|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
No, they were "hindered" by their belief that they should actually investigate and understand the evidence.
That is how they found out that there was no world-wide flood in the recent past, and how they found out that the world was a lot, lot older than 10,000 years
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Shouldn't you be pointing out that Mikey's hypocrisy is exactly the sort of behaviour that paints Creationism in a bad light ? Isn't that what you should be trying to stop or at least disown if you want people to get a good impression of Creationists ?
But no. Mikey is not right. Mikey is ignorant and hopelessly wrong. And you've been shown that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
It's an odd thing but the earlier scientists were hindered by their false expectations of what the evidence should look like, such as "deposits attributed to the Flood" that turned out to be caused by glaciers. It just didn't occur to them to consider the entire geologic column as evidence for the Flood. What twaddle, Faith. Of course it occurred to them. It occurred to people like Johann Scheuchzer and John Woodward. Here's Woodward, writing in 1702:
At length all the Mass, that was thus born up in the Water, was again precipitated and subsided towards the Bottom [...] the Matter, susiding thus, formed the Strata of Stone, of Marble, of Cole, of Earth, and the rest; of which Strata, lying one upon another, the Terristrial Globe, or at least as much of it as is ever displayed to view, doth mainly consist. That's from Woodward's An Essay toward a Natural History of the Earth; part II of that work appears to contain every single basic doctrine of Floodist piffle. However, observation destroyed his hypotheses. In the end the Floodists were reduced to clinging to the glacial deposits as evidence for the Flood, because it was that or admit that there was no evidence at all. But that's not, as you suppose, how they started out. And then finally even the little they had was taken away from them. Adam Sedgwick, the last famous defender of the Flood, retracted his claim that glacial sediments were diluvial in a speech to the Geological Society of London, of which he was then President:
Our errors were, however, natural, and of the same kind which lead many excellent observers of a former century to refer all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge. Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation. We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic flood. The date of the speech, February 1831, may be taken as approximately the last date at which an honest and informed person attributed any geological evidence to the Flood. So, not for the first time, you have ignored the evidence and rewritten history. The doctrines of Floodism were given real thought by serious scientists before they were discarded. Modern Floodists have done no more than fish these discarded ideas out of the waste paper basket of science, and if they had any sense, they'd put them back. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Woodward is very interesting and I'm glad to know about it, because all I've ever heard is the inadequate ideas, a layer here, a deposit there. But there is no evidence against the idea and you don't quote any from him.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Woodward is very interesting and I'm glad to know about it, because all I've ever heard is the inadequate ideas, a layer here, a deposit there. Well, as I say, that's what they were reduced to. But it's not how they started out. Did you notice the bit In Sedgwick's speech: "Our errors were, however, natural, and of the same kind which lead many excellent observers of a former century to refer all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge." (Here "secondary" means lithified sedimentary, fossil-bearing rocks, as opposed to "tertiary" unlithified sediment, and "primary" igneous basement rocks. In short, they were making exactly the same mistakes as modern Floodists, 200 years previous to them. It wasn't just Woodward, it was a whole community of protoscientists. Then science grew up.)
But there is no evidence against the idea and he doesn't give any. We've been through this, Faith. What is more --- this is Coyote's point --- the whole science of geology has been through this. They had dumb Floodist ideas. Then they looked at the evidence and discarded them. Then they were picked up out of the trash by people who were and are entirely ignorant of the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But the evidence does not exist. The only evidence there is that is really evidence is the dating methods, and they are obviously in error because every thing fits the Flood beautifully otherwise. Except for a small glitch here and there, very minor, that's all, to be ironed out eventually. There is no evidence against it really, just another whole interpretive system that happens to be preferred.
ABE: ALL the old Floodist ideas were dumb, inadequate, some very silly, EXCEPT the one that takes the whole geologic column into account. ABE: You know the bottom line here is that what the Creator God says is the standard to which science must conform and if it doesn't conform it's in error, Period. There isn't any way to get around that. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: So you're saying that geology is a fantasy that has been maintained since the 19th Century ? How did that happen ? How come even the creationists with training in the field haven't noticed it ? Let's start with the order of the fossil record. Are you saying that it doesn't exist ? You can point to mammals in the Cambrian, for instance ? And the evaporite deposits. Are you saying that they don't exist either ?
quote: I think you know that isn't true. Denying the existence of the evidence doesn't make it go away.
quote: Except for major problems that haven't been adequately answered and don't look like ever being adequately answered.
