Evolution not the only thing to be taught anymore?

[Kevin Wirth]

Christians have no intention of allowing the Constitutional protection to stand. And they have cheated the US in another election to keep their standard bearer in place.

 

Sore loser. Aw....too bad. ;)

 

Hey - Want to know how many years I've been around under a president who I didn't like? I never accused them of cheating, even though they DID. Grow up and get a life.

 

As during the Dark Ages (the last time Christianity ruled the world) they are in a desperate struggle to destroy any factual information that does not conform to their antiquated superstitions and hateful dogma. They are well organized, well funded and will stop at nothing. Lying, cheating, stealing, killing are well established tools of thier trade. And they do not hesitate to use any and all of them.

 

No - wrong again. Actually - we are engaged in a struggle to ensure that factual information IS brought to light. And, we don't promote hateful dogma or superstitions. Your characterization is obviously WAAAAY out of line with reality, since I am practicing NONE of the things you say I am.

 

Nice try at using scare tactics. Man, have you lost your credibility when you spout off with generalizations like that. You think you know so much about us - but you don't know jack. I thought this was a place where people had intelligent discussions, instead of just throwing around the slobber bag.

 

Whoa nelly. Please, is there a Doctor in the house? I need an 'anti-marginalization' washdown, QUICK! ~~~

[IrishEyes]

Kevin,

WELCOME!!

Nice to hear another voice from the other side of the fence for a change. ;)

Freethinker and Stargazer, be kind, won't you? I think I like this new person a bit.

 

Geez, it's really good to be back from vacation!

[Kevin Wirth]

One method teachers cn use, and if they are scientists at all, they are aware of the principle of falsifiability For an assertion to be falsifiable, in principle it must be possible to make an observation or do a physical experiment that would show the assertion to be false. For example, the assertion "All crows are black" could be falsified by observing one red crow. Any thinking person can relate to this. Try to falsify one of the ID assertions.

 

OK - try this one on for size: "The likelihood that ANY complex biological machine originated by successive chance operations is so highly unlikely that any reasonable person would reject it as all but impossible."

 

This can be falsified in just the same way that many evolutionary assertions can be.

[Tormod]

Evolution is only one of your most 'successful ones' not because of its merits, but because it has been one of the most successful marketing campaigns in the history of science. If someone takes the time to look behind the curtain, I can promise many big surprizes to the person who is a true sketic - which is a required attitude of a true scientist.

 

"A marketing campaign"...now where have I heard that one before. Are you sitting with a "How to debate an evolutionist" book in front of you?

 

You try to come off as a serious debater but you have just wasted an entire page in this forum slamming people with bog standard creationist hogwash (which we have heard again and again, so you're not the first and probably not the last).

 

I thought this was a place where people had intelligent discussions, instead of just throwing around the slobber bag.

 

Whoa nelly. Please, is there a Doctor in the house? I need an 'anti-marginalization' washdown, QUICK! ~~~

 

I suggest seeing a different doctor if this is all you can come up with.

 

We could all easily point to kooks myths in science - but that wouldn't mean that ALL of science is bad, now would it.

 

In this forum, you are welcome to debate scientific, religious, philosophical, and metaphysical, topics as much as you like. I appreciate your comment on mixing up "interchanging the use of relgion with people who hold religious beliefs" and it is an important point.

 

But there is another important thing to remember: there are also people who do not hold religious beliefs, and who hold beliefs that are different from yours. So I ask again: If creationism should be taught in school, which version of it should be taught? And why should religious topics be taught in a school system in a state where the church is legally separated from the state? Isn't that the job of the parents and family?

[Stargazer]

No truer words have ever been spoken of people who are completely and totally convinced that evolution is a fact.

 

Evolution is only one of your most 'successful ones' not because of its merits, but because it has been one of the most successful marketing campaigns in the history of science.

Oh, really? Why don't you show the evidence you have that would punch a hole in the theory of evolution? Fame and fortune would surely await whoever could pull something like that off. Let's see it.

 

If someone takes the time to look behind the curtain, I can promise many big surprizes to the person who is a true sketic - which is a required attitude of a true scientist.

Ok, show us the big surprises then. If there are any, that is.

