Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[cladking]

What on Earth are you talking about?

I said nothing about the invention of hunting. It is apparently you who cannot read.

Do all creationists rely on straw man?

You literally don't read your own posts do you?

Do you think about them before you post?

God didn’t teach man how to cook, hunt, farm, fish, build, etc.

The bible also don’t teach anyone how to cook, hunt, farm, fish, build, etc.

And yet you want to give credit to imaginary god who cannot do anything or a useless book that can’t explain how to survive in the real world?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You literally don't read your own posts do you?

Do you think about them before you post?

He does read his posts. You clearly did not understand your error. You tried to claim that he was saying man "invented" hunting. A process that arises from evolution is not invented any more than the earliest of birds "invented" flight. Invention implies that a purposeful process. Where hunting arose from evolution and learning through experience. Not the same thing at all. Your argument was a strawman.

 

[Deeje]

So, that had nothing to do with freedom. It was just a setup. For a test.

A bit like engineers testing their product to be sure they did not make mistakes with the design and such. Right?

Nope...missed it again.
In God's original purpose, a knowledge of good and evil was placed in God's exclusive jurisdiction. It wasn't just knowing good and evil, (because everything has an opposite)....it was deciding for themselves what is good and what is evil. You don't see that in the world, man has always had a problem with that issue? He can see evil things as good and good things as evil. Allowing God to decide that question would have saved them from all the consequences that followed. Humans are not good judges of what is good for them....or where evil can take them.

The devil is silly. He really is. It is mind boggling that people could have so much consideration and fear for an idiot of that caliber.

And yet he has the world eating out of his grubby little hands because he is an excellent con artist.
People don't usually see the activities of a con artist until after they have been taken for everything they have.

In Jesus position I would also have refused (you know, to give a good example of heroism), but only after having miracolously extinguished my hunger by other means nobody could see. It just takes a simple materialization of a burger inside the stomach, possibly already magically chewed.

Probably He did the same with all those torments He allegedely suffered. Some miraculous switching off of pain, while still showing sufferance to the outer world (because of being a good role model for salvation and stuff). I would have if I had that power. Win-Win situation.

You do understand that in all of scripture, not one person endowed with the power to perform miracles ever used it on himself. Jesus was 100% human and used the gifts he was given at his baptism only for the benefit of unbelievers. Likewise with the apostles.

The devil is really stupid. It offers things that were already owned, or soon to be owned. It is like offering a kingdom to the son of king. Worse, like offering a little city to the son of the king of the whole nation.

Again, you don't see the bigger picture. The account says that the devil had jurisdiction over ALL the kingdoms of the world "because they had been delivered" to him and he could give them to "whomever he wished". (Luke 4:5-8)

In his world, the devil has created a desire for what the eye can see (1 John 2:15-17)....he has cultivated that desire to a point where humans 'want it all...and they want it now'. It is a reflection of the god they worship. He thought Jesus would be tempted to want to gain that power now, rather than to wait millenniums for the privilege. He was dead wrong on all counts.

It seems the devil had no clue who he was talking to. It would not make such silly propositions otherwise. It is actually surprising Jesus said not LOL-ed at him.

He knew exactly who he was talking to, but he underestimated how strong Jesus' faith was and how incorruptible he was, based on his own weak character. There was not an ounce of self interest ever displayed by the one sent to redeem the human race and to restore the life that Adam lost for them.

I don't agree that the Bible seems comical.

It seems comical to many people....it is not at all comical to me. Something about who gets' the last laugh' comes to mind....

 

[gnostic]

You literally don't read your own posts do you?

Do you think about them before you post?

You don’t understand my post at all.

I didn’t say science invented hunting, I stated that the bible don’t teach how to hunt, nor did God.

Hunting has nothing to do with science. I have never claim it did.

Did you not see the words “God” and “bible” in my post?

Look at it again:

God didn’t teach man how to cook, hunt, farm, fish, build, etc.

Did I say anything about science?

No, I didn’t. All I have said that god don’t teach any of these to man.

How about this:

The bible also don’t teach anyone how to cook, hunt, farm, fish, build, etc.

Did I say anything about science being responsible?

Again, no. I only stated that the bible don’t teach these things.

Nothing in that reply mention science at all.

And lastly, I used the word “teach”, not “invent”. They are not the same words, cladking.

You are the one who have misunderstood my post. In fact, you are putting words I didn't say.

The question is now, are you going to apologise for your mistakes.

 

[ArtieE]

Theology is the study of religion....God did not create religion...man did.

