|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5897 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: I most certainly am not. I consistently referred to astrology as an hypothesis - never a theory. Now Behe's definition is different. If he were to exclude every hypothesis that has failed and every theory that hasn't been stated as a testable hypothesis, he'd have to throw out all versions of macroevolution and big bangs. That'd never fly with anyone except some creationists. He defined the word just as it is currently used. He's not the one who started abusing the word - he's merely acknowledging its abuse. Now how about you coming up with a definition that excludes the failed hypotheses you dislike, but includes the ones you like? And none of this has any real bearing. It's perfectly proper for biology classes to teach Spontaneous Generation hypotheses - the only bad part would be if they teach that it is true. Just how uneducated should people be when they graduate the type of school you advocate? 20 years of the Trixie/RickJB curriculum is far worse than any of the zany junk mentioned thus far for ID. Can't teach failed hypotheses & how they failed. Can't teach anything unless you can answer why it's that way. I guess that leaves recess. No gym class - just recess. But it's not hard to see the nonsense fantasies written elsewhere in this thread for what they are. Children who are taught about both evolutionism and creation science have always scored higher on tests than those who only receive the religious indoctrination of evolutionists. The results of those experiments are in. Nobody has yet provided any reason to doubt that this would be the case with ID. I'm glad I don't belong to a religion which strictly forbids one to learn the lessons of history.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4173 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Thanks. Yet another excellent example of the predictive power of the ToE. Now, if only CTD would use I.D. to make any sort of comparable prediction (but I won't be holding my breath). Hell neither he nor Beretta can supply even something as simply as a hypothesis we can actually test.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5897 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: How does gravity do what it does?
quote: How does it work? You made up this standard. The game can go on and on. I'm surprised you can't even see one move ahead in such a simple game. Had I asked "what is the strong nuclear force?", you'd have to give me a circular answer - or just invent some new fantasy. Even in math there are axioms/assumptions which must be made. And there are unanswered questions in all fields.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4173 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
CTD writes: A failed hypothesis, I might add. Or, depending how the hypothesis is worded, an untestable hypothesis. You want us to waste time teaching this in school?
I consistently referred to astrology as an hypothesis CTD writes: What in the hell are you talking about? Why would he include a hypothesis that has failed? How can he include a theory that hasn't been stated? And in what way does any of the crap affect the ToE, as it relates to macroevolution (your term, not mine). And who gives a fuck about the big bang theory? We're talking evolution and I.D. here, CTD, not astronomy and physics.
Now Behe's definition is different. If he were to exclude every hypothesis that has failed and every theory that hasn't been stated as a testable hypothesis, he'd have to throw out all versions of macroevolution and big bangs. CTD writes: Why not exclude all the failed hypotheses, not just those we dislike...and we can call it...The Theory of Evolution?
Now how about you coming up with a definition that excludes the failed hypotheses you dislike, but includes the ones you like? CTD writes: Wow, this is such utter bull shit on soooooo many levels. Children who are taught about both evolutionism and creation science have always scored higher on tests than those who only receive the religious indoctrination of evolutionists. The results of those experiments are in. First, your link to these studies is...? Second, seeing as how creationism is not taught in public schools, I wonder how these "tests" were conducted. Third, Evolution is not in any way, shape, or form, a religion, or in any way, shape, or form, religious in nature.
CTD writes: Let me see if I understand you correctly. You're saying that a rigorous science education is far worse than...and I quote..."any of the zany junk mentioned thus far for I.D." Glad we agree that it's both zany and junk. 20 years of the Trixie/RickJB curriculum is far worse than any of the zany junk mentioned thus far for ID. Oh, hey, while I got ya here...we only have abut 40 posts to go...is there any chance that either you or Beretta will finally supply a testable, I.D. hypothesis? Edited by FliesOnly, : No reason given. Edited by FliesOnly, : to fix a typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5897 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: I must assume you're either kidding or just being contrary. There's been plenty of work done verifying the self-evident fact that randomness does not produce complexity. If evolutionists were true to their beliefs, I don't understand why they do some of the things they do. Upon buying a toy or piece of furniture which requires assembly, why do they not place it in the back yard and let it assemble itself? Heck, the design phase is already done, and the manufacturing as well - random forces should be able to at least finish the job.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Mathematics is not scientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4045 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
I must assume you're either kidding or just being contrary. There's been plenty of work done verifying the self-evident fact that randomness does not produce complexity. I must assume you're either kidding or just plain lying. There's been plenty of work verifying the self-evidence fact that randomness can and does produce complexity. Ever heard of a snowflake? Fractals? Evolutionary algorithms? Salt crystals? Quartz crystals? Basically any other crystaline structure?
