Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   should creationism be taught in schools?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 181 of 301 (435721)
11-22-2007 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Beretta
11-22-2007 10:03 AM


"interpretation" is not science - understanding based on evidence is
'Stick to the topic' ---no, 'give us evidence', wait, all in good time,
I'll get there.
OOOO goody, another post with no evidence to worry about. Science can rest easy again. I could stop here, but where's the fun in that?
You do realize that continually saying that you have evidence but never providing any is a kind of falsehood, and that this behavior is like being in the gunfight at the OK corral with a popgun, a popgun with the string broken and you have lost the cork, and where you don't even have the flag that pops out to say "bang" ... right?
There is also no justification for it, not just because this is how rational opinions are formed -- conclusions based on evidence -- but because there is a thread actually dedicated to providing evidence for creationism, Discussing the evidence that support creationism, where the whole idea is to present at least ONE SCRAP of evidence, and which is so far completely absent.
The topic here is also "should creationism be taught in schools?" and providing evidence that creationism was anything more than pure hokum would be on topic. In making on-topic arguments based on evidence, actually providing the evidence is always on topic. If the evidence is off topic so is the argument that claims it exists.
Finally, I note that in your 44 posts to date that you have not provided one piece of evidence for creationism. That's not a record to place any faith in.
Beliefs opposing science have no place in science class, precisely. Beliefs based on scientific evidence but opposing the accepted paradigm -that's what should be allowed to be taught.
What distinguishes beliefs from facts and theories is evidence -- and their not so curious lack where belief is concerned. Thus failure to demonstrate ANY evidence for your position leaves it your belief and nothing more. There are many concepts discussed in science classes where competing theories are involved, but in no cases are those theories based on a lack of evidence.
If you think you have a concept worthy of being considered a scientific theory that is not being considered, then you need to provide that theory and present the evidence that supports it. Until that point you do not have a competing theory no matter how much you think it is "opposing the accepted paradigm" -- it's just opinion based on belief.
The basic paradigm of science is that (1) a theory explains existing evidence (b) a theory makes predictions that can test the validity of the theory and (3) that when a theory is contradicted by new evidence or by the results of testing, that it is invalidated and must be reformulated or replaced with a new theory.
Do you think this paradigm should be changed so that astrology can be taught as science?
Which I've already acknowledged to be true. Nobody plans on doing away with scientifically verifiable fact but the evolutionary interpretations should be countered by the ID interpretations and that's the point you seem to keep missing.
You keep flipping between creationism and IDology. Do you realize that they are essentially contradictory philosophies and that you can't only use parts of one that conform to the other and logically ignore the rest? This is the same as assuming that evidence lies. Assuming that some concept somewhere in ID qualifies on a scientific basis, this in no way says that creationism is validated enough to teach in science class.
