Education

You did no such thing. You asserted that both plumbers and microbiologists use the scientific method, and that both have comparable higher degrees, which is silly.Because someone inadvertently uses the scientific method, that does not make them a scientist.No more than someone who inadvertently unclogs a drain is a plumber.Regarding your claim of higher degrees of education, my plumber didn't graduate high school. One can scarcely call themself a microbiologist without having ten years plus post high school education. How is that the same? Your silly pot philosophy does not counter the practical reality of occupations and their related spheres of knowledge and understanding.

randman - just before the thread veered off-course into Haeckel land, I addressed you on-topic here, and am still awaiting reply.

Crashfrog this statement is erroneous.."Nonsense. God could exist and evolution would still be the most accurate description of the history and diversity of life on Earth. In fact, that's the position taken by the Catholic church. Are we to believe that the Pope is an atheist"If God did exist, and the bible was right, the ToE would clearly be wrong, you know, Genesis and all that. When did the catholic church agree with this, unsupported statement there I fear.Also,It doesn't matter if it's scientifically untenable, because if The church is right it doesn't have to make sense. This is what I am saying about belief. In your world what you believe is right and well supported by science. In someone elses world you have incorrect beliefs. You are starting to sound like a fundamentalist christian yourself. Maybe you were one, as you say you changed your ideas, but as I said, MOST people don't change through being educated more.I am trying to find some way of looking at this all objectively in an attempt to figure out, well, something. I'm not sure yet what it is I'm after, but I find these debates incredibly interesting and want to take part. So I'm sorry if I don't measure up to a veteran of 10000+ posts, but I'm at least trying to engage in this debate, and maybe bring in some new ideas.

No, Randy, it`s not apples and oranges or even about science. It`s about integrity and fraud.You charge evos with perpetuating fraud with missing transitional fossils. I charge creos with perpetuating fraud with missing autographs and transitional versions (fossils).You charge evos with perpetuating fraud by retaining Haeckel`s drawings. I charge creos with perpetuating fraud by retaining depictions of an erroneous Jesus.
So who stands on the moral high ground?

I give two hoots, you've taken it too far, and have begun the misconstruing process.

---

Your body may be gone, I'm gonna carry you in.
In my head, in my heart, in my soul.
And maybe we'll get lucky and we'll both live again.
Well I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Don't think so.

Whatever, randman seems to have taken over. lol

---

Your body may be gone, I'm gonna carry you in.
In my head, in my heart, in my soul.
And maybe we'll get lucky and we'll both live again.
Well I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Don't think so.

But that is where you would be wrong. The evidence for ToE is objective. Everybody does agree about the evidence, even if their ideas about evolution are not identical. It is not a "collection of individual beliefs".It doesn't matter whether or not you "believe" in evolution. You have to understand that there is a fundamental difference between belief and knowledge.A belief is not based on objective evidence. Therefore, it can be - and often is thought to be - 100% "correct". Real Knowledge, on the other hand, is never 100% correct.Case in point: the Church believed that the earth was the center of the universe. On the other hand, scientists know that it isn't because they have observed the motions of the planets. They know that the heliocentric model fits the evidence better.Please understand: beliefs and conclusions drawn from evidence are not the same thing. That's why I said back in Message 12 that knowledge and belief seem to be two different methods of thinking.As for education, it ought to be about teaching students how to think, not what to "believe". Creationism won't get very far if students know how to think for themselves.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Well, firstly, that's one more "if" than you had before. Just because God exists doesn't mean he wrote the Bible. Moreover, the Bible doesn't have to be literally true to be a communication from God about how to live and how to worship, etc. IF the Bible is literally true, of course, then evolution must be false; but the literal truth of the Bible is something that we can establish scientifically, and have - the Bible is not literally true. It contains statements of fact that are false. When did the Catholic church accept the fundamental accuracy of scientific models of evolution? Well, for instance, in October 1996, when Pope John Paul II issued a papal message re-affirming the longstanding Catholic position on evolution - that it does not significantly contradict the word of God in regards to human origins:

quote:

---

Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the Encyclical Humani generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return.

​

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.

---

Are you asserting that Pope John Paul II was an atheist? Not in my world, in the world. This isn't one of those happy multicultural "oh that's true for you" kind of things; this is science. Scientific conclusions are either supported by the evidence or they are not. There's no two ways about it; it's not a function of belief but of objective fact. Right, but they're wrong, according to testable objective fact.Don't mistake my confidence for fundamentalism. I'm more than prepared to admit error in the face of contradictory evidence.What I'm not willing to do is entertain the notion than I'm in error simply because someone says I am. Show me the evidence, or be on your way. I have no time to waste on empty assertions. If you want to prove me wrong, you have to do it with evidence; not by simply saying "couldn't you be wrong?" I mean, sure, I could be wrong. What reason can you give me to believe that I am? Why don't you start with a method of objective analysis with centuries of proven results? It's called "the scientific method."

quote:

---

The problem is they kept using the faked drawings and some if his false ideas for 125 years after being proven wrong.

​

What do you call presenting Haeckel's drawings as factual? Telling the truth?

