Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-29-2017 7:12 AM
303 online now:
frako, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 299 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,142 Year: 6,748/21,208 Month: 2,509/2,634 Week: 172/525 Day: 5/82 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
9Next
Author Topic:   Help in teaching 11-12 Year olds (RE (Religious Education) in the UK)
Vacate
Member (Idle past 1954 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


(1)
Message 46 of 126 (538589)
12-08-2009 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Peg
12-07-2009 11:50 PM


Percydidit?
you cannot have evolution without first having origins

This is true.

Its much like saying this debate couldn't take place without first having a forum. I notice however that nobody has discussed if this forum arose from natural processes or if created from an intelligent designer. I assume that an intelligent designer created it, though its unimportant really. The evolution of this debate is able to take place regardless of origins.

the are not disctinct because logically {...}

Logically can any of you now continue this debate without first talking about forum origins?

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 11:50 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Peg, posted 12-09-2009 5:39 AM Vacate has responded

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7395
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 47 of 126 (538623)
12-08-2009 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Peg
12-07-2009 10:49 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
thats exactly what i'm talking about. There was no life, then in this soup of 'goup', life evolved

No. You were talking about evidence for claims being made to school kids in the UK. And there is evidence for the claim that scientists believe 'x'. I suspect you agree there is, otherwise this conversation wouldn't be happening.

If that were true, then surely scientists would be able to reproduce it in the lab.

Scientists have so far been unable to reproduce Henry VIII ruling Engand in the lab. Why would they have more success with an event that occurred billions of years before written records began?

We have all the chemicals here, all the building blocks of life are right here, so you would expect that they could reproduce this amazing thing called 'life'

Why would you expect that? You sound like an someone arguing that with 15th Century technology and knowledge, surely we should be should be able to turn lead into gold. But...why would that actually be the case?

And it's entirely beyond the point.

Unless children are being taught that scientists have done these things, it is not on topic. If you could show that school children are taught some origin of life theory as if it were factually demonstrated - then you'd be (at least somewhat) on topic. But I suspect you can't.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 10:49 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Peg, posted 12-09-2009 5:49 AM Modulous has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 48 of 126 (538635)
12-08-2009 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by JJtheJester
10-20-2009 6:48 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Jester writes:

Please let me know *which* subject this topic be covered in?

Probably Incoherent Philosophical Masturbation 101. Seriously, no one who honestly seeks to understand either science or religion would do so by pitting them one against the other. You merely risk teaching the children that evolution is somehow a religious concept, and that religion is in some way a science, neither of which are remotely true.

We also look at issues such as abortion and when does life begin ... this is a scientific question which has a bearing on what people believe to be right.

Believe all they want; no amount of thinking makes an apple of an orange.

Let me ask you, what religions do you specifically cover in your class?

Jon


[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by JJtheJester, posted 10-20-2009 6:48 AM JJtheJester has not yet responded

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3500
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 49 of 126 (538655)
12-08-2009 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Peg
12-07-2009 7:26 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
ok, so if we look at what evolutionists teach, it should be able to be tested and varified like gravity can. Gravity can be demonstrated, tested, and proved in the lab and elsewhere.

As indeed, it can.

so tell me, does the evidence support the evolution of life from inanimate chemicals? Has that be tested in a lab and has it been proved that inanimate chemicals can make the leap from non living to living matter?

For the hundred, trillion, billionth time: EVOLUTION DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.

Why do Creationists struggle so with this insanely simple point?

And, in any case, we know for a cast iron fact that life emerged from non-life. We know, for a fact, no life 13.7 billion years and no life on earth 4.5 billion years ago. We also know that was life on Earth by 3 billion years ago, and probably 3.8 billion years ago. Therefore between these two times some kind of life emerged from non life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 7:26 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Peg, posted 12-09-2009 6:18 AM Dr Jack has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 2283 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 50 of 126 (538672)
12-09-2009 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Huntard
12-08-2009 1:53 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Huntard writes:

No it isn't. Since god is supernatural. yeyt evolution isn't origins.