The difference between valid concepts and invalid ones is testing. The concept that mutations are caused by random events (radiation, copy changes, etc) has been tested and validated. The concept that mutations are directed towards some end is invalidated, thus confirming that the mutation is random and not due to some cause or hidden purpose.
If you have a different concept -- whether creationist or IDologist -- present it and provide the evidence that demonstrates it is a scientific concept and not just a belief.
There is one reality, not two or three or 6 billion, and this is the basic assumption of science - that we can understand reality by understanding the evidence, and that the evidence truly represents reality. One can make any number of fanciful "interpretations" of the evidence, but that does not mean that a single one of them relates to reality, and thus provides understanding of the evidence. We determine the valid understanding of the evidence by testing, and what concepts have not been tested can be called hypothesis or belief.
Having just any old "interpretation" you can think up is not enough to qualify as science. The earth is flat is a valid "interpretation" of the evidence. The concept that planets control our lives is a valid "interpretation" of the evidence.
Microevolution -not it's non-verifiable extrapolation called macroevolution.There's the problem.
No, the problem is understanding what you are talking about. I'll wager that any description you provide of what you think is "macroevolution" will not be correct compared to it's usage in evolutionary biology. Please see MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? and feel free to contribute what you think "macroevolution" is and isn't.
I'm sure you are well aware of the definition of macroevolution as opposed to micro-evolution. It's what they teach kids in science class and it is a belief not a fact -remember, scientific evidence required and none forthcoming.
Actually, I am not aware of what you think the definition of macroevolution is, which is why I have now, for at least the second time, asked you to provide it on MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?.
You cannot prove something unless you can repeat it experimentally.
This is ignorant shinola that has nothing to do with science. Even with repeated experiments you don't PROVE anything in science. In ANY science. Nor do you PROVE evidence.
Evolution of the macro variety is assumed, not proven. Why aren't fish today developing little legs and attempting to get out of the water or do something new and interesting.If new organs take millions of years to develop, why does everything have fully developed organs and nothing in the process of developing. This should be an ongoing thing -not something you cannot see now, at all, anywhere.
It is fairly evident from this quote that you do NOT understand what macroevolution - as used in evolutionary biology - actually involves. Please go to MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? and post what you think macroevolution is.
In the interim I'll point out the evidence of Foraminifera:
Foraminifera - Wikipedia
quote:
The Foraminifera, ("Hole Bearers") or forams for short, are a large group of amoeboid protists with reticulating pseudopods, fine strands of cytoplasm that branch and merge to form a dynamic net.[1] They typically produce a test, or shell, which can have either one or multiple chambers, some becoming quite elaborate in structure.[2] About 275,000 species are recognized, both living and fossil. They are usually less than 1 mm in size, but some are much larger, and the largest recorded specimen reached 19 cm.
Scientific classification
Domain: Eukaryota
(unranked): Rhizaria
Phylum: Foraminifera
Orders:
Allogromiida
Carterinida
Fusulinida - extinct
Globigerinida
Involutinida - extinct
Lagenida
Miliolida
Robertinida
Rotaliida
Silicoloculinida
Spirillinida
Textulariida
incertae sedis
- Xenophyophorea
- Reticulomyxa

