Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Both or neither.
sconzey
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 134 (55425)
09-14-2003 6:33 PM


Teach either Creation AND Evolution as two conflicting THEORIES that go with the evidence, or teach neither.
Just don't teach either as science, cos they aren't. Science is to do with the PRESENT. Conducting experiments, measuring the results and repeating them yada yada yada.
I'm sure you are all familliar with scientific method, if you aren't you shouldn't be here.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by sidelined, posted 09-14-2003 6:40 PM sconzey has not replied
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2003 7:10 PM sconzey has not replied
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 09-14-2003 7:13 PM sconzey has not replied
 Message 5 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-15-2003 12:42 AM sconzey has not replied
 Message 6 by Dr Jack, posted 09-15-2003 9:51 AM sconzey has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 2 of 134 (55427)
09-14-2003 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sconzey
09-14-2003 6:33 PM


Sconzey Ok why don't you inform us of what the scientific method is?Then you can us tell just exactly what is The Theory of Creation and how it squares with the evidence.Do you even know what is meant by the theory of evolution because I'll bet you do not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sconzey, posted 09-14-2003 6:33 PM sconzey has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 134 (55429)
09-14-2003 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sconzey
09-14-2003 6:33 PM


I'm sure you are all familliar with scientific method, if you aren't you shouldn't be here.
What about evolution do you think violates the scientific method? When you do tests on fossils, you do them in the present. When you construct explanitory models, you do so in the present. There's nothing about constructing models of what happened in the past that violates the scientific method of gathering data, constructing hypotheses, and testing their predictions against more data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sconzey, posted 09-14-2003 6:33 PM sconzey has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 4 of 134 (55432)
09-14-2003 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sconzey
09-14-2003 6:33 PM


sconzey,
Just don't teach either as science, cos they aren't. Science is to do with the PRESENT. Conducting experiments, measuring the results and repeating them yada yada yada.
Where does the scientific method require experiments & their results? Where does the scientific method require the inferences made from evidence to be in the present? The inferred existence of the Roman & Greek empires was made using the scientific method.....
I'm sure you are all familliar with scientific method, if you aren't you shouldn't be here.
I would seem you shouldn't be here, then!
Mark
------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sconzey, posted 09-14-2003 6:33 PM sconzey has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 134 (55479)
09-15-2003 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sconzey
09-14-2003 6:33 PM


G.G. Simpson's opinion
Forgove me for just quoting the opinion of G.G. Simpson on this alternative...
Taken from 'One hundred years without Darwin are enough' (1961)
quote:
Still another proposed, and actually used, solution is to present both sides of the case. Teach evolution under its own name as something that certain authorities believe. Also teach that certain other authorities do not believe it, and let the student decide for himself (or ignore the whole thing). This was hailed by some teachers at the institute as the most 'honest' compromise on the problem, but I am afraid I cannot agree. It is less honestbecause the student is less able to judge from data in his own handsthan teaching that some people say the earth is flat and some say it is round. It would be honest only if the teacher pointed out that the authorities who 'believe' in evolution ('believe' is a misleading word here, too) are, almost to a man, those who have actually studied the subject in a scientific way and that those who do not believe in it are, almost to a man, obviously ignorant of the scientific evidence and swayed by wholly nonscientific considerations. That is not a compromise that would suit an antievolutionary school board. It might occasionally work in a controlling community that was open-minded about science but subject to some sniping from antievolutionary minorities.
Full text available at
Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sconzey, posted 09-14-2003 6:33 PM sconzey has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 6 of 134 (55503)
09-15-2003 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sconzey
09-14-2003 6:33 PM


Teach either Creation AND Evolution as two conflicting THEORIES that go with the evidence
The problem with that is Creation doesn't go with the evidence, it goes against it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sconzey, posted 09-14-2003 6:33 PM sconzey has not replied

  
sconzey
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 134 (55536)
09-15-2003 2:01 PM


Thats debatable.
The thing is that whatever happened, Creation or Evolution only happened once, and was not observed by anyone. I mean, whether this violates scientific method is debatable, for me it does, but thats my opinion.
There are many aspects of both theories IMOHO which don't fit the evidence. I have no time to note them now but will be back.

