|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,786 Year: 4,043/9,624 Month: 914/974 Week: 241/286 Day: 2/46 Hour: 2/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Was "M Eve" a homo sapiens? No. Actually that's a yes. For several reasons, one of which is that the oldest anatomically modern fossils date older than the mitochondrial eve dates. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
what about the dictionary?
fact n. 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy. 2. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact. Results of experiments are observed facts, they may validate OR invalidate the theory that the experiment is based on. Theories are based on observed facts, whether from general observation or the result of previous experiments. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Let's vote on whether the "sun rises in the east" is {true} because:
(1) the sun circles the earth (2) the earth circles the sun (3) some other reason and see how many Americans get it right. Facts are not subject to popularity. They are subject to being observed, derived, experienced and validated. If it is not observed, derived, experienced and validated then it may be true or it may be a falsehood. Interpretations are not subject to popularity. They are subject to being logical, rational, deductive evaluations. If they are not logical, rational, deductive evaluations then they may be true or they may be delusions. Having someone who has no knowledge of the science involved make decisions on what should be taught in relation to that science is like having someone who can't {add\subtract} check your {long division\multiplication}: the result may be correct, but I certainly wouldn't base sending a speck of sand to mars on it. Perhaps we should vote on which form of creationism should be taught? There certainly seems to be a wide variety with a lot of internal disagreement ... from Hindu (scientific universe too young) to YEC (scientific universe too old) to {several, including {many\most?} christian} with no disagreement at all with the science of evolution (evolution is the process, god set the process in motion). Any disagreement between science and beliefs that is not directly related to evolution doesn't belong in a class on evolution for the same reason that other unrelated sciences don't belong. We live in a democratic republic that is dependant on an informed and educated public to make rational decisions on how to run the country and who best represents these concerns
...and 2/3rds of Americans are not hard-core Bible thumpers. There's a reason creationist criticisms of evolution have been effective ... Yes, the criticisms play to the ignorance and failure of logical rational evaluation of almost any topic in america, from the election of the president to the ability to properly answer the question about the sun given above. The real merit is demonstrating that much more attention should be given to teaching logical rational deductive thought processes and how to properly evaluate information that is provided. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Exactly.
In a recent poll 80% of Americans got it wrong. Most because they picked (2), which while factually correct, is not the answer to the question or the cause of the apparent rising sun. Amazing eh? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
randman writes: ToE is not a fact, Let's not play word games: theory of {X} is not a fact. There is no theory in all of science that is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is based on observed fact, actual validated instances of change in species over time, to the point that AiG and others accept evolution has occurred. This is quoted from AiG's "questions we think Creationsist should not use" webpage:
However, the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species) ... It’s important to note that allopatric speciation is not the sole property of evolutionists creationists believe that most human variation occurred after small groups became isolated ... In other words, they changed over time, they evolved. Accepted as fact by AiG. Now give me one thing about Creationism that is an equally recognized fact.
It's not that ToE itself cannot be real science, but the indoctrination techniques, pseudo-logic and values-system employed by evos in the teaching and presenting of evolution is in need of correction ... I thought you corrected me for saying that you claimed there was some vast evo conspiracy ... and here you go again? Please provide evidence for this on-going {whatever you call it}.
the public needs to promote a healthier curriculum not riddled with I'll concur with that statement as corrected. Of course this leaves out all of the creationist and IDist speculative concepts that have failed to pass a single falsification test (which is what defines "pseudo-science" eh?). The tested and validated scientific theories (plural) of evolution (and that combine with the actual factual evidence of evolution happening to make the Science of Evolution) pass this {bar\test\level}, speculative creationism and hypothetical ID do not. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
from:
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404) The Creation Research Society (CRS), a scientific society with worldwide membership, is recognized internationally for its firm commitment to scientific special creation. (bold, yellow, mine for emPHAsis) First, members of the Society, which include research scientists from various fields of scientific accomplishment, are committed to full belief in the Biblical record of creation and early history. Thus, they advocate the concept of special creation (as opposed to evolution), both of the universe and of the earth with its complexity of living forms. All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief: 1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths. 2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds. 3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect. 4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior. Now, there is a basis for scientific freedom of thought. And you claimed Message 101 "ToE itself cannot be real science, but the indoctrination techniques, pseudo-logic and values-system employed by evos in the teaching and presenting of evolution is in need of correction ... " when you think this is science? riiiiight.... far right Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
heh, ya beat me to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Education: B.S. Atmospheric Science, 1969, University of Washington M.S. Atmospheric Science, 1973, University of Washington Why is Mr. Oard qualafied to speak about geology?[/qs] Because he's light on basaltics and full of hot air?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
well there is the striped yellow motorcycle helmet experience ....
picture from Holy visions we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I think both forms of design theory should be taught.
Teach the problems with the intelligent design concept and show the flaws in the reasoning and the major holes in its evidence. This will let students decide between the intelligent design concept and the silly design concept. There is obviously much more evidence for SD than there is for ID: all those little things that evo's keep bringing up as poor examples of intelligence in design are just proof that Silly Design was in operation. One doesn't need to show intelligence to posit that a designer was involved, as many objects of human design show strong evidence for silly design practices, and we know that they were designed. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
you'll have to take that up with Son Goku and CaveDiver ...
there are real problem with design theory and a lot of controversy between different ID proponents, and I think that schools and media need to be made aware of the controversy. both sides need to be provided. I'm working on a new post to better describe the controversy and demonstrate how SD answers some of the questions raised, but I'll be away a couple of days. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024