---

Once again you refuse to answer my questions.You are making statements challenging the credability of scientists when you say Jack Chick is more rigorous in his fact checking.So once again, I pointed out obvious lies in his stupid little booklet against evolution. Simple things about evolution that are common sense that he lied about.
You bash scientists but here you are supporting a creationists who consistently lies in one of his publications.So do you think its alright for Jack Chick to lie about evolution? Do you support lieing about evolution to support creationism, because it sure seems so from your previous posts?

quote:

---

It is unrealistic to expect the entire population to fully understand the theory of evolution. For most people it should suffice that they have a broad overview, and that they have some respect for the scientific community.

​

The problem is a willful dogmatic rejection of science. This rejection is done with enormous hypocrisy, with those who reject science still feasting on the benefits it has brought to them.

---

I'm not expecting the whole population fully understand evolution. I just think its ridiculous when someone criticizes it with misinformation and says it wrong when they realistically don't know what its all about. Most creationist’s act like a bunch of parrots repeating the same misinformation they hear from their ill-informed church leader or from other sources such as the lies in Jack Chick's stupid booklets.I find it somewhat humorous how creationist will take full advantage the many perks of science such as medical advances. But they try to discredit evolution when they both use the scientific method. Hypocrisy...This message has been edited by Ned_Flanders, 12-13-2005 01:23 AM

"But that is where you would be wrong. The evidence for ToE is objective. Everybody does agree about the evidence,..."No they don't Ringo, that's why we have these boards...."A belief is not based on objective evidence..."Yes it can be, it means "to regard as true", but it also doesn't need to be based on any evidence.I don't believe that I stated that belief is the same as knowledge. you concluded that that is what I meant, but it wasn't. And anyway as I said before I'm not arguing against your ToE. I'm trying to make a point about how most people will not be affected by education.

Firstly, I've never said that you wrong about anything. So what do I need to offer evidence for. In fact I agreed with you about evolution, and the inaccuracy of the bible, I even went so far as to say I believe that religion is all made up.The point I'm trying to make, which you seem to have missed, is that you are arguing against a faith which has a definate answer for everything, ie God, while you are in the position of not knowing all of the facts. Which you and Ringo agree with. So do I, but as we also agreed, science isn't an absolute, which is it's strength, compared to a dogmatic theocracy. Although as you have shown very nicely thank you, the papists have acknowledged that there may be something in it. However, I don't see why that makes me think the pope is and atheist.And a I said to Ringo, whatever you say about knowledge and objective facts, you still have to believe it.

Wel, that's not true. Do I need to go back through your posts? I guess so:

quote:

---

Crashfrog this statement is erroneous..

---

quote:

---

In your world what you believe is right and well supported by science. In someone elses world you have incorrect beliefs. You are starting to sound like a fundamentalist christian yourself.

---

quote:

---

But the creationists are only "hoplessly and terminally wrong", if God doesn't exist. If he does then you are wrong. The fact remains that you don't know for certain that he doesn't exist. You just don't believe that he does.

---

quote:

---

I'm just pointing out that noone of us have the complete picture, and that we all make conclusions from evidence that may or may not be complete, and that therefore to condemn one argument or the other as totally innaccurate is somewhat conceited.

---

And the point that you seem to be missing is that it's not necessary, objectively, for us to know all the facts in order to come to the conclusion that creationists are wrong. Hopelessly wrong. I don't need to know the exact circumference of the Earth, to the centimeter, to know that the Earth is a sphere and Columbus's ships aren't going to fall off the edge of the Earth. "All the facts" are not necessary in this case, either - merely rigorous reasoning from the objective facts that we do have. I'm not sure "papist" is an appropriate term for "Catholic". In fact I'm pretty sure that's a religious slur. I'm not offended, but you might want to rethink the use of that term. You made the case that belief in God and acceptance of evolution are mutually exclusive, remember? Here, let me show you:

quote:

---

But the creationists are only "hoplessly and terminally wrong", if God doesn't exist. If he does then you are wrong.

---

Well, I proved that the Popes accept evolution. By your own reasoning, they cannot believe in God. Your own reasoning leads to the conclusion that the head of the Catholic chuch, Christ's Vicar on Earth himself, doesn't believe in the existence of God.Since that's patently ridiculous on the face of it, we know your reasoning is flawed and invalid. It is possible to both believe in God and accept evolution; I've given an example of a famous believer in God who accepts evolution. I don't, actually. That's the beauty of the scientific method. I can construct and test a model, and develop predictions about behavior based on laws acting on things I can't see; but at no time do I have to believe that my model actually describes something real. I can do chemistry, for instance, using models of atomic motion and interaction; those models will produce accurate predictions whether or not I actually believe that atoms even exist.I don't have to believe it. The models work whether I believe in them, or not. No matter how hard I disavow the existence of electrons in my mind, my TV still turns on when I push the "power" button.

From Wikipedia, first Google hit, so you should find it quite easily It may interest you to note that it is a term in current derogatory usage by a certain bigot in Northern Ireland politics, the Rev Ian Paisley.

To be fair to Ringo, most of the disagreement is about the conclusions drawn from evidence, rather than about the evidence itself.By the way, you can use the "Peek" button to see how I am achieving those shaded quotes.

---

What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul.
(paraphrasing Mark 8:36)