Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 61 of 305 (453603)
02-03-2008 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Beretta
02-03-2008 7:31 AM


Re: one thing is clear
quote:
So should we teach the material belief system as fact if there's a possibility that the other is true???
What ID is saying is that evolutionists are dogmatically insisting that their belief system is true and factual and they will not allow the evidence against that system to be taught.
No-one is saying that the other (intelligent design) should replace evolution, only that both should be allowed to be considered as possible scenarios in the absence of absolute proof for either.
So there you have it -critical thinking replacing dogma.
You omitted one little thing in your analysis: the evidence is not equal on both sides of the discussion. In fact it is far from equal.
Science has repeatable, testable evidence by the library-full, while creationism has only revelation, belief and dogma. Proponents of creationism have developed some 4,000 different religions, sects, and cults over the centuries. Most of these are mutually contradictory such that they can't all be right. But they could all be wrong. So how are you going to test the evidence when it consists of revelation and belief?
And you want to teach this in the classroom? That's preaching, not education.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Beretta, posted 02-03-2008 7:31 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Beretta, posted 02-05-2008 8:09 AM Coyote has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 62 of 305 (453648)
02-03-2008 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Beretta
02-03-2008 7:42 AM


Re: one thing is clear
quote:
So just to be clear there is no mental block and no ID proponent has ever denied natural selection as fact -they just don't believe that natural selection combined with mutation have any sort of creative ability.
Of course, that's not what most of the major ID proponents say. Behe certainly accepts that mutation and natural selection have loads of creative ability.
So, you aren't arguing the ID position at all, but the good old fashioned ICR-style Creationist position.
quote:
No we should show the historical evidence for the holocaust, photos, newspapers,historical documentation, eye-witness accounts and then mention (possibly) that some people deny it despite the evidence presented. Then leave it to them to decide whether it happened or not.
So you actually agree with the statement:
Should we encourage children to consider Holocaust-denial theories just as valid as the mainstream ones?
If you tell them that they should decide for themselves if the Holocaust really happened or not, then you are most certainly giving more weight to the holocaust deniers' interpretation of the evidence than it deserves, and elevating it to something above its crackpot nature.
OTOH, are you saying that you just want science teachers to teach all about evolution, and then mention (possibly) that there are some people who deny it despite the evidence presented?
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Beretta, posted 02-03-2008 7:42 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Beretta, posted 02-05-2008 8:37 AM nator has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 63 of 305 (453673)
02-03-2008 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Beretta
02-03-2008 7:31 AM


Re: one thing is clear
Beratta writes:
What if there is a supernatural element to creation? If there was, you would predict (according to the Biblical version) that all creatures vary within a range but have limits and that fossils will show up suddenly and be fully developed, (not becoming anything new), just there.
So, you would predict that you wouldn't get fossils of creatures with both reptile and mammal features preceding fossils of mammals. But you do. And you wouldn't get fossils with both amphibian and reptile characteristics preceding reptiles, but you do. And you wouldn't get fossils with both fish and amphibian characteristics preceding amphibians, but you do.
What you would get, according to Jewish mythology, is fossils of all the animals "created" found in the same layers of rock. And you don't.
Intelligent conclusion? Jewish creation mythology is no more true than any other mythology from any other culture.
Do you really want discussion of your beliefs to be exposed to scientific rigour in school science classes? Future generations of kids will be laughing at you.
Materialistic dogma is actually the same as philosophical naturalism/materialism -ie. you believe that all things can be explained by internal factors -matter is all there is -there is nothing acting from outside the system (supernatural)so everything must be from within.
Science is based on methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism, and many, probably most, of its practitioners throughout history have been believers in the supernatural to some extent, and many (although probably not most) still are today.
It does not assume that the supernatural cannot exist, but does look for natural explanations for natural phenomena, quite logically, as all the explanations for natural phenomena that have ever proved to be true and useful have been natural.
People like you seem to expect non-natural explanations for natural phenomena to be given equal space in science classes, for some strange reason. Presumably, if you found a damp patch occurring sometimes on an inside wall in your house, you wouldn't just look for natural solutions, like the rain entering the roof at some point and seeping down the wall, you would also equally consider non-natural alternatives, like maybe there's a poltergeist who comes out at night and always pisses in the same place. And you want to burden future generations of school kids with this attitude.
What science does is look for natural explanations, the only kind that have ever helped us in understanding the universe, and keeps on looking, which is why creationist type super-naturalists hate it, as it has a tendency to knock their pet myths on the head. Too bad, but some of us will always want to find out the truth, so the old attitude promoted by religions of "truths" based on blind unreasoning faith is dying out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Beretta, posted 02-03-2008 7:31 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Beretta, posted 02-05-2008 12:27 PM bluegenes has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 64 of 305 (454004)
02-05-2008 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Beretta
02-03-2008 7:35 AM


