CREATIONIST TEACHERS

by badboy 53 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  jaguarbass

  If evolution is not an absolute, then why are evolutionist so dead set against Intelligent Design? If evolution is just a theory, then why are evolutionist so dead set against having it debated in the marketplace of ideas?

  It appears evolution is an emotionally charged system of beliefs that would be classified as a religion. At least by someone who is not emotionally attached to the system of beleifs.

  Nobody knows. We all pay our money and take our chances.

  We all see what we want to see.

  What do we want to see?

  I'll go with what ever the facts support which at this time cant be determined. In my search for the troof I can see evolution is as much a religion as Christianity.

  And all the evolutionist raising their blood pressure, screaming or saying "no its not" will not change that reality.

  I'll go with whoever has the perponderance of facts right now I see its 50/50.

  Which leaves my jury hung.

  And leaves me like all the rest of you, evolutionist and creationist.

  I dont know shit about where we came from.
• 

  jaguarbass

  Henry Ford said the hardest thing for people to do is think.

  People educated on both sides of the issue ask yourselfs how much thinking are you doing on the topic?

  And how much is monkey see monkey do.

  You can have 8 years of college that doesnt mean you know how to think. You may or may not.

  You may be an educated fool.

  You probaly know how to think like your master wants you to think.

  You were all JW sheep.

  Old habits are hard to break.

  Most people are consumers and sheep. And monkey see monkey do types.

  Watching 4 hours of tv a day.

  You have sift the gold from the dross.

  College is not going to teach creation because they have an agenda. And they are going to stick to it.

  Our masters do not want us to think outside of the box.

  I suspect the truth is outside of the box.
• 

  middleman

  Gerard wrote "No. it is a proven fact"....regarding evolution.
  Can you please explain in full detail which evolution fact/s we are speaking of?
  
  We all know that evolutionists teach that in time (need lots of it to really drive the "fact" home) something "DID" come from nothing. Lets look at some math of that. 0+0=0 or 0x0=0....now lets add more time or zeros. 0+0000000000=0 or 0x0000000000=0.
  I don't know, the numbers don't seem to add up here.
• 

  marmot

  Jaguar, the reason that evolutionists are against intelligent design is that ID proponents disingenuously cloud the issue. The REAL issue that is up for debate is abiogenesis, not whether god magically *POOF*ed creatures into existence with fully formed specialized organs. Even supporters of ID quoted in the Watchtower agree that there is no arguing common descent (ie: evolution). Of course, the Watchtower and other creationist publications selectively snip those bits out.
  
  So to lay it out real clear:
  
  - common descent, popularly known as the theory of evolution, is as scientifically sound a theory as the theory of gravity. No real scientist doubts this.
  
  - the exact mechanism of evolution is still a subject of research, but we know without a doubt that it happens.
  
  - abiogenesis, or the origin of life, is hotly debated.
  
  The problem for ID proponents, especially those who consider themselves scientists, is that they can't have their cake and eat it too. Either way, if a lightning bolt in a pool of muck or the hand of God first created life, evolution has been at work ever since. Some are satisfied with this, seeing evolution as a mechanism put into place by god, but it throws a massive wrench into a literal interpretation of the Bible because it means that Adam was not created 6000 years ago as the first man, there was no original sin, no fall from grace, no global flood, and no point in Jesus' sacrifice.
  
  I don't believe in a literal reading of the bible and I DEFINITELY don't believe in the biblical God, but I still appreciate the values it contains. Jesus' sermons, the writings of Paul on love, the poetry of King Solomon and the lamentations of Job - all of this comprises a monumental work of literature.
• 

  hooberus

  The problem for ID proponents, especially those who consider themselves scientists, is that they can't have their cake and eat it too. Either way, if a lightning bolt in a pool of muck or the hand of God first created life, evolution has been at work ever since. Some are satisfied with this, seeing evolution as a mechanism put into place by god, but it throws a massive wrench into a literal interpretation of the Bible because it means that Adam was not created 6000 years ago as the first man, there was no original sin, no fall from grace, no global flood, and no point in Jesus' sacrifice.