Geology Dept article 3
quote:
"There's a nifty passage in Darwin in which he describes the fossil record as a library. The library has only a few books, and each book has only a few chapters. The chapters have only a few words, and the words are missing letters.
"Well, in this case, we've got a relatively complete library. The 'books' are in excellent shape. You can see every page, every word."
As he spoke, Arnold showed a series of photographs, taken through a microscope, depicting the evolutionary change wrought on a single foraminiferan species.
"This is the same organism, as it existed through 500,000 years," Arnold said. "We've got hundreds of examples like this, complete life and evolutionary histories for dozens of species."
Counting both living and extinct animals, about 330 species of planktonic forams have been classified so far, Arnold said. After thorough examinations of marine sediments collected from around the world, micropaleontologists now suspect these are just about all the free-floating forams that ever existed. "We've literally seen hundreds of speciation events," Arnold added.
Adherents of Darwin's theory of gradualism, in which new species slowly branch off from original stock, should be delighted by what the FSU researchers have found. The foram record clearly reveals a robust, highly branched evolutionary tree, complete with Darwin's predicted "dead ends" -- varieties that lead nowhere -- and a profusion of variability in sizes and body shapes. Moreover, transitional forms between species are readily apparent, making it relatively easy to track ancestor species to their descendants.
We are not talking about a single species, but the origin of new species and then additional branching into more new species, the formation of genus and family - if not order - levels of the taxonomic tree of relationships between the different species of forams.
This is macroevolution - according to evolutionary biology - the formation of branches in the taxonomic classifications. This is but a small sample of the evidence that the tree of life is due to evolution.
You clearly haven't been looking very hard or else you refuse to see what is very plain to a lot of people.
Or clearly there is no such evidence in spite of all the people claiming that there is some - even a scintilla - of evidence contradicting evolution -- evolution as known, defined and used in evolutionary biology, and not some false representation used by creationists to create a false argument (the straw man logical fallacy).
Meanwhile the evidence of Discussing the evidence that support creationism and all your posts to date is that there is no evidence FOR creationism. So far the best evidence FOR creationism involves creationists habitually lying about evolution and evidence, a position that even if it were true would not be evidence FOR creationism - of any kind.
Even AiG notes that speciation has been observed.
Again, that is nothing to do with the controversy.I'm sure you must know that.
So the "controversy" is between those who know what macroevolution is and those who don't? So the "controversy" is between knowledge and ignorance? So the "controversy" is between fact and falsehood?
When children are indoctrinated into the concept of macroevolution and millions of years as fact -they are being misled. The evidence does not show that. It is purely the present paradigm's interpretation of the facts and that means your religion is being taught; your faith-based opinion of what the facts apparently show if you first believe in macroevolution and spontaneous generation.
If they are misled then it should be an easy matter to show actual bonafide evidence of this fact, evidence that contradicts and invalidates the concept of macroevolution and that contradicts and invalidates the geological and physical understanding of the ages of the earth, life and the universe actually and factually showing billions of years.
Once again having an "interpretation" that things are different does not make it so, you need evidence.
The reality we know is that variation and natural selection are real ...
Which is evolution.
... -the rest is interpretation from extrapolation.
No, it is understanding of reality validated by the evidence. All the evidence conforms to this understanding of life on earth and the age of the earth and the age of the universe. There is no evidence that say this cannot be so.
There IS fairly simple evidence that any concept involving a young earth is false - evidence it does not take a rocket scientist to understand - again see Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) to debate this evidence.
Well luckily that's not what I'm doing.
Then you will go to Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) to debate this evidence that invalidates a young earth or no longer assert that the earth is young.
... and when they see facts that don't fit, they make a new story to make them fit -because after all evolution is a fact so whatever we find must fit that somehow...
Evidence is not contradicted by facts, more evidence, so the fact that evolution occurs cannot be invalidated. This is as true as the fact that gravity occurs cannot be invalidated, while the theory of gravity can change - has changed substantially as we improve our understanding of reality. This is so in all science.
The theory of evolution can change with new facts that "don't fit," true, but that is what actually makes it science, and thus actually qualifies it for discussion in actual science classes.
Yes, fossils are real but how they got there is what evolutionists misunderstand -they must, they believe in millions of years after all...and spontaneous generation, of course.
