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: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 661 of 2073 (742725)
11-23-2014 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 655 by Colbard
11-22-2014 9:16 PM


Re: Belief in science
I don't see freedom as an opportunity to lie do you?
Let me know when you see a half monkey man and I'll make sure you can have your medication.
In the mean time don't lose your hold on what others are saying, because your opinion must line up with theirs, unless of course you have a resource of knowledge that puts you on an equal footing, something like nature and revelation. I am sorry if they don't belong to you, its a pity you would turn down such a good offer for popularity and self gratification.
Res ipsa loquitur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 655 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 9:16 PM Colbard has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 662 of 2073 (742738)
11-23-2014 4:49 PM


How about a compromise, Creationists of any sort get 10 minutes to "teach" their theory in a science class but, they get their 10 minutes at the end of the class and they have to sit trough the whole class before and not bother the students. They just have to apply beforehand given that the curriculum is planned beforehand they can even pick a time where they think it would fit best, and the time is taken out of the brake time so the students dont suffer from lack of time to learn about the subject..
But we get the same right, we get 10 minutes during your mass or whatever religious ceremonies you hold, to talk about how its all scientifically wrong and what really happened and what history says. >ou can fit those 10 minutes in anytime you like.
Would this work for both sides or does anyone have any objections.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

Replies to this message:
 Message 668 by Colbard, posted 11-24-2014 6:32 AM frako has not replied
 Message 677 by Taq, posted 11-25-2014 2:18 PM frako has not replied
 Message 692 by dwise1, posted 11-26-2014 1:33 AM frako has not replied

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


Message 663 of 2073 (742740)
11-23-2014 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 652 by NAME OF THE ROSE
11-22-2014 8:47 PM


Re: Belief in science
welcome to the fray NAME OF THE ROSE
Evolution is clearly a scientific fact, ...
The process of evolution - changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within reproducing populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities -- is indeed an observed objective empirical fact.
The theory of evolution is that this can explain the diversity of life we observe.
The science of evolution is the study of the known facts and testing of predictions of the theory to see if new facts can be observed.
... it is also clearly a scientific fact that evolution can not happen without DNA to mutate and or combine DNA of both parent organisms, in order for evolution to happen. ...
If we define life as something capable of change via the process of evolution, then we see that viruses can be considered life, without DNA, as that is needed is reproduction, mutation and selection.
Now that said evolution is a wonderful thing as it allows the human race to, for instance produce better food crops, corn being one. If you could invent an organism or life process, that would adapt itself to changing conditions, and thereby improve itself over time, would you not do this?
If we cannot guarantee that first it will cause no harm?
... why must evolution and ID be totally separate? ...
See Is ID properly pursued?
... Why can evolution by DNA code changes, not be an engineered process? ...
Why can't it be set up in the way the universe is created, done so that planets form, life begins, and evolves into more complex organisms?
Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

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 652 by NAME OF THE ROSE, posted 11-22-2014 8:47 PM NAME OF THE ROSE has not replied

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


Message 664 of 2073 (742741)
11-23-2014 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 632 by Colbard
11-22-2014 6:47 AM


Re: Belief in science
You would, but at which point is up to date true, when by its own claims is saying that it has to be flexible to change with new evidence?
Is there anything that you can prove is "true"? or is our knowledge an approximation of reality that improves with new scientific theories and findings?
If the accuracy of our knowledge is improved by new findings (eg -- the transition from Newton Gravity to Relativity) would you not teach Newtonian gravity for its simplicity of concept, and good enough accuracy to land a rover on Mars?
Learning is an ongoing process, not a matter of learning one set of facts for life. That is what makes it exciting.
You could teach whatever you want but you would not be allowed to test anyone on it, or fail them because it may all be proven false in the future.
Why not? It is the best information available, and it is taught as the best information available.
The idea of progressive knowledge is like a boat without a rudder.
The idea of fixed absolute knowledge is like a boat set in concrete. No place to go, and not much happening on board. Dullsville city.
At least with creationism you already have an established base, which does not change, it is only discovered in more detail.
Isn't it wonderful what you can accomplish when you ignore reality and choose fantasy over facts ... why you can even journey to the moon ...
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 632 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 6:47 AM Colbard has not replied

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


(2)
Message 665 of 2073 (742742)
11-23-2014 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 636 by Colbard
11-22-2014 10:00 AM


put up
... Evolution theory has 'proven evidence' to some people but not half of America, which have evidence against it. ...
What objective empirical evidence is that?
Or is this more bollocks like your carbon dated coin?
Do you even know what evidence is?
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 636 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 10:00 AM Colbard has not replied

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


Message 666 of 2073 (742743)
11-23-2014 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 607 by jar
11-20-2014 10:18 AM


either a hoax or a bad understanding of the lesson.
One might also ask where the carbon14 and carbon12 came from since the Australian penny is 97%copper, 2.5%zinc and 0.5% tin.
Could be impurities, but my money is on none of the objects actually being tested, that the teacher (lesson plan) made up numbers and asked the students to explain what they meant and if the results were realistic.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : ...
Edited by RAZD, : ..

