Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

And how do you teach this (non-denominational general vanilla type of) faith? Is it part of critical thinking? of Logic? Is it part of open-minded skepticism? Of learning how to think for yourself? (definitions in yellow above, seeing as you rejected 4 and 5 as applicable here)Is it an arbitrary set of rules that you must learn by rote, or something you must "learn" by just accepting the word of some arbitrary authority without question/s? (faith_2,3&6?)What kind of knowledge is that?Or do you mean the confidence you can have that an interaction that has been observed many times will continue to behave the same way -- the confidence we have than a pen dropped will fall down rather than up?The confidence we can have that when I count 12000 tree rings in a dendrochronology that you can count 12000 tree rings in the same dendrochronology?This would be faith₁, but as you can see it is more precise to use the word confidence than faith, less likely to be confused with "gowns and candles." Such as swans mating for life? Or like honey bees where the workers attend the queen and maintain the hive? The wolf pack caring for the pups of the alpha male and female? Can you measure it, quantify it?Enjoy

So, no, you do not understand what evidence is.Love is an emotional feeling.Morality is a set of behavior rules established by society.At best these are subjective, certainly they are not the objective empirical evidence used in science.Subjective evidences are will-o-the-wisps ... elusive at best.Example: in one nation on earth today it is "moral" to stone a victim of rape to death because she had sex out of wedlock; but in our society it is moral to charge the perpetrator of the rape and put them in jail, and also to charge the stone throwers with premeditated murder. The "evidence" is quite different between these two cases, and thus it is not trustworthy. Can you tell which is more moral ... without using your personal sense of morality? Can you trust evidence that depends on who is judging it ?Trustworthy evidence provides the same answer regardless of who observes it. Such as the number of tree rings in a dendrochronology. So it is a good thing that scientists use all their senses AND their minds, ...... while a creationist refuses to use their mind - or their senses - only trusting a book ...EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clrty

It is. And when you use words to mean something other than the normal conversational meaning you invite confusion and misunderstanding. This is why scientists use words in specific ways to mean specific things -- it lessens confusion and misunderstanding.Making up new definitions for words seems to be a common creationist ploy, see Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking., and I have to wonder if the purpose is to confuse and misinform people. Not really -- you just made up the definition, while the universe has existed for a long time before you. If anything it would be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. That it is a social construct is evident with different morals espoused by different groups with otherwise common beliefs. That it is a social construct is evident with changes in morals espoused by a group over time. Many people try to ensconce their personal beliefs into political\legal systems as a way to try to force them on others, but forced morality is no morality at all - it has to be accepted. We expect some of it to have a natural (evolved) element and we expect some of it to have a rational (logically derived) element -- see Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?. We also expect that the natural (evolved) elements would match up with what game theory proposes for behavior patterns.We also expect that common elements, such as the 'golden rule' to behave toward others the way you would like them to behave towards you, would fall into these categories (natural and rational), and that uncommon elements, such as killing "sinners" by stoning, would not. That's not quite right; let me fix it for you: The better life is one free from oppression and discrimination, no matter what your personal beliefs are.Of course it is also often the case that when a group is oppressed and they escape and set up a new nation that they often turn and start oppressing other people in precisely the manner that they learned from being oppressed. This shows that the moral beliefs of any specific group are not related to whether or not they are the oppressed or the oppressors. Also known as the social contract. So you set up a false dichotomy and then discarded it. Fascinating.What is the "draw card" is the freedom and liberty to live according to one's personal beliefs. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's ... Church\Synagogue\Temple\Mosque etc and home. Congratulations for coming to a rational conclusion ... ... AND let the schools teach science.Enjoy

