Evolution's bottom line

National Center for Science Education ^ | 12 May 2006 | Staff

[donh]

And you called me a troll. If you don't want me speculating about your motivation, than don't speculate about mine.

My verbatim quote from post 1144 is: "You are acting like a troll, don."

I rest my case.

The germane argument was about my motivations

The germane argument for you, was about your motivations. The germane argument for me was to answer the question "where did Hitler's anti-semitism come from?" And that was in response to a half-baked suggestion that Hitler murdered jews because of Darwin. To the best of my knowledge, this thread is more about evolution and Darwin, than it is about your exclusionary desire to talk about WWII.

[donh]

ID and evo are the two front running scientific theories.

Unless you confine your inquiry to scientists, of course.

[Elsie]

 

But since, according to you, I am condemned to getting the crap beat out of me for eternity

 

No; according to the Book......

---

NIV Proverbs 4:13
   Hold on to instruction, do not let it go; guard it well, for it is your life.

 

NIV Hebrews 3:6
   But Christ is faithful as a son over God's house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast.

 

NIV Hebrews 3:14
   We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.

 

NIV Hebrews 6:11
   We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, in order to make your hope sure.

 

 

NIV Hebrews 12:3
   Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

 

NIV 2 Timothy 2:11-13
 11.  Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him;
 12.  if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us;
 13.  if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself.

 

NIV 2 Peter 2:20-21
 20.  If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.
 21.  It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

 

 

 

NIV 2 John 1:8
  Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully.

 

NIV Jude 1:21
   Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.

 

NIV Revelation 2:25
   Only hold on to what you have until I come.

 

NIV Revelation 3:11
   I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown.

[Elsie]

I preached it for thirty-seven years. Ran myself in circles just as you are doing to yourself.

 

 
1 Corinthians 9:24-27
 24.  Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.
 25.  Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever.
 26.  Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air.
 27.  No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

 

Paul saw the problem that you describe, and took pains to avoid it.

 

---

 

To me, I see faulty logic in your conlusion.  Starting with THIS premise -

 

If you are in that group that says we can avoid sin entirely, but we "choose" to sin anyway --

 

you build on it to a conclusion: But it's your fault.

 

 

 

When I was born, I could not swim, but it was no more my 'fault' than my mother who bore me: it's just the way it is.

 

However, I learned to swim, thus 'saving myself' from the sentence of the water.

 

 

Because I have a 'sin nature' is also not my 'fault'; it's just the way it is.  But I CAN do something about it.

 

 

 

 

 

You are not completely doomed - there's a verse somewhere that says - "come to your senses".

 

It's my opinion that....

 

Ol' Hank wouldn't done it thataway!

[2nsdammit]

You, and your similar thinking colleagues on this and other threads, are frustrating in the extreme. I suspect that you all do it on purpose, for entertainment reasons of your own; but recognize that there are scientists in these threads who are sincerely trying to educate you. The insistence that "there is no evidence" in the face of every bit of scientifically sound evidence that is presented to you, is reminiscent of a 4-year-old with her fingers in her ears saying "I can't hear you!" If that's the role you have chosen to play, congratulations. You're very good at it. If it reflects your real mind-set, then I truly pity you....

[Almagest]

I had written:

<< But since, according to you, I am condemned to getting the crap beat out of me for eternity >>


Elsie responded:

<< No; according to the Book...... >>


I completely agree with you that the "Book" does say the same thing. When someone believes what the book says about eternal punishment, and repeats what it says, it is "according to him," too -- so I was not trying to say that the other poster came up with that all on his own. Many people try to soften or misdirect the Bible's statements about eternal fire, but I see it for what it actually says.

However -- not a single one of the many passages you cited says anything about that at all! LOL! Just a pet peeve with me -- even if something IS in the Bible, it is twisting scripture -- and disrespectful of the God you believe to be behind it -- to misuse it this way.

<< NIV Proverbs 4:13 >>

<< NIV Hebrews 3:6 >>

<< NIV Hebrews 3:14 >>

<< NIV Hebrews 6:11 >>

<< NIV Hebrews 12:3 >>

<< NIV 2 Timothy 2:11-13 >>

<< NIV 2 Peter 2:20-21 >>

<< NIV 2 John 1:8 >>

<< NIV Jude 1:21 >>

<< NIV Revelation 2:25 >>

<< NIV Revelation 3:11 >>


LOL! Not a single one of those passages says anything about eternal punishment. It would have been a simple matter to quote several passages that DO speak about eternal punishment. I mean -- "lake of fire forever and ever" -- "where the worm dieth not" -- "wailing and gnashing of teeth" -- etc.

You missed the boat entirely! But don't worry. According to the "Book" and you and many others -- I am gonna get my eternal beatings soon enough. I better enjoy myself while I can!

