Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,565 Year: 4,822/9,624 Month: 170/427 Week: 83/85 Day: 0/20 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 2073 (573829)
08-12-2010 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by jar
08-12-2010 7:56 PM


Do you understand that beyond the fact that ABR is not a Scientific organization and that what you quoted actually supports the real strength of the Scientific Method?
oh pullleeeaaasssssseeee...go split your hairs with someone else.
What you quoted shows that the Scientific Method works; as additional data is found the conclusions must change
and of course you willingly miss the point and distort the reality. it does not prove what you say, it proves that you cannot trust science or its methods but those who are too unwillingly to open their minds and recieve the truth about their chosen 'authority' they just add more evidence to my point.
But there is no culture of ethics in Christian Theology similar to what is found in Science
of course not, science rejects God's ethics and morality, what did you expect? a field that omits the supernatural to hold to supernatural morality? you are certainly duped to think that secular ideas of ethics trump Godly ones.
keep in mind, you cannot trust something that is always changing. when such is applied to humans, they are called 'unstable' and shunned by the more 'stable' members of the community. you cannot change the definition froma negative to a positive simply because it is applied to a field you like.
Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by jar, posted 08-12-2010 7:56 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 08-12-2010 8:08 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 81 by jar, posted 08-12-2010 8:23 PM archaeologist has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1543 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 77 of 2073 (573830)
08-12-2010 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 7:45 PM


is it no wonder christians and others do not trust scientists or the scientific method?
Because they're lied to about it, by you and "Erich von Frange"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 7:45 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10155
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 78 of 2073 (573831)
08-12-2010 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 7:45 PM


this is an example of the blind faith some people have in science and it shows that they do not want to know the bad things that take place in that field and that their 'scientific method' is at the whim of subjective, fallible humans.
The whole point of a hypothesis is to test to see if you are right or not. A hypothesis exposes fallibility. How else but through testing and experimentation can you find out if you are wrong or right? But then again, this is why you want to get rid of the scientific method. It does away with dogma.
to answer it i am going to liberally quote an article that demonstrates the weakness of the 'scientific method'. I will give you the details of the source after i finish quoting oh and do not let your bias blind you to the facts.
So they used the scientific method to disprove a claim? Sounds like the method is quite useful to me.
Also, you do know that the COBE and WMAP satellites have accurately measured temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, right? Or are you in full denial mode?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 7:45 PM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 8:27 PM Taq has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1543 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 79 of 2073 (573832)
08-12-2010 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 8:07 PM


it proves that you cannot trust science or its methods
Why do you trust "Erich von Frange"? Be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 8:07 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34045
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 6.2


(1)
Message 80 of 2073 (573834)
08-12-2010 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 8:00 PM


archaeologist writes:
{forgot to add the source of the quote, and i am sure many of you will dismiss it because of theauthor eventhough the person speaking the words was a very reputable scholar. The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel pg. 60}
It is dismissed but not because of the author. It is dismissed because it is a classic example of muddy thinking. How many copies of something exist, how closely the current versions compare to older copies tell us nothing about whether anything in the text is true or even relevant.
That is another thing that needs to be taught, and that is "How to look at arguments and determine when they are nothing but smoke and mirrors." We need to teach children how to read religious texts critically.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 8:00 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34045
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 81 of 2073 (573836)
08-12-2010 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 8:07 PM


archaeologist writes:
and of course you willingly miss the point and distort the reality. it does not prove what you say, it proves that you cannot trust science or its methods but those who are too unwillingly to open their minds and recieve the truth about their chosen 'authority' they just add more evidence to my point.
But no one has said that anyone should trust science. That is exactly why science works, it gets tested.
The examples you posted show that science did respond to new data, and it corrected itself. That is why Science works.
archaeologist writes:
of course not, science rejects God's ethics and morality, what did you expect? a field that omits the supernatural to hold to supernatural morality? you are certainly duped to think that secular ideas of ethics trump Godly ones.
That of course is simply false. Science does not reject God's ethics or morality.
Science does not even reject the super-natural. The fact though is that whenever the super-natural has been tested it has failed.
archaeologist writes:
keep in mind, you cannot trust something that is always changing. when such is applied to humans, they are called 'unstable' and shunned by the more 'stable' members of the community. you cannot change the definition froma negative to a positive simply because it is applied to a field you like.
Of course you can trust things that are always changing, that is called life and learning. Only a fool does not consider new evidence and revise conclusions based on the new evidence.
The problem though for teaching is that there is no evidence of the super-natural.
Religion needs to be taught, after all religion for good and ill, has effects in the real world. Kids need to be taught to challenge, question and test their beliefs.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 8:07 PM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 8:36 PM jar has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 2073 (573839)
08-12-2010 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Taq
08-12-2010 8:08 PM


