Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 831 of 2073 (744390)
12-10-2014 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 819 by Colbard
12-10-2014 6:51 AM


So your lesson plan would be ... ? complaints?
Creationism does not have to find evidence, because everything that exists, is proof of creation, ...
So we can rely on that evidence of creation to tell us how it was accomplished, and we can scientifically investigate this evidence.
Any belief that is at odds with this evidence of the actual creation must be a false belief, based on snippets rather than looking at the whole.
This evidence of creation shows that the earth is old, very old, that the universe was created before the earth, that the earth was created before life appeared, as part of the solar system in the remote arms of the MilkyWay galaxy.
This evidence of creation shows there was no global flood, nor was there any special creation of any species, including man.
Creationism does not have to find evidence, because everything that exists, is proof of creation, ...
And if you reject that evidence then you are rejecting that creation.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 819 by Colbard, posted 12-10-2014 6:51 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 839 by Colbard, posted 12-11-2014 6:28 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 834 of 2073 (744407)
12-10-2014 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 819 by Colbard
12-10-2014 6:51 AM


back to the coin again -- let's put this story to bed.
The coin story is true, and typical of teenagers, which I was at the time. What the mix up was did not concern me at the time and neither did I find out.
So you continue to waffle back and forth on this, now implying that you (or someone) just mixed up the information and that it "did not concern" you at the time.
You also claimed that you did not trust 14C dating because of the coin story.
You are going to have to choose whether the story is absolutely true (according to your memory anyway) or a mixup.
If it was just a mixup then you have no cause to distrust 14C dating.
But if it is true, then you still have no cause to distrust 14C dating ... for reasons that should be obvious when you know how 14C dating works.
Whether or not there was any carbon in the coin and whether or not it was actually tested by a lab (which I absolutely doubt without corroborating documentation) is really irrelevant to whether or not you can date a metal coin with 14C measurements.
Now I've explained this to you before, but let me repeat it in a little more detail so that maybe it will sink in, and maybe you will learn something.
Image from How Carbon-14 Dating Works -- see link for information on this if you doubt what I say.
The measurement of 14C compared to 12C is only used to date organic matter -- things that were living.
The reason for this is that during the life of the organism it takes up (consumes) carbon from the atmosphere.
Coins are incapable of doing this.
Carbon-14 is formed constantly in the atmosphere from cosmic rays from the sun hitting nitrogen-14 atoms, and this sets the basic ratio between 14C and 12C in the atmosphere.
The 14C dating method is based on the decay of 14C in the organism after the organism dies.
Up until death the 14C faction is replenished in the organism from the atmosphere (which is constantly replenished by the cosmic ray bombardment).
Coins don't "die" they are inanimate non-life. So there is no take-up of carbon by the coin.
It is the death of an organism that starts the 14C "clock" and without death of an organism you do not have a start for the clock.
Without a valid start for the clock you cannot get a date.
So even if it is possible that there was carbon in your coin it does not give you a date, just a measurement of 14C and 12C.
There are alternate sources of 14C than the atmosphere, so just measuring 14C and 12C does not give you a date. You must eliminate other possible sources, and you must have the preconditions of it being from an organism that consumed atmospheric carbon while living.
In addition there are alternate reservoirs of carbon that some organisms consume, such as marine organisms. In these cases there will need to be a correction to the dating data to reflect the different 14C/12C ratio available in that reservoir. This is discussed in detail at Corrections to radiocarbon dates..
Coins do not meet that precondition for testing, and any data obtained does not indicate a date for the coin.
Do you understand this?
Thus you have no honest reason to doubt 14C dating based on this coin story -- whether it is true or false.
Can you admit this, or are you going to continue to play games with this ridiculous claim as only a fool\troll would do?
It is your choice whether you want to be seen as a valid debater or as a fool\troll.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 819 by Colbard, posted 12-10-2014 6:51 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 840 by Colbard, posted 12-11-2014 6:45 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 850 of 2073 (744438)
12-11-2014 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 840 by Colbard
12-11-2014 6:45 AM


