Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Too Many Flaws with Evolution
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 108 of 144 (499508)
02-18-2009 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by dwise1
02-18-2009 9:03 PM


As private citizens, state school officials still have every right to express their own personal beliefs, but not as agents of the state acting on behalf of the state.
Maybe you should get a copy of the New England Primer and see what was used until about 1900 by most schools in our country to teach English to our school children. After 1900, there has been a conserted effort by evolutionists, athiests, and agnostics to root out any mention of God in our schools.
PS - The last time I checked, the Bill of Rights was still a part of our Constitution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by dwise1, posted 02-18-2009 9:03 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by dwise1, posted 02-19-2009 2:25 AM John 10:10 has replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 109 of 144 (499510)
02-18-2009 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Theodoric
02-18-2009 9:24 PM


Re: John, if you've got some spare time on your hands...
More than millions of year have passed to prove it. As a matter of fact billions of years of evolution have happened to prove it. You demand evolution to be something it is not. Your mind is so closed you wont even entertain looking at the evidence.
Billions of years have past since the beginning of our universe, but that in and of itself is not proof that evolution is the true answer how man came to be. I will look at the evidence when you can show me to a high degree of accuracy that evolution is the answer how so many life forms came to be from a single cell creature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2009 9:24 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2009 10:09 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 111 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-18-2009 10:26 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 114 by caldron68, posted 02-18-2009 10:56 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 110 of 144 (499513)
02-18-2009 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by John 10:10
02-18-2009 9:54 PM


Re: John, if you've got some spare time on your hands...
Open your mind and read a textbook. Then read the original source material.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by John 10:10, posted 02-18-2009 9:54 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2848 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 111 of 144 (499516)
02-18-2009 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by John 10:10
02-18-2009 9:54 PM


Re: John, if you've got some spare time on your hands...
hi John,
post #83
Did I miss anything in this ToE, other than it's all "proven fact" to those who are willing to stake their lives on this belief that is still a theory.
Stake my life on it?? Please elaborate.
post#88
All we creationists ask for is equal consideration in the classroom as to how man came to be, rather than only being given an unproven ToE to explain how man came to be.
Would you like electromagnetism taught in psychology class as well? How about english literature taught in algebra class? To my knowledge there exist religious studies courses at Universities that people are free to enroll in. Shall we throw some biology into them to give them balance?
And please explain how it will be decided which among the various sects and varieties of religion will present their views within the science/biology curriculum.
post#109
Billions of years have past since the beginning of our universe, but that in and of itself is not proof that evolution is the true answer how man came to be. I will look at the evidence when you can show me to a high degree of accuracy that evolution is the answer how so many life forms came to be from a single cell creature
.
Have you ever looked at the evidence mentioned by previous posters. Human chromosome 2 and ERV patterns?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by John 10:10, posted 02-18-2009 9:54 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 112 of 144 (499518)
02-18-2009 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by John 10:10
02-18-2009 9:35 PM


Willing to admit you are wrong about Theories and Laws?
Or are you going to continue the same belief even though you have been proven wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by John 10:10, posted 02-18-2009 9:35 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 113 of 144 (499519)
02-18-2009 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by John 10:10
02-18-2009 9:02 PM


Re: John, if you've got some spare time on your hands...
Since you can't prove the ToE works in a lab in a reasonable amount of time, then the ToE can't be proven to a high degree of accuracy as most other scientific laws are proven.
Seriously, Parasomnium, you should know better than to propose this. If you don't bother to recognize that the time span needed to prove the ToE disqualifies it from ever becoming a scientific law, why should I bother talking to you?
You really should give up trying to use the language of science; you're no damn good at it. Virtually every statement you make is wrong. A few examples:
1) The theory of evolution is not studying to become a "scientific law." In science, theories and laws are entirely different things. Laws describe some regularity, often with mathematical precision, but theories explain laws! A theory is the highest level of explanation in science.
2) A process does not have to be duplicated in its entirety to be satisfactorily explained in science. Nor does it have to be observed in its entirety to be understood.
3) This "proven to a high degree of accuracy" is a creationist talking point, not something that has anything to do with science.
4) The basic tenets of the theory of evolution have been observed in the laboratory, as well as in nature.
You might be able to sell your flawed notion of science to creationists and a few local school boards, but many of us here are scientists and we can tell the difference.
But what is most amusing is that you accept creationism, which has no scientific evidence supporting it, while rejecting science, the scientific method, and all evolutionary sciences -- which have mountains of evidence supporting them. I guess that's creation "science" at work, eh?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by John 10:10, posted 02-18-2009 9:02 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
caldron68
Member (Idle past 3840 days)
Posts: 79
From: USA
Joined: 08-26-2007


Message 114 of 144 (499521)
02-18-2009 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by John 10:10
02-18-2009 9:54 PM


Re: John, if you've got some spare time on your hands...
John 10:10 writes:
Billions of years have past since the beginning of our universe, but that in and of itself is not proof that evolution is the true answer how man came to be. I will look at the evidence when you can show me to a high degree of accuracy that evolution is the answer how so many life forms came to be from a single cell creature.
John, I know we're not supposed to debate using the video format, but somebody else posted this link on one of the evolution forums some time ago and I found it extremely interesting. I think you will too. Take a look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI&feature=related
Cheers,
--Caldron68