This appears to actually mean something to you. To me it is meaningless because love is irrational, emotion is irrational, so what I read isThe rationality of irrationality proves that it is a principleA self-contradicting phrase gussied up with an appearance of meaning when there is none. The universe appears to behave according to constant laws of behavior, ie - gravity here appears to be similar in detail to gravity on the moon, out in space and even in far galaxies.There is nothing rational or irrational about this. Dirt is neither rational nor irrational. We observe these things and make rational deductions about them. This would be true no matter how the universe was arranged. We are the ones that apply reason to the observations, and we improve on those rational deductions as time passes and more information becomes available. Newton's law of gravity, Einstein's relativity. Darwin's descent of species by natural selection, the modern synthesis of evolution integrating genetics and other processes of evolution into the study of life on earth. You have this backwards and a bit scrambled. If something abides by discernible laws then people can rationally deduce these laws and then apply them to predict future behavior.Not everything is discernible at this time, while your statement would imply that all we have to do is look and the rationality will become apparent. Doesn't happen. Agreed. It may be an emotional (irrational) reaction. The emotional response to danger is flee\freeze\fight and the way you react is not rational, but they have had an evolutionary benefit in the past for survival. What silly pseudologic. A man's opinion does not affect the rationality of math or gravity or evolution -- these things exist whatever your opinion is, facts don't disappear if you don't like them. Example - the earth is very very very old, and denial of this does not affect the evidence (see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1) Not really. They are accountable to their family, friends and society, and they are (morally) expected to behave for the benefit of these groups. Personal preferences don't make people into outstanding public figures. Give me a metric to measure the quantity of this love and show that this quantity is measurable in the same amounts no matter who does the measuring. Good luck with that. Specifically evidence, objective empirical evidence, and metrics to measure different aspects that return the same results, independent of who does the measuring. Specifics that the scientific method can be applied to and that study of them provides the opportunity to deduce a rational explanation from the evidence and measurements and observations that can predict future behavior. Again see Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?.What we see is elements related to preservation of family\tribe\society\species and that some of it can be predicted by game theory, and some elements are related to emotional social ideologies (various religions and ignorant beliefs), particularly those related to fear of others and fear of unknowns. Does a sociopath have the same definition of love as you? Does your best friend? How do you measure mental health? You have not made your case. You posit a bunch of ifs and then conclude something that depends on each of those ifs being true, but you have not provided evidence for this.Things are observed to fall to the ground: therefore gravity.
Species are observed to evolve: therefore evolution.
Objects on earth are observed to be very very old: therefore the age of the earth is very very old.That is rational deduction from observed objective empirical evidenceThe color of the moon is defined as blue: therefore the moon is blue.This is not a rational deduction.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : finished comments

What thread would you like to discuss them on? Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
14C Calibration and Correlations
Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?
Age of mankind, dating, and the flood
Validity of Radiometric Dating
14C calculations
Creationist problems with radiocarbon dating
Uranium Dating
The radiometric dating of basalts
Reliable Radiometric Dates as an Artifact of Assumptions
Potassium Argon Sensitivity Analysis
Radioactive carbon dating
Assessing the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) Project
Problems with Radiometric Dating?
Correlation Among Various Radiometric Ages
Hydrologic Evidence for an Old Earth
Dating by Stratigraphic Position
Praise for the RATE GroupOr a new thread where you propose to discuss what you perceive as problems with dating methodologies?Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.Enjoy

So you don't actually want to discuss evidence of dating methods being wrong, you just want to dance around the issue and pretend that you know something vital without ever putting out a speck of effort to show it.Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me. This is the post you are replying to:

Coyote writes:

​

You mean physical laws like those which control radiometric dating?
Or is that something different because you disagree with the results?

​

There are too many other factors that disagree with the results, which I don't want to talk about on this thread.

​

What thread would you like to discuss them on?

​

Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
14C Calibration and Correlations
Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?
Age of mankind, dating, and the flood
Validity of Radiometric Dating
14C calculations
Creationist problems with radiocarbon dating
Uranium Dating
The radiometric dating of basalts
Reliable Radiometric Dates as an Artifact of Assumptions
Potassium Argon Sensitivity Analysis
Radioactive carbon dating
Assessing the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) Project
Problems with Radiometric Dating?
Correlation Among Various Radiometric Ages
Hydrologic Evidence for an Old Earth
Dating by Stratigraphic Position
Praise for the RATE Group

​

Or a new thread where you propose to discuss what you perceive as problems with dating methodologies?

​

Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.

