Teaching aids for Darwin-- for religiously challenged Yanks.

[Pyrotex]

If the Judeo-Christian tradition isn't based on the Bible, then I wasted my childhood in Bible School and Sunday School. ... There is no written or spoken tradition that trumps the Holy Bible. ....

I guess you wasted your childhood in Sunday School, then.

 

The plain fact is, there are scores, hundreds, of written and spoken traditions that trump the Bible every Sunday in thousands of churches.

 

Matthew 6 has Jesus condemning and forbidding public prayer. Yet the vast majority of fundementalist christian churches in America want public prayer in schools, at sporting events, at civil ceremonies and even at the opening of each session of the US Congress. Not a month goes by but I see some group around a table at a restaurant hold hands and (loudly) conduct a "blessing" prayer. This is just one example I could give.

 

We have nearly a thousand christian denominations in this country and no two of them can agree on what the Bible says. In effect, this means that "the Bible says" has no authority at all.

[Pyrotex]

Darwinism is a tautology, survival of those that survive. It tells nothing of the origins of life, for that religion offers better explanations. (See Bible, book of Genisis)

You obviously haven't a clue as to what "Darwinism" is.

You obviously haven't a clue as to what Darwin proposed in his books.

You obviously havent' a clue as to what a tautology is.

You obviously do not understand what "the origins of life" entails.

You obviously do not understand that religion has never given "explanations".

You obviously have not read our Rules on not evangelizing in this website.

B)

[Michaelangelica]

Darwinism i. . . It tells nothing of the origins of life, for that religion offers better explanations. (See Bible, book of Genisis)

"God" and "life" are more amazing and more wonderful than your narrow philosophy will allow.

Every religion has a myth, or story, or poem, or art, about the beginning of life.

Open yourself up to all traditions not just the Jewish one.

[SamSpeedo]

"God" and "life" are more amazing and more wonderful than your narrow philosophy will allow.

Every religion has a myth, or story, or poem, or art, about the beginning of life.

Open yourself up to all traditions not just the Jewish one.

 

 

Are you looking for converts?

[lemit]

The plain fact is, there are scores, hundreds, of written and spoken traditions that trump the Bible every Sunday in thousands of churches.

I'm sorry. I meant to say that Christianity has no tradition or literature that should be of greater value than the Bible, just like the American legal system should have nothing of greater value than the U.S. Constitution.

 

Although I'm no longer a practicing Christian, I still find Christian traditions fascinating and consider the Bible (King James Version) to be a pretty good read. My Bible Belt upbringing is also of use when Jehovah's Witnesses come to the door. I usually can quote scripture better than they can and can send them scurrying away. (Someone should invent a "ScareChristian" to keep away all the door-to-door proselytizers.) I have mentioned elsewhere that one of those rural Bible Belt traditions was to keep religion out of the schools. Since it's that rural Bible Belt tradition the Religious Right claims to want to return to, it would be nice if they knew just what the tradition was. Of course, knowledge doesn't seem to be their strong suit.

 

(As my references show, I wasn't raised in the tradition that prohibits card-playing.)

 

I hope this isn't too far off-topic. It's only meant as a correction.

[maikeru]

I'm sorry. I meant to say that Christianity has no tradition or literature that should be of greater value than the Bible, just like the American legal system should have nothing of greater value than the U.S. Constitution.

 

Although I'm no longer a practicing Christian, I still find Christian traditions fascinating and consider the Bible (King James Version) to be a pretty good read. My Bible Belt upbringing is also of use when Jehovah's Witnesses come to the door. I usually can quote scripture better than they can and can send them scurrying away. (Someone should invent a "ScareChristian" to keep away all the door-to-door proselytizers.) I have mentioned elsewhere that one of those rural Bible Belt traditions was to keep religion out of the schools. Since it's that rural Bible Belt tradition the Religious Right claims to want to return to, it would be nice if they knew just what the tradition was. Of course, knowledge doesn't seem to be their strong suit.

 

(As my references show, I wasn't raised in the tradion that prohibits card-playing.)

 

I hope this isn't too far off-topic. It's only meant as a correction.