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by zephyr, posted 09-15-2003 5:46 PM sconzey has not replied
 Message 20 by xwhydoyoureyesx, posted 09-15-2003 5:54 PM sconzey has not replied
 Message 21 by mark24, posted 09-15-2003 6:18 PM sconzey has not replied

  
sconzey
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 134 (55538)
09-15-2003 2:22 PM


Okay, I gots plenty of time here...
Right, problems with evoloution. I'm not exactly well educated so tell me if these have been resolved.
Lack of transient forms in the fossil record.
The general dehumanisation and evilness that has come from evolutionary teaching. (Points at aborigonies, blacks, etc.) Yes, I remember the crusades too, but I feel these are not relavent because the crusades were not really related to *creation* but Christianity.
Creation is purely the idea that we were created, from scratch, by a being external to the universe, and although speciation has produced different finches, different jellyfish etc. It has not done any more that variate species and geni (is that the plural of genus?), well, thats what I mean when I use the term.
Irreducible complexity.
The general damn improbableness of it all...
Okay, problems with creation: I was brought up a creationist and so have not really paid that much attention to the anti-creationist articles, but from what I gather the main problem people have with creation is the idea that they are accountable to a greater being.
This is regarded as 'unscientific'.
Yeah, thats my view. Correct any mistakes. If we have not an open mind we have nothing.
-sconzey

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-15-2003 2:46 PM sconzey has not replied
 Message 10 by mark24, posted 09-15-2003 3:16 PM sconzey has not replied
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 09-15-2003 4:35 PM sconzey has not replied
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 09-15-2003 6:49 PM sconzey has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 134 (55540)
09-15-2003 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by sconzey
09-15-2003 2:22 PM


quote:
The general dehumanisation and evilness that has come from evolutionary teaching. (Points at aborigonies, blacks, etc.)
I'd strongly reccomend clarifying this statement. As it stands, it comes off horribly bigoted.
quote:
Yes, I remember the crusades too, but I feel these are not relavent because the crusades were not really related to *creation* but Christianity.
Is creation a part of Christianity or not?
quote:
Irreducible complexity.
I think it's Crashfrog who has a really good refutation of this idea. I'll let him handle it.
quote:
The general damn improbableness of it all...
What are you basing this statement on? Let's define terms before debating them.
quote:
from what I gather the main problem people have with creation is the idea that they are accountable to a greater being.
You gather wrong. There are plenty of people who deny a literal interpretation of genesis, and still believe in God. So they hold themselves accountable to a greater being, and still don't believe in creation.
Secondly, you're using circular logic here. The validity of creation is what would show the existence of God, right? So saying that someone doesn't believe in creation because they don't want to believe in God is backwards.
When people don't believe in God, it's because we don't see any validity to the supporting ideas. Not vice versa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by sconzey, posted 09-15-2003 2:22 PM sconzey has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 10 of 134 (55542)
09-15-2003 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by sconzey
09-15-2003 2:22 PM


sconzey,
Lack of transient forms in the fossil record.
Resolved. But I think you mean transitional.
There are numerous examples of transitional series, fish - basal tetrapod, reptile to mammal etc. See below.
The general dehumanisation and evilness that has come from evolutionary teaching. (Points at aborigonies, blacks, etc.) Yes, I remember the crusades too, but I feel these are not relavent because the crusades were not really related to *creation* but Christianity.
Non-sequitur. That eugenics, social Darwinism etc existed in no way detracts from the scientific theory. It's like trying to debunk chemistry because dynamite can kill people.
Creation is purely the idea that we were created, from scratch, by a being external to the universe, and although speciation has produced different finches, different jellyfish etc. It has not done any more that variate species and geni (is that the plural of genus?), well, thats what I mean when I use the term.
This study clearly shows a link between morphologically inferred relationships & stratigraphy. Ergo, macroevolution, no matter how you define it, is a reality.
Irreducible complexity.
What of it? Nobody has ever shown IC could not evolve. IC is defined as a unit that ceases to funtion when one part is removed. The mammalian middle ear bones, the malleus, incus, & stapes form just such an IC unit. Yet there is a series of fossils from reptiles to mammals that show that the malleus & incus were once lower jaw bones, & the stapes was once involved in the articulation of the jaw in fishes. Furthermore, mammalian embryology shows that the malleus & incus start associated wt the lower jaw before assuming their role in the middle ear.
quote:
Figure 1.4.3. A comparison of the jawbones and ear-bones of several transitional forms in the evolution of mammals. Approximate stratigraphic ranges of the various taxa are indicated at the far left (more recent on top). The left column of jawbones shows the view of the left jawbone from the inside of the mouth. The right column is the view of the right jawbone from the right side (outside of the skull). As in Figure 1.4.1, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise, the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow, and the angular (mammalian tympanic annulus) is in pink. For clarity, the teeth are not shown, and the squamosal upper jawbone is omitted (it replaces the quadrate in the mammalian jaw joint, and forms part of the jaw joint in advanced cynodonts and Morganucodon). Q = quadrate, Ar = articular, An = angular, I = incus (anvil), Ma = malleus (hammer), Ty = tympanic annulus, D = dentary. (Reproduced from Kardong 2002, pp. 274, with permission from the publisher, Copyright 2002 McGraw-Hill)
That's two corroborating lines of evidence showing how an IC unit evolved.
The general damn improbableness of it all...
How improbable would that be? Show your working.
Okay, problems with creation: I was brought up a creationist and so have not really paid that much attention to the anti-creationist articles, but from what I gather the main problem people have with creation is the idea that they are accountable to a greater being.
This is regarded as 'unscientific'.
Creationism is regarded as unscientific because it doesn't meet the standards of the scientific method. Creationists start with the "truth", & then shoehorn any data they can to fit, whilst ignoring contradictory evidence. Science starts with an inductively derived hypothesis, makes predictions, & proposes falsifications. If the predictions are born out then you have yourself a scientific theory. This is why evolution is science & creationism is not.
Mark
------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by sconzey, posted 09-15-2003 2:22 PM sconzey has not replied

