Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 76 of 305 (454209)
02-05-2008 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Beretta
02-05-2008 12:27 PM


Re: one thing is clear
You see, here's the problem.
That was a bunch of ignorant crap.
How do you expect anyone with intelligence and integrity to teach this to schoolchildren?
You can babble this stuff out and still manage to feel self-righteous, 'cos you know damn all about what you're talking about, but tell me this --- how can anyone who knows anything about science recite that sort of crap to schoolchildren?
That is the unanswerable question about teaching creationism. So answer me that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Beretta, posted 02-05-2008 12:27 PM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-05-2008 11:43 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 95 by Beretta, posted 02-06-2008 9:17 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 77 of 305 (454213)
02-05-2008 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dr Adequate
02-05-2008 10:29 PM


Let's keep it friendly
Getting a little cranky there. Crankiness on ones part tends to beget crankiness from others.
No replies to this message. Its content is not subject to debate.
Adminnemooseus
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Damn, I thought I checked the correct ID. Better always use "preview", even for very short messages.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-05-2008 10:29 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 78 of 305 (454214)
02-05-2008 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by FliesOnly
02-05-2008 3:34 PM


Re: one thing is clear
Provide to us the testable, falsifiable hypothesis as put forth by the I.D crowd, or admit that there is none. Can you do this...please?
ID is not a theory, it never claimed to be a theory. ID is an observation, however. The current ID movement, which I will call DI IDism, says reality owes its existence to intelligence. IDists identify phenomena to be the product of intelligence.
On the other hand, evolution is a predetermined conclusion based on a philosophical presupposition that says biological reality is not the product of Divine causation. This supposition exists in defiance of the observation of design seen in every aspect of nature and organisms.
We intend to reverse the corruption of the U.S. Constitution from the stranglehold of anti-religious fanatics and teach school children that God is the Creator responsible for the observation of design seen in reality. The pro-Atheism corruption of the Constitution will be vacated wholistically one day in the semi-near future, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by FliesOnly, posted 02-05-2008 3:34 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Coyote, posted 02-06-2008 12:00 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 93 by FliesOnly, posted 02-06-2008 8:40 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 120 by AZPaul3, posted 02-06-2008 6:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 79 of 305 (454221)
02-06-2008 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Cold Foreign Object
02-05-2008 11:47 PM


Re: one thing is clear
quote:
ID is not a theory, it never claimed to be a theory. ID is an observation, however. The current ID movement, which I will call DI IDism, says reality owes its existence to intelligence. IDists identify phenomena to be the product of intelligence.
ID is a religiously-based attempt to sneak religion into the science classes by political means, as it has failed to make any headway in science (not surprising, as it is not science).
quote:
On the other hand, evolution is a predetermined conclusion based on a philosophical presupposition that says biological reality is not the product of Divine causation. This supposition exists in defiance of the observation of design seen in every aspect of nature and organisms.
The theory of evolution is a science, and is studied by a lot of separate fields. There is broad agreement from such diverse fields as geology and genetics as to the overall picture. Science does not deal with "divine causation" unless that causation can be perceived in some way.
quote:
We intend to reverse the corruption of the U.S. Constitution from the stranglehold of anti-religious fanatics and teach school children that God is the Creator responsible for the observation of design seen in reality. The pro-Atheism corruption of the Constitution will be vacated wholistically one day in the semi-near future, and there is nothing you can about it.
How will you do that? A theocracy? A dictatorship under a prophet? Bring back the inquisition?
(Paging Nehemiah Scudder. Pick up the white courtesy telephone please.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-05-2008 11:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 80 of 305 (454227)
02-06-2008 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Larni
02-03-2008 8:09 AM