Re: one thing is clear
Beretta writes:
Two competing hypotheses...
You ever going to give us the I.D. hypothesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Beretta, posted 02-03-2008 7:35 AM Beretta has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 65 of 305 (454016)
02-05-2008 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Coyote
02-03-2008 12:27 PM


Re: one thing is clear
You omitted one little thing in your analysis: the evidence is not equal on both sides of the discussion. In fact it is far from equal.
You're right, there's far more evidence for ID than for evolution -evolution just happens to be the consensus for the moment.Try looking at the fossil record for a start -what does it really say???
Science has repeatable, testable evidence by the library-full, while creationism has only revelation, belief and dogma.
Yes science has repeatable, testable evidence for things that can be tested and repeated but unfortunately for evolution, it is an historical concept and by its very nature can be neither tested nor repeated so lets not fool ourselves. Technological advances derive from real science while evolution (the big picture excluding mutation and natural selection)is not real science, it is an hypothesis and a bad one at that.
Proponents of creationism have developed some 4,000 different religions, sects, and cults over the centuries.
Irrelevant -what is relevant is the question of whether we evolved from pond scum by chance or whether we were created by an intelligence outside the system that we can observe. Who the creator is, is outside the realm of ID.
Most of these are mutually contradictory such that they can't all be right. But they could all be wrong.
True, they definately can't all be right BUT one may be right. They could all be wrong but then so could evolution be wrong.
So how are you going to test the evidence when it consists of revelation and belief?
We can only work with the scientific evidence for and against the two hypotheses -beyond that would be a theological debate which is outside the scientific debate and so irrelevant here. That there was a creator is a different argument to who that creator is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Coyote, posted 02-03-2008 12:27 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-05-2008 9:08 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 73 by FliesOnly, posted 02-05-2008 3:34 PM Beretta has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 66 of 305 (454024)
02-05-2008 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by nator
02-03-2008 2:30 PM


Re: one thing is clear
Of course, that's not what most of the major ID proponents say. Behe certainly accepts that mutation and natural selection have loads of creative ability.
Well I don't know how that is possible if he believes in irreducible complexity and that certain systems could not have evolved.
So, you aren't arguing the ID position at all, but the good old fashioned ICR-style Creationist position.
Personally, I believe the creationist position is well supported but I am arguing the ID position because it is not a theological argument as it sticks to the scientific evidence supportive of one position or the other-intelligent design or random mutation and natural selection as an explanation for everything.
If you tell them that they should decide for themselves if the Holocaust really happened or not, then you are most certainly giving more weight to the holocaust deniers' interpretation of the evidence than it deserves, and elevating it to something above its crackpot nature.
No actually you are only telling them (if you even bother) that some people believe there never was a holocaust but by showing the evidence for the holocaust you are showing how patently absurd that position is.The holocaust has historical records and eyewitness accounts whereas evolution is based on a belief about origins that cannot be directly verified, observed or tested. The evidence for and against are based on inference to the best possible explanation not on eyewitness accounts so you cannot even compare the two arguments.
OTOH, are you saying that you just want science teachers to teach all about evolution, and then mention (possibly) that there are some people who deny it despite the evidence presented?
No; present the evidence for evolution and the evidence for intelligent design and the negative evidence against each argument and let them critically analyse the argument-no need to take a dogmatic stand on something you cannot prove.
Technological advance will carry on unhindered in the absence of a dogmatic stand on our origins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by nator, posted 02-03-2008 2:30 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-05-2008 9:16 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 123 by nator, posted 02-06-2008 7:29 PM Beretta has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 67 of 305 (454029)
02-05-2008 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Beretta
02-05-2008 8:09 AM


