Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 511 of 2073 (741533)
11-13-2014 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 510 by PaulK
11-13-2014 1:21 AM


Re: Coyotes call
Paul, you don't know how to read the Bible. You have the usual unbeliever's bizarre ideas about what parts of it mean. Besides misreading me as well. You think I contradict myself when I don't, it's just your misreading of the Bible, or of me; you think the first verses of Luke contradict the idea of Bible inspiration, they don't, but you'll insist on it anyway. Sure you can "back it all up," but with your wrong ideas about what it means. You'll insist on them but they're wrong. You can't admit something if you don't see the problem.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 510 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2014 1:21 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 512 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2014 1:43 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 515 by mike the wiz, posted 11-13-2014 7:36 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 512 of 2073 (741534)
11-13-2014 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 511 by Faith
11-13-2014 1:25 AM


Re: Coyotes call
quote:
Paul, you don't know how to read the Bible.
No, you mean I don't follow your "rules" for reading the Bible. Now if you want to argue that your "rules" are correct that would be a fine topic and one that is not science.
quote:
You have the usual unbeliever's bizarre ideas about what parts of it mean
I do ? I guess that I have to do what you should have done and ask you to support that.
quote:
you think the first verses of Luke contradict the idea of Bible inspiration, they don't, but you'll insist on it anyway.
There's nothing bizarre about noting that your ideas of Biblical inspiration are completely absent from Luke 1:1-4. Not a formal contradiction, but when you add in the idea that those verses are doctrinally important then you really have to take that omission seriously. You don't.
If you want to answer that, you're really have to do better than insisting that you're right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by Faith, posted 11-13-2014 1:25 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 513 of 2073 (741547)
11-13-2014 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 483 by ringo
11-12-2014 11:08 AM


Re: Bristles
Ringo writes:
If a book claimed that my house was built in 1989, what should I conclude? That the observational evidence is wrong and the book is right?
But you would also disagree with a book that claimed your house was a million times older, and that it took that long to build.
I get your point though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by ringo, posted 11-12-2014 11:08 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by RAZD, posted 11-13-2014 7:46 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 518 by RAZD, posted 11-13-2014 8:04 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 525 by ringo, posted 11-13-2014 10:55 AM Colbard has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 514 of 2073 (741551)
11-13-2014 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 467 by PaulK
11-11-2014 2:15 PM


Re: Coyotes call
But no. Mikey is not right. Mikey is ignorant and hopelessly wrong.
Question-begging-epithet. I mean for goodness sake - at least qualify specifically what I am, "wrong" about - flesh it it, heck tell me SOMETHING, instead of just blurting out your prejudice against me.
And you've been shown that.
By a post filled with ad-hominem statements about mike?
in case you didn't notice, in this post I shall say nothing about PaulK, nothing about what he does or does not understand.
Here is the list of epithets you used in place of argument:
- hypocrisy
- behaviour
- Creationism, (because of the, "ism")
- Mikey (because that term is used a derogatory name, instead of how mike would use it towards himself to be self-effacing.) ("make oneself appear insignificant or inconspicuous")
But no. Mikey is not right. Mikey is ignorant and hopelessly wrong.
This is a red-herring because by STATING mike is wrong, how has that shown what he said to be wrong? Also it's a silent-implication, because it is an allusion, because it IMPLIES that you are right.
If you are logically "correct" and thus, NOT ignorant, and NOT wrong as you IMPLY - then please SHOW how an animal preserved in the suffocation position would NOT be the kind of evidence someone would expect from a catastrophe?
The WHOLE of your post-entry was Question-begging-epithets, in that you mentioned ZERO, when it came to what I said about evidence.
So, Pauly, please describe to us what would qualify evidence of a mass burial, - please now state what evidence we would expect to see - generally speaking - just the basics? Are you saying fossils wouldn't be there, preserved while they were still living, in many, many examples? Please answer the question specifically.
Also, if you use any epithets at all, or state any more ad hominem things about, "mikey" then I will deem you to not be worthy of debate. Clever people don't need to use Question-Begging-epithets Paul, but your posts are absolutely riddled with them, 95% content is just 'opining about mike'.
we all know what the evolutionists think about mike - but mike doesn't care what they think, mike cares about correctness, and will remain correct no matter how much bluff and bluster is aimed at him.
I want your qualification of what constitutes evidence for a worldwide flood, and I want it to be logically objective. I don't believe the record-of-death, the fossil record, is a record of ordinary living and remnants of life on earth as a long history of events. I think it is logical that we would expect a record of death and thus far my statements remain in tact.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by PaulK, posted 11-11-2014 2:15 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 517 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2014 7:53 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 515 of 2073 (741553)
11-13-2014 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 511 by Faith
11-13-2014 1:25 AM


