|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
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:
|
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the biased teachers, the religious creationists sabotaging the experiment, the lies, the wrong data, the outdated methods, the problems and the reams of examinations that must follow, the requested proofs and evidences now to be met.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: This could likely be said about any science. He concludes:
quote: 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, : clrtyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
NoNukes writes:
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.
If that building is ever completed it may be highly inappropriate to date the building as being the same age as the foundation. NoNukes writes:
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.
Is a dog house or any other house the same age as the nails used for framing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Particularly since there is no carbon in an Australian penny.
From Message 583:
quote: Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
NoNukes writes:
You misunderstand the analogy. 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
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: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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
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:
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:
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:Note these excerpts from that statement:
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3391 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024