Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Evolution vs Christian Creationism

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Evolution vs Christian Creationism
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

In the beginning, where did we come from?

Creation

29%

[ 18 ]

Evolution

63%

[ 39 ]

Children of Kobol

[ 4 ]

Total Votes : 61

Author

Message

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:30 am Post subject:

Meegook wrote:

Same playing field, you guys need the number advantage to compete w/me but the score wil be the same - Creationists way ahead before the game even starts.

Right. Creationists had thousands of years headstart, so why they so behind now? You're so far behind in this debate you can't even start to address any questions that have been put to you, just keep coming back to 'CHRISTIANS IN CHINA' as if that proves some kind of point. Falun Gong, Tibetan Buddhism, Christianity, so what? They're more threatened by the pro-democracy movements that tend to coalesce around religion over there - any religion. And you don't even know that those Chinese christians aren't evolutionists. Ridiculous!

Quote:

yeah, right. Name one person in history, who, threatened with his life, stuck with evolution. Just one will do.

Just one will do for what? You kept saying the same thing about transitional fossils, we showed you a pile, then you never mentioned them again. Just blocked them out. Anyway, thankfully, given the relatively novelty of evolution I don't know of any people who have been told to renounce evolution or die, not to say it hasn't happened though. However, if we change it to atheism (which isn't quite the same) according to this website the last person to be executed for atheism in Britain was Thomas Aikenhead in 1697. Good enough for you?

Quote:

Gave up his life upholding the principles of SCIENCE.

Having some memory problems there old fella? atlhockey can't give up 'his' life, being female.

Edit: and just to make it clear for those of you who have difficulty with text analysis, I would like to state the Meegook has never PMed me, nor has he called Krishna a 'Big Blue Big Girl's Blouse', nor has he claimed that 'Fightin' Jesus is going to beat Krishna black and blue-er'.

I hope we're all clear on this, and that no harm has come from this misunderstanding.

atlhockey

Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Jeonju City

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:05 am Post subject:

Meegook wrote:

yeah, right. Name one person in history, who, threatened with his life, stuck with evolution. Just one will do.

You have absolutely no reason to doubt him, or me, and just because you can't fathom that a nonreligious person can feel just as deeply as you, you belittle our convictions.

Meegook wrote:

Gave up his life upholding the principles of SCIENCE.

Well, no, it wouldn't.

The truth is that scientists frequently find themselves at odds with the church and few roll over under threat of imprisonment or worse. Or haven't you heard of Galileo? Of course, no church could get away with openly accusing an evolutionist like that, because the validity of evolution isn't actually under debate in the science world. No one is standing on their own like Galileo and Copernicus were.

But y'know, I'd much rather it say "gave up HER life upholding the principles of science" than "died for a fairy tale."

Rteacher

Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:46 pm Post subject:

Fortunately, life doesn't end with the death of the physical body - a truth which will elude material science for millions of years at the rate it's going... (also, "gang ah jee", I sustained considerable emotional pain and suffering due to your false PM report about Krishna being a "Big Blue ..." You may hear from my attorney forthwith regarding a settlement to compensate my losses. Fortunately, your public retraction obviates the need to seek punitive damages ... )

tomato

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:31 pm Post subject:

I have heard it said that faulty science was one reason for the downfall of Communism. For some reason, they followed some geezer named Lysenko, who in turn followed Lamarck, who suggested that acquired traits could be passed on to one's offspring. I understand why that is wrong, but I don't see how it could lead to the downfall of a governmental system. Does anyone else know anything about this?

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:45 pm Post subject:

tomato wrote:

I have heard it said that faulty science was one reason for the downfall of Communism.
For some reason, they followed some geezer named Lysenko, who in turn followed Lamarck, who suggested that acquired traits could be passed on to one's offspring.
I understand why that is wrong, but I don't see how it could lead to the downfall of a governmental system.
Does anyone else know anything about this?

I don't know if Lysenkoism can be directly implicated in the failure of communism, but it was certainly a symptom of a system that valued ideology and revealed truth over the scientific method, and of course the application of a genetics-denying pseudoscience to agriculture can have some pretty far-ranging consequences for an economy. As I understand it, Russian biology is still recovering from its legacy.

