Quantrill said:I am not saying it. I am quoting it. Look again," It was Humboldt's ambition to present the natural world as a single interlocking entity ".
Interlocking is not the same as evolution.
Interlocking: To connect together (parts of a mechanism, for example) so that the individual parts affect each other in motion or operation.
Nature does connect with the animals, plants, bacteria etc around it.
Did you see that? Then Brent says, " And it was this vision that Darwin kept constantly before him when considering the exotic phenomena that surrounded him on his excursions from the Beagle, and later when he was struggling with the ecological copncepts, ...that underlay his evolutionary theories. " Did you see that, "that underlay his evolutionary theories".
Of course Darwin thought of this, because nature interacting with nature is essential to understanding the life around us. No individual organism is competely self reliant, it will require either other animals, plants, or the environment. If Darwin ignored that, he would never even be able to understand what was going on.
Take a bear for example. Imagine trying to describe how it lived without talking about: what it ate, where they normally lived, and how they interact with certain species of animals? If you can explain the life of a bear without any of those things, I will give your idea that Darwin had already thought of evolution before the islands a chance.
Whether or not Darwin or anyone else called it evolution, he was already a believer in this evolutionary belief. And he builded on it with time and the Galapogos.
But, we can go farther back than that to see 'evolutionary influence'. To Erasmus Darwin, his grandfather who was also a member of the Lunar Society. " Briefly he corresponded wiuth Rousseau and, at slightly greater length, with the geologist Hutton, whose ideas , disseminated by Playfair and filtered by Lyell, were to have a profound influence on the as yet unborn Charles....In 1794 he brought out Zoonomia, subtitled The Laws of Organic Life and intended principallyu as a medical textbook. In it however, Erasmus propounded a developmental theory, though he argued it in speculative rather thatn factual terms. "
The theory of evolution depends on a basic understanding of life, so yes it's actually necessary that Darwin understood the basics of biology. That's why students don't learn evolution first, understanding how nature coexists is needed to help explain why evolution happens.
So, you see, its not me that says Darwin already had 'evolutionary ideas' and 'beliefs' long before the Galapogos. What say you again?
Im not pinning anything on you. Im just saying that is not what you said. And it wasn't. Why be deceptive in your presentation?
Just because science has said what is 'most true', because of course it isn't true, doesn't mean it isn't a faith. It is. Because it can't be proved. You should apply for tax free exemption because of your faith based program. Which again brings up the question, why is a faith like evolution taught in public schools?
Then we can no longer teach science based on what you said. The theory of gravity is what has shown to be the most true. The theory of how an atom is formed is what is shown to be the most true. You're basically saying we can't teach science anymore. That would be disasterous, to say the least.
The evidence for Creation is the Bible. And, if the faith of evolution can be taught as 'science', then so should creationism be allowed to be taught as 'science'. Makes sence to me. How about you?
No, you can't scientifically test miracles. You can't. You cannot recreate the parting of the Red Sea. You cannot recreate a woman being turned into a pillar of salt. You cannot recreate water being turned into wine. You cannot ask God what His methods were in creating the universe. You cannot ask Him His thought process for creating the universe. You cannot observe water being turned into blood before your eyes.
Creationism in science class rooms
- Thread starter snr5557
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
snr555
Interlocking is the precursor to evolutionary beliefs. Because the interlocking you are describing, just affecting one another, is not the interlocking Erasmus is describing or that Darwin is understanding. Such an 'interlocking' that you present would make no affect on Darwin in his evolutionary beliefs. But this did, as the author Brent so stated. As Darwin so stated.
Again, its not my idea. I have presented you quotes from others. But, I believe they are correct.
The basics of biology is not what Erasmus was presenting. He 'propounded a developmental theory'. Which was similar to Darwins evolutionary theory. And he had great influence on Darwin. So please, do better than that. Perhaps you need to reread again.
You can teach science all you want. But you shouldn't be allowed to teach the faith of evolution. Or at least, we should be allowed to teach our faith of the Bible. Again, doesnt' that seem fair to you? Does to me.
You cant scientifically test evolution either. You can't produce any evolving animals. You talk about them in science papers and billions of years ago. But you can't produce any. We should have thousands , and thousands of half monkey people running around and evolving. Yet you can't produce one. So, yes, our faith should be taught as well as yours.
Quantrill
Interlocking is the precursor to evolutionary beliefs. Because the interlocking you are describing, just affecting one another, is not the interlocking Erasmus is describing or that Darwin is understanding. Such an 'interlocking' that you present would make no affect on Darwin in his evolutionary beliefs. But this did, as the author Brent so stated. As Darwin so stated.
Again, its not my idea. I have presented you quotes from others. But, I believe they are correct.
The basics of biology is not what Erasmus was presenting. He 'propounded a developmental theory'. Which was similar to Darwins evolutionary theory. And he had great influence on Darwin. So please, do better than that. Perhaps you need to reread again.
