Why do Christians use the Bible as evidence in Theological discussion?
Obviously if i'm an atheist and I don't believe in your God, why would I take your scriptures as evidence? That doesn't make any sense.
Not to mention the bible has this nasty ideal that everything in it is true because God said its true.
If it were that simple, everyone could publish a book and say God said everything is true and if you don't believe it you're going to Hell.If you wan to teach math you use a math book. f you want to teach Christianity you use the bible. It's what it was made for. But it is only effective as a text book if you already buy the basic premise that there is a god. It is never going to convince anyone a god actually exists if they don't already think it does.
They need a separate book of proofs god exists. But that would defeat the purpose of faith.
That's the choice they are always talking about. You want to believe or you do not want to believe. Believe and god to heaven. Don't and go to hell. If they had proof then faith would e pointless.
But math is sure to exist. Your analogy has failed.
My analogy is fine.
It isn't about whether one exists and the other does not.
It was about how the books are used, to teach the subject. I was saying that when they use it to try to prove god they fail because it doesn't do that. It is only good as a text book to teach the subject it self once you already believe.Math is a construct of man, much as religion is. Just saying...
No, it isn't. If man didn't exist, maths (math) still would. 2 + 2 would still equal 4. The Sun would still be a measurable distance from the Earth. And the Pythagorean theorem would still be true even if there had never been a Pythagoras or anyone drawing triangles. Maths is not a concept that exists only in the minds of men; it is a fundamental quality of the universe.
Yes, but can you tell me why 2+2=4.
Math is just man's way of explaining distances, amounts, etc. It is a human construct. I have never seen a 4 walking around in nature. Nor have I seen a dolphin doing long division. There are amounts in nature, to be sure, but the process of naming them and categorizing them is purely human.
Philosophically speaking, both religion, mathematics, science, and language are all human constructs created for the same reason: To explain things. Mathematics is repeatable only because man created it to be repeatable. As a whole, the concept worked because it was essentially just naming things. Essentially though, it is still based on the principle "It is this because that's what everyone says it is"I think my reply went to the end rather than here. So much for my grasp of the fundamentals of life
)Math is the language of science and is used to communicate the concepts of our world. The English language, or any other language, fails to offer the same explanations found in math.
There are three types of faith. One is proven due to the laws of physics and observation. For instance, if you put your hand on a hot plate, you will be burned. The second is knowlege and evidenced based faith which mathmatics is a prime example. If you have a room with three chairs and you put two more charis in the room, you'll have five chairs. The third type of faith is unobserved or unproven based on hope - religion is a prime example. When you die, you go (or not go) to heaven.
Belief or faith in a fact is redundant and not required. Maths depend on logic, not faith.
If you know something with absolute certainty faith is not only not required, it is meaningless.
Faith is absolute certainty without evidence and counter to existing evidence. That's religious faith.
Anything less then that is belief in degrees.
However no belief at all is ever required. Belief in fact is not required because it is a fact. belief in a speculative idea is folly. Better to wait and see.Faith in fact is not as redundant and meaningless as you might think. There are people who do not believe in facts. Facts can sometimes be misleading or not true at all.
Many people on this planet believe that the Big Bang Theory is a fact. But, what if it isn't. We cannot go back in time to see how the universe is created.
Even logic can differ from person to person due to their personal beliefs and experiences. To you something may not exist because you've never seen it. However, my logic tells me it exists because I have seen it.
Let's say there is a bowl of fruit sitting on the table. Your logic would tell you that it exists merely because you can see and feel it. My logic tells me that it may or may not exist because I can see and feel things in my dreams just as well as I can in the physical world.
I have to have faith that this world that i live in is indeed real and not just a dream because I have had dreams that I thought were real. I have felt pain in dreams, I have felt myself fall in dreams, and I have felt emotions in dreams. All the things I experience in the physical world I have experienced in the dream world as well.
What if everything we see is just one big illusion? What if it is all just a dream? Where does logic fit? How can faith be meaningless when we all have faith that we are alive and awake.
math was here before man, the so called english language. think out the box
Melisa, you are talking about the tools not something existing in foggy mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QBv2CFTSWU The answer to your argument.
Brilliant, if it was staged I love the humour, if it was for real, I fear for America.
At my church, the choir director was also a high school math teacher. You can't have music without math, and no one in my church - or any other church I've ever attended - has ever decried math or its teaching. Also, there are many home-schoolers among Christian families, and they have very strict math and science programs.
Although I am religious, I would have to disagree with you about your opinion with regards to mathematics. As the poster before me stated, mathematics exists without the minds of men/women to establish its existence. There are general laws which govern our universe and even events around the big-bang. As we have no concrete idea as to what happened before the big-bang (if there even was a before), we can't say anything of mathematics existence. However, it does make you wonder...How did the big-bang begin? There must have been something mathematical that caused it's and our beginning. If it turns out to be true that big-bang was not the ultimate "beginning", mathematics ultimately becomes the messenger of time. In fact, who's to say that mathematics didn't govern the beginning of time itself? It could also be viewed, as others in history have stated, that mathematics is the language of God.
I can tell you how 1=3. The bible says that we live in a perfect universe. Math agrees. I have experienced proof that something equatable to God does exist, but my proof would not convince you. You, if that is your path, must seek your own evidence...and "God" will show you...if that is his plan. Tricky.
Numbers and symbols are constructs of man. Math is not a construct of man, it is a construct of the universe.
u u u u ---- There are 4 u's there. Regardless of whether you use the "4" as a symbol, write it out, or use ë as a symbol for "4", it does not change the value.2+2=4's existence as we read it is as Melissa says. It is just another result of mankind's ever present need to label, categorize and attempt to explain everything. I believe that by identifying limits and establishing boundaries we allow ourselves to quantitatively perceive our understanding of something to be greater than what it actually is. Taming/naming something allows the fear to be less frightening but also continues to allow mankind's assertion of a false dominance over nature and the universe in general. This somehow translates into the belief that because "I did something", my existence is validated and I am now measurable.
Although math is a language of man, in this case we see the actual equation in our familiar English with common amounts of items represented by our familiar cardinal numbers, 2 & 4. No, you won't see a number four walking around in the forest or the mall, but no matter what language we speak or where you live we humans recognize the same things but just use different words to describe the concepts.
Math is repeatable because at this time it is currently the best (and most widely understood) medium we have for translating huge ideas that span across many pools of knowledge, culture, science and study. Math is a language that seems to make sense to a lot of people around the world. Aspects of achieving clear concise and measurable answers via math is comforting because we all know that math is the language of all life. Math is valuable for assisting in linking nature with evolution and conscious design. The proof is in the pudding. Read up on phi and the golden ratio. Again, more of man's attempt at explaining existence and death and all that fun stuff.
In the end, truth does not require belief to exist. A name is not necessary for actual realization. Some things just are and that's not so bad.Awesome explanation. Thank you...
Am impressed.
Melisa, you are right. We know who constructed what. Man constructed religion, not God. But faith was given to us by God and we were born with it. The same is with love.
Another statement that is partially BS. Yes, you were born with "faith", but how you use that "faith" is what matters. It wasn't given to you by a god and to say it was is absurd.
4186 vlad ©
when you put
your head into sand
your but does not exist
since you don’t see itAre you trying to tell me you're an ostrich? I mean, if that is what you see in me, without proper knowledge and wisdom, you would only see your own reflection. So, you must be talking about yourself, because I've met very few religious folk who have any wisdom. They did have a little knowledge, but just no wisdom.
So good luck going forward.
I totally agree with Vlad. Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Have you ever seen an atom? a real atom? not just a picture. Science tells us that these tiny, very tiny, super tiny, these "can't see it with the naked eye cause they're so small" particles are the building blocks of this big, this gigantic, this "can't see the end of it" universe. People have to have faith in what these scientists tell us just as people have to have faith in what religious people tell us.
People have to have faith that this universe was created out of nothing, whether on purpose or by accident, or have faith that something was there to cause it to be created, materials and/or creator included.LOL! You don't need to have faith in what scientists tell you about atoms, you can actually find out for yourself. One would have to drag themselves screaming and kicking away from the Bible for a while, but it can be done.
On the flip side, when we try to find out for ourselves what religious people tell us, we find thin air... and nothing else.I always laugh when I see or hear all this talk about "religious people". Somehow I never viewed my faith in God as a "religion". I see it as a relationship, just like my relationship with my mother, father, sister or brother, friends, etc. You certainly wouldn't call your relationship with them a religion, would you?
"It's not a religion. It's a relationship.” Has anyone else heard Christians use this argument? It's hard to say when this phrase gained popularity. According to Gregory Kouki of the radio show, Stand to Reason, "this slogan has been a rallying cry of 1970s and 80s evangelicalism.” Whatever the case, the phrase is popular amongst Christians. You can read blog posts on it, watch Christians on YouTube recycling it, you can even buy bumpers stickers proclaiming it. But what bothers me about this phrase is how many things are just wrong with it.
