Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 586 of 2073 (742002)
11-16-2014 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 578 by Colbard
11-16-2014 5:38 AM


We know that your claim about dating a coin is bogus, we know this because there is absolutely no possible way that putting a coin through a proper 14C measurement process would produce a manufacturing date for the coin.
This is because the process is used to date organic matter, specifically organisms that consumed atmospheric carbon, including 14C, while living: when they die they stop consuming atmospheric carbon and the clock of 14C decay starts.
Coins do not consume atmospheric carbon. They may contain trace amounts of carbon from the smelting process, possibly from coal\charcoal\wood, in which case what you are dating is the coal\charcoal\wood, not the coin. Claiming that you dated a coin by 14C is a bogus claim. So either you are lying or you misunderstood what was going on in your school.
It just proves we should not teach evolution in schools, because of ALL the things that went wrong and were dubious in that simple exercise, the lack of professionalism, the biased teachers, the religious creationists sabotaging the experiment, the lies, the wrong data, the outdated methods, the problems and the reams of examinations that must follow, the requested proofs and evidences now to be met. The panic of professors of science. The school is sinking with all students on board!
Dawkins in Ignorance is No Crime said:
quote:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true.
This could likely be said about any science. He concludes:
quote:
I don't withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under 'insane' but which can be more sympathetically characterised by a word like tormented, bullied or brainwashed. Sincere people who are not ignorant, not stupid and not wicked, can be cruelly torn, almost in two, between the massive evidence of science on the one hand, and their understanding (or misunderstanding) of what their holy book tells them on the other. I think this is one of the truly bad things religion can do to a human mind. There is wickedness here, but it is the wickedness of the institution and what it does to a believing victim, not wickedness on the part of the victim himself. The clearest example I know is poignant, even sad, and I shall do it justice in a later article .
I add deluded ... as in misinformed, mislead, indoctrinated ...
Bring the evolution guard in, have these arrested, tested and documented. Oh the essays and reports that have to be written, YOUR PAPERS PLEASE!!
No, it's just that you have made a preposterous claim, and you are asked to substantiate it with objective empirical evidence.
Sounds like communism...wait a minute evolution is their doctrine. Well what do you know, an atheist communist education...
And again you are misinformed. Look up Lysenkoism.
By the way it was a state school with an atheist teacher, who by the way became a Christian soon after. Such a loss to the cause of the red sun.
And when people lie their stories become increasingly bizarre with new lies added to buttress the old.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

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 578 by Colbard, posted 11-16-2014 5:38 AM Colbard has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 587 of 2073 (742005)
11-16-2014 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 585 by Capt Stormfield
11-16-2014 11:06 AM


MSL (Minimum Smart Level)
You know, most people make up stories that make them look smarter than they actually are. Just sayin'...
It appears there is a minimum level of smart that must be reached before they are able to make up stories that make them appear smarter than that.
Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 585 by Capt Stormfield, posted 11-16-2014 11:06 AM Capt Stormfield has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 588 by jar, posted 11-16-2014 12:22 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 588 of 2073 (742007)
11-16-2014 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 587 by NosyNed
11-16-2014 12:04 PM


Re: MSL (Minimum Smart Level)
While the Good Lord may well have put limits on how smart a person can be, it seems there is no limit on dumb.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 587 by NosyNed, posted 11-16-2014 12:04 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 589 of 2073 (742016)
11-16-2014 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 578 by Colbard
11-16-2014 5:38 AM


By the way it was a state school with an atheist teacher, who by the way became a Christian soon after. Such a loss to the cause of the red sun.
How are we supposed to believe anything you say, Colbard? Whatever credibility you had before the coin story, is surely exhausted by now.