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 607 by jar, posted 11-20-2014 10:18 AM jar has not replied

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


Message 667 of 2073 (742749)
11-24-2014 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 660 by Percy
11-23-2014 8:26 AM


Re: Belief in science
A nice reply Percy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 660 by Percy, posted 11-23-2014 8:26 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 673 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-25-2014 12:40 PM Colbard has replied

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


Message 668 of 2073 (742750)
11-24-2014 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 662 by frako
11-23-2014 4:49 PM


Good idea, just don't like your avatar!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 662 by frako, posted 11-23-2014 4:49 PM frako has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 669 of 2073 (742793)
11-24-2014 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 643 by Colbard
11-22-2014 11:03 AM


Re: Belief in science
If they are your opinions, they don't, in your scientific system, have any value without peer reviewed evidence.
However, if you are just reflectors of other men's thoughts, then that speaks for itself as intellectual codependency.
What about those times when you make statements that are not even internally consistent? In those case, no additional source is needed as your own statements merely mock themselves
you are being hypocrites for asking me to back up anything, which I don't have to in my world
It turns out that you are wrong. You are playing in Percy's sandbox, and the rules precede your arrival. All positions in debates in the Science forums are to supported by argument from evidence.
The actual problem is that you don't have any evidence for most of the outlandish stuff you say. Nor does there seem to be any requirement that what you say not have contradictions with itself or reality. We just spent half a thread discussing your nonsensical positions about carbon dating a copper coin.
If you just want to announce stuff without any fear that it will be contradicted, perhaps your own blog would be a good place for that kind of thing.
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 643 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 11:03 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 670 by Colbard, posted 11-25-2014 7:40 AM NoNukes has replied

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


Message 670 of 2073 (742835)
11-25-2014 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 669 by NoNukes
11-24-2014 5:46 PM


Re: Belief in science
NoNukes writes:
You are playing in Percy's sandbox,
When I mentioned the rules in my world, I was not talking about this forum, which is about .01 % of my day. And I play within those rules as far as I am able, knowing that I don't have any evidence for the majority which, if you really want to know, are not into what I post, and possibly cannot be because of their habits of thinking.
It is a lot easier for many to not engage the intellect and just debunk things.
They like to remain where they are, no changes.
Edited by Colbard, : cough

This message is a reply to:
 Message 669 by NoNukes, posted 11-24-2014 5:46 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 671 by Pressie, posted 11-25-2014 8:20 AM Colbard has replied
 Message 672 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2014 12:01 PM Colbard has replied
 Message 674 by NoNukes, posted 11-25-2014 1:26 PM Colbard has replied
 Message 679 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-25-2014 2:52 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 671 of 2073 (742839)
11-25-2014 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 670 by Colbard
11-25-2014 7:40 AM


Re: Belief in science
Colbard writes:
When I mentioned the rules in my world...
Luckily for humanity your rules don't mean anything. You're just one of billions. You're not important.
The "rules" of science do work, though. That's why you, as a nobody, are able to communicate with me. Half a world away. On the internet, devised by people who followed the scientitific "rules". Not your rules.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 670 by Colbard, posted 11-25-2014 7:40 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 680 by Colbard, posted 11-25-2014 10:47 PM Pressie has not replied

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


Message 672 of 2073 (742896)
11-25-2014 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 670 by Colbard
11-25-2014 7:40 AM


