evolution and Sunday school

[Lighty]

Nice post Tristen, enjoyable read. I didn't even know about the treatment Micheal Reiss and Richard Sternberg. There will come a time when the arrogant will be confronted with that which they were continually denigrating. 

[Bonky]

Nice post Tristen, enjoyable read. I didn't even know about the treatment Micheal Reiss and Richard Sternberg. There will come a time when the arrogant will be confronted with that which they were continually denigrating.

I didn't finish posting my reply but Reiss agreed to step down. There were folks who disagreed with this and publicly stated that they were disappointed with the Royal society for suggesting that he step down. Not quite as the situation that it's prsented as...you gotta check into what you're told. I wanted to add, Reiss wasn't trying to get creationism invovled in any debate, he wanted to explain to students why it wasn't in the science class....because it's not science.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Bonky

[Tristen]

 

Nice post Tristen, enjoyable read. I didn't even know about the treatment Micheal Reiss and Richard Sternberg. There will come a time when the arrogant will be confronted with that which they were continually denigrating.

I didn't finish posting my reply but Reiss agreed to step down. There were folks who disagreed with this and publicly stated that they were disappointed with the Royal society for suggesting that he step down. Not quite as the situation that it's prsented as...you gotta check into what you're told. I wanted to add, Reiss wasn't trying to get creationism invovled in any debate, he wanted to explain to students why it wasn't in the science class....because it's not science.

 

 

 

Hey Bonky,

 

I’d nearly forgoten that your world view requires creationist arguments be dismissed without consideration - on the basis that creationists tell lies. Are you seriously suggesting that I was trying to deceive in this sentence about Reiss, or is it possible that I merely summarised the issue in a single sentence to support another point?

 

 

 

So let’s consider your allegation.

I said, “There is the famous example of evolutionist, Prof. Michael Reiss, being forced out of his position”.

You said, “but Reiss agreed to step down”

 

So with whom did Reiss “agree”? Are you suggesting that there was no pressure, coercion or request from his fellow Royal Society members? I ask because just days prior to his dismissal, several prominent members of the Royal Society publically called for his dismissal.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/sep/14/religion

 

How is anything in my presentation inconsistent with what actually happened? What justifies your implication that I have not been entirely truthful?

 

 

 

“There were folks who disagreed with this and publicly stated that they were disappointed with the Royal society for suggesting that he step down. Not quite as the situation that it's prsented as”

 

Again, how is this information contrary to my presentation? What exactly is my grand deception?

 

 

 

“you gotta check into what you're told”

 

So what exactly were you “told” in my post that isn’t true?

 

 

 

“Reiss wasn't trying to get creationism invovled in any debate, he wanted to explain to students why it wasn't in the science class....because it's not science”

 

I didn’t say Reiss was “trying to get creationism invovled in any debate”. I said that he was “suggesting that creationists be engaged in debate”. Yes – it was to show the creationists the putative errors of their ways. That’s why it so readily evidences my point. Reiss is an ardent “evolutionist” (as stated). This episode shows how precious the academia is about the Common Ancestry model – so protective that they will even turn on their own for daring to suggest there is any place in the discussion for contrary views.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Tristen

[Bonky]

Hey Bonky,

I’d nearly forgoten that your world view requires creationist arguments be dismissed without consideration - on the basis that creationists tell lies. Are you seriously suggesting that I was trying to deceive in this sentence about Reiss, or is it possible that I merely summarised the issue in a single sentence to support another point?

Is summarized another word for leaving things out? That's exactly how it appeared to me after I investigated your claims.

 

So let’s consider your allegation.

I said, “There is the famous example of evolutionist, Prof. Michael Reiss, being forced out of his position”.

You said, “but Reiss agreed to step down”

So with whom did Reiss “agree”? Are you suggesting that there was no pressure, coercion or request from his fellow Royal Society members? I ask because just days prior to his dismissal, several prominent members of the Royal Society publically called for his dismissal.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/sep/14/religion

How is anything in my presentation inconsistent with what actually happened? What justifies your implication that I have not been entirely truthful?

You're leaving out that there were people who were in public SUPPORT of Reiss. This would include me if I were a part of that community. Asking him to step down was an over reaction by a Society, not the scientific community as a whole.

 

“There were folks who disagreed with this and publicly stated that they were disappointed with the Royal society for suggesting that he step down. Not quite as the situation that it's prsented as”

Again, how is this information contrary to my presentation? What exactly is my grand deception?

You didn't show both sides, only one. You're taking a specific example and making it sound like it's what happens every time. I find it interesting that you find this behavior [by the society] upsetting, what Creationist organization doesn't require that facts/evidence line up with the Bible...or else? I can provide many many statements of faith that refuse to allow conclusions that are not in line with scripture. So in principle, why would you even be upset at this course of action?

 

“you gotta check into what you're told”

So what exactly were you “told” in my post that isn’t true?

Your presentation of the actual scenario was spun a bit in my opinion.