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by John 10:10, posted 02-18-2009 9:54 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 115 of 144 (499530)
02-19-2009 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by John 10:10
02-18-2009 9:47 PM


Maybe you should get a copy of the New England Primer and see what was used until about 1900 by most schools in our country to teach English to our school children. After 1900, there has been a conserted effort by evolutionists, athiests, and agnostics to root out any mention of God in our schools.
One of the problems that caused lax enforcement of the Establishment Clause in the early years was that there really wasn't anything to prevent states from violating citizens' civil rights. That is, until the 14th Amendment in 1868.
The public school system grew out of Protestant schools around the 1830's. This immediately created problems for Catholic students, especially when that minority's numbers grew due to immigration from Catholic countries. You see, it wasn't a matter of the schools mentioning God, but rather that it was solely the Protestant teachings about God and the Protestant Bible being used and Protestant prayers being said. The schools steadfastly refused to allow the Catholic kids to practice their own religion, but rather they were being forced to practice the heretical Protestant religion. And as for the Jewish kids, they were even worse off!
You want to have religion in the public schools because you think that it will be your religion that will be taught. Would you really be as eager if it was going to be the Catholic religion? Or the Mormon!!! religion? Or Islam?
Why do you think that there are parochial schools? The Catholics took the action left to them: pull their kids out of the public schools and create Catholic schools for them. Well, since the Protestant schools were getting tax money, the Catholics wanted it too. And the Protestants didn't want them to get any, so for decades the Protestants built a body of state laws and court decisions that blocked the Catholic schools from getting any tax money. They did such a thorough job of it that -- oh sweet irony! -- that same body of legal precedence now prevents Protestant schools from getting tax money.
Atheists and agnostics, you say? It was a community of theists who succeeded in getting explicit Christian teachings out of the public schools. The Jewish community. Can you blame them, after all those decades of having Christianity rammed down their throats? Especially since that religion has traditionally been hatefully anti-Semitic. Do you know why part of the Seder is to open the door for Elijah? Because of persistent Christian rumors that Jews kidnapped and killed Christian children and drank their blood during the Seder. The Jewish response was to open their doors to show that they had nothing to hide. The Christian response was pogroms. Oh, and the Spanish Inquisition.
BTW, you completely sidestepped the point. Reread what you quoted. And this time actually read it. Here it is again:
dwise1;Message 103 writes:
As private citizens, state school officials still have every right to express their own personal beliefs, but not as agents of the state acting on behalf of the state.
PS - The last time I checked, the Bill of Rights was still a part of our Constitution.
Well, you have already proven totally and persistently clueless about what a theory is, so I guess it shouldn't surprise us when you prove just as clueless about what an amendment is.
Here's what you yourself had written (my emphasis added):
John;Message 96 writes:
How far we have fallen from what our founding fathers really meant when they framed the Constitution!
An amendment is a change to the Constitution, all of which have been made after the Constitution had been completed; ie, after it had been framed. That is why they're amendments. Any changes that were made while the Constitution was being framed simply became part of the Constitution, not amendments, since there was not yet anything that could even be amended.
While we could say that all the amendments that have been made to the Constitution are now in our present day part of the Constitution, we cannot possibly make the same claim of the Constitution between the time that it had been framed and before the first ten amendments had been added to it. You yourself had specifically referred to the point in the Constitution's existence that predates the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights!
What part of "First Amendment" do you not understand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by John 10:10, posted 02-18-2009 9:47 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by John 10:10, posted 02-19-2009 8:11 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 119 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-19-2009 8:54 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 116 of 144 (499531)
02-19-2009 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by John 10:10
02-18-2009 9:02 PM


Re: John, if you've got some spare time on your hands...
John 10:10 writes:
Seriously, Parasomnium, you should know better than to propose this. If you don't bother to recognize that the time span needed to prove the ToE disqualifies it from ever becoming a scientific law, why should I bother talking to you?
And this from someone who takes his definitions from a site that specifically lists misconceptions about science. I saw that upthread and it utterly, utterly staggered me. Even Kent Hovind has never produced such a gaffe. You are truly exceptional, John. And it would be a misconception to take that as a compliment. I'll repeat the word for you, in case you miss it (again): MISCONCEPTION.
To the point: the only reason I mentioned the enormous time span involved is because you said you want to be shown the real process from beginning to end. The only way to achieve that is to sit it out for a couple of billions of years, because that's roughly how long it took from single-celled organisms to something like a man. I wanted you to realise the absurdity of what you asked. But apparently it went over your head.
The time span is by no means needed to "prove" the fact of evolution. For the same reason that we don't have to recreate a murder in a lab to get a suspect convicted, we don't have to recreate evolution in a lab to show it's true. Just like a criminal investigation involves many different kinds of evidence to indict the suspect, there are many lines of investigation to support evolution too. The phylogenetic tree, genome sequencing and comparison, radiometric dating, are just a few of the possibilities.
Just take some time to read a few good textbooks on science, and do some studying of your own. The Bible isn't the only interesting book, you know.
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by John 10:10, posted 02-18-2009 9:02 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2009 6:53 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 117 of 144 (499565)
02-19-2009 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by dwise1
02-19-2009 2:25 AM


