Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(4)
Message 769 of 2073 (744083)
12-08-2014 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 768 by Colbard
12-08-2014 8:28 AM


Re: How Should We be Teaching Science?
Colbard writes:
What will you feel and say when your world of conclusions is proven wrong?
No one here is married to any particular conclusions. We're devoted to following the evidence where it leads. When someone introduces new evidence or improved insights that lead to different conclusions then we'll think that's pretty neat.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 768 by Colbard, posted 12-08-2014 8:28 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 822 of 2073 (744353)
12-10-2014 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 819 by Colbard
12-10-2014 6:51 AM


Re: To the last few replies
Colbard writes:
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.
This makes perfect sense. The human mind is not like a video recorder. When you recall something the memory is reformed from scratch from a myriad of stored bits of information that change over time.
I let the story out to watch the seagulls fight over a stone thought to be bread, to prove that contemplative thought is not going on at all, but bickering and fault finding, which are not the elements in which to introduce truth.
No one believes this, but if true it kind of means you're a troll. It's a prime example of something trolls do, purposefully cause disruption and argument.
The only way to prove this point is to have two groups of schools, and universities, one which teaches creationism in the full sense, not half way as many denominations take it, and have the other schools strictly the regular teachings of evolution.
I think they already do this. The creationist schools are Christian schools, home schooling and Bible colleges.
Then the results can be compared in the students, for aptitude, achievements, intuition, practical skills, and every facet of learning including emotional, physical and mental balance.
Here ya go (from http://scienceblogs.com/.../26/biblical-literalism-or-low-iq, click to enlarge):
--Percy

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 838 by Colbard, posted 12-11-2014 6:18 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 842 of 2073 (744430)
12-11-2014 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 838 by Colbard
12-11-2014 6:18 AM


Re: To the last few replies
Colbard writes:
We had top scientists in Australia, examine the evidence for this survey and types like it.
Yeah, and you carbon dated a coin, too.
You've sort of ruined your credibility here. You seem to say whatever comes into your head. Does it never occur to you that claims can be verified?
So maybe you have a reference for the work of these "top scientists in Australia" who investigate studies of religious fundamentalism? By the way, after all your disparaging comments about science, why are you suddenly putting your trust in scientists? 99% of scientists accept evolution.
It so happens that church communities are far more accepting of the disadvantaged than the universities etc. and are found to be looking after them - trying to educate them, so that the conclusion - of Christians being dumber than the rest, is not only false, but shows a lack of compassion and understanding.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 838 by Colbard, posted 12-11-2014 6:18 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 844 by Colbard, posted 12-11-2014 7:16 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 848 of 2073 (744436)
12-11-2014 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 844 by Colbard
12-11-2014 7:16 AM


Re: To the last few replies
Colbard writes:
I have said from the start that I agree with science and its method of deduction and analysis, but not its conclusions of evolution, and other theories.
By what criteria do you conclude that when a scientist studies evolution he's wrong, but when a scientist studies religious surveys in Australia he's right?
You keep complaining about your treatment here, but you have a habit of making things up, you never mention evidence except while being wrong, and your basis for accepting of scientific findings seems to be whether you agree with them rather than an assessment of the evidence. Do you think errors, fabrications and irrationality should go unchallenged?
So since you didn't respond, can we assume that what you wrote in your Message 838 is just more stuff you made up:
We had top scientists in Australia, examine the evidence for this survey and types like it.
If decide to insist you didn't make it up, please provide supporting evidence of this claim.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 844 by Colbard, posted 12-11-2014 7:16 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 854 of 2073 (744442)
12-11-2014 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 852 by Colbard
12-11-2014 8:03 AM


Karl Kruszelnicki is a science popularizer, not a scientist. Let me quote you again from your Message 838:
Colbard in Message 838 writes:
We had top scientists in Australia, examine the evidence for this survey and types like it.
Perhaps what you really meant to say was, "Someone on TV commented on the survey."
I understand you feel you're being given a hard time, but you're the cause of all your problems. Whenever you say anything that can be verified, almost invariably it's wrong.
You have the entire Internet at your disposal. You could actual check what you say before clicking the "Submit" button.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 852 by Colbard, posted 12-11-2014 8:03 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 855 by Colbard, posted 12-11-2014 8:24 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 856 of 2073 (744444)
12-11-2014 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 855 by Colbard
12-11-2014 8:24 AM


Colbard writes:
In my opinion, he was correct regardless of what you think.
I didn't render an opinion on what Kruselnicki said. You made a completely unsupported claim and never provided any documentation for what he said. Given your history there's no reason to trust your claim, so why comment on its content.
What I actually said is that whenever you say anything that can be verified, almost invariably it's wrong.
Why have a forum for people to communicate when, that should not be, just text book quotes?
Again, you're the cause of all your problems because you say a great many things that turn out to be untrue or illogical. The purpose of this forum is to improve understanding through discussion, and people are informing you of your errors, fabrications and irrationality. You can take this information and improve your understanding, or you can disregard it and/or fight it (the choice of most creationists).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 855 by Colbard, posted 12-11-2014 8:24 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 859 of 2073 (744453)
12-11-2014 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 858 by Colbard
12-11-2014 9:25 AM


Re: beta decay acceleration now
Colbard writes:
And have the thread filled with abuse? What for?
We're not giving you abuse. We're just giving you the truth and you think it's abuse. (apologies to HST)
Seriously, how can you complain about being called to task for your many errors, fabrications and chains of illogic? Do you think they should just be ignored, that we should pretend they didn't happen? Also, they've become an impenetrable barrier preventing discussion of the actual topic.
If you begin confining yourself to statements that are true and make sense then the criticisms and complaints about you will greatly diminish.
--Percy

