Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 112 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-30-2017 4:26 PM
424 online now:
14174dm, CosmicChimp, Coyote, kjsimons, NoNukes, nwr, ooh-child, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (9 members, 415 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,243 Year: 6,849/21,208 Month: 2,610/2,634 Week: 273/525 Day: 32/74 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6789Next
Author Topic:   Help in teaching 11-12 Year olds (RE (Religious Education) in the UK)
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3500
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 61 of 126 (538689)
12-09-2009 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Peg
12-09-2009 6:34 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
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.

An inability to understand how conclusions are drawn for evidence, doesn't make the reality that the origin question is irrelevant to the truth of evolution a matter of opinion.

Once again with feeling: none of the evidence for evolution depends on how the origin of life occurred

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

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7401
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 62 of 126 (538709)
12-09-2009 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Peg
12-09-2009 5:49 AM


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

Would you agree that if there was no evidence for the origins of life, then a theory that describes how populations of living things change over time could still be accurate? That it could still be true that all living things are related?

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?

By showing how life slowly evolved on this planet. You could show patterns of relatedness confirmed by morphological and genetic examinations. You could show changes in the types of life that exist throughout the fossil record.

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.

Should I call up my local cancer research lab and tell them their task is also impossible on the same grounds (perhaps moreso since a heck of a lot more time and money has gone into cancer research)?


If all children are taught that in science class, i'll be happpy.

I thought they were taught that. As a child I could have quite happily told you that 'at the moment, nobody knows how life originated but scientists think it was something along these lines...'. This is a true set of facts about the world - I assume you don't object? I could have told you that when I was ten years old, and I was never given any other impression when I was fourteen and I did it at high school and the subject received about a paragraph of our time.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Peg, posted 12-09-2009 5:49 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 5:39 AM Modulous has responded

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 1304 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 63 of 126 (538743)
12-09-2009 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Peg
12-09-2009 5:49 AM


What we should teach
Peg writes:

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

The origin of life and its subsequent evolution are two entirely different matters. As Mr Jack said: none of the evidence for evolution depends on how the origin of life occurred.

Wikipedia writes:

Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the MillerUrey experiment and similar experiments, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth.

Peg writes:

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.

The failure of science to completely explain something (in this case abiogenesis) is not ample reason to leap to the conclusion that no rational explanation exists, and that there must have been a supernatural cause. There are plenty of ideas about the origin of self-replicating organisms, and some scientists believe that the emergence of self-replicating entities is inevitable.

Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker writes:

"What is the vital ingredient that a dead planet like the early Earth must have, if it is to have a chance of eventually coming alive, as our planet did? It is not breath, not wind, not any kind of elixir or potion. It is not a substance at all, it is a property, the property of self-replication. This is the basic ingredient of cumulative selection. There must somehow, as a consequence of the ordinary laws of physics, come into being self-copying entities..."

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Peg, posted 12-09-2009 5:49 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 593 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 64 of 126 (538760)
12-09-2009 4:47 PM
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.

No, this is an analogy that actualy works: We're talking about your baby's development, whather s/he's learned to walk yet, what foods s/he eats, etc. I don't have to know who the father is, nor do I care overly much. I know a father exists, as scientists know an origin happened, but these scientists don't really care what that origin is because the specific origin has no bearing on the development after the origin.

What you're arguing is that before I can discuss your baby and his/her development, I must first know who the father is. Why should I care? It's not pertinent to the conversation.

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

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1544 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 65 of 126 (538773)
12-09-2009 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Peg
12-09-2009 6:18 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Scientists know that life became prolific during the cambrian period, fully formed and in great variety.

prolific, yes, but the diversity occured long before the Cambrian. The ancestor of protostomes (such as Arthropods, Tardigrates, Barachiozoa, Mollusca etc.) and deuterostomes (such as Chordates & Ecinoderms) separated back in the Pre-Cambrian. (The Ancestor's Tale, Richard Dawkins, pg378.) The Cambrian Lasted 54 million years and these changes occured over the entire period not all at once.

Edited by bluescat48, : missing "/"

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


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


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 2284 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 66 of 126 (538782)
12-10-2009 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Modulous
12-09-2009 10:44 AM


Re: what kids are taught
Modulous writes:

Would you agree that if there was no evidence for the origins of life, then a theory that describes how populations of living things change over time could still be accurate?

considering the toe has changed somewhat over the years, and scientists have been hotly debating the theory, then it is possible that that a theory could be wrong.