The whole point of a hypothesis is to test to see if you are right or not. A hypothesis exposes fallibility. How else but through testing and experimentation can you find out if you are wrong or right? But then again, this is why you want to get rid of the scientific method. It does away with dogma.
your reaction to contradiction is normal because no one likes to feel that their chosen authority is wrong and does things the wrong way. your reactions are all very emotional and unscientific.
here is a sample of an alternative scientific method: hypothesis: guns and bullets may kill people.
experiment: scientist takes gun and bullet in hand. puts bullet in chamber , aims at lab assistant and pulls the trigger. lab assistant falls down dead.
observational notes& conclusion: guns and bullets do indeed kill people, no need of further testing on humans.
Objective: next experiment--use gun and bullets on live animals.
you do not need to be a scientist to learn about or experiment with something. scientists have conjured up this elite mentality that only they and their field can accomplish anything in this regard. they are wrong
take for example the field of archaeology. the majority of its discoveries come from normal non-profressional people not the professional archaeologist who has spent years studying ancient languages and his/her field.
Or are you in full denial mode?
this is the reason i do not take most of you seriously, my quoted article was written in 2001 and it is just plain common sense to think that in the last 9 years a machine could have been invented to measure such small items BUT it doesn't change the fact that scientists do not follow their own rules {and fib about their discoveries} and i doubt they do now even with all their new machinery.
face it, science is rife with those who do not do things the scientific method and they are not christians or peons and they teach their conclusions and experiments/discoveries to the unsuspecting student.
try to be honest with yourselves instead of attacking me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Taq, posted 08-12-2010 8:08 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by hooah212002, posted 08-12-2010 8:36 PM archaeologist has replied
 Message 92 by Taq, posted 08-12-2010 10:18 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 94 by Coyote, posted 08-13-2010 12:49 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 878 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 83 of 2073 (573841)
08-12-2010 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 8:27 PM


scientists have conjured up this elite mentality that only they and their field can accomplish anything in this regard. they are wrong
What the fuck are you smoking? You've obviously never heard of Bill Nye or Mr. Wizard. That is what is neat/awesome about science: ANYONE can do it. ANYONE can do scientific experiments. The scientific method is not something to be revered on nigh, or held to some high esteem, it is a function that works. It is a process, not a "thing" or an "it". Name one scientist who does as you have asserted. ONE. Just one.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 8:27 PM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 9:41 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 2073 (573842)
08-12-2010 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by jar
08-12-2010 8:23 PM


That of course is simply false. Science does not reject God's ethics or morality.
Science does not even reject the super-natural. The fact though is that whenever the super-natural has been tested it has failed.
no,it is not false, you just want it to be. as for failing the so-called objective tests the supernatural does not act upon demand by the unchurched world andit is no surprise that they or you did not get the response you wanted.
keep in mind that years ago an i.q. test was given to some students. some were white and others black. the black kids all failed, does that mean there are no intelligent black people in america or the world? no, it just means the test was geared for white people. it was surmised that if a black i.q. test were given to white students, they would all fail it.
you hide behind your tests and refuse to check the honesty of them or if you have the right questions or attitude. the supernatural did not fail, you and your fellow scientists have.
Of course you can trust things that are always changing, that is called life and learning. Only a fool does not consider new evidence and revise conclusions based on the new evidence.
you confuse 'new evidence' with truth and that is not always the case. you forget the mitigating factors like peer jealousy, peer fabrication and you have forgotten to learn your lessons from the myriad of hoaxes that plaque the evolutionary field.
the truth never changes, one may discover it but it has always been the truth from the beginning. oh and 'truth' is a theological issue not a scientific one so your methods may not work in finding it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by jar, posted 08-12-2010 8:23 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 08-12-2010 8:48 PM archaeologist has replied
 Message 93 by Taq, posted 08-12-2010 10:22 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9272
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 85 of 2073 (573843)
08-12-2010 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 7:45 PM