[Almagest]

Yeah, okay. I'm condemned. The beatings will soon commence. I better enjoy the time I have left. You seem to be enjoying my future prospects pretty much. I'm happy to help make you happy.

Preaching about Hell without being totally broken-hearted about those one is trying warn -- well, that just doesn't seem right to this old reprobate. But -- whatever.

[Virginia-American]

Wouldn't it be exciting for students if both theories were taught in the classroom?

Huh? Theories?

How would you test ID? what sort of fossil of lab result does it predict? What does it say cannot happen?

Until you have some answers to these questions, ID remains idle speculation, nothing more.

[Elsie]

You seem to be enjoying my future prospects pretty much.

I am??

Seems to me you imagine too much.

Something that CG had a falling out with me about.

---

Preaching about Hell without being totally broken-hearted about those one is trying warn -- well, that just doesn't seem right...

Why not?

Jonah finally spoke the warning that GOD wanted, and was PISSED about it!

Even a donkey gets to warn folks from time to time!

[Almagest]

<< Jonah finally spoke the warning that GOD wanted, and was PISSED about it! >>


Again, you twist scripture. It looks habitual. Hmmmm.

Let's get the real story. Jonah preached the warning -- and he was PISSED that God relented when the people repented. Then God rebuked JONAH for that attitude.

Seems to me your own citation proves my contention, not yours. But -- no big deal. You are free to choose your own attitude. No skin off my teeth -- at least until Hank starts beating me.

[Elsie]

<< Jonah finally spoke the warning that GOD wanted, and was PISSED about it! >>


Again, you twist scripture. It looks habitual. Hmmmm.

 

I think not:

 

Jonah 3

 

 1.  Then the word of the LORD came to Jonah a second time:
 2.  "Go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you."

.

.

.

 

Jonah 4

 

 1.  But Jonah was greatly displeased and became angry.
 2.  He prayed to the LORD, "O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.
 3.  Now, O LORD, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live."
 4.  But the LORD replied, "Have you any right to be angry?"

 

Now; just WHAT have I TWISTED?

[Elsie]

However -- not a single one of the many passages you cited says anything about that at all!

Of course not: you KNOW those. I was trying to show the 'condemned forever' thoughts you claim were not necessarily true.

---

Just a pet peeve with me -- even if something IS in the Bible, it is twisting scripture -- and disrespectful of the God you believe to be behind it -- to misuse it this way.

A possible assumption; but that is not the 'intention' that I had.

---

After 37 years of leading the flock, I'm sure that there have been times when reading Scripture, the Lord has pointed out a DIFFERENT thing in it, even after you've read it many times before.

The same is in effect here: you see the words as saying one thing; to me, they've have other meanings as well.

[aNYCguy]

ID and evo are the two front running scientific theories. Either both should be taught or neither.

First, ID is not a scientific theory, as it is non-falsifiable, and you know this. But I don't even have to get into this, because your suggestion to teach "the two front running scientific theories" is laughable on its face for other reasons:

Evolution has the support of well over 99% of those trained in the relevant biological fields. If ID is truly the second runner-up, it's a distant, distant second. According to your asinine version of "teach the controversy," flat earth theory would be taught in class alongside geosphericism (as these are the two front-running scientific theories), geocentrism would be taught alongside heliocentrism (as these are the two front-running scientific theories), matter indivisibility would be taught alongside atomic theory (as these are the two front-running scientific theories), fluid-caloric-as-heat would be taught alongside thermodynamics, and a million other discarded or far-fringe ideas would get valuable class time -- simply because they rank a vastly distant second to mainstream scientific consensus.

In fact, why not teach the third runner-up? The fourth? If a second runner-up with 0.5% of expert support deserves class time, surely a third-place fringe idea with 0.4% support deserves time. We'll be teaching kids about plasma-vortex-induced crop circles in no time at all, according to your suggestions for curriculum determination.

[aNYCguy]

You act as though one can posit that creatures evolved from a common point of descent, without a creator, but divorce yourself from the problem of nonliving matter organizing itself into the first cell in the first place.

Yes, the questions can be divorced. No matter how the first imperfect self-replicators came into existence, evolution occurred from the moment they did indeed exist. Your attempts to confuse wildly divergent areas of scientific inquiry are unconvincing.

By your reasoning, one must provide a satisfactory explanation of how energy came to exist before atomic theory can be considered valid. In fact, by your reasoning, any scientific inquiry into any area at all must first begin with an explanation of how energy and space-time came to exist. I don't think you'll find this reasoning very useful.

[Coyoteman]

Hey! This could be phlogiston chemistry's big chance!

