Creation vs. Evolution

[UnoMOTO]

I forget, did animals get free will too? Or just man?

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

they are just here for us to use as we see fit.

 

[Pako]

I forget, did animals get free will too? Or just man?

I didn't realize we were in the business of teaching popular opinion in schools.

In certain classes that allow freedom to do so, opinions, popular or not, are often taught at the guidance of the teacher.

Oh sure....if it's not popular, it's generally taken out of our schools. Ledhed remembers (well in light of his recent post, I'm not sure he remembers now, but...) that in school we used to "Pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, One Nation, Under God, Indivisible......". My son can't remember ever saying that.

 

[Danoff]

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

they are just here for us to use as we see fit.

So free will or not? No then?

In certain classes that allow freedom to do so, opinions, popular or not, are often taught at the guidance of the teacher.

Can you give me an example?

 

[Pako]

Like we have already said before, God knew all this would happen yet he still made it. He knew that these events would go down. Yet he still went ahead.

That's beyond my scope of reasoning to second guess God's intension. I don't know....., seems like things would be different, although it's hard to imagine the highs without the lows if that's what you are referring to.

 

[Pako]

Can you give me an example?

Let's see...

English (poem interpretations)
Social Sciences (interpretations of current events and historical events as they see it)

Let's also take this moment to introduce the opinions of the authors of the text books being used as curriculum. Again, not saying their bad or good, but that they exist.

 

[Swift]

Can you give me an example?

Anything with any kind of political reference. How students "feel" about a current topic. Say, abortion, homosexuality, national defense/security. This happens all the time and teachers, rightfully so, but their 2 cents in.

Now, if it's ok to talk about homosexual rights and not about God being the creator of the world, that I have a problem with.

Also, how about Shakespeare?

EDIT: Treed by Pako!

 

[Danoff]

Let's see...

English (poem interpretations)
Social Sciences (interpretations of current events and historical events as they see it)

Let's also take this moment to introduce the opinions of the authors of the text books being used as curriculum. Again, not saying their bad or good, but that they exist.

Anything with any kind of political reference. How students "feel" about a current topic. Say, abortion, homosexuality, national defense/security. This happens all the time and teachers, rightfully so, but their 2 cents in.

Now, if it's ok to talk about homosexual rights and not about God being the creator of the world, that I have a problem with.

Also, how about Shakespeare?

EDIT: Treed by Pako!

So are you proposing teachers teach the stuff? Or just that students be allowed to talk about it during some sort of class discussion? If I take Pako's point right, he seems to be suggesting that since teachers teach opinion, they should teach other opinions. I'd counter that with the old "two wrongs don't make a right" saying.

 

[Swift]

So are you proposing teachers teach the stuff? Or just that students be allowed to talk about it during some sort of class discussion? If I take Pako's point right, he seems to be suggesting that since teachers teach opinion, they should teach other opinions. I'd counter that with the old "two wrongs don't make a right" saying.

Everything outside of math and most science is opinion. History is opinion in a alot of ways. The facts of history are not debatable, but their effects very much are.

What I'm saying is that these things ARE being taught in the classroom. Shakespeare is literally taught as the "gospel" of literature. That is his opinion. Why do our students have to learn what Shakespeare cared about?

 

[Danoff]

Everything outside of math and most science is opinion.

Simply not true. Art is expression and impression, not opinion. Theater is Art. Literature is Art. Music is Art. Grammar is fact. History is fact (though I'll grant you that they do work opinion in). Computer science is fact. Language is fact. Health is fact. Science is fact. Math is fact. Economics is fact. P.E. is boring.

We shouldn't be teaching opinion in school.

 

[Pako]

There wouldn't be much social development in the class room if we just taught science and math. Sorry but, humans are much more complicated and need more than just the logical sciences although that would have been fine by me. Once you get into area's of offering students to be self thinking individuals to base ideas and their opinions of how life is on other opinions of those before them, give them the whole picture to work with. Don't plan on making little cookie cutter prints of little danoff's running around. As a species, we are more colorful than that.

Edit:
Sorry, ironically enough, I have a parent teachers conference to attend.

 

[Danoff]

Even philosophy, which is where we agreed religion should go if it ends up in school, is basically a historical study of philosophy and a lesson in critical thinking.

 

[Swift]

Simply not true. Art is expression and impression, not opinion. Theater is Art. Literature is Art. Music is Art. Grammar is fact. History is fact (though I'll grant you that they do work opinion in). Computer science is fact. Language is fact. Health is fact. Science is fact. Math is fact. Economics is fact. P.E. is boring.

We shouldn't be teaching opinion in school.