This phrase sets up a classical logical fallacy, called a false dichotomy (more specifically, it's black-and-white thinking, a sub-class of the false dichotomy). The phrase implies that there are two choices. It's either religion, or a relationship. In reality, there are more than just two choices. A possible third choice is closer to the truth: it's religion and a relationship (albeit imaginary). Christianity continues to thrive because of religion. Christians continue thinking that they're developing personal relationships with God because of religion. With a little critical thinking it's obvious that a relationship with God requires the framework of religion to answer basic questions about the nature of relationships with God. It is a religion. Religion propagates the idea of a relationship with a personal God. Religion tells you what the relationship will be like. Religion reinforces the concept that God communicates directly to you. Religion encourages evangelism and indoctrination. A relationship without the framework of religion is meaningless. One begets the other.
Like most specious Christian arguments, the phrase is vague and packed full of equivocation. What is the "it” in this phrase? Which religion is the person talking about? Christianity? If so, which of the +20k denominations within Christianity? What kind of relationship? D. Q. McInerny, author of "Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking” warns against the use of vague and ambiguous words, "not because they have no meaning, but because they are especially rich in meaning”. Though, that doesn't seem to stop Christians from using vague, ambiguous, and equivocal words in their arguments. When Christians say "it's not about religion” they are using the word "religion” equivocally. I suspect that a good number of Christians who use this phrase are defining religion as getting up on Sunday, putting on dress clothes, going to church, singing hymns, and listening to a sermon. Religion certainly contains these activities, but religion is by no mean summed up by these activities. They are, in essence, setting up a false definition of what religion is in order to de-emphasize its importance.
Religion reinforces the concept that God communicates directly to you. Religion encourages evangelism and indoctrination. A relationship without the framework of religion is meaningless. One begets the other. In a strict sense, the two words mean pretty much the same thing. The Oxford American Dictionary defines religion as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods”. So, religion can be defined as believing in and worshiping a personal God. Kind of sounds like a relationship to me.
It's not a relationship. At least not in the sense that they imply. Moreover, making a statement about the existence of a relationship with God means they need to give evidence of the relationship's existence. And resorting to personal experience (another logical fallacy, called "special pleading”) or using the Bible as a source of evidence doesn't count. Personally, I would love to see evidence that there is a God and that He is a personal God who communicates with us. The moment someone can show this to me I'll gladly believe. John Proctor, a character from Arthur Miller's work, The Crucible, said, "God never spoke in my ear and I can't think of any one else he's done the favor!”.
I'd like to see Christians dump this tired, stupid phrase from their repertoire of one-liners. The statement is false. If it's not about religion, then we can get rid of religion. If it is about religion, which I believe it is, then they should concede that the statement is bunk and that they're playing games with words."
by Josh Sullivan
http://articles.exchristian.net/2009/02 … nship.htmlNo one else gave me the idea to call it a relationship. Believe it or not, I wasn't even aware that it was a "rallying cry of 1970's and 80's evangelism." I am, of course, capable of coming up with my own words and thoughts without outside influences. As I stated, relationships are not necessarily religions. You can't have a relationship as a friend with someone you don't know. So, you have to know God before you can have a relationship with him. I am not using someone else's rallying cry here. I don't say what I am saying lightly. I simply know what I know, and I can't explain it, or easily put it into words, how sweet that relationship is and what a comfort it is to me.
okay, did you come to know god without being taught anything about him? How did you know what he was like? How did you know how to talk to him? How did you learn what he wanted? How did you learn what he stood for? How did you know who you were having a relationship with?
I have a relationship with my wife. I see her. I talk to her. I can reach out and touch her. I can look at her handwriting and watch her complete tasks. I hold her when she's sick. I comfort her, and she comforts me. I don't have a relationship with my wife based solely on conversations that take place in my head. If I did, I would not classify that as a relationship. I would classify it as my imagination.
If you're a christian (and I'm not assuming that you are) then you have the bible. You have church. You have pastors, and tithing and worship. Those aspects are religions, and they're completely separate from the "relationship" that you claim to have with god. Are you saying that you woke up one morning and completely recognized a relationship with god on your own without being taught anything about him, learning how to talk to him or studying what you believe he wants? How did you come by that knowledge? Did it all just appear one morning?
I am responding to your second response to me here because there was no reply button under your second one.
Tell me, did you just wake up one day and found that you knew your wife or suddenly had a relationship with her without any prior knowledge of her? Something originally got you interested in her, or else you would not have even tried to pursue a relationship with her. Yes, I was taught certain things as I grew up, and I heard and read things. Equally, you can hear or read things, or even be taught things about a person, but until you try to get to know that person, you are only going on heresay. I wanted to know for myself. So I pursued God, so to speak. I wanted a relationship with him apart from the preaching I heard, the singing of hymns and other ritual. "Seek and ye shall find", Jesus said, and I found him for myself. No one could do that for me.okay fine. So your relationship with god is not solely a relationship. It began with religion - and thus points out the original false dichotomy and point that i made in my original response to you. Without religion, your relationship would not have been possible. I find many christians attempting to distance themselves from the negative stigma of religion by claiming that their belief in god is solely on a "relationship" level and is not a religion at all. This is not true. Without that religions and the lessons you learned from it, you would not have your "relationship" with god - or jesus. You wouldn't realize they were there - and you cannot have a relationship with things that you're unaware of.
So you pray, right? Does god talk back to you? How? Do you hear an audible voice? Do you have hand written notes from god? Does he physically comfort you when you're upset? Or do all of these things take place in your mind because you believe that they're true? How do you know that the god that you have a relationship with is the god that you believe in? Don't you find it convenient that you now have a relationship with the god that you were told about? How do you know that it isn't a different god that's answering you?I can't "prove" it physically, of course. Neither does he speak to me audibly or leave handwritten notes--you, of course, already know that he does not. Why do you need me to tell you one way or the other? You don't have to see or audibly hear someone to be able to have a relationship with them. This is what the unbelievers can't wrap their minds around. If it isn't in the physical world, it just can't and doesn't exist. Believers, of course, believe that our god is the only God, so that eliminates the possibility that it could be any other god who reciprocates that relationship. Religion was the beginning, yes, but the relationship that I ended up with is not the religion. And it is the end result I am talking about here--not the means by which I ended up here. That would be like saying that my journey to San Francisco IS San Francisco, or the path to New York IS New York.
Let me get this straight. You can't here him, see him or fell him. He speaks no language and yet you fell you have a relationship with him, but yet can supply no evidence to support your claim? You should know that some here claim they do here God voice, does that make you jealous? He has chosen to speak directly to them, but not you?
Besides, why would a god talk back to me if I'm not talking to him/her?
I assume since you quoted him so extensively, you agree pretty whole-heartedly with Josh Sullivan. I'll admit that I'm not as up on the rhetoric as he is, but he misses some important points. Now, before I start, let me make clear that in some key ways I agree with him and I'm not alone. There is, in fact, a small backlash against the "spiritual not religious" movement among some Evangelicals. But I've also sat in Evangelical churches where the pastors were promoting that very thing.
The thinking is that religion is all about rules while what we should be persuing is a relationship with God. What this ignores, of course, is the historical role that the rules, as they have been developed and shaped, have played in human relationships with God and vice versa. A lot of people like to act as if all the rules were simply made up by a bunch of power-drunk men who wanted to keep the population enslaved to the church. In fact, that did end up happening with many of them, but the reasons a lot of the rules were developed in the first place was to help clarify for the common man ways, times and places to both avoid and to gravitate towards in order to strengthen human relationships with God.
This movement, the "spiritual not religious" movement, also gained traction as the populace as a whole in America became more independence-oriented. It's no coincidence that this started gaining momentum during the Me Decade, when America as a whole started wanting to act as if every person was a law unto themselves. This entire movement, along with the seemier aspects of "money gospel" preaching, has combined into a form of religion that is often dubbed "American Christianity" by peopel in other countries.
But it springs from a genuine desire of peopel to feel that their relationship is with Jesus, not the church or a church. While it's true that religion still provides a framework, people want to feel that they have a very personal relationship with their Savior and see the structures (both literal and metaphorical) of the church as an impediment. This has also led to the rise of "hipster" Christianity, where twenty- and thirty-somethings congregate in non-traditional church structures like bars and clubs and the pastors curse from the stage. They show violent and sometimes sexy movie clips to illustrate points. It's all about wanting to feel that you're being a "spiritual" person, a "good" person without being the sort of stuffy, rigid person like your parents or grandparents were.
