huxley:

BTW, some of the best evolutionary biologist have been theists. Believing in evolution is NOT mutually exclusive with theism. Check out these guys;

Dr. Francis Colins
Kenneth Miller
Daniel Fairbanks


and many more.

Actually, I appreciate the offer even though I'm quite familiar with those names (can't miss them if you had to sit in a Philosophy of Science class). However, I'm one stubborn girl who argues yet again that the theory of evolution does not "prove" either theism or atheism. Whatever core values are appended to either of those worldviews, what can be said with some degree of confidence is that neither theism nor atheism is science. The theory of evolution and other theories may be used to explain the phenomena of our observable world; but I haven't found any argument in the market place that convinces me of the idea that either worldviews is "proven" by any theory.

huxley:

How do you think thet are able to accept the theory of evolution and still maintain a theistic belief?

Humbly, I cannot judge them based on whatever reasons helped them to maintain their cconvictions. My explanations above as to properly understanding either worldviews in their context highlights accentuates very point.

huxley:


My preciction is that you will not offer any answers to my questions above. If that is the case, it will not be because you do not know, or are unable to answer them. It will almost invariably be because it will cause a dissonance in your worldview. It is not untypical for people facing such dissonance to completely avoid the issues. I KNOW thatt this is what will happen to you, alas. BUT I woud love to be wrong.

And so you are wrong. I initially wanted to let your passions go unnoticed; but so you don't mistake that for any inability on my part to answer your questions, that is why I had to oblige you and set things in their proper contexts.

Shalom.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,

You missed it yet again, lol. None of those disciplines are to be interpreted as "atheism". Since you're fiercely polarized against the core values of theism (particularly the Christian faith), would it make sense to argue that atheism should be taught to anyone? Atheism is not science - rationalists who get these issues mixed up have many times assumed this mirage and that is why they are so restless in their campaigns against theism. To argue for atheism is clearly on par with the brainwashing you deploy.

Agreed, and we should understand that a theory does not necessarily pass for a fact. This distinction is what is often missed by those who allude that the "theory of evolution is a fact"; on the contrary, it is only an "explanation" of a set of principles.

Lol. . . huxley, you are mixing issues up here. No one is arguing here about "change". The point rather is that some people have built arguments round the theory of evolution to make it synonymous with atheism! That is the core issue here. When you pursue the implication of either worldviews (theism and atheism), you find that Christian theism does not argue against change in living organisms; whereas, we have often heard people argue that the theory of evolution "proves" the non-existence of God! That is the "brainwashing" that needs to be evaluated.

I would not be so polarized if I were you. Just the 4th question already presents a huge problem for the atheistically inclined thinker - and that is: where did life come from?

However, rather than project answers which are held by some majority among scientists, it would wiser to understand two things:

(a) geological data are variously interpreted and there is no singularly held opinion across board on that;
(b) the arguments at the end of the day does not present atheism - rather, it leaves a basic question that rationalism has not answered: the question of creation - where did matter come from?

Evolution is not to be mistaken for atheism. I constantly need to make that point very clear so that one may now understand why your highlighted query still mixes issues here:
The facts do not "prove" atheism. If it does, then I'll give you my own model - well tested and something you may never have considered.

Possibly. Why? For the simple reason that these theories have often been amended. Let me drop you a few hints:

In the philosophy of evolutionary science(s), we all know that Darwin is today a household name in that field of enquiry. However, he was not the first to hold the evolutionary model of explaining our observable world. Meanwhile, several names were are worth mentioning as progenitors of the Darwinian model - people like Sir Julian Sorell Huxley. What is common among this school of evolutionary thinkers is the mechanism by which evolution is to be explained. That mechanism is kown as "natural selection".

However, there were also evolutionary biologists who had a different mechanism - an example is Richard Benedict Goldschmidt who was more inclined to advocate a model known as evolution by "saltation". Of course, his name rings a bell for his advanced model of macroevolution through macromutations that is popularly known as the "Hopeful Monster" hypothesis.

My dear huxley, I do not mean to pit these gentlemen against one another. But it is over to you now: which model are we going to argue for between these two:

* the hypothesis of evolution by natural selection?
* the Hopeful Monster hypothesis?

I only mentioned this to hint that theories are not facts. The facts may remain, and it is the theories that are often being amended. So, one cannot be so brash as to assume that one model is the same thing as a "fact" - theories should never be viewed as a "fact", but rather as models of explanations that can be amended as need be. Yes? Yes.

Pardon me, but you are making an elementary philosophical mistake. Firstly, I did not say evolution implies atheism. The Theory of Evolution (TTE) is a scientific theory that explains the observed changes in lifeforms. Atheism is a philosophical position - it is the lack of a belief in god. You are doing strawmen arguments - mischaracterising my position and then trying to shoot the strawman down.