beta decay acceleration now
So if the beta decay is increased somehow while the carbon is in the ground, then we will have the reading for a very old bone.
Round up the usual suspects ... we now have excuse #2 ... the typical creationist-who-doesn't-understand-radiation-decay-physics approach ... blame something you are ignorant of.
Short answer, no. Such decay acceleration has not been observed in general, for carbon in specific.
Long answer see Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? for a discussion on noticeable physics effects with changing decay rates.
The earth radiates alpha and beta particles as if it has a surplus, could this process accelerate the decay rate while the object is buried
Ground radiation is common, but the presence of one radioactive element does not change the decay rate of an adjacent radioactive element. The presence of uranium in the ground has been observed causing a low level of 14C to be created, causing a false younger date in very old samples.
A rate which is far slower in lab conditions?
Why would presence in a lab make it different? Wouldn't these same alpha and beta particles that you posit as being rampant in the earth also affect the lab? Or is it not part of the earth?
The belief in evolution was not very strong in my school, some thought it was a joke and most did not think about it. ...
Curiously that has no affect on the reality of evolution processes being observed and documented or of those processes being fully capable of explaining the diversity of life we see from the fossil record, the genetic record, history, and the life around us.
Or are you mixing up evolution and age of the earth in your argument even though one does not depend on the other?
... Did I hear someone else's results? Probably,
So you are back to saying it was a mixup because you were a poor student that didn't pay attention.
But now, today, you can argue against science because of some magic knowledge that you suddenly have in spite of being a poor student?
I assumed it was an error, not because I understood carbon dating, but because I did not believe the earth was that old, let alone the coin. I thought carbon dating was somehow wrong and did not know how.
The earth is not "2500 years old"? That's a new one. Are you having trouble keeping your story straight?
And now you are back to the coin 14C date being 2500 years. Waffle waffle waffle.
and your "evidence" for the error is your a priori belief in a young earth ...
... and that you were given results in a school that was not strong on science but somehow could afford multiple 14C lab tests run for a children's school class, ... must be nice to go to a rich school that throws money at tests like this for the kids.
... results that you did not question in any way because you were not interested in learning.
If you want to discuss real evidence for the minimum age of the earth see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, evidence that does not rely on bogus 14C dates, or any 14C or other radiometric dates at all (for that matter).
I still assume it is wrong because I have studied the global flood as a hobby, and it adds up fine.
Perhaps you would care to start a thread on this topic so you can present your evidence and findings? It might be fun.
Not surprisingly I expect that you don't ask a lot of questions to test your conclusions, so it will be interesting if you can actually provide some detail to this claim ... more substantial than your waffled evidence on the coin dating.
After all, if you have studied it as a hobby you must have lots of data.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 840 by Colbard, posted 12-11-2014 6:45 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 858 by Colbard, posted 12-11-2014 9:25 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 860 of 2073 (744454)
12-11-2014 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 852 by Colbard
12-11-2014 8:03 AM


Dr Karl is one of the scientists who made the comment on ABC radio science talk that the survey did not consider the inclusiveness of Christian organizations etc
quote:
(your wiki link): He holds 'a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics and Mathematics, a Master of Biomedical Engineering, and a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, he has studied Computer Science as well as reading for a Master of Science (Qualifying) degree in Astrophysics. He has worked as a physicist, a tutor/research assistant, a filmmaker, a car mechanic, a road manager, a taxi driver, a scientific officer in a hospital, a t-shirt manufacturer, a doctor, an academic, an author, a public speaker, a television presenter and reporter, a script writer, a weather man, a radio panelist, science reporter, writer and presenter, and a script consultant.[4]
Sounds a bit like Australia's answer to Bill Nye the Science Guy ...
So what is "Dr Karl's" take on evolution, 14C dating and the age of the earth? Climate change?
What are his peer reviewed articles on these subjects? (none?)
His book "Munching Maggots, Noah's Flood and TV Heart Attacks and other cataclysmic science moments" says that "Noah's Flood" was likely local and limited to the Black Sea ... do you agree with him on this?
Dr Karl is one of the scientists who made the comment on ABC radio science talk that the survey did not consider the inclusiveness of Christian organizations etc
Which is a fair comment ... if it is backed up with data on the proportions of students taken in by Christian schools compared to public schools, otherwise it would be an unsupported assumption.
Is this trend similar to the one shown in Percy's graph for the amount of acceptance of students by the different sects?
Or is this something that would only change the results by <10% (rather insignificant to the overall trend).
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 852 by Colbard, posted 12-11-2014 8:03 AM Colbard has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 870 of 2073 (744522)
12-11-2014 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 858 by Colbard
12-11-2014 9:25 AM


