Richard Dawkins celebrates a victory over creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Leading scientists and naturalists, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, are claiming a victory over the creationist movement after the government ratified measures that will bar anti-evolution groups from teaching creationism in science classes.



Richard Dawkins celebrates a victory over creationists | Education | The Observer

Sign of the times,but it is only a temporary victory. God said when he returns all the captains and the kings of the earth and will be gather at the final battle where he will destroy all governments. I think that includes man's school system.

Does that include all the Republicans in government as well? So, ALL people in government are Evil.....there is no difference among party lines?

Anyone who opposes the Almighty and his laws.

Did our government remove God from our society ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't limit my God....

If evolution is how He chose to make all on earth, then so be it.

What I do know, as a Christian, is that creationism as presented, is not science. I don't expect it to be science either....it is a spiritual side of Creation, with 2 or 3 paragraphs in the entire Bible, a short story or short short story in brief of how we were Created....a few paragraphs can not possibly describe in full the measures taken in the process of creation other than a quick synopsis.

Were we made from the dust of the Earth? Yes....

did the process follow the short story in the Bible as far as sequence? for the most part....yes....first the fish, then birds, then land animals etc.....then us humans were created lastly.....science shows the same story, only in detail...in thousands of science books and millions of chapters later....and they are still working on it....

so, as a Christian, I am not caught up on any of this ridiculous garbage of wanting to teach Creationism in Science Class....it's NOT Science and never was meant to be Science......

God created us with the ability to adapt not change from species to species.

God said he created man in his image.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Blue.



What color should science teach the whale was that Jonah lived inside for days?

Where does it say in the sciptures Jonah was in the belly of a whale ?

The Greek word was sea monster. The most logical conclusion is they were talking about a whale.

If you want to make the story even crazier and say it was the Loch Ness Monster or the Swamp Thing, have at it.

All it says is a big fish.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Blue.



What color should science teach the whale was that Jonah lived inside for days?

Where does it say in the sciptures Jonah was in the belly of a whale ?

The Greek word was sea monster. The most logical conclusion is they were talking about a whale.

If you want to make the story even crazier and say it was the Loch Ness Monster or the Swamp Thing, have at it.

Wrong again.

Jon 1:17 Now the LORDH3068 had preparedH4487 a greatH1419 fishH1709 to swallow upH1104 (H853) Jonah.H3124 And JonahH3124 wasH1961 in the bellyH4578 of the fishH1709 threeH7969 daysH3117 and threeH7969 nights.H3915

Fish

H1709
דּאג דּגo
dâg dâ'g
dawg, dawg
From H1711; a fish (as prolific); or perhaps rather from H1672 (as timid); but still better from H1672 (in the sense of squirming, that is, moving by the vibratory action of the tail); a fish (often used collectively): - fish.

 

[daveman]

Where did I say I didn't believe in evolution?

Why don't you tell us what you actually do believe, Dave. I realize that you have more fun throwing verbal spitwads, but seriously . . .

I believe God created the heavens and the earth. I don't know how long ago.

Evolution seems to have occurred. It is not inconsistent with creationism.

As for the details, I'll ask God when I see Him. Meanwhile, it's an interesting debate, but it really has no effect on my life, or on anyone else's, for that matter.

 

[daveman]

Blue.



What color should science teach the whale was that Jonah lived inside for days?

Depends on what kind of whale it was, doesn't it?

For someone who claims to be conservative, you sure do seem to be siding strongly with the anti-religion left here.

No kind of whale doesn't matter as the story is scientifically impossible and there's no facts to back it, just like creationism and a creator have no facts backing them.

I'm not like you, the hyper partisan who feels he has to agree with his "side" on every single issue.

I'm not religious, but i don't care if every building on private property in america is a church and if every citizen has a bible glued to his/her head. I just don't want gov't promoting religion, and i have no idea why you fundie types are so insecure about your beliefs that you feel gov't has to promote it.

I'm not a fundie. You're letting your bigotry do your thinking for you.

As I've pointed out in this thread already, I have no idea why you science-y types are so insecure about your beliefs that you feel the government has to exclude all other beliefs.

 

[Dragon]

Evolution seems to have occurred. It is not inconsistent with creationism.

I would agree with this if you had left off the last three letters. Evolution is not inconsistent with creation, but it most certainly is inconsistent with creationISM. Creationism is a belief that the creation occurred literally as described in Genesis, and especially that human beings are a special creation of God and did not evolve from other animals.