Lets make it clear, TTE does NOT imply atheism. If it were so, the Catholic Church, Church of England, etc would not have endorse it. It is simply a scientific theory that makes not appeal to the metaphysical. I have read a number of books in evolution theory, none of which make no mention of the existence of god (except to say that it was once believed that lifeforms was created by god)

Further, no were in this post have I advance an argument for atheism. Atheism draws from many philosophical and scienctific positions. In fact, it is the convergence of the different lines scientific evidence, as these conflict with the theistic narrative, that makes the position for atheism so strong. To be sure, arguments for atheism had existed long before TTE, and TTE only made it a stronger philosophical position.

Now, why don't you take umbrage at cosmology and the theory of gravity. Remember that these theories too were once rejected by the church, with the persecution of Galileo, Copernicus and the burning of Bruno.

But do the theories of cosmology imply atheism? If not,why not. Why single out TTE?

To repeat, I am not making an argument to atheism here, but was challenging the view that learning about evolution amounted to brainwashing. If it is brainwashing, so would learning about gravity, cosmology, germs, geology, etc, etc.

BTW, the discovery of cosmology radically contradicted the narrative provided in the bible. The bible presents an earth-centre view of the universe, with the earth as the central abode for god's beloved creatures. Copernicus and Galileo radically overturned this view, to the chagrin of the churches. So if learning about TTE is brainwashing, so too must be cosmology.

I take it, from your highlighted comments above that you accept TTE as the best explanation for the observed change, correct?

@huxley,

huxley:

Pardon me, but you are making an elementary philosophical mistake. Firstly, I did not say evolution implies atheism. The Theory of Evolution (TTE) is a scientific theory that explains the observed changes in lifeforms. Atheism is a philosophical position - it is the lack of a belief in god. You are doing strawmen arguments - mischaracterising my position and then trying to shoot the strawman down.

It is usually the cop-out for atheists to cover with the cry of strawmen, but such cliches are now redundant. Dawkins uses this silly antics so well when he finds his arguements untennable. The whole strain of argument so far has been simply to try and use the same atheistic philosophy to "prove" the assumption that theism is a negative worldview - and that is what I have dealt with: so no strawmen there.

huxley:

Lets make it clear, TTE does NOT imply atheism. If it were so, the Catholic Church, Church of England, etc would not have endorse it.

This is your mistake - the Catholic Church and Church of England are not endorsing the atheistic arguments built around TTE - that should be made clear from the onset. Hint again: earlier, I noted that theists do not argue against changes in living organism - what is philosophically untennable is to hold therefore that TTE "disproves" theistic core values. That, my dear, is what many people who shlepp this idea have been doing.

huxley:

It is simply a scientific theory that makes not appeal to the metaphysical.

And yet, the metaphysical is not an "inferior" field of study.

huxley:

I have read a number of books in evolution theory, none of which make no mention of the existence of god (except to say that it was once believed that lifeforms was created by god)

. . . which ideology has been unhealthily driven to such proportions today to make it sound as if TTE "disproves" theism.

huxley:

Further, no were in this post have I advance an argument for atheism. Atheism draws from many philosophical and scienctific positions. In fact, it is the convergence of the different lines scientific evidence, as these conflict with the theistic narrative, that makes the position for atheism so strong. To be sure, arguments for atheism had existed long before TTE, and TTE only made it a stronger philosophical position.

So who's been doing the brainwashing. . . and upon what basis? Pardon me, huxley, I see this reaction as rather laughable. Atheism, no matter where it draws from, does not "disprove" theism - and the gist of this thread made a case against Christianity on "brainwashing" - please tell me if that is a rational attitude.

huxley:

Now, why don't you take umbrage at cosmology and the theory of gravity. Remember that these theories too were once rejected by the church, with the persecution of Galileo, Copernicus and the burning of Bruno.

You assume a very weak presumption when discussing with people, huxley - and I don't find that kind of prejudice ethical or healthy. The "church" may have persecuted Galileo and others - and the case may be made that rationalists are still in the business of berating whatever views are not in consonance with their position. To put up a clenched fist with such indicators does not mean that theists are averse to intelligent enquiries.

huxley:

But do the theories of cosmology imply atheism? If not,why not. Why single out TTE?

I haven't migrated to other theories for the simple reason that the TTE was one of the basic points of reference in your idea of a campaign of this brainwashing. It does not mean that I am not aware of several other theories, and to be frantically throwing words all over the place suggests to me that you still do not have your water together.

huxley:

To repeat, I am not making an argument to atheism here, but was challenging the view that learning about evolution amounted to brainwashing.

That is precisely what I have been trying to point out all along. Dear huxley, ask yourself once again: WHY did you set up this thread, if it was for any other reason than to castigate theists as "brainwashing" the public? Reading through your strain of argument points to just one fact: a push for atheism by the attempt to represent Christianity in bad light. If you had no intentions whatsoever as such, WHY this thread?

huxley:

If it is brainwashing, so would learning about gravity, cosmology, germs, geology, etc, etc.

