Evolution In The Classroom

[Mystic_Banana]

I actually find it refreshing that religion is a thing of the past in the UK.

I’ll bet you do! Although it isn’t actually quite that - no matter how much many atheists like yourself to delude themselves that it is

Anyway, as far as I can tell, blind faith seems to be on the increase - specifically in that Dawkins arguments have actually made sense, and effectively discredited religion on a rational basis

 

[rossum]

Creeping in … like that’s a problem anyone needs to care about. Meanwhile, I saw scenes like this on the streets of London every night.

People get drunk. People have been getting drunk for a long time. Noah - Genesis 9:20. Lot - Genesis 19:32

A nice by-product of the Darwinian vision of human life …

It is interesting to know that Biblical patriarchs such as Lot and Noah were well versed in the Darwinian vision of human life. Was not Lot the only reghteous man in the city of Sodom? Was not Noah the only righteous man in the whole world? Obviously Darwinism is righteous - the Bible says so.

rossum

 

[liquidpele]

And if zygote to human is a natural process, why isn’t the development of soulishness a natural process?

Are you implying that zygote to human is not a natural process? I’m under the impression that Catholic doctrine says the soul is implanted at the moment of conception, before the process begins. Regardless of how the soul changes or interacts, the physical development indeed is a natural process.

 

[reggieM]

People get drunk. People have been getting drunk for a long time. Noah - Genesis 9:20. Lot - Genesis 19:32

It’s interesting to see how you rationalize this story. That helps me determine how you’ll react to other items that you don’t like. In this case, turn the attack against the Word of God. That’s actually a very common approach so I didn’t learn that much. When Darwinian theory is cited negatively, the common response is to attack Christianity. It will then be claimed that Darwinism has nothing to do with religion.
In this case, as I quoted:

– one of the country’s worst cities for binge drinking
– 'Late night alcohol-fuelled crime and anti-social behaviour is a huge problem on the streets
– British schoolgirls are the worst for binge drinking in Europe. The problem is likely to become worse
— Some 648 children under ten [hospitalized due to alcohol]

The response to this is “people get drunk”.
Perhaps that’s all the Cardiff Central MP needs to think about.

It is interesting to know that Biblical patriarchs such as Lot and Noah were well versed in the Darwinian vision of human life. Was not Lot the only reghteous man in the city of Sodom? Was not Noah the only righteous man in the whole world? Obviously Darwinism is righteous - the Bible says so.

As above, when Darwinism is attacked, the best response is to turn-about and attack the Word of God or Christians. This can be done by persons who have no real interest or understanding of Christianity at all – and who, for example, spend hours on a Catholic web-forum for no apparent reason except to defend and advance evolutionary theory.

It does say a lot about the Darwinian mindset. In this case, a social crisis in Wales is rationalized through a ridicule of the patriarchs of the Old Testament.

It’s a pretty good example of the kind of contempt that some of the visitors (non-Catholic guests) to this forum have for the Catholic Faith.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

And yet people start off as a single celled zygote and you don’t seem to require God in the womb pushing cells around in that instance.

If it didn’t work at least semi-autonomously, biology wouldn’t make any sense!

The improbabilities are hard to ignore, however… even for you!

 

[rossum]

It does say a lot about the Darwinian mindset. In this case, a social crisis in Wales is rationalized through a ridicule of the patriarchs of the Old Testament.

I was not ridiculing the OT patriarchs, I was ridiculing your stupid argument that Darwinism causes drunkenness. Drunkenness has existed since long before Darwinism. Your ludicrous attempt to create a spurious link between the two was what I was ridiculing.

rossum

 

[liquidpele]

If it didn’t work at least semi-autonomously, biology wouldn’t make any sense!

The improbabilities are hard to ignore, however… even for you!

What improbabilities exactly? Do you have citations regarding the calculations and the sources for the numbers used?

 

[reggieM]

Drunkenness has existed since long before Darwinism. Your ludicrous attempt to create a spurious link between the two was what I was ridiculing.

Satan existed before Darwinism also – as has sin. An evil philosophy will lead to social chaos. Atheistic-materialism as communicated through the errors of Darwinism will have its expected effects in society.

Some will see that very easily.

