Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 286 of 2073 (737969)
10-02-2014 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by djufo
10-02-2014 8:23 PM


Creationists, eh?
We don't expect them to have degrees in biology. Or anything else. Our standards are not high. We ask for so little. But we always get even less.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by djufo, posted 10-02-2014 8:23 PM djufo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 287 of 2073 (737999)
10-03-2014 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by djufo
10-02-2014 8:23 PM


djufo writes:
Both should be mentioned as theories.
All theories should be mentioned. In the case of "the origin of species" there is only one theory - evolution.
Creationism is at best a failed hypothesis. It has failed every test concerning the age of the earth, the relatedness of species, etc. (Note that the age of the earth is not directly related to evolution but it is a creationist obsession.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by djufo, posted 10-02-2014 8:23 PM djufo has not replied

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


(1)
Message 288 of 2073 (738007)
10-03-2014 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by djufo
10-02-2014 8:23 PM


Both should be mentioned as theories.
With all due respect, do you even have any idea what a theory is? I strongly suspect that you are someone who would say without thinking "Evolution is just a theory", which in itself immediately reveals that person as not knowing what he is talking about. Remember, I am saying that with all due respect (not in the Woody Allen sense).
I know that creationists typically semantic-shift "theory" to mean a SWAG ("some wild-ass guess"), whereas in science a theory is nothing of the sort. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory):
quote:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).
From my own description in the outline of my position and knowledge about "creation science" (http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/outline.html):
quote:
ii. E.g., the word "theory". In common parlance, it means something that's little more than a guess. Yet in science, it means a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena. A scientific theory is constructed out of bundles of hypotheses which have been repeatedly tested against the evidence and corrected, refined, or replaced by better hypotheses. As such, a scientific theory has undergone repeated testing and is strongly supported by the evidence. A far cry from what creationists think the word means.
So "evolution as a theory" is something that has been developed over time based on the evidence and tested against the evidence, making it a very good explanation with a lot of evidence supporting it.
What about "creation as a theory"? Was it developed over time based on evidence? No, it was created ex nihilo, out of whole cloth, solely from religious beliefs -- not even Biblical beliefs, but rather some narrowly sectarian theological beliefs about the Bible. Does an actual "creation theory" really exist? No evidence of one has been found. Ever since 1981 I've been searching for and asking for any actual evidence FOR creation, but all that creationists have ever provided has instead been arguments and claims against evolution. Nor am I the only one to find the lack of any evidence for creation to be striking. And since evidence is needed to develop a theory, that means that when you develop a theory then you almost automatically accumulate a body of evidence for that theory. That nobody has been able to find any evidence at all for any "creation theory", that is itself evidence that a "creation theory" simply does not exist.
How could the schools be expected to present a non-existent theory? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Now, "creation science", while it is ultimately based on untestable supernaturalistic claims, does also make many claims about the physical world that are testable, they have been tested, and they have been found to be false.
So what possible sense would there be in presenting those false claims in the classroom? Would it be like presenting flat-earthism or geocentrism, old previously-held ideas that have been found to be wrong and here are the reasons why they are wrong? Is that really what you want to have happen? To have your creationist beliefs revealed to be false? I would doubt that very much.
Proper theories, such as evolutionary theory, do belong in the science classroom. Non-theories like creationism do not, unless the teacher can find some educational benefit in presenting out-dated false ideas and why they are false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by djufo, posted 10-02-2014 8:23 PM djufo has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 289 of 2073 (738011)
10-03-2014 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by djufo
10-02-2014 8:23 PM


so what is the theory of evolution djufo?
... the theory of human evolution is a ridiculous science fiction story, ...
Curiously this bald opinion has absolutely no effect on reality.
I'll bet you can't define evolution properly -- care to try and prove me wrong?
One should know what they are talking about before mocking it.
... Education system should be based on true evidence and history.
And the teaching of science is based on real objective empirical evidence, repeated experiments and observations, and historical accumulation of knowledge validated by the scientific method.
How do you determine what is "true evidence" and what makes it "true" as opposed to just being (real objective empirical) evidence? What is your paradigm for sorting truth from fiction and fantasy and ignorance?
Both should be mentioned as theories.
Can you define the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothetical conjecture?
Should every mythology be taught as theory?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by djufo, posted 10-02-2014 8:23 PM djufo has not replied

