Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   should creationism be taught in schools?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 238 of 301 (436093)
11-24-2007 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Beretta
11-24-2007 12:03 PM


Re: The Topic is Teaching Creationism in Schools
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Beretta, posted 11-24-2007 12:03 PM Beretta has not replied

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


Message 239 of 301 (436094)
11-24-2007 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Beretta
11-24-2007 11:45 AM


Re: Already posted this in the coffee house thread, but its pertinent here
What's smart about disguise and obfuscate?
It's the traditional creationist method of trying to smuggle their nonsense into science classes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Beretta, posted 11-24-2007 11:45 AM Beretta has not replied

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


Message 244 of 301 (436131)
11-24-2007 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Beretta
11-24-2007 12:51 PM


Re: "Interpretations"
On a cursory examination, they looks about right
But when you look at the facts, they turn out to be complete rubbish.
You have indeed given these subjects a "cursory examination". You've read a few creationist pamphlets and websites and taken every one of their lies as gospel. Now that's "cursory". And every single statement I've listed is, on closer examination, utterly false.
This is why you should have given them more than a "cursory examination" before you presented this trash as facts.
This is why none of it is fit to be taught to children.
This is why you are unable to present a scrap of a shred of a scintilla of evidence for any of these statements.
In your opinion.
According to the known and recorded facts. As I have said, if you believe that any of this trash is true, start a thread and defend this rubbish.
Remember ID opinions are censored for the most part
What a stupid lie.
If "ID opinions" are "censored", how come you've learned to recite them?
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.
So far, as I have pointed out, you have not named, cited, or quoted a single scientist.
Attributing this crazy unsubstatiated nonsense to scientists is a slander on science.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Beretta, posted 11-24-2007 12:51 PM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Beretta, posted 11-25-2007 6:50 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 257 of 301 (436333)
11-25-2007 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Beretta
11-25-2007 2:01 AM


Re: First short warning suspension
Well thanks for noticing. I'm trying to talk about what should be taught and yes I'm going off topic but only in order to respond. To all those demanding evidence -we are talking about why it should be taught in schools - I'll be happy to discuss what should be taught but in order to get to the evidence, another thread would be needed but I'm having too much fun here and I don't want to go.I feel like I have a pack of hyenas on my back just waiting to try to shred me for dinner.
Having a "pack of hyenas on your back" is your idea of "fun"?
Tastes differ, I guess.
I really truelly believe in the existance of a creator for so many many reasons. I also believe there are more than enough scientific reason to believe that. I also know that being taught evolution helped me push the concept, and I believe reality, of God aside because evolution and the belief in a specific creator, the one in the Judeo-Christian Bible, do not gel. I accepted the one (evolution), I lost the other. You'd probably be surprised how many people have connected the dots the same way.Later when I started to read about the evidence against evolution (not micro), I felt cheated by a system that gave no choice and effectively took away my childhood belief in God by not allowing for that possibility; that taught as fact that which is not provable.
Science by its nature cannot get into the realm of the supernatural even though it exists but then it should stick strictly to what is scientifically verifiable and present clearly as theories those things that are not provable (like pre-historical suppositions, inference and extrapolation.)
But this is rubbish. We are not teaching that there's no God. We're teaching that if there is a God, he worked through evolution rather than fiat creation of species.
Science is not set back by not believing in evolution.
Er ... yes it is.
Instead of teaching that the rocks are old, teach how that thinking came about ...
If you knew how "that teaching came about" instead of listening to halfwitted creationist lies, you'd know that the rocks really are old.
That's why I say, teach the controversy ...
But "teaching the controversy" involves teaching plain halfwitted lies about how "all earth's creatures have 2 eyes" and ridiculous nonsense like that. It is not possible to teach creationism without teaching stupid lies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Beretta, posted 11-25-2007 2:01 AM Beretta has not replied

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


Message 258 of 301 (436334)
11-25-2007 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Beretta
11-25-2007 2:39 AM


Re: Already posted this in the coffee house thread, but its pertinent here
No controversy, just refuse to allow the opponent's evidence in.
So we shouldn't teach both theories and allow children to decide for themselves?
Oooh ... "censorship".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Beretta, posted 11-25-2007 2:39 AM Beretta has not replied

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


Message 259 of 301 (436335)
11-25-2007 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Beretta
11-25-2007 5:34 AM


Re: Already posted this in the coffee house thread, but its pertinent here
You have been indoctrinated here, I can assure you.
You also assured us that "all earth's creatures have 2 eyes".
I am not interested in your assurances, I'm interested in facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Beretta, posted 11-25-2007 5:34 AM Beretta has not replied

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


Message 260 of 301 (436336)
11-25-2007 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Beretta
11-25-2007 6:50 AM