And yet "spontaneous generation" - as used in evolutionary biology - is a falsified concept no longer considered in evolutionary biology, and there is NO other explanation for all the fossils in all the patterns of geological distribution in space and their order in time in which they are found. An explanation that does not fit all the evidence, and indeed ignores whole swaths of it, is not an "alternative explanation" based on a "different interpretation" of the evidence, it is one that ignores reality.
Which is what evolutionists do all the time.
There is a big difference between ignorance (not knowing the facts) and stupidity (incapable of understanding the facts). I am not aware of anyone here, including myself, calling creationists stupid. Ignorance can be cured - learn.
If you have a problem with accepting the validity of some evidence then that is a different matter:
I think that people that hold on to falsified beliefs in spite of evidence that contradicts it are compromisers
Well luckily that's not what I'm doing.
The question is -- how would you know? What is your basis for establishing that your beliefs are not falsified? By testing with real evidence - such as the age of the earth?
Precisely, which is why evolutionists do what they do -they made up an interpretation (Darwin et al) and called it real and now they cannot let it go because they BELIEVE it!
So now evolutionists are making up a belief that they have tested concepts with evidence?
But not evolution -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.
How do you know there are "billions of intermediates missing" if they are missing? How do you explain the evidence, like that of the forams above - "transitional forms between species are readily apparent" - that demonstrate multitudes of transitions. Ignoring this evidence that contradicts the claim that there are no intermediate forms, and this is only the tip of the iceberg of evidence of intermediate forms -- every fossil is intermediate between those that came before and those that come after. Every organism is intermediate between its parent and its offspring. Hardly missing.
There is no evidence that contradicts evolution.
There is evidence that contradicts a young earth.
There is evidence that contradicts a young universe.
There is evidence that contradicts a global flood.
Those are all called mantras. Learn at school and beyond, believe and repeat.
No, they are opportunities for you to provide evidence that they are false statements. You can also visit Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) to discuss some of this evidence that contradicts a young earth, that contradicts a young universe and that demonstrates that a global flood is not possible in the time covered by that evidence.
Inability - or unwillingness - to deal with such evidence would be denying evidence that contradicts belief.
Oh really, so red blood cells in dinosaur bones suggesting that dinosaurs did not die out millions of years ago; drawings of dinosaurs (dragons) by men; historical accounts of creatures called dragons that looked like the dinosaurs put together by paleontologists actually mean that the drawers and story tellers were all on drugs or otherwise deluded, describing mythical creatures that died out tens of millions of years before man apparently evolved.There are so many things that evolutionists refuse to see because they don't fit the story -this is just one very small example of tunnel vision.
Finding evidence of soft tissues (not red blood cells, another creationist falsehood) in dinosaurs is not really different than finding other organic bits mixed in with fossils, it's all a matter of how the fossil was preserved, a process that we do not control.
Tyrannosaurus - Wikipedia
quote:
In the March 2005 issue of Science, Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University and colleagues announced the recovery of soft tissue from the marrow cavity of a fossilized leg bone, from a 68 million-year-old Tyrannosaurus. ... In addition, microstructures resembling blood cells were found inside the matrix and vessels. The structures bear resemblance to ostrich blood cells and vessels. Whether an unknown process, distinct from normal fossilization, preserved the material, or the material is original, the researchers do not know, and they are careful not to make any claims about preservation.[49]
Nor is mythology evidence of dinosaurs, nor does the existence of dinosaurs - or any species thought to be extinct - alive today invalidate evolution -- ever see a bird? Myths can also be stories made up ("interpretations") to explain the existence of fossil bones of creatures that did not exist around the people that discovered them, stories that fit with their understanding of the reality at the time. There have been (shock) no fossil finds of flying dragons or cyclops or gryphons. One the other hand we do have evidence of pleseosaurs, mastodons and protoceratops ... found in the areas where these myths originated. Of course if one had been alive the myth would be entirely different.
Because things "don't fit" creationist concepts of what evolution involves is of no concern to anyone looking for reality. If you think any of these are valid enough to actually discuss -- complete with evidence for your assertions -- then feel free to start a thread, it should be amusing if nothing else.
BUT ... even IF you could show there is ONE fact that does not fit with the evolutionary biology theory of evolution, this does NOT for ONE MOMENT demonstrate that creationism is a valid alternative.
For creationism to be valid it must stand on its own, and explain ALL the evidence.
So far creationism is defined by (1) god-did-it and (2) it isn't evolution ... defined by creationism as something that doesn't occur.
That's a pretty vacuous concept to teach in science class -- normally science involves all the evidence FOR a concept ... evidence that is still missing in any of your posts (or of any other creationists).
And I'm still waiting for a response to Message 160 ...
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : last line

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Beretta, posted 11-22-2007 10:03 AM Beretta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by SGT Snorkel, posted 11-23-2007 10:17 AM RAZD has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 182 of 301 (435751)
11-22-2007 3:57 PM


Inspired by this thread, I added Teach Both Theories to the miscellaneous section of SkepticWiki's list of creationist arguments.
All suggestions as to errors or omissions will be welcomed.

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 183 of 301 (435757)
11-22-2007 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Beretta
11-22-2007 10:03 AM


Re: The logic of both fallacies?
Beretta writes:
Why aren't fish today developing little legs and attempting to get out of the water or do something new and interesting
Interesting? Like flying fish or mudskippers, you mean? Stuff like penguins' wings/flippers, or flying squirrels' arms/wings?
Here's a pretty fellow:
http://www.arkive.org/...s/GES/fish/Brachionichthys_hirsutus
No species is "attempting" to do anything, and all are in transition.
But on topic, to teach any of the many creation beliefs as science, evidence is required. You say that I.D. interpretations should be taught. Which ones? And on the basis of what evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Beretta, posted 11-22-2007 10:03 AM Beretta has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 184 of 301 (435791)
11-22-2007 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Beretta
11-22-2007 10:03 AM


Re: The logic of both fallacies?
Hi there Beretta,
Why aren't fish today developing little legs and attempting to get out of the water
Here is another fun "transitional" form doing the rounds today;
Ostrich - Wikipedia
Pay particular attention to the picture of the ostrich foot;
Image - Wikipediastrich_Foot.jpg
Compare and contrast with the intermediate stages in the evolution of the horse's hoof, shown here;
Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia
I would call that evidence that the ostrich is well on its way to evolving a perfect hoof, all the better for running with. Of course if we were to screw up the environment badly enough to make the ostrich extinct, it wouldn't get a chance to be transitional, it would just be a dead end. Only time will tell, and none of us will be around to see.
See what I did there? I produced some evidence, to back up my argument. See how easy it is!
Then again, there is this;
Oh really, so red blood cells in dinosaur bones suggesting that dinosaurs did not die out millions of years ago; drawings of dinosaurs (dragons) by men; historical accounts of creatures called dragons that looked like the dinosaurs put together by paleontologists actually mean that the drawers and story tellers were all on drugs or otherwise deluded, describing mythical creatures that died out tens of millions of years before man apparently evolved.There are so many things that evolutionists refuse to see because they don't fit the story -this is just one very small example of tunnel vision.
Wow! That does look a little bit like evidence. Kind of. Is this the evidence you have been crowing about?
red blood cells in dinosaur bones
No, breakdown products from blood cells; different thing. Your line is a distortion of the true picture. This has already been dealt with here;
http://EvC Forum: Dino blood -->EvC Forum: Dino blood
and the original paper is here;
Just a moment...
drawings of dinosaurs (dragons) by men
So because men drew pictures of dragons, and dragons (according to you) look like dinosaurs, dragons must have been real life dinosaurs, living alongside people right? People drew picture of sphinxes and minotaurs as well. Should we be out there looking for fossilised sphinxes? The similarity you describe is a coincidence. Tolkien wrote about hobbits. Hobbit-like fossils were recently discovered on Flores (please let's not get side-tracked by debating their authenticity). Does that mean that Tolkien had lived alongside real hobbits?
historical accounts of creatures called dragons that looked like the dinosaurs put together by paleontologists actually mean that the drawers and story tellers were all on drugs or otherwise deluded, describing mythical creatures that died out tens of millions of years before man apparently evolved
Not even sure what you're trying to say here, but yes, the folks who drew pictures of dragons were deluded. Or lying. Or just making up a fun little story. They may have been on drugs, I cannot say. Is this all you've got? Do you really want kids to be taught about bloody dragons in science class?
To quote Lionel Hutz "Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence."
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Used the "Disable Smilies" for the first time. A in a link was turning into , which of course doesn't here work because I disabled the smilies.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Beretta, posted 11-22-2007 10:03 AM Beretta has not replied

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


Message 185 of 301 (435833)
11-23-2007 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by IrishRockhound
11-22-2007 8:55 AM


