Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8869 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-20-2018 6:11 AM
187 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 185 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,442 Year: 15,265/29,783 Month: 1,209/1,502 Week: 207/492 Day: 2/25 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
23NextFF
Author Topic:   What's the problem with teaching ID?
Beretta
Member (Idle past 3521 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 151 of 337 (431285)
10-30-2007 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Admin
10-30-2007 9:10 AM


Re: several things
Thanks I will
This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Admin, posted 10-30-2007 9:10 AM Admin has not yet responded

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 3521 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 152 of 337 (431288)
10-30-2007 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by PaulK
10-30-2007 8:42 AM


Re: New member is confused
Which transitional fossils impress you?
Which known examples of speciation do you find conclusive?
If you start with a different world view, you will come to different conclusions with the same evidence. Whose conclusions does the evidence better support?
I've proposed a new topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2007 8:42 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Chiroptera, posted 10-30-2007 12:43 PM Beretta has responded
 Message 157 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2007 3:01 PM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1835 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 153 of 337 (431296)
10-30-2007 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Beretta
10-30-2007 3:16 AM


Re: New member is confused
A couple of suggestions,

1. Remember this is a message board and not a chat room. Too many times people get caught up in both the volume and frequency of posting. Especially if you are a creationist, you are likely to get many responses to your posts because quite simply, you are outnumbered. You don't have to hurry to respond to everyone. It is much better to take a day to craft a good reply than to spend all day sputtering off 1-liners to all the various posts.

2. If you find yourself dealing with too many replies, you can request and set up what is called a 'Great Debate' topic where you can debate 1 on 1 with someone in a moderated way on any focused topic you like. If you spend some time here and find someone on the opposite side of the fence that you have some rapport with, you can debate in a controlled setting. There are many people here who are practicing biologists or geologists who like to debate and they are a GREAT resource for learning.

3. Remember that this is debate, moreover on a very controversial topic. I think some of the people who run away forget that this is a place where your ideas are going to be challanged and criticised. Often criticised very harshly. Just keep your expectations realistic and you'll do fine.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 3:16 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 11:23 AM Jazzns has not yet responded

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 3521 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 154 of 337 (431303)
10-30-2007 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Jazzns
10-30-2007 10:55 AM


Re: New member is confused
Thanks for the advice. I'm really interested to hear what everyone has to say -in my own environment I have a hard time finding anyone to debate at all, so this is going to be good for me.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Jazzns, posted 10-30-2007 10:55 AM Jazzns has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 27 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 155 of 337 (431313)
10-30-2007 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Beretta
10-30-2007 7:53 AM


Re: New member is confused
Evolutionists tend to push their beliefs very aggressively though I have not found them particularly convincing.

I watched "Flock of Dodos" recently and it spoke of science's PR problem. On the side of ID and Creationism are laywers and PR experts and a multi-million dollar budget, with only one agenda...to promote their concept. On the side of science you have less organisation, with the National Centre for Science education being the most organised and well funded and it's budget isn't even one million dollars (and it has a other things on its agenda than just repelling anti-evolutionist lawyers).

Thus: if you judge purely on presentation you are almost certainly going to come to agree with the ID side of the debate. Content is much more difficult to judge on, but with time you can see the lack of content on one side versus the massive content on the other.

I'm sure you heard news about the John Kerry campaign and how he got 'swiftboated' - the same people that ran that negative campaign are involved in the negative campaign against evolution. Scientists are not politicians, so they'll get beaten at this game every time. However, courtrooms are excellent and nullifying platitudes and examining the evidence and getting to the facts of the matter - it's what they were designed for, though they are far from perfect. In the court room, ID and creationism collapses into a heap of empty rhetoric - as we've seen time and time again.

"Teach the Controversy" - it's a genius catchphrase that appeals to the sense of fairness in us all. American science needs some of those guys on their side, then America would undoubtedly remain one of the top science nations in the world (and with its finances, what wonders we could discover!). Unfortunately, 'those guys' demand a lot of money.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 7:53 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Beretta, posted 11-02-2007 2:22 AM Modulous has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6520
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 156 of 337 (431314)
10-30-2007 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Beretta
10-30-2007 10:02 AM


Re: New member is confused
If you start with a different world view, you will come to different conclusions with the same evidence.

This is not true in general. Not any old conclusion can be reconciled with a given body of evidence regardless of world view. It is simply not possible to fit any worldview onto a given set of evidence. If it were, then our ideas and theories of the world would never change since the evidence would simply be fit into the old world view every time.

The reason theories change and our ideas of the universe changes is because evidence accumulates to the point that the old "worldview" can't be reconciled with the data. This is what happened with the theory of evolution. By the time Darwin presented his data and his arguments, it was impossible to reconcile a young earth or static species or special creation of species into the known evidence.


Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein
This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 10:02 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Beretta, posted 11-02-2007 3:23 AM Chiroptera has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14419
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 157 of 337 (431342)
10-30-2007 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Beretta
10-30-2007 10:02 AM


Re: New member is confused
Answering your questions belongs in your new thread. It's interesting to note that you don't seem to have enough confidence in your "killer" arguments to try to argue about them.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 10:02 AM Beretta has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 158 of 337 (431346)
10-30-2007 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Beretta
10-30-2007 3:01 AM


Re: New member is confused
A few things need to be pointed out.

