|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I didn't know this. Why are alternative hypotheses required? I also thought that modern science discarded theories that were previously shown to be erroneous...
quote: Sure, if you disregard the fossil record. It seems to me that you leave out certain facts in order to rationalize ID, for instance, to reality. And then of course you really should identify your designer...
quote: If you know of such evidence or predictions for creationism and the flood, I'd love to hear it.
quote: Most are not qualified to handle the 'crying out' by students indoctrinated by YEC websites. This is unfortunate. Having said that, I really don't see the 'crying out for understanding.' The evidence is probably clear to most students.
quote: There are plenty of places where students can get this information. We see it here all the time.
quote: As I said, it is unfortunate that most teachers and professors may not be qualified in this area.
quote: Just my point. Why would we go back 100 years in scientific progress?
quote: Such as?
quote: I never heard of Lamarckism in any classes and neither has my son. Perhaps we shy away from alternatvie hypotheses because the fall short of explaining the totality of the evidence arrayed across several fields of science.
quote: Did your professors spend time discussing terracentrism? I never even had it brought up in a single geology class. I suppose I should feel deprived...
quote: Oh, as a simply historical item? Sure. However, since it did not arise from scientific empricism I hardly think of it as important in biological theory.
quote: Ah! Another unbiased person. I admit to bias in life, myself. I have a strong preference for evidence and logic.
quote: And assertion. Do you actually have data on this?
quote: Once again, I'd love to know what these are.
quote: There are plenty of places for students to learn about YECism if they really want to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
What do we need EC websites for? then?? If I understood you correctly you took all that space to simply say "it does not." did you not? For instance alternatives are needed in biological change because the basis for rigorous use of the 1st law of therm IS NOT the probablism used in the 2nd law generating a heterogenity in genetic algebras of populations should small diffusive effects in neutral evolution claims be needed adjudication once assertins of molecular clocks substitute for nonalternative hypothesis of non-Darwiinan closeness of life and earth changing together but I guess you would have not known that this is then would you not rather think it just a random word generation? It is not!!
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-08-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
It was educated people who discovered the spherical shape of the Earth and measured it - pagan Greeks.
And no we are not back at "square one", because you have already retreated and admitted that your argument depends on assuming that Isaiah meant a sphere - which reduces it to circularity. However, circle is a flat two-dimensional figure. A disc could be called a circle but a sphere cannot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Let's not let the tautological sayers be labeled as mockers and scoffers which this thread so far seems to have demonstrated.
There was less substative engagement of my question so instead I will myself answer it. Baraminology can be taught to high school students in the excercise in critical thinking that shows cases of where vicariism is wholly TAXONOMIC. To use creationism as science in this classs will sort out the disagreements over a scientists time as to the issue of proper fidelity in general print that Croizat questioned if others (Nelson etc) were using his term vicariate in fidelity to the his (Croizat's) actual methodic use case and in particular in correspondence to Craw in New Zeland Croizat told Craw that EITHER chance dispersal or vicariance is to go. Because baraminology is a broader role for classfication than all phylogenetics, phenetics and cladistics combined THE STUDENT (even if the prof/teacher can not believe the implications) will be able to see beyond the cultural plurarlity because of polymorphism NOT polyphleticism (to which Croizat has been abused of using in the professional literature). This taxonmic strech can then be used to discuss vairous causalites allways now with an alternative keeping the less likely in a more deeper perspective to speak in short vulgarly. My contributions have not been followed up on in you nice thread head I guess because my respondents have not known first and foremost when not apriori how to deal with Croizat's "if for no better reason because the essential processes of nature long antedate man and his formal classification." which I can only explain if they only read this univocally in favor of evolution BEFORE the fact for as the thread with Randy showed because of dispersal vs distribtion we could not spot out the issue of polymorphism which here in the clearly teachable case shows up in age of species vs age of process of species formation but yet IN THE ACTUAL BIOLOGICAL LITERATURE it is not cleared up as to "In sum:Vicariism is not necessarily always taxonomic and geographic. It may only be taxonomic," p1485 Principia Botanica and thus instead it was asserted that EVOLUTION and NOT BIOLOGY OR TAXONOMY was a fact BUT AFTER THE TEACHING POINT FACT. We ARE back to basics and square one on the science and to assert otherwise is to put biogeography behind when it is acually in front of the disscussion on creation and evolution. For this unresolved scientific issue that IS possible to present in a currenly balanced form Croizat may presently sound as ifp1485 "Question 6 What you preach is clearcut "parallelism" in form-making, Is this not tantamount to "sperate creation"?...."Would "seperate creation" of the sort void of its meaning and basic process of form-making and translation in space which we have analysed in the answer to Question 5 to turn it only into a wilful act of God? I should leave it to the others to debate the answer." Croizat has left the c/e generation this "debate". Perhaps others would have been amazed instead of the creationist future implications the ones relative to Charles Darwin for in the same assorted pagination Croizat wrote, p1480"As, such (pan)biogeography os clearly here to stay, and its counterfeits are doomed already. The sooner we get rid of them, the better, even if this does mean throwing overboard virtually the whole of "darwinism" to retain evolution as a doctrine which has with Darwin and his work but a historical association. In its (pan)biogeographic formulation, evolution may be conveniently referred to the expression:...". We all have not lost our bark and bite. This balance comes out of nature not science of the sort p.1484 "So far for the TAXONOMY which we face. DISPERSAL IS HOWEVER NOT TAXONOMY; AND WHATEVER DISPERSAL IS EVENTUALLY TO CONCLUDE IS ESSENTIALLY TO BE FORMULATED IN FULL FREEDOM FROM TAXONOMY." Without the balance we SELL the tuition and public education lunch on the basis of the couterfeit!!!!!!please take note! The concepts are not imposible to provide in a sylabus. We need someone with a broad enough c-e background to write it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
One final short comment on this circle controversy: The text does not say the earth is a circle, perse. It says "circle (i.e. curvature) of the earth." (which is a sphere).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
quote: The tested and unproven hypotheses of evolution which totally dominates education in America.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Precisely correct Buz! Excellent!