  
djufo
Member (Idle past 3454 days)
Posts: 55
From: FL
Joined: 10-02-2014


Message 290 of 2073 (738045)
10-04-2014 12:42 PM


For the "experts" in "science", prove the theory of human evolution. Of course you can come up with pages and pages of myths explaining how 2+2 is 4, but basically show me the common ancestor, show me the progression between them, and how we got to what we look like today. By the way, missing genetic material. For example how the human chromosome 2 is the result of a telomere-to-telomere fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. Explain how that happened. As far as I know if I walk in the middle of a sunny day for about an hour under the sun, my skin gets literally fried. Adaptation? a process of mutiple mutations to adapt to the environment producing evolution? our, or better said your "cousins" have hair on their bodies for that purpose. Specially more on their backs. well, we have some hair too but wait a second. More hair on out chest?? 2+2....
The theory of human evolution is a successful and simple way to keep control on our society. Just like any religion, the "scientific" community is very well established with a system of "belief". Those young geeks who join the "scientific" community are brainwashed to believe with their eyes closed. Like horses following that path. You can tell them to go through that wall, and they will smash and smash their heads until they go through the wall without realizing that you could go around the wall. Somebody told him before he could walk around the wall but that was not valid because "it was not proven", "it was myth" then once the sheep looked back and studied what happened, came to the brilliant conclusion that through a scientific process we have proven that it was possible to walk around the wall to cross it.
The theory of human evolution is far beyond more fantastic than any Hollywood science fiction movie we have ever created.

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-04-2014 12:59 PM djufo has not replied
 Message 292 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-04-2014 1:31 PM djufo has replied
 Message 298 by RAZD, posted 10-04-2014 4:20 PM djufo has replied
 Message 320 by Larni, posted 10-07-2014 8:59 AM djufo has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 291 of 2073 (738048)
10-04-2014 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by djufo
10-04-2014 12:42 PM


As far as I know if I walk in the middle of a sunny day for about an hour under the sun, my skin gets literally fried. Adaptation? a process of mutiple mutations to adapt to the environment producing evolution? our, or better said your "cousins" have hair on their bodies for that purpose. Specially more on their backs. well, we have some hair too but wait a second. More hair on out chest?? 2+2....
The answer to your question doesn't really pertain to the topic of this thread, so if you want to debate it, then let's not do it here.
But a better evolutionary explanation might have to do with sexual selection pressuring us towards neoteny, rather than some kind of environmental adaptation.
Added by edit:
Here ya go, this might be a better thread for this:
EvC Forum: Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution
Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 12:42 PM djufo has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 292 of 2073 (738050)
10-04-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by djufo
10-04-2014 12:42 PM


For the "experts" in "science", prove the theory of human evolution. Of course you can come up with pages and pages of myths explaining how 2+2 is 4, but basically show me the common ancestor, show me the progression between them, and how we got to what we look like today.
By the way, missing genetic material. For example how the human chromosome 2 is the result of a telomere-to-telomere fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. Explain how that happened.
Er ... that is an explanation of what happened. The thing to be explained is that the human chromosome 2 looks like the result of a telomere-to-telomere fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. The explanation of how that happened is that the human chromosome 2 is the result of a telomere-to-telomere fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.
far as I know if I walk in the middle of a sunny day for about an hour under the sun, my skin gets literally fried. Adaptation? a process of mutiple mutations to adapt to the environment producing evolution? our, or better said your "cousins" have hair on their bodies for that purpose. Specially more on their backs. well, we have some hair too but wait a second. More hair on out chest?? 2+2....
Debate is best not conducted in the literary form known as stream-of-consciousness.
The theory of human evolution is a successful and simple way to keep control on our society. Just like any religion, the "scientific" community is very well established with a system of "belief". Those young geeks who join the "scientific" community are brainwashed to believe with their eyes closed. Like horses following that path. You can tell them to go through that wall, and they will smash and smash their heads until they go through the wall without realizing that you could go around the wall. Somebody told him before he could walk around the wall but that was not valid because "it was not proven", "it was myth" then once the sheep looked back and studied what happened, came to the brilliant conclusion that through a scientific process we have proven that it was possible to walk around the wall to cross it.
The theory of human evolution is far beyond more fantastic than any Hollywood science fiction movie we have ever created.
I note that your paranoid delusions are not supported by any evidence. This makes them different from the theory of evolution.
---
I should note that the topic of this thread is "Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?" and not "Can you give us your best shot at a Gish Gallop?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 12:42 PM djufo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 3:37 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
djufo
Member (Idle past 3454 days)
Posts: 55
From: FL
Joined: 10-02-2014


