|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 46/109 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Colbard writes: In my opinion, he was correct regardless of what you think. I didn't render an opinion on what Kruselnicki said. You made a completely unsupported claim and never provided any documentation for what he said. Given your history there's no reason to trust your claim, so why comment on its content. What I actually said is that whenever you say anything that can be verified, almost invariably it's wrong.
Why have a forum for people to communicate when, that should not be, just text book quotes? Again, you're the cause of all your problems because you say a great many things that turn out to be untrue or illogical. The purpose of this forum is to improve understanding through discussion, and people are informing you of your errors, fabrications and irrationality. You can take this information and improve your understanding, or you can disregard it and/or fight it (the choice of most creationists). --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
What you are saying is that evolution cannot be wrong because C14 dating proves it. That is the current opinion in the science world, which I believe will be proven false soon by those who have expertise in the field. Again you are simply showing that you are not just ignorant but willfully ignorant. I have in fact said just the opposite, that 14C dating is irrelevant to whether or not Evolution is a fact and the Theory of Evolution is the only explanation for the variety of life we see. Now 14C dating is another of the hundreds of proofs that neither of the Biblical Floods ever happened.
That is the current opinion in the science world, which I believe will be proven false soon by those who have expertise in the field. And yet another example of willful ignorance. No expert in chemistry or physics has been able to find any reason that 14C dating might even be suspect. In fact reality is just the opposite; the experts continually increase the accuracy of 14C dating and every new technology that has been developed provides direct support and confirmation of 14C dating. But if you would actually learn the answers to the questions I posed you would see why 14C dating is so disastrous to the Snake Oil salesmen that try to pedal the Young Earth nonsense.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3417 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes: Perhaps you would care to start a thread on this topic so you can present your evidence and findings? It might be fun. And have the thread filled with abuse? What for?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Colbard writes: And have the thread filled with abuse? What for? We're not giving you abuse. We're just giving you the truth and you think it's abuse. (apologies to HST) Seriously, how can you complain about being called to task for your many errors, fabrications and chains of illogic? Do you think they should just be ignored, that we should pretend they didn't happen? Also, they've become an impenetrable barrier preventing discussion of the actual topic. If you begin confining yourself to statements that are true and make sense then the criticisms and complaints about you will greatly diminish. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Dr Karl is one of the scientists who made the comment on ABC radio science talk that the survey did not consider the inclusiveness of Christian organizations etc quote: Sounds a bit like Australia's answer to Bill Nye the Science Guy ... So what is "Dr Karl's" take on evolution, 14C dating and the age of the earth? Climate change? What are his peer reviewed articles on these subjects? (none?) His book "Munching Maggots, Noah's Flood and TV Heart Attacks and other cataclysmic science moments" says that "Noah's Flood" was likely local and limited to the Black Sea ... do you agree with him on this?
Dr Karl is one of the scientists who made the comment on ABC radio science talk that the survey did not consider the inclusiveness of Christian organizations etc Which is a fair comment ... if it is backed up with data on the proportions of students taken in by Christian schools compared to public schools, otherwise it would be an unsupported assumption. Is this trend similar to the one shown in Percy's graph for the amount of acceptance of students by the different sects? Or is this something that would only change the results by <10% (rather insignificant to the overall trend). Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : ..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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
In my opinion, he was correct regardless of what you think.
Correct or not, he is not a top scientist, and he is only one person. "Top scientists" plural is what Percy objected to. But of course you don't address the real issues.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So if the beta decay is increased somehow while the carbon is in the ground, then we will have the reading for a very old bone. The earth radiates alpha and beta particles as if it has a surplus, could this process accelerate the decay rate while the object is buried? A rate which is far slower in lab conditions? Well, three answers. Firstly, almost as soon as scientists discovered radioactive decay, they set about seeing if the rate varied according to external conditions such as temperature and pressure. You can read about this here. Secondly, they understand radioactive decay in principle, they have the quantum theory. They know that what you describe shouldn't take place. Of course, we can imagine that they're wrong, but this wouldn't just mean that they were wrong about radiometric dating, it would mean they were wrong about particle physics generally. And they seem quite good at it, they use this knowledge to produce practical results. Science is all one thing, you can't just unpick one thread from that seamless fabric, you have to tear it all apart to get rid of the one bit you don't like. Third, we can test radiometric dating against objects of a known age --- this was of course the very first thing scientists did after they thought of radiocarbon dating. It would be funny if it works every time we can check it directly, but fails when we can't. (See here and here: the second article discusses dating methods in general, and how they all fit together.)
