/whatever".
It is a little more complicated then that.We see evolution happening, most Christians accept this. Where in the Bible does it say "creatures shall not adapt to their surroundings". Of course humans did NOT evolve from lower creatures as some suggest, because they were created directly by God.
Since God commanded all animals to spread over the earth from Babel, it would surely be necessary they have the ability to evolve biologically to adapt to their surroundings.
The problem is when Darwinists say "oh look that fruit fly mutated, therefore we must be mutated apes/whatever".
By the way, were is your evidence that Humans have not evolved, cause the fossil record as well as other evidence says your wrong.
Oh boy another evolution thread
To but it simply Darwin's theory is sound because it is based upon the study of two important aspects.
Natural Selection based upon his study of the Gallepos (SP?) Islands and the unique species he found there. He also confirmed his theory by studing Artifical Selection which is what man has been doing with domestic animals for thousands of years.
If your in a religious dilemina because of the theory stick with the actual science that Darwin's theory is based upon and dont attempt to interpet down to the Big Bang and the creation of the Universe.
To but it simply Darwin's theory is sound because it is based upon the study of two important aspects.
Natural Selection based upon his study of the Gallepos (SP?) Islands and the unique species he found there. He also confirmed his theory by studing Artifical Selection which is what man has been doing with domestic animals for thousands of years.
If your in a religious dilemina because of the theory stick with the actual science that Darwin's theory is based upon and dont attempt to interpet down to the Big Bang and the creation of the Universe.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
The problem is when Darwinists say "oh look that fruit fly mutated, therefore we must be mutated apes/whatever".
The problem is when Darwinists say "oh look that fruit fly mutated, therefore we must be mutated apes/whatever".
I dont remember reading that Darwin actually stated that. He was a much more detailed on what his thoery implied then that.
For instance man has evolved over time, take a look at the average height of humans back in the year 1000 compared to the average height now. That growth is a direct corrulation with evolution. Then there is the simple fact that the human race has different skin colors and fat content based upon where there ancestors lived before mass migration was common place as it is now.
And finally if God wanted to condemn us for believing in the theory of evolution - we would have a world run by communists......LOL just joking
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO