|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: This settles it.. Never moving down south.. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RedVento:
quote: Didn't you know that it isn't lying when you do it in god's name? (I know, I can be a bastard sometimes )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
All
I do not support brainwashing of any kind. I used the term 'OK to brainwash about Galapogos' to emphasize that Galapogos is a fact! Have I said anywhere that I want to teach anyone about specific 'creation myths'. You can't class 'organisms and genes exist in distinct families which is suggestive of creation by a higher being' as a specific creation myth. After making such a statemnt a teacher would then demosntrate the statment with evidence. No Bible, no Koran at all. I know this will never happen outside the US south in government schools. I believe you have seared your own consciences to think that creation cannot be discussed as a possibility for the origin of distinct lifeforms in a science class. If God created just think what stupidity you are arguing. If God doesn't exist you simply allowed for the second obvious possibility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
All I do not support brainwashing of any kind. I used the term 'OK to brainwash about Galapogos' to emphasize that Galapogos is a fact! It is not "brainwashing" to show that something is a fact. Have I said anywhere that I want to teach anyone about specific 'creation myths'. You can't class 'organisms and genes exist in distinct families which is suggestive of creation by a higher being' as a specific creation myth. After making such a statemnt a teacher would then demosntrate the statment with evidence. No Bible, no Koran at all. Without these there is no "evidence" to speak of so you HAVE to talk creation myths. I know this will never happen outside the US south in government schools. Public schools where ALL children can get a fair education. I believe you have seared your own consciences to think that creation cannot be discussed as a possibility for the origin of distinct lifeforms in a science class. Irrelevant. Creation is religiously inspired pseudo-science only, it is not a valid science. If God created just think what stupidity you are arguing. We're not arguing this, you are. If God doesn't exist you simply allowed for the second obvious possibility. Which is? Prove that your god does exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
nos482
I agree it is not "brainwashing" to show that something is a fact - next time I will use inverted commas to indicate I am trying to be funny. I am not referring to the Bible as evidence of creaiton. I am referring to the distinct lifeform families and distinct gene families as evidence. You seem to think that if God created there could not be any evidence. There is and I told you what we think it is. Since a priori God could have created, and a priori there could be evidence of this then it is scientifically biased to not consider the evidence from that point of view. And of course we think the eivdence strongly points that way. You obviously don't but that doesn't change the fact that there is evidence of distinctness in life and genes. I never said religion is valid science! All I say is that looking at the genomes and fossils to see if they have tell tale signs of creation is science. When outlining possibilities evidence is what we look at, not proof. That is exactly your problem - you think macroevoltuion is proven. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-02-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
nos482 I agree it is not "brainwashing" to show that something is a fact - next time I will use inverted commas to indicate I am trying to be funny. Don't quit your dayjob. I am not referring to the Bible as evidence of creaiton. I am referring to the distinct lifeform families and distinct gene families as evidence. You seem to think that if God created there could not be any evidence. There is and I told you what we think it is. Since a priori God could have created, and a priori there could be evidence of this then it is scientifically biased to not consider the evidence from that point of view. Who created god? And of course we think the eivdence strongly points that way. You obviously don't but that doesn't change the fact that there is evidence of distinctness in life and genes. And how is this evidence of the existence of your god? For all you know it could be the Big Blue Banana. I never said religion is valid science! Stating that your god is "responsible" is the same thing. All I say is that looking at the genomes and fossils to see if they have tell tale signs of creation is science. Creation implies being made complete as they are now. We know that that isn't true. When outlining possibilities evidence is what we look at, not proof. That is exactly your problem - you think macroevoltuion is proven. It has been, you just don't (won't) want to see it. [This message has been edited by nos482, 10-03-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: TB, how does the use of the phrase "higher power" not indicate God/god? Like I said in my reply to you that you have ignored, all you are doing is invoking the God of the Gaps fallacy; "We don't have perfect knowledge, therefore Godidit."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mespo Member (Idle past 2913 days) Posts: 158 From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA Joined: |
TB:
I'll issue my query again. Reread posts #22 & #24. Let's get pragmatic for just a minute. The Cobb County school board has created a real issue for themselves. "the Cobb County School District believes that discussion of disputed views of academic subjects is a necessary element of providing a balanced education, including the study of the origin of the species. " So, in practical terms, a science teacher will introduce alternate theories to the origin of species. Testing has to be an integral part of the teaching process. Students will need handouts and / or approved text materials to study for homework, work papers, quicky quizzes and final exams. Again, I say, what texts? What references? Without a uniform approach, there will be chaos. Without administrative backing there will be anarchy. And the Cobb County school board will be vunerable to hammering in the court room and in the press. You can count on it. Even if their approach is wrong in the eyes of the scientific community, it has to be consistent. So, how about giving the school board a hand, TB. Put together a draft of a lesson plan for alternative views for origin of species. Something that will hold up in court. Something that will deflect ridicule from the Creationist point of view. (:raig