 

No we're not - we're actually trying to SAVE science education, not destroy it. You've got it all wrong. As in TOTALLY. ;)

Nope. Genesis creation is not correct in any way, shape or form. If it is, then please show me and everyone else. If you can prove the Genesis myth to be true and to conform with evidence, then that will change everything we know about cosmology, astronomy, biology, geology, genetics, archaeology, palaeontology... If we add other stories from the holy book, large parts of physics and linguistics will have to change completely as well. A lot of people claim to be able to do this, curiously, noone has yet managed to actually do it.

 

To teach science in science class is NOT the same as destroying science education. Teaching myths and fairytales as if they are proper science, that is, I'm afraid, to destroy education - no matter what you personally happen to believe in.

[Stargazer]

Kevin,

WELCOME!!

Nice to hear another voice from the other side of the fence for a change.

Though I don't doubt that there would be heated debates even among us who love science, it is fun to see someone from the other side on that particular issue.

[Stargazer]

But there is another important thing to remember: there are also people who do not hold religious beliefs, and who hold beliefs that are different from yours. So I ask again: If creationism should be taught in school, which version of it should be taught? And why should religious topics be taught in a school system in a state where the church is legally separated from the state? Isn't that the job of the parents and family?

Absolutely. What about the Norse mythology? It had this cow eating ice and then there was this Ymer the Snowman from which the humans were created. Funny how snow and ice were in that story - I wonder if it occurs in mythologies from warmer places on this planet? Oh, and there are different versions of the Genesis creation myth as well, such as geocentrism and flat earth... I suppose it depends how literally you interpret it :)

[Kevin Wirth]

Real Christians cannot be "saved" if they reject Creationism. Unless the Adam and Eve story is true, there is no Jesus dying for our sins. That's why it's so difficult to argue evolution with them.

 

Um. Excuse me, but - not not true!

 

Believing in Adam and Eve, or evolution is *not* a requirement for a Christian to be saved, and I think you know this.

 

Certainly, you must know this.

 

Jesus spelled it out Himself:

 

"He who has believed and has been baptised shall be saved, He who has disbelieved shall be condemned" Matt 16:16

 

"I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. [Or kept safe] He will come in and go out, and find pasture. " JOHN 10:9

 

It's pretty simple, really. Confess your sin and believe that Jesus died for you and takes the punishment for your sins.

 

No other requirement. Not even belief in Creationism.

[Tormod]

Actually - we are engaged in a struggle to ensure that factual information IS brought to light. And, we don't promote hateful dogma or superstitions.

 

No, of course not. The *factual* (yet scientifically unprovable) creation story is all you want to provide to the kids in school. The rest of the bible (which is all factual, consistent, and not based on any dogma or superstition) you will keep out of school, right?

 

By the way, who are the "we" you refer to?

[Kevin Wirth]

Linda

 

An interesting definition of "Real Christians".

 

Personally I would believe that a Real Christian would be a follower of Jesus Christ. To the best of my knowledge he didn't mention Adam and Eve, or Creation. Also he never encouraged his followers to read, or believe in the bible (Old Testament). As evidence, may I point out that he even rejected the 10 commandments, replacing them with 2. Further he replaced the Old Testament's "Eye for an eye" with "Turn the other cheek".

 

This is (almost) accurate.

 

Jesus didn't actually 'reject' the 10 Commandments - he simply put them in their proper context. They are still good today as 'training wheels' for how we should behave. Jesus dis, however, give us "new" commandments as 'Blame the Ex' says.

 

Under the Old Testament paradigm, sin was only paid for temporarily through the sacrifice of animals. It never fully paid the price of sin. It wasn't until Jesus' death and resurrection that the penalty for sin was finally paid in full.

 

Jesus did not come to replace or do away with the law, but He said he came to FULFILL the law by introducing a new and better paradigm: a covenent of grace rather than the covenant of the OT law.

 

Which is to say that God has freely given us what we need most - a future and an assurance of eternal life with him.

 

And of course - this is not science. Nor is it scientifically demonstrable or falsifiable. But - that doesn't mean it ain't so.

 

That's the problem with what many participants in this forum: to be 'rational' it must be scientifically falsifiable. Unfortunately, the universe does not work according to just scientific principles.

 

Not all of reality is subject to scientific verification. Some aspects of reality may be known by other means, like, "Revelation".

 

Revelation as a means of knowing some aspects of the universe is also "not" and abandonment of reason or a reliance upon superstition.

