All of that is just bull

I know you didn't mean "all of it", but what specifically are you saying is B.S.?

And oddly seafox...they are all automatically discredited somehow because they support that view.

Its truly laughable.

I don't have the time to look into it...but I wonder what the percentage of "scientists" accepting the theory of evolution is now, compared to what used to be. I am willing to bet that it has been a steady decline, and is becoming less and less accepted.

(I don't personally support him,) but Rick Warren's book "The Purpose Driven Life" was a huge success, huge....for a reason. The further we get into these discussions, and the more and more people learn about the universe...the more they question..."What am I here for?" That is something evolution cannot, and will never legitimately answer (in my opinion), and gives absolutely no purpose to life. (In my opinion.) Human nature wants purpose, wants to be accepted by something, belong to something. You can spew all you want about needing proof, and "science" this, and "science" that...but human nature questioning purpose of existence is being shown to supersede what some would cry "scientific fact."

Still haven't gotten the hang of spacing things when I'm replying to several parts of a post, so you may have missed my agreement that religious mythology should be given equal time - as an elective - to actual science in the schools.

Everything following that, concerning evolution being a religion, and the foundation of Atheism (which is not a religion), etc., is just plain crapola. Anyone making statements like that can be safely dismissed as a harmless nut, as far as I'm concerned.

My curiosity was tweaked by the title of the thread. Finding garbage in the very first post was a bit of a disappointment..

Are you atheist? Most atheists I have met or know, or read about willingly admit they belong to a religion called secularism, or humanism.


I have seen compelling cases made that evolution is nothing but a religious belief. Its hard to argue against it, when as seafox said it doesn't meet 2 of the 3 requirements of science.

Unless you care to refute what seafox said, its safe to say that you are one of the "because I said so" types....which many would consider a "nut"....

MattV, please read the Disclaimer at the top of this page and the pinned topic on forum guidelines. No swearing and no namecalling. Defeating the badword filter is also a violation of the Forum Rules. BS has been edited out. Keep the discussion clean and civil and don't let it happen again.

Personally I consider atheism to be a religion. It is a set of beliefs that a person lives by. Atheists believe their is no god and live their lives according to that belief. Where I disagree with the above statement is that it is being forced on students because evolution doesn't teach that God created from scratch. There are many scientists and teachers that believe in God but also believe in evolution--they aren't mutually exclusive.

The b******t I apolgize for. It's hard to know any more just what is considered "swearing" and what is not. As for name-calling, I don't see any where that I have referred to any specific person in a derogatory way. If I have, please point it out.

I personally look at Atheism as a religion also. Evolution as was stated before does not meet the requirements to be called science so therefore should not be taught in a science class in my opinion, all they are doing is taking tax payers money and teaching kids about Scientific theory, which no one wants to hear about, I personally liked learning about evolution though, when it is on my own time, but when I goto school I want to hear rock solid scientific facts, not theories (Like the formation of stars what a waste of time.). Also, how could evolution not be a religious beliefe there are many that follow it and are willing to die to defend it



I have to disagree with this statement, if we put religious mythology then what religion would that be? It would be forcing other religions on them, no matter how it is taught because it will always have an impact on your choices, I just say get rid of them both.

-Steve

You seem to have a misguided understanding of Atheists.


This we are in agreement on. One of the most fun things to do with a Creationist is to pose the question that, even though "God" was supposed to have created everything in seven days, how much time could that be, really? How long is a day to "God"? perhaps a day to "God" is two billion years. Couldn't "God" have used the process of evolution in his process of creation? This can be quite entertaining, if done properly.

It's quite simple. It would be the mythology of all religions, not just one or two. Since mythology is the basis of all religion.

Yet we are not here for entertainment, just stick to solid facts. Well I do not have the timie to supply the evidence on how accurate the Bible is, in the Bible though a day to God is 1,000 Years. So it could have taken 6,000 years to make the Earth or just 6 literal days, I believe 6 literal days.

-Steve

You can disagree with someone without calling them a nut.

This comes close to name calling as well, and in the least is not very civil:


jwinathome you're doing it too:

Don't attack a person or their character, attack their reasoning. Don't let it get personal.

