|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
What was left here does not tell us what nature existed. Noah was left. Yet he looked the same more or less I assume. What could you tell if you had dissected Noah about the former nature???
People looked the same after the nature change, they just started to live a lot less years. Since we do not have DNA from early man we can't use that. So what DO you have??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Mutations occur now. That is what is observed. The way evolution happened in the former days we do not know.
Nor do we know what the created kinds were from which all adapting/evolving started. Nor do we know aout nature in the far past, and how creatures would have quickly evolved/adapted to that. Nor do we know that any possibility existed in that former nature for them to be able to leave fossil remains! So the fossils we do see could and probebly do only represent a small small small small fraction of what variety of life LIVED and existed also when those creatures that became the fossils we do have died!!! Science assumes the fossil record represents a good cross section/sampling of life on earth at the time of the fossil creation..no? Sorry, stop pushing your religion on kids. Edited by creation, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
So what DO you have?? I have a poster who spouts inanity without any evidence or reason.
What was left here does not tell us what nature existed. What makes you think this "nature" was any different from today? or 200,000 years ago? or 200 million years ago?
People looked the same after the nature change, they just started to live a lot less years. And your evidence for this is what?
Since we do not have DNA from early man we can't use that. You ever hear about Minnesota Woman or Kennewick Man or The Anzick boy? Considerably older then Noah, DNA and all. I know, I know, scientists couldn't possibly sequence their DNA because YOU can't comprehend the science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Science assumes the fossil record represents a good cross section/sampling of life on earth at the time of the fossil creation..no? Incorrect. That is not an assumption of scientists. Scientists do know that the fossils that have been discovered were once part of the biota of that ancient world. Science correctly assumes that only a small portion of the species living at any given time will end up fossilized. Stop pushing your religion on kids.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Since we do not have DNA from early man we can't use that. So what DO you have?? We DO have DNA from early humans and we have learned all sorts of things from it. And we can tell a lot about ancient humans and ancient animals by looking at the DNA of living humans and animals. What do you have besides ignorance, fantasies and fiction? 466 posts from you and nothing but BS.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Wrong. You have NONE from the pre flood or even early post flood era at all! The misdated (by your beliefs) remains of men you have are all post nature change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
False. They admit the fossils are a small portion of life that existed, but they also believe it represents the basic sort of life that lived then. For example, there are precambrian fossils, and they think that they represent what lived!!!!!!!! Cambrian...etc etc.
Be honest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Yes I know there are remains of mankind from long ago. The issue is HOW long ago. The dates they assign to remains are faith based nonsense. ALL remains of humans are post flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Mutations occur now. That is what is observed. The way evolution happened in the former days we do not know. We conclude the past behavior of life, the universe, etc. is similar to what we see today, because the evidence is consistent with a consistent nature, ... AND there is no evidence of it being any different "in the former days" -- you certainly have not presented any.
Nor do we know what the created kinds were from which all adapting/evolving started. ... What is a "kind" -- please define and provide examples.
... Nor do we know aout nature in the far past, and how creatures would have quickly evolved/adapted to that. ... Again, we conclude the past behavior of life, the universe, etc. is similar to what we see today, because the evidence is consistent with such a consistent nature, ... AND there is no evidence of it being any different "in the former days" -- you certainly have not presented any. Your use of "former nature" does not rest on evidence or anything but personal fantasy, and as such is no argument of any kind of value.
... Nor do we know that any possibility existed in that former nature for them to be able to leave fossil remains! So the fossils we do see could and probebly do only represent a small small small small fraction of what variety of life LIVED and existed also when those creatures that became the fossils we do have died!!! It is accepted in science that the fossils only represent a small proportion of the amount of life that has existed on this planet, and new varieties are being found constantly. Curiously they all fit into the nested hierarchies predicted by evolution. It is always good to teach multiple lines of inquiry as a way to explore the validity of ideas. Another aspect of the fossil record is the space-time matrix of where they are found. This is discussed in Alfred Russel Wallace and Biogeography:
quote: These simple observations and the correlations of fossils in time and space provide strong evidence that the fossil record is best explained by evolution. WE also have the evidence from DNA that also shows life falling into the nested hierarchies predicted by evolution, and amazingly those nested hierarchies generally match the ones from the fossil record. There have been some minor anomalies, but they have been resolved. If they were not resolvable then that would be a problem. I know you don't really understand the value of correlations as very strong supporting evidence of scientific findings, but this is another such correlation of results from two entirely separate fields of study, one that did not need to occur ... unless both are documenting the same thing, the actual pattern of evolution in the past of life as we know it.