Intelligent design (which is sort of "creationism lite") does not insist on the literal Genesis account or the non-evolution of man, but claims that there is actual evidence that divine guidance is present in the process of evolution. A common theme is that there is "irreducible complexity" in life that cannot be explained by the processes of natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, etc. None of this is true.

There is however nothing about evolution theory or the evidence in support of it that precludes divine guidance, and hence creation.

 

[Care4all]

I don't limit my God....

If evolution is how He chose to make all on earth, then so be it.

What I do know, as a Christian, is that creationism as presented, is not science. I don't expect it to be science either....it is a spiritual side of Creation, with 2 or 3 paragraphs in the entire Bible, a short story or short short story in brief of how we were Created....a few paragraphs can not possibly describe in full the measures taken in the process of creation other than a quick synopsis.

Were we made from the dust of the Earth? Yes....

did the process follow the short story in the Bible as far as sequence? for the most part....yes....first the fish, then birds, then land animals etc.....then us humans were created lastly.....science shows the same story, only in detail...in thousands of science books and millions of chapters later....and they are still working on it....

so, as a Christian, I am not caught up on any of this ridiculous garbage of wanting to teach Creationism in Science Class....it's NOT Science and never was meant to be Science......

God created us with the ability to adapt not change from species to species.

God said he created man in his image.

yes, He did say we were made in his image...but He did not go in to detail on how....we are just to believe.....you can not possibly know all of the details, so why even argue over them? We don't know precisely how God did this.....we truly do not know.....

Shoot, Scientists don't know either....they may think it was the Big Bang, but they do not have proof or solid theory yet on how and why the big bang's creation....happened in the first place....

Open your mind....all things are possible with God.....

And for those who do not believe in God....I think time will prove us who do, right....it may not be as we imagined from the short briefing we got from a few passages in the Bible.....but God will be the Alpha, imo, when all said and done!

 

[Dr.Drock]

Depends on what kind of whale it was, doesn't it?

For someone who claims to be conservative, you sure do seem to be siding strongly with the anti-religion left here.

No kind of whale doesn't matter as the story is scientifically impossible and there's no facts to back it, just like creationism and a creator have no facts backing them.

I'm not like you, the hyper partisan who feels he has to agree with his "side" on every single issue.

I'm not religious, but i don't care if every building on private property in america is a church and if every citizen has a bible glued to his/her head. I just don't want gov't promoting religion, and i have no idea why you fundie types are so insecure about your beliefs that you feel gov't has to promote it.

I'm not a fundie. You're letting your bigotry do your thinking for you.

As I've pointed out in this thread already, I have no idea why you science-y types are so insecure about your beliefs that you feel the government has to exclude all other beliefs.

We science types are exclusive, if you want to teach something as science it has to have scientific facts behind it.


How that's asking so much, is astounding to me.

 

[amrchaos]

"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
-- George Wald, Scientific American, August, 1954

So Pasteur, Spellanzani and Reddy et al. disproved spontaneous generation?

In which publication, if you do not mind.

 

[Photonic]

Sign of the times,but it is only a temporary victory. God said when he returns all the captains and the kings of the earth and will be gather at the final battle where he will destroy all governments. I think that includes man's school system.

Does that include all the Republicans in government as well? So, ALL people in government are Evil.....there is no difference among party lines?

Anyone who opposes the Almighty and his laws.

Did our government remove God from our society ?

Such arrogance, I must wonder about those who profess to speak the mind of God, when apparently the mind of God so closely relates to your own desires.

 

[daveman]

Evolution seems to have occurred. It is not inconsistent with creationism.

I would agree with this if you had left off the last three letters. Evolution is not inconsistent with creation, but it most certainly is inconsistent with creationISM. Creationism is a belief that the creation occurred literally as described in Genesis, and especially that human beings are a special creation of God and did not evolve from other animals.

Intelligent design (which is sort of "creationism lite") does not insist on the literal Genesis account or the non-evolution of man, but claims that there is actual evidence that divine guidance is present in the process of evolution. A common theme is that there is "irreducible complexity" in life that cannot be explained by the processes of natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, etc. None of this is true.

There is however nothing about evolution theory or the evidence in support of it that precludes divine guidance, and hence creation.

Uh huh.

 

[daveman]

No kind of whale doesn't matter as the story is scientifically impossible and there's no facts to back it, just like creationism and a creator have no facts backing them.

I'm not like you, the hyper partisan who feels he has to agree with his "side" on every single issue.