Mr. Sullivan said some things that I agree with and some things that I disagree with, but if he himself is going to put forth rigid arguments based on the sort of cold (even heartless-sounding) logic he uses, he might want to try being a little more sympathetic to other people, even if he doesn't agree with him. Otherwise he does more than just run the danger of being guilty of the very same type of behavior he seems to be decrying.Chris Neal, are you speaking to me when you say I must agree pretty whole heartedly with Josh Sullivan? If so, you are absolutely dead wrong. I quote him because I want him to know the points in his argument that I am countering.
Seems more that it's all about those who are indoctrinated into Christianity are trying hard not to associate themselves with the atrocities Christianity caused in the past. Too bad they simply cannot get away from it and must carry the burden of millions of deaths, torture and hatred that Christianity has provided these past many centuries.
It is shameful for anyone to associate themselves with such an institution.Oddly enough, as a white person, I don't want to associate myself with slave owners. We all have relatives we are not proud of. Just b/c they called themselves Christians, doesn't mean they followed God. I can call myself Beyonce but that doesn't mean I'm bootylicious.
I get that and would agree you look nothing like Beyonce.
However, those who owned slaves were supported by the Bible simply because slavery was common and widespread back then. That is why it's easy to see the Bible was written by men providing us simply with a snapshot of how people behaved back then.
It is atrocious for people to behave according to the Bible today.Yes, the world is way better today... bombs going off during marathons, school shootings, killers shooting random children in mothers day parades...
What point are you trying to make?
If it is such that you believe the world is worse off now than it was long ago, you're grasping at straws.Man is/was sinful. Man sins/sinned.
Shall we skip thru time and take a look at mankind's past or do you get that man has always done bad things?- Childish fairy tales. Completely false. Ridiculously absurd.
No, men have not always done bad things, that is entirely silly in the extreme.
Men and women are compassionate and altruistic by nature due to evolution. It is religions like yours that tells us we are evil by nature, which couldn't be further from the truth.
That's why your religion causes so much conflict in the world.King Herod
Genghis Khan
King John
Benedict Arnold
Antonio Salieri
Capt William Bligh
Edward Longshanks
Hitler
Jeffrey Dahmer
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold
The Taliban
ATM
Beth37
All are sinners.
There is only one man who has ever lived who did not sin against God and his fellow man.here's the thing though. Can you prove that he ever lived at all? I'm sorry but "a lot of people say he did, and some of his second or third or even fourth generation followers of his wrote down some stories about him" is not proving that he existed any more than the Iliad/Odyssey proves that Ulysses existed.
And if you CAN prove definitively that he existed, how can you prove that he was who you claim he was - a human son of God, a prophet, a miracle worker and someone who was raised from the dead?1) The analogy suffers one flaw though, in that stuff that was written 20-60 years later (when people who would have been there were still alive and could confirm or deny) is very different from stuff written 400 years later.
2) Are you denying her other basic premise, which I support, that historically speaking ATM's assertion that evolution is producing greater empathy and kindness in human beings is simply not true?It's also make us (well not me) taller and smarter and better looking. They have been slowly adjusting the average IQ to be 100 since they started these tests.
But there's a real question about whether that's truly evolution. Improvements in general environment can account for a lot of that. So if the environment were to revert for a long period of time, would we stay taller and stronger and smarter or would we also revert over time?
I didn't know they had been adjusting the IQ. Interesting.but that's the definition of evolution, chris.
Evolution: The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.Excuse me?
What you're saying is that the traceable effects of introducing more animal proteins into the diet of a population long term is exactly the same as scales becoming feathers for no discernible reason other than it got cold?
And the reason they never taught THAT one to my kids in public school is because...?Are you looking for a crock-a-duck? That's not how evolution works. The fact is that we've seen evolution, and we've not only seen but created speciation in a lab environment. In other words, we've seen animals go from one species to another where they are no longer able to interbreed - that's the definition of speciation.
People adapting to their environment is evolution. I read a while ago about a small group of mammoth that survived on a small isolated island longer than any other mammoth, they had evolved to be very small because of the lack of food and predators. This also explains the numerous flightless birds of Madagascar.
A) Read my response to JM.
B) Microevolution is not something that is seriously denied by any Christian scientist or science curriculum. Adaptation does explain some things. But there are holes in the evolutionary "record" that can only be accounted for as articles of faith, no matter how it is phrased.are you talking about missing "links" here? What do you think the gaps in the evolutionary record are? I guarantee that there are journals and records and fossils out there that fill in the gaps.
Macroevolution using modern animals and Noah's ark "kinds" - 1/2/13
Macroevolution
To show macroevolution you have to look at several different but similar species that link together back in time. Creationists misunderstand this because they want animals such as the "crocoduck" (see below)..but evolution will never produce this because crocodiles are not the ancestors of ducks...they share a common ancestor. If we want to show the macroevolution of crocodiles and ducks we must start with crocodiles and move backwards in time until its last common ancestor with all birds. You will see the macroevolution of crocodiles to simpler reptiles, which can then be traced back forward in time to the birds and to the duck. A chimpanzee didn't evolve into a human and a gecko didn't evolve into a horse. They share common ancestors.
Finding macroevolution with modern animals is similar to this but instead of looking back in time for the common ancestor, you look at the end products today that share a common ancestor and compare the shared characteristics that link them together. This is what we will be doing! We will be linking the big cats to animals such as civets, which are considered different "kinds" and even showing the similarities to other groups such as mongooses, dogs, and bears.
Remember, since we are using animals alive today they didn't evolve into each other. As the groups become less and less related, their shared characteristics also become less...and eventually they look completely different.
Every animal we look at shared a common ancestor and have evolved into different species since. The older the family, the earlier they broke from the evolutionary line, and the less they have in common with whatever animal you are looking at.
Macroevolution does not happen genetically as a cat cannot be born from a civet, but macroevolution can be shown in the shared characteristics in modern animals. In this blog we will be linking the cats, or Felidae all the way down the line to civets, or Viverridae and even further.
Creationist "kind" classification
According to Answers in Genesis and Creationwiki(two creationism authories), if animals can interbreed they are the same created "kind".They state that even non-breeding can be the same "kind", admitting that there might be blurring lines. They also say that the scientific classification of Family is very similar to a "kind", but they believe there is some intermixing of these groups (whenever they feel like it, no structure involved) so what they consider a "kind" is very confusing.
Official "journals" from Answers in Genesis listing accepted mammalian ark kinds: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … -ark-kinds
Answers Research Journal 4 (2011): 195-201.
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v … y-cognitum
Creation scientists believe that Noah fit all the animals in the Ark by bringing in original pairs of each of the "kinds". They can then mutate and speciate into all of the species today once off the ark (Yes, according to AiG they accept that animals can mutate and speciate from natural selection). This means that an original "cat kind" left the ark and became all of the species we know today...interbreeding or not. It is at the point above "kind" that they believe no transitional animals exist.
Fossils are not involved because...
"It is impossible to identify in such specimens many of the important features that have historically defined mammals, as soft tissue is nearly always absent. Even the skeletal remains can be fragmentary, making their placement difficult and severely limiting our understanding of how they appeared in life." (AiG)
Since they don't take fossils into account, I will avoid using them...but fossils are EXTREMELY important in understanding how families link together. The fossils are really just too difficult for them so they ignore them completely.
An Answersingensis.org quote I found amusing about the dinosaur "kinds":
“The concept of kind is important for understanding how Noah fit all the animals on the Ark. If kind is at the level of family/order, there would have been plenty of room on the Ark to take two of every kind and seven of some. For example, even though many different dinosaurs have been identified, creation scientists think there are only about 50 “kinds” of dinosaurs.” (AiG)
I thought fossils were too fragmentary to be used...
Examples of species forming a "kind" from Answers in Genesis
Able to interbreed:
~Lion + Tiger = Same "cat kind"
~Horse + Donkey = Same "horse kind"
Unable to interbreed:
~Jaguar + Cheetah = Still same "cat kind"
~Wolf + Fox or Coyote + African wild dog = Still same "dog kind"
Important to note: Creationists may recognize the Family classification but they completely ignore the next step up, the Suborder. It is completely left out of their websites...and this category happens to be THE category that bridges all of the families together! Convenient... isn't it.
Here is an example of the classification of a leopard (skip to Order)
Order - Carnivora
Suborder - Feliformia (ignored by creationists) (Feliformia = cat-like, Caniformia=dog-like)
Family - Felidae (considered "kind")
To keep things simple we will stick with 3 accepted "kinds", though a few others will be shown for comparison as they are all closely related. These 3 groups are considered original ancestors and can never be linked together.
Answers in Genesis ark "kinds" we will bridge together
Family - Felidae (fee-leh-day) - "Cat kind" - Everything they consider to be a cat.
Family - Viverridae (veh-vair-eh-day) - "Civet kind" -Everything they consider to be a civet.
Family - Nandiniidae (nan-din-eh-day) - "Other civet kind" - The strange "kind" who is so different from the others that the species stands alone.
