Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   Key points of Evolution
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 166 of 356 (465562)
05-08-2008 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Granny Magda
05-07-2008 10:59 PM


Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Men
wumpini writes:
They have fanciful pictures and stories of dinosaurs and prehistoric men.
Granny Magda writes:
What really? Pictures of dinosaurs and man together? Depicted as being around at the same time? I'll bet they don't. Seriously, if any book has pictures of dinosaurs and humans co-existing, it's a shitty book.
If the book merely contains a few artists impressions of Homo erectus or dinosaurs, what of it? These kinds of illustration are not meant to be gospel; they're illustrative. They are also usually based on fossil finds, at least they will be if they appear in a book that's any good.
No, I did not see any pictures of the dinosaurs and men together. Although, I think that would have been pretty cool. It was probably an oversight on their part. They do have a volcano erupting, and a bunch of dinosaurs attacking another dinosaur. The book really does have a bunch of neat pictures.
wumpini writes:
It appears to be fantasy, however it is all taught as fact.
Granny writes:
That is how it may appear to you, but one of the humbling things about science is that it teaches us that things are rarely as easy to assess and understand as we might wish, especially when one employs hunches and "common sense" instead of evidence. I assure you, the more you familiarise yourself with the evidence for hominids, the age of the Earth and evolution, the more sense it will make. First however, you need to really engage with the scientific knowledge regarding these subjects.
Actually, at least one other reviewer agrees with my evaluation. I will repeat the link for the textbook league review here also.
Page not found - Text Book League - Aplikasi dan Website Buku Online
The reviewer makes the statement:
quote:
But the text seems schizophrenic: It gives me the impression that its various sections have been written by different people, only a few of whom know what they are talking about.
You see this is not all in my imagination. I truly am attempting to evaluate the evidence. How was I to know that the textbooks that are being used to teach our children are not scientifically accurate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Granny Magda, posted 05-07-2008 10:59 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Granny Magda, posted 05-08-2008 10:55 AM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2008 5:43 PM Wumpini has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 167 of 356 (465565)
05-08-2008 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by PaulK
05-08-2008 1:31 AM


Understanding God, Creation, and Age
PaulK writes:
Obviously your argument is untrue. Firstly God does not need to create a tree that appears to be one thousand years old.
Who are we to say what God needs or does not need to do? That is part of the problem. Men keep assuming they can know the mind of God. Man can never completely know the mind of God! I enjoy looking at nature like the big Redwoods and Sequoyas out in the western USA. What makes you think that God would not have wanted to make the beauty of nature available from the beginning? Do you think God would form a featureless globe with no beauty, and then place man upon it?
If God wanted to create a thousand year old tree for men to enjoy for shade, and beauty, and construction, then that is up to Him. However, if God created a thousand year old tree, it would have all of the attributes of a thousand year old tree. It would not just appear to be a thousand year old tree, it would BE a thousand year old tree on the day of creation. Therefore, it would not be a lie! It would be a lie to make a thousand year old tree appear younger than it actually is. It all boils down to your point of view. God is not constrained by physical attributes such as time, space, and matter!
This could be compared to a recently created full grown man having all of the attributes of any other full grown man. God would not be creating a man that appears to have age. God would be creating a man that was that age. If God created a thirty year old man, he would not only appear to be thirty years old, he would BE thirty years old in every sense of the word. A medical examination would not indicate that the man was not thirty years old. Do you think that God would create a man with no food or water in his system, because He was afraid that scientists would accuse Him of lying by creating someone who appeared to have eaten food and drank water in the past. That argument is ridiculous. Think about it! The same would be true of any other feature of nature that God created.
PaulK writes:
Secondly science is a recent development, and the information that trees grow rings is quite easily determinable without needing fake tree rings to be created at the beginning (most trees are only decades to a few centuries old). So unless you assume that the creation was very recent (say only a few hundred years ago at most) your argument is definitely untrue.
If, on the other hand, God created trees that did not have rings scientists could identify the date of Creation and at least know that something special had happened at that time. The only thing that they could not find is the fake history that God had created.
So what your argument amounts to is that "God had to lie because otherwise nobody would hear His lies". Is that really what you mean to say ?
What are you basing God's dishonesty upon? God has told the entire world that He is the Creator. When God created anything, it should agree in design and attributes with the natural laws that He has established. So, if man looks at nature and finds evidence that God is not the Creator, then it is entirely possible that man (the creation) is misinterpreting the evidence. Man is attempting to use God's own creation and His laws of nature, to imply that God could be dishonest.
I am only beginning to review the arguments of scientists against God and His creation. Have scientists ever considered that they may be missing something. They may be overlooking a simple principle that should be part of their scientific models. They may have failed to consider a necessary element of their theories. It is possible that could explain the controversey that exists in this area of science.
Thanks

