Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 436 of 2073 (741038)
11-09-2014 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 434 by Colbard
11-09-2014 6:50 AM


Re: Coyotes call
Coyote writes:
Google "channeled scablands." Those floods were three times older than the claimed global flood, but we can see the evidence clearly.
The claimed global flood, much larger and much more recent is nowhere to be found.
These are the kind of things that students could get into, doing active research. Boring days of reading about someone else's scientific community paid picnic, will cease.
But the thing is, students have delved into the Channeled Scablands (I among them), and have done active research there. That is how we know that those floods were three times older than the claimed global flood, but that we can see the evidence clearly.
And that is one of the reasons we know that the claimed global flood, much larger and much more recent, is nowhere to be found.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Colbard, posted 11-09-2014 6:50 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by Colbard, posted 11-11-2014 12:15 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 448 by Faith, posted 11-11-2014 12:27 AM Coyote has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 437 of 2073 (741061)
11-09-2014 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 434 by Colbard
11-09-2014 6:50 AM


Re: Coyotes call
These are the kind of things that students could get into, doing active research. Boring days of reading about someone else's scientific community paid picnic, will cease.
Seriously. Using "boring to Collbard" as a standard for what to teach is complete nonsense. Students can be taught the facts and even the conclusions reached scientifically. That does not stop people like you from rejecting those conclusions.
If you had questioned those conclusions in class by putting up the puerile counter proposals you've expressed here, perhaps you would have learned of their weak points and be able to provide better answers, Bored One.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Colbard, posted 11-09-2014 6:50 AM Colbard has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 438 of 2073 (741070)
11-09-2014 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 421 by Colbard
11-08-2014 9:08 PM


No, not at all. If you want to come to the topic unarmed with what creationists teach on floods dynamics, don't expect a catering service.
It appears you assume that this is new information, something that we have not been through before, but you will find that this is a false assumption.
Please start with your "best" piece of information, a single argument that you find compelling, unencumbered by other issues ... and check first that it is not listed on
Pratt List of Creationist Claims
AIG: Arguments to avoid
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
A list of Creationist arguments which should NOT be used (according to AIG)
... don't waste time, bandwidth, etc -- these arguments are losers out of the box.
Message 424: I think you may be too patriotic towards what you see as mainstream science. ...
LOL-- I didn't know science was a country now ...
Curiously, I would admit to being "patriotic" (devoted) to the founding concepts of this country, freedom, justice, equality and the inalienable rights of ALL people ...
... to the scientific method, but not to science per se -- I don't need to be devoted to facts, they exist whether you accept them or not.
When you say that a person is delusional because they Q whatever is passed down from the unquestionable gods of science, ...
No they are delusional when they hold beliefs that are contradicted by facts. It's in the definition:
de•lu•sion -noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)
  1. a. The act or process of deluding.
    b. The state of being deluded.
  2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
  3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.
Color added for emphasis.
... it is not scientific or even cool to think like that. ...
It is irrational to believe that the earth is flat, that the earth is the center of the universe, that everything orbits the earth ... that the earth is young and that a flood covered the whole world ... these are all beliefs that are falsified by objective empirical evidence.
... Science is a collection agent for whatever people want to learn, ...
No, it is a methodology to collect knowledge of what works, and a methodology to dismiss ideas that are contradicted by facts no matter how much "people want to learn" them.
Science is an impartial feedback system:
Each cycle adds new information -- the results pro or con from the testing -- to the knowledge available before. Once the results are published they are reviewed and tested by other scientists to check that they can replicate the results, and science never rests after any results, but continues to test and evaluate and review.
... and it is a progressive changing thing ...
Because it continuously adds new evidence and information and corrects invalid concepts and builds on valid concepts. This is WHY science works, this is HOW it provides better and better explanations of the objective empirical evidence.
... to which it is never wise to bow down and begin worshiping as the truth. ...
Amusingly that only occurs in dogmatic absolutist doctrine belief systems, such as religion.
Science does not even claim that "truth" is knowable, let alone worshiped. At best science approximates reality by the scientific process, eliminating concepts that are contradicted by evidence no matter how "popular" they are (lamarkism for instance) and building on the tentative knowledge of previous experiments and studies.
Don't be so hard up.
LOL, thanks for the entertainment.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : dbcode