When you take out the untestable (unscientific) part of creationism you are left with exactly nothing. All you have left is the ToE. And it is far beyond an "hypothesis" just because it has been tested a lot and not falsified. What we were asking for was what would be taught in science class about creationism. You have just (even if you didn't realize it) agreed that there is nothing to teach. rofl. Care to try again?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
So you admit that you were wrong. Isaiha does NOT say that the Earth is spherical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
David Fitch Inactive Member |
It seems to me the only way that biology teachers will be able to teach well is if they themselves have received good biology training. Part of their biology training should involve understanding (1) how science works by testing predictions (surprisingly few understand this) and (2) what the specific predictions and data are regarding evolution/creation/transformism. Again, that means we have to introduce creation back into the classroom (including the classrooms in which teachers are taught).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Again, that means we have to introduce creation back into the classroom (including the classrooms in which teachers are taught). I still don't understand what part of "God did it" you think is testable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Again, that means we have to introduce creation back into the classroom (including the classrooms in which teachers are taught). However, creationism is a belief, it is taken on faith, studying creationism is pointless. All you are going to do is to take a massive step backwards, you will be wanting to teach kids how to walk on water next. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Why did you avoid my point then? Do I need to give you chapter and verse, in this case taxa and geography, before you will see the point that can not only be meant but not forced. In the Croizat exemplar which devolves onto the difference of Iguanida and Agamidae Croizat had suggested that reproductive isolation gives a species the means when not also the ends to CONTINUE to change and not only to become extinct. If ONLY creationism can make this aspect of the evolution of life and earth available to the student then why not re-introduce it? A tradition of studying creationism CAN provide this lexic linguistics that MAY NOT be available to the evolutionist preciself because the best current scholarship tends to WRITE to this point of isolation and extinction rather than some physico-chemistry between the CONCEPT of dispersal vs distribution and age of a species vs age of species' formation. The difference of Gould and Dawkins falls "WITHIIN" this and yet this board shows there IS some "outside" to it all. By analogy then, I heard Shledon Glasgow lecture at Cornell "precisely" on Danjuns point of a table within the quark table to no known end and yet Crash didnt want to get it for his own particular idea on strings. There ARE physicists who doubt the threads but I dont know enough physics to judge Glasgow but I do know the difference between biogeography and biology and why isnt it "obvious" to NOW that studying creation DOES have a purpose which for the only legal reason here in the united states to preventing its re-introduction is that it must advance all of science is not an issue as I have showed short working out Croizat's lizards from the lounge it still drinks in for me that there IS advance if one only knows of the difference of chromsomals vs chromnemals even if the plant of animal will be IDd by tommarow.
This is a step forward not back!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Precisly what part of creationism would we introduce that would help teach how science is done? I think that lots of generalized discussion has gone by now. How about some specific details.
Also what is "transformism".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
quote: The Hebrew has far fewer words than the English or Greek. The rendering the words is determined by the context. Actually, since there is not word "sphere" in Hebrew, he could be either saying: 1. The sphere of the world.or 2. The curvature (circle) of the world. (which is a sphere) People all the time refer to the world as circular or round. In fact if you will note the opening statement of this thread, David Fitch, the poster who initiated the thread spoke of the "round" earth in reference to a sphere. I'd like to get off this. Nobody's gona convince anybody, it appears.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Off topic. I think this was all thrashed out elsewhere but I can't find it.
Perhaps you could start another thread on the topic.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024