Re: one thing is clear
You're right, there's far more evidence for ID than for evolution...
Whom do you hope to deceive by saying this?
Yes science has repeatable, testable evidence for things that can be tested and repeated but unfortunately for evolution, it is an historical concept and by its very nature can be neither tested nor repeated.
Not only is this wrong, but everyone you're addressing knows that it's wrong, which makes it particularly pointless.
Irrelevant -what is relevant is the question of whether we evolved from pond scum by chance or whether we were created by an intelligence outside the system that we can observe.
Oh, that's easy. Neither. Anything else I can help you with?
Technological advances derive from real science while evolution (the big picture excluding mutation and natural selection)
Evolution, excluding evolution, eh?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Beretta, posted 02-05-2008 8:09 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Beretta, posted 02-06-2008 3:23 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 68 of 305 (454031)
02-05-2008 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Beretta
02-05-2008 8:37 AM


Re: one thing is clear
Well I don't know how that is possible if he believes in irreducible complexity and that certain systems could not have evolved.
There are lots and lots of things where you can't see how they're possible, and yet which are absolutely true.
Here's Michael Behe:
quote:
I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that the evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world.
(Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box)
  —Behe
You see, just 'cos a man's wrong about one thing, doesn't mean he's a complete idiot.
The holocaust has historical records and eyewitness accounts ...
That makes it testable (just as our knowledge of the course of evolution is testable against the fossil record, the morphological record, the genetic record) --- but is it repeatable?
No; present the evidence for evolution and the evidence for intelligent design and the negative evidence against each argument and let them critically analyse the argument-no need to take a dogmatic stand on something you cannot prove.
Since the set of evidence for intelligent design is empty, this is, arguably, what teachers are already doing.
In fact, the ID crowd are getting the best of it, since teachers are teaching only a tiny fraction of the evidence for evolution --- and all of the evidence for intelligent design.
Time to pop open the champagne, guys! You won!
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Beretta, posted 02-05-2008 8:37 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Beretta, posted 02-06-2008 3:59 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 69 of 305 (454055)
02-05-2008 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Buzsaw
01-31-2008 6:39 PM


Re: one thing is clear
This is true. I've alluded to that as well. If ID is as nonsensical as our counterparts like to think it is what better way for them to show that to be the case than to educate students regarding both POVs side by side.
You wouldn't like it if we educated children about ID. You really wouldn't.
It would also probably be illegal. As it has been ruled that ID is a religious view, attacking it in a classroom would be a breach of the First Amendment. Even the whackiest little cults are protected by the law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2008 6:39 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 70 of 305 (454069)
02-05-2008 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by bluegenes
02-03-2008 4:12 PM