Lol. . . in what terms do you compare those with these:

so teaching kids at school about evolution isnt brain washing?
telling kids that its ok to be gay isnt brainwashing?
telling your kids huxley,  that God (or in your case god) doesnt exist isnt brainwashing?

huxley:

BTW, the discovery of cosmology radically contradicted the narrative provided in the bible. The bible presents an earth-centre view of the universe, with the earth as the central abode for god's beloved creatures. Copernicus and Galileo radically overturned this view, to the chagrin of the churches. So if learning about TTE is brainwashing, so too must be cosmology.

Please kindly outline how the Bible presents what you allege, thank you.

huxley:

I take it, from your highlighted comments above that you accept TTE as the best explanation for the observed change, correct?

Don't be too fast there, huxleylol. The TTE is a model for change in living organisms; however, my concern is simply this: is it an adequate model to explain the origin of those organisms? There's a reason why I ask this question - subsequently I shall point it out to you.

Dearest huxley,
its with a heavy heart i write this note to u
as ur wors on here reveal a side i wish no human being in right thinking exhibits
a side that states that u sire, are most incapable of making an argument
and most biased when trying to uphold a point in the said argument

ok on a serious note,
i have met a few atheists in my life and the "rock" they base their belief on is TTE
but they i mean atheists seem to forget the simple thing that theists have never gone against he said theory

ok now the word theory
lets go back to the basic scientific processes

first of all u make an observation- in this case existence of fossils etc

then a hypothesis is made - whatever it was we dont know today

then a prediction- for now ill go with they were created and still exist or something like that

then the true test the experimentation step- this is where all the previous steps will be subjected to tests
this point, the findings are called Theories as they are proven but no extensive research that proves that without any doubt the prediction is true

when a theory is able to pass this stage then and only then is it a law

now note this theory of evolution is still a theory why?

no research can ultimately prove that the theory of evolution is the reason and only explanation for fossils

ok i digressed a bit but do u see where i going to?

and ur topic
as pilgrim 1 said its just ur way of showing christianity in a bad light
it proves nothing

1-  the ban on the use of condoms

This is a ban for Catholics. They shouldn't have a problem with it, they're supposed to be following the laws of God anyhow, they can't forget one law and decide not to forget the other. There is no picking and choosing. If they truly are faithful to their faith, they won't engage in sexual acts outside of marriage, and I don't see how that is hurting them. If they don't engage in sex before marriage, they won't be contracting HIV through sexual relations, and a ban on condom won't be harmful, if they do not engage in sexual acts outside of with anyone other than their spouse they won't be worrying about contracting HIV, and the ban on condoms won't bother them.

Point is you can't pick and choose what to obey. The Church is the protector of the law of God, it will not waver or change just because some people want to sin.

2-  the prevention of stem-cell research on christian grounds

Aren't there governmental grounds for this? They should go and buy government grounds jo and leave the Church grounds alone.

3-  the refusal of some christian to seek medical attention

This is not a Christian belief, this a personal belief or a misinterpretation of the Bible belief.

4-  the attempt to ban the teaching of some scientific subjects in schools.

What? Where? Because last time I checked it's creationism that you guys have succeeded to putout of the classroom. So what's the complaint. You have what you fight for, we have what we fight for. We both fight and we hold the same arguments so who's to say you are right and we are wrong?

Aquinas taught that storms etc were caused by demons and Luther warned (1529) against bathing in lakes and rivers because the devil lived in them.

The 1484 Witches Bull by Pope Innocent 8th made the denial of the reality of witches heretical. Legal infallibility and irrefutability.

Witches had taken an oath to renounce Christ and give their souls to the Devil. Satan rewarded them with the power of magic. The Devil could make himself invisible to all but witches. More irrefutability like the invisible, in principle unobservable, fairies at the bottom of the garden or the invisible gremlins which cause radios to break down.

Witches were the cause of men becoming impotent, women infertile, miscarriages, bad harvests, cattle deaths, plagues, illness, storms etc. Ideal scapegoats for everything.

What Aquinas stated this and show the document please?
I agree with Pope Innocent VIII.

Dear I pray you never encounter a witch in your life, I have and I can give a testimony of it. It is by God's grace that I am alive. If you wish to think it is all in Nollywood movies, fine, taht is your own, but please let the rest of us live in peace.

Since you did not get i, the point I was making was that evolution is a well attested scientic fact, as much as plate tectonic, gravity, germ theory of disease, etc.  So if you call the teaching of the theory of evolution brainwashing, so too is the teaching of Newtonian gravity, germ theory of disease, geology etc.

evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. You must have confused yourelf.
Why are there still apes and gorrillas? Why didn't they evolve too?
Is the human still evolving? and into what may I ask?
Please enlighten me more on evolution. I think I slept through class

~Lady~:

evolution is not a fact, it is a theory.

There is evidence to prove that evolution is a fact eg human have been in existance millions of years before God sent Jesus to save our souls

~Lady~:

You must have confused yourelf.

Na you dey confuse yourself

~Lady~:

Is the human still evolving?

