Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICR Sues Texas
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 94 of 549 (577424)
08-28-2010 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by jar
08-28-2010 2:44 PM


First, the goal of education is not to teach the student what the student wants to know but what the student needs to know.
I dont think you actually think about anythig before you spout off. If students needs to be taught what they need to know, then they need to be taught evolution has nothing to do with origins of things, while they are being taught it as a so-called fact.
They need to be taught in the classroom that there are only two logical possibilites as to how things are here to begin with, creation (evolution notwithstanding) as one of those possibilites. While there is no need to go into depth into the theistc position, it certainly falls within the area of science, if even from only a position of the reality of natural things.
If the student needs to be taught what they need to know, these things should be included in that process
Second, atheism has nothing to do with Evolution. Evolution is a fact regardless of whether someone believes there are gods or not.
Right, evolution is a fact, while biological Macro evolution is a theory
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by jar, posted 08-28-2010 2:44 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by archaeologist, posted 08-28-2010 7:46 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 96 by jar, posted 08-28-2010 8:09 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 08-28-2010 8:47 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 99 by Nij, posted 08-29-2010 1:00 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 100 by Theodoric, posted 08-29-2010 9:51 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 158 by DavidOH, posted 08-30-2010 2:04 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 101 of 549 (577572)
08-29-2010 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by jar
08-28-2010 8:09 PM


Re: There is no Theory of Creation
x
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by jar, posted 08-28-2010 8:09 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 08-29-2010 5:06 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 102 of 549 (577573)
08-29-2010 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by jar
08-28-2010 8:09 PM


Re: There is no Theory of Creation
Guess what?
They are taught that. Evolution has nothing to do with origins of life, only the origin of the diversity of life we seed. It is the science of Abiogenesis that studies the origin of life.
Is design which carries as much weight as macro evolution, taught as a science in this arena Abiogenisis
Uh, no, they do not need to be taught anything about creationism. It is one possibility under Abiogenesis but so far there is NO evidence that supports Special Creation and lots of evidence that supports physics and chemistry. If and when there is any evidence related to Special Creation then perhaps it might be worth including in a curriculum.
Uh, yes they do need to be taught about the creation theory, since design supports it and it falls well within the only two logical explanations of the origin of life in the first place
It is one of only two logical alternatives, supported by design, which makes it more than scientific.
These divisions of abiogenisis and evo are contrived terminology, directed at avoiding very simple points
I defy you demonstrate otherwise
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by jar, posted 08-28-2010 8:09 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by ringo, posted 08-29-2010 5:16 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 110 by Theodoric, posted 08-29-2010 5:29 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 104 of 549 (577577)
08-29-2010 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Percy
08-28-2010 8:47 PM


*
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box.
Edited by Admin, : Delete contents of duplicate post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 08-28-2010 8:47 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 105 of 549 (577579)
08-29-2010 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Percy
08-28-2010 8:47 PM


Students are taught the current consensus within science.
I thought we were interested in what was actual demonstratble fact, the consensus could be and is wrong concerning the FACT of evolution
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 08-28-2010 8:47 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Coyote, posted 08-29-2010 5:16 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 131 by Percy, posted 08-29-2010 8:21 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 108 of 549 (577585)
08-29-2010 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by jar
08-29-2010 5:06 PM


Re: There is no Theory of Creation
x
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 08-29-2010 5:06 PM jar has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 109 of 549 (577586)
08-29-2010 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by jar
08-29-2010 5:06 PM


Re: There is no Theory of Creation
There is no evidence of either design or designer. Further, even if there was it is worthless, of no value. The issue would still be "How does the designer do things" and so far the only model that has any evidence in support of it is the Theory of Evolution.
Now you are starting to get the point, its not a matter of whether you believe there is EVIDENCE of design, its a matter of whether it should be taught as a fact or whether it could be demonstrated as a fact. Its your measuring rod.
Evolution (in its entirity)is not a demonstratable fact, nor should it be taught as science. Science should only include the immediate and the observable, evolution in its entirity is NEITHER, therfore not scientific
By denouncing my position you have crumbled your own
Its that simple,its really that simple. Remember those words
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 08-29-2010 5:06 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by jar, posted 08-29-2010 5:35 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 111 of 549 (577588)
08-29-2010 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by ringo
08-29-2010 5:16 PM


Re: There is no Theory of Creation
Non sequitur. Even if there was a creation theory, which there isn't, and even if it was the only logical alternative to evolution, which it isn't, that still wouldn't "make" creationism scientific. In order to be scientific, creationism would still have to follow the rules and procedures of science, which it doesn't.
Thats the point evolution is neither a fact nor an alternative to anything scince it demonstrates only a possibilty, that answers nothing about the origin of anything
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by ringo, posted 08-29-2010 5:16 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Theodoric, posted 08-29-2010 5:36 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 114 by ringo, posted 08-29-2010 5:38 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 115 of 549 (577593)
08-29-2010 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Coyote
08-29-2010 5:16 PM