a new thread on the Flood?
RAZD writes:
Perhaps you would care to start a thread on this topic so you can present your evidence and findings? It might be fun.
And have the thread filled with abuse? What for?
Well, if you actually have objective empirical evidence that you can present clearly there should be no problem.
If you evidence is similar to your coin story then yes you could expect a similar response and for the same reason: you need to substantiate claims with objective empirical evidence.
If you enter an axe fight with a wet noodle you can expect the noodle to be sliced and diced by everyone skeptical of your claims.
But would be interesting to compare your evidence to what Faith has provided ... and see if it is any better.
On the other hand, if you want to review the evidence against a world wide flood you can start with reading Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? (it can be reopened for comments) ...
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 858 by Colbard, posted 12-11-2014 9:25 AM Colbard has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 874 of 2073 (744567)
12-12-2014 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 873 by dwise1
12-12-2014 11:25 AM


What will make you change your mind ...
So, Colbard, what will you feel and say when your world of conclusions is proven wrong?
The other question than can be asked is what I call the "Bill Nye Question" (from the debate with Ken Hamm):
What will make you change your mind?
Nye's (and my) answer is evidence, objective empirical evidence, that invalidates previous scientific theory.
Ken Hamm's answer was "nothing" -- and that is typical creationist belief, not bound by evidence or reality.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 873 by dwise1, posted 12-12-2014 11:25 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 877 by Phat, posted 12-13-2014 7:32 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 879 of 2073 (744616)
12-13-2014 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 877 by Phat
12-13-2014 7:32 AM


Re: What will make you change your mind ...
quote:
What will make you change your mind?

For me personally, evidence wont likely have me change my mind on a macro level concerning my belief and philosophy, ...
Well, Phat, I would not expect one to change one's whole world view based on one piece of evidence ... in part because I think world views are extremely resistant to overall change.
What I expect is that some lesser beliefs may become questioned\questionable, such as the age of the earth or the actuality of the Noachin Flood.
As an open minded skeptic I see no real problem with belief that doesn't run counter to the evidence of old age in specific and science in general -- science is how we know how the creation works, as it is direct evidence of that creation.
I like your questing approach, no matter how tortuous the path.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 877 by Phat, posted 12-13-2014 7:32 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(4)
Message 890 of 2073 (744789)
12-15-2014 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 884 by Colbard
12-15-2014 6:46 AM


Re: A Q of authority
Sorry, but you are so wrong and deceived, ...
Curious, though, isn't it, that we come from different areas, different educations, different upbringing, yet we agree on the basics, the knowledge of scientific evidence and what it means. Things like the age of the earth, ... yet you (singular) with shoddy education can tell this.
Let us assume that one of us (including you) is "so wrong and deceived" then which one is it likely to be? Percy? Ringo? Coyote? Jar? Dr Adequate? Me? yet we agree ... so that leaves you as the odd duck out doesn't it?
Cognitive dissonance theory says that one of the normal reactions to evidence and information that contradicts strongly held beliefs is to claim there is a conspiracy of people all plotting some deceit and fraud or hoax on the person with the strong belief.
So it is normal for you to feel this way, even when you are so evidently wrong on many things, things you fail to substantiate with any objective empirical evidence.
... but then again how could you possibly know that.
Well we could start by having a system to consistently check concepts against reality, to test beliefs against the objective empirical evidence of reality, and we can see that having concepts, beliefs and opinions that aren't contradicted by the evidence of reality puts us in agreement on a number of things in spite of those concepts, beliefs and opinions being different for different people.
It's called testing, and the best method for testing is the scientific method.
The same goes for the rest of you, sealing your own destinies by what you have sown.
What we have sown is the knowledge driven from the scientific pursuit of knowledge of how things work, and the search for new ideas and concepts that build a closer and closer approximation of the reality as it is shown to us by objective empirical evidence.
Not a bad destiny imho.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 884 by Colbard, posted 12-15-2014 6:46 AM Colbard has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 896 of 2073 (745441)
12-22-2014 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 895 by Rodnas
12-22-2014 7:12 PM