Modulous writes:

Would you agree that if there was no evidence for the origins of life, then a theory that describes how populations of living things change over time could still be accurate? That it could still be true that all living things are related?

are all living things related?

how is a fish and a cow related? a dog and a cat??

thier DNA is not identicle, so how are they related?
Also, man and the ape may look similar, but it is impossible for man and ape to hybridize which kind of indicates that they are not related, yes?

Modulous writes:

By showing how life slowly evolved on this planet. You could show patterns of relatedness confirmed by morphological and genetic examinations. You could show changes in the types of life that exist throughout the fossil record.

what genetic evidence is found in fossils? Can they draw dna from them? Have they done so?

Modulous writes:

Should I call up my local cancer research lab and tell them their task is also impossible on the same grounds (perhaps moreso since a heck of a lot more time and money has gone into cancer research)?

what has cancer got to do with the subject??? Dont shy away from the fact that non living matter does not come to life. Its what scientists themselves have shown time and time again. This fact presents a major problem for how evolution got started...without non living matter springing to life, there could be no evolution

and we are just expected to believe that non living matter sprang to life even though good science has shown that its impossible????

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 12-09-2009 10:44 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Granny Magda, posted 12-10-2009 5:53 AM Peg has responded
 Message 69 by Wounded King, posted 12-10-2009 5:54 AM Peg has responded
 Message 77 by Modulous, posted 12-10-2009 6:52 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 8 days)
Posts: 2300
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 67 of 126 (538784)
12-10-2009 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Peg
12-10-2009 5:39 AM


Peg's DNA
how is a fish and a cow related? a dog and a cat??

thier DNA is not identicle, so how are they related?

Your DNA is not identical to your parents, so how are you related to them? Congratulations, you have just argued your way to illegitimacy.

Or, you might like to rethink that question.


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 66 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 5:39 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 6:23 AM Granny Magda has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 68 of 126 (538785)
12-10-2009 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Granny Magda
12-09-2009 7:00 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Granny Magda writes:

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?

its not about which God/gods was the creator in this case...its about 'creation' as opposed to an unguided natural phenomenon

the creator has proof in the form of eyewitnesses (whether you believe them or not is not the point)

evolution has no eyewitness and no proof as to how it got started.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Granny Magda, posted 12-09-2009 7:00 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Granny Magda, posted 12-10-2009 6:08 AM Peg has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1449 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 69 of 126 (538786)
12-10-2009 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Peg
12-10-2009 5:39 AM


Re: what kids are taught
thier DNA is not identicle, so how are they related?

Your DNA is not identical to that of your parents, does that mean you aren't related? I'm not talking about the fact that you only inherited ~1/2 of your genetic complement from each parent but about the fact that you are likely to have ~100 or more novel genetic mutations that neither of your parents had.

We can use genetic to determine degrees of relatedness in humans, what makes you think the exact same approach becomes impossible when we look at other animals?


TTFN,

WK

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 5:39 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 6:55 AM Wounded King has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 8 days)
Posts: 2300
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 70 of 126 (538789)
12-10-2009 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Peg
12-10-2009 5:54 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
its not about which God/gods was the creator in this case...

Of course it is. You claim that it's Yaweh or the highway. That's a false dichotomy. You have excluded the mean, excluded all other options out of hand.

its about 'creation' as opposed to an unguided natural phenomenon

And the point that is being made ad nauseum is that either of those origins are compatible with evolution.

God created simple life... and it evolved.

Life arose through unguided chemical processes... and it evolved.

You seem determined to misunderstand this. In what way can you completely rule out a deity creating the first simple replicators? I cannot. Can you?

the creator has proof in the form of eyewitnesses (whether you believe them or not is not the point)

It very much is the point. Millennia-old religious tracts do not count as eye-witnesses and their testimony is irrelevant to the origins of life (unless you are credulous enough to believe everything you read).

evolution has no eyewitness and no proof as to how it got started

No eyewitnesses? That sounds entirely consistent with the theory that when life arose it was extremely simple. No eyewitness would be possible.


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 68 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 5:54 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 6:30 AM Granny Magda has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 71 of 126 (538790)
12-10-2009 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Huntard
12-09-2009 7:03 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Huntard writes:

Why? God could've made the first life (which evidence shows are not the "created kinds"). And it could've evolved from there.

I know ther are many prominent Christian religious groups who accept that God used evolution to create life. Some teach that he preprogrammed the universe to develop on its own...this is theistic evolution. Jesus Christ did not believe in theistic evolution and we know this becuase he used the genesis account to reaffirm the sanctity of marriage specifically mentioning the creation of Adam and Eve. His disciple Luke also believed the Genesis account for in his Gospel he traces Jesus genealogy all the way back to Adam.