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 421 by Colbard, posted 11-08-2014 9:08 PM Colbard has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 439 of 2073 (741083)
11-09-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by Colbard
11-08-2014 9:13 PM


Colbard writes:
In either case the answer to the thread Q is more about method of educating rather than what should be taught, don't you think?
Well, you suggested that the children should be taught by allowing them to make up their own minds. I've been pointing out in the last couple of posts that if children do make up their own minds, they're quite likely to reject creationism (which is quite frankly, stupid).
If you want creationism to survive the education process, the only method that will work is hiding the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Colbard, posted 11-08-2014 9:13 PM Colbard has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 440 of 2073 (741084)
11-09-2014 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by Colbard
11-08-2014 10:30 PM


shells and shells and shells
Re the deposits in Dover, just because there was one massive flood does not mean that it cannot deposit and erode in segments continuously for over a year, which is how long it lasted.
One layer every hour 24 hours a day for 365 days does not produce enough layers OR the depth of deposits necessary to build the cliffs of Dover.
Each layer would be sorted by size not jumbled as they are, and you would need to evolve the next generation in each hour for the next layer, a rate of macro-evolutionary change faster than anything observed by science.
Does that sound realistically possible to you?
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 429 by Colbard, posted 11-08-2014 10:30 PM Colbard has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 441 of 2073 (741086)
11-09-2014 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by Colbard
11-09-2014 6:46 AM


Re: Bristles
Colbard writes:
jar writes:
What flood model can account for the layers found at Dover sorted by species?
I don't know I would have to visit the place and do the research.
So you haven't done the math but you already have The Answer™? Is that what you want to teach children in school? Come up with The Answer™ first and then use confirmation bias to back it up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Colbard, posted 11-09-2014 6:46 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by Colbard, posted 11-10-2014 6:29 PM ringo has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 442 of 2073 (741258)
11-10-2014 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by ringo
11-09-2014 1:50 PM


Re: Bristles
Ringo writes:
So you haven't done the math but you already have The Answer? Is that what you want to teach children in school? Come up with The Answer first and then use confirmation bias to back it up?
I have done my own studies on the global flood issue in Australian landscapes, but not these particular cliffs. While I am sure of a global flood, I don't know how these deposits took place.
We have different points of view, so we could argue "until the cows come home" as you may relate to, but as you said, should we give the answer first and then let them make biased confirmations?
That is a good Q, and I struggle with it, because what we believe does come first.
Example, a philosophical outlook seems to be the backbone of observation. We see what we believe. If we believe the earth is flat, our eyes confirm it, but if we believe it is round, our eyes also confirm it because we don't see an endless horizon. So what we believe affects what we see and how we see it.
There's an old saying "A wise man's eyes are in his head."
So eventually it may come down to what guiding philosophy we have to begin with.
Do children already have one by nature or is it acquired?
We know the earth is spherical, but there are a lot of things we don't know, and that's where our guiding philosophy takes us further.
I expect that if the philosophy were true, that we would not have a string of rejected theories. But they say this is all part of the process of learning. Or is the philosophy wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by ringo, posted 11-09-2014 1:50 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by RAZD, posted 11-10-2014 8:50 PM Colbard has replied
 Message 483 by ringo, posted 11-12-2014 11:08 AM Colbard has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 443 of 2073 (741268)
11-10-2014 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by Colbard
11-10-2014 6:29 PM