Re: one thing is clear
So, you would predict that you wouldn't get fossils of creatures with both reptile and mammal features preceding fossils of mammals. But you do. And you wouldn't get fossils with both amphibian and reptile characteristics preceding reptiles, but you do. And you wouldn't get fossils with both fish and amphibian characteristics preceding amphibians
It's not that clear cut in the fossil record in any case and there's no reason why all these things shouldn't be found if there is a designer behind it.What we do predict is that everything will be fully formed wherever you find them, no creatures will be found with a leg converting into a wing and half way there. All these most necessary critical links are missing so we have to leave it to our imaginations - and that is what is wrong with the neo-Darwinist position.
The designer position makes more sense of the sudden appearance of complicated body forms with no recognizable predecessors. It also makes more sense of the general stasis observed in the fossil record.
Evolution is a huge leap of faith when you consider that things like bacteria are pretty much the same as they ever were and clams are still clams wherever you find them and so many things are relatively unchanged despite the fact that evolutionists would have us believe that while certain creatures remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years, other one-celled organisms morphed into human beings in that same time period.That is as good as a fairy tale and if you want to believe it, then just go ahead but don't try and force it down everyone's throat in school and other learning institutions as if it has been proven to have occurred.It is far from proven -it is unprovable as well as highly unlikely by the look of the evidence.Just because it may be the consensus opinion in the meantime does not make it more likely, it only makes it more dogmatically insisted apon despite the evidence. Generations have been brainwashed into this view which is why it is the consensus.
It's time for an increase in our critical thinking skills.
What you would get, according to Jewish mythology, is fossils of all the animals "created" found in the same layers of rock.
That is not what you would predict. If there was a flood, sea creatures would be the first to be buried in the massive upheavals that would follow -that accounts for 95% of the fossils found. After that you would get variable ability to attempt to escape which would account for the later presence of the land animals and human remains.Whatever drowned and was not covered in sediment would rot or be eaten so no evidence there.There is scientific evidence for sedimentation in layers from big catastrophes so thick layers of sedimentation has very little to do with time and probably nothing whatsoever to do with millions of years.There is loads of contradictory evidence on that.
Do you really want discussion of your beliefs to be exposed to scientific rigour in school science classes?
Yes
Future generations of kids will be laughing at you.
No, in all likelihood they will be laughing at you.
Science is based on methodological naturalism
Meaning you believe there is no other explanation other than naturalism (illogical starting point based on faith in your initial premise)and you methodically go out to keep trying to prove it to yourself and everybody else.
It does not assume that the supernatural cannot exist, but does look for natural explanations for natural phenomena
I understand the rationale behind that and I do not believe that there is a single ID supporter that does not understand the rationale behind looking for natural explanations but the problem we have is that if a supernatural explanation is true, then explaining what may be supernatural in origin my using an naturalistic explanation would be wrong because it would not be true.Nobody wants to use pie in the sky and pretend it is a good alternative -they believe, according to the evidence that exists, that the complexity we see in life cannot have arisen naturally or, alternatively, is a most unlikely explanation. The most unlikely scenario arises precisely because of advances in what we know about life comparative to Darwin's time.We believe that what was a perfectly possible explanation is no longer acceptable - so it's not going backwards but forwards -questioning the accepted paradigm in the light of increased knowledge.
It does not assume that the supernatural cannot exist
But if evolution is true, what did this supernatural element do -nothing?
as all the explanations for natural phenomena that have ever proved to be true and useful have been natural.
Well yes perhaps but that 'useful' does not include the macro concept of evolution where it apparently explains our origins.
Think about it -can we use it for anything useful? In that I don't include minor variation and natural selection which nobody doubts in any case.i'm talking about the concept of life apparently coming about naturally from non-living chemicals and simpler types of organisms giving rise to more complex organisms. What useful thing comes from that in terms of technological advancement?
Ask any scientist where it has actually helped him in devising any new plan about anything.In what way has it actually advanced science?
Presumably, if you found a damp patch occurring sometimes on an inside wall in your house, you wouldn't just look for natural solutions, like the rain entering the roof at some point and seeping down the wall.....
Now that is clearly ridiculous which is why this whole argument seems to boil down to a fundamental misunderstanding between the opposing worldviews and of what we are actually trying to achieve.
And you want to burden future generations of school kids with this attitude.
No we want to stop burdening them with the lack of critical thinking that is going on when only one perspective is allowed to be heard -dogma in the absence of clear unassailable proof.
What science does is look for natural explanations, the only kind that have ever helped us in understanding the universe,
So now supposing that what we believe to be true is true, we have an explanation but is it the correct explanation or is it AN explanation based on material assumptions which may or may not be true? Why be so scared to pursue other lines of thought? What could we lose from critically thinking about the alternatives? Its like forcing communistic dogma down everyone's throats.
Too bad, but some of us will always want to find out the truth
Which is exactly what we are trying to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by bluegenes, posted 02-03-2008 4:12 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by bluegenes, posted 02-05-2008 2:32 PM Beretta has replied
 Message 74 by FliesOnly, posted 02-05-2008 3:54 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 75 by bluegenes, posted 02-05-2008 4:50 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-05-2008 10:29 PM Beretta has replied
 Message 83 by RickJB, posted 02-06-2008 3:34 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 89 by Trixie, posted 02-06-2008 7:37 AM Beretta has not replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4675 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 71 of 305 (454070)
02-05-2008 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Beretta
02-02-2008 11:44 AM


Re: one thing is clear
Beretta writes:
However, allowing children to see that it is not necessarily categorically proven that macroevolution by random mutation is 'truth'is a very good idea -no matter what you think is true.
Allow them to think rather than rely on materialistic dogma -that's the point.
You're right!
We should start giving equal time in elementary school health classes to the non-materialistic methods of maintaining their health. Things like reflexology, prayer teams, charms, and Voodoo should be presented as viable options to good diet and cleanliness.
We wouldn't want them to rely on materialistic dogma.
If creationists got their way then the "materialistic dogma" would be morphed into methods that included a particular spiritual requirement. Medicine would require prayer and fasting as a prerequisite to surgery. Any spiritual expression outside of the "scientific" establishment would be marginalized if not made illegal.
Eventually we would wind up with a 17th century theocracy....fighting the Moors, burning witches and stoning adulterers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Beretta, posted 02-02-2008 11:44 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Beretta, posted 02-06-2008 4:35 AM LinearAq has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 72 of 305 (454090)
02-05-2008 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Beretta
02-05-2008 12:27 PM


