Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Maybe not explicitly, but that's the take away.Who's doing that?
I've yet to enter a science class where that was taught to anyone.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Maybe not explicitly, but that's the take away.Who's doing that?
I've yet to enter a science class where that was taught to anyone.
First, the idea of a linear progression in evolution is a lie, and yet you still see that picture everywhere, of apes gradually walking more upright until we get to humans. The theory has had to be modified into a wild bush with millions of branches instead of a straightforward tree. And those branches are missing most of their sections that connect them to other species. The ones that are supposed to make the connections are all highly debatable.Computers don't reproduce like biological organisms, do they?
Can you name one of these "holes" you speak of? The things you mentioned here aren't holes.
You seem to be saying that even if evolution is true, we still shouldn't teach it in schools because it can lead to some philosophical/religious conclusions that people like you don't like.What nonsense! We taught our kids that God created. Evolution is the popular position, and creationism isn't just for Christians BTW. It's got nothing to do with TV evangelists. And reject the wonder of the natural world? That's what evolution theory does! It makes it all pointless, just an unending line of causation by nothing for no reason. And makes us just animals. The default position of American culture is evolution.
Child abuse is teaching kids that nothing matters because they are just apes and the universe is just the result of blind chance. And they have understood that quite well, as indicated by suicide and depression and hopelessness that is epidemic among the young.
But it's not proven true. Just because populations adapt, doesn't equal molecules to man evolution.You seem to be saying that even if evolution is true, we still shouldn't teach it in schools because it can lead to some philosophical/religious conclusions that people like you don't like.
Yeah it is. It happens, right before our eyes, all the time.But it's not proven true.
Yeah, we're all very familiar with this ridiculous creationist talking point....."that's not evolution, that's adaptation", as if arbitrarily relabeling something makes it go away.Just because populations adapt, doesn't equal molecules to man evolution.
Would like to see your exampleYeah it is. It happens, right before our eyes, all the time.
Would like to see how you make the conclusion that because human beings adapt to their environment that this proves that an ape became a man eventually.Yeah, we're all very familiar with this ridiculous creationist talking point....."that's not evolution, that's adaptation", as if arbitrarily relabeling something makes it go away.
Of populations evolving? You're really not aware that it happens? I mean, you have to be aware of how bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics, right? Or how viruses evolve around vaccines (it's why we need new flu shots every year)?Would like to see your example
I've never said anything like that.Would like to see how you make the conclusion that because human beings adapt to their environment that this proves that an ape became a man eventually.
This is problematic because scientist have been wrong, scientists can have the latest testing equipment and in a couple years find out that they were wrong when better equipment comes out. So you end up teaching a lie and make excuses for it.Right now we decide what gets taught in science classes based on what scientists say is the current state of the science.
Then we aren’t talking about evolution and there isn’t a common definition.Of populations evolving? You're really not aware that it happens? I mean, you have to be aware of how bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics, right? Or how viruses evolve around vaccines (it's why we need new flu shots every year)?
Now I'll be honest with you. Just about every time a creationist has said something like "show me", as you did, after I provide some examples they almost invariably respond with something like "but it didn't turn into a cow", which is either an indication that they were never interested in the data in first place, or they have little to no knowledge of basic biology (or both).
So maybe you can surprise me.
I've never said anything like that.
So how would you set science curricula?This is problematic because scientist have been wrong, scientists can have the latest testing equipment and in a couple years find out that they were wrong when better equipment comes out.
Do you understand that "being wrong" does not equal "lying"? In the field I work in there was one prominent scientist a few years ago who was convinced of a certain explanation for something. Later on after he retired, we came across some new data that showed his explanation was wrong. But we don't think of him as a liar, or look back on his work as lies. Understand?So you end up teaching a lie and make excuses for it.
In biology, there is. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies (genetics) in a population over time.Then we aren’t talking about evolution and there isn’t a common definition.
This isn’t what Darwin was pushingIn biology, there is. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies (genetics) in a population over time.
Did I say that? No. I said you end up teaching a lie, a falsehood, something not true.Do you understand that "being wrong" does not equal "lying"? In the field I work in there was one prominent scientist a few years ago who was convinced of a certain explanation for something. Later on after he retired, we came across some new data that showed his explanation was wrong. But we don't think of him as a liar, or look back on his work as lies. Understand?
You do understand that the Theory of Evolution has come a long long ways since Darwin, right?This isn’t what Darwin was pushing
Do you not know the difference between a lie and a falsehood?Did I say that? No. I said you end up teaching a lie, a falsehood, something not true.
Irrelevant to the definition of "evolution" in biology today. When biologists say "the population evolved a new trait", we all understand what that refers to. No biologist thinks that refers to universal common ancestry.This isn’t what Darwin was pushing
Again, how would you change the way in which science curricula is set?Did I say that? No. I said you end up teaching a lie, a falsehood, something not true.
Of course it does.Yeah it’s always changing and has to.
Still waving that bold empty threat?In the end you’ll be kneeling at the feet of Jesus confessing that He is Lord.
It's rather obvious that he does not.Do you not know the difference between a lie and a falsehood?
Already been over all that in this threadAgain, how would you change the way in which science curricula is set?
It’s reality and the only song and dance left.Of course it does.
It adheres to the most reliable current data.
Still waving that bold empty threat?
Really, you should come up with a new song and dance.