These 3 "kinds" can not only be linked together but can also then be linked to their extended carnivore families...
Family - Herpestidae (herp-est-eh-day) - Mongoose
Family - Hyaenidae (hi-aye-ee-neh-day) - Hyenas
Family - Canidae (cane-eh-day) - Dogs, wolves, and foxes
Family - Ursidae (urse-eh-day)- Bears
and many more we dont have time for today
Below there are 10 modern animals and each is labeled with its common name but nothing else. This is because you are taking the role of creationist so you aren't supposed to know where each animal fits in each "kind" until the end...Keep in mind that even if something is called a "brown civet", it doesn't always mean that creationists consider it in the "civet kind"...it could be placed in the "cat kind" and even outside the original 3 "kinds". All extra information about classifications and "kinds" are at the end.
Most creationists can't even recognize where the "kinds" are that officials say are so obvious and definite. This is because there are no "kinds". There are gradual progressions. When the Family linking category of Suborder is removed, its easier for them to point and say there is nothing to link them together.
All you must do now is look at these animals and ask yourself is it a "cat kind", a "civet kind", an "other civet kind" (can't say real "kind" because it's the actual name of the animal so look for something a creationist would consider very different from civets), or even if it belongs to other groups including the "mongoose kind", "bear kind" or "dog/fox kind"...so watch out for random foxes, bears, dogs, or raccoons!
By the way: These animals are not always in order of relatedness but each animal IS related to another in the group. There are also many more animals in between these showing the gradual shared characteristics, but we will only look at 10 today.
So grab a piece of paper and pen and write down what "kind" you think each animal belongs to, the "cat kind", the "civet kind", or the "odd civet kind". Let's see if you find the same unbreakable lines that creationists do!
Let's start!
1.) Lion
2.) Leopard
3.) Clouded leopard
4.) Margay
5.) Leopard Cat
6.) Spotted Linsang and Banded Linsang
7.) Rusty-Spotted Genet
8.) Indian Civet (Large and Small species)
(Remember this doesn't automatically place it in the "civet kind")
9.) Asian Palm Civet
(Remember this doesn't automatically place it in the "civet kind")
10.) African Palm Civet
(Remember this doesnt automatically place it in the "civet kind")
That it for the official line up! The next pictures are animals within closely related groups all belonging to the Carnivora. Can you tell what they are?
1.)
2.)
3.)
Fennec-Fox-02
4.)
raccoon dogs
5.)
6.)
Answers - Classifications / Creationist "kinds"
1.) Lion
Lion Information
Family - Felidae
Suborder- Feliformia
Order - Carnivora
The lion can interbreed with the other big cats (jaguar, tiger, leopard) with varying degrees of success from infertile offspring to stillborn. The lion is part of the Felidae Family and is part of the cat-like Feliformia Suborder.
Answersingenesis.org and Creationwiki.org
Both sites consider the lion to be the "cat kind"(Family Felidae).
2.) Leopard
Leopard Information
Family - Felidae
Suborder- Feliformia
Order - Carnivora
The leopard can interbreed with the other big cats (jaguar, tiger, lion) with varying degrees of success from infertile offspring to stillborn. The leopard is part of the Felidae Family and is part of the cat-like Feliformia Suborder.
Answersingenesis.org and Creationwiki.org
Both sites consider the leopard to be the "cat kind"(Family Felidae).
3.) Clouded leopard
Clouded Leopard Information
Family - Felidae
Suborder- Feliformia
Order - Carnivora
Unable to interbreed with the 4 big cats but still very cat-like. The clouded leopard is part of the Felidae Family and is part of the cat-like Feliformia Suborder.
Answersingenesis.org and Creationwiki.org
Both sites consider the clouded leopard to be the "cat kind"(Family Felidae).
4.) Margay
Margay Information
Family - Felidae
Suborder- Feliformia
Order - Carnivora
Belongs with the group including cheetahs and ocelots. Group can interbreed with varying degrees of success from infertile to stillborn. Group as a whole unable to reproduce with any of the big cats listed above. The margay is part of the Felidae Family and is part of the cat-like Feliformia Suborder.
Answersingenesis.org and Creationwiki.org
Both sites consider the margay to be the "cat kind"(Family Felidae).
5.) Leopard cat
Leopard Cat Information
Family - Felidae
Suborder- Feliformia
Order - Carnivora
Belongs with the group including cheetahs and ocelots. Group can interbreed with varying degrees of success from infertile to stillborn. Group as a whole unable to reproduce with any of the big cats listed above. The margay is part of the Felidae Family and is part of the cat-like Feliformia Suborder.
Answersingenesis.org and Creationwiki.org
Both sites consider the leopard cat to be the "cat kind"(Family Felidae).
6.) Spotted and Banded linsang
Spotted Linsang Information
Family - Prionodontidae
Suborder - Feliformia
Order - Carnivora
The linsangs represent the closest group to the cat-like Felidae Family. The linsangs are very cat-like and are often mistaken to be cats. This is because they still belong to the Suborder Feliformia, meaning they are related to the cats, and have cat-like features instead of dog-like features.
Answersingenesis.org and Creationwiki.org
Not mentioned by Answers in Genesis or Creationwiki. Not even listed on the list of families of Carnivora. In short, completely ignored. Is it a coincidence that the closest living relative to cats linking to the civets is not mentioned...?
7.) Rusty-spotted genet
Rusty-spotted Genet Information
Family - Viverridae
Suborder - Feliformia
Order - Carnivora
Cat-like carnivore that is also placed in the Suborder Feliformia with the cats and linsangs.
Answersingenesis.org and Creationwiki.org
Not mentioned by Answers in Genesis or Creationwiki.
8.) Large and Small Indian civet
Large and Small Indian Civet Information
Family - Viverridae
Suborder - Feliformia
Order - Carnivora
Cat-like carnivore thats also placed in the Suborder Feliformia with the cats and linsangs, but belongs to the new Family Viverridae, which are cat-like civets.
Answersingenesis.org and Creationwiki.org
No page for the Indian civet on either website, but if you assume they consider all members in the Viverridae Family to be the "civet kind", the large and small indian civets fit here.
9.) Asian palm civet
Asian Palm Civet Information
Family - Viverridae
Suborder - Feliformia
Order - Carnivora
Cat-like carnivore thats also placed in the Suborder Feliformia with the cats and linsangs, but belongs to the Family Viverridae, which are cat-like civets.
Answersingenesis.org and Creationwiki.org
No page for the asian palm civet on either website, but if you assume they consider all members in the Viverridae Family to be the "civet kind", the asian palm civet fits here.
10.) African palm civet
African Palm Civet Information African Palm Civet Information
Family - Nandiniidae
Suborder - Feliformia
Order - Carnivora
Cat-like carnivore that is placed in the Suborder Feliformia with the cats and linsangs and civets, but this civet is such an old branch of the tree that it is separated into the new Family Nandiniidae. This is the last step on the cat-like ladder until you get to the last common ancestor to all cat-like Feliformia (cat, linsang, civet, hyena, mongoose) and the dog-like Caniformia (wolf, fox, bear, raccoon, weasel). In short, this animal's line is older than any cat-like animal alive today.
Answersingenesis.org and Creationwiki.org
Answers in Genesis considered the african palm civet to be separate from the "civet kind" and is now another separate "kind" called the "African palm civet kind". Link is broken on creationwiki.org. So even though the african palm civet is extremely similar to the civet and the genet, thus the cat, they completely ignore that fact and say its a brand new kind all together.
Summarized relations: From Civet to Cat
1.) African palm civet ancestor split away from Feliformia line around 48-50 million years ago and maintains the primitive civet look
2.) Genet, Indian civet, and Asian palm civet ancestor split away around 38 million years ago and diverged into the civet group.
3.) Spotted linsang ancestor broke off the line 36-37 million years ago, right before the main Felidae cats and is similar to the previous groups.
4.) The Margay and Leopard cat ancestor broke from the Feliformia line 11-12 million years ago and are part of the radiation of the Felidae Family.
5.) Clouded leopard ancestor broke off from the Feliformia line 7-10 million years ago and can only sometimes breed with other cats belonging to this split including the Cheetah and Ocelot.
6.) Lion, Leopard, Jaguar, and Tiger ancestor broke off recently around 2-4 million years ago and can still sometimes interbreed, though not usually successfully.
Everything is linked together from cats to civets and genets to the african palm civet. This is the blending of 3-4 "kinds" in one blog. The spaces between the "kinds" aren't that large...and according to science and the world we live in, they don't even exist at all.