Plenty of opportunity to open a discussion in any way you care to do so, on your terms.The simple fact is that you do • not • want to discuss age at all ... you want to pretend that the world is young ... impossibly young ... and the only way you can do that, is to pretend to yourself that you know why dating methods are wrong ... but that you cannot discuss your "evidence" because it doesn't exist ...You don't fool us, you don't fool reality. The earth remains very very old regardless of your comical dancing around the issue. The universe does not care about your belief nor your opinion, and it is not in love with you. Says the person who claimed a 14C date was obtained for a metal coin.Curiously, while I would love for you to go into greater detail on why you think they are wrong, I know you won't actually discuss them, nor discuss why they produce the same results, consistently, test after test after test ... And while I would love to hear something other than vague claims, you continue to provide nothing else to "listen" to -- you just make repeated claims with absolutely no foundation. Like your silly story about radiocarbon dating a coin. Says the one who repeats themself with no additional information. You won't look at Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 because it is full of facts that you cannot challenge, and because you don't want to put yourself to the trouble of having to deal with the information ... information regarding objective empirical evidence that challenges your beliefs ... when you can sit in your rut and babble about how "love" makes the universe go around.I'll choose my rut over yours any day of the year and twice on sunday.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .formatEdited by RAZD, : subt

Message 766

fyi -- he said he was 10 in eighth grade iirc but not how many years ago that was, when he pretend dated the coin with 14C ... I'm sure you can look that up and correct yourself.

Well it looks like you missed your opportunity last night then. Do I have to wait another week for a real answer?What you are engaged in currently is a dance called the shuck-and-jive: dance around the issue claiming special knowledge but completely unable to offer any single thing of substance.It's all pretense, it's all pretend, it's all phaque.The tree rings in California, Germany and Ireland know you are wrong. But don't worry ... they still love you.The lake varves in Japan know you are wrong. But don't worry ... they still love you.The ice layers in Greenland and Antarctica know you are wrong. But don't worry ... they still love you. Curiosity. Whenever you are ready (yawn)Now, what will you feel and say when your world of conclusions on the age of the earth is known to be wrong?btw ... that date has already come to pass.Enjoy.

Message 114 - Claims first heard about evolution in 1946 ... so I don't think 30 is right either ... if you believe what he says. This is where 18 comes from I believe, but I take that to be grade 7.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ...

Found the orig -- 11 in grade 7.

Then you should stop doing it.And if you think this is what evolution teaches then you are operating on a misconception or misinformation. This does sound like typical creationist babble regurgitated by people that can't take the time to check and see if this is actually what evolution says.Evolution is not about origins, but about changes in populations of living organisms.If you want to talk about origins then the science is abiogenesis -- the study of how life may have developed from chemicals.See Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I)
and Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) for discussions of this field.btw -- Random ≠ Accident ... when I throw a di and it lands on 6 that is not an accident, nor is it a predetermined event it is a random event that has a probable occurrence.And we see random events - like meteor impacts - that affect life in stochastic ways and can cause extinctions regardless of fitness of populations to their ecologies.And random mutations occur during reproduction that affect the resulting organism; sometimes that effect is lethal, sometimes it is disadvantageous, sometimes it is neutral, and sometimes it is advantageous to the organisms survival and reproduction. But they are not accidents.Evolution says that people evolved from a common ancestor ape species that we share with chimps, that this ape evolved from a common ancestor primate species that we share with monkeys ... that these links of common ancestor species goes back through a common ancestor mammal species that we share with all other mammals, that this mammal evolved from a common tetrapod land walking ancestor that we share with all other tetrapodal land walking animals.Enjoy

Nope. Evolution existed before carbon dating and all that carbon dating provides is more accurate data for the last 50,000 years of the natural history of life on earth.We could toss carbon dating in the dust bin tomorrow and all of evolution would be just as valid, just as real, and just as good an explanation for the evolution of diversity of life on earth Because they are not science, they are beliefs. They have as much credence as your posts. Show an ounce and we can talk about it. Simple.But don't worry ... ... it isn't completely without value, it can always serve as a bad example of how not to do science.Enjoy

It seems that the current debate is not accomplishing much in the way of value to the topic. So let's be creative: suggest a lesson plan that you think would provide children with a good background in science and show the value of creationist teaching.After all, if all you do is criticize and don't offer an alternative, how are we to judge the positive value of your position?Enjoy

In my mind this is the biggest indictment of the Creationist approach -- that they have to lie and present false information against the science in order to look like they have a valid challenge, because they do•not•have any real evidence of problems with the science.Of course this only fools the gullible, the deluded and the ignorant. Which is why they get beat up here.Enjoy.