The place to teach "creation" would be in Bible class like the place to teach evolution would be in biology class... and you could have Qu'ran class and the Book of Mormon class and Urantia class and so on until you have covered every sacred text and belief.

Edit: see post 875

 

[cladking]

You don’t understand my post at all.

I didn’t say science invented hunting, I stated that the bible don’t teach how to hunt, nor did God.

Hunting has nothing to do with science. I have never claim it did.

Are you now suggesting that instinct, evolution, taught man how to hunt and build pyramids since they had no science?!?

Hunters would be surprised to learn hunting has nothing to do with science.

Call me crazy but I have to believe the pyramid builders would be astounded to learn their work had nothing to do with science.

 

[cladking]

He does read his posts. You clearly did not understand your error. You tried to claim that he was saying man "invented" hunting. A process that arises from evolution is not invented any more than the earliest of birds "invented" flight. Invention implies that a purposeful process. Where hunting arose from evolution and learning through experience. Not the same thing at all. Your argument was a strawman.

So everything done by humans before 500 years ago was instinct.

Every bird that ever took to wing was merely allowing its genes to drive its actions. So this first bird; was it born in a nest high in the trees? How did its parents instinct get it high in the trees without the ability to fly?

Aren't beavers intentionally creating favorable beaver habitat by damming rivers?

The world must look funny to believers in evolution.

 

[cladking]

I suppose evolution was so pleased with the omniscience of modern humans that it had to create birds for our amusement and a challenge to ourselves learn to fly.

I'm sure Evolution is very proud of humans and our having attained perfection.

Or more likely People are just trading a humane God for One that creates Technology and seems Knowable.

 

[cladking]

Language is stupid. It presents semantics and beliefs.

The egg came first.

All birds come from eggs. Even birds that walk across the road rather than fly. Even the first bird.

By the same token a bird had to exist before any bird nests high in the trees.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So everything done by humans before 500 years ago was instinct.

Every bird that ever took to wing was merely allowing its genes to drive its actions. So this first bird; was it born in a nest high in the trees? How did its parents instinct get it high in the trees without the ability to fly?

Aren't beavers intentionally creating favorable beaver habitat by damming rivers?

The world must look funny to believers in evolution.

Making another strawman when your last one was exposed is not a winning debate technique.

Since you do not understand the theory that you do not like you should try to learn first. You can't refute that which you do not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Language is stupid. It presents semantics and beliefs.

The egg came first.

All birds come from eggs. Even birds that walk across the road rather than fly. Even the first bird.

By the same token a bird had to exist before any bird nests high in the trees.

Logic is l missing from your toolbox.

 

[cladking]

Making another strawman when your last one was exposed is not a winning debate technique.

Since you do not understand the theory that you do not like you should try to learn first. You can't refute that which you do not understand.

It was not I who claimed building pyramids was some sort of instinct.

Oddly enough I might agree humans have a stone stacking gene but this certainly doesn't give one the ability to create 14th century cathedrals.

And you have still never shown any evidence that species change gradually and that consciousness nor behavior isn't the cause.

You seem to lack even enough straw to make a straw man.

 

[cladking]

Making another strawman when your last one was exposed is not a winning debate technique.

Since you do not understand the theory that you do not like you should try to learn first. You can't refute that which you do not understand.

It was not I who claimed building pyramids was some sort of instinct.

Oddly enough I might agree humans have a stone stacking gene but this certainly doesn't give one the ability to create 14th century cathedrals.

And you have still never shown any evidence that species change gradually and that consciousness nor behavior isn't the cause.

You seem to lack even enough straw to make a straw man.

 

[ecco]

The point about things being forced on students of science in any public education system, is that the unprovable theory of evolution is taught as if it were established and substantiated fact. Kids are force fed this 'doctrine' even though it cannot be proven.

Deeje,

You continue to disparage evolution by labeling it an "unprovable theory". How many times do you have to be told that science does not "prove"? Science accumulates and presents evidence. The evidence for TOE is overwhelming and as such TOE is "established and substantiated".

....and as the truth comes to light in later times, history needs to be rewritten so that lies are exposed and truth can be taught. Science is no different.

Comparing history to science is laughable. Yes, both history and science get rewritten.

History sometimes get rewritten because of the reason you mention. Other times history gets rewritten to make the lies even more believable.

Science gets "rewritten" when more knowledge is acquired. A good example of this is Plate Tectonics. For years scientists believed the continents were fixed in their positions. Then people, with better tools, thought the continents might be moving. Following much debate and research, there was overwhelming evidence that the continents were indeed moving. Would you say the scientists who once believed the continents were fixed were lying? Do you think the textbooks of 50 years ago were force-feeding lies to students about the continents being fixed? Do you criticize the scientists who believed either side of this at one time or another.