Extra pictures
1.) Banded mongoose - Creationists ="Mongoose kind" / Science = Feliformia (cat-like carnivore)
2.) Yellow mongoose - Creationists ="Mongoose kind" / Science = Feliformia (cat-like carnivore)
3.) Fennec fox - Creationists ="Dog kind" / Science = Caniformia (dog-like carnivore)
4.) Raccoon dog - Creationists ="Dog kind" / Science = Caniformia (dog-like carnivore)
5.) Red panda - Creationists ="Red panda kind" / Science = Caniformia (dog-like carnivore)
6.) Brown hyena - Creationists ="Hyena kind"/ Science = Feliformia (cat-like carnivore)
Posted by Rachel Brown at 6:16 PM
posted with pictures here: http://dogmadebate.blogspot.com/search? … -results=7
I'm always perplexed by the reluctance some believers have regarding macro-evolution, or just evolution in general. I don't get what the big deal is. What is it about 'scales to feathers' or anything else that you and so many other believers are so reluctant to accept? In my mind, you need look no further than the transitional species, the proto- creatures in the transition between amphibians and reptiles that have characteristics of both amphibians and reptiles. Or proto-mammals that have characteristics of both reptiles and mammals. Or birds who share skeletal features with dinosaurs. Or the simple fact that humans are clearly mammals, from our skeletal make-up to our placental procreation to our lactating to feed our young.
What is it exactly that you think God did differently to create the animals that this whole idea of evolution contradicts? Is it something in the bible or in how creation is described that makes you think evolution is false? I assume you don't think God physically molded animals with His hands or just 'miracled' animals into place as they are today. Do you have a specific idea of how He must have done it that makes you and others so reluctant to accept evolution? How else would God have created animals?
If you haven't already, I highly recommend Ken Miller's book 'Finding Darwin's God'. Ken Miller is a cell biologist and a Christian who not only accepts evolution, but sees it as insight into God and how He operates ....
“By any reasonable analysis, evolution does nothing to distance or to weaken the power of God. We already know that we live in a world of natural causes, explicable by the workings of natural law. All that evolution does is to extend the workings of these natural laws to the novelty of life and to its changes over time. A God who presides over an evolutionary process is not an impotent, passive observer. Rather, He is one whose genius fashioned a fruitful world in which the process of continuing creation is woven into the fabric of matter itself. He retains the freedom to act, to reveal Himself to His creatures, to inspire, and to teach. He is the master of chance and time, whose actions, both powerful and subtle, respect the independence of His creation and give human beings the genuine freedom to accept or reject His love.”
- Ken Miller, Cell Biologist/Brown University Professor/Christian, from his book 'Finding Darwin's God'Gen 1:21
"So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."
Gen 1:25
"God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."
We believe the Bible to be true.yes, but if you take Genesis literally, then we should not have any new species today - and we do. They weren't all in the garden of Eden. There are millions upon millions of variations among species and millions and millions of different species altogether.
Not to mention, also if you take the bible literally and assume that Noah's flood was a global flood, how did all of these millions of species get on the ark? They had no refrigeration - so what did the carnivores eat? What about the termites or woodpeckers? Were there two of every species, or 7? Since the ark only had one window, and the door was closed by god himself, how did they get rid of the million tons of poop over 6 months? How did they store all of the various kinds of food for all the animals? How did the lions not eat the deer? Furthermore - how did Lemurs (native only to Madagascar) or kangaroos get to the ark in the first place? How about polar bears?We have new species of ppl, if I can use that word... Ppl from different tribes and nations mate and produce a new races, or mixed races. Besides, Im not saying God can't use evolution. He set the world in motion. There is a bacteria that has been around since primordial times, and there are new strains. This has all been set in motion by God.
As far as the global flood, you might check out this website and see if it doesn't answer all your questions, if you are interested in answers.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/floodadditionally, here is a video debunking the claims made by answersingenesis.com
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2009/05/n … art-2.html
and on AIG overall: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Answers_in_GenesisYou asked for answers. Im surprised you had time to read thru that site so quickly as it is extremely extensive and would answer any and every question you had.
I've read it more times than I can count, Beth. Do you really think that you're the first Christian to tell me about AIG? How do you think I came up with opposing links so quickly? They're bookmarked on my computer. How much time have you spent reading the opposition to it?
Why would I read an opposing site? I don't lack faith in the word of God.The site I provided doesn't matter to me, I have no stock in it. I could provide another if you'd like. My point is, I do not believe you are actually interested in answers. A sign of that would be that you have bookmarked "opposing sites" which are at the ready. I believe you are interested in the debate itself more than the truth.
how can you say that? If I wasn't interested in answers, would I have bothered reading AIG's sight in the first place? Would I have spent the majority of my young adulthood wrestling with my faith and trying to uncover these answers? You pointed me to a sight that you said (and I quote) answers any and all questions that I may have - while refusing to acknowledge that very site has come under fire by real, actual scientists and is not considered to be trustworthy. They admit that they're biased. they're not interested in following the evidence - no matter where it leads. They're only interested in trying to confirm what they already believe in - and all other evidence (according to their own site) will be thrown out and rejected.
It blows my mind that you're not even willing to see the opposing side in all of this - especially if you're as confident and assured in your faith as you claim to be. What can be lost by gaining a deeper understanding of the science behind these stories? how does having an open mind lessen your faith or take away from it? If you're going to point atheists with questions to a site that has been thoroughly refuted and practices biased and impractical science, you have to expect that any atheist - or believer for that matter - is going to recognize that site for what it is. It's bunk science. You want me to read your site, but you're not even willing to open the link to mine? And then you're going to question whether or not I bothered to read it (without even asking if I had) because i had a response ready for it, when you couldn't even be bothered to look at the site that I provided you? Are YOU interested in actually discussing these things, or do you want people to just take your word (and your sites word) for it?furthermore, if you could actually point me in the direction of real, actual "truth" I'd be thrilled.
That's pure nonsense, there is no truth in dinosaurs and men coexisting, yet that is the information provided on that site, amongst many other lies.
That site is not the Bible... if there is anything untrue on it, move on.
but they throw out any evidence that contradicts the bible in the first place. That means that they actually believe that the bible says that human beings coexisted with dinosaurs.
All the sites you provided are just liars for Jesus. They are a joke.
That site has been refuted time and again, even high school kids know better.
"answer any and every question you had"
- That site has been used countless times by believers, it's all garbage. They say it's a fallacy to understand that dinosaurs and men didn't coexist. Hilarious stuff.
yeah and the same guy that founded AIG is the one who started the Creation museum, which has pictures of a T-Rex eating a lemon (cause dinosaurs didn't eat meat until adam and eve ate that damn apple) and of COURSE humans and dinosaurs peacefully coexisted.
The humorous things is that the reason ken Ham founded AIG in the first place is because he couldn't get his papers published in real science journals because they couldn't pass the peer review process. Instead of rethinking his position, he created his own "scientific" organization in order to publish his own work, and fallaciously claims that they follow the same scientific process - while their own site claims that any research that seems to go against biblical teaching will be rejected outright, while anything that seems to confirm the biblical accounts will be celebrated.
Quote taken from AIG's journal demonstrating their blatant pre-existing bias and refusal to examine all of the evidence on its own merit:
"Science has been hijacked by those with a materialistic worldview and exalted as the ultimate means of obtaining knowledge about the world. Proverbs tells us that the fear of God, not science, is the beginning of knowledge. In a biblical worldview, scientific observations are interpreted in light of the truth that is found in the Bible. If conclusions contradict the truth revealed in Scripture, the conclusions are rejected."
So what is it about those versus that evolution contradicts? Is that not exactly what evolution illustrates? Maybe it would help if you would describe to me how you picture God creating the animals when you read that. After all, trees come from seeds, babies from single cells, what's wrong with mammals coming from reptiles, amphibians coming from fish, multi-celled creatures coming from single-celled? Does that not fall right in line with everything else in God's creation? Where is the conflict?
No, you don't, you cherry pick the bible like everyone else.
Your posts here and the fact not one single believer doesn't cherry pick the bible.
The problem with that statement is, actually two:
If you DO meet a believer who is not cherry-picking the Bible you simply deny that they don't, and:
NOBODY cherry-picks more than you do.
I think you miss a couple of key points.
The biggest being that evolution is rarely used in conjunction with Creation ("I think God created animals He just did it over millions of years...') Most often it is used (and there are those whose posts in this forum will bear this out) as an explanation of how God could not be involved in creating anything and does not exist.
Does that go for everybody? No. Do "real scientists" start out thinking there is no God and therefor are only trying to use evolution to prove their hypothesis? No. At least not most of the time. And I'm not even saying that scientists are the people most often on the soapbox trumpeting evolution as the final "nail in the coffin of the God myth." Not that there aren't any (Dawkins is, after all, a real scientist, his personal bent notwithstanding.)
Now some of the "anti-evolution" stuff IS the predictable backlash against that. But to say that there are no legitimate questions about evolution is the same as pre-Scopes groups saying there is no legitimate reason to investigate it. It's simply telling people you disagree with to shut up.
And that's another key point.