[Almagest]

<< Now; just WHAT have I TWISTED? >>


The meaning of the scripture -- just as this latest attempt did. You originally claimed that Jonah warned of God's wrath and was PISSED about it. The book of Jonah does not indicate that.

Your citation in this latest attempt just proves my assertion that you are twisting the scripture. You quoted the beginning of ch. 4, where it tells us that Jonah got angry -- but your citation ALSO tells us WHY Jonah got angry.

He was not angry because he was preaching hell-fire. He was angry that his preaching WORKED! The people repented -- and God relented. In that very passage you quote -- you prove my contention completely!

If you care more about winning points in a debate than you do about treating the Bible with basic respect, there's nothing I can do to help you. But if you really do love the Bible as God's word -- then you will repent of this mistreatment of that word. If it really is God's word -- you are not only disrespecting the Word of God -- you are disrespecting the God of that word.

And I noticed that you completely passed over the fact that not a single one of your other scripture citations had anything to do with the topic of Hell. I do not believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, but I am treating it with more respect than you are. I find that ironic.

But don't worry -- my beatings will soon commence! LOL!

[Liberal Classic]

Exactly.

Science curriculum must teach the dominant theory.

One, the number of school hours devoted to science is limited. There is barely even enough time to give students a solid foundation in mainstream science, to say nothing of spending time on tangets about alternative theories and minority viewpoints.

Two, as most schools are operated as college prep, science curricula prepare students for the subjects as they will be taught at university. When they go on to college students who choose to take biology classes are going to be expected to know about evolutionary theory, because evolutionary theory is foundational to our modern understanding of biology.

Just doing my part to kick "American Idol" out of the smoky backroom.

[Almagest]

I had written:

<< However -- not a single one of the many passages you cited says anything about that at all! >>


You replied:

<< Of course not: you KNOW those. I was trying to show the 'condemned forever' thoughts you claim were not necessarily true. >>


I said that, according to the other poster, I was condemned to an eternity of punishment. You replied: "Not according to him; according to the Book." Then you listed a long series of Biblical passages that had nothing to do with eternal punishment.

But now -- you seem to be saying above that you do not even believe that the Bible preaches eternal damnation for me after all??? You cited those passages to tell me that I am wrong to believe that Christianity condemns unbelievers to Hell?

If so -- you are AGAIN twisting scripture, because, as you state above, I KNOW the passages that DO say exactly that. Like the other poster, you seem to be arguing in circles.


I had written:

<< Just a pet peeve with me -- even if something IS in the Bible, it is twisting scripture -- and disrespectful of the God you believe to be behind it -- to misuse it this way. >>


You responded:

<< A possible assumption; but that is not the 'intention' that I had. >>


I accept that you did not intend to twist the scriptures or disrespect them in citing those passages.


<< After 37 years of leading the flock, I'm sure that there have been times when reading Scripture, the Lord has pointed out a DIFFERENT thing in it, even after you've read it many times before. >>


Many have said, and rightly, IMO: Scripture has one primary meaning, and many applications. If all competing meanings are equally valid, then what is the point of citing any passages to support anything at all?????

I do not subscribe -- nor did I when I was a believer -- to this post-modernist idea that one can come up with a meaning that is foreign to the text -- and consider that meaning valid. The writers had a primary meaning in mind, and it is the exegete's responsibility to do everything he can to accurately understand THAT meaning.


<< The same is in effect here: you see the words as saying one thing; to me, they've have other meanings as well. >>


But they can't have opposite meanings. The logical law of noncontradiction applies here. The Bible either condemns nonbelievers to Hell or it does not. It is clear to me -- and to most Christians -- that it does. I do not try to weasel around that, like so many Christians do.

I realize that there are a few Christians who do not agree about that doctrine. They believe annihilationism or something else. They are considered heretics by the majority -- but I don't really care, either way.

I would be happy to agree with the "no-hell" group, but I do not choose my interpretations according to personal preferences. That is disrespectful to the text, whether or not I accept it as divine.

Like I said -- it seems pretty clear to me that the Bible does teach eternal punishment in a burning Lake of Fire -- what I have analogized to "Hank will beat the crap out of your forever."

If you do not believe in eternal punishment, that's fine with me. Neither do I. If you do believe in eternal punishment, that's fine, too. I don't. But I do believe that that is exactly what the Bible does teach. I'll let you Christians hash that out among yourselves.

I'll be down in Hell with that other "Newtonist," getting the crap beat out of me -- forever. LOL!

[grey_whiskers]

Hey! This could be phlogiston chemistry's big chance!

Yeah, yeah, and they accuse the Clintons of sucking all the oxygen out of the room.

Cheers!

[Sun]

ID most certainly IS falsifiable, but I know it will be hard for you to accept it.

This link is around the same size as your post, so it won't take you much time to read it:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=494