One of my university courses dealt with the history of geological research, and creationism got a mention right at the start as 'this was what geologists thought over a hundred years ago, and have since rejected as more evidence was discovered'
They should rather have said something like - James Hutton came along and decided randomly on the principle of uniformatarianism and 'the present is the key to the past'where he just decided that everything in the past was exactly as it is now, no major dramatic events (like a worldwide flood), everything just carries on exactly the same.You see this is an assumption -how do we know that? Was anyone there to record it? What do we really know about history that is factual apart from what we get from those that were there? There are none and therefore we cannot conclude the things which we assume are true as far as fossils and rocks are concerned.
Evolution assumes these things and then works everything out according to those assumptions.ie. since uniformatarianism is true (according to a random consensus) therefore it took hundreds of millions of years to lay down these rock layers. And since evolution is true, these dead things in the rocks are certainly a record of slow and gradual progression of living things. How can we date rocks with radiometric dating and all its assumptions when dating rocks we know the dates of eg. Mt St Helens in gives us dates millions of years older than we know they actually are.If we know that so many dates are wrong for events where we know the actual date, how can we assume they are correct for rocks where we have no idea when they were laid down.
Radiometric dating on rocks of known date are invariably extremely wrong, so lets not use it to date things we have no historical knowledge of and then assume they are correct.
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 -how can this be science?
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. In any case the same applies. Weird ridiculous dates are obtained for things of known age showing that our assumptions are wrong but we go ahead and use it for things where we have no real clue of the age. Why would we use techniques like that. Because they confirm our prejudices and then we select the ones that look right and throw out the others if they are not able to fit our preconceptions.
90% of it is uninformed and unsubstantiated claims, random attacks on actual science
No actually attacks by scientists on unsound principles and unproven assumptions.
Trying to teach it would probably give many good teachers severe headaches and waste too much of their time.
If teachers took a little bit of time out to try to understand why this controversy exists, they might find it extremely interesting.A lot of ID proponents are not religious at all but they see that limiting our conclusions to materialistic causes may mean doing away with the real answers from the start.There is a paradigm shift going on and its long overdue.
By the way, until last year I didn't know that creationists existed either, now I am one.
Edited by Beretta, : Incomplete answer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-22-2007 8:55 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by AdminPD, posted 11-23-2007 10:57 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 190 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-23-2007 11:04 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 191 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2007 11:12 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 193 by reiverix, posted 11-23-2007 11:39 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 194 by Percy, posted 11-23-2007 12:06 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 196 by RAZD, posted 11-23-2007 1:54 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 197 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-23-2007 7:22 PM Beretta has not replied

SGT Snorkel
Junior Member (Idle past 5703 days)
Posts: 23
From: Boone, IA USA
Joined: 07-25-2006


Message 186 of 301 (435837)
11-23-2007 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by RAZD
11-22-2007 3:08 PM


Re: "interpretation" is not science - understanding based on evidence is
Actually, creationism is scientific in the sense that it teaches about Eve-olution.
(I hope bad puns are not a violation of forum rules.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by RAZD, posted 11-22-2007 3:08 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by RAZD, posted 11-23-2007 10:22 AM SGT Snorkel has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 187 of 301 (435839)
11-23-2007 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by SGT Snorkel
11-23-2007 10:17 AM


Re: "interpretation" is not science - understanding based on evidence is
(I hope bad puns are not a violation of forum rules.)
Adamantly not, however short "chat style" comments are frowned on .
Welcome to the fray, SGT Snorkel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by SGT Snorkel, posted 11-23-2007 10:17 AM SGT Snorkel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by SGT Snorkel, posted 11-23-2007 10:31 AM RAZD has not replied

SGT Snorkel
Junior Member (Idle past 5703 days)
Posts: 23
From: Boone, IA USA
Joined: 07-25-2006


Message 188 of 301 (435841)
11-23-2007 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by RAZD
11-23-2007 10:22 AM


Re: "interpretation" is not science - understanding based on evidence is
Adamantly not, however short "chat style" comments are frowned on .
Noted. Unfortunately, it is difficult to say much about the subject. No evidence to support creationism, lots of evidence for evolution. Ergo, do not teach creationism in science class.
Will search for a subject that I can talk about in greater length.
Thank you for the welcome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by RAZD, posted 11-23-2007 10:22 AM RAZD has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 189 of 301 (435844)
11-23-2007 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Beretta
11-23-2007 10:05 AM