First, there is no conflict between Creation and Evolution. The Theory of Evolution is accepted by many if not most Christian Clergy. Claiming that it is some religious issue simply won't fly here.

Second, disproving Evolution does not add any weight to Biblical Creationism. If Evolution was somehow disproved, and so far no one has been able to do so, the alternative would not be Biblical Creationism but rather "I don't know."

Third, if you want to support Special Creation or Biblical Creationism you will have to present models that stand up to examination and explain what is seen better than the currently accepted models.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 3:01 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Beretta, posted 11-02-2007 3:51 AM jar has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19570
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 159 of 337 (431349)
10-30-2007 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Beretta
10-30-2007 8:25 AM


Re: several things
Welcome to the fray Beretta,

Message 147
'So, let's see. You've made up in your head a lot of stupid bullshit about the content of this site."

Some hints to make your posts better:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on formating questions when in the reply window.

You can also use the {PEEK} function to see how any message is formated -- and the way this is done:

Dr Adequate writes:

So, let's see. You've made up in your head a lot of stupid bullshit about the content of this site.

This helps other follow your posts in a familiar way.

... now for some comments:

No actually I have not made up my mind about anything in this site ... I think creationists make more sense of the evidence,...

LOL. The problem is that what you think, what you personally understand, and who you feel makes more sense, all have absolutely no bearing on what is true.

This is the basic problem with creationist thinking in general and teaching ID in specific ... just to use an example that takes a nod in the direction of the topic ... because they have nothing to add to what we know is real and true from science and the study of evidence.

When I supported evolution, I did so only as a result of conditioning -never really questioned the paradigm, now I question it continually.

This too is going off-topic, but it is evident that you don't really understand evolution as a starting point, so what you question is very likely a false impression. For example this statement shows a false impression of what evolution is:

The problem is that you are speaking of genetic variations not macroevolutionary changes which we never see so in fact evolution is not occurring every day before our eyes. ...

SCREEEEAAATTTCH!!!

That is the sound of moving goalposts. You asked for an example of evidence for evolution, not macroevolution. The problem you face now is defining macroevolution so that (a) we can talk about the same meaning and (b) we can see if you really understand evolution and what the science of evolution says about macroevolution.

Ways to tell a creationist type posting include (1) post not on topic, (2) moving goalposts, and (3) using terms to mean something other than the way they are used in science, things like claiming that evolution is not evolution.

Please go to MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?, read it first before adding to it (so you don't repeat errors already made by others). So far no creationist has managed to define macroevolution properly, so you could be a first.

You may also want to visit Questioning The Evolutionary Process, read your way through it and see if you learn anything.

I suppose I'm off the topic of this section but anyway -there it is.

Yes, but we kind of expect new-comers in general and creationists in specific to go off-topic based on general experience. This is a learning process. The basic reason is that staying on topic makes each thread focussed and usable as a reference for other discussions, and the secondary reason is that threads are limited to ~300 posts, so posts that are not on topic waste space for those people who do want to post on topic.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 8:25 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Beretta, posted 11-02-2007 2:38 AM RAZD has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12560
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 160 of 337 (431623)
11-01-2007 8:05 AM


Topic Reminder
This thread is about teaching ID. Please take discussion of other topics to the appropriate threads. Baretta has a new topic called Your reason for accepting evolution, and that is probably more appropriate for the most recent responses.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Beretta
Member (Idle past 3521 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 161 of 337 (431793)
11-02-2007 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Modulous
10-30-2007 12:42 PM


Re: New member is confused
On the side of ID and Creationism are laywers and PR experts and a multi-million dollar budget

Not as far as creationists are concerned. Let's face it creation is not sponsered by tax dollars since it is not the official religion.Creationists are lucky to keep their jobs in an aggressively evolutionary paradigm and even though you've been told all this rubbish about massive funding and PR for creationists, isn't it obvious that that can't be true relative to what evolutionists have at their disposal? I call it evolutionary propoganda.Neither are creationists politicians and lawyers by definition, rather some creationists happen to be involved in politics or the law and the same for evolution except evolution is the official brainwash for all school and university students so there are far more politicians and lawyers out there to support you.

Content is much more difficult to judge on, but with time you can see the lack of content on one side versus the massive content on the other.

There is no lack of content only content you don't really want to hear so you miss everything you don't feel like believing because you assume contradictory evidence is just propoganda when you should actually check it out and make sure of that.

"Teach the Controversy" - it's a genius catchphrase that appeals to the sense of fairness in us all.

Teach the controversy is just your opposition attempting to get the truth heard - not by introducing ID or creationism into the classroom but by allowing the evidence against evolution to be taught alongside its so-called proofs. Why would this be so threatening? If there is no evidence against it, evolutionists should really allow it with a chuckle but they don't. They don't really want children to hear the downside just in case logic and truth takes hold of them and another potential evolutionist is lost.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Modulous, posted 10-30-2007 12:42 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Modulous, posted 11-02-2007 11:35 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 3521 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 162 of 337 (431796)
11-02-2007 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by RAZD
10-30-2007 3:26 PM


Re: several things
Thanks again for helpful tips Razd. I am getting the point.