Re: "Interpretations"
Scientific journals are reluctant to print anything that smells of opposition to evolution ...
Scientific journals are reluctant to print that "all earth's creatures have 2 eyes", because this is stupid crap.
This is not "censorship", this is a desire not to print halfwitted lies.
Saying it is all rubbish is like sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming 'go away, go away' while refusing to hear them.
No, saying that it's rubbish is "like" finding out whether or not it's true, and discovering that it's rubbish.
All earth's creatures do not have two eyes. That's a fact. The person who claims they do is talking rubbish.
And to stick to the point - creation/ID arguments against evolution need to be heard and then everyone can make up their minds.Teach both sides.If theirs nothing to it, it will fade out and you have nothing to worry about.Shouting lies, rubbish, insanity makes more people interested in what is going on.
And yet you don't think that Holocaust denial should be taught, although the same arguments, if valid, would apply.
Quoting ID proponents to you even though they are every bit as learned in science as the evolutionists you admire, will not apparently move you one iota. Your verdict is through.
Your fantasies about me are not a valid reason for ducking my challenge.
You pretend that there are learned scientists who agree with you. But you can't name, cite, or quote a single one of them. This is because you're a liar.
You say that your gibberish is supported by scientists. Please name, quote, or cite one single scientist who supports your gibberish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Beretta, posted 11-25-2007 6:50 AM Beretta has not replied

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


Message 261 of 301 (436340)
11-25-2007 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Beretta
11-25-2007 6:50 AM


Re: "Interpretations"
Quoting ID proponents to you even though they are every bit as learned in science as the evolutionists you admire, will not apparently move you one iota. Your verdict is through.
Let's imagine that your stupid fantasies about me are right.
Let's suppose that quoting these learned scientists will not convince me in any way.
Heck, let's suppose it's raining naked women and candy sprinkles. Imagine what you please.
But I have challenged you to prove that these learned scientists who agree with your gibble-gabble exist. Name them. Cite them. Quote them.
In the magical fantasy world in your head, I won't believe what they're saying. This daydream must be a great consolation to you. But my challenge to you is to prove that they exist. They don't have to convince me. Probably they won't. If you quote a "learned scientist" saying that "all earth's creatures have 2 eyes", then of course I will not believe him, 'cos I know that this is bollocks.
But if you quoted a scientist saying that, then I would acknowledge that a scientist had said that.
But you can't quote a single scientist endorsing any of your stupid lies, can you?
You just believe, by faith, without proof, that somewhere out there there's some scientist who agrees with your stupid lies, although you can't name him or cite him or quote him.
It's fucking pathetic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Beretta, posted 11-25-2007 6:50 AM Beretta has not replied

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


Message 265 of 301 (436365)
11-25-2007 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Beretta
11-25-2007 9:27 AM


Re: First short warning suspension
'Should creationism be taught' is what I see as the topic and I reiterate, no it should not.
Thank you.
My contention is that ID and the evidence that opposes evolution should be taught ...
But what should be taught?
We might teach kids that "all earth's creatures have 2 eyes", except that that is bollocks.
If anyone can come up with any "evidence that opposes evolution" that is actually true, then I shall stand side by side with you and say that it should be taught to children.
But all the "evidence that opposes evolution" that creationists come up with is absurdly, laughably false.
So what are we meant to teach them?
No I don't think it is very likely that anyone is going to win ...
We've won. Deal with it.
There you go again assuming simple sources and incomplete understanding. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I do not understand why you persist in believing what you do.
However, the fact that you don't know what the theory of evolution is does mean that you don't understand why we believe what we do.
It is if the evolution that is being taught insists on random and undirected natural processes.
Like that, for example. You keep saying that we should "teach both theories", but you yourself know nothing of evolution.
If the truth is that God exists, then 'science' should not be writing out of the equation that of which they know nothing.
There is nothing whatsoever in science that denies the existence of God, as you would know if you knew the first damn thing about science, instead of the lies that your creationist liemasters have taught you to recite. You poor deluded sucker.
You should not believe the Bible if you feel so inclined but neither should you teach that there is no possibility that it is true ...
No science teacher teaches this.
Personally I will teach my kids both sides.
No you won't. You have no idea what the theory of evolution is, nor do you know the evidence supporting it. You are therefore incapable of teaching you children "both sides". Instead, you will teach them a lot of lunatic lies about how "all earth's creatures have 2 eyes" and stupid deluded crap like that.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Beretta, posted 11-25-2007 9:27 AM Beretta has not replied

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


Message 266 of 301 (436366)
11-25-2007 10:24 AM


The Hypocrisy Of "Teach Both Sides"
Beretta keeps saying that we should teach "both sides" of the argument to children.
But his posts make it clear that he doesn't know what the theory of evolution is, or what the evidence is for it.
He says that we should teach both sides, but he himself has never bothered to learn the first damn thing about the side that he disagrees with.
What a fucking hypocrite.