Wikipedia (of course) has an article about it, if you're interested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

tomato

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:51 am Post subject:

Meegook

Joined: 12 Oct 2006

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:14 am Post subject:

Quote:

Good enough for you?

That's your best evidence? LOL

Nope, show us one person, who threatend with loss of life, stuck with evolution.

In exchange, I'll give you hundreds, if not thousands, who threatened with loss of life or the chance to renounce Christ, chose loss of life.

laogaiguk

Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:22 am Post subject:

Meegook wrote:

Quote:

Good enough for you?

Yes, but they are still wimps, and the ones who were tortured, while not wimps, weren't really that brave. They believe that they will go to eternal heaven for doing that. Just like people blow themselves up for some virgins. Even one athiest dying for athiesm is a million times braver than a Christian doing the same.

This entire argument is pointless. How does that do anything for the validity of evolution.

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:34 am Post subject:

Meegook wrote:

In exchange, I'll give you hundreds, if not thousands, who threatened with loss of life or the chance to renounce Christ, chose loss of life.

Sure. And then Rteacher can give us a list of Hindu martyrs, and then maybe someone else will mention that Muslims love martyring themselves for Allah, then I'll post a picture of Th�ch Quảng Đức and like laogaiguk says, what has this got to do with evolution?

What's more interesting is all the christians over the last 200 years who have abandoned creationism and are now evolutionists.

Meegook

Joined: 12 Oct 2006

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:36 am Post subject:

Quote:

Even one athiest dying for athiesm is a million times braver than a Christian doing the same.

Not really, because if there is a God of the Bible, the martyr was right, and the atheist, dying for nothing, a fool.

Quote:

How does that do anything for the validity of evolution.

Nothing, but this thread isn't only about the validity of evolution, but Creation also. If the Creator exists, then creation is true.

Duh.

Last edited by Meegook on Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:50 am; edited 1 time in total

laogaiguk

Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:41 am Post subject:

Meegook wrote:

Quote:

Even one athiest dying for athiesm is a million times braver than a Christian doing the same.

Not really, because if there is a God of the Bible, the martyr was right, and the atheist, dying for nothing, a fool.

First of all, martyr works with any cause, not just your stupid religion. Second, WHAT? THat is one of the stupidest sentences you have said so far. I don't even see how it came into your mind when having read my sentence. What about the opposite?

Quote:

How does that do anything for the validity of evolution.

Nothing, but this thread isn't only about the validity of evolution, but Creation. If the Creator exists, then creation is true.

Duh.

If there are funky aliens with kids doing a science project, creation can also be true.

Meegook

Joined: 12 Oct 2006

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:52 am Post subject:

Quote:

not just your stupid religion.

Christianity isn't a relgion.

Quote:

What about the opposite?

Opposite of what? Talk about a stupid question.

Quote:

If there are funky aliens with kids doing a science project, creation can also be true.

You keep telling yourself that. Maybe some day, if you repeat it often enough and believe it long enough it will come true.

Have you tried crossing your fingers? A rabbit's foot? My mother thinks elephants bring good luck

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:57 am Post subject:

Looks like we're back in the twilight zone of logic again.

Meegook

Joined: 12 Oct 2006

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:15 am Post subject:

Quote:

Or haven't you heard of Galileo? Of course, no church could get away with openly accusing an evolutionist like that, because the validity of evolution isn't actually under debate in the science world. No one is standing on their own like Galileo and Copernicus were.

Sure, but the church you speak of has as much to do w/Christianity as Howard Stern.

The validity of evolution isn't under debate in the science world?

LMFHO.

Scientists and other Intellectuals that Doubt Darwinism and other Naturalistic Theories of Origins

An incomplete and continually updated list

These are only the ones who have been so bold as to risk their academic careers and reputations by publicly expressing doubt. A visit to a simple undergradute evolution class shows that behind the scenes, there are many intellectuals who doubt Darwinism or privately acknowledge problems with naturalistic theories of origins.