And this is exactly why evolution is so illogical. How can something just be here without having a beginning?

no God = no supernatural

but

no origin = evolution

Huntard writes:

Yes, but how they came about is, repeat after me, irrelevant.

how life came about may be irrelevant to some, but to others its the most important question they'll ever ask.

So if scientists want to say that we got here by evolution...then they need to also explain what started evolution off. This they cannot do because they cannot reproduce it. That tells us something very important about living matter...it doesnt happen by chance.

Huntard writes:

For the origins yes. The picture of evolution has long since been "complete" (well, you know, as complete as something can be in science).

only because they believe the origins is irrelevant. IMO, they have been sucked into a hole that they cant get out of because they cant get life to evolve in the lab. Therefore they cant test and prove their theory so rather then admit that the theory may be wrong, they simply ignore origins and say its irrelevant to evolution.

There are many people who refuse to buy into it.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Huntard, posted 12-08-2009 1:53 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Huntard, posted 12-09-2009 5:53 AM Peg has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 2283 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 51 of 126 (538674)
12-09-2009 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Vacate
12-08-2009 5:11 AM


Re: Percydidit?
Vacate writes:

I notice however that nobody has discussed if this forum arose from natural processes or if created from an intelligent designer. I assume that an intelligent designer created it, though its unimportant really. The evolution of this debate is able to take place regardless of origins.

that is very good reasoning...I absolutely understand what you are saying.

However, what if the use of this forum required your credit card details. You might then be inclind to find out more about it...who set it up, why you have to pay and what your money is being used for.

Would this not make the origin of the forum a very important issue?

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Vacate, posted 12-08-2009 5:11 AM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Vacate, posted 12-09-2009 6:01 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 2283 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 52 of 126 (538676)
12-09-2009 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Modulous
12-08-2009 10:10 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Modulous writes:

You were talking about evidence for claims being made to school kids in the UK. And there is evidence for the claim that scientists believe 'x'.

If there is no evidence for how evolution began, then there is no evidence that the theory of evolution is accurate.

Remember the theory is that life, including humans, slowly evolved on this planet. If they cant show how that evolution began, how can they claim evidence for the theory?

Modulous writes:

Scientists have so far been unable to reproduce Henry VIII ruling Engand in the lab. Why would they have more success with an event that occurred billions of years before written records began?

Apparently, because its a natural occurance which did not need intelligence to propell it.

Modulous writes:

Unless children are being taught that scientists have done these things, it is not on topic.

what children need to be taught is that scientists HAVE ATTEMPTED these things and failed again and again and again and again...and why have they failed?

because its impossible for non living things to come to life. If all children are taught that in science class, i'll be happpy.

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Modulous, posted 12-08-2009 10:10 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 12-09-2009 10:44 AM Peg has responded
 Message 63 by Briterican, posted 12-09-2009 2:36 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2854
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 53 of 126 (538677)
12-09-2009 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Peg
12-09-2009 5:27 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Peg writes:

And this is exactly why evolution is so illogical. How can something just be here without having a beginning?


But life has a beginning, it just isn't adressed by evolution. How hard is that to understand.

no God = no supernatural

but

no origin = evolution


There is an origin, it's just not adressed by evolution. Also, god could've been that origin. That is playing god of the gaps however.

how life came about may be irrelevant to some, but to others its the most important question they'll ever ask.

You misunderstood me. It is irrelevant pertaining to evolution.

So if scientists want to say that we got here by evolution...then they need to also explain what started evolution off.

The first life started evolution off. How that came about is completely utterly and totally irrelevant. God could've created it, aliens could've made it, abiogenesis could be the explanation. It doesn't matter.

This they cannot do because they cannot reproduce it. That tells us something very important about living matter...it doesnt happen by chance.

Because we can't yet reproduce some form of abiogenesis in the past what, 50 years? It couldn't happen "by cahance" at all?

only because they believe the origins is irrelevant.

They don't. It is irrelevant to evolution however.