Others will deny it, rationalize it and even deny the evidence that “alcohol-fuelled crime and anti-social behaviour is a huge problem”.

Your disrespect towards the patriarchs of our Faith and towards the Holy Scriptures have been noted.

 

[buffalo]

I was not ridiculing the OT patriarchs, I was ridiculing your stupid argument that Darwinism causes drunkenness. Drunkenness has existed since long before Darwinism. Your ludicrous attempt to create a spurious link between the two was what I was ridiculing.

rossum

I would like your thoughts on this:

If one observer can collapse the wave function, what would be the effects of 6 billion?

If one stands at the edge of a pond the observer determines whether a photon reflects off the surface to his eye or reflects off the bottom.

Can mass observers determine outcome?

 

[edwest2]

Satan existed before Darwinism also – as has sin. An evil philosophy will lead to social chaos. Atheistic-materialism as communicated through the errors of Darwinism will have its expected effects in society.

Some will see that very easily.

Others will deny it, rationalize it and even deny the evidence that “alcohol-fuelled crime and anti-social behaviour is a huge problem”.

Your disrespect towards the patriarchs of our Faith and towards the Holy Scriptures have been noted.

Excellent post reggie.

What we have here is a dedicated team given the task of maintaining eternal vigilance lest any Creationist friendly idea might interest people, or worse, actually draw in people who support the idea, and the worst case scenario, people actually taking action to look at errors in Darwinism and promoting anomolous information about earth’s past to the general public.

For Darwin supporters, the goal is to paint the outside scientific world as solidly pro-evolution, that the theory has no flaws, except for the possible piddling detail, soon to be resolved, and that everyone must accept it. The Bible tells us what happens to human beings who have lost the sense of their true identity. They fall into fleshly excesses as you’ve pointed out, and eat, drink (to excess) and be merry, for tomorrow you die.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Satan existed before Darwinism also – as has sin. An evil philosophy will lead to social chaos. Atheistic-materialism as communicated through the errors of Darwinism will have its expected effects in society. Others will deny it, rationalize it and even deny the evidence that “alcohol-fuelled crime and anti-social behaviour is a huge problem”. Your disrespect towards the patriarchs of our Faith and towards the Holy Scriptures have been noted.

Reggie, I didn’t think it was possible for ID or YEC to look more pathetic than it is. You have exceeded even my expectations in that regard.

Rossum is not disrespectful to note that Noah got drunk, or that Lot was willing to give over his daughters to be gang-raped by a mob, and then got drunk and had sex with his daughters. For a biblical literalist these are “facts,” and even a biblical literalist would have to admit that Noah and Lot lived thousands of years before Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution through natural selection. The Bible’s holy debauchery is hardly a consequence of evolution!

StAnastasia

 

[rossum]

Satan existed before Darwinism also – as has sin.

Mara and Yama existed long before Darwinism also. Sin is a Christian concept not recognised in Buddhism; the closest you can get is probably “unskilful action”.

Others will deny it, rationalize it and even deny the evidence that “alcohol-fuelled crime and anti-social behaviour is a huge problem”.

I do not deny that alcohol-fuelled crime and anti-social behaviour is a problem. I am denying your spurious attempt to blame it on Darwinism. Do you have any evidence that biology students in universities are any more prone to drunkenness than students of other subjects? If the problem really was Darwinism, then surely you would expect biology students to show the worst effects. Either withdraw your ridiculous attempt to smear Darwinism or produce some real evidence to support your position.

Your disrespect towards the patriarchs of our Faith and towards the Holy Scriptures have been noted.

I have no disrespect for the patriarchs. I have an immense amount of disrespect for your pathetic line of argument. Stop trying to deflect my criticism of your nonsensical line of alleged ‘reasoning’ onto other targets.

rossum

 

[StAnastasia]

Are you implying that zygote to human is not a natural process? I’m under the impression that Catholic doctrine says the soul is implanted at the moment of conception, before the process begins. Regardless of how the soul changes or interacts, the physical development indeed is a natural process.

Soular implantation is hard to measure, and carries some difficult problems, so I won’t visit it.

My question is this: if God is necessary to explain the evolutionary transition between species, or the development of the vertebrate eye, or the development of mitochondrial chemistry, why isn’t divine intervention also necessary to explain every transition from gametes to zygote to blastocyst to embryo to fetus?