Since "day" is an invention of man, in what context do you use it when discussing "creation"? A day is the period of time it takes for the Earth to complete one revolution around it's axis. Before Sun and Earth existed, the concept of a day was meaningless. It was nonexistent until man invented the concept. And yes, I am here for entertainment, to a degree. Good thing, too, since creationists have no actual facts they can present to back up their claims. All they have is religious mythology.

lol...firstly, its 6 days....and I personally believe it is 6 literal days. The Bible makes no claim to suggest that they were not 6 days...the very same days you and I experience.....daily.


I'm glad that's fun for you!


(Sorry PapaKid)

Oops! We all have the same facts to interpret....

That's what we call a "strawman" argument.

With that said, I must have missed the "facts" in your post.

See that is where we are confused. We just called it a day, yet God set the timescale for us. That is why on the Seventh day, there was the Sabbath where no Jew was allowed to work. For that was the day God had rested and looked upon his creation. So it would be a 24 hour day, but they did not have the concept of an hour at that time.

-Steve

I didn't see where he said from my interpretation all creationists have no actual facts, I can argue against that with 100% certainty. There is a ton of scientific facts out there that support the claims in the Bible, and Creationism. I find that most of the time when one fact toward evolution is proved they prove 10 facts for creationism, while not literal this does happen in a lot of cases but they refuse to post a lot of that information, which makes it hard to find.

-Steve

You keep claiming this, but we've yet to see any.

I've seen some claim that Atheism is a religion, and I'm just wondering how you came to that conclusion. All religions have some basic things in common. There is a deity (in some cases deities), there is praise, worship, ceremonial trappings, congregations of believers. Since an Atheist does not believe in the existence of a deity, and therefore has nothing to praise or worship, which obviates the necessity of any ceremonial actions, and since Atheists are not usually drawn to congregate and not worship anything together, what is the basis for the claim that Atheism is a religion?

First of all, it seems interesting to use the definition of religion as a way of including Atheism into that fold.



I suppose this takes us back to Einstein's argument that 'zero' has a quantity? Definitions 1 & 3 necessitate a higher power or spiritual leader to be present. Definition 2 is a circluar definition. The only one I can see as having any validity would be definition 4. However, I fail to see how the lack of a belief in something can be considered 'conscientious devotion'. But I guess it is really up to Atheists as to whether they want to be categorized as a religion.

All that being said, a public institution has no obligation to purport any reverence for a Creator. Thus, secularism is a natural result. Never, in my many years of school, over at least 6 different states, was I ever told by an educator that God does not exist. Never. Interestingly enough, only those that had a devout belief in Christianity espoused their beliefs to the students. So, this idea that Atheism is being 'pushed' on students seems a bit far-fetched. But, I can only speak from my experiences.


Regarding the creation of the Universe... Does anyone else find it a bit suspect that people within the same religious construct (Christianity in this case, just as example) cannot agree on what constituted a day? There is no measurability, and no consistency; it must be interpreted. Through scientific means, not only can we measure the length of a day, but we also accept the fact that there is some uncertainty to our measurements. And we cannot even agree on what a day was at the time. How could it have been a revolution of the Earth with respect to a Sun that did not exist?

Religion seems to hinge upon certainties (many of which are up for interpretation) and the need for these certainties to remain unquestioned, whereas science accepts uncertainties and strives to understand and control them through experimentation.

Regards,
bg04

I've had many people tell me how "wrong" I am for not believing in the existence of a supernatural deity. I don't tell people that they are "wrong" because they do*. A person's beliefs and their reasons for them are personal. To insist that a person's belief or lack of belief is wrong is, in effect, saying that that individual is wrong, or defective, as a person. And that's just wrong.


* This is not entirely true. If someone is so pushy about it that I lose both patience and temper, I just might. But I'd feel bad afterwards.

Well thought out post B&G...very respectable.

On the flip side, those in the scientific community clearly cannot agree on the origins of the universe. There are many interpretations of the same exact facts on either side of the aisle...if you wish to segregate the two.

I guess what you mention about religion, is where I personally separate from it. I love alleged certainties to be questioned.

