West Virginia man sues education officials for teaching his daughter 'religion' of evolution

[musiclady]

Creating humans from dirt and ribs would be magic. It is not conducive to the laws of physics. 

The God who created the laws of physics, soil, and humans, you included, has told us otherwise.

All of them, but none of us will be alive to see the progression of that evolution. We can only look back and see what has already occurred.

You can't look back far enough to see any of the things you believe in by faith.

You think I'm ignorant and I don't take that personally. I actually like you; I'd even call you my friend if I didn't think you loathed me. I don't think you should take it personally either. I have always respected you as an intellectual.

I think you're willfully ignorant.  And extremely gullible, but I don't even come close to loathing you.  In fact, though I find your arguments weak and your stubbornness remarkable, sometimes I even like you (I am commanded to love you, and I do, in Christ). I think you're one of many very intelligent young people who have been lied to so much that you have lost the sense God gave you. (Yes.  HE did give you the mind you use to deny Him).  And because of that, I feel badly for what you are missing.  God loves you deeply, but you don't know that, and that's a very sad thing.

No, it didn't pop out of thin air. It gradually increased over a very long period of time.

When you have no answers, just add a couple billion years.  That's what all people of your faith do....

The answers are in Scripture.  You and I were made in God's image.  Your creativity and mine are gifts from Him.  It stretches any form of credulity to believe that all you need to come up with imagination and reason are time.  It can't happen, and it's certainly not 'scientific' to believe it just happened because of a million years of nothingness.

I disagree.

Science is an ever evolving series of trial and error. We get it wrong until we figure it out and get it right. Some aspects of the theory have changed, but the theory itself has held strong. Science definitely got that part right.

Evolution is an ever evolving series of nothing but error.  And in time, it always proves to be wrong.

Scripture hasn't changed for millennia............... and it NEVER is proven wrong.

I can. 

No.  You can't.

It requires a lot of evidence just like any theory does. I will admit that some of our understanding comes from educated guesses that are based on the evidence we already have, but most of our understanding comes from undeniable evidence such as fossils and DNA.

Your undeniable evidence requires a pre-belief that it says what you hope and believe it says.

[musiclady]

For the record, I am fully aware that there are many theists who believe in evolution, and even Christians.

I find it a difficult balance, but as far as I'm concerned, I don't care how old the rocks are, nor even how long the days of Creation were.

What I do know, is that we have a Creator, and that we, as humans, were created uniquely, and given at Creation the ability to think, reason, make fire, create beauty, care for others, and were also given a soul.  We were in-breathed with the very breath of God.

There is no way, IMO, to support humans' evolving from apes without discarding the essence of Scripture.

[Dexter]

For the record, I am fully aware that there are many theists who believe in evolution, and even Christians.

I find it a difficult balance, but as far as I'm concerned, I don't care how old the rocks are, nor even how long the days of Creation were.

What I do know, is that we have a Creator, and that we, as humans, were created uniquely, and given at Creation the ability to think, reason, make fire, create beauty, care for others, and were also given a soul.  We were in-breathed with the very breath of God.

There is no way, IMO, to support humans' evolving from apes without discarding the essence of Scripture.

Is it impossible that when God communicated with humans all those years ago He was bearing in mind their limited capacity to understand the complexities of the universe around them?

[GourmetDan]

Is it impossible that when God communicated with humans all those years ago He was bearing in mind their limited capacity to understand the complexities of the universe around them?

Why is nothing impossible except that when God communicated with humans all those years ago that he told them the truth about what he had done and how long it took?

Oh yeah, because man doesn't agree with it...

[Paladin]

Interesting statement:

but most of our understanding comes from undeniable evidence such as fossils and DNA.

Why interesting? Because eminent paleontologist and devout evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould once observed:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ….We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." - Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.

In other words, even Gould recognized the fossil record does not support evolution. Nonetheless Gould denied his own observations and remained an evolutionist until his death. Talk about faith!

Gould rationalized his devotion to evolution by inventing the theory of punctuated equilbria: The theory that new species evolve suddenly over relatively short periods of time (a few hundred to a thousand years), followed by longer periods in which little genetic change occurs. Punctuated equilibrium is a revision of Darwin's theory that evolution takes place at a slow, constant rate over millions of years.

Say, what was that about changes taking place over long periods of time and thus not being observable?

 

[Dexter]

Interesting statement: 

Why interesting? Because eminent paleontologist and devout evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould once observed:
In other words, even Gould recognized the fossil record does not support evolution. Nonetheless Gould denied his own observations and remained an evolutionist until his death. Talk about faith!