Re: Aims determine 20 year destination
If they will reject them conpletely what's the point fo wasting the time in class?
Yes, that's true -so lets give it a whirl. I predict it will be evolution they'll reject given an alternative possibility for one in their lives.
Surely that time could be better spent on teaching subjects that will not be rejected
But how will we know if we don't allow for that little bit of critical thinking???
The school of the future would have at least a year devoted to fairies, astrology, tarot, ID etc; just so the eager student can reject them complelty
That's just dumb of course -silly comparison -we would only teach those things that have some scientific backing ok?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Larni, posted 02-03-2008 8:09 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by DrJones*, posted 02-06-2008 1:42 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 94 by Larni, posted 02-06-2008 9:01 AM Beretta has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 81 of 305 (454231)
02-06-2008 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Beretta
02-06-2008 1:12 AM


Re: Aims determine 20 year destination
That's just dumb of course -silly comparison -we would only teach those things that have some scientific backing ok?
In the Dover trial Behe, testifying for the ID side, stated that ID was as scientific as astrology. So going by that standard ID doesn't have scientific backing.

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Beretta, posted 02-06-2008 1:12 AM Beretta has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 82 of 305 (454236)
02-06-2008 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Dr Adequate
02-05-2008 9:08 AM


Re: one thing is clear
Beretta writes:
Yes science has repeatable, testable evidence for things that can be tested and repeated but unfortunately for evolution, it is an historical concept and by its very nature can be neither tested nor repeated.
Not only is this wrong, but everyone you're addressing knows that it's wrong, which makes it particularly pointless.
Oh well I must have missed something -where's your proof that simpler life forms categorically had to have evolved into more complex life forms?
Beretta writes:
Irrelevant -what is relevant is the question of whether we evolved from pond scum by chance or whether we were created by an intelligence outside the system that we can observe.
Oh, that's easy. Neither. Anything else I can help you with?
Yes explain how, if naturalistic processes explain our arrival, we could have originated from something other than the supposed primordial soup after it rained on the rocks for millions of years?
Oh, I see, we didn't come from pond scum after all; we came from the minerals washed out of the rocks over those millions of years; in other words our earliest ancestor is actually a rock!
Beretta writes:
Technological advances derive from real science while evolution (the big picture excluding mutation and natural selection)
Evolution, excluding evolution, eh?
No, real observable scientifically provable processes vs pure imagination actually.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-05-2008 9:08 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-06-2008 2:37 PM Beretta has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 83 of 305 (454239)
02-06-2008 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Beretta
02-05-2008 12:27 PM


Re: one thing is clear
Beretta,
Everything you say is so much hot air until you can provide an hypothesis backed by evidence for the following:-
1. Who or what did the designing
2. How was it done?
You have no evidence. All you have is poorly conceived criticism against an entirely erroneous caricature of evolution.
Care to provide that hypothesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Beretta, posted 02-05-2008 12:27 PM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by FliesOnly, posted 02-06-2008 7:40 AM RickJB has not replied
 Message 97 by Beretta, posted 02-06-2008 9:34 AM RickJB has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 84 of 305 (454240)
02-06-2008 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Adequate
02-05-2008 9:16 AM


Re: one thing is clear
You see, just 'cos a man's wrong about one thing, doesn't mean he's a complete idiot.
Yes perhaps he just went wrong on the common ancestry part or has not been fully educated on its shortcomings.He should come around -he has a brain.
The holocaust has historical records and eyewitness accounts ...
That makes it testable (just as our knowledge of the course of evolution is testable against the fossil record, the morphological record, the genetic record)
These things are in completely different categories -people were there versus no-one was there. Somewhat different don't you think?
If evolution means the gradual change of one kind of organism into another kind, the outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution.
As for morphology as a basis of determination -in your dreams maybe -that is pure conjecture and the genetic record - results have to be interpreted so are subject to huge prejudice on the part of evolutionary fundamentalists.
Three strikes.
Since the set of evidence for intelligent design is empty, this is, arguably, what teachers are already doing.
According to your prejudiced friends it is empty but you should really do the research and see what they are saying yourself.Lack of education on the matter is entirely self-imposed if you leave it to fellow evolutionists to fill you in.
In fact, the ID crowd are getting the best of it, since teachers are teaching only a tiny fraction of the evidence for evolution --- and all of the evidence for intelligent design.
What evidence? I thought you said there wasn't any? Well good for them for finding it.I think a large part of what they are teaching is the evidence against evolution which is the part that really did it for me.
Time to pop open the champagne, guys! You won!
I didn't realize we were that far along but if it's not quite time to pop open the champagne, it soon should be. Maybe that will be the wake-up call you need to actually read the literature rather than relying on your friends for information about the state of the science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-05-2008 9:16 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 85 of 305 (454243)
02-06-2008 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by LinearAq
02-05-2008 12:30 PM