 

Understandable. Come from a similar background, though you know a bit different. JWs don't usually like listening to me. I find Richard Dawkins to be one of my favorite authors, although I had the utmost disregard for him when I was a teenager.

[HydrogenBond]

Here is something to think about. Different species can be separated along the lines of their ability to breed and produce fertile offspring. The question becomes, at what point in time could the human precursors, successfully breed with modern humans, and be called the same species?

 

This does not discount the evolutionary path, from apes to prehuman to human, but it addresses when the human species appears, based on the proof they could breed with modern humans. It might not be scientifically valid to claim the same species with bones alone, or by using labeling conventions that make it appear to work out the way we hope. I was looking for smoking gun proof you can't dispute or pretend.

[Donk]

Here is something to think about. Different species can be separated along the lines of their ability to breed and produce fertile offspring. The question becomes, at what point in time could the human precursors, successfully breed with modern humans, and be called the same species?

 

This does not discount the evolutionary path, from apes to prehuman to human, but it addresses when the human species appears, based on the proof they could breed with modern humans. It might not be scientifically valid to claim the same species with bones alone, or by using labeling conventions that make it appear to work out the way we hope. I was looking for smoking gun proof you can't dispute or pretend.

It isn't a binary on/off switch. You start with two groups who can interbreed successfully; if they separate for long enough, they can still interbreed but many of their offspring will be infertile; then all of them (mules); then even infertile offspring become rare; then non-existent.

 

One of the problems with human society is that we keep trying to find binary solutions to an analogue world.

[HydrogenBond]

If we look at the modern dog, there are many varieties, from the Chuwawa to the Great Dane and all that is between. They are all the same species and can cross breed. However, if these different dogs had been around millions of years ago, and we found their fossils, the Chuwawa and the Great Dane skeletons could create the impression that these are two distinct species. Without being able to breed them, it would be easy to argue they are two different species, that had a common relative.

 

The point I am making is bones is not enough to tell which are of the same species and which are not, in all cases. The ability to breed is more definitive as a litmus test for a common species. I was interesting in the breeding capacity between modern humans and what we refer to as "humans", from the distant past. Is it possible, the oldest "humans", were not of the human species, and the naming convention is wrong, up to a certain point in time? I like the term, prehuman, since it reflects a precursor to humans, but is objective to the lack of breeding litmus test data.

[Moontanman]

If we look at the modern dog, there are many varieties, from the Chuwawa to the Great Dane and all that is between. They are all the same species and can cross breed. However, if these different dogs had been around millions of years ago, and we found their fossils, the Chuwawa and the Great Dane skeletons could create the impression that these are two distinct species. Without being able to breed them, it would be easy to argue they are two different species, that had a common relative.

 

Dogs are indeed a special case of forced mutation through selective breeding of one species. They do indeed a have an Intelligent designer (arguable I know) under natural circumstances you would not have a population of such closely related widely varied but geographically gathered animals. isolation has produced examples of animals of varying sizes that might have interbred if they had geographical access to each other. The Channel island mammoths are an example of a geographically isolated species that varies from it's parent species only in size. We call them different species but we really have no idea if they could have interbred and produced fertile off spring but it's a pretty good bet they could have. The geographical isolation makes them at least different populations if not species in the absolute sense.

 

The point I am making is bones is not enough to tell which are of the same species and which are not, in all cases. The ability to breed is more definitive as a litmus test for a common species. I was interesting in the breeding capacity between modern humans and what we refer to as "humans", from the distant past. Is it possible, the oldest "humans", were not of the human species, and the naming convention is wrong, up to a certain point in time? I like the term, prehuman, since it reflects a precursor to humans, but is objective to the lack of breeding litmus test data.

 

No, being able to breed and even produce fertile off spring is not a litmus test for anything except being closely related. Species is a very fuzzy line, it over laps many species on the earth even today. In some areas certain plants and animals have geographical variations that are often described as different species but can often interbreed an should really be considered sub species of each other. Fossil bones and species differentiation can be difficult but generally simple geographical variations are taken into account when species are identified.