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 863 of 2073 (744462)
12-11-2014 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 833 by jar
12-10-2014 4:14 PM


Re: To the last few replies
Just a little more info for Colbard. It just occurred to me that even for coins that do include carbon, that carbon would have been mined, not taken from the atmosphere. Mined carbon will always be older than 50,000 years.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 833 by jar, posted 12-10-2014 4:14 PM jar has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 881 of 2073 (744696)
12-14-2014 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 880 by Colbard
12-14-2014 6:13 PM


Re: A Q of authority
Colbard writes:
The bottom line is that we are prone to make mistakes, both in the field of science and theology, and that we as human beings are not infallible.
Are you not human? Are you not fallible?
Having talked about it to other audiences, I am aware that the majority, if not all, are incapable of comprehending what I say, it is a matter of intelligence capacities.
Does not your fallibility include your assessments of your intellectual capacities relative to others?
Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, where the incompetent tend to overate their own abilities:
Wikipedia writes:
This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.
Sounds not too unlike blissful ignorance.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 880 by Colbard, posted 12-14-2014 6:13 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 886 of 2073 (744746)
12-15-2014 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 884 by Colbard
12-15-2014 6:46 AM


Re: A Q of authority
Colbard writes:
The same goes for the rest of you, sealing your own destinies by what you have sown.
Matt 7:1 - Judge not, that you be not judged.
Are you not also "sealing your own destinies by what you have sown?"
This discussion isn't about whether "Colbard's religious beliefs" should be taught in public school, but anyone's.
Many religious adherents believe theirs is the one, right and true religion. When you've convinced the rest that you've got the right one you let us know. Might I mention the possibility that they won't find very persuasive your claims of long study, evidence that you won't tell them, and intellectual superiority. Have you considered humility?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Wordsmithing.

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 936 of 2073 (746265)
01-05-2015 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 933 by dwise1
01-04-2015 12:17 PM


Re: A Q of authority
Babinsky's objections for why DNA is not like a computer code are very weak and unconvincing, primarily because DNA is very much like a computer code. "Brains are like computers" is a much better example of an "inaccurate metaphor."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 933 by dwise1, posted 01-04-2015 12:17 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 988 of 2073 (826967)
01-15-2018 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 985 by creation
01-14-2018 11:37 PM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
creation writes:
quote:
They need to be taught the scientific method
Mainly, that that method does not cover creation or the far past.
The scientific method covers anything in the natural world for which evidence exists. The evidence can be for anything, including the distant past. The light from stars shows them as they were years, centuries and millennia ago. Fossils show life as it was millions and billions of years ago. Archeological excavations show how humans lived centuries and millennia ago. Forensics shows what happened in a crime hours, days, and even years ago.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 985 by creation, posted 01-14-2018 11:37 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 991 by creation, posted 01-15-2018 1:32 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 995 of 2073 (827019)
01-15-2018 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 991 by creation
01-15-2018 1:32 PM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
creation writes:
percy writes:
The scientific method covers anything in the natural world for which evidence exists. The evidence can be for anything
Only if that distant universe or past also was IN the natural world. You need to do more than assume it was.
The electromagnetic radiation, cosmic rays, gravity, electric fields, magnetic fields, meteorites, comets, etc., that we observe arriving here from the distant universe are all natural. The scientific method is designed to study natural phenomena.
By the way, I didn't just say "The evidence can be for anything." I said, "The evidence can be for anything, including the distant past" (questioning whether we could study the past was the main point of your Message 985). I then continued on to explain why that was true:
Percy in Message 988 writes:
The light from stars shows them as they were years, centuries and millennia ago. Fossils show life as it was millions and billions of years ago. Archeological excavations show how humans lived centuries and millennia ago. Forensics shows what happened in a crime hours, days, and even years ago.
Will the majority of your posts really be just one sentence?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 991 by creation, posted 01-15-2018 1:32 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 999 by creation, posted 01-16-2018 9:49 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1006 of 2073 (827076)
01-16-2018 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 999 by creation
01-16-2018 9:49 AM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
creation writes:
Yes, things arrive here. We THEN see them in time here. Our time and space. So, for example if light here moves at x speed in our time and spae, we know that. Now, how fast does it move in deep space, do you know? Remember you may not use anything in our time and solar system area where WE see the light as a basis for claiming time related issues ut in far space.
I addressed this already in Message 678 in thread Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 999 by creation, posted 01-16-2018 9:49 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1007 by creation, posted 01-17-2018 10:06 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1010 of 2073 (827097)
01-17-2018 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1007 by creation
01-17-2018 10:06 AM


Re: Separate school and state and religion
creation writes:
percy writes:
We not only see things from here, we also see things from our space probes. Obviously space-time is the same all the way out to the Voyager spacecraft that are now way way out beyond Pluto, since they continue to work normally as designed.
That does not address anything outside the area of the solar system and earth actually. Try again.
There's no reason to try again. I and others have already explained how we know that the laws of nature are the same everywhere we look in the universe.
But regarding your specific and erroneous claim that we only see things from here, I provided the example of space probes that can see things from as far away as outside the boundaries of the solar system (Voyager 1 left the solar system in August of 2012).
No probe has even gotten on light day away yet.
True - so what? Voyager 1 is about .7 of a light day away. Is a light day your threshold? If a probe reaches a distance of a light day from the sun and still perceives things out there as being the same as here, will that settle it for you? Because in about 15 years Voyager 1 will be about a light day away.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1007 by creation, posted 01-17-2018 10:06 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1015 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 4:11 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024