Good teaching tool for early teaching in biology

[fncceo]

 

[Riff Raff]

I'm an OEC.

Believing in creation results in more good than believing in evolution. We need more good in the world.

Evolution is the process of creation. Some get confused by taking religion's figurative story lessons as factual history.

 

[Riff Raff]

The God of the Bible is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Science on the other hand changes faster than I change my socks.

Science: Latest best guess

 

[Riff Raff]

Believing in evolution would require disbelief in God. Can't believe in both at the same time either...

I personally know this to be false. After years of research and reflection, by way of fact, reason and observation I concluded without reservation there is God (Theory of Everything, Creator/Created, Universe, One, etc). Evolution is a partially understood process of creation.

 

[ReinyDays]

Creation(ism) doesn't deny the laws of physics, just evolution as it is commonly presented and understood.

Evolution doesn't violate the laws of physics ... evolution's basis is chemistry ... we had to wait until Linus Pauling wrote the textbook on chemical bonding before we could advance our current theories on evolution ... so we're including the relativistic effects in our quantum mechanics ... are you? ...

Evolution is not commonly understood ... look how much confusion there is about just the chemical basis of life? ... do you know what an enzyme is? ... if not, then you have only a lack of understanding to base your disapproval of evolution ... look how many blame Darwin when in fact it was Watson/Crick who brought evolution into the realm of scientific fact ... you know ... DNA and stuff ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Evolution is a partially understood process of creation.

Great point ... evolution is a partial understanding ... or better stated: it's a theory written in pencil ... research continues ...

 

[Woodznutz]

Evolution is the process of creation. Some get confused by taking religion's figurative story lessons as factual history.

Creation only requires belief. Evolution requires that the believer thoroughly understand the concept, otherwise it must be taken on faith.

 

[Woodznutz]

Evolution doesn't violate the laws of physics ... evolution's basis is chemistry ... we had to wait until Linus Pauling wrote the textbook on chemical bonding before we could advance our current theories on evolution ... so we're including the relativistic effects in our quantum mechanics ... are you? ...

Evolution is not commonly understood ... look how much confusion there is about just the chemical basis of life? ... do you know what an enzyme is? ... if not, then you have only a lack of understanding to base your disapproval of evolution ... look how many blame Darwin when in fact it was Watson/Crick who brought evolution into the realm of scientific fact ... you know ... DNA and stuff ...

Most believe we evolved from lower life forms.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

A basic cartoon that demonstrates the basics of evolution, would be an excellent teaching tool in the early grades.

The Athiest faith is pretty hard to swallow. Of course you need to get to these young skulls full of mush as young as possible

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Evolution is the process of creation. Some get confused by taking religion's figurative story lessons as factual history.

Trying to blend both worlds because you haven't thought it through

 

[Woodznutz]

Evolution doesn't violate the laws of physics ...

Evolution violates the law of odds, and would require God to make the millions of otherwise impossible changes needed.

 

[Riff Raff]

Trying to blend both worlds because you haven't thought it through

A foolish speculation that's false. Starting in my early teens my primary interest was trying to understand what reality is, existence, the universe, God and such. I looked everywhere — nature, geology, physics, philosophy, religions of the world and much more. When I found something of interest, I went to a bookstore and looked over all of the books on that subject then selected the one which seemed most likely to best explain it. I examined quantum theory (layman-level, no physics equations) and relativity theories. I literally read an encyclopedia on world religions from A to Z, reading books on those that I found most interesting. I read a lot of philosophy.

Everything was read with an overall strategy of piecing together the big picture. Unification without contradiction. I digested information to let the knower within help mesh it into greater Truth.

Ultimately, I came to some fundamental conclusions that have not only withstood the test of time but have been repeatedly confirmed by experience, observation and science.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

A foolish speculation that's false. Starting in my early teens my primary interest was trying to understand what reality is, existence, the universe, God and such. I looked everywhere — nature, geology, physics, philosophy, religions of the world and much more. When I found something of interest, I went to a bookstore and looked over all of the books on that subject then selected the one which seemed most likely to best explain it. I examined quantum theory (layman-level, no physics equations) and relativity theories. I literally read an encyclopedia on world religions from A to Z, reading books on those that I found most interesting. I read a lot of philosophy.

Everything was read with an overall strategy of piecing together the big picture. Unification without contradiction. I digested information to let the knower within help mesh it into greater Truth.

Ultimately, I came to some fundamental conclusions that have not only withstood the test of time but have been repeatedly confirmed by experience, observation and science.

Nope. If you don't believe in CREATION, you don't believe in the God of the Bible. You WANT to appear religious, but you care more what the devils world thinks of you

 

[Hollie]

Creation only requires belief. Evolution requires that the believer thoroughly understand the concept, otherwise it must be taken on faith.

Not a good argument. The fact of evolution is known from the facts that support the theory.

On the other hand, the inference from "supernatural design" (applied to biology, for exampke). to the supernatural designer gods goal, and thus to supernatural designer gods, is, of course, a leap of faith. If we have no criteria for identifying design goals of supernatural designer gods, other than something very big is claimed by believers to have been designed supernaturally, we end up with many designer gods, many goals of the designer gods, many design criteria, and ultimately it is simply a restatement of the evolutionary notion of fitness. A "design" is something that makes an organism fit, that is, able to live and reproduce. But we already have an account of fitness, and it doesn't involve suoernatural designers, or even, really, design: It’s called ‘’natural selection’’

 

[Hollie]

Evolution violates the law of odds, and would require God to make the millions of otherwise impossible changes needed.

The expected, ''what are the odds'' arguments actually support biological evolution.

Firstly, any true calculation of ''odds'' carry some obvious limitations. The most obvious limitation is that for any calculation of chance, you must assume that all present functional life forms are the goal, and not the result of the process, and then calculate backwards.

Secondly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that proteins and the building blocks of life formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Lastly, the “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously.

 

[Riff Raff]

Nope. If you don't believe in CREATION, you don't believe in the God of the Bible. You WANT to appear religious, but you care more what the devils world thinks of you

You're an imbecile.

 

[Riff Raff]

You WANT to appear religious...

You're so wrong in everything you've said. I missed this one earlier. I do not want to appear religious. I have no religion and am not religious. But you are a fool, that's for sure.

 

[fncceo]

Nope. If you don't believe in CREATION, you don't believe in the God of the Bible.

I also don't believe ...

... Samson had literally "magic hair"

... in the talking snake

... that a virgin had a child

... Lot's Wife turned into salt

... anyone was raised from the dead

... Noah saved humanity and (almost) every animal, reptile, insect, and single-celled lifeform on the planet in a boat.

... anything in the entire Book of Revelation


However, I do believe there there is a lot of good stuff in The Bible, such as one of man's first attempts to codify morality.

But, I don't literally believe that every word in it is factually true.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I also don't believe ...

... Samson had literally "magic hair"

... in the talking snake

... that a virgin had a child

... Lot's Wife turned into salt

... anyone was raised from the dead

... Noah saved humanity and (almost) every animal, reptile, insect, and single-celled lifeform on the planet in a boat.

... anything in the entire Book of Revelation


However, I do believe there there is a lot of good stuff in The Bible, such as one of man's first attempts to codify morality.

But, I don't literally believe that every word in it is factually true.

Nobody requires that you do.
You don't claim to be a Christian
And you're only a Jew by "race" not because you agree with the religion.

I am a Christian and I do believe those things. All of them -- except I draw the line between miracles and "magic"

A miracle is not "magic"

 

[fncceo]

And you're only a Jew by "race" not because you agree with the religion.

So, apparently, you know less about Judaism than you do about The Bible.