Art is the expression of one's opinion. There's nothing wrong with art, but it is opinion. As much as theater, movies, and TV. Literature is also expression of someone's opinion on whatever topic. I'll give you grammar. But grammar without literature is useless. Computer Science is a science and I already said that qualifies Health is WIDELY opinion based. Just look at all the fights over alcohol, tobacco, fatty foods, etc. Economics is a fact that it's happening, but people have different opinions on how they are effected.

See what I mean? I'm NOT saying these things shouldn't be taught, except Shakespeare there has to be a better person to read. But that if all these opinions are taught, why not the opinion that we didn't get here by way of an amoeba?

 

[Small_Fryz]

That's beyond my scope of reasoning to second guess God's intension. I don't know....., seems like things would be different, although it's hard to imagine the highs without the lows if that's what you are referring to.

I guess one has to ask why did god create us knowing we would sin and that many would die because of "sin" technically god caused all pain and suffering youve ever seen or heard of in this world, because he knew before he started that it would happen. Why did he still choose to go down that path? You argue adam and eve had a choice wether or not to sin. Your right, they did in fact choose to eat the apple, They at the time did not know that their path was laid down before them. God knew they would eventually eat it, one would say he planned for that to happen all along. God knew their desire for curiosity would overcome his "now dont eat this" statement, it would be simple for god to still have free will in humans but make their decsion making process a little different so that they are more favoured to choose the correct "right" thing, instead of being so heavily biased toward the "wrong" thing. Adam and Eve couldnt help their massive desire to experince something they did not know. God created them with this desire to be that strong. How many times have you told kids not to do something, only for them to do it because you told them not to?

 

[Azuremen]

I agree with Swift on the art comment on it being opinion. It is someone's opinion that the Dada movement is art or not, and teachers often have their personal taste that influences the material they teach in an art course. This is even more apparent when you take a drawing class and every teacher has their own preferred method for drawing something. Its their opinion and they teach it.

Evolution is an opinion as is religion in a science. Both are fact to those that base their lifes around them.

Religion is not based on facts but on faith, so if a fact doesn't line up perfectly with it, that can be over looked.

However, science uses "facts" but facts change based on the tools used to determine results and so on. So these facts of science are just what works at the moment, nothing more.

EDIT for Small -
God wanted us to keep our agency. Life is here for us to learn and experiance hardships and good times. How well does a person thats never been without food truly understand hunger? Its one of those things.

Further more, Lucifer orginally wanted everyone to be saved by giving them no choices but the correct ones. But this prevented the experiance of the ups and downs of life, which would defeat the God's plan for us to learn.

I think I have that right anyhow.

 

[Swift]

I guess one has to ask why did god create us knowing we would sin and that many would die because of "sin" technically god caused all pain and suffering youve ever seen or heard of in this world, because he knew before he started that it would happen. Why did he still choose to go down that path? You argue adam and eve had a choice wether or not to sin. Your right, they did in fact choose to eat the apple, They at the time did not know that their path was laid down before them. God knew they would eventually eat it, one would say he planned for that to happen all along. God knew their desire for curiosity would overcome his "now dont eat this" statement, it would be simple for god to still have free will in humans but make their decsion making process a little different so that they are more favoured to choose the correct "right" thing, instead of being so heavily biased toward the "wrong" thing. Adam and Eve couldnt help their massive desire to experince something they did not know. God created them with this desire to be that strong. How many times have you told kids not to do something, only for them to do it because you told them not to?

The thing you're forget is that there was only that one rule. That's it. You can do whatever you want, all day long. Just don't eat this fruit. That's like having a guest in your house and saying you can do anything you want, just don't eat my apple pie. Now, if you eat it, you're stupid(as we all are) and you deserve punishment. This is what happened to Adam. It is not Eve's fault, this is on the man.

Also, Jesus is the Lamb of God that died for our sins so that we could once again commune with the God. I think it's a pretty fair deal actually. I would not want to be an android with no free will.

 

[Small_Fryz]

But god made us with the desire to go against his word so strong.

The way we make decisions effects what we choose. God could have simply altered our reasoning and the way we make decisions so that we would indeed realise how stupid this was to do and thus, not choose it. On our own free will.

 

[Danoff]

Art is the expression of one's opinion.

It can be. Or it can be expression of emotion. Regardless, the study of art is the study of expression, not opinion per-se. When you study literature, you don't study the message the author was trying to send so much as the way the author sends it - language, imagery, symbolism, etc. We don't read the scarlet letter to study the evils of adultery or even the evils of the punishment of adultery. We read the scarlet letter because teachers are evil and want to make their students read crap - and because teachers are trying to teach the methods of expression used in the book.