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2008 1:31 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2008 7:54 AM Wumpini has replied
 Message 170 by Rahvin, posted 05-08-2008 11:26 AM Wumpini has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 168 of 356 (465571)
05-08-2008 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Wumpini
05-08-2008 5:30 AM


Re: Understanding God, Creation, and Age
quote:
Who are we to say what God needs or does not need to do? That is part of the problem
Your whole argument is founded on the idea that God needs to create an illusion of age. So who are you to make such an assertion ?
quote:
What makes you think that God would not have wanted to make the beauty of nature available from the beginning? Do you think God would form a featureless globe with no beauty, and then place man upon it?
Why does God have to be in such a hurry ? Why not watch His creation grow and develop, only placing man on it when it is ready ?
quote:
If God created a thirty year old man, he would not only appear to be thirty years old, he would BE thirty years old in every sense of the word. A medical examination would not indicate that the man was not thirty years old. Do you think that God would create a man with no food or water in his system, because He was afraid that scientists would accuse Him of lying by creating someone who appeared to have eaten food and drank water in the past. That argument is ridiculous. Think about it! The same would be true of any other feature of nature that God created.
I have thought about it. Do you really think that I haven't seen this argument (150 years old, at least !) before now ?. In fact I can see that I have thought about it more than you have. As we live and grow older, living leaves its marks. The after-effects of injury, disease and the general stresses of living. Would God create all those signs on his thirty-year old man ? Why ? Would He create this man with - for example - worn or decayed teeth or even (in a modern world) dental fillings ? Or false memories ?
There are similar signs in nature. Tree rings are not just simple rings of even size. Their width depends on the growth of the tree - which in turn depends on the conditions of that year - and we can match up the patterns in the rings to produce longer chronologies than we could from any single tree. Those chronologies can be correlated with other evidence (such as carbon dating). If God wants to create a living tree with false rings does He have to create a pattern in the rings ? And create dead trees with matching patterns ? And adjust the carbon isotopes in the trees so that carbon dating works out ?
To refer to another example referred to here, how many layers of annual varves does Lake Suigetsu need ? Why do the "fake" varves need to include items such as leaves ? Why do these items have to carbon date to ages that agree well with their position in the varve deposits ?
quote:
What are you basing God's dishonesty upon?
I am not the one implying that God has been dishonest. You are the one claiming that God has created a huge mass of false and misleading evidence for no apparent reason. What do YOU base that on ?
quote:
God has told the entire world that He is the Creator. When God created anything, it should agree in design and attributes with the natural laws that He has established.
He certainly has not.
quote:
So, if man looks at nature and finds evidence that God is not the Creator, then it is entirely possible that man (the creation) is misinterpreting the evidence.
But that is not what we are talking about. According to you the evidence is being interpreted correctly, on the basis of knowledge that God WANTS us to have - those natural laws you refer to. It is just that - according to you - that evidence is massively misleading, because God has made it that way. But you can't provide any good reason to assume that God would do something so dishonest as to mislead us in that way.
quote:
Man is attempting to use God's own creation and His laws of nature, to imply that God could be dishonest.
That is not true. The dishonesty of God is an implication of YOUR arguments since you require God to have created a huge amount of massively misleading evidence without giving any valid reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 5:30 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 1:12 PM PaulK has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 169 of 356 (465592)
05-08-2008 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Wumpini
05-08-2008 3:33 AM