The problem is that what you think, what you personally understand, and who you feel makes more sense, all have absolutely no bearing on what is true.

You're absolutely right. You should join us creationists, that's why we exist. If something's not true, we don't care what the majority believes or was brainwashed into believing, we only care about what is true which is why we stick our necks out against tremendous odds.
I hear all the 'evidence' on both sides but the evidence against evolution impresses me as well as the evidence for creation which makes evolution sound like a fairytale of epic proportions.

it is evident that you don't really understand evolution as a starting point, so what you question is very likely a false impression.

That again is what we say about evolutionists. They don't really understand the creation/ID argument but the problem is this, most creationists/ID proponents were evolutionists before. It's the world religion -we were all brought up on it -most evolutionists never hear the dissenting evidence but some, when they eventually do, are persuaded by logic to give it some thought rather than dismiss it summarily.
Evolutionists have lots of stories, plausible stories unsupported by the evidence. Just because a story is plausible does notmean it is necessarily true. Check how many of their stories are actually experimentally verifiable and which ones are assumed after the initial assumption that evolution is true, being extrapolated on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by RAZD, posted 10-30-2007 3:26 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by PaulK, posted 11-02-2007 3:05 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 170 by RAZD, posted 11-02-2007 8:48 AM Beretta has responded
 Message 174 by bluescat48, posted 11-02-2007 11:59 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 178 by RAZD, posted 11-02-2007 6:47 PM Beretta has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 163 of 337 (431797)
11-02-2007 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Beretta
10-30-2007 3:27 AM


Re: New member is confused
Evolutionists are not too keen on their myths being questioned either

perhaps your experience is limited in this arena to having discussions with people who barely followed biology in high school, and aren't really too sure about why they "know" what they "know." and there are people who support an evolutionary position out of ignorance -- regardless of any position's veracity, not everyone who agrees with it does so for the right reasons.

that said, you will find many people who do know what they are talking about. we have a few members who are actively working in the sciences that pertain to this discussion. and those scientists will tell you that science is precisely about questioning. ask anyone here who has a ph.d. what sort of grilling they got from their peers and betters before they were awarded that title.

science itself is actually a process of proposing hypotheses, and testing them, and discarding them when the data shows they are in error. this is the system that has produced the consensus about evolution.

creationist rhetoric may have worked on you because you did not know the answers to their "questions" but i assure that there are people (on this board, even) that know the answers. were the creationist concerns of any real scientific weight, or their "evidence" that you referred to, legit -- well they should be part of the scientific process. i would like to suggest that you either find or start the appropriate thread regarding said evidence, so it may be discussed in specific. there's a fair chance it's just the standard p.r.a.t.t. (points refuted a thousand times).

and to partially address your original concern, i am not one of those scientists. i participate mainly in religious debate here.

welcome to evc, btw.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 3:27 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14419
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 164 of 337 (431800)
11-02-2007 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Beretta
11-02-2007 2:38 AM


Re: several things
quote:

You're absolutely right. You should join us creationists, that's why we exist. If something's not true, we don't care what the majority believes or was brainwashed into believing, we only care about what is true which is why we stick our necks out against tremendous odds.

That's the image creationists want to present. Now if it were true shouldn't you be presenting this evidence you claim to have rather than bragging ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Beretta, posted 11-02-2007 2:38 AM Beretta has not yet responded

    
Beretta
Member (Idle past 3521 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 165 of 337 (431803)
11-02-2007 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Chiroptera
10-30-2007 12:43 PM


Re: New member is confused
Not any old conclusion can be reconciled with a given body of evidence regardless of world view. It is simply not possible to fit any worldview onto a given set of evidence.

Well said. However the 150 year old theoretical proposal by Darwin has not lived up to its promises and does not fit the evidence. Nevertheless evolutionists keep trying to stuff the evidence into their paradigm they have been led to believe and everyone of the innumerable anomalies that falsify the theory are either stuffed as far out of the way as they can safely go or else a plausible story is invented to explain them away. Evolution -the story the facts have failed. Creation -the story that fits the facts far far better.
The reason evolutionists refuse the other option is that brainwashing has done its job and the alternative sounds preposterous to them. But if its the truth.....???

By the time Darwin presented his data and his arguments, it was impossible to reconcile a young earth or static species or special creation of species into the known evidence.

No it wasn't then nor is it now. However, there are always lots of people in the world that are exceptionally eager to accept an alternative option in order to avoid God. The church was made to believe that evolution was proven by science and many clergymen and churches came up with their own 'plausible stories' of how the Bible actually allowed for long ages inbetween various verses. Read Genesis 1-11 and tell me whether on straightforward examination there is any possibility of turning 'days' into millions of years without applying vast imagination to the text?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Chiroptera, posted 10-30-2007 12:43 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Chiroptera, posted 11-02-2007 8:25 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
23NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018