Re: one thing is clear
Beratta writes:
It's not that clear cut in the fossil record in any case and there's no reason why all these things shouldn't be found if there is a designer behind it.
Certainly, if your designer was designing in steps in order to deliberately try to give the illusion of evolution. There's absolutely no reason why a designer should design within the parameters of evolutionary possibility other than that.
What we do predict is that everything will be fully formed wherever you find them, no creatures will be found with a leg converting into a wing and half way there.
Then your prediction is smashed not only by fish with leg-like fins, but by fish with leg-like fins with ankles, not to mention amphibians with fin-like legs.
As for a leg converting into a wing, there are living creatures with limbs that serve as both, so you don't need much evolutionary imagination on that one.
You may be unwisely using YEC arguments in defense of I.D. when many I.D.ers would disagree with you.
All these most necessary critical links are missing so we have to leave it to our imaginations
Is that a standard I.D. position? It won't get into the classroom if the lies are too blatant, you know.
Evolution is a huge leap of faith when you consider that things like bacteria are pretty much the same as they ever were and clams are still clams wherever you find them and so many things are relatively unchanged despite the fact that evolutionists would have us believe that while certain creatures remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years, other one-celled organisms morphed into human beings in that same time period.
If you think bacteria becoming anything other than bacteria should be a common occurrence according to modern evolutionary theory, then do feel free to give us the technical explanation as to why that should be.
And if you think that single cells "morphed" into human beings, perhaps you should be enlightening us on a subject that you've actually bothered to look into, rather than evolutionary biology.
Generations have been brainwashed into this view which is why it is the consensus.
I see we're back to brainwashing again. Children never get the chance to learn the great truth that an intelligent designer created all things bright and beautiful until they have been thoroughly indoctrinated with ideas like mutation and natural selection, evil things for which there actually is evidence. Is that what you're claiming?
In which case, you know little about the world you live in, because it's actually the other way around, and most children in the world have some form of "I.D." drummed into them from a very early age, which is probably the real explanation for the I.D. movement. Its proponents have never recovered.
My view of religious indoctrination is evidence based, and explains why children from different cultural backgrounds will profess to believing in different religions.
It's time for an increase in our critical thinking skills.
We agree on something. You do realise that this would mean the end of faith based religions, don't you?
That is not what you would predict. If there was a flood, sea creatures would be the first to be buried in the massive upheavals that would follow -that accounts for 95% of the fossils found.
No doubt handicapped in a flood by the fact that they can swim.
I don't think I should go into catastrophological science (I had to get my favourite creationist phrase in somewhere) here as there are flood threads, and I often get admin. warnings for not taking the flood seriously. I just can't.
{I'll get to the rest of your long post later, as I've just been called to eat.}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Beretta, posted 02-05-2008 12:27 PM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Beretta, posted 02-06-2008 5:24 AM bluegenes has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 73 of 305 (454104)
02-05-2008 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Beretta
02-05-2008 8:09 AM


Re: one thing is clear
Beretta writes:
Blah, Blah, Blah
Look, Beretta, it's really amazingly simple. Provide to us the testable, falsifiable hypothesis as put forth by the I.D crowd, or admit that there is none. Can you do this...please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Beretta, posted 02-05-2008 8:09 AM Beretta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-05-2008 11:47 PM FliesOnly has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 74 of 305 (454111)
02-05-2008 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Beretta
02-05-2008 12:27 PM


Re: one thing is clear
Beretta writes:
If there was a flood, sea creatures would be the first to be buried in the massive upheavals that would follow -that accounts for 95% of the fossils found. After that you would get variable ability to attempt to escape which would account for the later presence of the land animals and human remains.Whatever drowned and was not covered in sediment would rot or be eaten so no evidence there.There is scientific evidence for sedimentation in layers from big catastrophes so thick layers of sedimentation has very little to do with time and probably nothing whatsoever to do with millions of years.There is loads of contradictory evidence on that.
Let's ignoring the rest of your rant, and just focus on this little tidbit. Honestly, after reading this I now see why you have never provided the I.D hypothesis. You're too scientifically inept to remotely understand how science works. Honestly, I don't know how else to say it, other than to state that your above paragraph shows a level of ignorance that is staggering to the point of perhaps concluding that you are doing this merely as a joke.
Do you seriously believe the crap you wrote? Have you absolutely no ability to question the source of your information and perhaps do a bit of reading on the...oh...I don't know...third grade level perhaps...and discover for yourself what a complete and utter load of hogwash your "claims" about the fossil record happen to be? Or do you seriously believe that that is how the fossil record is truly sorted...based on an organisms ability to run away from flood waters? Wait!!! Holy shit...I just saw an oak tree run past my window...there must be a flood coming...I gotta get going!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Beretta, posted 02-05-2008 12:27 PM Beretta has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 75 of 305 (454121)
02-05-2008 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Beretta
02-05-2008 12:27 PM