Re: Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Men
No, I did not see any pictures of the dinosaurs and men together. Although, I think that would have been pretty cool. It was probably an oversight on their part.
More likely it was because however bad this book is, it's writers weren't dumb enough to believe that dinosaurs and humans ever co-existed.
They do have a volcano erupting, and a bunch of dinosaurs attacking another dinosaur. The book really does have a bunch of neat pictures.
Kids like cool pictures. It gets their attention when they can see dinosaurs fighting, and hopefully, they might pick up some facts along the way. Dinosaurs did fight you know; or are you suggesting that T-Rex was a vegetarian?
Actually, at least one other reviewer agrees with my evaluation.
Yeah, that certainly is a pretty damning review. What does this prove exactly? All I can work out from this is that your book is pretty crappy and not really suitable for the purposes for which it was designed. This is not a startling revelation. School textbooks tend not to be written by scientists, but by professional writers, with little or no experience of real scientific endeavour. I wish this wasn't the case and increasingly it isn't; more and more textbooks are being written or edited by the appropriate professionals.
That this book leaves much to be desired is clearly not something that you have imagined, but it's just one book. I don't know what you are trying to prove here.
I truly am attempting to evaluate the evidence.
I haven't seen any sign of this. You haven't mentioned any evidence, only one crappy children's book. That isn't evidence, nor, as you have pointed out, does it contain evidence. All it contains is information which may or may not be thoroughly accurate. If you want to look at some actual evidence, you are going to have to dig a little bit deeper.
How was I to know that the textbooks that are being used to teach our children are not scientifically accurate.
You haven't read all of them, now have you? All you have done is find one textbook that contains a few flaws. Pointing to one shitty book does not mean that you can claim that all school books are inaccurate. I wish that all textbooks were perfect, but we don't live in a perfect world. My advice is to get over it and buy a better book!
Edited by Granny Magda, : Fixed really unfortunate mistake.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 3:33 AM Wumpini has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by teen4christ, posted 05-08-2008 3:22 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 170 of 356 (465597)
05-08-2008 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Wumpini
05-08-2008 5:30 AM


Re: Understanding God, Creation, and Age
So, if man looks at nature and finds evidence that God is not the Creator, then it is entirely possible that man (the creation) is misinterpreting the evidence. Man is attempting to use God's own creation and His laws of nature, to imply that God could be dishonest.
Your argument puts the cart before the horse, Wumpini.
You are suggesting that, if the evidence does not implicate the man you arrested, we must be interpreting the evidence incorrectly.
The reasonable position is that the arrested man is innocent - that the Biblical Creation myth is exactly that, a myth.
Rational conclusions are derived from evidence, not contrary to it. You have placed your conclusion (that god is the Creator) as your root assumption. You've got it backwards. You cannot test for the veracity of the Biblical story by assuming the story is true.
If you state the existence of God as Creator as an axiom, you aren't testing anything at all. Imagine if we did the same in our criminal justice system? The police would arrest someone they believed committed a crime. The evidence could show that no crime was ever committed, let alone that the man was responsible. By the exact same reasoning you are using, we know the man is guilty, so we must be interpreting the evidence incorrectly - we should convict him anyway.
This is not an example of a well-reasoned thought process. It is possible for scientists to interpret evidence incorrectly, but the likelihood of that happening when literally millions of peices of independent evidence all agree to a very high degree of accuracy is incredibly slim. You may as well suggest that we are all in the Matrix.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 5:30 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 5:37 PM Rahvin has replied

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


Message 171 of 356 (465599)
05-08-2008 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Wumpini
05-07-2008 9:23 PM


