Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in Schools
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 116 (6014)
03-02-2002 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by TrueCreation
03-02-2002 2:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Circles are flat."
--Not when seen in this light:

Actually,if you stood on a large enough flat disk and looked toward the edge,you would get about the same visual effect...which is probably why they concluded that the earth was a circle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 2:51 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 3:35 PM LudvanB has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 116 (6017)
03-02-2002 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by LudvanB
03-02-2002 3:11 PM


"Actually,if you stood on a large enough flat disk and looked toward the edge,you would get about the same visual effect...which is probably why they concluded that the earth was a circle"
--The bible does not say the earth was a circle, it says the circle of the earth. Also, the larger your flat disk, the less you would see any indication at all that would have such a horizon, besides your looking at a 2 dementional view as indicated in the picture, you would also see the same thing as latitude from longitude.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by LudvanB, posted 03-02-2002 3:11 PM LudvanB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by LudvanB, posted 03-02-2002 4:41 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 116 (6023)
03-02-2002 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by TrueCreation
03-02-2002 3:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Actually,if you stood on a large enough flat disk and looked toward the edge,you would get about the same visual effect...which is probably why they concluded that the earth was a circle"
--The bible does not say the earth was a circle, it says the circle of the earth. Also, the larger your flat disk, the less you would see any indication at all that would have such a horizon, besides your looking at a 2 dementional view as indicated in the picture, you would also see the same thing as latitude from longitude.

But see,thats the thing that is consistant with these people. They would have looked at a small disk,mayby a few feet in diameters and than would have taken a look at the horizon from a given height and concluded that it was the same thing. That sort of reasoning is consistant with their primitive scientific methodology. TC,can you point to me a mountain where you can climb high enough to see ALL THE WOLRD? Thats sort of biblical quotations says volumes about what early hebrews thought of the earth...namely,that it was a small,circular FLAT thing. Furthermore,if you had told them back then that the world was actually hurtling in space faster than a horse can run(29.8km/sec) with what they understood of the world and of gravity and physics,they would have laughed in you face and called you a nut...and then they would have replied that God created the world upon foundations that helf it firmly in place and that it COULD NOT BE MOVED.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 3:35 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Theo
Inactive Junior Member


Message 95 of 116 (6112)
03-04-2002 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by gene90
03-02-2002 1:54 PM


My basic point is that the Bible was not written in English in the twentieth century so for LudvanB and others to apply such standards to the phraseology without proper exegetical logic is ridiculous. When one does they find that there is nothing in the Bible that is contradicted by objective science and there are even scientific findings confirmed in the twentieth century that the Bible was correct about the whole time (such as hand washing, quarantine and clothes burning when one encounters disease and the hydrology cycle in job, I will get the specifics I have promised). For LudvanB and others to keep making statements about what the Bible says, such as it says 'it doesn't move' without taking into account hebraisms and the original Hebrew grammar and culture is just plain stupid. It just laziness. One should always look at both sides when one examines a subject and I find in these discussions, the evolutionists rarely understand the fundamentalist,creationist position yet most educated creationists understand the evolutionist position quite well. I wish I had more time but I don't have computer at home and get in this discussion board at work so my time is limited. I have promised many references I still have yet to provide and still will. I have been ill lately.
------------------
theo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by gene90, posted 03-02-2002 1:54 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by LudvanB, posted 03-04-2002 12:23 PM Theo has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 96 of 116 (6113)
03-04-2002 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by doctrbill
02-17-2002 11:58 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by doctrbill:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
"evolution was never a part of whether or not creationism was to be taught in schools."
You may wish to witness what has been called, "The Trial of the Century", a documentary film entitled, "The Monkey Trial", airing on PBS tonight.
Alternatively you may want to rent and watch the movie, "Inherit the Wind", starring George C. Scott and Jack Lemmon.
It's only history, but no one in this debate should be unaware of it.
American Experience, and the title of the episode is Monkey Trials. Many thanks to DoctrBill for calling this to our attention. --Percy

[/B][/QUOTE]
If you're going to rent "Inherit the Wind" get the Frederick Marhc,
Spensor Tracy, Gene Kelly version (it's NOT a musical by the
way) it's just way better than any other version.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by doctrbill, posted 02-17-2002 11:58 AM doctrbill has not replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 116 (6124)
03-04-2002 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Theo
03-04-2002 10:14 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Theo:
My basic point is that the Bible was not written in English in the twentieth century so for LudvanB and others to apply such standards to the phraseology without proper exegetical logic is ridiculous. When one does they find that there is nothing in the Bible that is contradicted by objective science and there are even scientific findings confirmed in the twentieth century that the Bible was correct about the whole time (such as hand washing, quarantine and clothes burning when one encounters disease and the hydrology cycle in job, I will get the specifics I have promised). For LudvanB and others to keep making statements about what the Bible says, such as it says 'it doesn't move' without taking into account hebraisms and the original Hebrew grammar and culture is just plain stupid. It just laziness. One should always look at both sides when one examines a subject and I find in these discussions, the evolutionists rarely understand the fundamentalist,creationist position yet most educated creationists understand the evolutionist position quite well. I wish I had more time but I don't have computer at home and get in this discussion board at work so my time is limited. I have promised many references I still have yet to provide and still will. I have been ill lately.