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 578 by Colbard, posted 11-16-2014 5:38 AM Colbard has not replied

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


(1)
Message 590 of 2073 (742021)
11-16-2014 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 569 by NoNukes
11-15-2014 2:58 PM


Re: Bristles
NoNukes writes:
If that building is ever completed it may be highly inappropriate to date the building as being the same age as the foundation.
I think it would be entirely appropriate, especially in the context we are discussing. The young-earthers are saying, in effect, that there were no settlers in northern Virginia until last Thursday. The fact that the oldest part of the church predates their claim is enough to disprove their claim.
NoNukes writes:
Is a dog house or any other house the same age as the nails used for framing?
The nails are older than the house. Therefore, the "oldest age" must be at least as old as the nails. A house built last Thursday using medieval wrought-iron nails proves that there was something at the time the nails were made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 569 by NoNukes, posted 11-15-2014 2:58 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 594 by NoNukes, posted 11-16-2014 4:21 PM ringo has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 591 of 2073 (742025)
11-16-2014 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 578 by Colbard
11-16-2014 5:38 AM


By the way it was a state school with an atheist teacher, who by the way became a Christian soon after.
Bullshit.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 578 by Colbard, posted 11-16-2014 5:38 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 592 of 2073 (742044)
11-16-2014 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 573 by Colbard
11-15-2014 8:41 PM


Re: OC
It was done by the science class at school, where numerous items the students had were sent away to be tested, and the results given to the class.
You cannot carbon-date a coin. When you say this happened, you are claiming not just a physical impossibility, like claiming you'd eaten a cathedral, but pretty much a contradiction in terms, like claiming you'd eaten a line of longitude. No-one carbon-dated your coin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 573 by Colbard, posted 11-15-2014 8:41 PM Colbard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 593 by jar, posted 11-16-2014 2:46 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 593 of 2073 (742052)
11-16-2014 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 592 by Dr Adequate
11-16-2014 2:36 PM


Re: OC
Particularly since there is no carbon in an Australian penny.
From Message 583:
quote:
By the way, the Australian penny was 97%copper, 2.5%zinc and 0.5% tin which makes your story even less plausible.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 592 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-16-2014 2:36 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 594 of 2073 (742079)
11-16-2014 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 590 by ringo
11-16-2014 1:13 PM


Re: Bristles
The nails are older than the house. Therefore, the "oldest age" must be at least as old as the nails. A house built last Thursday using medieval wrought-iron nails proves that there was something at the time the nails were made.
Something, yes. But not necessarily the house.
The statement below is the one I took issue with.
ringo writes:
The point is that the house must be at least as old as its oldest part.
The above statement is not correct.
Something in the universe must be as old as the oldest part of the house. But the house itself can be older or younger than some particular part of the house. Your analogy does not work.

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 590 by ringo, posted 11-16-2014 1:13 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 595 by ringo, posted 11-17-2014 11:25 AM NoNukes has replied

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


(1)
Message 595 of 2073 (742125)
11-17-2014 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 594 by NoNukes
11-16-2014 4:21 PM


Re: Bristles
NoNukes writes:
Something in the universe must be as old as the oldest part of the house. But the house itself can be older or younger than some particular part of the house. Your analogy does not work.
You misunderstand the analogy.
In the analogy, the house represents the creation - i.e. the heavens and the earth, i.e. the universe. You're thinking of something older being introduced into the house from outside - but that isn't possible if the house is the universe. The universe must be at least as old as the oldest thing in the universe.
Even Colbard seems to have understood that, though he rejects the clear conclusion for religious reasons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by NoNukes, posted 11-16-2014 4:21 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 598 by NoNukes, posted 11-19-2014 5:06 PM ringo has replied

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


(4)
Message 596 of 2073 (742159)
11-17-2014 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 578 by Colbard
11-16-2014 5:38 AM