Re: one thing is clear
Beratta writes:
bluegenes writes:
Future generations of kids will be laughing at you.
No, in all likelihood they will be laughing at you.
You mean they'll be believing in an intelligent designer who deliberately constructs us and the chimps from damaged D.N.A. with such strikingly similar patterns of damage that it can hardly be coincidence?
This, of course, could be that invisible designer that I mentioned in the post above, trying very hard to make it look as though our biological history involved large scale evolution and common ancestry with other animals. It's a pity for those on your side of the debate that the designer did such awkward things. We have, obviously, to consider the possibility of a designer who wants us to believe in evolution, and wants to disguise Himself. As you can see, I'm open minded in my interpretation of the evidence.
Shouldn't you, then, be doing His will, and believing what he wants you to believe?
Beratta writes:
bluegenes writes:
Science is based on methodological naturalism
Meaning you believe there is no other explanation other than naturalism (illogical starting point based on faith in your initial premise)and you methodically go out to keep trying to prove it to yourself and everybody else.
No. I think you're still confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. Also, I have to point out that faith is required for belief in the supernatural, but not for belief in the natural world surrounding you, which can be built on observation, and that lack of faith is not faith.
You mention fairy tales in a derogatory manner in your post, and my point is that many people may lack faith in fairies, but that lack of faith is not faith (by definition, if you think about it).
So the child who believes in Santa Claus requires faith, but as there's no evidence for Santa's existence, the more mature child who lacks that belief just lacks faith.
I understand the rationale behind that and I do not believe that there is a single ID supporter that does not understand the rationale behind looking for natural explanations but the problem we have is that if a supernatural explanation is true, then explaining what may be supernatural in origin my using an naturalistic explanation would be wrong because it would not be true
I'm not sure if you really understand. Once you've found hundreds of natural explanations for natural phenomena around you that work, and no supernatural explanations, then natural explanations for natural phenomena is definitely the default.
I'm being completely fair to you super-naturalists. If I see something supernatural, like elves or ghosts or witches on broomsticks, I agree that supernatural explanations are called for.
So, natural explanations for natural phenomena, and supernatural explanations for supernatural phenomena.
If you see a leprechaun, call the boys from the Discovery Institute, or as you're in Africa, a local witch doctor should be equally effective.
...they believe, according to the evidence that exists, that the complexity we see in life cannot have arisen naturally or, alternatively, is a most unlikely explanation. The most unlikely scenario arises precisely because of advances in what we know about life comparative to Darwin's time.We believe that what was a perfectly possible explanation is no longer acceptable - so it's not going backwards but forwards -questioning the accepted paradigm in the light of increased knowledge.
Ah, complexity. Here we are, complex beings made of complex atoms on a complex planet in a complex universe which obviously does complexity frequently and well, yet amongst us are simple souls who construct in their minds a fictional simple universe, so that in their simple universe, if the normal complexity is observed, it has to have been put there by a complex Intelligent Designer from outside the universe.
Beratta, if complexity requires design by complex designers, then complex designers require designing, so they can never exist.
But if complexity doesn't require a designer, then your intelligent designer could exist.
You want smart, critical thinking kids? They'll pick a hole in the I.D. complexity argument easily.
Beratta writes:
bluegenes writes:
And you want to burden future generations of school kids with this attitude.
No we want to stop burdening them with the lack of critical thinking that is going on when only one perspective is allowed to be heard -dogma in the absence of clear unassailable proof.
I thought you were a Christian? Since when has Christendom been against "dogma in the absence of clear unassailable proof"?
Here's the deal. You have to show evidence of angels, and we'll show you mutations. You show evidence of heaven, and will show natural selection. And you show the Holy Ghost on film, and we'll show you transitional fossils.
Actually, we've already done our part, so get going, because your posts constantly talk about evidence and proof in relation to evolutionary theory, but your religion seems to be excused from this obligation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Beretta, posted 02-05-2008 12:27 PM Beretta 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