Gould rationalized his devotion to evolution by inventing the theory of punctuated equilbria: The theory that new species evolve suddenly over relatively short periods of time (a few hundred to a thousand years), followed by longer periods in which little genetic change occurs. Punctuated equilibrium is a revision of Darwin's theory that evolution takes place at a slow, constant rate over millions of years.

We've learned a lot since 1987

Say, what was that about changes taking place over long periods of time and thus not being observable?

I never said it's impossible for evolution to occur at a quicker rate than Darwin suggested. It's very possible that Gould was right, which would make it likely that humans will eventually observe evolution, but certainly not within one or even several lifespans. A time table that stretches as far as a thousand years would be pretty hard to observe for a while; Darwin died only 133 years ago. The long periods of no evolution would also be a challenge because you'd have to somehow pinpoint a species that is in its evolution phase and then observe it for possibly 1000 years. I think you're wrong if you're suggesting that we should have observed evolution by now if it's real.

[truth_seeker]

No theory is ever proven fact. 

Not sure I can entirely agree with that. A theory in say the 1880s stating that man can fly, would be proven true in a couple of decades.

Similarly a theory in the late 1930s that man can make a nuclear bomb, proven true in a few years.

Maybe what you mean is so long as it is an unproved theory, it is not certain. And when it is certain, it is no longer merely a theory?

[truth_seeker]

Those who believe that one animal developed and branched out and became another, and that it all happened from nothing take it on faith.

There is a lot of data indicating evolution, among species.  The bones making up limbs, fins and wings, show similarities.

There are a great many such similar patterns.

And each year, scientists find more patterns and data. Some of those open minded scientists go to church on Sunday, and go back to work on Monday to learn more, about the handiwork of their God.

A belief in a Creator and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

[truth_seeker]

Knowledge is power. A quick review of evolution starting with Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny, or the Recapitulation Theory, explored here at evolution.berkeley.edu

God authored evolution; it's up to us to understand it.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC6aOntogeny.shtml

That is what I was taught, by my church going grandmother (Masters, biology) and my church going mother (bachelors, chemistry).

And later by a couple of supervisors, churchgoing Masters degree holders in Geology and Petroleum engineering, respectively.

Those four learned people, have vastly more credibility than some whacko bird cited by people espousing 6,000 year earth nonsense.

The narrow mindedness necessary to cling to a literal-only view of the Bible, its concepts, sells God way, way short.   

[Paladin]

Seriously?

We've learned a lot since 1987

That's your response to the admission by one of America's top paleontologist (and ardent evolutionist) as to the "extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record..." even though you claimed that "most of our understanding comes from undeniable evidence such as fossils..."?

Again, seriously?

I never said it's impossible for evolution to occur at a quicker rate than Darwin suggested

All creatures evolve, but evolution happens slowly over immense periods of time. It's not something you can watch in one lifetime.

[Dexter]

Seriously?

That's your response to the admission by one of America's top paleontologist (and ardent evolutionist) as to the "extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record..." even though you claimed that "most of our understanding comes from undeniable evidence such as fossils..."?

Again, seriously?

"The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_02

Fossils provide significant and undeniable evidence of evolution. Quoting a paleontologist from 1987 does not change that. I know you desperately want to wave your hand and remove fossil evidence from the equation, but you can't, sorry.

I never said it's impossible for evolution to occur at a quicker rate than Darwin suggested

All creatures evolve, but evolution happens slowly over immense periods of time. It's not something you can watch in one lifetime.

Those two quotes don't contradict each other. Punctuated equilibrium is still debated, and even if it wasn't it would still be impossible to observe in a single lifetime.

[musiclady]

Is it impossible that when God communicated with humans all those years ago He was bearing in mind their limited capacity to understand the complexities of the universe around them?

Do you honestly think that we have the capacity to understand the complexity of the universe now?

The most brilliant scientist in the universe never comes close to understanding what God created with a mere breath.   It is God who gives us the minds to understand what He has done.

And won't ever come close.

What happened philosophically a century or so before Darwin came up with his (racist) theory that is now called science, is that people stupidly started believing that man was the center of the universe, that rational thinking was the be all and end all of existence.

It was that so-called 'enlightened' thinking that has led to this struggle to prove that the world exists without God.

In short, it is an attempt to prove an agenda, and not an objective search for truth.

That's part of the reason that 'facts' about evolution change so often.  The agenda is that there is no God; no Intelligence behind what exists, and science in the last several hundred years has been nothing but an attempt to prove that point.

That's why it will always be proven wrong over time. 

It's not really science.


(Incidentally, you never addressed Darwin's racism, that his 'theory' codified cultural racism and made it 'official' in academia and in the progressive movement in America.  When you said evolution wasn't 'wrong,' you evaded that direct problem).