Theo,neither you,nor ANYONE ever presented any translation or hebraic wording that describes the world as ANYTHING BUT a small,immobile flat disk. That they believed this is the only conclusion that can be drawn from reading those quotations in ANY language. As for the knowledge contained in the Bible about washing,quarantine and the like,those were all aquired through grim experiences of having loved ones died from such actions. The early biblical authors probably realized that the best way by which they could convince more ignorant members of their society of the advantages of such habits was to make it ride God's cottail(i.e: tell everyone that God said not to touch dead meat and to wash your hands)...they did it with tons of other things,some good,some bad and some extraordinarely stupid(homosexuality,multi-thread cloths,dont work on a saturday or we stone your ass...). And by the by,the hebrew weren't special about this...almost every primitive civilisation tried to base the autority of its leaders on divine mandate...the reason? because as a man,you can only threaten your subject with death,which come for us all anyway...but with your "god" patron,you could threaten them with eternal damnation and suffering,hence the VERY HUMAN invention of hell...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Theo, posted 03-04-2002 10:14 AM Theo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Theo, posted 03-07-2002 10:18 PM LudvanB has replied

  
Theo
Inactive Junior Member


Message 98 of 116 (6265)
03-07-2002 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by joz
02-23-2002 4:28 PM


The argument is not a single data point but taking multiple samples and selecting the one that agrees with your apriori assigned value and discarding the rest.
------------------
theo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by joz, posted 02-23-2002 4:28 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by gene90, posted 03-07-2002 10:12 PM Theo has replied
 Message 102 by joz, posted 03-07-2002 10:33 PM Theo has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 99 of 116 (6266)
03-07-2002 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Theo
03-07-2002 10:10 PM


And our point is that the value taken is the average of many data points, discarding the dates that are not repeated.
Can you provide a single example of dates being chosen on a priori assumptions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Theo, posted 03-07-2002 10:10 PM Theo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Theo, posted 03-07-2002 10:30 PM gene90 has not replied

  
Theo
Inactive Junior Member


Message 100 of 116 (6267)
03-07-2002 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by LudvanB
03-04-2002 12:23 PM


Taking ancient Hebraisms, Hebrew grammer, Hebrew definitions into account when studying an ancient Hebrew document seems like me to be a given. As well literal interpretation of the Bible dictates that metaphor and poetic language are just that. A literalist does not believe that God is a bird when He promised to cover us and protect us with his wings. Your flat circle argument tree argument and kingdoms of the earth argument fall into this. Why would it be that secular scholars of Hebrew disagree with you. As well, the Mishnah is an ancient Hebrew commentary on the old testament which gives great insight into the beliefs and interpretations of the old testament. Why don't these commentators agree with you? The fact is you are taking things out of context and your scholarship is lazy.
------------------
theo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by LudvanB, posted 03-04-2002 12:23 PM LudvanB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by LudvanB, posted 03-08-2002 4:57 AM Theo has not replied
 Message 110 by nator, posted 03-08-2002 7:15 AM Theo has not replied

  
Theo
Inactive Junior Member


Message 101 of 116 (6269)
03-07-2002 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by gene90
03-07-2002 10:12 PM