It just proves we should not teach evolution in schools, because of ALL the things that went wrong and were dubious in that simple exercise, the lack of professionalism, the biased teachers, the religious creationists sabotaging the experiment, the lies, the wrong data, the outdated methods, the problems and the reams of examinations that must follow, the requested proofs and evidences now to be met.
Complete and absolute nonsense! A creationist tried to deceive you (and obviously succeeded!), so it's evolution's fault? If a con-man deceives you into giving him money that's supposed to go to a police benefit, then you would advocate getting rid of the police altogether? Absolute nonsense, but that's the logic that you are employing here!
Such a loss to the cause of the red sun.
Just what the hell are the Japanese supposed to have to do with any of this? Or are you talking about Superman? Don't you realize that Superman does not actually exist?
By the way it was a state school with an atheist teacher, who by the way became a Christian soon after.
An "atheist"? Really? Is that what he told you? And you believed him? OK, normally you shouldn't have any reason not to believe him, but now that you know that he had lied to you about carbon-dating and about that "experiment", why wouldn't he have also lied to you about "being an atheist"?
It's amazing how many creationists will lie about that fact. I started studying "creation science" in 1982, though I had first encountered it circa 1970 at which time I recognized the two claims I had heard to be bogus -- actually, the one (a NASA computer found Joshua's Lost Day) was obviously bogus and the other (living fresh-water mollusc carbon-dated as being thousands of years old) was just very suspicious. I started discussing it on-line circa 1987 (on CompuServe, a dial-up service, since the Internet didn't open for the public until approaching the mid-1990's), which has continued into the present. So that means that I've been studying "creation science" for more than 30 years and discussing it for more than 25 years.
That also means that I have been in contact with a very large number of creationists and have observed many things about them. Even though it is not common, over the decades I have had several creationists and fundamentalist Christians enter into a "discussion" claiming to not be a creationist and a few of them had even claimed to not even be a Christian. Their pretense was that they had just happened to have heard these claims and they wanted to know what we thought of them. So I (and sometimes others; some of these contacts were by email, in which case I was the only respondent) addressed the claims and revealed them to be false, at which point the "non-creationist" became increasingly strident about "supporting" the claim until finally he had to drop his pretense.
Why did they have to lie like that? In very large part because their creationism is nothing but a pack of lies; there is no evidence that supports their position so lies are all that they have. "Creation science" itself is a deliberate deception designed to circumvent the US courts after Daniel v. Waters (1975):
quote:
Effect of the ruling
The ruling did not prevent the Bible from being taught in public schools in an appropriate way. The Court stated (quoting from a prior decision): "While study of religions and of the Bible from a literary and historic viewpoint, presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, need not collide with the First Amendment's prohibition, the State may not adopt programs or practices in its public schools or colleges which "aid or oppose" any religion."
Following this ruling, creationism was stripped of all overt biblical references and was then renamed creation science. Several states then passed new legislation which required that this be given equal time with teaching of evolution. This came to court as McLean v. Arkansas (1982), which resulted in a detailed ruling that it was similarly unconstitutional to teach this in public school science classes. This was a District level ruling and, while setting a persuasive precedent, it was only a binding precedent in the relevant district. It was not until Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), a similar case in Louisiana, was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court that creation science was ruled unconstitutional at the federal level, which resulted in its removal from public school science classes nationwide. The reaction from the creationist forces would be to create the new concept of intelligent design specifically in order to circumvent this ruling.
Daniel v. Waters itself followed in the wake of Epperson_v._Arkansas (1968) which had resulted in the striking down as unconstitutional the "monkey laws" of the 1920's (which is what the ACLU had tried to do with the 1925 Scopes Trial, but that was thwarted by an appellate court overturning the conviction on a procedural technicality).
When I started studying "creation science" in 1982, it was because I was surprised to find that it was still around a decade after I had last encountered it. That made me wonder what its evidence was. I quickly found that it had none. Around 1985, I started having conversations with a co-worker, Charles, which led to us both attending a "creation/evolution debate" which pit a pair of leading creationists (Duane Gish and Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the literal creators of "creation science") and a pair of leading opponents (Thwaites and Awbrey, university professors who had long run a true "two-model class" which featured lectures by creationists from the ICR -- "creation science" fared very poorly in that class and the university eventually ordered it cancelled under pressure from campus Christian organizations). In our discussions before that debate, Charles would repeatedly refer to "mountains of evidence for creation". As we were leaving that debate, Charles was visibly disturbed, even slightly in shock. He kept muttering, "But we have mountains of evidence. Why didn't they show any of it? We have mountains of evidence that would have blown the evolutionists away. Why didn't they use any of it? We have mountains of evidence ... " Shortly after that, he was re-assigned (he was a contractor) and we lost contact. Six years later, I bumped into him. He was doing well, but he hated creationists intensely and wanted to have absolutely nothing to do with them.
In February 1990, I responded to a request for an explanation of why I oppose "creation science". I subsequently posted it on CompuServe (remember, there was no public access to the Internet for another half decade) and then re-posted it on my web site: Why I Oppose Creation Science (or, How I got to Here from There). For your edification.
What you still need to tell us is what your teacher had taught you about radio-carbon dating. Please be very specific. In particular, did he tell you anything about how it worked and what it actually measures? And if he had told you what it actually measures, then why did you submit an object that contained no carbon? But if he had misinformed you about radio-carbon dating, then what does that tell you about everything else he had told you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 578 by Colbard, posted 11-16-2014 5:38 AM Colbard has not replied