Re: Coyotes call
When someone makes statements about a person, it's then qualified that the opponent repeats the exact words back as their refutation. This is because logically, there is no initial cogency to the original ad hominem statement. So if he says to you, "no Faith, you are ignorant, you haven't understood", your answer would be logically sound, if you were to say back to him, "no Paul, you are ignorant, you haven't understood", that's because there is no cotent in ad-hominem statements. An issue isn't decided and a debate isn't won, depending upon a person's character or education, but it is down to the one that presents a sound and cogent case. (Just thought I would share that with you, as it can be a handy tool to use against them)
Paul, you don't know how to read the Bible.
If I were to now behave like PaulK, my response to you would be a way of talking about "PaulK". Have you noticed in the past, if I respond to your posts, he will use his debate with me, to mention you a lot, and if you debate with him, he will use that to say things about "mike" a lot.
So I guess my response to you, if I were to do it in his style would be this;
Paul is ignorant. Paul is hopelessly wrong, he can't read the bible because he still hasn't learnt how to read.
It's a perculiar thing, how much he DEPENDS on dropping our names with some sort of epithet in front of them, don't you think? Ad-hominem, certainly, for what have we got to do with the information we are discussing? Bizarre.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by Faith, posted 11-13-2014 1:25 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 516 of 2073 (741554)
11-13-2014 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 513 by Colbard
11-13-2014 6:32 AM


finding ages from evidence
But you would also disagree with a book that claimed your house was a million times older, and that it took that long to build.
Here's a curious thing. Part of my house was built in 1795 +/- 5 years. Another part was built around 1860 and a third part some time before 1930.
One of the clue for the latter part is that a plat map in 1895 shows no road and no building in or near my current house location, but one in 1930 shows the outline of the whole house and the street and other neighbors.
How can I tell these dates?
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 513 by Colbard, posted 11-13-2014 6:32 AM Colbard has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 517 of 2073 (741555)
11-13-2014 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 514 by mike the wiz
11-13-2014 7:16 AM


Re: Coyotes call
Mike, that fact that I criticise you does not in any way disprove the substantive points I made. Does the fact that you attack your opine to disprove your posts ?
It's interesting that you focus on a reply to Faith rather than the earlier reply I made to your post. Does it make it easier to ignore the points I made there?
And let us look at a sample of your arguing style:
quote:
If you are logically "correct" and thus, NOT ignorant, and NOT wrong as you IMPLY - then please SHOW how an animal preserved in the suffocation position would NOT be the kind of evidence someone would expect from a catastrophe?
Of course I don't have to. You don't get to dictate my position. My point is that the whole question is a red herring intended to misrepresent your opponents. There's no need for me to argue against that point because my position strongly implies that we SHOULD find such fossils. Why should I argue against my own beliefs? Why would you expect me to ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 514 by mike the wiz, posted 11-13-2014 7:16 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 519 by mike the wiz, posted 11-13-2014 8:12 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 521 by mike the wiz, posted 11-13-2014 8:41 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 518 of 2073 (741557)
11-13-2014 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 513 by Colbard
11-13-2014 6:32 AM


Bristlecone Pines and the age of the earth
But you would also disagree with a book that claimed your house was a million times older, and that it took that long to build.
If I start with a single bristlecone pine tree in the white mountains of California ... I can count the growth rings and find out that it is currently (2014) 4,846 years old.
quote:
Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, Message 2: The "Methusulah" specimen was sampled (by boring) in 1957, the estimated germination date is 2,832 years BCE, so by this one tree alone the minimum age for the earth is 4,839 years (in 2007 ... and counting). See "Wikipedia: Methuselah Tree"(2) for additional information on this one tree.
Would you agree that this evidence shows that the earth is at least this old and probably older?
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 513 by Colbard, posted 11-13-2014 6:32 AM Colbard has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 519 of 2073 (741559)
11-13-2014 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 517 by PaulK
11-13-2014 7:53 AM