beliefs and information
... While I am sure of a global flood, I don't know how these deposits took place.
That is a good Q, and I struggle with it, because what we believe does come first.
Yet you were not born with the belief ... just as you were not born knowing how the Cliffs Of Dover deposits took place.
Example, a philosophical outlook seems to be the backbone of observation. We see what we believe. If we believe the earth is flat, our eyes confirm it, but if we believe it is round, our eyes also confirm it because we don't see an endless horizon. So what we believe affects what we see and how we see it.
Yet science does not rely on belief, it relies on objective empirical evidence and explanations of how objective empirical evidence came to be (theories) which are tested by predictions and any new evidence uncovered.
Example: going into space you can SEE that the earth appears spherical, that you can orbit around it and not see any edges, so you can SEE that it is NOT flat. We also know this from many airplane trips that continuously travel around the earth and by the fact that ships disappear on the horizon, not because of distance but because of the curvature of the surface of the ocean, the hulls are out of sight before the superstructures.
After seeing all this evidence from several sources we rationally conclude that the flat earth is an invalid concept and the round earth is a better concept for the shape of the earth. We can further test this shape with instruments (gps etc) to see if the theoretical oblate spheroid shape is a better explanation than a perfectly round sphere shape due to the spin of the earth causing it to flatten slightly. This too has been validated.
We know the earth is spherical, but there are a lot of things we don't know, and that's where our guiding philosophy takes us further. ...
We know the earth is an oblate spheroid because of a preponderance of evidence, not because of any philosophy.
... I expect that if the philosophy were true, that we would not have a string of rejected theories. ...
You are confusing philosophy with dogmatic belief AND you are confusing science with philosophy. Both of these are incorrect depictions.
The reason that there is a "string of rejected theories" is because that is how science works: it tests theories against objective empirical evidence and throws out the ones that are contradicted. We threw out the theory that the earth is flat because of the evidence that contradicts it.
Or is the philosophy wrong?
Any belief, philosophy or scientific theory that is contradicted by objective empirical evidence is wrong.
For instance the old age of the earth is not a belief but a conclusion reached from a preponderance of evidence. A young earth concept is just as invalid as the flat earth concept, because of the overwhelming evidence that contradicts a young earth.
There is a single tree that is over 5,000 years (and there was no flood during it's lifetime).
There are four timelines of trees that reach back over 5,000 years, of which three that reach back over 8,000 years two that reach back over 10,000 years and one that reaches back over 12,000 years.
There are lake varves that reach back over 35,000 years.
There are ice layers that reach back over 200,000 years.
These are countable annual layers that do not require radiometric dating, and their annual character can be confirmed by additional information in the layers. I'll be happy to discuss this in greater detail on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 if you are interested.
... But they say this is all part of the process of learning. ...
And if you don't have a methodology that can show what beliefs are false then you are not learning about reality are you?
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 442 by Colbard, posted 11-10-2014 6:29 PM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by Colbard, posted 11-11-2014 12:27 AM RAZD has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 444 of 2073 (741276)
11-11-2014 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 435 by jar
11-09-2014 8:20 AM


Re: The Biblical floods never happened so get over it.
Jar writes:
So you admit that there is currently no flood model that can explain the Dover cliffs.
But that is just one very small proof that the Biblical floods never happened; there are a couple hundred years worth of other such proofs.
I could find a model for those cliffs if I went there, just like I have found in Oz.
In regards to the global flood Q, I don't think I could convince you of anything.
But I accept that you have a different opinion, without trying to change it.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by jar, posted 11-09-2014 8:20 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by Coyote, posted 11-11-2014 12:19 AM Colbard has replied
 Message 460 by jar, posted 11-11-2014 8:44 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 445 of 2073 (741278)
11-11-2014 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 436 by Coyote
11-09-2014 9:27 AM


My friend the howler
Coyote writes:
But the thing is, students have delved into the Channeled Scablands (I among them), and have done active research there. That is how we know that those floods were three times older than the claimed global flood, but that we can see the evidence clearly.
And that is one of the reasons we know that the claimed global flood, much larger and much more recent, is nowhere to be found.
I can not discredit your findings, experience and conclusions. And I don't want to, even though I know why I disagree.
That is the risks students face in education. Different points of view contradicting each other, makes me wonder if we should keep those subjects for entertainment purposes only!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by Coyote, posted 11-09-2014 9:27 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-11-2014 1:19 AM Colbard has replied