Belated Welcome to EvC
Welcome Beretta,
I'm not sure if you received a proper welcome, but we are glad you decided to add to our diversity.
That said, I strongly suggest that you start fresh.
Read Message 176 by Percy and his previous messages. Message 123, Message 134, and Message 142
Then take the time to construct a clear positive argument for why you feel creationism should be taught in schools.
Think of it as writing a proposal to have creationism included in the curriculum. What positive information would you present to them so that they feel teaching creationism is advantageous to our children.
Take that into account along with the advice from Percy and respond to Percy's last message with a concise argument for your position.
The other participants in this thread should also heed Percy's last post.
As members, we are guests on this board and as guests we are asked to put forth our best behavior. Please read the Forum Guidelines carefully and understand the wishes of our host. Abide by the Forum Guidelines and you will be a welcome addition.
In the purple signature box below, you'll find some links that will help make your journey here pleasant.
Please direct any questions or comments you may have concerning this post to the Moderation Thread.
Again, welcome and fruitful debating. Purple
Edited by AdminPD, : Typo

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encyclopedia Brittanica, on debate

Links for comments on moderation procedures and/or responding to admin msgs:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Great Debate Proposals
    Helpful links for New Members: Forum Guidelines, Quick Questions,
    [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], and Practice Makes Perfect

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 185 by Beretta, posted 11-23-2007 10:05 AM Beretta has not replied

    Dr Adequate
    Member (Idle past 284 days)
    Posts: 16113
    Joined: 07-20-2006


    Message 190 of 301 (435847)
    11-23-2007 11:04 AM
    Reply to: Message 185 by Beretta
    11-23-2007 10:05 AM


    They should rather have said something like - James Hutton came along and decided randomly on the principle of uniformatarianism and 'the present is the key to the past'where he just decided that everything in the past was exactly as it is now, no major dramatic events (like a worldwide flood), everything just carries on exactly the same.You see this is an assumption -how do we know that? Was anyone there to record it? What do we really know about history that is factual apart from what we get from those that were there? There are none and therefore we cannot conclude the things which we assume are true as far as fossils and rocks are concerned.
    Evolution assumes these things and then works everything out according to those assumptions.ie. since uniformatarianism is true (according to a random consensus) therefore it took hundreds of millions of years to lay down these rock layers. And since evolution is true, these dead things in the rocks are certainly a record of slow and gradual progression of living things. How can we date rocks with radiometric dating and all its assumptions when dating rocks we know the dates of eg. Mt St Helens in gives us dates millions of years older than we know they actually are.If we know that so many dates are wrong for events where we know the actual date, how can we assume they are correct for rocks where we have no idea when they were laid down.
    Radiometric dating on rocks of known date are invariably extremely wrong, so lets not use it to date things we have no historical knowledge of and then assume they are correct.
    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 -how can this be science?
    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. In any case the same applies. Weird ridiculous dates are obtained for things of known age showing that our assumptions are wrong but we go ahead and use it for things where we have no real clue of the age. Why would we use techniques like that. Because they confirm our prejudices and then we select the ones that look right and throw out the others if they are not able to fit our preconceptions.
    Er ... but none of this is true. It's just another Gish Gallop, which is why you haven't been able to produce a single shred of evidence for any of it. So how do you expect science teachers to teach it?
    No actually attacks by scientists on unsound principles and unproven assumptions.
    And yet in none of your pages and pages of reciting creationist gibble have you quoted or cited a single scientist.
    This is because creationist gibble does not, in fact, originate with scientists, but with scientifically illiterate religious fanatics.
    A lot of ID proponents are not religious at all.
    "A lot"? Then surely you'll be able to name one?
    There is a paradigm shift going on and its long overdue.
    Do you know that creationists have been saying that for over 150 years?
    The fantasy that you're just about to win is the longest running falsehood in creationism. It has been passed down from generation to generation.
    And it still hasn't happened.
    Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
    Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 185 by Beretta, posted 11-23-2007 10:05 AM Beretta has not replied

    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 191 of 301 (435850)
    11-23-2007 11:12 AM
    Reply to: Message 185 by Beretta
    11-23-2007 10:05 AM