Health is WIDELY opinion based. Just look at all the fights over alcohol, tobacco, fatty foods, etc.

Debate!=opinion. Look at the debates over evolution, but evolution isn't opinion, it's observation. You don't teach evolution as truth (or any science for that matter). You teach it as observation and conclusion. How convincing it is to you personally doesn't enter the equation, only whether it can be shown to be false, or a different conclusion could be reached.

Economics is a fact that it's happening, but people have different opinions on how they are effected.

Theories!=Opinion.

See what I mean?

Sorry, no.

I'm NOT saying these things shouldn't be taught, except Shakespeare there has to be a better person to read.

👍 I'm with you 100% on that one.

But that if all these opinions are taught, why not the opinion that we didn't get here by way of an amoeba?

Opinion has no place in education. The only place I can see religion at all is in a historical setting lumped with philosophy.

 

[Swift]

But god made us with the desire to go against his word so strong.

The way we make decisions effects what we choose. God could have simply altered our reasoning and the way we make decisions so that we would indeed realise how stupid this was to do and thus, not choose it. On our own free will.

No, we made it so strong. Why is it that you have no problem resisting some things and major problems resisting others? It's because it's what you like/want. Adam wanted the knowledge of Good and evil. End of discussion. It's not that he hated or wanted to disobey God. Just that he let his desire for knowledge grow greater then his love for God. That's on Adam.

It can be. Or it can be expression of emotion. Regardless, the study of art is the study of expression, not opinion per-se. When you study literature, you don't study the message the author was trying to send so much as the way the author sends it - language, imagery, symbolism, etc. We don't read the scarlet letter to study the evils of adultery or even the evils of the punishment of adultery. We read the scarlet letter because teachers are evil and want to make their students read crap - and because teachers are trying to teach the methods of expression used in the book.

But you are quite literally studying that persons expressions and opinions, forced to process and then report on them. How is that NOT teaching opinion?

Debate!=opinion. Look at the debates over evolution, but evolution isn't opinion, it's observation. You don't teach evolution as truth (or any science for that matter). You teach it as observation and conclusion. How convincing it is to you personally doesn't enter the equation, only whether it can be shown to be false, or a different conclusion could be reached.

Theories!=Opinion.

Uh, yeah. Too bad things aren't taught like that 9 times out of 10

Opinion has no place in education. The only place I can see religion at all is in a historical setting lumped with philosophy.

Are you talking about the ideal situation or what really happens?

 

[Small_Fryz]

No, we made it so strong. Why is it that you have no problem resisting some things and major problems resisting others? It's because it's what you like/want. Adam wanted the knowledge of Good and evil. End of discussion. It's not that he hated or wanted to disobey God. Just that he let his desire for knowledge grow greater then his love for God. That's on Adam.

Thats on God for creating Adam with a lust for knowledge to be greater than his love for God.

 

[Danoff]

I agree with Swift on the art comment on it being opinion. It is someone's opinion that the Dada movement is art or not, and teachers often have their personal taste that influences the material they teach in an art course.

Teachers can select which art to show, but that doesn't make the discussion of the selected art opinion. It's analysis of technique. It's really much more concrete than you give it credit for. As for it being opinion whether something is art or not... it is not opinion.

Something is art if it is expression, or if it makes an artistic impression. That's it. If someone claims that they're expressing themselves, they've made it art. Whether you see any artistic merit in it is your own call.

This is even more apparent when you take a drawing class and every teacher has their own preferred method for drawing something. Its their opinion and they teach it.

It might be their opinion that it is the best technique, but the teaching of the technique is not opinion. Learning a technique is useful. The existence and style of the technique is fact. Analysis of the technique can also be fact.

Evolution is an opinion as is religion in a science. Both are fact to those that base their lifes around them.

I don't even know what the heck you're talking about here. Evolution is not opinion (see my previous post). It's observation, and the observation is fact.

Religion is not based on facts but on faith, so if a fact doesn't line up perfectly with it, that can be over looked.

I'm well aware the religion has a history of dodging facts. That's why it shouldn't be taught in school.

However, science uses "facts" but facts change based on the tools used to determine results and so on. So these facts of science are just what works at the moment, nothing more.

You say "nothing more" as though current science is insignificant because it might be wrong.

 

[Swift]

Thats on God for creating Adam with a lust for knowledge to be greater than his love for God.

You're still not getting it. But it took me a while too.

God gave Adam an EQUAL ability to resist temptation(proven by Jesus), but he still chose to override that and disobey. Just like someone will choose to override self preservation to save a child from an oncoming car. One action is locked on as noble, the other sinful. But both took the person to override a specific rule or tenant.