If evolutionists were true to their beliefs, I don't understand why they do some of the things they do. Upon buying a toy or piece of furniture which requires assembly, why do they not place it in the back yard and let it assemble itself? Heck, the design phase is already done, and the manufacturing as well - random forces should be able to at least finish the job. If Creationists were true to their beliefs, I don't understand why they continually speak from ignorance or perpetuate blatant, repeatedly exposed inaccuracies, which amounts to lying. Your ignorant strawman of evolution is a ridiculous mishmash of evolution, abiogenesis, and a complete absence of scientific knowledge. Where is all of this ID work, CTD? Can you produce it, or are you lying? When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Random mutations acted on by natural selection does. You know, many industries use something called Evolutionary Algorythms which use Evolutionary principles to design things, often very complex things, better than humans can.
Evolutionary algorithms consistently perform well approximating solutions to all types of problems because they do not make any assumption about the underlying fitness landscape; this generality is shown by successes in fields as diverse as engineering, art, biology, economics, genetics, operations research, robotics, social sciences, physics, and chemistry. What greater understanding of nature has ID supplied us with?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5018 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
CTD writes: There's been plenty of work done [on ID] verifying the self-evident fact that randomness does not produce complexity. Leaving aside the fact that this is complete nonsense, how does ToE criticism amount to an ID hypothesis? Even if the ToE was incorrect, how does that in any way provide support for ID? This comes back to the question we have been asking Beretta - what hypotheses does ID propose? How does ID work? Who exactly was/is the designer? ID has nothing to say except "evolution is wrong" with endlessly regurgitated PRATTs. Without a hypothesis ID amounts to nothing. Edited by RickJB, : Typos.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
CTD writes: If evolutionists were true to their beliefs, I don't understand why they do some of the things they do. Upon buying a toy or piece of furniture which requires assembly, why do they not place it in the back yard and let it assemble itself? Heck, the design phase is already done, and the manufacturing as well - random forces should be able to at least finish the job. And why don't you kneel down beside it and pray for the intelligent designer to assemble it for you? Evolutionists, my child, do not claim the instant production, design and assembly of complex biological phenomena. It is creationists who do this, so if you want instant assembly, your terrible analogy would be appropriate for them. We evos are the billions of years ones, remember.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5897 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: Hmm... For my own personal curiosity, I requested examples of "Natural Selection" being tested. Instead, we get "predictions of ToE". As this is off-topic, I think it might be best to drop it. Neither is it true that I am unable to provide an ID hypothesis. It has not been asked of me, and for three reasons I do not intend to provide one.1.) It's another person's challenge, and as I haven't carefully read every post there's a fair chance it's been met and ignored. 2.) I'm lazy 3.) The post I reply to attempts to make me look bad for not meeting this challenge, when it was never mine to begin with. For future reference, this is not a good way to overcome reason #2.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
You actually have the gall to say
He defined the word just as it is currently used. He's not the one who started abusing the word - he's merely acknowledging its abuse. This is a load of complete crap and the evidence which shows that it's utter crap is the Dover trial transcript!!! Have you actually read the transcript or are you yet another cdesign proponentsist who doesn't see what the transcript has to do with this topic? Maybe if you read the transcript you wouldn't be making yet another howler! This is laughable. I see absolutely no point in debating the utterances of Michael Behe in the Dover tral with someone who doesn't seem to have read it. How can you know what the transcript says if you won't read it? If this is what passes for intelligent discussion, then I see no point in it. You may declare victory in this debate since I am withdrawing because I prefer to debate with people with a smidgeon of common sense and a less troll-like attitude. Good day to you! Any Admins want to pick up the debate and run with it? I wish you the joys of it. When you allow trolls to run threads to their conclusion with utter bilge, you can't be surprised when debates are of such low quality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote:The reason there are no ID hypotheses is that ID is religion in disguise. Its basis is fundamentalist Christian belief, not science. Having no scientific basis, all the IDers can do is try to knock down the theory of evolution in the hope that they can raise doubts about science in general and the theory of evolution in particular, and based on those doubts, they hope to come up with some converts to their real religious beliefs. And if they can cast doubt on all of "materialism and its cultural legacies" so much the better. But when asked to propose an ID curriculum (the topic of this thread) there is no response. There is only anti-evolutionary propaganda masquerading as pseudo-science in the hope of fooling somebody. But hey, that's good enough! Let's teach it in the schools anyway. I can see the curriculum now:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
CTD writes: Hmm... For my own personal curiosity, I requested examples of "Natural Selection" being tested. Instead, we get "predictions of ToE". As this is off-topic, I think it might be best to drop it. And to satisfy your curiosity, I pointed you towards an earlier post of mine, which describes a test that illustrates both random mutation and natural selection in action. I'm happy to show you other examples on another thread, where we could make evidence for the respective mechanisms of ToE and I.D. the topic. It's easy to present evidence based on reality.
quote: From: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html where there are several other examples.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I can see the curriculum now:
You forgot "Amen."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024