Re: Coyotes call
It's interesting that you focus on a reply to Faith rather than the earlier reply I made to your post. Does it make it easier to ignore the points I made there?
Oh I openly admit I ignored them, that's exactly my right, if I don't respect the way a poster debates.
Why should I go through your posts looking for cogent points when there are so few? You are asking me to respect the, "meat" of your argument, and ignore all of the bluff and bluster.
The very fact you mention I, "ignored" points, must mean that you believe that the points I did adrress were not cogent, IMHO.
Now you feel it is unfair, because I did not select the "meat" of your posts, but instead I chose to refute the question-begging-epithets, and ad hominem statements.
To which I would say, if you want to have a reasonable discussion with me and want the reasonable parts of your posts addressed, then makeALL of your post reasonable.
That way I will feel inclined to engage you intellectually. But I am not obliged to address people that don't have any debate-etiquette if I feel I am not going to get a reasonable discussion with them.
In short - just because you've said some things doesn't make you important. No but rather, what is important to me, is all the sound points I have made about evidence.
My point is that the whole question is a red herring intended to misrepresent your opponents.
Nice try, but addressing you ad-hominem, question-begging-epithets isn't a red-herring, I am directly addressing things you stated that were false, such as, "behaviour", "ignorant".
Notice I am addressing words, because there was no argument - it was simply stated, I am, "hopelessly ignorant" etc....
E P I T H E T S. For by and large, I am not an ignorant person. This is a red-herring, because it IMPLIES I am ignorant, and thereby, you are not (taking focus away from the points I made)- but you didn't prove I am ignorant and you are not. So in debate, it is still an equal burden.
You also didn't specifically qualify my ignorance in an area, and your PHD expertise in that area. Here is your chance to do so. You alluded that I have a lack of knowledge of Geology, please now show your PHD as a Geologist - or did you think that by automatically being, "evolutionist" that would automatically make you a scientist and me a nitwit? No - you are just an amateurist like me, discussing things on a debate board, and if that is not so, please now show your PHDS.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2014 7:53 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 520 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2014 8:33 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 520 of 2073 (741563)
11-13-2014 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 519 by mike the wiz
11-13-2014 8:12 AM


Re: Coyotes call
quote:
Now you feel it is unfair, because I did not select the "meat" of your posts, but instead I chose to refute the question-begging-epithets, and ad hominem statements.
There is a simple response to that. You First. if you want "reasonable" replies the. Write reasonable posts. What you write does influence the responses you get.
quote:
Nice try, but addressing you ad-hominem, question-begging-epithets isn't a red-herring, I am directly addressing things you stated that were false, such as, "behaviour", "ignorant".
And yet this "nice try" was argued, without ad hominem. I pointed out the rather obvious fact that we should expect fossils found in suffocation positions if the scientific view of Earth's history is true. We expect that many, many catastrophes have occurred. Why should we try to argue otherwise ?
quote:
E P I T H E T S. For by and large, I am not an ignorant person. This is a red-herring, because it IMPLIES I am ignorant, and thereby, you are not - but you didn't prove I am ignorant and you are not. So in debate, it is still an equal burden.
If you say something that is obviously untrue, should I assume that you know that it is untrue ? Or would you rather I thought that you did not ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by mike the wiz, posted 11-13-2014 8:12 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 522 by mike the wiz, posted 11-13-2014 8:49 AM PaulK has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 521 of 2073 (741564)
11-13-2014 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 517 by PaulK
11-13-2014 7:53 AM


Re: Coyotes call
Why should I argue against my own beliefs? Why would you expect me to ?
Because objective-endeavor shows a scientific attitude.
I don't believe in macro-evolution, but what the heck has that got to do with homological vertebrate bone-structures qualifying as evidence of evolution?
They absolutely 100% qualify according to the rules of evidence.
Do I want to admit it? No - but objectively, I can see that homological bones would make tremendous sense to a shared-ancestry. Heck, they just would - end of story.
At least that line of evidence, has me foxed (But fortunately for me, Affirmation-of-the consequent is fallacious). I can't explain it, I don't want it to exist, I don't believe macro-evolution happened, but many times I have admitted it is confirmation -evidence because I actually understand what scientific evidence is, and the many types there are, why they differ, why the same evidence can be either tenuous or incontrovertible, depending on the claim etc... I've studied it and thought about it for many hours, because I am not, "hopelessly ignorant".
It is ironic, but most evolutionists here won't know why the ponen/tollens rule apply to confirmation/falsification evidence, when they apply, how they are qualified, etc . I do know - even if you call me a, "brainless sh*thead with no teeth and a 2mm penis"
You need to exercise a grain of humility. I am not hanging on your every word, friend, you are just another atheist with an attitude problem to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2014 7:53 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 523 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2014 9:00 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 528 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-13-2014 11:47 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 522 of 2073 (741566)
11-13-2014 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 520 by PaulK
11-13-2014 8:33 AM