Re: Belief in science instead of fantasy ...
Message 643: What you are saying is that because I disagree on certain points which you deem to be right, because it has been peer reviewed and accepted on a grand scale, that I must be wrong.
But your opinion does not count, and neither are you in a peer reviewing board that represents global science. Unless you have been chosen to represent or speak for the board?
Cognitive dissonance, attacking the credibility of the messenger instead of refuting the argument. Classic.
When you voice a personal opinion based on belief without evidence as a counter to conclusions reached from objective empirical evidence that has been validated and confirmed by others, you need to provide some valid rational for people to think your argument is credible rather than self-serving fantasy.
Your system demands accountability to which you must hold to, ...
That's not quite right; let me fix it for you:
Your system demands accountability to which everyone making a claim must hold to, ...
The "system" of science demands accountability from everyone not just you. When you "play" on the science forums you accept the rules of science for making your arguments.
If you cannot attack observations and conclusions from science with scientific evidence and approach then you are in an axe fight armed with a rubber chicken, a gunfight armed with a plastic pop-gun, a fist fight with your hands tied (by you) behind your back.
... otherwise you are being hypocrites for asking me to back up anything, which I don't have to in my world, ...
That's not quite right; let me fix it for you:
... thus you are being correct for asking me to back up anything, but which I don't have to in my fantasy world, ...
... because a person's intelligence actually counts, ...
... when it is properly applied ...
There is also the special pleading fallacy where you claim you have some kind of special privileges because of your "intellect" that exempt you from providing actual evidence to substantiate you claims.
... whereas in yours, you are answerable to an authority on knowledge. ...
That's not quite right; let me fix it for you:
... whereas in yours, you are constrained by evidence and scientific theory. ...
... Does that sound like "all men are created equal" or communism?
(a) which are not exclusive and (b) are irrelevant, because what it sounds like is science.
Message 670: When I mentioned the rules in my world, ...
That's not quite right; let me fix it for you:
When I mentioned the rules in my fantasy world, ...
... I was not talking about this forum, ...
That's not quite right; let me fix it for you:
... I was not talking about this forum, or reality, ...
... And I play within those rules as far as I am able, knowing that I don't have any evidence for the majority ...
That's not quite right; let me fix it for you:
... And I pretend to play within those rules as far as I am able, knowing that I don't have any evidence for any of my claims ...
... which, if you really want to know, are not into what I post, ...
That's not quite right; let me fix it for you:
... which, if you really want to know, are not into the fantasies I post, ...
... and possibly cannot be because of their habits of thinking.
That's not quite right; let me fix it for you:
... and possibly cannot be because of their knowledge of reality.
It is a lot easier for many to not engage the intellect and just debunk things.
That's not quite right; let me fix it for you:
It is a lot easier for many to engage their intellect and skepticism to debunk or mock fantasy.
They like to remain where they are, no changes.
Curiously you complain when science updates information based on new findings and then you complain about science being static. Do you know what hypocrisy is?
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 670 by Colbard, posted 11-25-2014 7:40 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 681 by Colbard, posted 11-25-2014 10:51 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 673 of 2073 (742912)
11-25-2014 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 667 by Colbard
11-24-2014 6:31 AM


Re: Belief in science
A nice reply Percy.
Yeah. You see, as Percy and I have tried to explain to you, the problem with pretty much all your arguments is that they are so general, so abstract, so vague, that they are also arguments against teaching, believing in, or testing students on chemistry, and physics, and indeed geography. Now, perhaps you are a complete intellectual nihilist and wish to reject all knowledge. But if not, then what you need are arguments specific to the particular kinds of knowledge that you wish to reject.
This would, of course, be hard work, because you would need to acquire detailed knowledge of the subject matter. Which would in fact be self-defeating, because if you had detailed knowledge of the subject matter, you'd realize you were wrong, that creationism is rubbish and evolution is correct. But then at least you'd be trying. As it is, the fact that your arguments are arguments against teaching or learning anything at all makes them look trivially silly to anyone who does what you apparently have not done --- that is, think about them for a few seconds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 667 by Colbard, posted 11-24-2014 6:31 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 682 by Colbard, posted 11-25-2014 11:00 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 674 of 2073 (742919)
11-25-2014 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 670 by Colbard
11-25-2014 7:40 AM


Re: Belief in science
t is a lot easier for many to not engage the intellect and just debunk things.
I'm looking forward to seeing your attempts to support your positions with evidence. Isn't that what you told us you would be doing?

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 670 by Colbard, posted 11-25-2014 7:40 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 683 by Colbard, posted 11-25-2014 11:09 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


(3)
Message 675 of 2073 (742924)
11-25-2014 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 636 by Colbard
11-22-2014 10:00 AM


Re: Belief in science
Evolution theory has 'proven evidence' to some people but not half of America, which have evidence against it. So the evidence depends on a persons view or opinion,
Actually, no. Scientific evidence is not subject to majority rule. It stands or falls according to scientific standards of evidence - experimental design, statistical significance, and peer review. No room for voting or personal opinion there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 636 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 10:00 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 684 by Colbard, posted 11-25-2014 11:13 PM deerbreh 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