Well, you have already proven totally and persistently clueless about what a theory is, so I guess it shouldn't surprise us when you prove just as clueless about what an amendment is.
I know enough about what theories are to not base my life beliefs on the ToE that can never be shown to really work from start to finish. I can't say the same for you.
I base my life beliefs on truths and principles that really work, such as medicines that cure certain diseases, understanding how atoms fission and giving my life to working 44 years in the nuclear energy business, and John 14:23 where Jesus says this: "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him."
What part of "First Amendment" do you not understand?
The part that doesn't say this:
1936 CONSTITUTION OF THE USSR
Adopted December 1936
CHAPTER X
ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by dwise1, posted 02-19-2009 2:25 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by NosyNed, posted 02-19-2009 10:50 AM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 118 of 144 (499572)
02-19-2009 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by John 10:10
02-18-2009 9:35 PM


Re: Do you read what was posted?
If evidence supports a hypothesis, it is upgraded to a theory. If the theory then garners even more support, it may be upgraded to a law. This misconception may be reinforced by introductory science courses
My bold.
I just want to hammer this point home.
You also seem to be looking at this through an engineers eyes. Test and retest until that plane/car/derrick etc is within tolerance parameters.
That's not how science works when developing a theory: that's engineering.
You have been told by people here (and your own sources for god's sake) that your understanding of a law being an 'upgrade' of a theory is wrong.
I can only conlude that this is because your training demands repeatable measures before you can do your thing.
But you absolutley cannot conflate engineering (an appliance of knowledge) with the scientific method (the gathering of knowledge).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by John 10:10, posted 02-18-2009 9:35 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 119 of 144 (499575)
02-19-2009 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by dwise1
02-19-2009 2:25 AM


Dewise writes:
You want to have religion in the public schools because you think that it will be your religion that will be taught. Would you really be as eager if it was going to be the Catholic religion? Or the Mormon!!! religion? Or Islam?
I think you are over applying what John may be saying. He is indicating that he would like to see creation or design taught not necessarily a particular religion. Design is both scientific and philosophic, not religious. Trust me you dont want to get in a discussion with me on this point, you will lose. Think about it.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by dwise1, posted 02-19-2009 2:25 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Huntard, posted 02-19-2009 9:07 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 122 by Parasomnium, posted 02-19-2009 9:19 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 129 by bluegenes, posted 02-19-2009 11:06 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 120 of 144 (499581)
02-19-2009 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Dawn Bertot
02-19-2009 8:54 AM


Bertot writes:
I think you are over applying what John may be saying. He is indicating that he would like to see creation or design taught not necessarily a particular religion.
But that IS a particualr religion. Or do you want ALL creation myths taught as science?
Design is both scientific and philosophic, not religious.
It might be philosophic, but it's certainly NOT science, and it cerntainly IS religion.
Trust me you dont want to get in a discussion with me on this point, you will lose.
Oh dear, look what I just did....
Think about it.
I have, and this is the conclusion I've reached.

I hunt for the truth
What you can do in my country and get away with:
Softdrugs? Legal!
Legal drinking age? 16!
Birth control (the pill)? Free!
Gay marriage? Legal!
Abortion? Legal!
Euthanasia? Legal!
Age of consent? 16 (14 if you have the parents permission)!
Yep, only one way down for us!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-19-2009 8:54 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-19-2009 9:18 AM Huntard has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 121 of 144 (499582)
02-19-2009 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Huntard
02-19-2009 9:07 AM


H writes:
But that IS a particualr religion. Or do you want ALL creation myths taught as science?
Ah like the falsifiability principle you start with an assertion and assumption. Would you like to demonstrate that design is a religion. You do know the difference between an assertion and an argument correct? Chance or the way in which things may have come into existence is based on the best possible information (science) and theory, this includes the ToE. How would the ToE evolution be any different in this respect, since it provides absolutley no information for its source. Think about it son.
It might be philosophic, but it's certainly NOT science, and it cerntainly IS religion.
You do realize the difference between an assertion and an actual argument correct? One line assertions are not arguments. Come on H you can do better than that,right?
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Huntard, posted 02-19-2009 9:07 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Huntard, posted 02-19-2009 9:32 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 122 of 144 (499583)
02-19-2009 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Dawn Bertot
02-19-2009 8:54 AM


Bertot, doing a mediocre impression of Clint Eastwood, writes:
He is indicating that he would like to see creation or design taught not necessarily a particular religion. [...] Trust me you dont want to get in a discussion with me on this point, you will lose. Think about it.
One word for you, Dirty Harry: The Wedge Document. Oh, that's three words. Well, "make my day" anyway.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-19-2009 8:54 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-19-2009 9:27 AM Parasomnium 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