You are correct in saying secularism is a natural result of teaching "no creator", but evolution has no substantial theory of creating something from nothing. Therefore it is in essence teaching evolution created. Some may call it heretical, some argue the case of evolution being a religion. Now, taking into account the founding of this country (USA), the beliefs and principles of the founders...the case can be made that secularism has been pushed into our society, including schools. Whether people want to admit it or not...there is a clear agenda of secular-humanism. Not to sit back and let things happen as they will, but to impose anti-God beliefs upon education.

A:)
I've had many people tell me how "wrong" I am for not believing in the existence of a supernatural deity. I don't tell people that they are "wrong" because they do*. A person's beliefs and their reasons for them are personal. To insist that a person's belief or lack of belief is wrong is, in effect, saying that that individual is wrong, or defective, as a person. And that's just wrong.

B:)
Everything following that, concerning evolution being a religion, and the foundation of Atheism (which is not a religion), etc., is just plain crapola. Anyone making statements like that can be safely dismissed as a harmless nut, as far as I'm concerned.

Contradiction:

something that contains parts or elements that are illogical or inconsistent with each other

Crapola - claiming that one thing is something else, when the claim is clearly not true. (Just one example. There are other kinds of crapola.)

Thanks jwin.

While I agree that there is no consensus at the moment about the energistic origin of the Universe, that lack of consistency does not preclude further investigation. This, I think, is a major difference between Science and Religion. Within Religion, a book is written and handed down, and facts/ideas are sought to support the claims made by the text. When a scientist writes a thesis, facts/ideas are sought to refute the claims made by the text. This results in a new and deeper look into the subject matter. While they are both (Religion and Science) trying to arrive at the truth, I often wonder to what degree on can objectively 'question' their source for Spiritual Well-being? There seems a bit of a conflict of interest inherent, no?



I think teaching evolution (from my own experience) stresses critical thinking about the process, rather than beginning or end.

As far as our Founding Fathers, they were Agnostics, so mixing what Christians call God with the Creator they called God is a bit...uneven. And, in light of the Religious Persecution from which they fled, I think it would be safe to say that they would condone personalized belief; and if such beliefs were of the majority, then so be it. Furthermore, I don't think they ever intended for education to become as publicized as it has become. A belief in a Creator is one thing, but the idea that God is ever-present in our daily lives is predominantly a Judeo-Christian idea. Their invocations of 'God' were mostly a way of sanctifying their actions.

You're completely incorrect on both accounts, as I've already addressed to you in a previous post.


In previous posts we've already established that evolution is observable (nylon-eating bacterium), testable (Tiktaalik), and falsifiable (you can falsify evolution by finding a rabbit in the PreCambrian, for example). So please don't trot out the same old arguments as if they're fact when they've already been discussed. If you want to have a discussion concerning the facts, you need to stop simply ignoring the posts that cast doubt on your position. Otherwise you're just a machine spitting out propaganda.

Also,
Evolution does no such thing. God is not a subject of science. Science exists to explain the observable phenomena in our world. It has no place in determining whether a God exists or not. At best science can only state that it doesn't have the evidence to verify the existence of a deity. How God relates to creation/evolution is a philosophical matter, not a scientific one. Frankly it doesn't matter in science whether you believe in atheism, theistic evolution, or the flying spaghetti monster. Science is only interested in what can be tested and proven, and evolution has evidence scrutinized by peer-review to meet that requirement.

Evolution is a theory with as many holes and flaws in it as a tin can shot with a 12 gauge. So many beliefs on how or what evolution theory is the right one....

With due respect, good grief!

In previous posts we've already established that evolution is observable (nylon-eating bacterium), testable

Hmm....very debatable. Certainly not a clear-cut case, although I do admit its compelling.

Science is only interested in what can be tested and proven, and evolution has evidence scrutinized by peer-review to meet that requirement.