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


(1)
Message 597 of 2073 (742330)
11-18-2014 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Colbard
10-25-2014 7:42 PM


Re: How to teach Evolution
Your educational plan is not only crazy, but it appears to be strongly influenced by creationism's bogus "balanced treatment" plan with its "let's have the students decide for themselves" rhetoric. Here's how creationism's "balanced treatment" classes work:
  1. Present false claims about science and about evolution.
  2. Insist that the student make a life-long choice right then and there between an "unnamed" Creator and "atheistic evolution" as was just grossly misrepresented in that lesson.
We know that that is how "balanced treatment" works, because we have seen the "public school educational materials" that the ICR sold and we have documented cases of such classes and their consequences.
One such case was Ray Baird's 5th and 6th grade classes in Livermore, Calif, in 1981: LIVERMORE 1981: Creation Science in the Classroom - A Case Study. The result of forcing elementary-grade children to make that choice resulted in a number of them becoming atheists. Here are quotes from a few other sources:
  1. The KPBS-TV documentary, Creation vs Evolution: Battle in the Classroom, which aired on 7 July 1982. A famous quote from that documentary was by J.P. Hunt, one of Baird's students:
    quote:
    Someone that I know has become an atheist because of this class, because the creationist theory was so stupid, he thought. Well, if religion requires me to believe this, then I don't want to have any part of it.
    This documentary is also famous for being where Dr. Duane Gish of the ICR made his infamous fabricated claim of a protein that shows bullfrogs and humans to be more closely related to each other than to any other animals -- see THE BULLFROG AFFAIR.
  2. Creation Evolution Journal, Issue IV, Spring 1981, page 28. It reports on Livermore's school board ordering a halt to Baird's class, including:
    quote:
    The district subsequently reviewed these same materials and stated that they were all "considered to be biased, misleading, inaccurate, prejudicial, and derogatory" and frequently asked students to make a choice between believing in God and believing in evolution. . . . Ray Baird had taught the class for three years without incident, but this was the first year he had used the Creation-Life materials."
  3. In his decision on the 1981 Arkansas "balanced treatment" law, Judge Overton observed that "Students are constantly encouraged to compare and make a choice between the two models, and the material is not presented in an accurate manner."
So then how is science supposed to be taught? What are the goals and objectives of science education? According to the California State Board of Education (quoted at http://ncse.com/...a/voices/california-state-board-education :
quote:
The domain of the natural sciences is the natural world. Science is limited by its tools observable facts and testable hypotheses.
Discussions of any scientific fact, hypothesis, or theory related to the origins of the universe, the earth, and life (the how) are appropriate to the science curriculum. Discussions of divine creation, ultimate purposes, or ultimate causes (the why) are appropriate to the history-social science and English-language arts curricula.
Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. Dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.
To be fully informed citizens, students do not have to accept everything that is taught in the natural science curriculum, but they do have to understand the major strands of scientific thought, including its methods, facts, hypotheses, theories, and laws.
A scientific fact is an understanding based on confirmable observations and is subject to test and rejection. A scientific hypothesis is an attempt to frame a question as a testable proposition. A scientific theory is a logical construct based on facts and hypotheses that organizes and explains a range of natural phenomena. Scientific theories are constantly subject to testing, modification, and refutation as new evidence and new ideas emerge. Because scientific theories have predictive capabilities, they essentially guide further investigations.
From time to time natural science teachers are asked to teach content that does not meet the criteria of scientific fact, hypothesis, and theory as these terms are used in natural science and as defined in this policy. As a matter of principle, science teachers are professionally bound to limit their teaching to science and should resist pressure to do otherwise. Administrators should support teachers in this regard.
Philosophical and religious beliefs are based, at least in part, on faith and are not subject to scientific test and refutation. Such beliefs should be discussed in the social science and language arts curricula. The Board's position has been stated in the History-Social Science Framework (adopted by the Board). If a student should raise a question in a natural science class that the teacher determines is outside the domain of science, the teacher should treat the question with respect. The teacher should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural science and encourage the student to discuss the question further with his or her family and clergy.