[musiclady]

Seriously?

That's your response to the admission by one of America's top paleontologist (and ardent evolutionist) as to the "extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record..." even though you claimed that "most of our understanding comes from undeniable evidence such as fossils..."?

Again, seriously?

Good question, Paladin.

I wonder, in addition to the absence of fossil records, where the transitional forms of life are today?

If macro-evolution is a reality, then why did it stop?  Why no more Lucy's?

And another question I have for the true-believers................   where are all the people?  If we've been reproducing for millions of years (without the progressive ZPG ideology and birth control which exist now), where are all the people?  There ought to be a lot more of us than there are.   Right? 

To be an ardent evolutionist, one has to have the capacity to ignore the obvious.

[Dexter]

Do you honestly think that we have the capacity to understand the complexity of the universe now?

The most brilliant scientist in the universe never comes close to understanding what God created with a mere breath.   It is God who gives us the minds to understand what He has done.

And won't ever come close.

What happened philosophically a century or so before Darwin came up with his (racist) theory that is now called science, is that people stupidly started believing that man was the center of the universe, that rational thinking was the be all and end all of existence.

It was that so-called 'enlightened' thinking that has led to this struggle to prove that the world exists without God.

In short, it is an attempt to prove an agenda, and not an objective search for truth.

That's part of the reason that 'facts' about evolution change so often.  The agenda is that there is no God; no Intelligence behind what exists, and science in the last several hundred years has been nothing but an attempt to prove that point.

That's why it will always be proven wrong over time. 

It's not really science.

I would argue that it is religion that makes man the center of the universe, not science. Science completely recognizes our extreme insignificance in an unimaginably massive universe. Science understands that we are just one species that has evolved on one planet. Religion would have you believe that humans are special to God. Religion suggests that God created this entire universe just for us. That is incredibly arrogant.

(Incidentally, you never addressed Darwin's racism, that his 'theory' codified cultural racism and made it 'official' in academia and in the progressive movement in America.  When you said evolution wasn't 'wrong,' you evaded that direct problem).

I already conceded that certain elements of evolution have changed. Darwin was not right about everything, but he was right about a lot of things. The most significant parts of his theory still stand strong.

[musiclady]

There is a lot of data indicating evolution, among species.  The bones making up limbs, fins and wings, show similarities.

There are a great many such similar patterns.

And each year, scientists find more patterns and data. Some of those open minded scientists go to church on Sunday, and go back to work on Monday to learn more, about the handiwork of their God.

A belief in a Creator and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Of course not.  There are many who believe that God created the earth and used evolution as a means to do it.

There is some Scripture (besides the first books of Genesis) that has to be distorted a bit to make that possible, but many do it.  As I said before, I don't care how old the rocks are.  We'll find that out in the end, and it won't matter.  But to deny the unique creation of humans and the God-inspired beginning of our human race makes it a bit thornier an issue.  Whether one believes that the story of Adam is an allegory, not factual, is open for discussion.  But if the understanding of original sin goes away with the denial of Adam....first man........ then Christians are getting themselves into some serious theological deep weeds.

My issue here has been with those for whom science IS their religion, and the blind, unquestioning faith it requires to continue believing in that religion.  I know you have problems with blind faith among Believers (I do too), but there is at least an equal share of blind faith in the science that flowed out of atheistic philosophy.

[GourmetDan]

"The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time."

It is in the assembly where the rub lies.  The fossil 'record' is a mess with assumed time frames often missing or inverted.  Fossils are defined as 'reworked' when they appear in layers where they shouldn't. 

Again, again, again, again, again... it is the philosophies guiding the interpretation of the evidence that is the issue, not the 'evidence'.  Most of what is claimed to be 'understanding' is merely inference based on a materialistic philosophy.  Big difference.

There is no fossil 'record', just the imaginations of people wholly committed to naturalism passing their fantasies off as 'science'...

[musiclady]

I would argue that it is religion that makes man the center of the universe, not science. Science completely recognizes our extreme insignificance in an unimaginably massive universe. Science understands that we are just one species that has evolved on one planet. Religion would have you believe that humans are special to God. Religion suggests that God created this entire universe just for us. That is incredibly arrogant.

Well, I'm not going to do it here, but I will say that, from this statement, you are completely ignorant about what the Bible says, and who man is in relation to Him.  There can't be an intelligent debate about a subject that you clearly know nothing about.

In addition, you obviously are ignorant about modern philosophy and its humanism, so until you get at least a basic grasp of history, I don't think anything productive can be accomplished here.