I'm not religious, but i don't care if every building on private property in america is a church and if every citizen has a bible glued to his/her head. I just don't want gov't promoting religion, and i have no idea why you fundie types are so insecure about your beliefs that you feel gov't has to promote it.

I'm not a fundie. You're letting your bigotry do your thinking for you.

As I've pointed out in this thread already, I have no idea why you science-y types are so insecure about your beliefs that you feel the government has to exclude all other beliefs.

We science types are exclusive, if you want to teach something as science it has to have scientific facts behind it.


How that's asking so much, is astounding to me.

That's your criterion?

Then why is AGW being taught as fact?

 

[daveman]

"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
-- George Wald, Scientific American, August, 1954

So Pasteur, Spellanzani and Reddy et al. disproved spontaneous generation?

In which publication, if you do not mind.

Beats me. Ask George Wald.

Meanwhile, if you have a paper proving abiogenesis is true, or even possible, let's see it.

 

[jillian]

The abominable, tyrannical, vicious nature of God as described by Christian theology is not actually a criticism of God. It is a criticism of that description, and prima facie evidence that the description is wrong.

Because God is NOT like that.

I don't think the description connotes an "abominable, tyrannical, vicious nature"... I think it's simply limited. I see things in a more 'kabbalistic' way... we see what we understand. And man's understanding is limited. But much as the chinese see things in terms of yin and yang, there is always an equal and opposite...

I think what is described in the bible (old testament) is a simplistic view of the world... the children's story, if you will.

which is why anyone who thinks it was intended to be read literally is missing most of it.

 

[Photonic]

"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
-- George Wald, Scientific American, August, 1954

So Pasteur, Spellanzani and Reddy et al. disproved spontaneous generation?

In which publication, if you do not mind.

Beats me. Ask George Wald.

Meanwhile, if you have a paper proving abiogenesis is true, or even possible, let's see it.

Miller-Ulrey experiment to start.

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com

This experiment shows that under certain conditions present in early Earth, the building blocks of life were capable of forming.

It's tentative, but it shows that under certain conditions it is certainly possible.

 

[daveman]

So Pasteur, Spellanzani and Reddy et al. disproved spontaneous generation?

In which publication, if you do not mind.

Beats me. Ask George Wald.

Meanwhile, if you have a paper proving abiogenesis is true, or even possible, let's see it.

Miller-Ulrey experiment to start.

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com

This experiment shows that under certain conditions present in early Earth, the building blocks of life were capable of forming.

It's tentative, but it shows that under certain conditions it is certainly possible.

Indeed. However:

“The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.”​

You state definitively those conditions were present.

Sutherland says it's what we might imagine.

Do you see the difference?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Where does it say in the sciptures Jonah was in the belly of a whale ?

The Greek word was sea monster. The most logical conclusion is they were talking about a whale.

If you want to make the story even crazier and say it was the Loch Ness Monster or the Swamp Thing, have at it.

All it says is a big fish.

Ketos is Greek for sea monster, Cetus is Latin for sea monsters.

Ichtus is Greek for fish. Latin word for fish is piscis.

The word in the Bible is Ketos or Cetus.

 

[Photonic]

Beats me. Ask George Wald.

Meanwhile, if you have a paper proving abiogenesis is true, or even possible, let's see it.

Miller-Ulrey experiment to start.

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com

This experiment shows that under certain conditions present in early Earth, the building blocks of life were capable of forming.

It's tentative, but it shows that under certain conditions it is certainly possible.

Indeed. However:

“The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.”​

You state definitively those conditions were present.

Sutherland says it's what we might imagine.

Do you see the difference?

Agreed, but it's based on what evidence we do have of what was present during early Earth. They didn't just throw in some arbitrary chemicals and do funky things to make them react.

Yes it may be what would have been considered optimal conditions, which is why I said it's very tentative evidence.

 

[daveman]

Miller-Ulrey experiment to start.

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com

This experiment shows that under certain conditions present in early Earth, the building blocks of life were capable of forming.

It's tentative, but it shows that under certain conditions it is certainly possible.

Indeed. However:

“The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.”​

You state definitively those conditions were present.

Sutherland says it's what we might imagine.

Do you see the difference?

Agreed, but it's based on what evidence we do have of what was present during early Earth. They didn't just throw in some arbitrary chemicals and do funky things to make them react.

Yes it may be what would have been considered optimal conditions, which is why I said it's very tentative evidence.

Tentative indeed.