What are the parameters of naturalistic explanations? Why is a naturalistic explanation sufficient for some phenomena, but insufficient for others?

StAnastasia

 

[kk23wong]

Soular implantation is hard to measure, and carries some difficult problems, so I won’t visit it.

My question is this: if God is necessary to explain the evolutionary transition between species, or the development of the vertebrate eye, or the development of mitochondrial chemistry, why isn’t divine intervention also necessary to explain every transition from gametes to zygote to blastocyst to embryo to fetus?

What are the parameters of naturalistic explanations? Why is a naturalistic explanation sufficient for some phenomena, but insufficient for others?

StAnastasia

Science without mentioning the God is insane.
Science without the existence of the God is incomplete.
Science denying the existence of the God is actually ignoring the truth.

Evolution without the physical existence of the God (a Conscious Earth) is incomplete.

Look at the logical proof of the Living Earth below.

1. No living things can be created without any living tissue.
2. No living things can be created with non-living tissues only.
3. We can create living things with living tissues only.
4. All living things have living tissues.
5. The Earth has living tissues.
6. The Earth is a living thing.
7. No living things arrived from space up to now.
8. There are living things on the Earth.
9. All living things on the Earth come from the Earth.
10. As a result, the Earth created all of us (by birth).

Definition of living thing has to be rewritten.

Food chain is a natural mechanism of the life cycles of the Earth (which is similar to our bodies). Plants are organic living tissues on the Earth for providing food to rear the offspring (animals – including insects – with the presence of brains). Meat Eaters are in a much fewer number in the natural world to control the number of vegetations (offspring). This is a perfect natural mechanism which has been demolished by our technology. The regeneration of the Earth is similar to our life cycles inside our body. Life has a start. There must be an end. The Earth is a living thing in a higher level. Her (microorganism – “active” organic molecules in chemistry) body cells evolved and diversified.

“Lives in different levels” is a universal theory which can explain every phenomenon on the Earth.** A fact never affraid of being challenged.**

Teru Wong

 

[StAnastasia]

The regeneration of the Earth is similar to our life cycles inside our body. Life has a start. There must be an end. The Earth is a living thing in a higher level. Her (microorganism – “active” organic molecules in chemistry) body cells evolved and diversified.“Lives in different levels” is a universal theory which can explain every phenomenon on the Earth.** A fact never affraid of being challenged.**Teru Wong

Teru Wong, thank you for your post. I have heard of this hypothesis of earth as living organism. I have yet to see a convincing argument for it supported by adequate evidence.

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

Teru Wong, thank you for your post. I have heard of this hypothesis of earth as living organism. I have yet to see a convincing argument for it supported by adequate evidence.

StAnastasia

Are you a theologian? Or a scientist? You argue better for science than you do for Catholicism.

 

[liquidpele]

Soular implantation is hard to measure, and carries some difficult problems, so I won’t visit it.

My question is this: if God is necessary to explain the evolutionary transition between species, or the development of the vertebrate eye, or the development of mitochondrial chemistry, why isn’t divine intervention also necessary to explain every transition from gametes to zygote to blastocyst to embryo to fetus?

What are the parameters of naturalistic explanations? Why is a naturalistic explanation sufficient for some phenomena, but insufficient for others?

StAnastasia

Ugh… Yes? That was my exact point in my post that you first replied to.

 

[StAnastasia]

Ugh… Yes? That was my exact point in my post that you first replied to.

Liquipele, I meant no disrespect to you or Pele or any other Hawaiian God or Goddess. I’m merely curious about the parameters of naturalistic explanations. Shall I assume that you hold there to be only naturalistic explanations for all phenomena? Or at least for all natural phenomena?

 

[StAnastasia]

Are you a theologian? Or a scientist? You argue better for science than you do for Catholicism.

Theologian, but I work a lot on a daily basis with scientists, Catholic and non-Catholic. Most people appreciate my arguments for Catholicism, which is why the ask me back.

 

[buffalo]

Theologian, but I work a lot on a daily basis with scientists, Catholic and non-Catholic. Most people appreciate my arguments for Catholicism, which is why the ask me back.

It would be nice if you argued for Catholicism here too.