So sorry, I'm about to go over the 300 word limit by an uncountable amount.

1. Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" (1996).

2. Robert W. Faid, American Nuclear Society, Nuclear Scientist, author of A Scientific Approach to Christianity.

3. Michael Denton, medical doctor and molecular biologist, , "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" (1985).

4. Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong" (1982).

5. Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders, "Beyond Neo-Darwinism" (1984).

6. Soren Lovtrup, "Darwinism: Refutation of a Myth" (1987).

7. Milton R., "The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myth of Darwinism", Fourth Estate, London, 1992.

8. Rodney Stark, Professor of Social Sciences at Baylor University, see Fact, Fable, and Darwin.

9. Gordon Rattray Taylor, "The Great Evolution Mystery" (1983).

The following scientists (#'s 10-47) stated that "a critical re-evaluation of Darwinism is both necessary and possible" as found at "http://www.apologetics.org/news/adhoc.html":

10. ANDREW BOCARSLY, Ph.D. Chemistry, Princeton University

11. HENRY F. SCHAEFER III, Ph. D. Quantum Computational Chemistry, University of Georgia

12. ROBERT TINNIN, Ph.D Biology, Portland State University

13. BENJAMIN VOWELS, M.D. Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania

14. STEPHEN MEYER (Ph.D. in History & Philosophy of Science University of Cambridge), currently professor of philosophy at Whitworth College.

15. DAVID IVES, Ph.D, Biochemistry, Ohio State University

http://tinyurl.com/yxaeep

The following scientists (numbers 251-320) are listed on a list of 100 Scientists that agree with the statement, "I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." :

251. Frank Tipler; Prof. of Mathematical Physics, Tulane University.

....320. James Tumlin; Assoc. Prof. of Medicine, Emory University

329. Gregory J. Brewer, Ph.D. Biology (UCSD), Professor of Neurology and Medical Microbiology at Southern Illinois University. See his "The Imminent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design".

367. Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Ph.D. Cytology/Cell Pathology, currently with Institute for Carcinogenesis Research, Russian National Cancer Research Center, Moscow, Russia. See his The Principle of Preformism as a Creationist Approach in Immunology and Gerontology.

368. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., professor of Genetics at Yale University, head of molecular biology laboratory at Russian Academy of Sciences. See his biographical information.

The following scientists (#'s 399-418) signed a list of scientists, calling themselves "Georgia Scientists for Academic Freedom," sent in an open letter to the Cobb County School Board in Georgia, on September 19, 2002. The scientists agreed with the following statement:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

This article contains details and confirmation contact information.

399. Michael A. Covington: University of Georgia: Associate Director, Artificial Intelligence Center: PhD - Linguistics, Yale.

To Enhance the Effectiveness of Ohio Science Education, as Scientists � We Affirm:

# That biological evolution is an important scientific theory that should be taught in the classroom;
# That a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science;
# That a science curriculum should help students understand why the subject of biological evolution generates controversy;
# That where alternative scientific theories exist in any area of inquiry (such as wave vs. particle theories of light, biological evolution vs. intelligent design, etc.), students should be permitted to learn the evidence for and against them;
# That a science curriculum should encourage critical thinking and informed participation in public discussions about biological origins.

We Oppose:
# Religious or anti-religious indoctrination in a class specifically dedicated to teaching within the discipline of science;
# The censorship of scientific views that may challenge current theories of origins.

446. David Zartman, Ph.D., Genetics & Animal Breeding, The Ohio State University

More to come when I get time!

Last edited by Meegook on Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:04 am; edited 5 times in total

Meegook

Joined: 12 Oct 2006

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:19 am Post subject:

Quote:

because the validity of evolution isn't actually under debate in the science world. No one is standing on their own like Galileo and Copernicus were.

You don't know what you're talking about.

And if you weren't so intellectually lazy you'd actually check the facts, as a REAL scientists would, before making a fool of yourself.

Last edited by Meegook on Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:24 am; edited 2 times in total

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14 Next
Page 12 of 14

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe