Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8863 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-20-2018 8:17 PM
197 online now:
DrJones*, nwr, xongsmith (3 members, 194 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 838,716 Year: 13,539/29,783 Month: 985/1,576 Week: 197/303 Day: 21/36 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
21Next
Author Topic:   20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 181 of 305 (454617)
02-07-2008 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Cold Foreign Object
02-07-2008 7:47 PM


No contribution to the discussion...
So no more posts for two days.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-07-2008 7:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Larni
Member
Posts: 3954
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 182 of 305 (454643)
02-08-2008 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Cold Foreign Object
02-07-2008 2:16 PM


Re: Paging a creationist moderator...
Ray writes:

You are ignorant.

LOL, Ray. I see you respond to me the same way you respond to the creo wiki guys who bent over backwards to help you on you 'fantastic paper to rock the foundations of evolution (not in press :))'. i.e. getting cross and calling them ignorant or "intellectual midgets".

You are such a card, Ray.

You know, I bet Gene Scott is having a right old laugh at your silly antics (if he knew who you were).

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-07-2008 2:16 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2793 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 183 of 305 (454644)
02-08-2008 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Organicmachination
02-07-2008 8:09 PM


Re: Wrong!
The first amendment of the Constitution of the United States, written by Thomas Jefferson himself, a Deist, and signed by 39 of our other Founding Fathers, also Deist or Christian, expressly forbids the interference of the Church into matters of the state.

You sure about that?

Can you show where the 1st amendment states that because it clearly does not? The idea is the state cannot interfere with matters of the Church, not the other way around.

Also, Jefferson did not write the Bill of Rights. Madison did.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Organicmachination, posted 02-07-2008 8:09 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 02-08-2008 7:22 AM randman has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 17653
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 184 of 305 (454654)
02-08-2008 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by randman
02-08-2008 4:38 AM


Re: Wrong!
The interpretation of the 1st ammendment would be a great topic for a new thread.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by randman, posted 02-08-2008 4:38 AM randman has not yet responded

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 2039 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 185 of 305 (454656)
02-08-2008 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Cold Foreign Object
02-07-2008 5:27 PM


Finally, you say something correct...sorta
CFO writes:

Federal Judges, who are evolutionists, have made the Constitution say that Creationism cannot be taught to school children.

You do realize that in consecutive sentences, you completely contradict your self...yes? First you say the above nonsense. And next you say...
CFO writes:

Of course the Constitution says no such thing since it was written by Theists and Deists in the 18th century.

So which is it, CFO? Which delusional rant do you want to claim as being accurate?

Interestingly enough...if we read only a portion of your second sentence, we get the first factual tidbit that you have said thus far in this particular discussion.

CFO writes:

Of course the Constitution says no such thing...

If only you would have stopped there.

And I was serious earlier, when I said that you need to seek help. You appear ready to snap, and I do fear for your safety and for the safety of those around you when it happens. Get some professional help.

Edited by FliesOnly, : to fix the subtitle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-07-2008 5:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

reiverix
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 80
From: Central Ohio
Joined: 10-18-2007


Message 186 of 305 (454659)
02-08-2008 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Cold Foreign Object
02-07-2008 7:53 PM


Re: Dr. Scott?
Ray, instead of spitting venom at everyone who disagrees with you (which seems to be your trademark btw), why not answer my question when you get back.

reiverix writes:

I asked for past inventions/discoveries that were made by inspiration of god. Forget about Darwinism for a minute if that's possible. Just show me these great god given achievements.


It was you that mentioned teaching religion in school would return science to its former glory. If you can demonstrate that is true in the past, maybe you can show how it will be true in the future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-07-2008 7:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 3491 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 187 of 305 (454675)
02-08-2008 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by LinearAq
02-06-2008 10:42 AM


Re: Old evolutionist's tales
for ID to be considered science, the definition of scientific theory had to be changed

Yes it must be changed so that material causes are not the only ones allowed to be considered.If 'matter is all there is' that would be fine, but we don't know that for a fact and some things are better explained by non-material causes. In other words if purely natural mechanisms produced life on this planet then great but if there's evidence to say that that may not be so, then limiting what is allowed to be defined as science to natural causes may shut out the real cause -thus the truth of what actually happened to produce life on the planet may be excluded by what is currently accepted as the definition of science.

As an analogy, imagine you have to hypothesize on how computers came to exist but you are not allowed to mention man -you are limited to only those processes that occur within a computer -the correct answer is thus excluded a priori.

Id proposes that natural causes may not be the only explanation possible for life on this earth but it does not attempt to get into who or what the creative intelligence may be because the identity of the designer is not part of science -that would be part of a theological debate.The point is not to exclude the potentially correct answer by limiting the definition of science to material causes and passing it off as fact since it may shut out investigation into the truth of what actually did produce life.

Much like the identity of the creator being out of the domain of science, so would things like voodoo and charms be out of the realm of scientific investigation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by LinearAq, posted 02-06-2008 10:42 AM LinearAq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Trixie, posted 02-08-2008 9:44 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 189 by Wounded King, posted 02-08-2008 9:47 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 190 by FliesOnly, posted 02-08-2008 9:49 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 193 by RickJB, posted 02-08-2008 12:58 PM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 195 by nator, posted 02-08-2008 7:01 PM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 196 by bluescat48, posted 02-08-2008 7:51 PM Beretta has responded

Trixie
Member (Idle past 1600 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 188 of 305 (454684)
02-08-2008 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Beretta
02-08-2008 9:07 AM


Re: Old evolutionist's tales
So, Beretta, you agree that to get ID included as a science, we have to change the definition of what science is. Surely that, in and of itself, admits that, as things stand at the moment, ID most definitely is NOT science. Therefore until the definition of science is changed, ID has no place in the science class.

In changing the definition of science to encompass ID, Michael Behe admitted, in court, under oath, that the definition which he proposes in order to include ID will also include Astrology. Do you believe that Astrology is a scientific theory on par with ID? In 20 years will science teachers be hired based on their star sign?

You may not realise it, but that is what you're proposing. Instead of redefining science to include ID, why do IDists not set about gaining scientific credentials for their theory? If it is a science, then that shouldn't be too difficult. If, however, it truly is on par with Astrology, then there may be some problems with scientific research which would support ID, ie it will be non-existent.

Idists claim there is much scientific evidence for ID, but when asked to provide examples, they refuse or provide examples which are most definitely NOT scientific. Can you provide any? Can you provide any evidence of ongoing scientific research in the field of ID? I don't want links to opinions, arguments, logical expositions, I want links to the actual, ongoing scientific, laboratory research. Heck, I'm not even asking for published research, just ongoing research. If you can do this, then ID may fnally be making an attempt to prove its claims of being a science.

Asking for a redefinition of science is admitting that ID is NOT science!!

I'll correct any typos later if I have time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Beretta, posted 02-08-2008 9:07 AM Beretta has not yet responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1989 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 189 of 305 (454686)
02-08-2008 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Beretta
02-08-2008 9:07 AM


Re: Old evolutionist's tales
So what exactly did you mean when you said that, 'we are talking about science and nobody has any intention on changing it to anything else. Get a grip.'?

If a non-material cause 'the intelligent designer' can effect evolution why can't a non-material cause 'lady luck' effect positive benefits to the possessor of a particular object?

And why has ID suddenly become concerned with immaterial causes? What happened to the aliens?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Beretta, posted 02-08-2008 9:07 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 2039 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 190 of 305 (454688)
02-08-2008 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Beretta
02-08-2008 9:07 AM


Still Waiting
Hey Beretta...what's up? You ever gonna supply that I.D. hypothesis... like I asked for (most recently) way back in post 113, and you agreed to supply?

Beretta writes:

Yes it must be changed so that material causes are not the only ones allowed to be considered.

Are you serious? And yet you expect it to be considered a "science"? Please supply us with what you think should be the definition of science.

Beretta writes:

...and some things are better explained by non-material causes.

Such as?

Beretta writes:

...but if there's evidence to say that that may not be so, then limiting what is allowed to be defined as science to natural causes may shut out the real cause -thus the truth of what actually happened to produce life on the planet may be excluded by what is currently accepted as the definition of science.

But how do you test for this Beretta? Do you not see the hole you are digging for yourself?

Beretta writes:

As an analogy, imagine you have to hypothesize on how computers came to exist but you are not allowed to mention man -you are limited to only those processes that occur within a computer -the correct answer is thus excluded a priori.

Your analogy sucks, Beretta, because that is not anywhere near what you're asking for. What you're complaining about as not being fair would be more along the lines of something like this:

"imagine you have to hypothesize on how computers came to exist but you are not allowed to mention green fairies riding on the backs of purple unicorns"-you are limited to those things that can be seen and measured and tested for. That's more in line with what your complaint entails.

Beretta writes:

Id proposes that natural causes may not be the only explanation possible for life on this earth but it does not attempt to get into who or what the creative intelligence may be because the identity of the designer is not part of science.

Bull shit. But regardless of your ridiculous claim that I.D. doesn't care who the designer is...I.D. is still something for which no test can be designed. Don't you get it, Beretta?

And it cannot be taken seriously by the scientific community because, amongst other things, it does not have even so much as a testable hypothesis.

Which reminds me....we gonna get one from you soon?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Beretta, posted 02-08-2008 9:07 AM Beretta has not yet responded

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3766 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 191 of 305 (454698)
02-08-2008 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Cold Foreign Object
02-07-2008 7:31 PM


Clarification
Jared Diamond is considered a scientist and he is probably the most respected pro-evolution author in the world today. His degree is in Geography.

This is incorrect. Dr. Diamond received his undergrad in physiology (from Harvard) and his PhD in physiology and biophysics (from Cambridge). Most of his work - outside his popular science writings - has been in ecology. He is one of the founders of the field of conservation biology, and has done extensive field work that has significantly enhanced knowledge in such diverse areas of my field as ecological assembly rules, landscape-based ecological design of protected areas, and extinction risk. Although probably best known for his pop sci books, he IS a respected scientist. I wouldn't, however, go so far as to claim he is the "most respected pro-evolution writer". There are quite a number of other authors that could legitimately claim that distinction.

Back to your regularly scheduled rants.

Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-07-2008 7:31 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 2570 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 192 of 305 (454702)
02-08-2008 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Cold Foreign Object
02-07-2008 4:45 PM


CFU writes:

Neither Dembski or Behe accept ToE.

From Michael Behe's own hand:

quote:
Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, 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 evolutinoary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism--natural selection working on variation--might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small." ~ Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 7

From TEACHING INTELLIGENT DESIGN -- WHAT HAPPENED WHEN?
A RESPONSE TO EUGENIE SCOTT
-By William A. Dembski

quote:
First off, intelligent design is not a form of anti-evolutionism. Intelligent design does not, as Eugenie Scott falsely asserts, claim that living things came together suddenly in their present form through the efforts of a supernatural creator. Intelligent design is not and never will be a doctrine of creation.

and
quote:
...intelligent design has no stake in living things coming together suddenly in their present form. To be sure, intelligent design leaves that as a possibility. But intelligent design is also fully compatible with large-scale evolution over the course of natural history, all the way up to what biologists refer to as "common descent" (i.e., the full genealogical interconnectedness of all organisms). If our best science tells us that living things came together gradually over a long evolutionary history and that all living things are related by common descent, then so be it. Intelligent design can live with this result and indeed live with it cheerfully.

It looks to me that they both accept macroevolution and microevolution which you say never happened. Perhaps they don't accept TOE as you define it but I am "ignorant" of your strange definition of it.

So back to the question at hand.
You said that they are most correct because they are most opposed by evolutionists.
Does this mean you now believe that macro-evolution and micro-evolution have occurred?
Do you now accept common descent through evolutionary mechanisms as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet?
Or
Will you now say that Behe's and Dembski's version of ID is incorrect and unacceptable by you.

Looks like I'm not the only one who is ignorant...to say the least.

Edited by LinearAq, : make quote more readable


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-07-2008 4:45 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 2884 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 193 of 305 (454727)
02-08-2008 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Beretta
02-08-2008 9:07 AM


Re: Old evolutionist's tales
Beretta writes:

things are better explained by non-material causes

How can an non-material explanation be verified if it cannot be tested?

Imagine that every time I say "f*ck" I'm struck by lightning that has no apparent physical origin. How do I know that the Biblical God did it instead of the Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Zeus?

Beretta writes:

As an analogy, imagine you have to hypothesize on how computers came to exist but you are not allowed to mention man.

It's not that ID isn't allowed to mention God, it's that ID has no evidence to support such an entity. The existence of men, on the other hand, is verifiable.

Beretta writes:

..it may shut out investigation into the truth of what actually did produce life.

How do we verify "the truth" when it has no material expression?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Beretta, posted 02-08-2008 9:07 AM Beretta has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 64 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 194 of 305 (454804)
02-08-2008 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Cold Foreign Object
02-07-2008 7:47 PM


Re: Paging a creationist moderator...
Wait, you don't accept that new species have been observed to emerge?
Even though they have been directly observed to have done so in real time, both in the lab and in the field?

quote:
If you want to get back on the wagon, email me and I will sponsor you.

Obviously, this is an avoidant non-answer.

When you get back from suspension, how about answering the question?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-07-2008 7:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 64 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 195 of 305 (454805)
02-08-2008 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Beretta
02-08-2008 9:07 AM


Re: Old evolutionist's tales
quote:
Yes it must be changed so that material causes are not the only ones allowed to be considered.

So should we teach, in science class, that Astrology is valid?

Or that poltergeists really move things in houses?

quote:
some things are better explained by non-material causes.

Can you please provide some examples of how non-material explanations of anything has increased our understanding of it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Beretta, posted 02-08-2008 9:07 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018