No

~Lady~:

and into what may I ask?

The human race stopped evolving millions of years ago ok. We have chinese people indian people african people caucasian people, different races but we have stopped evolving.

~Lady~:


Why are there still apes and gorrillas? Why didn't they evolve too?

They did evolve but they stopped evolving at an earlier stage than us human beings

~Lady~:


Please enlighten me more on evolution. I think I slept through class

Well Lady i think i've tried my best to answer your questions on evolution if your satisfied am sure my friend Huxley will be more than happy to be clarify some of my points for you

@manmustwac,

manmustwac:

There is evidence to prove that evolution is a fact

Evolution is a theory, not a fact. We have tried to clarify these issues earlier between a "theory" and a "fact". The theory seeks to explain what is held as fact, and they are not to be confused as being the same. This is clearly one of those reasons why I have constantly called huxley's attention to this problem where many people confuse these issues and make the evolution theory to read what it is not stating.

manmustwac:

eg human have been in existance millions of years before God sent Jesus to save our souls

Nobody said that Jesus Christ was the first man, so this argument is a mute point.

manmustwac:

The human race stopped evolving millions of years ago ok.

How many millions of years ago? This is the sort of arguments that are bland and bear no substance in reality.

People may make claims about human evolution - and that has become the norm even among some scientists. Sadly, nobody among such theorists is seeking to answer the basis questions as to when man started evolving and when he stopped; from what did he actually evolve precisely; what mechanism was involved in this human evolution; as well as why the idea is floated today that humans have stopped evolving - what is responsible for this sudden end of human evolution.

Of course, not all evolutionary biologists hold this claim about human evolution; but suggesting that humans have stopped evolving is a bland statement that experiences difficulties answering the basic questions following thereto.

Evolution (change of lifeform) is a fact. Period. The Theory of Evolution (TTE) is the explanation of the fact. Other example which might be useful in understanding the distinction are;

[table]

[tr][td]Facts[/td][td]Theory that Explains the Facts[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Some Germs cause disease[/td][td]Germ Theory of Diseases[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Objects attract each other[/td][td]The theory of Gravity[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]The Universe is expanding[/td][td]The Big Bang Theory[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Substances are made of atoms[/td][td]Atomic Theory[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lifeforms change of time[/td][td]The Theory of Evolution[/td][/tr]

[/table]

Is eventually is is found that TTE does not adequately explain the facts, then it will be overturned or modified, and replaced by a better theory. That is how science works. After more that 150 years of testing and verification, not a single violation of TTE has been found. Of course, that does not mean that all the mechanism that drive evolution are known or understood.


Humans split from their common ancestors with apes about 4 million years ago. Since the split, the human line has seen many humanoid lifeforms from homo erectus, homo habilis, homo afluensis, . . . to Homo Sapiens. So if humans have gone through this line of evolution in the past, it is very likely that Homo Sapiens are currently and slowly undergoing evolution today.

@Huxley
i understand your point.
which simply is: telling kids the truth isnt brainwashing. you used TOE as an example of the truth.

Now thats exctly where the problem is. you think TOE is the truth and thats y you'll teach it to ur 5 year old kid.

I think TOE is crap! and i ll teach creation to my 5year old. Who s right? Whos wrong? Whos brainwashin? who's teaching?
T
hats the question!

FYI: I'm not going into an arguement over TOE. Í've been there done that but i d like to say Evolution occurs= FACT!

However, your defintion of evolution is different from mine.

Evolution simply menas change. whan you were born Huxley, you where a baby, now i assume you're an adult i.e you've changed! Thats evolution for me. Your TOE is a bunch of interesting balderdash. And there are a lot of questiions TOE does not answer but the scientific community in its zealousness to be seen as anti-religious ignores these problems and forces TOE on us as scientific fact. If that isnt brainwashing, what is?

@huxley,

huxley:

Evolution (change of lifeform) is a fact. Period. The Theory of Evolution (TTE) is the explanation of the fact.

The reply just before yours is an attested example of what I have often tried to call your (and the general reader's) attention to - the fact that many people confuse a "theory" for a "fact". The confusion is even made worse when people who speak of a theory are quite often interpreting it as a fact - and that is why the general public often misconstrue a theory for a fact. To this end, one cannot be speaking of a theory as an excuse for castigating the Christian worldview, as is the underlying current of this thread.

huxley:

Other example which might be useful in understanding the distinction are;

[table][tr][td]Facts[/td][td]Theory that Explains the Facts[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Some Germs cause disease[/td][td]Germ Theory of Diseases[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Objects attract each other[/td][td]The theory of Gravity[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]The Universe is expanding[/td][td]The Big Bang Theory[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Substances are made of atoms[/td][td]Atomic Theory[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lifeforms change of time[/td][td]The Theory of Evolution[/td][/tr][/table]

Is eventually is is found that TTE does not adequately explain the facts, then it will be overturned or modified, and replaced by a better theory. That is how science works. After more that 150 years of testing and verification, not a single violation of TTE has been found. Of course, that does not mean that all the mechanism that drive evolution are known or understood.