If anyone knew about how life got started it was Jesus for he was the one who worked along side the Creator at the founding of the universe. I trust that he knew what he was talking about.

Huntard writes:

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

no, thats just me not being able to separate 'evolution' from 'origins' again. To put it another way....if the 'origin' of life was by non living matter coming to life, then those creatures that first appeared were not direct creations by God.

Im aware that animals can become varied over time...they diversify in their features. I dont believe they develop into new species though (depending on what you define as a species)

For example, i was watching a nature program just tonight and they were looking at how the females are the ones who propel'evolutionary change' (as he called it) because they choose mates with the best traits.

Fair enough i can go along with that. But then he showed an example of a particular african fish where the male comes in a huge variety of colours. (not sure of the name of the fish)

Then he goes and spoils it all by calling every different coloured male a 'new species' ... "a brilliant example of evolution at work"

seriously, what is a species these days??? And why would he call the different colored males a new species???

Edited by Peg, : spelling

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Huntard, posted 12-09-2009 7:03 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Wounded King, posted 12-10-2009 6:35 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 82 by Huntard, posted 12-10-2009 7:48 AM Peg has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 72 of 126 (538791)
12-10-2009 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Granny Magda
12-10-2009 5:53 AM


Re: Peg's DNA
Granny Magda writes:

Your DNA is not identical to your parents, so how are you related to them? Congratulations, you have just argued your way to illegitimacy.

Or, you might like to rethink that question.

identicle wasnt the right word, you are right.

the DNA can tell you what type an animal you are examining...whether its human whether its horse or cow or pelican is what I meant.

why can the DNA do that if there is not a similar pattern to be found in the various species?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Granny Magda, posted 12-10-2009 5:53 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Granny Magda, posted 12-10-2009 6:32 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 73 of 126 (538792)
12-10-2009 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Granny Magda
12-10-2009 6:08 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Granny Magda writes:

Of course it is. You claim that it's Yaweh or the highway. That's a false dichotomy. You have excluded the mean, excluded all other options out of hand.

no you are wrong.

its not about which God at all. Its about creation vs evolution.

Granny Magda writes:

And the point that is being made ad nauseum is that either of those origins are compatible with evolution.

God created simple life... and it evolved.

Life arose through unguided chemical processes... and it evolved.

the very earliest lifeforms were far from simple, so there goes your first point

chemicals do not come to life, there goes your second.

DNA prevents species jumping the very real barrier that keeps them replicating in the manner of their parents.... so none of what you've said has any founding.

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Granny Magda, posted 12-10-2009 6:08 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Granny Magda, posted 12-10-2009 6:40 AM Peg has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 8 days)
Posts: 2300
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 74 of 126 (538793)
12-10-2009 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Peg
12-10-2009 6:23 AM


Re: Peg's DNA
Okay,
I have to say that WK is far better placed to explain this than I. Basically though, you and I do have similar DNA to all other living creatures. It is often mentioned that we share 90% of our DNA with chimps, but we also share a large portion of our DNA with strawberries. All living things share DNA, to a greater or lesser extent.

We accept that shared DNA can be used to determine relatedness in humans, so, as WK asked, why should this suddenly stop working between species? Don't you think it's a bit of a co-incidence that genetic relatedness corresponds to morphological similarity?


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 72 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 6:23 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1449 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 75 of 126 (538794)
12-10-2009 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Peg
12-10-2009 6:13 AM


Sounds like Cichlids
Fair enough i can go along with that. But then he showed an example of a particular african fish where the male comes in a huge variety of colours. (not sure of the name of the fish)

Then he goes and spoils it all by calling every different coloured male a 'new species' ... "a brilliant example of evolution at work"

seriously, what is a species these days??? And why would he call the different colored males a new species???

Sounds like it might be Cichlids they are a pretty popular model organism for studying speciation. In which case the various different coloured males may well have been distinct species since there can be dozens of cichlid species in just one lake.

The reason they are different species is because the different populations from which the different coloured males come tend not to interbreed with the other populations, even if they live in the same area. This is pre-mating reproductive isolation and can be considered either sufficient to categorise different species or at least good evidence for incipient speciation. in most cases there are many other differences between the different cichlid populations apart from colour, the cichlids show a wide range of different morphologies (see this link).


TTFN,

WK

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Peg, posted 12-10-2009 6:13 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
6789Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017