  So evolution is anti-religious (at least against or detrimental to somereligions).
• 

  Awakened07

  So evolution is anti-religious (at least against or detrimental to some religions).

  Evolution is a process. We find homologous features between animals, we find atavisms, we find fossils in layers separated by time in a progressively declining order of complexity (as we dig down), we find similarities between species in embryology, we find evidence of common decent in DNA etc. etc. All these facts has to be explained somehow, and the theory that best explains them as of now, is the theory of evolution. Subject to change, yes, but evolution itself having occurred is not in dispute (other than by literal-Bible-reading creationists of course).

  So... a natural process is not anti-religious. The belief that the sun is the center of our system was once anti-religious, or detrimental to some religions to some extent. But was it really?

  If I say: "There has to be money on my bank account! Why - if there's no money there, then I won't be able to buy food or pay bills! No, no, no - I refuse to believe it's empty. There is money there!" If the bank manager tells me, "Sorry, but there are no money there, Sir.", he would be detrimental to my belief that there is money there. But would it change anything? The fact would be, there are no money there.

  Now - it's not nature's fault that a literal reading of a story in a very old book does not support what we find in nature. If you go out and travel the world using a map you found in a pirate's chest dated 1476, don't blame the earth for not complying to your map.
• 

  Gerard

  why are evolutionist so dead set against Intelligent Design?

  The Intelligent Design camp want to create the illusion that there is a debate. The point is that there is NO scientific debate, but political.
• 

  hooberus

  My point is that if (as an evolutionist here stated) evolution (common descent) "throws a massive wrench into a literal interpretation of the Bible because it means that Adam was not created 6000 years ago as the first man, there was no original sin, no fall from grace, no global flood, and no point in Jesus' sacrifice", then perhaps many of the "creationist teachers" are merely uncomfortable parroting a one-sided indoctrination of it to their students, (many of whom hold to the above beliefs).
• 

  Awakened07

  My point is that if (as an evolutionist here stated) evolution (common descent) "throws a massive wrench into a literal interpretation of the Bible because it means that Adam was not created 6000 years ago as the first man, there was no original sin, no fall from grace, no global flood, and no point in Jesus' sacrifice", then perhaps many of the "creationist teachers" are merely uncomfortable parroting a one-sided indoctrination of it to their students, (many of whom hold to the above beliefs).

  One 'evolutionist' here said so. [edit] I see he wrote "a literal interpretation", and in that scenario he would be correct. [/edit]

  Even though I personally no longer believe the Bible story, I don't see why it can't be 'twisted' to fit with what we find in nature. 'Adam' could in such a context have been an allegorical representative of the first man, or, if one wishes to go another direction, 'Adam' could be the first hominid that God gave the kind of intelligence, conscience etc. that we now have. If so, 'fall from grace' can fit right in there. The global flood is another issue altogether, but of course evolution does give that story a few difficulties since there would be a myriad of animal species already back then. Then again, the global flood story does that to itself just fine without evolution theory, because if all current animals came from those few on the ark, with no further creative help from God (he rested after all), it would mean an immense evolutionary process - "super evolution" - to account for all the species we see today, in only ~4000 years. As for Jesus' sacrifice, it could be 'salvaged' following the above proposed understanding. I don't hold to such beliefs myself, but I think there are Christians that do. BurnTheShips for instance, if I'm not mistaken.

  But all of that is besides the point - that's all religion and the interpretation thereof, and not nature, not science.
• 

  BlackPearl

  Question: What would it take for an Evolutionist to believe in Creation? What "Proof" would it take? And don't answer with the question; What would it take for a Creationist to believe in Evolution?

  Just curious if Evolutionists know the answers to their own questions.