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


Message 446 of 2073 (741279)
11-11-2014 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 444 by Colbard
11-11-2014 12:10 AM


Re: The Biblical floods never happened so get over it.
I could find a model for those cliffs if I went there, just like I have found in Oz.
Theologians can persuade themselves of anything.--Robert A. Heinlein
In regards to the global flood Q, I don't think I could convince you of anything.
Sure you could. All you would need is evidence. Unfortunately for creationists, the evidence turned against them some 200 years ago and has been getting more and more convincing ever since.
But I accept that you have a different opinion, without trying to change it.
Opinions are one thing, but they must yield to solid evidence. That there was a global flood ca. 4,350 years ago is one thing that evidence shows didn't happen, so opinions that disagree with the evidence are useless.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by Colbard, posted 11-11-2014 12:10 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by Colbard, posted 11-11-2014 12:33 AM Coyote has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 447 of 2073 (741280)
11-11-2014 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 443 by RAZD
11-10-2014 8:50 PM


Science and Philosophy
A response to RAZD's previous essay.
What we have in mind affects our conclusions. And if something is repeated for long enough people accept it as truth or whatever.
Such has been the progress of science, an accumulated pile which now is moving on its own impetus.
And there is no arguing, with this interconnected fur ball, except when it becomes too much, it will finally be hocked up and out of this world.
So yes enjoy while it lasts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by RAZD, posted 11-10-2014 8:50 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-11-2014 12:58 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 461 by RAZD, posted 11-11-2014 9:50 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 448 of 2073 (741281)
11-11-2014 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 436 by Coyote
11-09-2014 9:27 AM


Re: Coyotes call
The channeled scablands are a perfect picture of what must have occurred after the Flood: the temporary containment of a huge standing lake, actually a number of them, which then broke through its bank due to tectonic movement and flooded the lower areas, in the case of the scablands forming those peculiar dramatic formations in the basalt. Obviously your timing is wrong.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by Coyote, posted 11-09-2014 9:27 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by Coyote, posted 11-11-2014 12:33 AM Faith has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 449 of 2073 (741282)
11-11-2014 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 446 by Coyote
11-11-2014 12:19 AM


Hardened concrete
Coyote writes:
Theologians can persuade themselves of anything.--Robert A. Heinlein
In regards to the global flood Q, I don't think I could convince you of anything.
Sure you could. All you would need is evidence. Unfortunately for creationists, the evidence turned against them some 200 years ago and has been getting more and more convincing ever since.
But I accept that you have a different opinion, without trying to change it.
Opinions are one thing, but they must yield to solid evidence. That there was a global flood ca. 4,350 years ago is one thing that evidence shows didn't happen, so opinions that disagree with the evidence are useless.
So I was right, I cannot convince you of anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Coyote, posted 11-11-2014 12:19 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by Coyote, posted 11-11-2014 12:36 AM Colbard has not replied

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


Message 450 of 2073 (741283)
11-11-2014 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 448 by Faith
11-11-2014 12:27 AM


Re: Coyotes call
The channeled scablands are a perfect picture of what must have occurred after the Flood: the temporary containment of a huge standing lake, actually a number of them, which then broke through its bank due to tectonic movement and flooded the lower areas, in the case of the scablands forming those peculiar dramatic formations in the basalt. Obviously your timing is wrong.
The problem here is that your timing is wrong.
The vast majority of biblical scholars place the global flood in the 4,350 years ago period, give or take a few. The channeled scablands are two to three times older than that.
To change this around you have to rewrite all of human history. Creationists have not been able to come up with the evidence to support that claim.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by Faith, posted 11-11-2014 12:27 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by Faith, posted 11-11-2014 12:38 AM Coyote 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