Stump the Christian?

[dyresand]

Also here is some hard facts for you theists 1. Organized religion is dying 2. No one from the 90's generation and after will more than likely not be apart of the church or organization 3. Atheism is grown whether you like it or not. 4. more people accept the scientific model over a book of fairy tails and metaphors. 5. Church and religion is just a waste of time if you believe in god fine you don't need church or the bible reinforce said belief. Because sooner or later maybe not loose that belief anyways.

[robvalue]

I tell you what. I think there might be some merit in forgetting about the whole "is it true" thing sometimes.

Instead, how about "Why would you worship the God character depicted in the bible? What makes you think he is worthy of worship, and trustworthy enough to honour his word?"

I'd love to hear of just one person who believes in the God of the bible but rejects him as worthy of worship due to being evil, a manipulator and a liar.

[SteveII]

I think evolution should be studied. However, I do object to the teaching as fact, that all life has evolved from nothing and everything has a common ancestor. I think the science curriculum should stop at describing what the theories are and how they work and not stray into statements best left to other fields (like philosophy and religion).

When we can literally see evolution happening before our eyes, in the lab, I'd kinda like to know what you would consider a fact, if evolution doesn't count. My family breeds dogs: I've seen the line evolve over the years. If something we can witness, record and track doesn't count as factual, what does? 

And while I have not really followed the campaign for creationism in the science classroom, does it really matter? Is this really a disaster as some claim? If you want to discuss other creation stories from other religions, who cares? It might be better for students to understand there are other views.

Are you seriously asking why we wouldn't want students in schools to be taught untrue things? Or at least, let me soften my wording to be accurate, things that have no evidence for them?

Can you give me an example of the anti-science stance of the Christian right? I send my daughter to a very conservative Christian college (Grove City College). They have a stellar reputation in the STEM subjects and graduates are snapped up by Fortune 100 companies 4 weeks before graduation. 

And yet you just betrayed your serious misconceptions about a cornerstone field of modern biology; the christian right's hardline defiance of evolution is the poster boy of anti-science stances, as is their cavalier attitude to manmade climate change, their opposition to medical treatment in favor of prayer (in some cases) and so on. That was just off the top of my head.

Sure, evolution happens. Does it go all the way back to 1 organism? No one knows...and therefore is a theory. I am suggesting that we label fact as fact and theory theory. They both have clear definitions and it shouldn't be too hard to categorize them. Related to that, I do object to the teaching in many/most grade/high school science classroom that life sprang from non-life. There is no evidence of that. 

Regarding teaching students untrue things. I could have been clearer. Teaching that some Christians proposes ABC (Genesis literalist), and such and such religion proposes XYZ is not teaching untrue things. Obviously all the options cannot be true. You can't imagine that these students have not heard of the Bible and instead of ignoring the elephant in the room, I think there is benefit to at least addressing the issue. A good educator should be able to handle...um...educating. Like I mentioned earlier, I think further discussion should be handled in another classroom (philosophy/religion). 

It does not follow that a stance against parts of evolutionary theory = anti-science. 

[SteveII]

Also here is some hard facts for you theists 1. Organized religion is dying 2. No one from the 90's generation and after will more than likely not be apart of the church or organization 3. Atheism is grown whether you like it or not. 4. more people accept the scientific model over a book of fairy tails and metaphors. 5. Church and religion is just a waste of time if you believe in god fine you don't need church or the bible reinforce said belief. Because sooner or later maybe not loose that belief anyways.

1. Not true. Worldwide annual growth rates: Christianity 1.31% Islam 1.86% Hinduism 1.41% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_r...statistics)
2. Because?
3. Atheism grows 0.05% (from 0% to 2% of the population in 100 years)
4. compare 1 and 3
5. See 1

So you get a grip on reality, here is an excerpt from the same article (bold added):

Christianity

Further information: Christian population growth
According to a 2005 paper submitted to a meeting of the American Political Science Association, most of Christianity's growth has occurred in non-Western countries. The paper concludes that the Pentecostalism movement is the fastest-growing religion worldwide.[46]

The US Department of State estimates that Protestants in Vietnam may have grown by 600% over the last decade.[47] In Nigeria, the percentage of Christians has grown from 21.4% in 1953 to 50.8% in 2010.[48] In South Korea, Christianity has grown from 20.7% in 1985 to 29.3% in 2010.[48]

Evangelical Christian denominations are among the fastest-growing denominations in some Catholic Christian countries, such as Brazil and France.[49][50] In Brazil, the total number of Protestants jumped from 16.2% in 2000[51] to 22.2% in 2010 (for the first time, the percentage of Catholics in Brazil is less than 70%). These cases don't contribute to a growth of Christianity overall, but rather to a substitution of a brand of Christianity with another one.

The records of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints show that its membership has grown every decade since its beginning in the 1830s,[52] that it is among the top ten largest Christian denominations today,[53] and that it is the fastest growing church in America.[54]

[SteveII]

Another world religion article (more recent): http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/relig...2010-2050/

Second bullet point: Atheists, agnostics and other people who do not affiliate with any religion – though increasing in countries such as the United States and France – will make up a declining share of the world’s total population.

Why do you think that is? Perhaps, al la Dawkins, more mocking is needed in more languages?

[abaris]

Sure, evolution happens. Does it go all the way back to 1 organism? No one knows...and therefore is a theory.

I suggest to look up the scientific term theory and it's meaning, as opposed to it's casual usage in everyday language. If you don't even understand the basics, you should refrain from trying to discuss it. Unless you want to make a fool of yourself, that is.

[SteveII]

Sure, evolution happens. Does it go all the way back to 1 organism? No one knows...and therefore is a theory.

I suggest to look up the scientific term theory and it's meaning, as opposed to it's casual usage in everyday language. If you don't even understand the basics, you should refrain from trying to discuss it. Unless you want to make a fool of yourself, that is.

If we use this definition,

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Then comon ancestry and origins of life aren't even theories.

[FatAndFaithless]

Wait, if we use the scientific definition of "theory" to describe the theory of evolution, then evolution isn't a theory?

[SteveII]

Wait, if we use the scientific definition of "theory" to describe the theory of evolution, then  evolution isn't a theory?

I was using theory in the casual way. If you stick scientific in front of it, I guess only parts of evolution are scientific theories (those things we can test and observe).

[abaris]

I was using theory in the casual way. If you stick scientific in front of it, I guess only parts of evolution are scientific theories (those things we can test and observe).

Yeah, but here's the thing. Evolution is a scientific theory. So it kind of goes with the job description to stick scientific in front of it.