Science may be, but the scientific community, in many cases is more interested in keeping their grant money to continue pointless research. Also including falsifying records, etc. for their agenda's gain. I will still state...evolution has never been observed. The nylon-bacteria is one very debatable example.....I ask again, do you have several other examples? I mean, we are talking about millions and millions of species. Millions of plants, etc. One debatable example solidifies evolutionary theory? If that's science....then your version of science is more of a faith (and a joke) than any religion, or atheism will ever be (with regards to observing and explaining the origins of the universe and its inhabitants.)

*shoots above sentence full of holes with a 12 gauge shotgun*

That was easy!




Sorry, cows, I just couldn't resist.

And I will state that that is crapola. If species do not evolve, how, then can you explain bacteria that become more resistant to antibiotics? There is a moth in Britain whose coloration darkened to match the coloration of the stones in buildings as they darkened due to the effects of the Industrial Revolution. Even the human species has observedly evolved in the course of only a few hundred years. The average height of people is now markedly more than it was as little as five hundred years ago.

There are countless examples of documented observations of evolution taking place. How many documented observations are there of "creation" taking place?

I will wait patiently for the documentation.

lol.

Do you work at dreaming this stuff up, or does it just come to you? Or are you simply parroting mis-information that you received from other sources?

I see a lot of claims being made, with no facts to back them up.

And you, too, seem to have a rather poor understanding of Atheism. Have you ever bothered to even take an open-minded look at the things you decry so, because they don't fit into your own narrow world-view?

That's a rhetorical question, by the way.

Instead of railing away at things you won't accept, and making unsupported claims, why not try doing some research and presenting facts that either support your claims, or refute those things you disagree with? Unsubstantiated rhetoric becomes tiresome in short order, and will not cause others to give your position serious consideration.

Okay Matt...I can see by your posts that you are here for only entertainment. nobody is making outrageous claims except you. Yet you cry "proof" to everyone else while offering no substantiation for your opinion at all.

Moving back to the adult conversation.....should anyone care to continue.

Oops! Went and posted in the wrong thread! Off to make a strong pot of coffee!

Keep in mind that the scientific process is a self-correcting system that relies on the peer-review of scientific journals designed to take challenges to existing theory and new findings into consideration concerning respectable scholarly science. If someone wanted to refute evolution in its entirety, and had the legitimate research backing it up to do so, they would surely make a significant name for themselves by taking these findings to any number of scientific journals. That is how the process works, things have to be revised as science progresses. Note that corrections had to be made even to Newton's laws as Einstein proposed Relativity, and Relativity itself had to be adjusted for things like Quantum Physics.
If creationism is true as I expect you believe, then it should be trivial for a scientist to do run the experiments as per the scientific method, collect the data, and submit the documentation and findings. Do you know how many how many findings have been submitted through this scholarly process by such schools of creationism like intelligent design? Zero. Creationism fails miserably in this task, for one, because from the beginning they abandon the scientific process. If you remember from school, it goes generally as Hypothesis > Experimentation > Observe results > Theorize. Creationism skips the first step entirely because they don't begin with a hypothesis, they begin with the bible which they believe is completely infallible. That means anything they see that contradicts what should only be a hypothesis is summarily dismissed. It doesn't matter to them if the results of their own experimentation defy their suppositions; The bible says it, they believe it, end of story, scientific integrity be [darned]. This, by the way, is a pat definition of pseudoscience.



I've actually quoted several more examples of evidence of evolution if you've been reading (several times in this thread I believe) but hey here are a whole bunch more.

Although to be perfectly honest, I am a laymen in this field. I am not a scientist nor professor. It is not my job to educate you on the overwhelming mountain of evidence for the evolutionary fact/theory. If you truly have the desire for knowledge in this field, I encourage you to take a few college courses, read up on the subject, speak with a few biology professors. But if your only intention is to argue pseudoscience on matters that you have already made up your mind about, you and I nothing more to say to each other. If you're unwilling to approach complicated subjects like these with an open mind, you waste my time and yours.

Immunity, we humans do it like when we get a vaccine do we become HUMAN 1.1 or something every time we get immune to something?

Maybe bacteria have a immune system like us of some sort.



The universe is here isn't it?

CGM, with honest respect for your beliefs ... yes, the 'universe is here', but if God created the universe, who created God?