I have questions. With one possibility, which is not yet explored, I have received no answers but have received lots and lots and lots of people telling me that they're out there. All it's done is reinforce my opinion that the belief in evolution is as much a matter of faith as belief in God, and for me it would be even more so.
But maybe this one person will come through. One other person did point me to a hub but all it did was answer the basics that I already knew and didn't address at all some of the other questions. They then got snippy when I pointed this out.Ok Chris -
I'm not an evolution expert by any means, and I'm not a scientist - but I know several, and have some additional resources at my disposal. I will work WITH you to try to figure this stuff out. I will help you try to find (or find outright) the answers to evolution that you struggle with. Maybe you can help me with some of the biggest difficulties I have in dealing with the christian god that no amount of biblical college seem to be able to counter, and we can meet in the middle somewhere or just agree to disagree.
I do have to agree, evolution should not weaken ones faith and is no way an argument against God, although some may have to adapt as even the Catholics did when they saw the evidence.
I agree - evolution does not prove that there is no god....but it's a good counter to creationist claims that say that god was NECESSARY for the creation of life. If you start from the Kalam argument, you may be able to get so far as to claim a first cause - but the christian god is every bit as likely as a purple pet dragon. You cannot logically make the leaps necessary to get from "first cause" to "the god of the bible" without leapfrogging over empty steps along the way.
And yet, once again, you make claims of which you have no understanding whatsoever, nor could you even begin to point out any so-called holes. Give it up, dude.
And your rebuttal consists solely of telling me I'm wrong without any proof other than your own vehemence. Again. And again and again. I agree, you should give it up, dude.
Your so called answers are so woefully far from the mark, one could spend hours writing rebuttals to your nonsense. Besides, it's been done over and over, yet you still bring up the same old tired nonsense, coupled with an ignorance of the world around you.
You know, this always happens.
You think I would learn by now...You haven't, you still provide the same responses over and over no matter how times others have to correct you.
I respond when others correct me.
You don't correct me. Whatever you call what you do, it isn't correcting me.True. it isn't when you continue to repeat the same nonsense that was already corrected in previous posts.
You didn't correct me then. You made the same substance-free rebuttals that you always do. If you ever actually came up with an argument, a real debate point, that had something other than a soundbite-friendly statement of opinion (you know, some history or real thinking behind it) I would gladly acknowledge it. But the vast majority of your "corrections" are just basic variations of your mantra from the first time we met (or thereabouts): "No wonder you religious people cause so many problems." Not deep, not thoughtful and certainly not corrective.
Yes, in the beginning we tried, but failed, and soon found it pointless to explain anything to you.
Microevolution is something creationist came up with to explain the adaptation that occurs. There are numerous example of animals that have adapted to different environments, but can still produce viable offspring. Then there are numerous example of animals that have further adapted so that they can produce offspring, but the offspring is sterile. The we have animals that look similar that can't produce any offspring.
It's been millions of years since humans and chimps were one species and yet our DNA is still almost identical.
There are no missing links in human evolution and there are no missing link to show it in progress.
Antibiotic resistant bacteria is a prime example.Okay, I actually knew much of this. Whether you want to call it microevolution or adaptation (and the latter phrase is used in Christian science curricula) doesn't matter. A more salient question then might be if we have that common ancestor.
Now before we go further, let me make clear that my faith does not live or die on this hill. If evolution were shown to be 100% true it would not change the reasons I became a Christian, nor would it alter the fact that I am a Calvinist.
However, since the entire discussion centers around truth and what it is, I still have questions.and my atheism has nothing to do with my acceptance of evolution. Even if evolution was disproved tomorrow, it wouldn't affect my lack of belief. A lot of people (not you, just in general) seem to link the two, when really they have nothing to do with each other.
That just in general seems to work for both sides but yes, you're right.
Admittedly I have always considered atheism and evolution to be inextricably linked for several reasons:
First, I have never known or heard of an atheist who did not embrace evolution.
Secondly, I have always considered the purpose of evolution primarily to be to exploit the incredibly engineered adaptability of organisms, to imply that given enough time, that adaptability could explain transitions which would be required, which there is no evidence for, and even bluff that life could somehow come from non living matter without a god/creator.
Thirdly, I have never heard of a second theory that allows folks to deny a god and thereby escape accountability to that god. Is there a second godless theory? If not, what would the atheist cling to without the evolutionary theory?what are you talking about, that there is no proof of transitional forms and speciation? There is literally HUNDREDS of examples, if not thousands. I don't know how much time you've spent studying evolution, but creating a straw man argument and then claiming that evolution doesn't stand up to it is a tad bit absurd. Of course evolution doesn't "stand up" to your view of it - because your view of it, and please forgive me for being blunt - is misguided. No matter how many links to resources I provide you, you steadfastly maintain that they don't answer anything. The fact of the matter is that you won't look at the evidence, and if you don't look for it, you can claim that it doesn't exist. If that's what floats your boat, fine.
You do understand that evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with the origins of life, right?
I am completely at a loss for what you mean by your second paragraph. I don't see what god has to do (or hasn't to do) with evolution, and why you would link my lack of belief in a god with evolution in the first place. They're not related. The reason that a lot of atheists accept evolution is because we've read it, we've seen it, we've studied it, and we've seen the evidence and recognize that it's true. It has nothing to do with any god claims or lack thereof. Even Chris (who is a calvinist) stated on a previous page that he doesn't know many christians that don't accept (the word he used) microevolution. It's everywhere, and to not see it is almost to be willfully blind.
http://www.atheismresource.com/evolutionStating that evolution has NOTHING to do with the origins of life is new information for me. I don't pretend to have spent large amounts of time studying it but I do remember that the two were closely linked when I was taught about it in school. If they are teaching kids differently now, I don't know, my kids have not told me so.
I don't want to be rude, and I've certainly been guilty of this enough times myself, but sometimes those "who know" can be very guilty of a certain snobbishness when dealing with those of us who "don't know."Evolution only addresses how species changed over time, not how they began in the first place. You're thinking of something else.
I was thinking of how they taught it when I went to school.
ev·o·lu·tion
/ˌevəˈlo͞oSHən/
Noun
The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the...
The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex formAnd you're going to go back in time and retcon this into the heads of every teacher I've ever had who taught evolution and linked it to the origins of life exactly how?
No offense, but this narrow focus on trying to get me to "understand" the definition you're working so hard to get me to understand underscores perfectly my point about a "certain snobbishness." I wish my side was not ever guilty of the same thing and I wish I never had been.
However, please don't miss the point I'm trying to make while you try so hard to make your point. I got it. It doesn't change what I said or why one iota.I don't understand why I'm coming off as snobbish or condescending. I'm not meaning to be. I'm no microbiologist or evolution expert by any means, and since I went to a Christian school up through college, I never learned evolution in school at all.
I believe you don't mean to be. Neither did I (most of the time) when I did it.
Okay, let me back up a step. I do understand what you mean by trying to point out that the definition of evolution does not cover origin of life. And the fact that you went to Christian schools would explain a bit. I never did and I learned evolution all through the tenth grade (I was not required to take science after that.) I don't remember if my tenth grade biology teacher ever explicitly made the connection, although he certainly never denied it, but when I was a little kid in grade school my teachers DID make that connection and that sort of thing stays with you. Now, as someone else pointed out, when you reach a certain age and can start thinking for yourself you should be able to differentiate the two but most people, including many school officials, never do. And although I'm a little slow to make an argument that could be used in favor of the sneering "religious indoctrination" charge so often leveled, the fact is that information disseminated to little kids tends to form their worldview.
(Two parentheticals here: 1) Hence the parochial school motto: "Give us your kids until they're seven and they'll be Catholic the rest of their lives." 2) Some people think that this proves that if you don't "indoctrinate" kids until they're old enough to think for themselves they will somehow grow up free of bias and misinformation. If only.)
So, to summarize, I do understand your point about the difference between evolution and the origin of life. But the two were still inextricably linked in my public school upbringing and I'm obviously not the only one who remembers it that way.
Your not alone Chris. Pretty much everyone subjected to the public school indoctrination into godless materialism through "evolution" was given the same impression.
When it begins at 5 years old, it is easy to see why it is not questioned. They quickly go over a big bang, then primordial soup, some creature crawling out of it, soon you have dinosaurs, then monkeys or whatever the creature de jour is, then man. They focus on demonstrable "micro-evolution", (adaptability engineered by God, into organisms), pimp it as proof for "macro-evolution", (the fantasy of one kind of creature becoming another over time), and sometimes bolster that with artist's renderings of the fantasy, morphing whatever transition they want to promote.
Kids are given the distinct impression that science has answers from that proposed big bang to modern man. At 5 years old it is assumed to be true and in later years they keep you focused on the evolution theory so it never occurs to most folks to question what science really knows about how the complex building blocks of life could have come to be, let alone how they would form that first organism, animate, and find food, (which would have had to simultaneously evolve in the same proximity), etc. No answers as to where the initial design, programming, thought, etc., would have come from without a designer.