Message 293 of 2073 (738059)
10-04-2014 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Dr Adequate
10-04-2014 1:31 PM


Thank you Dr. Those are the answers we always get from "the experts" The fact that 2 chromosomes fused happened because 2 chromosomes fused, happened because they were fused. In nature that does not happen. Simple as it sounds. If it happens, show it and prove it.
Changes in evolution due to sexual selection would take hundreds of thousands of years. If successfully forced, will create a species non adapted to the planet that ultimately would go into extinction. Natural selection. Well, in our case natural selection doesn't work which contradicts evolution. The fact that our defective genes are passed on n the genetic pool defies the behavior of evolution. Unless, we were forced to exist to begin with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-04-2014 1:31 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-04-2014 3:53 PM djufo has replied
 Message 303 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-04-2014 4:41 PM djufo has replied
 Message 319 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2014 2:45 PM djufo has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 294 of 2073 (738061)
10-04-2014 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by djufo
10-04-2014 3:37 PM


In nature that does not happen.
You should stop making genetics up as you go along, you'll be wrong less often.
In nature it does happen. That's why you get the occasional person with 44 chromosomes.
There's a reason why the experts are called experts. It's because they have learned stuff by studying, instead of making stuff up in their heads like you.
Changes in evolution due to sexual selection would take hundreds of thousands of years. If successfully forced, will create a species non adapted to the planet that ultimately would go into extinction. Natural selection. Well, in our case natural selection doesn't work which contradicts evolution. The fact that our defective genes are passed on n the genetic pool defies the behavior of evolution. Unless, we were forced to exist to begin with.
Now, what did I tell you about not employing the stream-of-consciousness genre? If you can't think of a coherent argument against evolution ... you might just be a creationist.
---
You are still off-topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 3:37 PM djufo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 4:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
djufo
Member (Idle past 3454 days)
Posts: 55
From: FL
Joined: 10-02-2014


Message 295 of 2073 (738063)
10-04-2014 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Dr Adequate
10-04-2014 3:53 PM


So I might be a creationist...interesting to see a lot of speculation from an "expert" or at least from an expert "believer"
True. Sometimes you see a person born with 44 chromosomes. In what other creature does that happen? it happens in humans because the genetic defects are already there. Forced into the gene pool since the first day of the specie. Also can that person with 44 chromosomes survive out in the wild and procreate? Even we have a hard time surviving. Not because of adaptation but because of genetics. A chimp can pull the head of a human right off the shoulders. Our strength is not even close to that. Oh wait! didn't we evolve from primates? I tried lifting the same amount of weight as a chimp at the gym and I almost broke my back. Im still asking my cousin why is that but he can't answer. He can't talk. But I can talk....theory of human evolution....very very interesting...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-04-2014 3:53 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-04-2014 4:11 PM djufo has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 296 of 2073 (738065)
10-04-2014 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by djufo
10-04-2014 4:03 PM


In what other creature does that happen?
Per the article: "And yet it happens all the time in creatures as varied as yeast, corn, butterflies, voles and even mice."
Also can that person with 44 chromosomes survive out in the wild and procreate?
Per the article: "Except for his different number of chromosomes, this man is perfectly normal in every measurable way."
Even we have a hard time surviving.
Speak for yourself.
A chimp can pull the head of a human right off the shoulders. Our strength is not even close to that. Oh wait! didn't we evolve from primates?
Have you noticed how there are over 7,000,000,000 humans and only (at an upper estimate) 300,000 chimpanzees?
---
You are still off-topic.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 4:03 PM djufo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 4:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
djufo
Member (Idle past 3454 days)
Posts: 55
From: FL
Joined: 10-02-2014


Message 297 of 2073 (738066)
10-04-2014 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Dr Adequate
10-04-2014 4:11 PM