  
sconzey
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 134 (55546)
09-15-2003 3:49 PM


Dehumanisation and evilness...
Okay... I am talking about the fact that certain races were abused and experimented on due to the belief that they were lesser evolved sub-humans... Aboriginies, Native Americans, Blacks... Correct me if I am mistaken.
Creation is part of Christianity, but Creation is also part of many other religions... Granted, most if not all of the anti-evoloutionist party come from Christianity, but lets not generalise here...
I would love to hear crashfrogs refutation.
Improbableness... This is based on many things... I am one of those people fanatical for mathematical proof...
Right, the chimp argument. For those of you not familliar one famous evolutionist who's name I forget (remind me), said that the victory of chance would be proven by the fact that a load of apes, in a room of computers would eventually produce the complete works of shakespeare or, I think it was the Lord's Prayer.
Okay, lets do some maths, first one chimp... We start with the assumption that they press one key per second... there are 116 keys on my keyboard... So that means they have a 1/116 chance of pressing the 'correct key'
The probability of pressing the 'right' keys twice in a row will be 1/116*1/116 = 7.43163e-5 or 0.0000743163.
Thats two letters.
Pressing one key per second, that gives us 13456 seconds, (1/0.0000743163), or 224.267 minutes, or just under 4 hours.
Right, the first two words of The Lord's Prayer are 'Our Father (who art in heaven hallowed be thy name yada yada yada)'
Thats ten letters ignoring case. If you had sticky keys, then it would be twelve with the correct case.
That gives us (1/116)^12 = 1.68463e-25 or 0.0000000000000000000000000168463
Time? 5.9e24 seconds. 9.9e22 minutes. 1.6e21 hours. 6.9e19 days. 1.9e17 years. Thats longer than the world is old supposed to be old (4.5 billion years to the last estimate I heard, or 4.5e9 for comparison).
To type two words.
At one key per second on a standard qwerty keyboard, ignoring erronous sequences such as pressing the windoze key and having to exit the start menu etc. :-)
And thats an optimistic assumption.
Okay, so divide it by a thousand, make it 1000 monkeys. Thats 1.9e13.
Now tell me evolution happened in 4.5 billion years.
And yes, my last comment on my previous post was circular reasoning, I withdraw it.
In my next post I will extend this to calculate the probability of a protein chain forming from the correct sequence of amino acids.

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-15-2003 4:08 PM sconzey has not replied
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 09-15-2003 4:12 PM sconzey has not replied
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 09-15-2003 4:21 PM sconzey has not replied
 Message 15 by mark24, posted 09-15-2003 4:21 PM sconzey has not replied
 Message 16 by Brian, posted 09-15-2003 4:22 PM sconzey has not replied
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 09-15-2003 4:40 PM sconzey has not replied
 Message 22 by Rei, posted 09-15-2003 6:33 PM sconzey has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 134 (55550)
09-15-2003 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by sconzey
09-15-2003 3:49 PM