Most major theories have been amended and constantly face new challenges. The assertion that the TTE has not faced a single violation in its explanatory terms for over 150 years is an assumption, not a fact. The fact is that proponents of the Darwinian theory of evolution have not come up with a verifiable model for explaining the violation of a basic scientific law - the law of theormodynamics - even after over 150 years of being questioned thereto. You cannot be postulating this ideology of using a theory to slake over the idea of a fact.

Another example in the ones you outlined earlier: Germ Theory of Disease. The name most often associated with is Robert Koch, because he was the first scientist to devise a series of proofs used to verify the germ theory of disease (Wikipedia). However, Koch was criticised for the clinical inaccuracy of his third postulate - which he later recanted, even though he had used that postulate to previously establish his theory! This is only one example that should humble us enough to understand the difference between a theory and a fact. A theory is always susceptible to amendments and modifications and does not translate into a fact.

huxley:

Humans split from their common ancestors with apes about 4 million years ago. Since the split, the human line has seen many humanoid lifeforms from homo erectus, homo habilis, homo afluensis, . . . to Homo Sapiens. So if humans have gone through this line of evolution in the past, it is very likely that Homo Sapiens are currently and slowly undergoing evolution today.

Let's remember that guess work is not a scientific method; so my simple question is this: Who has observed and clinically established this slow human "evolution today"?

simmy:

@Huxley
i understand your point.
which simply is: telling kids the truth isnt brainwashing. you used TOE as an example of the truth.

Now thats exctly where the problem is. you think TOE is the truth and thats y you'll teach it to your 5 year old kid.

I think TOE is crap! and i ll teach creation to my 5year old. Who s right? Whos wrong? Whos brainwashin? who's teaching?
T
hats the question!

FYI: I'm not going into an arguement over TOE. Í've been there done that but i d like to say Evolution occurs= FACT!

However, your defintion of evolution is different from mine.

Evolution simply menas change. whan you were born Huxley, you where a baby, now i assume you're an adult i.e you've changed! Thats evolution for me. Your TOE is a bunch of interesting balderdash. And there are a lot of questiions TOE does not answer but the scientific community in its zealousness to be seen as anti-religious ignores these problems and forces TOE on us as scientific fact. If that isnt brainwashing,  what is?

I see your point and with respect, allow me to ask you a number of questions, one of which was put to me recently by my 4 years old son;

1)  Supposing your kid was to ask you "Daddy, Daddy, where does petroleum we use in our car come from?"  And how do scientists/engineers know where to get the oil from?

2)  Where are dinosaurs now and what happened to them?

3)  What is Tiktaalik?

Hi simmy,

How body? I understand where you're coming from and have always admired your simplicity of terms. Could you permit me to build upon your previous reply:

simmy:

I think TOE is crap! and i ll teach creation to my 5year old. Who s right? Whos wrong? Whos brainwashin? who's teaching?

Lol, I know you were winding huxley up. . . because you later gave a clear understanding of what evolution basically is: "Evolution simply means change." However, what our dear friends do not understand is that the arguments that have been built around the basic idea of evolution has confused the issue all the more, because they have been trying to hard to dribble Darwinian theory of evolution as a fact instead of as a theory. The implications for them, therefore, is to use the argument to overshadow the theory itself and hence launch into this unhealthy idea of "brainwashing".

simmy:

Your TOE is a bunch of interesting balderdash. And there are a lot of questiions TOE does not answer but the scientific community in its zealousness to be seen as anti-religious ignores these problems and forces TOE on us as scientific fact. If that isnt brainwashing, what is?

I wonder.

pilgrim.1:

Hi simmy,

How body? I understand where you're coming from and have always admired your simplicity of terms. Could you permit me to build upon your previous reply:

Lol, I know you were winding huxley up. . . because you later gave a clear understanding of what evolution basically is: "Evolution simply means change." However, what our dear friends do not understand is that the arguments that have been built around the basic idea of evolution has confused the issue all the more, because they have been trying to hard to dribble Darwinian theory of evolution as a fact instead of as a theory. The implications for them, therefore, is to use the argument to overshadow the theory itself and hence launch into this unhealthy idea of "brainwashing".

I wonder.

Pilgrim.1,


what is Tiktaalik?

Pilgrim.1 Well if thats how you see it then according to my theory mankind evolved from the ape who evolved from the monkey, which evolved from the fish.

