|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
This one was soooo funny:
Colbard writes: Now Colbard wants to rewrite history, too. Didn't the special priviledges of Louis XVI, his family, other royals, enjoyed over hundreds of years, also play a huge part in this revolution? The oppressive and evil reign of the Papacy ended up causing the French revolution... What's history got to do with the teaching of science in schools, anyway? Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
And there is the answer to my question. The fault does not lie with your teacher, but rather the fault lies entirely with you. Your brain was (and still is) filled with so much nonsensical bullshit that you had rendered yourself incapable of learning even the most basic concepts.
In Message 557 you said:
Colbard writes:
Now you know that your reason for not trusting dating methods is based on your own incredible ignorance and, quite frankly, stupidity from being such an incompetent student. So now you can either rethink your stand on dating methods, or else double-down on stupid. Yes, if the earth was that old, that's true. Personally I go with about 6000 years old. I have never believed the methods claimed for dating materials is correct, mainly because I had a coin from 1958 which dated at 2500 years old by radio carbon dating. You strike me as the type who will double-down on stupid without giving it a thought. Which, I know, is redundant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Creation should be taught scientifically without the theory of evolution ...
How? I started studying "creation science" in 1981 because creationists claimed to have scientific evidence for creation and I wanted to know what it was. In the 32 years since then, I have never once seen any creationist be able to present any scientific evidence for creation, nor have I ever seen one make the attempt. I've been discussing creation/evolution on-line since about 1987 and have repeatedly requested that evidence, but always in vain. Oh sure, creationist after creationist would claim to have mountains of evidence for creation, but never has one actually presented any evidence for creation. All they would ever offer would be false claims against evolution and other sciences, but never ever any evidence for creation. I even wrote to Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), one of the creators of "creation science" asking for that evidence. He replied that they considered negative "evidence" against evolution to be positive evidence for creation. That is their "Two Model Approach" which postulates two and only two mutually exclusive models, the "creation model" and the "evolution model". They never define the "creation model" in any by the most general of terms and then define their "evolution model" as being everything else including "most of the world's religions, both ancient and modern" (as Dr. Henry Morris himself wrote to me). The "Two Model Approach" is a prime example of a False Dilemma, AKA "false dichotomy", a logical fallacy designed to deceive, a lie. "Creation science" therefore becomes nothing more than a series of arguments and claims against their "evolution model" (which is at best a gross misrepresentation of evolution; ie, yet more creationist lies) with which they attempt to "prove" creation solely by "disproving" "evolution", all without ever presenting any evidence for creation or even presenting their "creation model" at all. They must never actually present their "creation model", because that is part of the legalistic deception for which they created "creation science" in the first place. In the debates (which was the creationists' primary vehicle), it is always their opponents who have to present the "creation model", because the creationists never will. And in the rare cases where creationists do present the "creation model" (eg, in the 1981 Arkansas "balanced treatment" law), that exposes it as being a very narrow literalistic interpretation of Genesis and therefore purely religious. Creation cannot be taught scientifically because there is no scientific evidence for creation. Of course, if you have some actual scientific evidence for creation, then please do present it. Nor could "creation science" ever possibly be taught without evolution, since it consists almost purely of false claims and arguments against evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3419 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
I'll be stupid to make you feel better about yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3419 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
You believe that science is a flawless self justifying machine, when it is also based on fundamental human beliefs which drive the conclusions considered to be evidence.
One of these days science will double over and die, taking the theories of the last century with it. That is already beginning to happen now. It will also be uncovered that the dating methods used are based on false premises.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Colbard writes: The falsehood of science is the dismissal of God, The falsehood of this statement is that science doesn't dismiss god. There is no scientific statement made about god anywhere. Science has nothing whatsoever to say about god. Loads of scientists believe in God. All science does is comment on stuff in the natural world which it can observe and test. Some religions have found that this process has revealed that some of their ancient stories are not literally true. That's all.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Why would it be necessary for a whole brigade to pounce on a "delusional" with lesson sticks if the suspect is of no consequence to the system? Because these delusionalisticals inevitably start wanting to to teach their delusions in science classes. Google the 'Wedge Document'.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
You believe that science is a flawless self justifying machine, when it is also based on fundamental human beliefs which drive the conclusions considered to be evidence. One of these days science will double over and die, taking the theories of the last century with it. That is already beginning to happen now. It will also be uncovered that the dating methods used are based on false premises. Do you realise that you are responding to a post cautioning against attacking science rather than describing the evidence for 'creation science' by attacking science. Being 18 is no excuse for not reading the posts that you are responding to. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3419 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes: There is no scientific statement made about god anywhere. Science has nothing whatsoever to say about god. Loads of scientists believe in God.All science does is comment on stuff in the natural world which it can observe and test. Some religions have found that this process has revealed that some of their ancient stories are not literally true. That's all. The bottom line of modern science is to dismiss God, with or without mentioning the Name.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3419 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Larni writes: Do you realise that you are responding to a post cautioning against attacking science rather than describing the evidence for 'creation science' by attacking science. Being 18 is no excuse for not reading the posts that you are responding to. I have not been able to respond to numerous posts, which no doubt have good arguments.When the posts grow into essays I switch off, because a good answer can be summarized. Edited by Colbard, : delete word
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Colbard writes: The bottom line of modern science is to dismiss God, with or without mentioning the Name. Utter crap. Science doesn't give a monkeys about god and gods. If you think differently please support your assertion with evidence. The evidence needs to be policies, statements from academic institutions, peer reviewed papers - anything in the hundreds of millions of books and papers referring to science's actual work that claims that it is setting out to "dismiss" God/s. By the way, that excludes opinions of what scientists personally believe about god/s. e.g. Dawkins. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
An idea or a belief considered to be evidence ... This premise is false, therefore your whole thesis built on this false premise is invalid. Is the ground you stand on an idea? a belief? Or is the material that you can touch feel see smell something that exists outside of thought and belief? Science rests on objective empirical evidence. Enjoy.by 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Larni writes: Being 18 is no excuse for not reading the posts that you are responding to. Did Colbard say he was 18? His profile says he's 30. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The bottom line of modern science is to dismiss God, with or without mentioning the Name. You just seem determined to show your ignorance, don't you. I am religious and believe in God but also understand that we are simply evolved critters, that neither of the mutually exclusive Biblical Floods ever happened, that the earth is at least 4 billion years old and that you are simply full of shit, spouting nonsense and hell bent on convincing everyone that you are willfully ignorant or a liar.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Colbard writes: I have not been able to respond to numerous posts, which no doubt have good arguments.When the posts grow into essays I switch off, because a good answer can be summarized. You haven't provided any "good answers" yet. You've mostly said things that are obviously untrue, and some other things that seem hateful and ignorant, such as likening science to the Dark Ages (the blossoming of science played a significant role in the Enlightenment), and saying that science will die. You're like a caricature of a creationist. Science only cares about what can be supported with evidence. There's no evidence for God, so science has nothing to say on the subject. Science definitely does not say there's no God, but without evidence science cannot comment, except perhaps to say there's no evidence. In science class, why wouldn't you want to teach the most up-to-date scientific knowledge? --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024