Re: Coyotes call
I pointed out the rather obvious fact that we should expect fossils found in suffocation positions if the scientific view of Earth's history is true. We expect that many, many catastrophes have occurred. Why should we try to argue otherwise ?
What makes you think I disagree with that information? Because I omitted to explain the entirety of my thoughts?
Uniformity has evidence for it, so does catastrophe - the flood was a major catastrophe. We would agree, many types of evidence would "fit".
This is what I initially said in this thread - that to say there is no evidence at all for the flood, none consistent with it, that you wouldn't expect fossils in suffocation-positions to be there, is not true.
OBJECTIVELY speaking, a person must think logically and delineate. In this example, you have to start by asking yourself this question:
IF there was a worldwide flood would it follow there was evidence of catastrophe of perhaps many types, consistent with such a flood?
OBVIOUSLY and objectively, it follows that there are many types of evidence that would follow if that had happened. If that is not so, it's then only fair to qualify what would follow.
Now usually evolutionists will qualify what evidence would follow, as being "everything we do not see". Which is not rational behaviour - it's biased, NO - we are genuinely asking, would evidence of catastrophe, suffocated animals still living, throats filled with sediment etc, be expected of a worldwide flood?
To which I would equate such a question with asking,
"would scars on a body be evidence consistent with cuts on the body in the past?"
It is blatantly clear that a lot of evidence fits with the flood, as it was a catastrophe.
You are being evasive - but I am being objective about this, because I would also say that homological bones are evidence in favour of macro-evidence. If I were to say, "no they are not", that would be to argue to the extreme, it would be like arguing that the moon does not exist, "because I don't want it to exist".
Notice I don't want confirmation of macro evolution to exist as evidence, but that doesn't mean that logically it isn't qualified! It's just something that would, "follow". The fact I can admit it shows I have understood scientific evidence, for it doesn't then follow that "macro evolution certainly happened" just as it would not follow that evidence of the flood meant that a "world flood certainly happened".
For those reasons you gave - a history of catastrophes, would also, "fit" the evidence.
My argument is that there is compelling confirmation evidence that fits with a worldwide flood. PHDs at Creation.com write articles about such specific evidence each week, but to go into the minutia of each, here, would be impossible.
It's off topic, but I attempted an amateur explanation of homological bones, here: Creation and evolution views - I am not saying I am evolutionist, no - a clever person simply knows not to argue that the moon is not there, if they have moon-hated.
Nor do I believe evolutionary-scientists are, "wrong" about everything they say, just because they are evolutionist - if an atheist says, "it's a sunny day" that doesn't mean it isn't!
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2014 8:33 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 524 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2014 9:08 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 536 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2014 1:25 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 523 of 2073 (741567)
11-13-2014 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 521 by mike the wiz
11-13-2014 8:41 AM


Re: Coyotes call
quote:
Because objective-endeavor shows a scientific attitude.
Objectively, then, if my beliefs indicate that we should expect to find fossil victims of catastrophes I should not be required to argue that a fossil is not a victim of a catastrophe to support my beliefs. Because objectively it would not. Its existence is evidence for my views. the absence of any such fossils would be evidence against my views.
In reality, if the geological and fossil records did not exist, the case for YEC would be storer, not weaker. Eliminating significant evidence for an old Earth and for evolution would hardly cause you a problem. It would be a problem for those who wished to argue for an old Earth and for evolution. You could even, as I said to Faith, argue for a miraculous clean up of the mess left by the Flood - and the absence of evidence to the contrary would make that more plausible, not less.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by mike the wiz, posted 11-13-2014 8:41 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 524 of 2073 (741569)
11-13-2014 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 522 by mike the wiz
11-13-2014 8:49 AM


Re: Coyotes call
Not so long ago I put down my expectation of what we should see if the Flood really occurred. I'll try to find it this evening.
But try this thought, Mike. If the geological and fossil records contain features strongly inconsistent with being produced by a single flood, lasting only a year, how can they be said to be evidence for such a flood ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by mike the wiz, posted 11-13-2014 8:49 AM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 525 of 2073 (741578)
11-13-2014 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 513 by Colbard
11-13-2014 6:32 AM


Re: Bristles
Colbard writes:
But you would also disagree with a book that claimed your house was a million times older, and that it took that long to build.
The point is that the house must be at least as old as its oldest part. If the concrete foundation takes several days to cure, you can't reasonably conclude that the basement was dug this morning. It could have been dug last month or twenty years ago or a thousand years ago. It can be older than the oldest (known) part but not younger.
That's why a young earth is a non-starter. It would be a disservice to our children to teach them otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Colbard, posted 11-13-2014 6:32 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 555 by NoNukes, posted 11-14-2014 11:39 PM ringo has replied
 Message 557 by Colbard, posted 11-15-2014 8:52 AM ringo 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