A Question of reality ... or spam?
Welcome to the fray Rodnas,
I agree, they choose what is convenient and that is not science. The following statement, however, found on p.399 of The Urantia Book has been substantiated by science; it means that the evolution of life was programmed. Urantia is Earth and the book was published in 1955.
"The original life plasm of an evolutionary world must contain the full potential for all future developmental variations and for all subsequent evolutionary changes and modifications."
Uh, not really. That concept of preprogramming has been invalidated.
There are scientists who share this view - e.g., the chemist and computer scientist Donald E. Johnson's "Programming of Life" - some of whom I use in my blog at www,prescribedevolution,com to substantiate it.
It is against forum rules to advertise here -- it is viewed as spam and you can be banned.
Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 895 by Rodnas, posted 12-22-2014 7:12 PM Rodnas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 899 by Rodnas, posted 12-23-2014 9:38 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 908 of 2073 (745560)
12-24-2014 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 899 by Rodnas
12-23-2014 9:38 AM


Re: A Question of reality ... and evidence
Thank you for the info about quotes. ...
You're welcome. I'm going to combine responses to several of your posts so it may seem a little long.
... Sorry, I did not mean to advertise only provide another source material. ...
Seeing as it is your blog then you can present the evidence here and be able to substantiate your assertions yes?
... I don't know that the concept was invalidated and I am presenting the latest scientific proof on the subject which validates it .
It is simple logic: if life is preprogrammed then the program is always followed to always end at the same result.
The evidence against this is multi-fold, but here are a couple of quick examples:
  1. extinctions -- most forms of life have gone extinct. Either the program was bad or non-existent. If bad it was more trial by error than any directed program. Evolution results in a trial by error mechanism -- what is different for it to be programmed?
  2. speciation events -- there are many instances where breeding populations have divided into two or more subpopulations that become reproductively isolated, thus forming new species. Thus you have one branch that may be following a programmed path, but the other branch didn't get the memo and took a different path.
  3. new abilities not in parent population -- instances where some populations develop a new ability that allows use of a different ecology or food source, such as eating nylon or consuming a lactose substrate. Other populations of the same species do not develop the programed ability ... or the new ability is not preprogrammed.
  4. horizontal transfer -- DNA segments transfered from one species to another are random insertions, acting exactly like mutations in providing a species with a different randomly generated set of traits subject to selection.
  5. black mice -- two geologically separate populations evolve black fur and then take advantage of nearby lava outcrops to form breeding populations of black mice. The mutations for black fur are different for the different populations. How does programming explain this?
  6. convergent evolution -- different taxon branches evolving similar behaving and appearing species, for example:
    ... where one is a North American placental mammal and the other is an Australian marsupial.
Your task now is to show how these events can be considered programmed rather than mistakes of programming or non-programmed events.
Message 901: Obviously, in order for life to evolve as it did the original genome had to contain all the components for it ...
... OR it needed a mechanism to obtain new parts.
Mutations and horizontal transfer provide new parts, but they are randomly generated and do not always yield positive new traits for survival and reproduction: many are lethal, many are in nonreproductive DNA segments, only some are useful. A shotgun pointed at a target can hit the bullseye with one or two pellets but not with all pellets.
... but it also had to have the program to make it happen. ...
Curiously what occurs is reproduction is a process that is imperfect and this imperfection results in random different arrangements compared to the original. The 'program' can't even proceed from one generation to the next without making mistakes, random mistakes.
... A bunch of parts in a toy box will not become a toy until someone, reading the instructions, assembles them. ...
Which is falsely comparing living populations with inanimate objects that do not reproduce and do not undergo selection.
In evolution you have two parts that alternate to walk through life -- mutation and selection:
This is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation and it is like walking on first one foot and then the next. This simple system yields a trial and error approach that matches what we see in the natural history of life on earth.
... The program contained all the instructions for all future developmental variations (ontogeny) and subsequent evolutionary changes and modifications (phylogeny). HOX genes are a case in point.
Yet ends up with more dead-ends and missteps than direct progress ...
Message 903: Mutations were also programmed. ...
What controls the mutations and what mechanism provides the timing for it?
... In describing evolution from the earliest life forms to man, on many occasions the book lists a sudden mutation as having been the cause of fundamental evolutionary changes, e.g., the sudden appearance of the first bird from a dinosaur egg and the sudden appearance of the first placental mammal.
While 99% of all species that ever lived on earth were programmed to suddenly die off?
The theory of evolution explains the die-offs and the lethal mutations does programming? In order to have a better theory it needs to explain the same evidence in a new way that provides a different approach; the new approach needs to provide a prediction that will differentiate it from the previous theory: if x happens then y will occur by new theory while z occurs by old theory. What is this test?
... on many occasions the book lists a sudden mutation as having been the cause of fundamental evolutionary changes, ...
Sudden on what time scale? Thousands of years or one generation?
The natural history of life shows long periods of transitions in the development of both birds and mammals where some intermediate traits are seen in various species -- some lead to birds or mammals while others do not. Some populations "suddenly" spread because they are better adapted to take advantage of the ecology opportunities. In evolution theory this is known as punctuated equilibrium (or punk-eek). See Differential Dispersal Of Introduced Species - An Aspect of Punctuated Equilibrium for discussion of how radiation of successful evolved species can appear sudden in the geological record.
BTW, I am not trying to convince anyone here, only providing the latest scientific information that supports the non-Darwinian view.
Well so far you have not provided anything new nor that qualifies as latest scientific evidence to support the assertions you have made. If this is what your purpose is, then you need to start providing the objective empirical evidence rather than repeat old claims.
With the standard evolution model I can predict an increase in both speciation and extinction of species in response to the changing global climate: what does your program model predict?
Without a testable prediction it isn't science, and without a prediction that provides a different result than the standard evolution model while failing to explain all the evidence that evolution explains it is an inferior hypothesis.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 899 by Rodnas, posted 12-23-2014 9:38 AM Rodnas has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 912 of 2073 (745635)
12-25-2014 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 909 by Rodnas
12-25-2014 6:15 AM