Was that article written by your God?
Yes there are less chimps because there's something called natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-04-2014 4:11 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-04-2014 4:35 PM djufo has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 298 of 2073 (738068)
10-04-2014 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by djufo
10-04-2014 12:42 PM


Try again?
First off it is easier to track your replies to people if you use the lower right hand reply button on the post you are replying to:
and if you use the "peek" button you can see how the post is formated.
Second I just love people that make absolute statements based on ignorance. They are so funny.
The theory of human evolution ...
Thirdly, just as I predicted in Message 284 you don't know what the theory of human evolution is. You don't have a clue how evolution actually works, but feel that your personal opinion is a valid argument. It isn't - that is not how science works, whether biology or physics or chemistry etc.
You should learn what you are criticizing before you make a fool of yourself by displaying ignorance on the topic -- it is like getting in an axe fight without an axe.
... Of course you can come up with pages and pages of myths ...
Curiously, what science actually uses is evidence, not myths. Objective empirical evidence, like actual fossils and actual DNA.
... but basically show me the common ancestor, show me the progression between them, ...
and again, as I noted previously the information is readily available on the internet. Dr Adequate provided you with one image and another version is this one, with the fossils identified along with their ages:
29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
quote:
Fossil Skulls!
Below are 12 fossil skulls that represent more than 3.5 million years of human evolution. Click on any of them to find out more. This exhibit is enhanced with the Shockwave plug-in, which you can download for free from Macromedia.
Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)
(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern man.
Another version is available here:
Wayback Machine0/http://www.amnh.org/enews/iskulls.html
quote:
1998 The American Museum of Natural History. All Rights Reserved.
... As far as I know if I walk in the middle of a sunny day for about an hour under the sun, my skin gets literally fried. Adaptation? ...
If you knew more about the field of evolution you would know that this is a ridiculously uninformed statement. If this is what you have been taught is evolution you have been lied to and should sue your teachers.
It is also a prime example of why evolution science should be taught in schools and should be a required part of any curriculum whether offered in public school, private school or home schooling.
... or better said your "cousins" have hair on their bodies for that purpose. Specially more on their backs. well, we have some hair too but wait a second. More hair on out chest?? 2+2....
And as was pointed out by Cat Sci we have a thread (Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution) that discusses the apparent hairlessness of humans. The actual distribution of hair on chimps and on humans is similar, but on humans it is still mainly in juvenile form (vellus hair) which is thin and clear (blond), and it is one of many characteristics of humans that are due to neoteny and sexual selection.
You have a lot to learn, and unfortunately (for you) it appears you have a lot of misinformation to unlearn before you can begin to have a beginning knowledge of evolution that should have been available to you in elementary school.
Let's try again, and work on just evolution before getting to the application to humans and Homo sapiens:
Can you define what the process of evolution is?
Can you define what the Theory of Evolution is?
See if you can surprise me.
If you want to pursue some remedial education on the topic I can recommend:
An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 12:42 PM djufo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 4:28 PM RAZD has replied

  
djufo
Member (Idle past 3454 days)
Posts: 55
From: FL
Joined: 10-02-2014


Message 299 of 2073 (738069)
10-04-2014 4:21 PM


By the way, evolution of humans should be just mentioned in schools as a theory. it is ridiculous and disrespectful for the whole specie, but since there's a bunch of making a living out of it, it should be just mentioned to kids. Importance to facts should be given as priority in education.

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-04-2014 4:37 PM djufo has not replied
 Message 314 by Percy, posted 10-05-2014 10:18 AM djufo has not replied
 Message 315 by ringo, posted 10-05-2014 2:39 PM djufo has not replied

  
djufo
Member (Idle past 3454 days)
Posts: 55
From: FL
Joined: 10-02-2014


Message 300 of 2073 (738070)
10-04-2014 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by RAZD
10-04-2014 4:20 PM


Re: Try again?
Before I waste my time replying are you serious about those pictures of monkeys??? please tell me if that is displayed as a fact somewhere because that joke has to make news. Oh wait. I forgot the news are owned by corporations that finance technological and scientific institutes so i better don't say anything. But please tell me if your serious about those pictures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by RAZD, posted 10-04-2014 4:20 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by RAZD, posted 10-04-2014 6:04 PM djufo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024