[Kevin Wirth]

Jesus, if he existed, was supposedly a devout Jew and teacher of the Hebrew theology, which was itself a maze of contridictions. But he didn't originate Christianity, Paul did. Original sin was a necessary prequel. Most people I know who consider themselves real Christians follow the Pauline doctrine since they think being "saved" is the key to an afterlife.

 

Yes. Well said.

 

With one caveat.

 

Paul didn't 'invent' Christianity - he was simply the one person who was perhaps the most influential after Jesus' death for promoting or 'evangelizing' the Gospel message, which DID come directly from Jesus. In fact, Jesus commanded his followers to promote and preach the Good News of the new Gospel He proclaimed.

[Tormod]

And of course - this is not science. Nor is it scientifically demonstrable or falsifiable. But - that doesn't mean it ain't so.

 

That's the problem with what many participants in this forum: to be 'rational' it must be scientifically falsifiable. Unfortunately, the universe does not work according to just scientific principles.

 

You speak about a lot of people you do not know. To think otherwise than yourself is a "problem"? You come forth as if you consider yourself a bright source of enlightenment and we should all listen to you because you must be right.

 

This is the exact behaviour that explains why we need to keep religion out of schools.

[Kevin Wirth]

Linda

 

I'm not sure what you mean by devout Jew. Jesus was a jew, and he was Devout, but does that make him a devout Jew? I think not. His version of religion was heresy to the Jews. They did not accept him then, and they do not accept him now.

 

Paul did a major part in defining the expression of Christianity, but there were followers of Christ in his lifetime, so it's pushing it to call Paul the originator. Paul just took over the movement Jesus started.

 

Regardless, did any of Paul's writings demand adherence to the Old Testament? I know of none.

 

Well, Jesus was and IS a devout Jew. He is the epitomy of a Jew. He was a descendant of Adam, Noah, David, and other famous Jews. (Luke 3:23-38). Just because He was rejected by Jews who did not properly understand His role does not mean He wasn't a devout Jew. The Jews saw Jesus as someone who defiled their laws because he [a man] openly claimed to BE the fulfillment of them. This was the ultimate heresy, and they rejected Him because of this.

 

But...Jesus was still a devout Jew.

 

Jesus was also the One to usher in a New Covenant to replace the Old Covenant of the Law given to Moses. Paul says in Hebrews 9:7 "For if that first Covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second".

 

(This New Covenant was for ALL men and women, not just Jews.)

 

and in v. 13 Paul concludes by saying "When He [God] said a 'A new covenant' he has made the first obsolete."

[Kevin Wirth]

You are not addressing the topic at hand which is that Christianity requires original sin for it's validity.

 

100% correct.

 

If god existed then science would be meaningless.

 

100% incorrect (and ridiculous).

 

Good science can have plenty of meaning if there is a God. The tenets of science are all good - God or no God. Science is not the antithesis of God, or vice versa.

 

What many people in this forum fail to recognize or validate is that science is just ONE way to acquire knowledge. It is NOT the ONLY rational knowledge base in the universe, sorry.

 

Take the book of Revelation in the NT for example. Here, knowledge of the future is REVEALED. Can it be verified scientifically? Sure - but only in the future - when it's one minute 'til midnight on the clock of the Ages! (almost too late)

 

You won't be calling it all bunk when you start seeing this stuff happening.

 

Oh, and don't forget - the 'Revelations' of Daniel. Lots of future stuff there too.

 

The point is - SOME information about the universe is not available via or subject to scientific inference, scrutiny, or testing.

 

That doesn't make Revelation from the God of the Universe 'irrational' or 'superstitious' or 'untrue'. Not at all.

 

Revealed info is just a 'different' means of acquiring real knowledge about some things in the universe that we would not otherwise have any clue about.

[Tormod]

Here, knowledge of the future is REVEALED. Can it be verified scientifically? Sure - but only in the future - when it's one minute 'til midnight on the clock of the Ages! (almost too late)

 

You show a complete lack of understanding of what "scientifically" means, Kevin.

[Stargazer]

Good science can have plenty of meaning if there is a God. The tenets of science are all good - God or no God. Science is not the antithesis of God, or vice versa.

It's possible to believe in myths as well as well-supported scientific theories. But, I wonder why one would hold a strong belief in that which is the product of the lack of skepticism and Ockham's razor.

 

What many people in this forum fail to recognize or validate is that science is just ONE way to acquire knowledge. It is NOT the ONLY rational knowledge base in the universe, sorry.