Millions of years are to be the savior of the theory, but since organisms don't live millions of years, this would have to take place within the shelf life of the shortest lived component. Many required aspects are interdependent, where each must exist and function simultaneously for the others to exist. Problems with a godless theory to the beginning of life are endless, and therefore avoided. They just hope you will assume they have those answers.
You have just illustrated that it worked on you, just like millions of others, as you are just becoming aware that regarding the actual initiation of life, science has nothing. The perception of credibility to a godless alternative banks on this delusion. Even many believers in the forums shy from the subject because, based on their own indoctrination, as well as current media, they still assume that which proudly calls itself science has answers it doesn't.
Point any of this out and you can expect a backlash about how little you know or understand the sacred evolutionary theory, how you don't comprehend science, and if your lucky you will get a bunch of links to sites with lots of text that when boiled down, still provide no answers regarding the issues mentioned above.I guess your religious indoctrination plays no part in your thinking or lack there of?
Totally unlike the indoctrination of schools, eh?
That was way more harsh than necessary.
And all it does is keep the argument at exactly that level.Yea, I guess in retrospect is does look a little harsh. I wasn't meant that way. But Sorry.
Yes, the indoctrinated mind would believe that going to school was a type of indoctrination, too. In fact, any learning whatsoever is going to be based on indoctrination because that's all the believer knows, it is the system they use all the time because they had not developed any kind of intellect, the brain was turned on but no one was home to operate it.
And, it is obvious that since a belief system based on indoctrination was being used all the time and anything taught would simply be accepted or rejected based on what the believer was told to accept or reject by their religions. That's why so many believers are so woefully intellectually stunted and never really learned anything.I'm going to agree to a point with him on this...
Programs that teach rote memorization etc. are very close to indoctrination... history classes are particularly bad about this. One text book, one version. Public school does this consistently.
The native american view of settlement of the US, for example, is never seen. Nor is the southern view of the civil war... that kind of thing.Sorry, but that is not indoctrination, have a look at the definition.
Well, I already knew it, thanks. But I looked at it again just to make you happy.
Yep, teaching ideology without encouraging critical thinking.
That's the public school system. Sorry. Particularly in history.
Civil war: Bad guys south, good guys north.
American Revolution: Bad guys English, Good guys founding fathers.
World Wars I and II... same deal.
The side of America always is portrayed as the good guys. Always.
Except the Civil war, where it was the side that won.
Don't even get me started on some of the materials I've seen on the Gulf wars.
Edit: I've seen texts from other countries about American History. You would be AMAZED at the differences. I wonder why that is.Sorry, but history classes aren't meant to encourage critical thinking, they deal with history. Math and science encourage critical thinking. The school system does not indoctrinate anyone.
If you say so sparky.
Teaching blind patriotism is fine but blind religion is bad.
Good to know.
Conversation over btw.No, I don't just say so, that's how it works, sparky.
Melissa, I'm afraid ATM is mostly right on this one. History is less about conclusions than it is about laying down facts. Wars happened. What effects led to the war? Who won the war? How did the outcome effect the society that student lives in? Yes, in the short term children can easily arrive at myopic conclusions; but, isn't that a part of the progression of knowledge? There are many viewpoints as to how and why history evolved to this point. No one view is the final word on whether it was right, or not. They are simply different vantage points. The more vantage points we avail ourselves of, the broader our understanding of how events came to pass. However, I don't notice that many reasonable adults in the free world limit their conclusions to information from any single vantage point. Since most started life with a public school education I'm not certain laying the blame for your view of things on the public school system is a fair accusation.
I guess it would, to me, depend on how conscious the choice to only give selected information is. History isn't at all about facts if you are manipulating which facts are taught and which aren't for a specific reason. In other words, I guess it's just incompetent teaching if you are presenting one-sided information that leads to myopic limited-thinking children. If you are only teaching one sided information because those facts are uncomfortable or would leave children with a view point that you don't want them exposed to, that's at least teaching propaganda.
Facts can indeed be indoctrinating, if you select carefully which ones to show and which not to show based on agendas. I also have found that many many adults are indeed still myopic, especially when it comes to blind patriotism. Coming from a system that made children worship the flag every morning until very very recently, is it really outside the realm of possibility that purposeful pro-American brainwashing is that far off base?I think my main point is that, in this society, information flows freely. I'm not certain how we would be able to begin a child's education if we insisted that every side of every issue was taken into account at every turn. This isn't the Soviet Union, where kindergartners are taught that history devolved to freedom; and that freedom will topple any society. Or that failure to support this view will result in a vacation in Siberia. This isn't North Korea, where only one view is allowed and failure to agree could result in death. Thus isn't Palestine, where Sesame Street is used to promote anti Israeli sentiments and to arrive at adulthood with a different view could have you labeled infidel. It's a simple question of a starting point to build from. I realize anti Americanism is all the rage in certain circles, but every society presents its viewpoints first. The question is, do they allow other viewpoints to be heard and discussed freely. Which, I would challenge anyone who said our nation doesn't.
Is it really indoctrination of beliefs? Only if the listener chooses to forego the thought process for the remainder of their formal education and then the rest of their lives. Is it your assertion that those with a public school education consistently do this?
And, the comment about worshipping the flag lacks merit. How, exactly, is it being worshipped? If you are pledging allegiance to liberty and justice for all. I would think that ideal would encompass liberty for others to not hold to the same standard. Unless your complaint is of the addition of the words 'under God', which still doesn't equate to worship. Unless the speaker views it that way. How many school children, do you think, are actively involved in the activity of worship while mouthing those words?"Is it really indoctrination of beliefs? Only if the listener chooses to forego the thought process for the remainder of their formal education and then the rest of their lives. Is it your assertion that those with a public school education consistently do this?"
I think your argument boils down to since some people overcome the biased teaching, that it's not indoctrination. That's an interesting viewpoint. For it to be non-hypocritical however, it also means that religious indoctrination doesn't exist under the same circumstances. Yes, it really is my assertion that those who go to public school consistently do this. Rad's example of the war of 1812 is a good example.
The Vietnamese texts are also a good example of this.
And while I do agree that it is impossible to include every single viewpoint in the world, I think if you are talking about a conflict that both sides should be presented. It's not at all unreasonable to expect that if you are discussing the Korean war, for example, that the KOREAN viewpoint should be in there somewhere. You don't have to include Uganda's viewpoint, I don't guess.
As to worshiping the flag. Possibly hyperbole. However let's look at what we are/were asking the kids to do:
al·le·giance
/əˈlējəns/
Noun
Loyalty or commitment of a subordinate to a superior or of an individual to a group or cause.
That seems pretty indoctrinating to me to have small children to pledge this. Unless you can give me a valid reason that this is any different at all -in terms of blind adhesion- than praying to a cross.There are significant differences between pledging allegiance to your country and worshipping your God. (I don't pray to the Cross, by the way.)
A country is a unit made up of disparate groups (at least here in the US) and the allegiance to the flag is the adherence to the ideal that we should maintain that. There are freedoms and responsibilities inherent in that, and what we are asking the children to do is understand that they live in the US. When they are older they will be bombarded with all sorts of information, much of it contradictory, and it can be a long and painful process to reach their own conclusions.
Parenthetically, to answer Rad (I think), many people who have studied other countries still come to the conclusion that, on the whole, the US is still the most free country in the world. It isn't perfect by almost anybody's definition but in a lot of ways it's the best we've got. Now, to be fair, I have never really read or heard a comparison of the US to Canada, but to other big industrials yes.
When you pledge allegiance to the flag, whether that one day leads you to be a soldier or a Congressman or just an armchair pundit, you are absorbing, however imperfectly, the idea that everyone in America deserves a fair shake, whether they look or talk or think like you or not. Of course a lot of people reject that notion, from all different spectrums, but "liberty and justice for all" encompasses that. Whether you grow up to blindly worship the flag (which to the extent that it was ever true is increasingly rare) or not, that's a different story and usually involves forces far outside the scope of the average public school classroom.Sorry Chris you've been had by propaganda.
http://www.newser.com/story/143254/worl … ry-is.html
Happiest people by country.
(the US makes an appearance at No. 11):
1. Denmark
2. Finland
3. Norway
4. Netherlands
5. Canada
11. US
And a newer survey by Forbes says
1. Norway
2. Denmark
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. New Zealand
6. Canada
12. United StatesSo then the sociological question that must be asked is (and I haven't read these articles, so I don't know if it already has) does happiness equal freedom? I was talking freedom to do things. I don't think most other countries have the same level of freedom.
So are the countries more free than America and that's why the people are happier? Are the people just more contented with what they have? Or does the government work overtime convincing people that they have it good? Does the relative homogeneousness of the population play a role? Would an Aboriginal or a Mauri have the same level of happiness?