Re: A Q of authority
Chemistry does nor require a code but biochemistry does, that's is the fundamental difference and a code requires a programmer.
At what point of adding single elements one at a time to a molecular assembly does it change from chemistry to biochemistry?
Sudden on what time scale? Thousands of years or one generation?
One generation.
Please present the fossil evidence that definitively shows one generation between pre-avian dinosaur and avian dinosaur. Show that the pre-avian dinosaur had no avian features.
Please present the fossil evidence that definitively shows one generation between pre-mammalian reptile and mammal. Show that the pre-mammalalian reptile had no mammal features.
You made the claim you must have the evidence.
We are straying from the main issue. ...
No we are trying to determine if you assertions are pure ant frass or have some faint attachment to reality. The topic is what should be taught in school -- do we have classes on fantasy or classes on science?
If we are going to have classes on fantasy then they need to provide a comparative study of all fantasies.
If we are going to have classes on science then we need to include the actual scientific evidence, theory, predictions and evaluation of the data ... and show how it follows the scientific method:
So what is a tested prediction of your model, one that shows differentiation from evolutionary biology, and how it explains all the evidence ... including the answers to my previous questions.
... You can find answers to your questions at Just a moment...
Curiously I think this is just you dodging the questions I raised because you cannot answer them and you don't want to admit -- even to yourself -- that you have no answer to these challenges to your assertions.
So I will maintain that the evidence I presented shows your claim to be invalid until you can show otherwise. Consider this a gift for you, a challenge for you to evaluate with critical thinking.
AND we do not debate by referring to a website. You can quote from the website what you feel is the best evidence for your claims and be prepared to defend it.
So far all you have is assertion and claims that are based on assertions. In science you need objective empirical evidence ... and if we are talking about what should be taught in school as science then you need to provide the scientific support, not just more assertions.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : added image