 

“Reiss wasn't trying to get creationism invovled in any debate, he wanted to explain to students why it wasn't in the science class....because it's not science”

I didn’t say Reiss was “trying to get creationism invovled in any debate”. I said that he was “suggesting that creationists be engaged in debate”. Yes – it was to show the creationists the putative errors of their ways. That’s why it so readily evidences my point. Reiss is an ardent “evolutionist” (as stated). This episode shows how precious the academia is about the Common Ancestry model – so protective that they will even turn on their own for daring to suggest there is any place in the discussion for contrary views.

Academia or this particular Society that may have handled the situation poorly?

Edited March 25, 2015 by Bonky

[Tristen]

 

 

 

Hey Bonky,

 

I think yet again you are being unreasonable.

 

It was not my intent to provide an exposé on the dismissal of Michael Reiss. I was simply providing a supporting example for a broader point; and to that effect, I provided a single-sentence summary of what actually happened. Yet if I fail to provide an exhaustive dissertation covering every detail of every claim I make, you see that as an opportunity to suggest that I am being deceptive.

 

I didn’t “show both sides” or “only one” side. I didn’t provide a side – I just stated what happened. There was no ‘spin’ in the provided sentence.

 

 

 

You said, “Is summarized another word for leaving things out? That's exactly how it appeared to me after I investigated your claims”

 

Yes – summarizing means reducing the information to its pertinent material (aka “leaving things out”). That some disagreed with the decision of the Royal Society doesn’t change what happened – which directly supports my broader claim of zealous intolerance against anyone presuming to criticise the Common Ancestry model. Yet Reiss didn’t come close to criticising the Common Ancestry model. He merely claimed that creationist students be engaged in discussion where necessary. And for that he was pressured into resigning. It is the “over reaction” element of this case that establishes my point.

 

 

 

“Asking him to step down was an over reaction by a Society, not the scientific community as a whole”

 

I think mitigating the Royal Society to “a Society” underplays the importance and pre-eminence of the Royal Society within the global scientific community. It is the oldest and most respected scientific institution on the planet. If there is any representative example of the scientific community, then the Royal Society is it. Obviously no-one can claim to exclusively represent every scientist – but that is beside the point.

 

 

 

“You're taking a specific example and making it sound like it's what happens every time”

 

I used a couple of high-profile examples to support my position. Should I have provided more examples? How many would have been enough to avoid the insinuation of dishonesty? There is a documentary called “Expelled” giving more thorough coverage of this issue if you have further interest.

 

This is the second time in this conversation that you have interpreted the provision of few examples to mean only a few examples are available – which I find inherently unreasonable. Most people seem to understand that a couple of good examples are enough to initially support an argument. The use of examples remains subject to scrutiny, and maybe more examples are required, but it is not reasonable to conclude that there are only a few examples because only a few examples were initially provided.

 

 

 

“I find it interesting that you find this behavior [by the society] upsetting, what Creationist organization doesn't require that facts/evidence line up with the Bible...or else? I can provide many many statements of faith that refuse to allow conclusions that are not in line with scripture. So in principle, why would you even be upset at this course of action?”

 

I’m not sure how this relates to the issue. I’m not sure that I’m “upset” about anything. I simply provided an example to support my argument – that’s all. I suppose I am somewhat bewildered by your failure to recognise the level of bias required for you to take such an innocuous comment from my entire argument, and use it to imply that I have been dishonest. I’m not offended – I just don’t get how you don’t see it.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Tristen

[twinc]

they are not aware, in the main , that it is forbidden and anathema for Catholics to accept or teach 'Origins' Evolution and so it should be for all bible believing Christians - adaptation and/or variation or micro evolution is not in doubt as obvious as is also natural selection - twinc

[KPaulG]

they are not aware, in the main , that it is forbidden and anathema for Catholics to accept or teach 'Origins' Evolution and so it should be for all bible believing Christians - adaptation and/or variation or micro evolution is not in doubt as obvious as is also natural selection - twinc

Welcome!

[Guest]

Then I don’t think you have considered the historical scope of the Bible, or the massive amounts of evidence available against which we can test its claims.

I've considered what I've been given so far. Names of people and places was what I was given, it just isn't enough to go from there to infallibility.

 

 

Historically Some Say No

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

It Just Ain't So

 

And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. Mark 16:6 (ESV)

 

I Just Won't Believe It

 

for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”

So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. Romans 14:11 (ESV)

 

Unless I See Him With My Own Two Eyes

 

And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

 

And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand? Revelation 6:14-17

 

~

 

Historically One Book, One LORD, One Savior

 

Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts. Jeremiah 15:16

[twinc]

this is what yesterday.s children/today's adults were taught - so can we wonder at the non science and nonsense we get on forums and the mixed up and confused falling away from the faith of their fathers in droves by school leavers and adults also - so here it is see and decide for yourself

 

Junior education = via google see [Fact vs Faith/Textbooks]    -  Senior education = www.EvolutionvsGod.com              -     twinc

[twinc]

one has to consider very carefully exactly how fossils are formed since the carcass must be covered very rapidly and not left exposed to scavengers or  wind and weather for long so with that in mind what do we find but "millions of dead things buried in sedimentary layers laid down by water all over the earth -  twinc