I will stand by what I wrote. And if you think flippant dismissal will work with me, think again. I notice that you carefully avoided actually responding to my points and questions, you are instead doing your best to avoid them.
I've shown you numerous examples of evolution in action. I haven't seen you produce even one verifiable example of "falsifying records, etc. for their agenda's gain", for instance.

It's 0300, and I'm going to bed. Give me some concrete examples of what you want "proof" of, and I'll supply it. But not right now.

Ah, what we have here is another conundrum, this time times 2 -

We have C #1: Why is there anything? How did something come from nothing?

and

we have C #2: Why is there God? Where did God come from?


If one accepts that either C #1 or C #2 is possible, then how can they also deny the possibility of the other?

Just wondering.


Besides, could there really ever have been nothing?

He has always been.

Another one of the non-answers that religionists are famous for.

It was his answer to the question that was asked of him....

Tell the truth...its only a "non-answer" if it disagrees with your ideas.

No its a answer, it says in the Bible God always was and always will be.

In that case,

could one not also say that "something" always was, and always will be?

I went looking for proof of evolution and found the page below. Excellent and to the point. This is not the entire article.

(John Mark Ministries)

Copied from:http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/1563.htm

I have focussed mainly upon correcting errors and misconceptions. I have also tried to retain, to some extent, a focus upon matters more relevant to this newsgroup, which are concerned with Christian faith.


Specifically, I like to emphasize that portrayal of evolution, or geology, or astronomy, or anything else, as a denial of God is effectively a denial that God is involved in natural processes; a position fraught with theological problems. The truth is that these scientific fields are in conflict with biblical literalism; which is not the same thing at all.


However, since you ask for proof that evolution did happen, I can point you to the following "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>This summary article gives an idea of various kinds of evidence which are brought to bear on the matter. It is a lot more than merely fossils.


On the other hand, fossil evidence is perhaps the easiest to comprehend for a non-biologist, so as just one example to focus upon, I choose whales, and my primary starting reference is "The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence" <http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/> This is a good example, because on the basis of non-fossil evidence, biologists had already made some predictions, and creationists had previously (back in the eighties) made much of the lack of transitionals to back up the biologist's expectations. From about the mid-nineties, mainly from finds in Pakistan, paleontologists have unearthed an excellent series of transitional fossils confirming the origins of whales from terrestrial ancestors, and also pinning down their relationships with other currently living creatures.


I will make one minor point in passing. One of the serious problems with a focus on creationism is that it tends to leave a student with the idea that evolution is a theory of origins.


This is rather seriously misleading. In fact, evolution is better seen as the foundational theory for biological structure; and a model for the constraints for living organisms. It is concerned with diversification and cumulative change over time from common ancestors; but ancestors are still living creatures.


If you read a good general biological text, you should find a discussion of evolution, and you should find that it is not focussed simply upon "what is the origins of this or that life form" but takes a more general focus on form and function in living things.


For example, in ancient times there are stories of such things as fire breathing dragons, and horses with wings, and many chimeras (a faun, half goat, half man). Evolution is the reason we know such things do not exist. For example -- a flying horse is not possible, as it is described in mythology, because the wing is an add-on; involving two new limbs, with the four legs remaining unchanged. Evolution, on the other hand, allows for the "flying fox" because the wing is actually utilizing the limbs already in place.


The ultimate origins of life are an active area of research, and evolution is able to

For that matter, everything always has been and always will be. Perhaps we need to define "always"

Excellent summary of a point that I've tried to make, with varying amounts of success, to many people in the past decades. The creation myth and evolutionary science can peacefully co-exist. The only conflicts that exist between the two schools of thought are manufactured (or "created" ) ones.

Back to the original question:

"Why Is Evolution Taught As Fact?"

Answer - because it is fact.

There really isn't anything wrong with this answer.
It's a tenant of faith consistent with the Christian doctrine (probably consistent within Islam as well). If you're unsatisfied with that answer, that's fine, you don't have to believe in either religion. Of course that doesn't make you right or him wrong, nor vice versa. That's the thing about such metaphysical matters, they can't be proven one way or the other. In such matters, you may believe whatever you will.