Re: Facts vs theories
Please try to use scientific terms correctly:
Evolution is a demonstrable fact. That change occurs from generation to generation is not seriously disputed by anyone but a few cranks.
The Theory of Evolution is the current best explanation how existing species developed. The theory explains all of the myriad facts that have been observed, and has successfully made predictions.
Religious belief does not need scientific facts or theories; it relies on scripture, dogma, faith, etc. And, as such, it cannot be used to contradict scientific facts or theories.
Thats the problem, the first two although connected are passed off as fact. One is demonstrable the other is not.
Most of religious belief is supporrted by data, but that has nothing to do with what we are discussing
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Coyote, posted 08-29-2010 5:16 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Coyote, posted 08-29-2010 5:47 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 118 by Theodoric, posted 08-29-2010 5:48 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 116 of 549 (577594)
08-29-2010 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Theodoric
08-29-2010 5:36 PM


Re: Just learn one thing
It amazes me that in the almost 3 years since you started posting here that you still do not understand the very basics about the Theory of Evolution.
Trust me I do,my points go much deeper than those simplitic terms, divisions and nonsense. Pleae pay close attention
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Theodoric, posted 08-29-2010 5:36 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 119 of 549 (577602)
08-29-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by jar
08-29-2010 5:35 PM


Re: There is no Theory of Creation
Bullshit.
Sorry but that is simply crap and false.
There is overwhelming evidence of Evolution.
Now without getting emotional, try and stay logical and watch where the argument goes. I know you honestly believe youthink you can show me the entire process of evolution, simply putyou cannot. The fossil record while it shows change does not prove
macro evolution.
For myself design in things is as strong as your belief orobservtion in the natural world. There is overwhelmingevidence of design
Until there is a Theory of Design that explains what is seen better than the Theory of Evolution explains what is seen there is simply nothing to be taught or included in a curriculum.
Sure there is, that it is a very real probabilty as to how life began, considering it has there ear marks of a designer.
While neither can be proved absolutley, both hold equal validity
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by jar, posted 08-29-2010 5:35 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Theodoric, posted 08-29-2010 6:13 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 122 by jar, posted 08-29-2010 6:24 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 121 of 549 (577604)
08-29-2010 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Theodoric
08-29-2010 5:48 PM


Re: Facts vs theories
You really seem to be confused as to what a Scientific Theory is.
In case you decline to read the link I posted above I will quote it here.
Yes Iread the article, it is very insightful, but it is a conceptulization of reality, not the reality or things, ideas as reality
When you reduce the issues down to there logical form, the contrived definitions fall apart.
Only logic and reason will help you at that point
It is not a guess. It is an explanation of facts.
No its a logical explanation of reality, not terms
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Theodoric, posted 08-29-2010 5:48 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 123 of 549 (577608)
08-29-2010 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Theodoric
08-29-2010 6:13 PM


Re: Can you show this Theory?
Why don't you go for that Nobel prize and show us this theory of design.
Its really very simple, its an observation of the natural order of chemical and biological processes working together and independently of each other to accomplish its desired and designed purpose, or appearent purpose
The evidence is as good for design by an observation and EXAMINATION of the naturalorder of things, s is evolution.
Both will not be absolutley demonstratble, but both are evidential and fall within only two logical possibilites
Its really that simple. Both are scientific observations
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Theodoric, posted 08-29-2010 6:13 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Theodoric, posted 08-29-2010 6:49 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 127 of 549 (577618)
08-29-2010 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by jar
08-29-2010 6:24 PM


Re: There is no Theory of Creation
It shows change over time, and that is the fact of evolution. Nor does the fact of Evolution have anything to do with any process.
You really need to learn some of the very basics.
Since we swapping insults, I might add that you should learn the basics of simple reasoning, but that is beside theBelief is irrelevant. Reality and truth do not care what you believe. And as I pointed out above, even if there was design it is irrelevant, worthless, unimportant. I do not believe in Evolution, I accept it as a conclusion.[/qs]
Please Jar, when I say belief I mean that which is knowable and demonstratable.
What I said earlier about learning the basics of reasonning is now coming true. Jar you cannot accept the tenets of something without believing them to be accurate. Belief is just a word calm down
There is no Theory of Creation or Theory of Design or evidence of a designer or evidence of design and your continued baseless assertions won't change those facts.
Baseless assertions are not baseless assertions when they are based on the reality of order in the natural order of appearent design.
Is it possible that it is not design, sure in the same way its possible the conclusions of evolution may not be absolutley true
or its conclusions
But both seem to be accurate, given the amount and type of evidence
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by jar, posted 08-29-2010 6:24 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by jar, posted 08-29-2010 7:15 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 129 of 549 (577628)
08-29-2010 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Theodoric
08-29-2010 6:49 PM


Re: Can you show this Theory?
If the evidence is as good for design as evolution, how come no one publishes papers about this "theory"? How about showing some of this evidence for design? I dont mean evidence against evolution, I mean evidence FOR design.
My guess is that they do. Secondly, why would you publish an exrensive paper on whether trees exist or not. It should be obvious that they do exist. thats the problem here you want a simple, oservable, seemily demonstratable process to be complicated.
The real question is it evidental in demonstrating its own validtiy and the question of a designer. Answer yes
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Theodoric, posted 08-29-2010 6:49 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2010 1:38 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024