|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
The foundation is part of the house.
Aren't houses normally younger than their foundations? NoNukes writes:
It's true that the analogy fails if you're promoting a young earth in an old universe or young humans in an old earth, etc.
And what's to prevent me from installing an old door in my new house?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Colbard writes:
Hint: the key word is radio CARBON dating. Don't take any carbon nickels, son.
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. Colbard writes:
Not having the slightest clue about radiometric dating causes much worse readings.
Apparently the mistakes in readings are exponential after a few decades back in time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jar writes:
I think he may have meant radiometric dating in general instead of carbon specifically. I still strongly doubt that he had any coin dated. In any case, it's an excuse that I've never heard before for rejecting dating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
The analogy was only intended to illustrate a different point of view to Colbard. He seems to have taken the point but rejected the "lesson" for unrelated reasons. The analogy, therefore, is a success. What you are doing in this defense of your analogy is forcing the lesson your analogy is supposed to teach. If you don't like it, boo hoo.
NoNukes writes:
I think I already mentioned that the analogy doesn't work in an old-universe/young-earth scenario. That's a position that Colbard doesn't take (I think), so your comments are irrelevant. In Colbard's view, the nails, wood, brick, etc. were all created in the same six days, so the analogy stands.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
You can't think "outside the box" constructively until you understand the box. People who don't understand carbon dating, for example, have no business thinking independently about it.
Independent thought is taboo to science, as it was heresy to the church.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Sense of smell is subjective. Hold your nose.
And given that your analogy breaks at exactly the point that you are trying to illustrate, your analogy stinks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Colbard writes:
You're almost half right. Try it this way: "True, evolution is... the ideas of humanity above any revelation or God." True, evolution is also a religion, the ancient religion of Baal worship, which is essentially humanism, the ideas of humanity above any revelation or God. The reason the theory of evolution is so successful is because it works. Revelations seldom do. And there are so many conflicting revelations. Science works by weeding out the revelations (and I use the word `weed` deliberately). That leaves observations that can be confirmed repeatedly. And of course `humanism`is a good thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Colbard writes:
Indeed. How would you know you were on the right side?
If there was a spiritual battle going on as I mentioned, then revelation would be most screwed with. Colbard writes:
I'm the first one to tell you to be wary of everything (but not to the point of paranoia). Be wary of water; it can kill you - but on the other hand, you can't live without it. I believe in the goodness of humanity too, but I'm wary of humanism. In the end, humanism is all we really have; it's the only thing we can count on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
Better and better.
This world, how is it going? Colbard writes:
What if you choose the wrong promise? What if you choose Christianity and the real God fries you? If I lived in a world of death and dysfunction, and I was offered eternal life, I would take it even if I had no proof of it, I have nothing to lose do I? In the end, it's only your own human wisdom (and the advice of other humans) that you can count on, even to choose a god.
Colbard writes:
Well, in the movies, you'd be pulled up only to have Lee Van Cleef pointing a gun at you. Or you could pull a Harrison Ford and decide which stone to press to open the secret passage. It's your decision.
If you fell down a well and survived without a scratch and someone passed down a rope, would you make a loop and be hauled up or would you make a noose and hang yourself?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Colbard writes:
Be honest. You got caught saying something really stupid. I would personally give you a Cheer if you were big enough to admit it.
I gave the story of the coin dating as a trigger to help the 'scientists' blow their steam off.... Colbard writes:
Yes, it did.
... giving them an opportunity to run me over with a bulldozer full of regular words. Seemed necessary to you didn't it? Colbard writes:
For the same reason that you'd speak up if somebody said something you knew to be wrong. Maybe they'd learn something from you or maybe somebody else would learn something by overhearing the conversation.
And why is that? Colbard writes:
There's a fair bit of garbage in the world - creationism is a prime example - and it needs to be taken out so it doesn't stink up the place. Is your world so false and fragile that it needs to run down anything that comes near it? Edited by ringo, : Spoelling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
I don't think Paul intended to convey to Timothy that NEVER learning was better than continuously learning.
Would that be as in II Timothy 3:7 "Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
Evolution doesn't have "accidents". Learning that would be good.
... telling people you came from an accident in a swamp is not good. quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbards writes:
Well, the buttresses are pretty strong. Without radiometric dating, the theory of evolution wouldn't lose any of its strength.
Carbon dating is the holy grail of evolution. It's entire structure rests on that poor brick, and many other poor foundations like it have been buttressed to keep the confounded thing from looking unsupported. Colbard writes:
Because it makes you look like an idiot. (You may not be a duck but you certainly walk like one and quack like one.)
So why not introduce the topic of dating with a holed story?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024