You can teach science all you want. But you shouldn't be allowed to teach the faith of evolution. Or at least, we should be allowed to teach our faith of the Bible. Again, doesnt' that seem fair to you? Does to me.
You cant scientifically test evolution either. You can't produce any evolving animals. You talk about them in science papers and billions of years ago. But you can't produce any. We should have thousands , and thousands of half monkey people running around and evolving. Yet you can't produce one. So, yes, our faith should be taught as well as yours.
Quantrill
I am not a geocentrist (earth is center of the universe and everything revolves around it)River Jordan said:
But I was curious where exactly the center of the universe is .... so I went on a science forum and asked.
I was told ... "there is no center"
I asked .... How can that be ??
I was told .... "the center is outside of the universe and is infinite and is everywhere"
I was told .... "anywhere and everywhere in the universe is the center of the universe"
I asked .... "so if I am on earth , can I not say I am at the center of the universe" ?
They reluctantly said "yes"
srn555
That wasn't the point of the quoted. The point was that Darwin already had evolutionary ideas and influence long before the Galapogos. And you said he didn't. But he did.
The quotes prove my point. And disprove yours.
See my post #80
Then we shouldn't teach the faith of evolution.
Again, you cant test evolution. You can't produce it. You can believe it and try and hope you come across somtething. But that makes it your faith. Which is why it shouldn't be taught in schools as fact. Its just a belief.
Can you test how non-living chemicals give rise to the first living cell?
Why have you presented my words as yours in your post #84. That is somewhat deceptive of you in your presentation.
Quantrill
That wasn't the point of the quoted. The point was that Darwin already had evolutionary ideas and influence long before the Galapogos. And you said he didn't. But he did.
The quotes prove my point. And disprove yours.
See my post #80
Then we shouldn't teach the faith of evolution.
Again, you cant test evolution. You can't produce it. You can believe it and try and hope you come across somtething. But that makes it your faith. Which is why it shouldn't be taught in schools as fact. Its just a belief.
Can you test how non-living chemicals give rise to the first living cell?
Why have you presented my words as yours in your post #84. That is somewhat deceptive of you in your presentation.
Quantrill
First, those aren't even about the same studies I posted links to. So, strike one.KingJ said:
Second, an online forum and a youtube video? That's where you go for information about science? No wonder you carry around so many falsehoods about basic science. Strike two.
Finally, if you think nothing evolves ever, then you need to answer the question I asked you and you ignored: So the creationist Discovery Institute disputes that new species have been observed to evolve? If all of you hold to that position, do you therefore believe that Noah took two of every single species on earth aboard the ark?
The count's against you. You'd better step up!
So despite the fact that you've been given examples of evolution occurring in real time, right before our eyes, you're just going to stick to that? You're going to just wave it away as a satanic illusion, spell thingy? What kind of impression do you think gives people of Christianity?Quantrill said:
Oh that's right...you don't care. You just say "Oh please, your breakin my heart. Kids or anyone else can use whatever reason they want to 'leave'." Funny, I don't remember our Great Commission being "shrug your shoulders when they way you go about sharing the Gospel drives people out the door".
snr555
Yes it does. Read again please. "...when he was strugglilng with the ecological concepts, as yet undefined by science, that underlay his evolultionary theories" The author Brent is making thae point that Darwin already had these ideas of evolution before the Galapogos.
The same concerning Erasmus Darwin who influenced Darwin and was also working with these simialr evolutionary ideas. " In it, however, Erasmus propounded a developmental theory...." Brent goes on to say, " It would almost certainly have become one of the minor curiosities of scientific history, had his grandson not formulated a much more comprehensive theory of a similar kind and supported it by evidence which, in essence at least, still continues to convince." (p.14)
So, you see, Brent is making the point that Darwin had these evloutionary ideas before the Galapogos journey, having been influenced by several people. Which proves my point that Darwin had the belief of evolution and then went looking for 'proof'.
Evolution is a faith. A belief that scientists continue to seek proof for.
Im talking to you, not Jordon River.
Why did you ignore my question? I know, you just missed it. Can you test how non-living chemicals give rise to the first living cell?
No, not really. You should erase them or make them red like the others.
Quantrill
Yes it does. Read again please. "...when he was strugglilng with the ecological concepts, as yet undefined by science, that underlay his evolultionary theories" The author Brent is making thae point that Darwin already had these ideas of evolution before the Galapogos.
The same concerning Erasmus Darwin who influenced Darwin and was also working with these simialr evolutionary ideas. " In it, however, Erasmus propounded a developmental theory...." Brent goes on to say, " It would almost certainly have become one of the minor curiosities of scientific history, had his grandson not formulated a much more comprehensive theory of a similar kind and supported it by evidence which, in essence at least, still continues to convince." (p.14)
So, you see, Brent is making the point that Darwin had these evloutionary ideas before the Galapogos journey, having been influenced by several people. Which proves my point that Darwin had the belief of evolution and then went looking for 'proof'.
Evolution is a faith. A belief that scientists continue to seek proof for.