It is the best way. Or do you have a better suggestion?

 

Take the book of Revelation in the NT for example. Here, knowledge of the future is REVEALED.

Sure it is. Why would that particular story be true? Why don't you believe in other fantasystories as well?

 

Can it be verified scientifically? Sure - but only in the future - when it's one minute 'til midnight on the clock of the Ages! (almost too late)

 

You won't be calling it all bunk when you start seeing this stuff happening.

What stuff do you personally believe will happen, and what evidence do you have that it will happen?

 

Oh, and don't forget - the 'Revelations' of Daniel. Lots of future stuff there too.

 

The point is - SOME information about the universe is not available via or subject to scientific inference, scrutiny, or testing.

 

That doesn't make Revelation from the God of the Universe 'irrational' or 'superstitious' or 'untrue'. Not at all.

Right. It also doesn't make the notion of green elephants on Mars irrational, or the belief that there's an invisible dragon in the garage untrue.

The point is, there is no evidence for either of these myths, yet you choose to believe in one of them. Why?

[Kevin Wirth]

Linda

 

Linda

 

My apologies.

 

Ok. I will address the topic you wish for, although I am puzzled as to how the topic got to Original Sin. I thought it was about Creation

 

To the best of my knowledge Jesus never preached a doctrine of Original Sin. He certainly believe in sin, and redemption, but I can't recall anywhere in the Bible where he claimed people were born with sin. Frankly it would seem quite out of character. Nor for that matter do I know of such a claim in Paul's writings. The Original Sin was, I think, Adam eating the apple. A nice bit of Jewish mythology, but Jesus was out to create his own religion. Did ether Jesus or Paul make any reference to Adam at all?

 

Now, It has been about 40 years since I was forced to study the Bible, and frankly it was rather long to remember it all, so no doubt I am wrong. Still, as you have made the claim, you must have the evidence to hand. Perhaps you could post it?

 

Well, you are correct that the gospels do not explicity contain a bunch of quotes from Jesus preaching about Original Sin.

 

BUT.... it IS the entire reason WHY He came and died and rose again in the first place.

 

Where did Jesus claim he came from?

 

They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

(John 6:41-43 )

 

Even the people who knew Jesus from childhood had a hard time believing His claims. They thought they knew who he was. As far as they were concerned, he was just one of them.

 

“Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. " (John 8:13-15)

 

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me." (John 8:41-43)

 

WHY did he say he came here?

 

Standing before Pilate...

 

“You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” (John 18:36-38)

 

And in the Garden of Gethsemene, during one of his his greatest trials on the eve of his crucifixion, Jesus is quoted as saying:

 

“Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour."

(John 12:26-28)

 

WHY did he say he came here?

 

To die. Why? To save ALL men and women from their 'original' sins.

 

However, Paul the Apostle makes it CRYSTAL clear that Jesus came to abolish the penalty of 'original sin' (i.e., we are all born in sin and were/are therefore in need of being 'saved' from the condemnation of God)

 

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned– " (Romans 5:12)

 

"Consequently, just as the result of one trespass [Adam & Eve -kw] was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." (Romans 5:17-19)

 

"For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, [ Or be rendered powerless] that we should no longer be slaves to sin" (Romans 6:6)

 

Did Jesus or Paul mention Adam (in the NT)?

 

Jesus is not quoted mentioning Adam directly, but Paul doesn't pussyfoot around on this point. He definitely mentions Adam.

 

"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."

(1 Corinthians 15:21-23)

 

"So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" [ Gen. 2:7] ; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit." (1 Corinthians 15:44-46)

 

Paul also mentions Adam in I Timothy.

 

Bottom line...

 

If I'm playing poker and the stakes are my eternal life, am I going to bet on the hand that relies on ONLY stuff that I can know just from science alone, or do I play the hand that relies on BOTH science and Revelation? ;)

 

Contrary to the belief of many, science and New Testament theology are not mutually exclusive or contradictory. Science isn't 'better' than biblical revelation, and Biblical teachings are not unreliable bunk.

 

It's a sad mistake to equate or tie a scientific theory with the validity of all of science itself.

 

No branch of science depends on evolution, sorry (even tho many seem to think so). Science won't fall apart if evolution isn't true. Science is bigger than the theories spawned in its name. It had better be!