Old evolutionist's tales
Things like reflexology, prayer teams, charms, and Voodoo should be presented as viable options to good diet and cleanliness.
Well as is usual with evolutionists, you fail to even begin to see what the argument is about and the reason for that -you rely on your evolutionary friends and magazines and internet sites to inform you. They criticize and jeer and say the most ludicrous things about "pseudo-science" and you believe them. Try getting a grip on the real argument - it's not so scary.
Medicine would require prayer and fasting as a prerequisite to surgery.
Again you're missing the point -while praying may be a good idea, we are talking about science and nobody has any intention on changing it to anything else. Get a grip.
Eventually we would wind up with a 17th century theocracy....fighting the Moors, burning witches and stoning adulterers.
That is another of the special evolutionary pleas, this theocracy thing -again you are not getting the point at all.While this is common amongst evolutionists, it may comfort you to find out the real story because the terror tactics of the evolutionary regime, their manner of frightening their followers half to death about the intentions of their opposition is really getting beyond a joke.It's time to grow up.
This argument is not about going backward, it is about going forward and loosing the shackles of the "evolution is true, evolution is fact" chants of the deluded 'consensus' followers.
Edited by Beretta, : Completion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by LinearAq, posted 02-05-2008 12:30 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by DrJones*, posted 02-06-2008 5:01 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 103 by LinearAq, posted 02-06-2008 10:42 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 02-06-2008 11:40 AM Beretta has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 86 of 305 (454247)
02-06-2008 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Beretta
02-06-2008 4:35 AM


Re: Old evolutionist's tales
you rely on your evolutionary friends and magazines and internet sites to inform you. They criticize and jeer and say the most ludicrous things about "pseudo-science" and you believe them
Evolutionary friends like IDist Behe who puts ID on the same level as astrology?

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Beretta, posted 02-06-2008 4:35 AM Beretta has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 87 of 305 (454252)
02-06-2008 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by bluegenes
02-05-2008 2:32 PM


Re: one thing is clear
Certainly, if your designer was designing in steps in order to deliberately try to give the illusion of evolution. There's absolutely no reason why a designer should design within the parameters of evolutionary possibility other than that.
There is no illusion of evolution though -it's just a belief system with so many billions of missing links. In fact,the picture looks worse now than it did for Darwin.
Designers do tend to use common elements in their various designs.For evolution,we still need things like evidence for change from reptilian bones to bird bones and from reptilian circulation to bird circulation etc. - those sorts of little details that make the whole thing so hard for some of us to swallow.
Then your prediction is smashed not only by fish with leg-like fins, but by fish with leg-like fins with ankles, not to mention amphibians with fin-like legs.
Nice variations in design but hardly evidence of wholesale conversion from fish to amphibian -you still have to believe it is possible. I'd guess that the ancestors and descendants of fish with leg-like fins with ankles had the same thing and are a type of fish.
Your belief system would lead you to conclude something else of course but again there are all those billions of necessary missing links.And what would drive this conversion in the absence of some kind of a plan? Necessity producing wishful thinking producing positive random mutations capable of producing just the right morphological changes necessary to overcome the next hurdle in the evolutionary progress? Makes no sense to me.And its not because I wasn't brought up believing this stuff. I changed my mind.
As for a leg converting into a wing, there are living creatures with limbs that serve as both
Such as? Serving as both is not the same as a wing if it has no feathers and the standard wing apparatus.But I'd love to see your examples so that I can see if it would be somewhat convincing.
You may be unwisely using YEC arguments in defense of I.D. when many I.D.ers would disagree with you.
There's actually a big range within the ID movement -the common factor is that they all believe that random purposeless mutation is not a satisfactory explanation for the look of design everywhere within living systems.
If you think bacteria becoming anything other than bacteria should be a common occurrence according to modern evolutionary theory, then do feel free to give us the technical explanation as to why that should be.
Well you know, simple becomes more complex so.....where did humans originally derive from if you take it back 600 million years or so?
most children in the world have some form of "I.D." drummed into them from a very early age
Except for those that watch cartoons and National Geographic and go to schools -there they talk constantly about millions of years as 'fact'.I reckon that would be the predominant form of brainwashing that church couldn't even begin to compete with on a minute to minute time comparison in the average child's upbringing
which is probably the real explanation for the I.D. movement. Its proponents have never recovered.
Actually mostly they have recovered from being evolutionists.
My view of religious indoctrination is evidence based, and explains why children from different cultural backgrounds will profess to believing in different religions.
Apart from all of them simultaneously believing in the 'hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary change' -which they receive from their schools and TV sets.
It's time for an increase in our critical thinking skills.
We agree on something. You do realise that this would mean the end of faith based religions, don't you?
Or the end of 'evolution is a fact'.
No doubt handicapped in a flood by the fact that they can swim
Doesn't really help when you're the first to be caught in the sediment landslide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by bluegenes, posted 02-05-2008 2:32 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by RickJB, posted 02-06-2008 6:27 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 91 by bluegenes, posted 02-06-2008 7:42 AM Beretta has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 88 of 305 (454257)
02-06-2008 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Beretta
02-06-2008 5:24 AM