Re: Observations and Conclusions
It is true that I am only now beginning to seriously look into the claims of scientists regarding evolution and the age of the earth. My point about assumptions, is that scientists do not really know much about the past. They make assumptions based upon the present.
No, they make deductions based on the evidence existing in the present.
Now I wonder how these scientists came to know all of this about some humans that lived half a million years ago. What kind of evidence led to these conclusions?
You wonder that do you? Then why don't you try to find out?
Heck, at present you don't know if scientists came to these conclusions, since scientists don't write books for children.
Well I would say that the entire conclusion is based upon assumptions that go beyond what was observed today.
Why would you say that, if you don't know what evidence led scientists to their conclusions about H. erectus? And when you know perfectly well that scientists aren't allowed to base their conclusions on "assumptions".
Later I may find that these early cave men left a diary or something to tell scientists about their lifestyle.
Your "or something" guess is correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Wumpini, posted 05-07-2008 9:23 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 6:11 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 172 of 356 (465601)
05-08-2008 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Wumpini
05-07-2008 10:15 PM


Re: Children's Textbooks
They have fanciful pictures and stories of dinosaurs and prehistoric men. It appears to be fantasy, however it is all taught as fact.
Dinosaurs existed. So did prehistoric men. We have the bones.
This is a fanciful picture.
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Wumpini, posted 05-07-2008 10:15 PM Wumpini has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 173 of 356 (465606)
05-08-2008 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by PaulK
05-08-2008 7:54 AM


Maybe this should be a new topic
PaulK writes:
In fact I can see that I have thought about it more than you have.
I am sure that you have thought about many things more than I have. I am only attempting to develop theories that may reconcile those things that I believe to be true, to what scientists believe to be true. That is the whole point of this mental exercise. I am not doing this specifically to annoy you.
I may, in the end, find out that it is not possible to reconcile our beliefs. Maybe you will have to change yours to agree with mine. lol.
Wumpini writes:
God has told the entire world that He is the Creator. When God created anything, it should agree in design and attributes with the natural laws that He has established.
PaulK writes:
He certainly has not.
He has told you. You may have chosen not to listen.
It appears that we have strayed from the original topic of this thread which relates to teaching evolution in schools.
I truly believe that neither of us has considered all of the implications that would be involved if God were to instantly create a man, a tree, or anything else full grown. You say that you have dealt with these arguments many times. Maybe you can direct me to a thread where I can come to understand how you believe God (if there is a God) would instantly create (if he did create) something full grown.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2008 7:54 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2008 5:37 PM Wumpini has not replied

teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5799 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 174 of 356 (465610)
05-08-2008 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Granny Magda
05-08-2008 10:55 AM


Re: Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Men
Granny writes
quote:
More likely it was because however bad this book is, it's writers weren't dumb enough to believe that dinosaurs and humans ever co-existed.
Have you considered that perhaps the author of whatever book that was only wanted to visually demonstrate the size of a dino compared to human? Authors do this all the time. They'd draw out something ilke an airplane and then a man next to it to show people how big the airplane is.
I know that creationists are nortorious for taking things out of context. Perhaps this is one instance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Granny Magda, posted 05-08-2008 10:55 AM Granny Magda has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 175 of 356 (465620)
05-08-2008 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Wumpini
05-08-2008 1:12 PM


Re: Maybe this should be a new topic
quote:
I am sure that you have thought about many things more than I have. I am only attempting to develop theories that may reconcile those things that I believe to be true, to what scientists believe to be true. That is the whole point of this mental exercise. I am not doing this specifically to annoy you.
In that case you need to consider things more deeply. I have pointed you to some of the questions you need to consider. You need to consider all the evidence of age, ask yourself why God would choose to make it that way, when it will mislead any who rely on the natural laws you say that he wants us to know and understand.
quote:
He has told you. You may have chosen not to listen.
Of course, you are in no position to know any such thing.
quote:
I truly believe that neither of us has considered all of the implications that would be involved if God were to instantly create a man, a tree, or anything else full grown.
But it is not necessary to consider all he details. So long as we can find some details that could easily be different, that mislead while serving no clear purpose your idea is in question. If you cannot find plausible reasons why God would knowingly create such a huge array of misleading evidence then why insist that He did ? Why not accept that the evidence is not misleading and the universe really is as old as it appears instead.
Equally if you insist that God does rush things and that much of the apparent past is a false history then you must reject all knowledge of the past. You literally cannot even know if the universe existed five minutes ago.
If you cannot truly deal with these points (and there is no way you can do that without accepting that God will leave holes in the evidence that we can find - and have not) then you might have a point worth discussing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 1:12 PM Wumpini has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 176 of 356 (465621)
05-08-2008 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Rahvin
05-08-2008 11:26 AM