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Yeah - why does that gravity get rammed down our kids throats? And the Holocaust? Come on people - its just a Zionist plot. And we all know that white folks is superior. Why don't that get taught as a fact? It is common sense, after all....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: Exactly. And another one "Not with my tax dollars..."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Mespo
I partially agree. I would be very happy to do that if I was over there. To show that I am not just talking here is an example: 1. Mainstream science admits it is possible that a higher being created life on earth2. The fossil record contains few examples of smooth transitions. 3. Supposed fossil lineages contain convergences that stretch credability. 4. Genetics shows that the major novelties that distinguish organisms correspond to new biochemical steps 5. The genetic systems that make life work appear to contain a minimal number of parts to function. 6. The primordal soup origin for the first lifeform is extremely unlikely. There is no Bible or anything in this. The data does suggest creation irrespective of whether it is true or not. Evolution has a potential answer for each of these and we have potential answers for each of those rebuttals. But IMO these should be presented. I would be quite happy if say two or three lessons were spent on it. An intro day, a fossil day and a genetics day. Alternatively of course the fossil aspect could be incorporated into the mainstream fossil lessons etc but can anyone imagine that being done free of bias? Pragmatically it probably should be done separately although ideally it should be merged and the pros and cons presented for each framework. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-03-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
nos482
You asked 'Who created god'? Even sceince works one step at a time. You first explain how phenotype depends on underlying genes (Mendel) then you understand the DNA origin of genes (Watson & Crick). Ther is nothing wrong with one step at a time. I do not beleive the origin of God is worth thinking about on this side of eternity. Kinds and distinct gene families are suggestive that the steps between kinds may be too big for evoltuion. It is suggestiver , it doens't prve anything. And of course I claim not distinction between Jehova and the Big Blue Banana. The geo-column is strongly suggestive of the Biblical flood however (IMO). You said that stating that 'my god is "responsible" (for life) is the same thing (as science)'. Really? I can state one thing by faith and another by science. I believe by faith that my God is responisble for life on earth. I also scientifically beleive that the data backs it up, although not neccesarily uniquely. Creation implies completely funcitonal not 'complete as today'. Who says they can't change? I don't. Some 19th century creationists might have. You're using a poor strawman there. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-03-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
acmhttu001_2006 Inactive Member |
Nos482,
Well, then I will not give up the debate. Thank goodness, I have a cut and paste button, if something needs to be typed again and again. LOL. Where they get those kind of points that you made, which are typical of creationists', I do not see the logic. My guess, is there is none. ------------------Anne C. McGuire Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors Chemistry and Physics minors Thanks and have a nice day
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
acmhttu001_2006 Inactive Member |
My bad.
Do not know. ------------------Anne C. McGuire Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors Chemistry and Physics minors Thanks and have a nice day
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
acmhttu001_2006 Inactive Member |
T.B.
Have not read nos482's reply to your letter. But the frequency with which you miss critical points, I shall say them at the expense of repeating old material. If it is a fact, you are not brainwashing them. And what is fact? It is a statement that is backed up by evidence. You sure have, heck, if we teach that life came from a"created" stage, then what do we tell the little kiddies when they ask "Who created the earth and us?" I am so sure, you would not like it if we told them it was anyone but what you believe, God. Heck, we have to teach the rest of the creation myths, so no religions or anybody will feel left out. And then science becomes less of a disciplined field that it is and becomes something to be used at the hands of some "fanatics". As to your second and third statements. I will not argue with you. You are a great Christian who we all want to emulate, esp. with her regard and concern with living up to the passage of Judge not, or else you will be judged with the same standards. [NOT A DIRECT QUOTATION, but if anyone wants to call me down on the carpet, I can find the quotation for you.] Well, if we are wrong, go ahead and save us all a nice cozy spot by the fire in Hell, and make sure there are plenty of smores when I get down there. See ya. ------------------Anne C. McGuire Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors Chemistry and Physics minors Thanks and have a nice day [This message has been edited by acmhttu001_2006, 10-03-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
acmhttu001_2006 Inactive Member |
schrafinator,
Do not worry, he/she ignores my posts too. Guess he/she is having fewer and fewer things to say. ------------------Anne C. McGuire Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors Chemistry and Physics minors Thanks and have a nice day
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024