IMO, they have been sucked into a hole that they cant get out of because they cant get life to evolve in the lab.

They have seen life evolve in the lab. They haven't seen life originate in the lab. There is a difference, Peg.

Therefore they cant test and prove their theory so rather then admit that the theory may be wrong, they simply ignore origins and say its irrelevant to evolution.

The theory of evolution doesn't involve the origins. How many times have you been told this now? Really, why doesn't it register with you that the theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origins of life, and that it doesn't matter one bit how life came about.

There are many people who refuse to buy into it.

Because they apparently don't understand the two things are independent of one another. It's like discussing the developmental history of planes starting 60 years ago and on to today. the Wright brothers don't even need to be mentioned here, yet we can still discuss this developmental history. It's the same with evolution it starts when there is life. Before that, it's not evolution.

Please make it register this time, Peg. Pretty please?

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 12-09-2009 5:27 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Peg, posted 12-09-2009 6:34 AM Huntard has responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 1954 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 54 of 126 (538679)
12-09-2009 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Peg
12-09-2009 5:39 AM


Re: Percydidit?
However, what if the use of this forum required your credit card details. You might then be inclind to find out more about it...who set it up, why you have to pay and what your money is being used for.

For sure. I have my doubts though that those type of questions are on topic or relevant to this thread (for example). Though origins of this forum or of life itself are both important issues they are irrelevant when not talking about those issues. Evolution and origins are linked, but they are not one in the same. To keep insisting that they are is just as annoying as me bringing up forum origins every time you want to have a discussion on this board. Its irrelevant wouldn't you agree? Important perhaps, but irrelevant.

from your post to Huntard above writes:

no origin = evolution

Do you now perhaps understand why this statement is unimportant to the topic of evolution? Sure the origin of life is important, wihtout a start there is no evolution. Equally without Percy starting this forum we are unable to debate on this board. Its worthy of a seperate thread, but its not always on topic or relevant.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Peg, posted 12-09-2009 5:39 AM Peg has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 2283 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 55 of 126 (538680)
12-09-2009 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Dr Jack
12-08-2009 5:55 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
If i told that you I had a baby, but there is no father, you'd call me nuts. Yet that is what evolutionsists expect us to believe with regard to evolution of life.

MrJack writes:

And, in any case, we know for a cast iron fact that life emerged from non-life. We know, for a fact, no life 13.7 billion years and no life on earth 4.5 billion years ago. We also know that was life on Earth by 3 billion years ago, and probably 3.8 billion years ago. Therefore between these two times some kind of life emerged from non life.

Not quite.

Scientists know for a fact that life emerged full stop.

they dont know from where it emerged, or how it emerged.

Scientists know that life became prolific during the cambrian period, fully formed and in great variety. They cant prove that evolution from the muck was how that life got there...they cant show that a slow evolving from the muck took place.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Dr Jack, posted 12-08-2009 5:55 PM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dr Jack, posted 12-09-2009 6:29 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Perdition, posted 12-09-2009 4:47 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 65 by bluescat48, posted 12-09-2009 11:59 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3500
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 56 of 126 (538682)
12-09-2009 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Peg
12-09-2009 6:18 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
If i told that you I had a baby, but there is no father, you'd call me nuts. Yet that is what evolutionsists expect us to believe with regard to evolution of life.

Your apples they are not oranges.

We know evolution happened because of the incredible array of independent evidence that it did. NOT ONE SHRED OF THAT EVIDENCE PERTAINS TO THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.

Scientists know for a fact that life emerged full stop.

they dont know from where it emerged, or how it emerged.

I never said otherwise.

Scientists know that life became prolific during the cambrian period, fully formed and in great variety. They cant prove that evolution from the muck was how that life got there...they cant show that a slow evolving from the muck took place.

Life was prolific long, long before the Cambrian; there was a massive diversion of multi-cellular life in the Cambrian and specifically multi-cellular life with hard, fossilisable parts.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Peg, posted 12-09-2009 6:18 AM Peg has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 2283 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


(1)
Message 57 of 126 (538684)
12-09-2009 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Huntard
12-09-2009 5:53 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Huntard writes:

Because they apparently don't understand the two things are independent of one another.