[Boerseun]

Matthew 26 has Jesus condemning and forbidding public prayer.

Can you maybe tell me where in Matt 26? I would love to pull this one on a few of my hyper-religious inlaws, and I've looked up Matt 26 on the interwebs. But alas, I could not find a line in Matt 26 alluding to anything regarding public prayer amongst all the smotes and verilys.

 

It would be a great asset in my anti-bullshit toolkit if you could point me to the particular verse!

[SamSpeedo]

...It would be a great asset in my anti-bullshit toolkit if you could point me to the particular verse!

 

Bible citations are acceptable here?

[Boerseun]

Bible citations are acceptable here?

 

No.

[Pyrotex]

If we look at the modern dog, there are many varieties, from the Chuwawa to the Great Dane and all that is between. They are all the same species and can cross breed. ....

yes, the many varieties of "dog" can interbreed, as long as Man continues to take a hand in the process.

 

If Chihuahuas and Great Danes were released into the wild, I say they would NOT interbreed. They would not even make the attempt. Not only would the act be mechanically prohibitive were a member of each variety to meet in the wild, but they probably would NOT meet. Great Danes would hunt for different game than Chihuahuas would. They would look for different dens. They could handle different temperature and aridity ranges. They would gravitate toward different ecosystems where their favorite food sources were more prevalent.

 

In a matter of a handful of generations, the regions where Great Danes flourished and the regions where Chihuahuas flourished would be separate. There would be few encounters and no cross breeding. This is sufficient to call them "different species" under the soft definition.

 

Give them another few hundred generations after that and the two varieties would indeed be different species, even under the hard definition for "different species" where no viable (fertile) cross breeding could occur at all.

[Pyrotex]

Can you maybe tell me where in Matt 26? I would love to pull this one on a few of my hyper-religious inlaws,...!

My bad! :eek:

 

It is in Matthew 6: 1-8. There we have Jesus his own self, saying three different ways, do NOT, NEVER, NOWAY do your prayers in public!

 

However, St. Paul contradicts Jesus, in 1 Timothy 1: 8. :eek_big:, saying to pray everywhere, throwing up your hands as a dramatic gesture of holiness.

 

Now, who you gonna believe? Some two-bit itinerant preacher who never met Jesus or read his stuff? Or the Big Guy his own self?

 

I think your in-laws are toast! :evil: :hihi:

[Pyrotex]

Darwinism is a tautology, survival of those that survive. It tells nothing of the origins of life, for that religion offers better explanations. (See Bible, book of Genisis)

It seems that Speedo seriously disapproves of my previous comment to his post, quoted above. He even gave me negative-rep! OUCH! Shot through the heart! Oh, the pain, the agony, the public mortification! Everything's going dark...

 

Or maybe not. :eek_big: From Wiki we have:

 

In rhetoric, a tautology is a ... repetition of meaning, using different and dissimilar words that effectively say the same thing twice...

 

A rhetorical tautology ... defined as a series of statements that comprise an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a way that the truth of the propositions are guaranteed ...by defining a term in terms of another self referentially.

 

"Survival of those that survive", is not only not a good tautology (it's probably just a pleonasm), it is not what Evolution is about, and is not what Darwin said. Evolution is a brilliant idea that actually explains the biological world around us. That is, it tells us (for example) why such and such animals have such and such shapes and attributes.

 

Scripture may say that a Deity created the animals, but that does nothing to explain why they have such and such a shape or attribute. Answering that this Deity "wanted it that way" is not an explanation. At the very best, it is mere red herring. When we ask how does a lightbulb give light, answering, "Edison wanted it that way" is not an explanation by any measure you care to come up with.

 

"Survival of those that survive", is not what Darwin said or even intended. It is not a truthful re-statement of Evolution. So, in that sense, it is a mis-statement; it is a lie.

[maikeru]

Darwinism is a tautology, survival of those that survive. It tells nothing of the origins of life, for that religion offers better explanations. (See Bible, book of Genisis)

 

The mythology of the Greeks and the Romans was just that, wasn't it? Fairy tales to the living, holy truths to those long become dust.

 

Bible. Genesis. End of story.