Should the theory of evolution be taught in public schools?

[Joe Republic]

And now it seems to be your turn to build a strawman (as much as I hate that overused term).

On the contrary, I am actually perfectly open to belief in new things.  I just like the evidence in those things to be concrete.  You seem to have formed your (unfair) conclusion about me due to our discussions on literal interpretations of the Bible, which as I've consistently argued, are not based on legitimate evidence.

[Bono]

And now it seems to be your turn to build a strawman (as much as I hate that overused term).

On the contrary, I am actually perfectly open to belief in new things.  I just like the evidence in those things to be concrete.  You seem to have formed your (unfair) conclusion about me due to our discussions on literal interpretations of the Bible, which as I've consistently argued, are not based on legitimate evidence.

And you are attacking a strawman, because I never said the Bible must be always interpreted literally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical-historical
This is my hermeneutic. If you're going to argue with me, don't use the strawman of "consistent literalism"--that isn't followed by anyone, no matter what its proponents like to claim.
As for open to belief, you mentioned on this thread that you just couldn't believe the account of the resurection.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

How does it defy "reason" when the reason is explicitly given?

It does however defy human effort to trace a natural process.  Why?  Because the bible claims there was no natural process since God spoke the world into existence.

You’re simply searching for a process that doesn’t exist.

And how did God “bend the rules” during Creation when:
1) he had yet to create the rules
2) We ourselves acknowledge the rules are such that there is no natural process for creating energy and no process for renewing usable energy

You're going off on a tangent here, and have deleted the question that I was actually interested in; the one that Bono attempted to answer and made the passage seem even more vague than before.

Which question, this one?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If so, the word “foundation” is pretty generic and probably refers to either the governing physical laws or its physical makeup…or both.  

---

To answer your questions here, my answer is that I have no answer.  That is the very point.  I don't have all the answers to all the questions about the universe (and nor do most scientists) because the answers are yet to be discovered.

Well, based on the current theories of the conservation of energy and the inability to reverse the increase of entropy, many non-religious scientists conclude that science will never reach those answers.

---

You, on the other hand, have placed your faith and wisdom in evidence that is ridiculously full of holes.  If that weren't the truth, none of these debates would exist.

These debates exist because of the false assumptions on which they are based.

My argument is both objective (doesn’t require belief in the bible) and iron-clad:
1) Science is the study of natural processes
2) Some scientists make an unverifiable assumption that the universe is the result of natural processes
3) The bible does not claim the world is the result of natural processes
4) The bible’s claim of supernatural activity is by definition out of the scope of science

[Ebowed]

There is no way to convince you, because your pressupositions exclude supernatural events a priori. Thus, even when confronted for evidence of a supernatural event, you will always exclude such an explanation, because your pressupositions don't allow for it.

There is no way to test for a supernatural event, and since anything goes (thus removing the need for any standards or evidence), why would anyone settle for a supernatural explanation when the answer is unknown?

[Joe Republic]

And now it seems to be your turn to build a strawman (as much as I hate that overused term).

On the contrary, I am actually perfectly open to belief in new things.  I just like the evidence in those things to be concrete.  You seem to have formed your (unfair) conclusion about me due to our discussions on literal interpretations of the Bible, which as I've consistently argued, are not based on legitimate evidence.

And you are attacking a strawman, because I never said the Bible must be always interpreted literally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical-historical
This is my hermeneutic. If you're going to argue with me, don't use the strawman of "consistent literalism"--that isn't followed by anyone, no matter what its proponents like to claim.

Well it's hardly my fault that the explanations of your* beliefs seem to shift like sand dunes whenever anybody tries to make sense of them.


* not specifically you, but from what I've encountered when debating Christian fundamentalists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fail to see how that differs from anything I've already said on the subject of using the Bible as legitimate evidence to prove anything at all.  After all, you did read (and respond to) my earlier posts in that thread.

[Ban my account ffs!]

It is dangerous to be a pharisee, but it is just as dangerous to be a phillistine.

[ilikeverin]

Well, if He was the Son of God he also could have avoided being crucified. He chose not to because it was necessary. You're not really challenging Christianity, just attacking the strawman of your own conceptions of what God should or should not do.

Out of curiosity, why was it "necessary"?  Couldn't God just have made it not necessary?  That's one thing I've never quite understood.

This is how I've come to understand it: God so loved the world He gave it His only begotten son and such.  But He loved the world so even way more omg, that He refused to take the easy way out and magic his son away from the world when things started getting down and dirty.  Instead, he showed the world how much He loved it by showing that He (and his proxy, His son) was not afraid to get down with a little crucifixion and suffering for all of us.  Which seems rather polite if you ask me

[Gabu]

Which seems rather polite if you ask me

Of course, then there's the part where he's all like "lol, if you don't believe that this is 100% fact and then accept me as your savior then i'll make you get tortured for all eternity", which is a little less polite.

[ilikeverin]

Which seems rather polite if you ask me

Of course, then there's the part where he's all like "lol, if you don't believe that this is 100% fact and then accept me as your savior then i'll make you get tortured for all eternity", which is a little less polite.

Well, yes.  But that's why you believe he politely says "hmm, that's nice that you followed your local religion... of course, you will have to fill out a bit of extra paperwork rather than the Premium Platinum Elite ChristianClub Members who get to skip the extra hassle, but welcome to heaven anyway!"

[patrick1]

It is a little sad that the search for life's fundamental truths must always devolve into bickering. We are all searching for answers- granted from often very differing angles.  Many of the arguments obscure the true nature of Christianity and Science.  Scriptures true message is not necessarily metaphysical in its aim.  Christians are called to embrace the Lord and spread His message of Love. Science does not have the authoritative answers on metaphysics nor morals.  However, it need not be labeled as devoid of answers because they do not accept certain principles.  Science seeks answers to life's problems and mysteries but need not belittle Christian beliefs.

Horribly written bunch of bullocks but I think both sides should have a bit more respect for each other.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Horribly written bunch of bullocks but I think both sides should have a bit more respect for each other.

I disagree.  I think the following poster hit the nail on the head:

These debates exist because of the false assumptions on which they are based.

My argument is both objective (doesn't require belief in the bible) and iron-clad:
1) Science is the study of natural processes
2) Some scientists make an unverifiable assumption that the universe is the result of natural processes
3) The bible does not claim the world is the result of natural processes
4) The bible's claim of supernatural activity is by definition out of the scope of science

[Ban my account ffs!]

Ilikevern...

That would only be if Jesus were a Minnesotan

"Well, hi there!  Welcome to heaven... I know it isn't much, but it's home.. here, how 'bout some Hotdish and Jello Salad?  We have coffee and bars for dessert.  Oh, and the toilet in the upstairs bathroom is a little off, so you have to jiggle the handle and then flush."

But I agree.. I like what a priest in my intro theology course had to say "Once you die, it's like there is a light, and if you were a perfect human being, you'd be whisked immediately into heaven.  That journey is much harder for others who were not perfect, but that is why we pray for those who have died"

By this assumption, it is a possibility that even Hitler is in heaven... and it is possible.  I don't know what his relationship with God was like.  But nobody could ever know if someone went to heaven or hell or just to the worms. 

I do feel like the first Minnesotan ever to go to hell probably got there and said "Oh well.. could be worse.. could be 40 below!"

[Hitchabrut]

Evolution and problems in evolution.