Bearing in mind that many Europeans view taxation differently than many Americans (and I'm shockingly ignorant vis-a-vis Canadians, sorry!) how does the relative zeitgeist about money spent compared to value received play out in different countries and does that affect relative levels of happiness?
It's easy to say I've been had by propaganda. And it's also possible. But starting with having a rebuttal to the point I actually made and then working things from there would be the difference between countering untruth with truth and simple counterprop.Your rather typical Chris. You admit to knowing nothing about the country right next door, but think you have more freedom. You have been sold the freedom line and think it's all you need. I personally think most humans are happier when able to make their own choices.
Tell me Chris, what freedom do you think you have that I don't?Wow. At the risk of opening up a rift between us, which I don't want to do, why do you think I think I'm so much better than you? Why didn't my repeated assertions that I didn't know about comparisons between America and Canada tip you off that I wasn't asserting I am "more free" or anything else? And why am I not allowed to ask legitimate questions? Do you always assume that someone who asks questions think they already know the answers, even when they have stated outright that they don't and that's why they're asking?
Yeesh.Hmmm, didn't you just claim that America is the most free nation, and then admit you know nothing about the country next door, your largest trading partner. I'm not looking for a fight at all, only a discussion in what I think is very interesting. I have this conversation with a good American friend of mine all time.
First of all, I talked about which nation was freest, and you responded by telling me which one was happiest. So if you're going to equate the two, then I have a series of questions designed to both fill in my lack of knowledge and also get at just why you did that. Infinite freedom does not make for infinitely happy people, and that's not an argument for totalitarianism or despotism, it's an argument from psychology. It's a well established fact that the vast majority of people prefer limited choices, too much and they get confused. And I think that most people who seem to do well with unlimited options simply limit themselves, not unlike a certain person who seems to view the entire world as "Religion bad, no religion good" and feels free to extrapolate everything in life along those lines, even when the conclusions they draw directly contradict or ignore already established information.
And second of all, there is no......rule six.Okay, I'll ask again then. In what way are you more free then me?
More gun rights...
Other than that...
My own observations of Canada (Which are limited, I admit to Ontario) are that it is cleaner, more well-mannered, more culturally diverse (and accepting of that) and has less crime. My one experience with the medical system (even as a non-resident) was quicker and more efficient. The prices for tobacco products and alcohol are ASTRONOMICAL, so I guess your citizens are less free to drink and smoke.
I also had to pay out of pocket for diabetic medical supplies that got damaged accidentally. That was also ridiculously expensive. I'm not sure if being a citizen would have allowed me to pay less.
I very seriously considered immigrating to Canada and had actually started the process... which was just as complicated and contorted as the American immigration process.We have access to guns, but there is a process you have to go through to help weed out the crazies.
We see ourselves as more of a mosaic rather than a melting pot, which give us the freedom to practice our culture.
Alcohol and Tobacco are expensive and your free to use them if you can afford it. I make my own wine. in 50 litre batches which costs about $65. I'm not sure how anyone can afford to smoke, let alone kids?
Heath care is free for those that live here and prescriptions are dramatically less expensive then in the states and are practically free for those who are retired. No insurance required, but insurance companies offer additional insurance for dental, and prescriptions.Next time I'm up there, I know where to get my wine then.
Then why are you claiming that your country is the most free if you have no idea what else is out there?
Um, because they are two different questions and not necessarily equivocal?
"Do you have any idea what is in the rest of the world?" Yes, I do. Maybe as good an idea as I think, maybe not, but it is a far cry from having NO idea. I read, I listen, I watch.
"What freedoms do you think you have that Canadians don't?" Beats me. I haven't given it much thought. I used to live an hour away from Canada and could get fuzzy CBC television (although the Quebecois station came in clearly.) As far as I can tell, the average American and the average Canadian are not significantly different in their daily lives. Except Canadians drink stronger beer.
"So why are you saying you have more freedom than Canadians when you clearly don't know what's out there?" Um, I admitted several times that I'm not real clear on Canada. But the initial question was not Canuck-centric. It pertained to the entire world. And yes, I do have some idea what's out there.
It's not a matter of what is offered, it is a matter of questioning and accepting what is offered, that is the point of indoctrination.
No, it is the myopic limited-thinking children that are the problem, many of them growing up in religious families and being indoctrinated by the religion, hence their brains are turning to mush and the are already myopic limited-thinking children when they get into school.
Propaganda is one thing, indoctrination is another.To be fair, I think it's the nature of children to be myopic and limited in their thinking. They've not yet developed the ability to think beyond their immediate surroundings - literally. Their brains have not developed so they can process complex and important things on their own. If that were the case, I think we'd shove 'em out the door at the age of reason (whatever that might be for each child) and wish 'em luck. So, what IS acceptable as 'teaching' versus 'indoctrination' in childhood? Children (small ones) do not question anything - they don't have the ability to think critically. So, what do we teach them? Nothing? Do we let them flounder around and figure it out on their own? I know very well what indoctrination is, and despise it. BUT, how do you propose that parents establish guideposts for their children. Do we do nothing more than nourish their physical needs while they're young and ignore the rest of their development?
You've summarized my questions on that pretty well.
Children's brains can be developed, but they never get the chance if their parents indoctrinate them into a religion, which is the vast majority of all folks.
That makes no sense, they have to be taught a lot of stuff, too.
Uh, teaching, obviously.
But, they can be taught to question and use critical thinking, but they don't get taught that because they most likely are being indoctrinated into a religion.
No, we teach them, we don't indoctrinate them.
No, we help them understand.
Again, they teach their children, they don't indoctrinate them.
No, we teach them, we don't indoctrinate them, it's really that simple.Hmm. I don't mean that their brains can't be developed. I mean that the are NOT developed physically in many ways. Their are certain things of which a child's brain is physically incapable is what I meant - like complex thought processes and significant evaluation of things.
Wouldn't it also be considered indoctrination to tell a child during his/her formative years that there is no God? Or would you simply never mention or acknowledge the possibility until they have developed to the point where they question on their own? And if they ask, do you tell them to just figure it out?I personally think it's okay to tell them what you think, if they ask, but telling them stuff for certain is a little unfair.
But kids aren't going to absorb that they need to research and think for themselves. It doesn't matter what religion they grow up in, or if they grow up in a house that is studiously unreligious (as I did.) Kids look for some concrete answers. As they get older you can share with them the reasons why you think something, and have conversations with them if they believe differently or just don't know, but younger children (and here I'm not just talking young children, I mean even into their tweens) need some concrete answers. They absorb it.
In which case, I find it dishonest and disrespectful to tell a child something is true, which you know they'll believe because an authority figure told them it was when you don't know it to absolutely be true.
Unfortunately the psychotic delusional mind cannot accept the truth, therefore they can't stop telling lies to their children....using willful ignorance as their guide....and forcing themselves to believe it to be the ultimate truth....while explaining away the cognitive dissonance in bizarre ways.
I find that to be often true about people who are rabidly anti-religious. Thank you.
Like I said....some deluded minds rationalize their illogical beliefs in all kinds of bizarre ways. Some use the mechanism of projection. Instead of providing any real evidence of their claims, they choose to attack anyone who disagrees with their illogical beliefs....by pointing the same finger back...although they have NOTHING to back that assertion up either. Classic cop-out.
I agree! And some of the militant atheists are absolutely the worst! Thank you!
You can't stop yourself can you? This has become your method of survival in your insurmountable and rigid quest to hold on to such ridiculous beliefs, even after you have been thoroughly debunked....over and over and over again. Wow. Frightening!
This elementary and dishonest attempt at debating is nothing more than laughable.No, I don't think you can stop yourself. And while I wasn't aware that you were attempting to dignify what you do by calling it "debate" I agree that it's certainly not. Survival mechanism? Yes. Laughable? Well, it certainly is funny. But debate? I though you were self-aware enough to realize that simply yelling at somebody is not debate.
My bad!There you go again....using that projection. Do you know anything about rational argument, or is your whole method built on childish responses to things you find impossible to defend with reason and evidence? So you survive again by being totally irrelevant, with blatant false accusations against the opposition. And although you are persecuting us with your LIES, it is you who believes you are being persecuted. What a case study. Your imaginary God must be so proud of your dishonesty and false disrespectful allegations.
I love it when you describe yourself so clearly but please! I already agree that you're like that! You don't have to keep saying it!
Then again, too much of a good thing can be wonderful...It is blinding to stand in the light of your brilliant intellect. Without a doubt, it is now so clear that I am no match for you and your blessed Holy Spirit, which has sent a clear message of: Get thee behind me Satan...the fire awaits you and your minions.
"Every knee shall bow" ~Amen
Score-
Chris: 1
Atheist: 0
Satan: 0