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 909 by Rodnas, posted 12-25-2014 6:15 AM Rodnas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 916 by Rodnas, posted 12-25-2014 2:36 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 929 of 2073 (745674)
12-25-2014 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 916 by Rodnas
12-25-2014 2:36 PM


defending a thesis
I can answer your questions but they are off topic. ...
That's twice you've dodged the questions. You could easily present your argument as a course outline to study your position in school, that is why I asked you about teaching it in comparative fantasy or science, and why I listed what you would need to do to teach it as science.
So I continue to take your failure to answer the questions as tacit admission that you do not have the answers. It does not matter to me whether you answer them here or in a new thread dedicated purely to your presentation of evidence and scientific investigations that support your position. I take your failure to start such a thread as tacit admission that you don't have any.
AND I take your classic crash and burn behavior in the last several posts that resulted in your suspension as further evidence that you just do not have any such evidence. This is typical behavior caused by cognitive dissonance: first attack the people (the ad hominem logical fallacy) who are providing information that contradicts your beliefs, then claiming some kind of universal conspiracy with everyone against you.
Your anger is because you don't know how to deal with the problem caused by contradictions to your belief and people justifiably skeptical of it.
You don't get off by saying people are close-minded when you failed to take the offered open opportunity to present your information in a new thread.
... The programming of life or not is the topic, that is all.
I asked you how you would teach it in school to assist you in presentation of material to tie it in to the topic -- and you failed to take that path.
You don't get off by listing a set of websites to read when you don't (can't?) even pick out pertinent information to post from those sites and expect us to find it for you.
In school there is a process called defending a thesis: you failed to do this. I suggest you search defending a thesis and find out what it means.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 916 by Rodnas, posted 12-25-2014 2:36 PM Rodnas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 930 by NoNukes, posted 12-25-2014 9:13 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 931 of 2073 (745678)
12-25-2014 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 930 by NoNukes
12-25-2014 9:13 PM


Re: defending a thesis
1 -- he can still read as a lurker.
2 -- the answers are for all lurkers and followers, not just the poster.
3 -- many suspensions have been lifted.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 930 by NoNukes, posted 12-25-2014 9:13 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 934 by NoNukes, posted 01-04-2015 1:33 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 943 of 2073 (759607)
06-13-2015 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 940 by ggirard
06-13-2015 12:17 PM


Welcome to the fray, ggirard.
... It is conceivable that evolution is a process of creationism that has occurred over the course of hundreds of millions of years, as purported by science. There is convincing evidence that natural selection does occur. ...
Indeed there is voluminous empirical evidence that (a) the earth is very very old, and (b) that natural selection has occurred and continues to occur.
... However, to believe that natural selection is the only, or even prime, mechanism driving evolution is as much an act of faith as it is to believe in a supreme consciousness driving it. ...
Indeed, natural selection is only one process of evolution, and omitting the other processes is like trying to walk with only one leg:
Mutation is what causes the variation that selection operates on, it is random while selection is ecology\species specific.
Another factor contributing to evolution is genetic drift.
The theories of evolution and creationism aren’t mutually exclusive. ...
As already noted, creationism is not a scientific theory and thus is not on the same degree of explanatory ability as the tested and validated theory of evolution.
There are many religions and many versions of creation concepts, and the issue is not so much what you believe, but whether what you believe is contradicted by objective empirical evidence, such as the belief in a young earth.
de•lu•sion -noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)
  1. a. The act or process of deluding.
    b. The state of being deluded.
  2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
  3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.
... Personally, I find it easier to accept that there is intelligent purpose in evolution than to accept that it has been driven solely by natural selection.
You are free to believe anything you choose, reality does not care what you think, and opinions have shown remarkable lack of ability to alter it.
Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 940 by ggirard, posted 06-13-2015 12:17 PM ggirard has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 946 of 2073 (759616)
06-13-2015 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 945 by Tangle
06-13-2015 1:53 PM


Ya mean gezus gryst?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 945 by Tangle, posted 06-13-2015 1:53 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 947 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-13-2015 3:31 PM RAZD has seen this message but 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