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


Message 276 of 301 (436475)
11-26-2007 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Beretta
11-24-2007 8:24 AM


Flat Earthery
The earth is not and has never been flat. That was never a creationist story.
So you've never heard of Cosmas Indicopleustes and his book entitled Christian Topography?
Creationists have indeed asserted that the earth is flat, based on the Bible.
The Bible says clearly that the earth is a sphere.
But of course you can't cite chapter and verse for this, since the Bible does not say clearly that the Earth is a sphere.
---
But you are missing the point completely. The point is not that creationists are flat-earthers (most of them aren't) but simply that some people are flat earthers.
Should we not, therefore, "teach both theories" to children and let them make their own minds up?
Or should we just teach the facts, i.e. that the Earth is an oblate spheroid?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Beretta, posted 11-24-2007 8:24 AM Beretta has not replied

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


Message 287 of 301 (436608)
11-26-2007 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Hyroglyphx
11-26-2007 6:37 PM


Re: To be or not to be? That is the question
That said, I see no problem with giving Intelligent Design a fair review on the basis that it is not doing the same thing as creationism does.
"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."
(Of Pandas And People as it was first drafted.)
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings."
(Of Pandas And People as it was eventually published.)
In the market place of ideas, making a possible variable intentionally inscrutable is insufferable, IMHO.
Well, that alliterates beautifully, but I have no idea what it means.
I guess that makes it unintentionally inscrutable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2007 6:37 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2007 8:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 288 of 301 (436609)
11-26-2007 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Beretta
11-26-2007 11:20 AM


Re: Churches Fail
I don't think anyone wants religion taught in the schools.
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." --- Phillip Johnson, founder of the Intelligent Design movement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Beretta, posted 11-26-2007 11:20 AM Beretta has not replied

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


Message 291 of 301 (436640)
11-26-2007 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Hyroglyphx
11-26-2007 8:24 PM


Re: To be or not to be? That is the question
I don't see anything wrong with that since the word creation in this instance does not denote the scope of creationism. Rather, it is challenging the darwinian aspects of science.
That sounds a little naive.
People who teach creationism are in fact teaching creationism. It is true that they do so mainly by the mathod of teaching halfwitted lies about evolution (or "challenging the darwinian aspects of science", as you put it) but they are in fact teaching creationism, 'cos, let's face it, that's all there is to creationism.
Really it boils down to not advancing the teleological argument because it supposes a God/Creator/Designer/Intelligence in place of random, chance events.
Oh, for pity's sake, how often do we have to point out the existence of natural selection before you guys will admit that this is what the theory of evolution actually says?
If nothing gets credit for the causation of the universe, then something should also be allowed to be discussed as a philosophy of science as well.
Sheesh. Evolution has nothing to do with the causation of the universe.
YOU KNOW THAT, DON'T YOU?
If I came upon a computer, I wouldn't need to know who the manufacturer is in order to deduce that intellect of some kind was poured in to the computer.
But that is exactly what we need to know. We need to know whether it was manufactured or whether it wasn't.
If I see a complex object like a computer, and I trace its origins, I find that it was manufactured by a manufacturer.
If I trace the origins of a complex object such as a snowflake, I find that it wasn't manufactured and is the product of physical laws.
If I trace the origins of a complex object such as a tiger, I find that it was not manufactured but is the result of reproduction with variation.
It seeks to state what seems obvious to any casual onlooker-- that life is not the product of farts in the solar wind.
Which no-one has ever claimed.
YOU KNOW THAT, DON'T YOU?
If you want science teachers to teach that "life is not the product of farts in the solar wind", then fine. I'd also be happy for them to teach that life is not four-dimensional beach umbrellas from Alpha Centurii. I have absolutely no problem with science teachers teaching that ignorant, halfwitted creationist strawmen are not science and have never been claimed as science by scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2007 8:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 298 of 301 (436684)
11-27-2007 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Beretta
11-27-2007 12:35 AM


Re: To be or not to be? That is the question
Well said and so obvious. I don't know why they can't seem to just see it and stop imagining covert operations.It's utterly frustrating.We get accused of being liars and fools just because people that can't see what's obvious are blind.
You get accused of being liars qand fools because you tell foolish lies about how "all earth's creatures have to eyes", and how a volcano produced "hydrological sorting" (do you even know what hydrological means?) and how the banana is not a cultivar and how coelacanths are a species.
If your views about biology were obvious, they would, of course, be obvious to biologists, who have done what you have not done and studied the subject, and who therefore know that your claims are utterly false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Beretta, posted 11-27-2007 12:35 AM Beretta 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