Because of your deeply held religious beliefs, you accept science up to, and only up to, the point where science contradicts your religious beliefs. When science contradicts your religious beliefs, you must lash out and accuse people of lying and you make ridiculous comments like "Kids are force fed this 'doctrine' ". Plate tectonics does not directly contradict your holy scripture, so you are probably OK with that.

 

[ArtieE]

Deeje,

I suggest that in school evolution is taught in biology, you can teach a JW Bible class including your version of the Bible creation myth, in the next classroom some fundamental Christian who interprets the Bible literally can teach his Bible class where the Genesis days are 24 hours, then we can give every person with a different interpretation of the Bible his own class, and then we can have classes teaching all the different versions of the Bible, and then we can have classes teaching The Qu'ran, The Urantia Book, The Book of Mormon, the Vedas and so on. What do you think?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was not I who claimed building pyramids was some sort of instinct.

Oddly enough I might agree humans have a stone stacking gene but this certainly doesn't give one the ability to create 14th century cathedrals.

And you have still never shown any evidence that species change gradually and that consciousness nor behavior isn't the cause.

You seem to lack even enough straw to make a straw man.

We weren't discussing your earlier errors.
Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was not I who claimed building pyramids was some sort of instinct.

Oddly enough I might agree humans have a stone stacking gene but this certainly doesn't give one the ability to create 14th century cathedrals.

And you have still never shown any evidence that species change gradually and that consciousness nor behavior isn't the cause.

You seem to lack even enough straw to make a straw man.

You forgot, the burden of proof for proving that species do not change gradually is upon you. You made your claim first. You did not supply any evidence. By the way you do not seem to even understand the concept of evidence here. Since this is a scientific discussion you need scientific evidence. You will most likely find that in articles from well respected professional journals.

I told you that I will support my claim, that I made after you either support your claim or openly admit that there is no evidence for your claim. I will have no problem supporting my claim. I have severe doubts that you can support yours.

 

[gnostic]

Are you now suggesting that instinct, evolution, taught man how to hunt and build pyramids since they had no science?!?

Don’t be absurd.

I have said nothing of the kind.

You still not getting what I am saying. It would seem you read my posts, but the messages are not reaching your brain.

Clearly you lack education in both science and history.

First, there is no “Ancient Science” as you call it, existing before 2000 BCE, from your imaginary “Tower of Babel”, as I keep telling you.

What we call science, was actually developed from philosophies, more specifically natural philosophy.

Natural philosophy is the study of nature. Natural philosophy have earlier history.

Natural philosophy began with the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians, but still hindered by religious beliefs and superstitions, not direct inquiry.

But natural philosophy didn’t developed into a more direct inquiry into the cause and effect of nature until the late 7th century BCE, and onwards. They began studying nature, without resorting to superstitions. They study nature through observation. Natural philosophy include astronomy, science and mathematics, as well as basic biology and medicine.

But not all Greek philosophies were natural philosophy. There were all sorts of other philosophies, which pertained to lifestyles, on morals and ethic, and some philosophies had to do with religions.

When Rome fell in 476 CE, Western Europe, lost many works on Greek philosophies, but it continued to exist in Eastern Europe, through the Byzantine empire.

When the Arabs conquered territories of the Persian and Byzantine empires, like Egypt, Syria and Turkey, they acquired many Greek literature, including philosophies (as well as natural philosophy). Persian and Arab philosophers began translating and using Greek natural philosophies, and managed to improved upon it and even made some discoveries. And this eventually reached the Moorish rulers of the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal), so natural philosophy (astronomy, science and mathematics) reappeared in Western Europe.

Slowly, but gradually, natural philosophy returned to Western Europe during the (High and Late) Middle Ages, eventually eclipsing Islamic natural philosophers, during the Italian Renaissance.

Natural philosophy continued to develop through the baroque and rococo periods, and at some points (I don’t have exact dates on this), natural philosophy eventually turned into multiple branches of natural science.

Natural science is a direct inquiry to the study of nature, using Scientific Method, so natural science can also be called “empirical science” or “experimental science”. Natural science is divided today into physics, chemistry, biology, Earth science and astronomy, and each of these have divided into different fields.

Natural science is different from other sciences, like

(A) formal science is mathematics and logic,
(B) social science is divided into politics, economics, psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc.​

Third. Hunting developed from the needs to survive, which for the humans (Homo sapiens), began around 200,000 years ago, in the middle of Middle Paleolithic period, where they developed stone and flint tools for day-to-day use and for hunting. Humans in the Paleolithic period were nomadic people, and acquired food from hunting and gathering.

