|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: should creationism be taught in schools? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Exactly and the absolute reality is that ID is true and evolution is false. Six hours ago you told us that evolution and ID were two different "interpretations", and you were asking: "why can creationists and ID proponents acknowledge that their ideas are interpretations of the facts?" Now you tell us that ID is "absolute reality". Could you make your mind up, please? Do you wish to claim that ID is an "interpretation", or do you wish to claim that it is "absolute reality"? Your call. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EighteenDelta Inactive Member |
For those thinking that this was over, even for a short break...
The Ledger And not where we might have expected to see this kind of utter non-sense. Florida of all places. Dated 11-20-2007
LAKELAND | A majority of Polk County School Board members say they support teaching intelligent design in addition to evolution in public schools.. . . "If it ever comes to the board for a vote, I will vote against the teaching of evolution as part of the science curriculum," Lofton said. "If (evolution) is taught, I would want to balance it with the fact that we may live in a universe created by a supreme being as well." Not even smart enough to play the usual game of disguise and obfuscate. -x "Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!" -Stephen Jay Gould
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Dear Beretta,
Over the course of our debates, you have claimed or strongly implied the following things that are factually inaccurate: * That the "starting point" of evolution is "I don't believe in the possibility of a transcendent creator".* That in the Cambrian Explosion, "suddenly complex and varied types all appear at once". * That "there is no sign of precursor forms in precambrian layers". * That uniformitarianism was pioneered by "atheist or materialistic geologists". * That there has been a "recent increase in catastrophist geologists who go with rapid formation of fossils under catastrophic conditions". * That "birds and cats and everything" appear "suddenly and simultaneously in the fossil layers". * That "rapid hydrologic sorting" was "seen at Mt St Helens in 1980". * That there are "all sorts of things found in completely wrong layers that contradict long periods of evolutionary change". * That "up until the 1800's the generally held belief was that the sedimentary rock layers right across the earth represented the record of mass death from Noah's flood." * That "all earth's creatures have 2 eyes". * That the modern cultivated banana is not a product of artificial selection. * That evolutionists claim that dogs are descended from porcupines. * That the tails of Old World monkeys are prehensile. * That "there are lots of geologists living right now that see the rocks all the time and refute evolution." * That evolution is "random". * That fruit should (from an evolutionary point of view) have some defense against being eaten. * That (from an evolutionary point of view) "nature knew we were going to eat the bananas". * That "The rules of evolution are simple: 1)Assume evolution 2)Observe a fact 3)Make up a story to fit the fact into the assumption." * That coelacanths are a species. * That there were no fossils displaying "half wing/half leg, half fin/half leg". * That "numbers in favor of creation as an alternative explanation are rising all the time". * That there are "fossils found in the wrong places". * That there is "lack of any proof for increasing genetic information". * That "evolution was quickly accepted as an hypothesis before anything but variation/natural selection was demonstrated". * That there are "no proven intermediates". * That contested intermediate forms "go out the window with no fanfare -just slip silently into obscurity to be replaced by the next hailed 'intermediate'" * That "what seemed plausible in Darwin's time makes no sense in the light of modern genetics." * That descriptions of "dragons" are descriptions of dinosaurs. * That "Neanderthals are men with diseases" * That "there are billions of 'where are they all' missing links that falsify the theory of evolution. No problem, make up a new plan called 'punctuated equilibrium' to take care of the lack of evidence." * That "this i.e. evolution is a theory that can't be falsified". * That "the evidence supports creation better than evolution". * That "evolutionists assume a priori that the earth is billions of years old". * That scientists "attach abnormal importance to the radiometric dating methods that (despite many assumptions) support their contention that the earth is billions of years old and ignore so many many other dating methods". * That there are "dating methods that support a young earth". * That radiometric dating is based on "presuppositions". * That creationism has "loads of historical and archeological verification in its favour and lines up with the evidence". * That "evolution was proposed as an alternative to creation based on fossils found in rocks and finches showing natural selection". * That the old earth is "taken on faith". * That there are "aging methods that say that [the old earth] is not so" * That "creation is written off a priori by definitions of science" * That macroevolution is "non-verifiable". * That there are "billions of intermediates missing -no problem, come up with a theory that doesn't require them -like punctuated equilibria. There we are. It's true no matter what we find. Not falsifiable? Not a theory. That's evolution for you." * That there are "red blood cells in dinosaurs". * That there are "historical accounts of creatures called dragons that looked like the dinosaurs put together by paleontologists". * That "James Hutton came along and decided randomly on the principle of uniformatarianism". * That he "decided that everything in the past was exactly as it is now". * That "Mt St Helens in gives us dates millions of years older than we know they actually are". * That "radiometric dating on rocks of known date are invariably extremely wrong". * That "geologists date the rocks according to their index fossils and then date some of the fossils according to the rock layers they are found in. Circular reasoning." * That "C14 is not yet in equilibrium but is increasing -so we can't use that either since you need equilibrium before it can be applied." * That "a lot of ID proponents are not religious at all". * That there is an "evolutionary prejudice" that people 4000 years ago were "closer to apes than men". * That "creationists by and large assumed that evolution had been proven more than a hundred years ago". Now, you may wish to claim that some of this is true. If so, feel free to start a thread. But it is clear that we are not just advancing different "interpretations" of the same facts. You think that these are facts. I think that they are ridiculous fictions, as, indeed, they are. It's not that we're interpreting these statements in different ways. It's that you've been duped into thinking that they're true, whereas I know that they're false. Your arguments do not rest on a different interpretation of facts. Your case rests on believing absurd fictions. This is why you haven't been able to support your "facts" with a single reference to the scientific literature. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I agree, attacks on evolution dont help our case, but it sure helps. ... Remember the dictionary defines Logic as the SCIENCE OF VALID REASOING. And what the "SCIENCE OF VALID REASONING" tells me is that things that don't help don't help.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doubleneck Junior Member (Idle past 5968 days) Posts: 6 From: Silver Spring MD USA Joined: |
The up side is that this will bring on another Dover like lawsuit which will obliterate ID again. Even the Santorum backed, Dubya appointed Judge saw the light in Pennsylvania. It's got to be REAL hard for Fundamental Christians to struggle with this. They believe in something with everything they have only to have it PROVEN to be so wrong. If they have to send their children to the "evil" Public School system predisposed to such an unscientific belief there can only be trouble. The rest of the world will surely take advantage of such a Scientific resistive culture. Most of these same people reject Global Warming as well. That seems strange to me because if God created the World, wouldn't we be interested in protecting it's environment?
Science, Schmience... Edited by Doubleneck, : Bad spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Six hours ago you told us that evolution and ID were two different "interpretations", and you were asking: "why can creationists and ID proponents acknowledge that their ideas are interpretations of the facts?" Now you tell us that ID is "absolute reality". And I stand by that -unfortunately neither can be proven as they are historical. I believe the one, you believe the other -we have the same facts, different interpretations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And I stand by that -unfortunately neither can be proven as they are historical. I'm sorry but that is simply a silly statement. Does your existence prove that you had great-great-great grandparents? Do you ever plan to address the topic or is your goal simply to keep repeating silly and irrelevant nonsense? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
LAKELAND | A majority of Polk County School Board members say they support teaching intelligent design in addition to evolution in public schools.. . . "If it ever comes to the board for a vote, I will vote against the teaching of evolution as part of the science curriculum," Lofton said. "If (evolution) is taught, I would want to balance it with the fact that we may live in a universe created by a supreme being as well." Well that's just brilliant. Only thing is that I disagree with losing the evolution part -we have to deal with the consensus. Kids need to know why evolution is accepted and that it happens to be the consensus -for the moment -but they also need to know why it is not necessarily the truth and why some don't accept it despite the general acceptance.It's called a paradigm shift and I'm all for it.
Not even smart enough to play the usual game of disguise and obfuscate What's smart about disguise and obfuscate? This is about truth and that's all that's really important.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Kids need to know why evolution is accepted and that it happens to be the consensus -for the moment -but they also need to know why it is not necessarily the truth and why some don't accept it despite the general acceptance. So far all we have seen from you are unsupported assertions. It is time for you to actually present "why some don't accept it despite the general acceptance" and "why it is not necessarily the truth". Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
I'm sorry but that is simply a silly statement. ...in your humble opinion
Does your existence prove that you had great-great-great grandparents? Yes but they were all human -I don't suppose that they were ape-like or even descendants of apes for that matter.Just a little variation and selection and that's the extent of it.
is your goal simply to keep repeating silly and irrelevant nonsense? Again -in your humble opinion...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The point is, your assertion that historical events cannot be proven has been falsified. If you repeat that assertion you will be seen as dishonest.
Now, do you ever plan on addressing the topic. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And I stand by that -unfortunately neither can be proven as they are historical. And yet you said that ID is "absolute reality". Which of your statements do you believe? Do you claim that ID cannot be proven, or do you claim that it is "absolute reality"?
I believe the one, you believe the other -we have the same facts, different interpretations. See my post #228. We do not have "the same facts". I have the facts, you have silly creationist lies. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes but they were all human ... No-one claims otherwise. What we are trying to explain to you is that it is possible to know about the past. You know that you had great-great-great-grandparents, even though you can't produce them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What's smart about disguise and obfuscate? It's the traditional creationist method of trying to smuggle their nonsense into science classes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
you have claimed or strongly implied the following things that are factually inaccurate: On a cursory examination, they looks about right -only lets lose the eye story -that definately won't hold up under close scrutiny.
I think that they are ridiculous fictions, as, indeed, they are. In your opinion.Remember ID opinions are censored for the most part apparently because they are so absurd so we'll have to go with the opinions of scientists that are not allowed to express themselves in main stream journals so are forced to present them via other means.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024