quote:
Okay... I am talking about the fact that certain races were abused and experimented on due to the belief that they were lesser evolved sub-humans... Aboriginies, Native Americans, Blacks... Correct me if I am mistaken.
Okay. It's good you clarified, because it sounded like you were saying that black people were evil.
Now let's clarify further. What example can you give us of someone teaching evolution, and this teaching leading directly to inhuman experimentation?
Keep in mind: we teach that a thing called a gun exists. But it can hardly be said that this directly leads to school shootings. Similarly, people are taught Christianity, but this doesn't directly lead to blowing up a gay bar.
quote:
Creation is part of Christianity, but Creation is also part of many other religions...
Can we clarify again, then... are you requesting that we teach that Chronos the Titan mated with Gaea to produce the heavens and the Earth? Or is it a Christian-specific creation you're looking to have taught?
If it's Christian-specific, then Christianity itself is fair game.
quote:
I would love to hear crashfrogs refutation.
If I remember right, it involves a stone arch. The kind where the removal of any one stone would result in the entire arch collapsing. One would look at it and think, "That couldn't possibly have been built stone-by-stone." But it was.
quote:
Right, the chimp argument. For those of you not familliar one famous evolutionist who's name I forget (remind me), said that the victory of chance would be proven by the fact that a load of apes, in a room of computers would eventually produce the complete works of shakespeare or, I think it was the Lord's Prayer.
Okay, lets do some maths, first one chimp... We start with the assumption that they press one key per second... there are 116 keys on my keyboard... So that means they have a 1/116 chance of pressing the 'correct key'
The probability of pressing the 'right' keys twice in a row will be 1/116*1/116 = 7.43163e-5 or 0.0000743163.
Thats two letters.
Pressing one key per second, that gives us 13456 seconds, (1/0.0000743163), or 224.267 minutes, or just under 4 hours.
Right, the first two words of The Lord's Prayer are 'Our Father (who art in heaven hallowed be thy name yada yada yada)'
Thats ten letters ignoring case. If you had sticky keys, then it would be twelve with the correct case.
That gives us (1/116)^12 = 1.68463e-25 or 0.0000000000000000000000000168463
And what would the chances be of producing the phrase: "Xe1 eR$$sup"? Exactly the same.
So? Are you saying that a failure of randomness is also improbable to the point of impossibility? That a monkey could not possibly type out a phrase like "Ris*e #eal"? The chances are the same as typing out "Our Father".
quote:
And yes, my last comment on my previous post was circular reasoning, I withdraw it.
I see this so rarely on message boards, it always makes me smile when I do. You, sir, are a gentleman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by sconzey, posted 09-15-2003 3:49 PM sconzey has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 13 of 134 (55551)
09-15-2003 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by sconzey
09-15-2003 3:49 PM


Okay... I am talking about the fact that certain races were abused and experimented on due to the belief that they were lesser evolved sub-humans... Aboriginies, Native Americans, Blacks... Correct me if I am mistaken.
Creation is part of Christianity, but Creation is also part of many other religions... Granted, most if not all of the anti-evoloutionist party come from Christianity, but lets not generalise here...
So the idea that some groups of humans were less developed than others only arose after Darwin put forward his ideas? Do you think that?
The Christian churchs never supported slavery as the way god intended things? Do you believe that?
As stated above the misuse of a concept or knowledge doesn't make the concept of the new knowledge factually incorrect. So this is irrelavant both to the validity of darwinism and the validity of other parts of the teachings of Christianity. It is not part of the scientific discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by sconzey, posted 09-15-2003 3:49 PM sconzey has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 14 of 134 (55553)
09-15-2003 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by sconzey
09-15-2003 3:49 PM


You have some fundamental problems with you calculations.
You have assumed that there is only one right answer. There are, in existing life, mulitple genetic answers that produce the same result. Do you know that this isn't true for the first self replicators?
You have assumed that each letter chosen is a completley independent choice from the others. This isn't ture in chemistry. Cetainly results are more likelyt than others and the presence of a partial result can influence the likelyhood of other steps.
It comes down to this: You can not calculate the probability of somehting that you know very little or nothing about.
No one is doing research in abiogenesis based on purely random joining of atoms or base pairs. They recognize that his is not a reasonable approach. So to carry on with this is a waste of your time, no one disagrees with part of what you are saying. What is disagreed with is the idea that replicators had to arise as you are describing.
The monkeys and type writers analogy is improved a little (but still no realy meaningful) if you take a "result" to be *any* grammatically correct English as output. This means that there are a collosal number of successes and you calculations of odds must consider that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by sconzey, posted 09-15-2003 3:49 PM sconzey has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 15 of 134 (55554)
09-15-2003 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by sconzey
09-15-2003 3:49 PM


sconzey,
Okay... I am talking about the fact that certain races were abused and experimented on due to the belief that they were lesser evolved sub-humans... Aboriginies, Native Americans, Blacks... Correct me if I am mistaken.
Already did correct you. That evolutionary ideas were used for evil in no way detracts from the science. Do you think we should bin chemistry because gunpowder has killed people?
The probability of pressing the 'right' keys twice in a row will be 1/116*1/116 = 7.43163e-5 or 0.0000743163.
That's where you go wrong, for your argument to be correctly analogous to evolution, the chimp doesn't have to type more than one correct letter at a time, whenever it get's it right, that correct selection is saved. It also get's many chances per event (more than one mutation per generation. This is natural selection, something that get's slightly more "correct" is saved, & can be further improved upon.
Mark
[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-15-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by sconzey, posted 09-15-2003 3:49 PM sconzey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by k.kslick, posted 01-15-2004 10:43 PM mark24 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