God as the Root Assumption
Rahvin writes:
Rational conclusions are derived from evidence, not contrary to it. You have placed your conclusion (that god is the Creator) as your root assumption. You've got it backwards.
Maybe that would solve this entire controversy. We should allow those who want to make God the root assumption the freedom to do so. Those who choose otherwise can give God a value of zero, as you would. Obviously, we will reach different conclusions.
You also need to remember that I am not alone.
45% of Scientists also have included God's involvement in the creation as their root assumption.
40% of scientists said - Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.
5% of scientists said - God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.
Now, I have been told that the 40% of the scientists believe that the tool that God used for creation was the natural process of evolution. I have started a thread to attempt to clarify my understanding of what they believe. However, it still appears that their root assumption is God as the creator.
I have not reached the point yet where I believe that the tool God used was evolution over a long period of time. You see God could have done it however he wanted to. I do agree that some type of evolution is being observed in the world today.
Rahvin writes:
You cannot test for the veracity of the Biblical story by assuming the story is true.
Who said I was testing the truthfulness of the Biblical story? I don't recall mentioning the Biblical story of creation. I am merely attempting to clarify my understanding of how all of the scientific evidence that has been observed can relate to God as the creator. One of the alternatives is that God created man, and some living things full grown. Obviously, 45% of scientists have already been able to accomplish this task, and reconcile science to their belief in God. However, there may be explanations that I, they, and possibly you have not considered.
I am confused though because it seems that scientists test the truthfulness of all of their theories by assuming their theories are true. What is your point?

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Rahvin, posted 05-08-2008 11:26 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2008 6:02 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 179 by Rahvin, posted 05-08-2008 6:04 PM Wumpini has replied
 Message 181 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2008 6:16 PM Wumpini has replied

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


Message 177 of 356 (465622)
05-08-2008 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Wumpini
05-08-2008 3:33 AM


Re: Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Men
Actually, at least one other reviewer agrees with my evaluation. I will repeat the link for the textbook league review here also.
Page not found - Text Book League - Aplikasi dan Website Buku Online
Good grief. Apparently amongst other things the book claims that birds are descended from T. Rex.
* bangs head on desk *
I can only suggest that you burn it and go and find a better book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 3:33 AM Wumpini has not replied

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


Message 178 of 356 (465626)
05-08-2008 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Wumpini
05-08-2008 5:37 PM


Re: God as the Root Assumption
I am confused though because it seems that scientists test the truthfulness of all of their theories by assuming their theories are true.
No. They test hypotheses by saying: "If the hypothesis was true, what would we expect to see? Do we see it?" Obviously you can carry out this procedure even if you're convinced that the hypothesis is absolutely false, or if you think it's true, or if you maintain a studious neutrality. Clearly, saying: "I wonder what would happen if this was true", is very different from saying: "I'm going to assume that this is true for no good reason".
For example, when the wave theory of light was first proposed, the mathematician Poisson was convinced that it was wrong. He deduced mathematically that if it the wave theory was correct, then you would be able to see the effect known as "Poisson's Spot". Now he assumed, if anything, that the theory was wrong and that you wouldn't see the spot. But when the experiment he'd proposed was done, Poisson's Spot was observed.
More about Poisson's Spot here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 5:37 PM Wumpini has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 179 of 356 (465627)
05-08-2008 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Wumpini
05-08-2008 5:37 PM