    You see this is an assumption -how do we know that?
    The same way that we know anything in science -- one makes a prediction of what we would observe in the geologic record if the assumption were true, and then check to see whether we actually observe it. If the predicted phenomenon is observed, then it increases our confidence that the assumption is correct.
    Just like every other science operates.
    If predicted phenomena were never, ever observed, but in each and every case the exact opposite were observed, then the uniformitarian assumption would have been discarded.
    Just like what happens in every other science.
    Added by edit:
    I could have sworn that this was already explained to you. Am I confusing you with someone else?
    Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

    Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 185 by Beretta, posted 11-23-2007 10:05 AM Beretta has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 192 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-23-2007 11:20 AM Chiroptera has not replied

    Dr Adequate
    Member (Idle past 284 days)
    Posts: 16113
    Joined: 07-20-2006


    Message 192 of 301 (435855)
    11-23-2007 11:20 AM
    Reply to: Message 191 by Chiroptera
    11-23-2007 11:12 AM


    I could have sworn that this was already explained to you. Am I confusing you with someone else?
    We have indeed explained to Beretta how something supported by all the evidence is not an "assumption".
    ---
    To which I would add, for the benefit of Beretta --- scientists are not allowed to assume anything. If a scientist says that something is true, then the first thing that all the other scientists ask is "how do you know"?
    If his answer was: "I assumed it", then they'd all fall about laughing.
    Nothing in evolution is "assumed", which is why all the silly lies saying that it is come from scientifically illiterate religious whackjobs rather than from the imaginary scientists whom you assume, without proof, exist and agree with you.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 191 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2007 11:12 AM Chiroptera has not replied

    reiverix
    Member (Idle past 5818 days)
    Posts: 80
    From: Central Ohio
    Joined: 10-18-2007


    Message 193 of 301 (435857)
    11-23-2007 11:39 AM
    Reply to: Message 185 by Beretta
    11-23-2007 10:05 AM


    Nonsense
    I want to see your ID evidence. You are avoiding the topic of the thread and it is getting annoying. Pointless attacks on evolution does not make evidence of ID.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 185 by Beretta, posted 11-23-2007 10:05 AM Beretta has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 198 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-24-2007 1:35 AM reiverix has not replied

    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 22388
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 5.2


    Message 194 of 301 (435865)
    11-23-2007 12:06 PM
    Reply to: Message 185 by Beretta
    11-23-2007 10:05 AM


    You're Still Off Topic
    Hi Beretta,
    There are plenty of threads where your arguments would be on topic. Let me see if I can find a few...
    Okay, why don't you try one of these:
    But please stop posting off-topic in this thread. This thread is not about evolution, it's about whether creationism should be taught in schools.
    To everyone else: please help Beretta stay on-topic by simply urging him to get on-topic in response to anything he says that is off-topic. By all means, please do not respond to off-topic discussion.
    --Percy

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 185 by Beretta, posted 11-23-2007 10:05 AM Beretta has not replied

    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 195 of 301 (435867)
    11-23-2007 1:11 PM
    Reply to: Message 172 by IrishRockhound
    11-22-2007 8:55 AM


    I think the Irish school curriculum deals appropriately with creationism, i.e. it doesn't mention it at all to the best of my knowledge. They have enough to teach as it is, and I expect American schools are in a similar situation.
    This may be good for Ireland, but earlier in this thread I gave my reasons that creationism should be on the school curriculum here in the US. (You might want to read the posts to which this was a response to get the full context of my remarks.) Of course, this isn't actually teaching creationism but using creationism as a tool to teach what the scientific method is and how it works, and also how to distinguish pseudoscience from real science.
    Sadly, we in the US don't have the luxury of ignoring creationism.
    Even more sadly, my idea probably wouldn't really work since I doubt that a lot of US high school biology or science teachers, especially in the areas where it's need the most, have the proper training or credentials to actually place creationism in its proper scientific context.

    Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 172 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-22-2007 8:55 AM IrishRockhound 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