Nice source you got there
quote:
Author Erich A. von Fange, Ph.D., is Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Statistics at Concordia University, Ann Arbor MI, where he served from 1962-1987.
Source
His opinions on Astronomy are supposed to mean something?
Concordia University is Lutheran - Missouri Synod.
From their web page.
quote:
The Bible is God's inerrant and infallible Word, in which He reveals His Law and His Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ. It is the sole rule and norm for Christian doctrine.
Evidence and facts mean nothing to these people. How they can purport to teach any science is beyond me.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 7:45 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34045
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 86 of 2073 (573846)
08-12-2010 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 8:36 PM


archaeologist writes:
no,it is not false, you just want it to be. as for failing the so-called objective tests the supernatural does not act upon demand by the unchurched world andit is no surprise that they or you did not get the response you wanted.
HUH?
archaeologist writes:
you hide behind your tests and refuse to check the honesty of them or if you have the right questions or attitude. the supernatural did not fail, you and your fellow scientists have.
HUH?
Again, the whole process of the Scientific Method is to check the honesty of what is published. You even posted a bunch of examples that show that the Scientific Method did just that.
archaeologist writes:
you confuse 'new evidence' with truth and that is not always the case. you forget the mitigating factors like peer jealousy, peer fabrication and you have forgotten to learn your lessons from the myriad of hoaxes that plaque the evolutionary field.
Again, that is simply not true. Those factors are certainly considered and in fact are the basis of the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method recognizes such things can happen and that is why it is open, published, constantly subject to testing by others.
Truth is not as important as factual. For example it is a fact that the Biblical Flood never happened and has been totally refuted. That fact needs to be taught to kids.
Edited by jar, : changed who;e to whole... appalin spallin

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 8:36 PM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 9:45 PM jar has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 2073 (573855)
08-12-2010 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by hooah212002
08-12-2010 8:36 PM


What the fuck are you smoking? You've obviously never heard of Bill Nye or Mr. Wizard.
yes i have and i have also been told by atheists and evolutionists that these giys are not credible.
i am well aware of the fact that anti-biblical people will use those guys and other examples when it benefits them then discredit the same when it benefits them.
so do not take it wrong when i dismiss your mentioning of them because the anti-biblical crowd are rarely honest in their presentations and use of examples.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by hooah212002, posted 08-12-2010 8:36 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 08-12-2010 9:46 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 91 by hooah212002, posted 08-12-2010 10:10 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 2073 (573857)
08-12-2010 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by jar
08-12-2010 8:48 PM


the whole process of the Scientific Method is to check the honesty of what is published
your selective use of the scientific method is noted as we all know that the peer review system is faulty. many scientists who are sent papers to check, do not repeat the experiments or even read them. then th eeditors doing the selection can manipulate the results by selecting the scientists they want to review them--depending on what answer they want.
don't give me this idea that the scientific method is working or is perfect or above board.
it is not. and later i will try to hunt down some articles to post to that back up my point. your idealization of the 'scientific method' undermines your credibility a whole lot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 08-12-2010 8:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 08-12-2010 10:02 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 143 by nator, posted 09-05-2010 9:24 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1543 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 89 of 2073 (573858)
08-12-2010 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 9:41 PM


yes i have and i have also been told by atheists and evolutionists that these giys are not credible.
Most of us are pretty sure you'll tell any lie you need to tell to argue with us, and I think you pretty much just confirmed it. The fact that you accuse us all of lying to you pretty much proves it; projection is the sign of a guilt conscience.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 9:41 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34045
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 90 of 2073 (573861)
08-12-2010 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 9:45 PM


archaeologist writes:
your selective use of the scientific method is noted as we all know that the peer review system is faulty. many scientists who are sent papers to check, do not repeat the experiments or even read them. then th eeditors doing the selection can manipulate the results by selecting the scientists they want to review them--depending on what answer they want.
don't give me this idea that the scientific method is working or is perfect or above board.
Again, what you claim I said is just untrue.
I never claimed that the Scientific Method is perfect but it is certainly above board. The beauty of the Scientific Method is that it does not just rely on peer review. When folk publish Scientists all over the world are free to try to replicate the work. In fact, until the work is replicated it is held as VERY tentative.
In fact, the quotes you published were ALL examples of the self correcting ethics that are the Scientific Method.
Again, the very most basic principle of the Scientific Method is that all findings are tentative and subject to change when new evidence is found.
That is why Creationism can never be taught as Science. It begins with the conclusion and then selects or creates whatever evidence it can find to support the position and ignores the evidence that refutes the position.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 9:45 PM archaeologist 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