quote: Really Faith you would think that the fact that I mentioned some of the evidence only a few hours ago - in a post you replied to - would be enough for you to realise that isn't true. Message 463 quote: ALL Floodist ideas are dumb and inadequate. We can forgive the older ones since they didn't have access to the knowledge available today. The more recent versions have no such excuse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Of course there is. It is men who claim that the Creator God said that, and men can be wrong. And of course if that were the real bottom line you would have no need to deny the evidence or seek to suppress it. It seems more like your bottom line is that nobody must be allowed to know that your idols are wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Look, the Bible, meaning God's own word, says there was a worldwide Flood. Worldwide, not local. The most likely timing given there is about 4300 years ago but leave that aside for the moment. There has to be evidence on the planet for such an enormous event. If you don't think it's the strata and the fossils then what is it? If the older Floodists had come up with another explanation for the Flood that would be fine, as long as it sufficed to explain what the Bible reveals. But instead of that they just drop the Flood altogether, just dismiss it as all of you do. This will not do. There was a worldwide Flood and the strata and the fossils are TERRIFIC evidence for such an event. Once God has spoken that's it. I've done all the arguing of particulars I want to do, and I think I did a pretty good job, but that's the end of that. Bottom line is there was a worldwide Flood and the strata and the fossils are the evidence for it. Just felt like emphasizing this post in red as a sort of final statement. Edited by Faith, : red block
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Even if it was God's own word - and it certainly doesn't claim to be - it doesn't mean that the story is intended to be literally true. And we've found out that it isn't.
quote: There would have to be if it happened. Unless it was miraculously tidied up (which, to be honest makes more sense if the survivors are going to go on surviving). But there isn't any such evidence.
quote: There isn't any. Your assumption that the evidence has to exist is wrong.
quote: If your best argument is to assert that everybody has to agree with you then you haven't got a case.
quote: The fossil record obviously wasn't formed by a flood over a short period of time. So it isn't evidence for the flood at all.
quote: Are you asserting that God TOLD you to deny the evidence against the Flood ? Because I don't believe that the Christian God would tell you to say things that aren't true.
quote: No, you did a miserable job. Trying to pretend that the evidence doesn't exist - to people who know that it does - isn't exactly a sensible move. Claiming to speak for God - when you can't back it up - isn't exactly going to convince people to reject the truth either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But the evidence does not exist. It does, you just don't know about it. Y'know, like you didn't know anything about the history of geology. So you should stop making stuff up about subjects you haven't bothered to study.
ABE: You know the bottom line here is that what the Creator God says is the standard to which science must conform and if it doesn't conform it's in error, Period. There isn't any way to get around that. Great. God just told me that geologists are right and you're wrong. I'm glad we got that cleared up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith, the simple fact is that the God you try to market was doubly wrong, both versions of a flood She included in the Bible never happened.
You just need to get used to the fact that the God you market is a dolt and ignoramus.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
On the other hand we have the testimony of the best and most trustworthy witnesses that put the Flood about 4300 years ago
No witnesses. Who do you think we have as a witness?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Look, the Bible, meaning God's own word, says there was a worldwide Flood. Worldwide, not local. The most likely timing given there is about 4300 years ago but leave that aside for the moment. There has to be evidence on the planet for such an enormous event. If you don't think it's the strata and the fossils then what is it? Fossils are far older than 4300 years ago. Think millions of years and older. And, no, there is no such global flood evidence around 4350 years ago. You are letting belief overshadow all the evidence that shows you are wrong.
If the older Floodists had come up with another explanation for the Flood that would be fine, as long as it sufficed to explain what the Bible reveals. But instead of that they just drop the Flood altogether, just dismiss it as all of you do. They accepted the evidence of the real world.
This will not do. There was a worldwide Flood and the strata and the fossils are TERRIFIC evidence for such an event. Fossils dating in the millions to hundreds of millions of years ago are evidence for a flood about 4350 years ago?
Once God has spoken that's it. I've done all the arguing of particulars I want to do, and I think I did a pretty good job, but that's the end of that. You have done nothing but argue your belief while ignoring all the evidence that shows you are wrong. If you think that's doing a pretty good job I have a couple of lightly used unicorns I'll sell you--cheap!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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3391 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Staying on topic shows whether you are focused, and able to think clearly.
Even the questions could be targeted at answering the thread theme. You all know it is not about what we argue about, but whether what we argue for should be taught in conjunction at schools. Clearly opposing principles of education. Genuine Biblical studies are not philosophical, but the beginning of faith, whereas science is a study of doubt, hence everything needs to be documented and dissected and approved by a board. The student of faith watches the frog by the pond catching insects and eating them. He examines the poop and discovers parts of insects in it, so he concludes that the frog eats insects and has proof. The student of science, kills a hundred frogs and has a hundred scientists from different parts of the world cut them open and document the gizzards as well as write up an essay to a recognized peer reviewed magazine.After some years, students will be allowed to buy text books containing this information, and know that frogs eat insects. And be tested on it, and if they fail they will have a mundane career. The student of faith still has a pond and is now studying tadpoles. The students of science are sitting in class, hitting each other out of boredom, because the frogs were killed off and there is a plague of insects outside.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024