Perhaps to a person who believes in evolution, yes. (and i do get it btw)

But to a person who believes in creation, they are very much dependent on each other.

Creationists believe in a creator who created all the life we see as fully formed creatures. So when weighing up the argument for evolution, I have to weigh up two things

1. 'God Created'
and
2. 'life evolved'

If life evolved, then the beginning of life must have occured naturally as evolutionists claim. But if God created life, then the life forms that appeared on earth billions of years ago could not have evolved. They must have been made.

This is why its hard (ok impossible) for me to separate evolution from origin.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Huntard, posted 12-09-2009 5:53 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Granny Magda, posted 12-09-2009 7:00 AM Peg has responded
 Message 59 by Huntard, posted 12-09-2009 7:03 AM Peg has responded
 Message 60 by Vacate, posted 12-09-2009 7:05 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 61 by Dr Jack, posted 12-09-2009 7:42 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 7 days)
Posts: 2300
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 58 of 126 (538686)
12-09-2009 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Peg
12-09-2009 6:34 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Hi Peg,

Perhaps to a person who believes in evolution, yes. (and i do get it btw)

You say that, but from how you continue from there, it still seems as if you don't quite get it.

But to a person who believes in creation, they are very much dependent on each other.

Creationists believe in a creator who created all the life we see as fully formed creatures. So when weighing up the argument for evolution, I have to weigh up two things

1. 'God Created'
and
2. 'life evolved'

Okay, I see your point and I (hopefully) understand where you're coming from. The problem is that in taking this attitude you're setting up a false dichotomy.

In your version of events, God created all creatures fully formed. I acknowledge that this is incompatible with evolution.

The point is that evolution can be applied to far more hypothetical scenarios than just a natural origin of life.

I've shown you this list before;


  • God did it.
  • Some other god did it.
  • A whole bunch of gods did it in concert.
  • Life came from another planet.
  • Life was implanted into our reality via the hyper-dimensional ovipositor of the Queen of the Machine Elves.
  • The planet Earth is sentient and one day it just decided to grow life upon its surface.
  • A process of many chemical reactions created organic molecules of gradually increasing complexity until they eventually reached the level of complexity that we term "life".

Now any of those origins could have been followed up by evolution, yet you seek to limit us to two options; creation as per Genesis or a totally natural origin of all life. It's all or nothing. You exclude any and all other options. Why?

If you are going to say that Genesis describes divine creation (in current forms) and not anything else, I agree with you. The problem is that you seem to be assuming that if we don't go with the Genesis version, then all bets are off. Why?


Mutate and Survive

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Peg, posted 12-09-2009 6:34 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 5:54 AM Granny Magda has responded

  
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2854
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 59 of 126 (538687)
12-09-2009 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Peg
12-09-2009 6:34 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion

Peg writes:

If life evolved, then the beginning of life must have occured naturally as evolutionists claim.


Why? God could've made the first life (which evidence shows are not the "created kinds"). And it could've evolved from there. In fact, even if it were the "created kinds" evolution (or adaptation or variation as creationists like to call it) is still a fact.

But if God created life, then the life forms that appeared on earth billions of years ago could not have evolved.

So, you are asying there is absolutely no variation of any kind occurring?

This is why its hard (ok impossible) for me to separate evolution from origin.

But why? You seem to be taking a completely ilogical position here. Look at my plane development example. Would you insist on talking about the Wright brothers there?

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Peg, posted 12-09-2009 6:34 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 6:13 AM Huntard has responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 1954 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 60 of 126 (538688)
12-09-2009 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Peg
12-09-2009 6:34 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
This is why its hard (ok impossible) for me to separate evolution from origin.

Lack of imagination is no excuse.

1. God created life

1.1 to evolve.

Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Peg, posted 12-09-2009 6:34 AM Peg has not yet responded

Prev123
4
56
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017