Just like you, you evolved from a sperm, then a foetus, then a baby, then a toddler, then a child, then a teenager then a woman, then an adult this takes place over a duration of about 25 years. Its the same thing with evolution just that it took about 25 to maybe 250 million years

Yes Huxley. i know what tiktaalik is! what are you getting at?
Just the same way archaoeplytx was bandied around years ago as proof of evolution. doesnt prove sh.t. Like i said earleir, im not going into an arguement of TOE.

your question about petroleum: if he s 4 years old i ll give him the simplest answer possible: God put it there 4 our use nad later scientists saw it and started using it. because its the truth. An extremely simplified version of the truth but the truth nonetheless. by the way: what are u gettn at?

dinasours? they went extinct (they all died) kid? they were monsters that used to roam the earth. many animals existed in the past that dont exist now. dont see how that contradicts the bible in any way like i'm assuming you are implying. the bible never mentioned dinasours because i'm assuming the writers had no kowledge of dinasours. Im assuming God didnt see the relevance of mentioning dinasours to ignorant Jewish ex-animists. by the way: what are u gettn at?

simmy:

Yes Huxley. i know what tiktaalik is! what are you getting at?
Just the same way archaoeplytx was bandied around years ago as proof of evolution. doesnt prove sh.t. Like i said earleir, im not going into an arguement of TOE.

your question about petroleum: if he s 4 years old i ll give him the simplest answer possible: God put it there 4 our use nad later scientists saw it and started using it. because its the truth. An extremely simplified version of the truth but the truth nonetheless. by the way: what are u gettn at?

dinasours? they went extinct (they all died) kid? they were monsters that used to roam the earth. many animals existed in the past that don't exist now. don't see how that contradicts the bible in any way like i'm assuming you are implying. the bible never mentioned dinasours because i'm assuming the writers had no kowledge of dinasours. I'm assuming God didnt see the relevance of mentioning dinasours to ignorant Jewish ex-animists. by the way: what are u gettn at?

1) Where were dinosaurs when tiktaalik walked the earth?

2) Where were humans when dinosaurs walked the earth?

@manmustwac,

manmustwac:

Pilgrim.1 Well if thats how you see it then according to my theory mankind evolved from the ape who evolved from the monkey, which evolved from the fish.

Oh my goodness!  Okay, I hear. Oya, huxley, over to you O! Let's combine and challenge the 150 years old TOE! Boy, we're on to something revolutionary here!

manmustwac:

Just like you, you evolved from a sperm, then a foetus, then a baby, then a toddler, then a child, then a teenager then a woman, then an adult this takes place over a duration of about 25 years.

25 years is slow. My evolution to that point took no more than 20 years! Haa!!

hehe . . okay, I feel you, bro.

manmustwac:

Its the same thing with evolution just that it took about 25 to maybe 250 million years

>sigh< Enjoy.

huxley:

1) Where were dinosaurs when tiktaalik walked the earth?

2) Where were humans when dinosaurs walked the earth?

In connection with the brainwashing. . . your point is?

pilgrim.1:

In connection with the brainwashing. . . your point is?

You guys are saying the teaching of TTE is brainwashing, so I am asking you questions about the facts of evolution to see whether you are justified in making that claim. To justifiably make such claim, it would be expected that you know what evolution is. For instance, can you make a claim that the teaching of gravity is brainwashing without an understanding of what the theory of gravity is? Was that not obvious?

Good, just wanted you to cut to the chase.

Now. .

huxley:

You guys are saying the teaching of TTE is brainwashing, so I am asking you questions about the facts of evolution to see whether you are justified in making that claim. To justifiably make such claim, it would be expected that you know what evolution is.

Perhaps we have to keep reminding you until it sinks in. There are arguments that have been built around the Darwinian theory of evolution - the theory does not translate into a fact, it remains just a theory - and it has both been modified sveral times as it faced criticisms and neither have its proponents found an answer for the basic question as to how the theory violates another known scientific law. Why are Darwinists evading that question? Me thinks for the simple reason that they have translated Darwin's theory into arguments that it does not state.

Another point: nobody has been arguing against "change in living organism". Rather, those who are too polarized that they cannot see the real issues are to beset to consider the simple fact that evolution theory remains a theory attempting to explain evolution. A fact does not seek to explain a itself - that is why people make up theories to seek to explain those commonly held facts.

Third point: many Darwinian theorists are much too polarized to make sane statements. This is why people assume that after over 150 years, the TOE is a fact. That is simply wrong and is actually braisnwashing - it remains a theory as distinct from evolution in its basic understanding. Second, it is not true to assume that the TOE has not violated a single principle - it has, and I gave an example.

Now, at this point, one may ask a simple question: if you are not one of those mixing up issues, why did you start this thread when you know so far you have been blurring the lines and mixing up issues? Who is actually doing the "brainwashing" if you keep mixing up the terms being examined here? What was your rational in trumping up this idea of "brainwashing" and pitting your theorists against Christianity?

huxley:

For instance, can you make a claim that the teaching of gravity is brainwashing without an understanding of what the theory of gravity is? Was that not obvious?

Who here has argued so gullibly, huxley? You haven't demonstrated a good grasp of evolution yourself, and that is what moved others to point that very fact out to you. So many people often try to force the idea of a theory into a fact, and that is hardly doing science. The TOE is a theory; it violates the established law of thermodynamics - the Darwinian godfathers do not like to be queried about that, but they have their own agenda to keep up this brainwashing of blurring the lines.