I already conceded that certain elements of evolution have changed. Darwin was not right about everything, but he was right about a lot of things. The most significant parts of his theory still stand strong.

The racist aspect of Darwin's 'research' deeply influenced academia and is entwined with the progressive movement of the early 20th century.  One of the most racist Presidents we have had was Darwinian Woodrow Wilson, who was also an intense segregationist and racist.  There are those who try to extricate racism from evolutionist philosophy, but its not easily done.

Darwin's influence is still strong in the Democrat party.

But beside that (I repeat myself), Darwin set out to come up with a story about the origins of man that removed any form of religion.

That's not science.

And neither is any research now that does not allow a Creator, even if the evidence points strongly in that direction (which it does).

[musiclady]

There is a lot of data indicating evolution, among species.  The bones making up limbs, fins and wings, show similarities.

There are a great many such similar patterns.

And each year, scientists find more patterns and data. Some of those open minded scientists go to church on Sunday, and go back to work on Monday to learn more, about the handiwork of their God.

A belief in a Creator and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Oh yes........... and to your first point.

The same Creator more than adequately explains the similarities among species.  That's not proof of evolution.

[Dexter]

Well, I'm not going to do it here, but I will say that, from this statement, you are completely ignorant about what the Bible says, and who man is in relation to Him.  There can't be an intelligent debate about a subject that you clearly know nothing about.

In addition, you obviously are ignorant about modern philosophy and its humanism, so until you get at least a basic grasp of history, I don't think anything productive can be accomplished here.

Are we special to God when compared to other forms of life? Did God create the universe for us? Does Christianity not suggest that humans are particularly significant?

And neither is any research now that does not allow a Creator, even if the evidence points strongly in that direction (which it does).

What evidence are you referring to?

[DCPatriot]

Don't know much about the theory of evolution, etc..

But I can say this....I don't believe that all the oil/petroleum in the ground is a result of decayed dinosaurs.

Same as believing the moon is made of cheese.   

[GourmetDan]

What evidence are you referring to?

If the discovery of a coded, fault-tolerant, error-correcting information database more complex than anything man has created (aka evidence) didn't falsify evolution, absolutely nothing will.

[musiclady]

Are we special to God when compared to other forms of life? Did God create the universe for us? Does Christianity not suggest that humans are particularly significant?

Though this is not a religion thread, since the subject matter is relevant to the discussion, I will give you a brief response (even though your very question is a distortion, and not a quest for knowledge, nor a legitimate response).

Yes, with relation to plants and animals, humans are 'special.'  But that is not what your original accusation stated.  You stated....

I would argue that it is religion that makes man the center of the universe, not science.

That statement is completely false, because in Christianity, GOD, in Christ, along with the Holy Spirit (the Trinity; the Creator) is the "center" of the universe.  We, as human beings are merely creations, HE is the Creator; our Center, our Purpose, our Righteousness, our Lord and Master.   

In Christianity, it is the polar opposite of your 'argument.'  Our righteousness is "as filthy rags."  We are sinners in need of redemption, and God, in Christ, provided that redemption.

I am accustomed to the twists and evasions of your debating style, Dexter, but in this case, you turned reality on its head to come up with the accusation you have made.

What evidence are you referring to?

Just look at the perfection of the human body; heart, digestion, reproduction, breathing, musculature, vascular system, brain function..... all working perfectly together to produce thought, motion, life.

The evidence points to a Designer, Dex.  To continue to believe that such a fearfully and wonderfully made body could have happened by chance just because there was enough 'time,' is to believe in magic.

And takes enormous faith.

[Dexter]

Yes, with relation to plants and animals, humans are 'special.' 

I apologize for anything I have distorted. I simply wanted to point out that science sees humanity as no better than any other life form while religion sees humanity as the most significant life form in the universe. I think that contradicts what you said about science thinking we are the center of the universe.

Just look at the perfection of the human body; heart, digestion, reproduction, breathing, musculature, vascular system, brain function..... all working perfectly together to produce thought, motion, life.

The evidence points to a Designer, Dex.  To continue to believe that such a fearfully and wonderfully made body could have happened by chance just because there was enough 'time,' is to believe in magic.

And takes enormous faith.

Your belief that humans are too magnificent to have been a product of evolution is not evidence of a creator.

[Dexter]

I think it's safe to say we have reached an impasse. I respectfully disagree with those of you that do not believe evolution is real. 

[GourmetDan]

Your belief that humans are too magnificent to have been a product of evolution is not evidence of a creator.

If the discovery of a coded, fault-tolerant, error-correcting information database more complex than anything man has created (aka evidence) didn't falsify evolution, absolutely nothing will.