Yes I can (along with my other promises of references) and will be getting caught up on them soon. But please refer to my original argument from the lab methodologies. One must collect multitple samples, indicate the age desired and then the samples are analyzed and the ones that don't yield the desired outcome are discarded. The problem is the theory taught about radiometric dating in the Universities and the actual methodoly of the labs are different. The Web sites you and Joz referred me to simply contained the math but my original analogy of the glass in the sink being dripped into still stands. An alternative analogy of two tanks was offered but isn't analogous. One knows the original amounts and rates of the two tanks. No one knows the original mother/daugher ratios. As well, several super-novas in recorded history (four I believe) would 'reset' atomic clocks. Additionally, a world wide flood would also reek havoc. I know that topic is in another string but is applicable to dating methods. I am still looking for the references to the two studies conducted wherein a lava flow known to be two hundred years old was tested at 12-21 millions years old and in the grand canyon, the oldestlayers tested much younger than the top layers. These two studies are real world examples of the problems of radiometic datings. Sorry to be so promissory about references. I will take the weekend and find the references
------------------
theo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by gene90, posted 03-07-2002 10:12 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by nator, posted 03-08-2002 7:17 AM Theo has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 116 (6270)
03-07-2002 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Theo
03-07-2002 10:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Theo:
The argument is not a single data point but taking multiple samples and selecting the one that agrees with your apriori assigned value and discarding the rest.
How does this even qualify as a response?
My post reads:
"They make multiple runs because nuclear decay is a random process hence you must take multiple pieces of data find sample population mean and sigma use derived values to iteratively remove statistical fliers then calculate true population mean and sigma which gives you a date and an error measurement...
I`d be more suspicious of someone that took a single data point as the answer than someone who took a wide range of results processed them in the fashion above and arrived at a statisticaly valid result with confidence limits....
This is why they take multiple samples not as you seem to believe in order to falaciously present a contrived result....."
It explains why it is necessary to take multiple samples....
It states a possible mechanism for statistically determining which results are valid parts of the distribution and which are fliers...
And yet your response is equivalent to "They take multiple samples and only publish the single one that fits their expectations"....
Theo for your own good follow the following steps before posting anything else on this subject....
1)Learn to read...
2)Go and take a course in statistics...
Because that last post only succeeded in making you look like a complete and utter muppet.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Theo, posted 03-07-2002 10:10 PM Theo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Theo, posted 03-08-2002 3:30 AM joz has not replied

  
Theo
Inactive Junior Member


Message 103 of 116 (6281)
03-08-2002 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by joz
03-07-2002 10:33 PM


All you did was resort to name calling and quote the theory again with the math. If you'll remember my original post I am quoting what the lab does. Your response with theory and math ignores the hard reality of the issue. You can resort to the Ad-Hoc/Ad Hominem all you want, that does not qualify as refutation. Throwing out samples that do not yield the result you want and taking a minority of samples that agree with the aprior assessment is flawed. As well you never dealt with the super-novas problem published in the journals or the possibility of the flood upsetting the clocks. When I get the references to the studies that completely misdated strata by millions of years, then what will you do? The real world examples of labs and errant results that are ignored is sufficient argumentation that radiometric dating is not all that it is taught to be. The math based on errant presuppositions will not save your position. Your math in the other string about population after the flood to produce the manpower to build the pyramids was seriously flawed. Why trust your math here? Stick to refuting the position. My critiques are of your position not you.
------------------
theo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by joz, posted 03-07-2002 10:33 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by quicksink, posted 03-08-2002 3:39 AM Theo has replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 116 (6283)
03-08-2002 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Theo
03-08-2002 3:30 AM


theo- do you believe that creationism should be taught in schools?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Theo, posted 03-08-2002 3:30 AM Theo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Theo, posted 03-08-2002 3:54 AM quicksink has not replied

  
Theo
Inactive Junior Member


Message 105 of 116 (6287)
03-08-2002 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by quicksink
03-08-2002 3:39 AM


I believe that both models should be taught in schools with the strength and weaknesses of each. Currently, evolution (macro) is the order of the day and attempts to bring creationism into the schools is challenged in court. Edwards v Aguillard is a good example. Louisiana required equal time but the statute was struck down but in the Case the supreme court acknowledge that creation science was valid. The lawyer who argued the case was Oliver Wendel Bird and he wrote a two volume set that I have recommended in these posts. It is called "Origin of the Species Revisited." It is a thorough exposition of the matter (except a young earth) and prominent evolutionists have endorsed it as being accurate.
To make a short reply long, yes creation science should be taught in schools but along with evolution. Then let the students make up their minds.
------------------
theo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by quicksink, posted 03-08-2002 3:39 AM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by gene90, posted 03-08-2002 4:21 AM Theo has not replied
 Message 107 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-08-2002 4:34 AM Theo has replied
 Message 112 by nator, posted 03-08-2002 7:20 AM Theo has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 106 of 116 (6289)
03-08-2002 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Theo
03-08-2002 3:54 AM


I agree with Joz, it is frustrating when you explain how multiple data points are used and the opposition insists that some kind of conspiracy is going on, and they do so without presenting evidence.
Come on, this is how science is done, you take multiple points and used the most consistent results, discarding the spurious ones. If I had spent as much time explaining how the procedure works and somebody came along and made a baseless accusation like that, I'd respond in a worse way than he did.
Here is the text of Edward v. Aguillard, where do they declare that Creationism is valid?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Theo, posted 03-08-2002 3:54 AM Theo 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