If Christians are beginning to speak out and challenge this very attitude of polarized darwinists, it all the more should make us understand that Darwinists themselves cannot point accusing fingers at others for the same things that they are guilty of.

Now, dear huxley, who is doing the brainwashing again?

Sigh sigh

Thanks again pilgrim! dont need to post at huxley now

Dear simmy, you and others have stated it simply much, much earlier. I only tried to break it down into more disgestible forms for easy understanding. Well, if there is anything new. . we'll try and reason with them, brainwashing or not.

Shalom.

Ok, let me make it even simpler for you guys. Suppose you take you kids to the museum and saw a display of Tiktaalic. And they were to ask you;

1) Where were dinosaurs when tiktaalik walked the earth?

2) Where were humans when dinosaurs walked the earth?


What you you tell them? Forget about the issue about theory and facts. Just answer the questions as directly and honestly as possible.

@huxley,

huxley:

Ok, let me make it even simpler for you guys. Suppose you take you kids to the museum and saw a display of Tiktaalic. And they were to ask you;

1) Where were dinosaurs when tiktaalik walked the earth?

2) Where were humans when dinosaurs walked the earth?

What you you tell them?

Predicatably, you're saying nothing new and taking us back to the same round about argument. This is why I said:

pilgrim.1:

Well, if there is anything new. . we'll try and reason with them, brainwashing or not.

huxley:

Forget about the issue about theory and facts. Just answer the questions as directly and honestly as possible.

I choose to be quiet about the distinction between theory and fact when you can stop blurring the lines for people who don't know the difference.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,

Predicatably, you're saying nothing new and taking us back to the same round about argument. This is why I said:
I choose to be quiet about the distinction between theory and fact when you can stop blurring the lines for people who don't know the difference.

Alas, my questions remain unanswered! Why don't you give it a go?

For the simple reason that I don't find your roundabout argument challenging enough in consonance with your blurring the lines. I could easily eulogise myself that my questions are often not answered by rationalists - but that is simply being euphoric on cheap glory.

The basic question here is this: if you hold arguments built around the TOE which have not been able to answer a basic question about its violation of the law of thermodynamics, would that not be brainwashing? Has TOE proven that there is no God, as polarized Darwinists often conclude?? At the end of the day, when it is pointed out to them that the TOE is just a theory that does not "prove" or "disprove" the existence of God, the same darwinists become reactive and retreat with the so-called "strawman argument". This brainwashing has gone on for much too long, and that is why darwinian theorists are feeling as if anyone is putting them on spot for their own postulations.

pilgrim.1:

For the simple reason that I don't find your roundabout argument challenging enough in consonance with your blurring the lines. I could easily eulogise myself that my questions are often not answered by rationalists - but that is simply being euphoric on cheap glory.

The basic question here is this: if you hold arguments built around the TOE which have not been able to answer a basic question about its violation of the law of thermodynamics, would that not be brainwashing? Has TOE proven that there is no God, as polarized Darwinists often conclude?? At the end of the day, when it is pointed out to them that the TOE is just a theory that does not "prove" or "disprove" the existence of God, the same darwinists become reactive and retreat with the so-called "strawman argument". This brainwashing has gone on for much too long, and that is why darwinian theorists are feeling as if anyone is putting them on spot for their own postulations.

arh, arh. simple factual question too, u no fit answer am?

The deceit at the basis of this Dawkinist movement is too totally shocking. What is it exactly that Creationists/ and intelligent designists ask for? That other theories are taught alongside Darwinian theory. Why do Darwinian evolutionists shudder so much at that prospect?
That is like scientists freaking out because Einstein's theory of Gravity is being taught alongside Newton's theory of Gravity. If you are so sure of the veracity of your theory then allow for pupils to be taught all theories and to choose for themselves.

It's not exactly like the theory that is accepted will make much of a difference to the life of the person. Whether or not I accept Darwin will not affect my job prospects, it won't help me find a wife, it won't feed my kids. Human societies have thrived for millenia without Darwin's theory of Evolution and I think they will continue to do so.

But why do I find Dawkins so deceitful? Because he make an astronomical leap from darwin to Atheism. He claims that Natural Selection implies that there is not God. How does he make such a leap? I have no idea. Theory of Evolution does not Equal Naturalism or Determinism. Yet somehow with the rhetorical skill of a Maradona he makes Theory of Evolution imply Atheism.

Please Huxley, can you tell me Theory of Evolution equates to Atheism?

Pastor AIO:

The deceit at the basis of this Dawkinist movement is too totally shocking. What is it exactly that Creationists/ and intelligent designists ask for? That other theories are taught alongside Darwinian theory. Why do Darwinian evolutionists shudder so much at that prospect?
That is like scientists freaking out because Einstein's theory of Gravity is being taught alongside Newton's theory of Gravity. If you are so sure of the veracity of your theory then allow for pupils to be taught all theories and to choose for themselves.