Around 11 or 10 thousand years ago, the Ice Ages (or the last glacial period) ended, with Neolithic people resorting to farming and animal husbandry, as the mean of acquiring food sources, which mean they built homes as more permanent settlements, eventually developing into villages than towns. From 6000 or 5000 BCE, they developed pottery, which made it easier to store food.

All of this, the hunting, fishing, farming, building shelters, making tools and pottery, have absolutely nothing to do with evolution, and nothing to do with science. The knowledge are learned an past on from generation to generation, sometimes there are improvement (hence progress), but sometimes there are no improvement at all. But these early skills had nothing to do with direct inquiry to acquire knowledge, like the methodology of science. They are just technological progress.

And lastly, these skills are acquired, learned, not instinct.

You do understand the concept of progress of technology, don't you? Because you fail dismally in biology and history.

 

[Deeje]

You continue to disparage evolution by labeling it an "unprovable theory".

I only do that because it IS an unprovable theory.

How many times do you have to be told that science does not "prove"? Science accumulates and presents evidence. The evidence for TOE is overwhelming and as such TOE is "established and substantiated".

How many times do I have to tell you that the evidence that scientists present is merely their own interpretation of what they want the evidence to suggest. That is pure assumption....there is no substantive evidence because it it doesn't exist. Why can't you admit that? Its the truth.

Comparing history to science is laughable. Yes, both history and science get rewritten.

History sometimes get rewritten because of the reason you mention. Other times history gets rewritten to make the lies even more believable.

I know....you see how you compared them and that was OK?

Science gets "rewritten" when more knowledge is acquired. A good example of this is Plate Tectonics. For years scientists believed the continents were fixed in their positions. Then people, with better tools, thought the continents might be moving. Following much debate and research, there was overwhelming evidence that the continents were indeed moving. Would you say the scientists who once believed the continents were fixed were lying? Do you think the textbooks of 50 years ago were force-feeding lies to students about the continents being fixed? Do you criticize the scientists who believed either side of this at one time or another.

No, I would say that plate tectonics is not evolution and they probably have more to work with today in attaining knowledge related to what causes earthquakes etc, due to what they can actually test. Scientists can even make predictions based on what they have learned and what their instruments tell them. It has to do with facts though, more than assumption, don't you think?

Because of your deeply held religious beliefs, you accept science up to, and only up to, the point where science contradicts your religious beliefs. When science contradicts your religious beliefs, you must lash out and accuse people of lying and you make ridiculous comments like "Kids are force fed this 'doctrine' ". Plate tectonics does not directly contradict your holy scripture, so you are probably OK with that.

Oh, you are funny.

What needs to be "fed" to children about plate tectonics? How does anything related to how the earth is constructed have anything to do with evolution, which deals with the study of LIFE on this planet.....not how the planet was made...heck you guys can't even get close to finding out how life began, let alone make assumptions about how it changed.

I love the way provable science is used to back up what can't be proven. Science fiction needs to be separated from science fact, otherwise you end up swallowing them both down together as if one is evidence for the other......Its not.

 

[Deeje]

Deeje,

I suggest that in school evolution is taught in biology, you can teach a JW Bible class including your version of the Bible creation myth, in the next classroom some fundamental Christian who interprets the Bible literally can teach his Bible class where the Genesis days are 24 hours, then we can give every person with a different interpretation of the Bible his own class, and then we can have classes teaching all the different versions of the Bible, and then we can have classes teaching The Qu'ran, The Urantia Book, The Book of Mormon, the Vedas and so on. What do you think?

I have no problem with teaching evolution in school....as long as they understand that its a theory, not a fact.
Biology is a wonderful subject for children as long as they are not led to believe that all life is just a series of fortunate accidents and that life itself just "happened" "somehow". That is an unprovable assumption....so why not the assumption that an all powerful Being could be the Creator and "first cause" of everything? Neither of these can be proven and can be equally logical to the person evaluating them.

Scientists are annoyed when their theory is challenged because they know full well that they can't prove a thing that they assume about how life came to be so diverse. All mention of a Creator elicits scorn and derision. Why is God such a threat? The truth should never be a threat to anyone. It should sit well with no way to undermine it.
Understanding both sides of the story is essential though, don't you think? Informed choice is what its all about.

Design is manifest in nature to the point that you have to be talked out of a Creator in order to swallow mindless evolution as the mechanics of it all.

I have no problem teaching comparative religion in an appropriate class either.