Science assumes the fossil record represents a good cross section/sampling of life on earth at the time of the fossil creation..no? Science concludes and accepts that the fossil record is a cross section/sampling of some of the life on earth and that there are some unknowns, missing evidence, in actual lineal descent. We talk about cousins species as more accurate to the patterns of descent from common populations. So far the best explanation we have of the diversity in the fossil record is evolution. This is tested by each new fossil. It is also tested by each new genome developed from DNA. So far evolution remains the best explanation of the diversity in the fossil record. Your "we can't know the past" is not an explanation. It is also worthless for education, it teaches nothing and only fosters ignorance. Your "things may have been different in the past" is not an explanation. It is also worthless for education, it teaches nothing and only fosters ignorance. Teaching that pigs may have flown in an entirely made up different past is actually teaching ignorant falsehoods. Maybe suitable for a course on mythology and silly things some people believe, but it certainly is not history or science.
Sorry, stop pushing your religion on kids. Says the one pushing personal fantasy without any basis on evidence. Science is not religion, it's fact based conclusions and validated theory that is based on evidence to explain it, subject to change when the evidence shows anomalous or unexpected results to tests predicted by the theories developed to explain the evidence. Show me a religion ready and prepared to change if the evidence invalidates it, and that is actively seeking such evidence. We have a choice when it comes to school history and science classes: Do we teach hid-bound blind religious dogma, or do we teach flexible thinking (that constantly adapts to new evidence) and how to find testable answers to questions. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
ALL remains of humans are post flood. And your evidence for this is what?
The dates they assign to remains are faith based nonsense. You have no idea how these datings (multiple datings from multiple lines of inquiry) are achieved, do you. You do not know the science involved but it doesn't matter. The datings knock your crackpot conjectures into the trashcan and so must be wrong. Problem is, creation, you haven't ANY evidence against the datings that would challenge the multiple lines of independent scientific evidence FOR the datings. You are left with pissing into the wind. Got some on your leg there, buddy.
quote: Care to actually answer the questions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... ALL remains of humans are post flood. Let's now have a lesson on the continued failings of creationist claims: 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
Where do you draw the line for human among these skulls? Other than "A" (chimpanzee) the skulls are arranged by their space-time matrix, so what is pre-flood and what is post-flood and how can we tell? Evolution explains these skulls, creationism doesn't. In school we should teach what works, not what fails. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Wrong. You have NONE from the pre flood or even early post flood era at all! Gosh, you are so misinformed. We have a bunch and they are far more famous than you are.
The misdated (by your beliefs) remains of men you have are all post nature change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well the clues that are used to date fossils are reported when the fossils are described and when new dating methods are discovered they are published and used to check the dating on known fossils.
all post nature change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In all of history no one has shown any evidence of "nature change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" and besides we all know you just made that up. The extra exclamations are a dead giveaway that this is your imaginary, fictional fantasy.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
False. Says the guy who has never read a science book.
They admit the fossils are a small portion of life that existed, Yes, they conclude that most individual organisms do not become fossils and that many species do not become fossils.
but they also believe it represents the basic sort of life that lived then. Incorrect. Scientists conclude that obviously the organisms that fossilized lived at that time and in that place. They also know that the fossils they find at any site represent an unknown fraction of the total number of organisms and species that lived there. When fossil beds are discovered it is noted that the assemblages of species include species that are found at other sites as well as new unique species. This is exactly the same pattern that we see when observing living organisms in different modern habitats.
For example, there are precambrian fossils, and they think that they represent what lived!!!!!!!! Yes they know the fossils represent some of the species that lived, but they also know that they do not represent ALL the species that lived then and there.
Be honest. You have mis-characterized what science concludes from the fossil evidence, so I have corrected your ignorance, though I doubt you will get it.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
I daresay I think you have NO remains of any man before the flood, or even shortly after it. Your dates are wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Not true. When pictures are drawn, for example of the Cambrian world, we do not see lions and man and birds...etc etc. Face it. Those things lived at the time. Be honest about the sick models science posits of the past!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024