Neither the California nor the United States Constitution requires that time be given in the curriculum to religious views in order to accommodate those who object to certain material presented or activities conducted in science classes. It may be unconstitutional to grant time for that reason.
Nothing in the California Education Code allows students (or their parents or guardians) to excuse their class attendance on the basis of disagreements with the curriculum, except as specified for (1) any class in which human reproductive organs and their functions and process are described, illustrated, or discussed; and (2) an education project involving the harmful or destructive use of animals. (See California Education Code Section 51550 and Chapter 2.3 of Part 19 commencing with Section 32255.) However, the United States Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, and local governing boards and school districts are encouraged to develop statements, such as this one on policy, that recognize and respect that freedom in the teaching of science. Ultimately, students should be made aware of the difference between understanding, which is the goal of education, and subscribing to ideas.
Note these excerpts from that statement:
  1. "Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding."
  2. "To be fully informed citizens, students do not have to accept everything that is taught in the natural science curriculum, but they do have to understand the major strands of scientific thought, including its methods, facts, hypotheses, theories, and laws."
  3. "Ultimately, students should be made aware of the difference between understanding, which is the goal of education, and subscribing to ideas."
The goal of education is to encourage understand. Compelling belief is inconsistent with that goal. What is the goal of "balanced treatment"? To compell belief! In fact, creationist "balanced treatment" and other schemes are blatant attempts to use the public schools for proselytizing. Not only is that inconsisent with the goal of education, but it is also flagrantly unconstitutional.
Should students be required to learn about something that they do no accept or believe in? Certainly. Are they being expected to believe in it? No, they are not. In an example that I have given here often, when I attended the Air Force Communications Command Leadership School in 1982, we NCOs were instructed in Marxism and Communism. Was it the Air Force's intention that we become Marxists and Communists? Of course not! Rather, they wanted us to be knowledgeable about our primary enemy's economic and political systems -- remember, this was still during the Cold War between the USA and the USSR.
Should a creationist child learn about evolution? Yes, of course. Should the creationist parents of a creationist child want that child to learn about evolution? Yes, they should. If they want that child to become engaged in and lead their Holy Crusade against evolution, then they would most certainly want him to learn all that he possibly can about evolution in order to use that knowledge against evolution. Otherwise, that child would remain ignorant and would at best end up just regurgitating stupid lies about science and evolution.
But then isn't that the fundamental problem for creationists? All their claims are nothing but stupid lies. Creationism and any religion that depends on creationism (eg, fundamentalist Christianity) have been made into a sordid web of lies and deceptions which completely unravel when exposed to actual facts. Several "evolutionist" members of this forum used to be creationists, until they started learning the truth. Those creationist parents live in mortal terror of their children even learning the truth, because when those children do finally learn what evolution really is, then they will know that their parents had been lying to them all along. At present, fundamentalist/evangelical/conservative Christian churches are hemorrhaging their young members, the next generation, their children who had been raised in the faith only to discover that it was all nothing but lies. Most churches don't even want to acknowledge what's happening, but estimates of the rate of loss run from 65% up to 80%, most of whom not only leave that church, but give up on religion altogether. The only way for those churches to keep their numbers up is through relentless proselytizing, ironically using the same web of lies and deceptions that contributed to their losing their children.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Colbard, posted 10-25-2014 7:42 PM Colbard has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 598 of 2073 (742414)
11-19-2014 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 595 by ringo
11-17-2014 11:25 AM