It's not exactly like the theory that is accepted will make much of a difference to the life of the person. Whether or not I accept Darwin will not affect my job prospects, it won't help me find a wife, it won't feed my kids. Human societies have thrived for millenia without Darwin's theory of Evolution and I think they will continue to do so.

But why do I find Dawkins so deceitful? Because he make an astronomical leap from darwin to Atheism. He claims that Natural Selection implies that there is not God. How does he make such a leap? I have no idea. Theory of Evolution does not Equal Naturalism or Determinism. Yet somehow with the rhetorical skill of a Maradona he makes Theory of Evolution imply Atheism.

Please Huxley, can you tell me Theory of Evolution equates to Atheism?

Would you also advocate the teaching of astrology along side astronomy, the miasma theory of disease along side the germ theory of disease. Intelligent design is NOT science. It has not got a body of scientific literature on which to derive teaching material. It has not undergone the rigours of scientific verification and validation. In fact, according to the leading ID theorist, astrology is a science. Do you agree with this conclusion?

I think the place for ID is not in the science class but in a philosophy and/or comparative religion class, where all worldviews could be taught (alongside the Yoruba creation myth) and evaluated.

Einteinian physics is any extension of Newtonian physics and has undergone all the tests and validation required of science.

A propos atheism, if life's origin is at odds with the narrative in Genesis, does this make the narrative more likely of less likely? Almost all the arguments for atheism have been around before the Theory of evolution. Just as the discovery of cosmology made the accounts of Genesis less likely, evolution make the account even less likely. The convergence of many independent lines of reason lead to the conclusion that the god as defines in the Judeo-Christian tradition is very unlikely to exist.

If you had read Darkin's book, The God Delusion, this is exactly what he says. On page 50, he give a 1 to 7 scales of belief/non-belief as follows;

1 - Strong theists. 100% probabilty
2 - Very high probability but short of 100%
3 - Higher than 50% but not very high
4 - Exactly 50%
5 - Lower than 50% but not very low
6 - Very low probability but short of zero
7 - Strong atheist

Dawkins describes himself as a 6 based on looking at all the different lines of evidence and the nature of god(s) as currently defined by the theists.

The theory of evolution does NOT equal atheism. For a start, the former is a scientific theory and the latter is a philosophical position which draws upon MANY areas of thought.

Does cosmology equal atheism? If not, why not?

Sir, that something contradicts the Biblical account in Genesis is no argument for Atheism. It is an argument against the factual accuracy of the Bible but not an argument against the existence of God. Of course I know you will limit your position to picking cheap shots against the bible for no other reason than you can do it.

Would I advocate the teaching of Astrology alongside Astronomy? Yes I would. Of course there is so much to study in this world and knowledge is unlimited. Perhaps I wouldn't make it essential reading (astrology nor astronomy) but I would make it available to those who should wish to pursue it as a form of further education.

I don't know much about miasma theory of disease so I couldn't comment however I do know that I would study beyond the germ theory of disease. Why? Because I know the other theories to work in instances where Germ fighting doesn't work. And this is not just a personal quirk. It has taken a few decades, but today most doctors will admit that there is something to alternative medicines and they will even go as far as recommending it. I know out of personal experience that chinese medicine is potent as well as Ayurvedic medicine, not to mention the traditional african herbs that I used to take for my asthma. IT WORKED!!!!

Your position is that of a doctor who will not accept alternative medicines and will go as far as to try to get the government to ban them. You do a disservice to society. Just because you have Germ theory you will not abide anyone else having their own theory. How different is your position from that of the religious bigot and his tyrannical stance?

Whatever class you want to put ID in it doesn't matter just as long as a society that wants it's young to be acquainted with the theory are indulged.

einstein was not an extension of Newton by any means. Newton considered Time to be constant and his entire theory was based on this premise. Einstein proposed that Time and space is relative. It's a totally different cosmology from that of Newton's.

There is evidence to prove that evolution is a fact eg human have been in existance millions of years before God sent Jesus to save our souls

Well considering that the Old Testament was written before Jesus walked the earth, I would have to say that creationism is a fact too, based on your own criteria on fact, abi.
Ma'am learn about Christianity before you open your mouth and show your ignorance. Human beings did not start with Jesus. Jesus took the form of human from another human, you know Mary, his mother?

Seriously the lack of reasoning of 'intelligent' people amazes me.

No

Why not? Why did it just decide to end?
What about the ape, is it still evolving? Will the be a Jack and Jill showing up out of no where? Will the evolve from an ape, buy a house and get education tomorrow?
I mean why the stop in evolution?

The human race stopped evolving millions of years ago ok. We have chinese people indian people african people caucasian people, different races but we have stopped evolving.

Why?

They did evolve but they stopped evolving at an earlier stage than us human beings

Well Lady i think i've tried my best to answer your questions on evolution if your satisfied am sure my friend Huxley will be more than happy to be clarify some of my points for you

Well you thought wrong. You didn't even give me an explanation on evolution, all you said was we stopped evolving.