Im talking to you, not Jordon River.
Why did you ignore my question? I know, you just missed it. Can you test how non-living chemicals give rise to the first living cell?
No, not really. You should erase them or make them red like the others.
Quantrill
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
I should be able to see examples of evolution hopping all over creation. Half monkey and man. Or whatever combination depending on their evolutionary process. You do believe we came from apes don't you?River Jordan said:
Im not worried about any impression. So, don't try and make me feel some sort of pseudo guilt. I know the Lord and the Scriptures well enough to not be fooled by you.
You were'nt talking about the Great Commission. So, try and keep it in the context.
Quantrill
Lol you sound like a 12 year old. So you did you not post a link on Richards Lenski's e coli?River Jordan said:
h34r: That article may be on a forum but it is a good explanation of the common issues with e coli supporting evolution. You never read the creationists view when first evolutionists jumped on Richards e-coli? You can google it yourself. Every Christian I know was googling that at the time....except you....you just accepted what they said...This is what I believe http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark.
So if humans share a common ancestry with other apes, what do you think we should see in the fossil record?Quantrill said:
Yes I was. I was talking specifically about how the denial of reality that is creationism causes many young people who are prospective Christians to walk away. They see the sort of ridiculous things that creationists believe, know that they're not true, and figure if that's what Christianity believes, they want no part of it.
Great....you didn't even read the material you asked for. You even asked, "Do you have a link to scrutinize?", but when I gave you one, you didn't bother to look at it.KingJ said:
You're not operating in good faith, are you?
I didn't respond to it because it had nothing to do with the studies I linked to. I did read it, but it's irrelevant to what I posted.
If you can't directly address what I posted, then just say so.
Ok, that article promotes the "Noah took representative kinds on the ark" view. So if nothing ever evolves ever, then how did we go from a smaller number of "kinds" with two or seven individuals, to all the different species in existence today?
Oh mother....so according to you this link you provided is not talking about e coli? http://www.healthline.com/health-news/women-antibiotic-resistant-ecoli-traced-to-single-strain-121613River Jordan said:
Yeah sure. I doubt you read the first sentence. There is much to be discussed on that article. But you have no questions.
Can't and don't care to discuss with you any longer are two very different matters. If I want your opinion or view on a matter I need only type ''latest evolution theories debunking the bible''. Where I will hear all the deceit to make me sick for the day. I really do hate the fact that you are so bold with your tripe and constant rejection of scripture on Christian sites...and if it were only evolution that you attacked scripture on, I would not be so irritated in speech with you!
Google it. Try visiting sites that are not hosted by atheists. A Christian waits to grasp the truth that agrees with scripture. They don't write off scripture and invent there own.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
why are you getting so mad about this, KingJ? Science is not the standard for truth in the Bible - it doesnt have to all fit to be true - nor does it have to be literal to be true. It seems like you are expecting yourself to have it all figured out - i think that is a pretty high expectation - God reminded Job that he was a mere mortal and not expected to have everything figured out. I think this reference applies to all of us and i think scientist embrace evidence based change in their theories - we Christians can learn by their example.
You do realize that there's been more than one lab study with E. coli, right? Or were you thinking that Lenski's work is the only one that exists?KingJ said:
FYI, I linked to the observed evolution of antibacterial resistance in a population of E. coli, by people not named Lenski. The forum post you linked to was about Lenski's long-term study where a completely different population of E. coli evolved a new metabolic ability (can metabolize citrate).
So yeah....you were waaaaaaaaaaay off base.
I read the whole thing. It's amusing, but not at all relevant to what I posted to you.
Show one case where I've been deceitful.
Sure. AIG includes "no new species have been produced" as one of their Arguments Creationists Shouldn't Use. Oops!!
Answer first, do you believe you come from apes?River Jordan said:
Again, if evolution were true, we should be seeing thousands of monkeymen and such in transition. Yet we can't find one.
Answer me this. Can you prove that non-living chemicals can give rise to a living cell?
Sorry, but you were not talking about the Great Commission and neither was I. If you're concerned about it, we can talk about it, but it wasnt what was being adddressed. So, again, save your dramatics for another. The Lord Jesus Christ knows who are His and none will be lost.
Quantrill
Your assertions may reflect your views, but I don't believe they reflect reality. In fact, if the human experience has taught us anything, it's that man is unreliable, but GOD is absolute.aspen said:
Furthermore, we are not without that communication:
Jeremiah 33
2 “Thus says the Lord who made the earth, the Lord who formed it to establish it—the Lord is his name: 3 Call to me and I will answer you, and will tell you great and hidden things which you have not known.
Per the above, it seems pretty clear that what GOD created, HE yearns to explain. And I have no difficulty choosing between GOD's Truth versus man's versions.
With Best Regards,
DaDad
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
God is absolute Truth, but imperfect man can only view absolute truth through a cloudy glass. God is not limited, be we are and therefore the we are not able to understand all-knowing-ness. Sorry, DaDad.
Similar threads