Re: Bristles
In the analogy, the house represents the creation - i.e. the heavens and the earth, i.e. the universe. You're thinking of something older being introduced into the house from outside - but that isn't possible if the house is the universe. The universe must be at least as old as the oldest thing in the universe.
That really isn't an analogy at all is it? If you let the house represent the universe, then it would be true that nothing should be older than the house. I agree with that much. But that is because I accept the lesson about the universe.
But using a house to teach something about the universe does not work very well because the age of the house is not actually defined as you insist. The foundation can be older than the house. A house can be constructed of older materials, even materials that once formed another house. The age of the house is the date that its construction is substantially complete.
Contrast that to the universe where the materials and space were actually born in the same big bang event. No such issue of prior materials and components exists with respect to the age of the universe, particularly if we accept that time itself was created in the BB.
What you are doing in this defense of your analogy is forcing the lesson your analogy is supposed to teach. You are insisting on unconventional methods for dating the house because you want to model the universe. Then you are complaining when I point out that we don't determine the ages of houses in the way you describe. You simply cannot date a house based on the age of the boards in a wall.
You're thinking of something older being introduced into the house from outside
Not necessary at all to assume that. I did use an example of added on stuff, but I also mentioned the nails. And the same counter example exists if the original door of the house is a previously owned door.
The age of the universe is a tiny bit older than the primordial hydrogen and helium within it. But the nails, wood, brick, etc for a house may be much older than the house even without considering added on stuff.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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 595 by ringo, posted 11-17-2014 11:25 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 608 by ringo, posted 11-20-2014 11:16 AM NoNukes has replied

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


Message 599 of 2073 (742433)
11-20-2014 2:53 AM


Independence in Education
I was eleven years old in year 7...not really interested in reams of paperwork, or of large groups of men defining a history of the world, when none of them were old enough to have been there. The items tested for age were numbered and could have been mixed up. I did not care really.
We had no creationist teachers hiding in the lab room, just a few lessons in biology about evolution and old rocks from state teachers.
It's interesting that if someone does not believe in evolution, that they are automatically labelled as religious.
Is that because evolution is a direct hit at the thought of God? Or is it just a convenient label while they don't have another?
Some atheists have a need to retaliate against the religious, which to me is just the leftovers of the French revolution.
I cannot avoid the implications of political influences in the teachings of science, just as the persecuting church influenced ignorance in science.
Personally I think both have the same source in ruling the thoughts of men, which in the end is about removing the value of independent thought.
Independent thought is taboo to science, as it was heresy to the church.

Replies to this message:
 Message 600 by Tangle, posted 11-20-2014 3:31 AM Colbard has replied
 Message 602 by Percy, posted 11-20-2014 7:57 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 603 by PaulK, posted 11-20-2014 8:20 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 604 by jar, posted 11-20-2014 8:47 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 605 by Theodoric, posted 11-20-2014 9:29 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 606 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2014 10:12 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 609 by ringo, posted 11-20-2014 11:23 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 610 by dwise1, posted 11-20-2014 3:07 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 600 of 2073 (742435)
11-20-2014 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 599 by Colbard
11-20-2014 2:53 AM


Re: Independence in Education
Colbard writes:
It's interesting that if someone does not believe in evolution, that they are automatically labelled as religious.
Is that because evolution is a direct hit at the thought of God? Or is it just a convenient label while they don't have another?
I have never met anyone that doesn't believe in evolution that isn't also religious. Have you? The reason for this is to non-religious people, evolution is just another part of science with no more significance than organic chemistry or Hook's Law. It's just not controversial.
To a few religious people - the few literal biblical creationists in the first world (which means pretty much only in the USA) - evolution proves those ceation passages are myths, so they continue to fight a battle that was lost over a hundred years ago.
Personally I think both have the same source in ruling the thoughts of men, which in the end is about removing the value of independent thought.
That's just ignorant. Religion is dogmatic - it's not subject to independent thought; it's core tenets can't change. Science has change as an essential part of it constitution and it thrives on independent thought - it can't exist without it, that's why be get huge breakthroughs from time to time. Science is iconoclastic, every scientist would give a body part to overturn a hard clad, existing theory or create a new one.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 599 by Colbard, posted 11-20-2014 2:53 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 601 by Colbard, posted 11-20-2014 7:27 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024