Re: one thing is clear
Beretta,
Any word on that ID hypothesis and its supporting evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Beretta, posted 02-06-2008 5:24 AM Beretta has not replied

Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 89 of 305 (454263)
02-06-2008 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Beretta
02-05-2008 12:27 PM


Re: one thing is clear
You didn't really just say this, did you?
That is not what you would predict. If there was a flood, sea creatures would be the first to be buried in the massive upheavals that would follow -that accounts for 95% of the fossils found. After that you would get variable ability to attempt to escape which would account for the later presence of the land animals and human remains.Whatever drowned and was not covered in sediment would rot or be eaten so no evidence there.There is scientific evidence for sedimentation in layers from big catastrophes so thick layers of sedimentation has very little to do with time and probably nothing whatsoever to do with millions of years.There is loads of contradictory evidence on that.
Let me get this straight. You're suggesting that the first casualties of a flood would be those creatures who, in your eyes, were designed specifically to live in water i.e., fish!!!
It's the first time I've ever come across the argument that fish are more susceptible to death by water than any other creatures. In fact, prior to your statement, I actually thought that fish would survive water better because they live in it, can move through it and can get oxygen from it via things called gills. Just shows what I know. Prior to your revelation, I honestly believed that the relationship between availability of water and piscean death was more of an inverse relationship i.e., very little water, oodles of fish death. I see I'll need to revise my thinking!
This part of your statement has been addressed on the forum before, many moons ago
After that you would get variable ability to attempt to escape which would account for the later presence of the land animals and human remains.
The suggestion put forth was that those creatures who could run away would run uphill and be discovered in the upper layers - we never did get an explanation of how grass managed to outrun many of these aforementioned creatures. We did, however, get an explanation of why birds (and I think it was referring to flightless ones, but it could have been all of them) appeared above dinosaurs. I'm sure it can be found in the archive, but it's not really worth the effort. The explanation given was that birds and dinosaurs headed for the hills and as the flood waters rose and the dinosaurs could go no higher the birds perched on the heads of the dinosaurs
I'm off to pat the goldfish dry, just in case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Beretta, posted 02-05-2008 12:27 PM Beretta has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 90 of 305 (454265)
02-06-2008 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by RickJB
02-06-2008 3:34 AM


Re: one thing is clear
RickJB writes:
Care to provide that hypothesis?
Don't hold your breath...I've been asking the same thing for weeks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by RickJB, posted 02-06-2008 3:34 AM RickJB has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024