 

[Danoff]

But you are quite literally studying that persons expressions and opinions, forced to process and then report on them. How is that NOT teaching opinion?

A paper on the use of symbolism in the scarlet letter is not an analysis of opinion.

Are you talking about the ideal situation or what really happens?

We're talking about the goal.

 

[Small_Fryz]

EDIT for Small -
God wanted us to keep our agency. Life is here for us to learn and experiance hardships and good times. How well does a person thats never been without food truly understand hunger? Its one of those things.

Further more, Lucifer orginally wanted everyone to be saved by giving them no choices but the correct ones. But this prevented the experiance of the ups and downs of life, which would defeat the God's plan for us to learn.

I think I have that right anyhow.

Now it makes sense, God intended us to sin and wanted us to. He never intended for us to stay in the garden.

 

[Danoff]

Now it makes sense, God intended us to sin and wanted us to. He never intended for us to stay in the garden.

Ergo, he wanted to punish us. He wanted us to walk out of the garden so he could harm us. He's like, one of those S&M types.

 

[Small_Fryz]

You're still not getting it. But it took me a while too.

God gave Adam an EQUAL ability to resist temptation(proven by Jesus), but he still chose to override that and disobey. Just like someone will choose to override self preservation to save a child from an oncoming car. One action is locked on as noble, the other sinful. But both took the person to override a specific rule or tenant.

Then shouldn't we all have the choice of wether to eat the apple or not? Doesnt seem proper to let the action of 1 🤬 wreck the entire human race..

 

[Swift]

Then shouldn't we all have the choice of wether to eat the apple or not? Doesnt seem proper to let the action of 1 🤬 wreck the entire human race..

Have you ever done anything you were specifically told not to do? Not as a child, but as you are now. The answer is yes. Hence, you would've eaten the apple as well. As would I.

 

[Danoff]

Have you ever done anything you were specifically told not to do? Not as a child, but as you are now. The answer is yes. Hence, you would've eaten the apple as well. As would I.

I was told not to smoke pot. I haven't done that. Maybe I wouldn't have eaten the apple.

 

[Azuremen]

I'll quote myself from earlier hoping to clarify what I said, Danoff

Micro evolution over a short period of time has been proven. Its been observed and documented and so on and so forth. Everyone knows the finches deal. However, macro evolution of species has not been proven, it just works with the evidence at the time.

Which is all science does, matches theory with current evidence. This proves something, but only within our understanding of it. About 400 years ago most Europeans still thought the world flat. Of course, Egyptians, those in the middle east, and elsewhere had concluded differently. Still, scienve in Europe did not explain otherwise. Same with the setup of the solar system and universe.

Einstein stated the universe wasn't expanding until Hubble found the Andromeda galaxy and they had to explain red shift and things outside of the Milky Way galaxy. And now we have dark matter, super string theory, and so on. All are amazingly fantastic ideas and theories, each will be further supported as time goes along.

But will they be proven? Only to the best of our knowledge.

And that analogy of doing something you've been told not to has its flaws. I'll try digging up some stuff relating to the nature of the apple later, when I am not at work.

 

[Small_Fryz]

Have you ever done anything you were specifically told not to do? Not as a child, but as you are now. The answer is yes. Hence, you would've eaten the apple as well. As would I.

But i already had sin in me when i made that decision. I wasnt facing eternal life with a naked chic or dieing and causing my entire human race to be doomed.

For the record, ive turned down smoking cigarettes, smoking pot, being a hoon, hopping in cars with friends and many other "temptations" simply because i had teh ability to see the concsequences and decide it was not worth it. Sometimes ive made the wrong choice yet willing to deal with the consequences because i wanted to "experience" it. eg.. the 1st time i got drunk.. was the wrong decision but i was willing to do any punishment i would get if i got caught. (for the record i didnt get caught)

 

[Danoff]

Which is all science does, matches theory with current evidence. This proves something, but only within our understanding of it. About 400 years ago most Europeans still thought the world flat. Of course, Egyptians, those in the middle east, and elsewhere had concluded differently. Still, scienve in Europe did not explain otherwise. Same with the setup of the solar system and universe.

Einstein stated the universe wasn't expanding until Hubble found the Andromeda galaxy and they had to explain red shift and things outside of the Milky Way galaxy. And now we have dark matter, super string theory, and so on. All are amazingly fantastic ideas and theories, each will be further supported as time goes along.

But will they be proven? Only to the best of our knowledge.

...this makes evolution opinion somehow?