Re: God as the Root Assumption
Maybe that would solve this entire controversy. We should allow those who want to make God the root assumption the freedom to do so. Those who choose otherwise can give God a value of zero, as you would. Obviously, we will reach different conclusions.
Which is fine in personal life. I very much respect and uphold the right of any person to believe whatever he/she wants to believe, regardless of what I think about that choice or the beliefs they choose.
It's not so fine in science, or the classroom where science is taught. People are still allowed to beleive whatever they want, of course, but when objectivity conflicts, objectivity must "win" in order to maintain an accurate model of the world. Different conclusions are unacceptable in the end - the most accurate conclusions must be upheld in science, and the classroom where science is taught.
You also need to remember that I am not alone.
45% of Scientists also have included God's involvement in the creation as their root assumption.
40% of scientists said - Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.
5% of scientists said - God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.
Irrelevant. As I said, personal beleifs are jsut fine. These scientists do not insert their personal beliefs into their research, so we aren't really at odds here.
Aside from that, the Appeal to Popularity is another fallacy. The popularity of an argument has nothing to do with its validity. I don't care if 99% of scientists believe in a 6000-year-old Earth. The arguments in favor of such a view are still completely flawed, and unsupported by objective evidence.
Now, I have been told that the 40% of the scientists believe that the tool that God used for creation was the natural process of evolution. I have started a thread to attempt to clarify my understanding of what they believe. However, it still appears that their root assumption is God as the creator.
Yes, and their position is just as fallacious as yours. Again, it's fine in a personal belief - religion is not a subset of logic, after all.
I have not reached the point yet where I believe that the tool God used was evolution over a long period of time. You see God could have done it however he wanted to. I do agree that some type of evolution is being observed in the world today.
If you continue to look into this objectively, and perhaps ask for a brief summary of what the Theory of Evolution actually states, you'll be swayed. The evidence is overwhealming. The only people who do not accept evolution are those who are ignorant of what it actually means, or override objective reasoning with subjective religious beliefs.
Who said I was testing the truthfulness of the Biblical story? I don't recall mentioning the Biblical story of creation. I am merely attempting to clarify my understanding of how all of the scientific evidence that has been observed can relate to God as the creator.
But that's jsut it: relating evidence to God as Creator invokes the Biblical story of Creation. You've been making Creationist arguments this whole time, Wumpini, like the "distant stars' light created en route" argument.
One of the alternatives is that God created man, and some living things full grown. Obviously, 45% of scientists have already been able to accomplish this task, and reconcile science to their belief in God. However, there may be explanations that I, they, and possibly you have not considered.
I am confused though because it seems that scientists test the truthfulness of all of their theories by assuming their theories are true. What is your point?
Scientists test their theories by saying "IF this theory is true THEN we should see x." If X is not seen, and Y is sen instead, the theory is inaccurate and must be altered or discarded.
That's a very large difference from saying "BECAUSE this theory is true, AND we see X instead of Y, we must re-interpret X to be Y so that the theory remains true."
You're doing the latter, when you should be doing the former if you want to maintain an accurate connection to reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 5:37 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 7:28 PM Rahvin has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 180 of 356 (465628)
05-08-2008 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Dr Adequate
05-08-2008 11:41 AM


Bad Textbooks
DA writes:
You wonder that do you? Then why don't you try to find out?
I wonder about a lot of things, and I am continuing to find out as much as I can. It takes time.
I really do not understand what the big deal is about the textbook. I was only trying to make the point that it seemed as though the textbook was making a lot of conclusions (I incorrectly used the word assumptions - I need to work on building my scientific and logical vocabulary) without much evidence. It did not seem to me to be very accurate. I was basing this comment upon the study that I am doing with other books, and on the internet. Since that time, I have been continually responding to posts attempting to explain myself.
I have been told that scientists do not write textbooks. I was given a link by someone, and I followed that link. The reviewer said that in many places throughout the textbook, that the authors did not seem to know what they were talking about. He described the pictures as garish, where I described them as fanciful.
The book was obviously not a good textbook to be used for teaching evolution to middle school students. It appears from the responses that I received that there may be many inaccurate textbooks used for teaching students all kinds of subjects. I did not know that this problem existed. I do now!
As for the picture of the ark. I would consider that picture fanciful also. It may be appropriate for teaching toddlers, and kindergarden age children, but I would surely not use it for older children.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2008 11:41 AM Dr Adequate 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