I still assume it is wrong because I have studied the global flood as a hobby, and it adds up fine. Well, there's something you could start a thread about --- but it might make more sense yet to read the threads we already have. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Just a little more info for Colbard. It just occurred to me that even for coins that do include carbon, that carbon would have been mined, not taken from the atmosphere. Mined carbon will always be older than 50,000 years.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I initially came here thinking that there would be a fair trial for creationism, but soon found out I am up against a brick wall. But you have scarcely argued for creationism. How is it meant to get a fair trial if the counsel for the defense is asleep on the job.
There was no communication, just slapping around whatever I said, so how would anyone respond? Most people just leave. But the "slapping around" is down to the quality of your arguments. You seem to be more interested in making snide remarks than in raising scientific issues. When you do the latter --- as with your recent question about beta decay --- you will be met with a civil and factual response. When you resort to vacuous rhetoric, you will be met with mockery and derision.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
In my opinion, he was correct regardless of what you think. I tend to agree that categorizing all Christians as less intelligent than any other group or demographic is likely wrong and pretty silly; however there is the Christian Cult of Ignorance that enfolds all the Fundamentalists and most who identify as Biblical Christians that is demonstrably far less educated and far more ignorant than almost any other demographic. Anyone today that claims the Earth is young, that evolution is not fact, that either of the Biblical Floods ever happened, that Exodus happened as described in the Bible or the Conquest of Canaan happened as described in the Bible are at best showing willful ignorance, delusion or just plain lying. But none of that is related to intelligence or what should be taught in schools. As I pointed out back in Message 32:
quote: Edited by jar, : that ----> thanAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You are right, it does not help my stand at all. I knew that, but my degradation would have been no different had I produced the evidence which would have been refuted on the basis of preconceived ideas which dominate the thinking and reasoning. Why would you say that when you've never tried?
What you are saying is that evolution cannot be wrong because C14 dating proves it. He didn't say that. No-one has ever said that.
That is the current opinion in the science world ... NO. I don't know where you're getting this from, but carbon dating is hardly ever used to support any evolutionary idea. If I think of all the evidence I'd adduce if I was writing a book called Why Evolution Is Right, I wouldn't mention a single date produced by carbon dating. You are being wrong about the wrong thing. Which suggests to me that you have never looked at the evidence for evolution, or you'd know that yourself. You'd have noticed the complete absence of references to carbon dating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I have said from the start that I agree with science and its method of deduction and analysis, but not its conclusions of evolution, and other theories. But if you agree with their methods of deduction and analysis, why disagree with the conclusions they deduce from the data that they analyse?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Colbard writes: There was no communication, just slapping around whatever I said, so how would anyone respond? Most people just leave. In your opinion, what would have been a proper response to your coin story, or to your explanation of fossil sorting? Even you know that the coin story is no rational reason not to accept carbon dating. We also know that hydraulic sorting is insufficient to explain the order of fossils. If you want some idea of yours to receive some serious consideration, your going to have to do better than repeat discredited ideas that we've heard before.
Colbard writes:
Most people just leave. ... Yes, it is a troll thing, but you weren't going to let creationism even start were you? You've come across as a weak whiner from nearly the start of your participation here. You stumbled upon a Evolution vs Creationist debate forum where non acceptance to your ideas should have been expected. But it turns out that your method of debate is to spout mysticism and that you find challenges uncomfortable. Even when we discussed things on your terms you couldn't find evidence or Biblical support for what you were saying. Why are you even on a debate site? You have nothing to offer, and you don't like the easily anticipated response to nonsense.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
The earth radiates alpha and beta particles as if it has a surplus, could this process accelerate the decay rate while the object is buried? A rate which is far slower in lab conditions? No. Alpha and beta particles have no effect on decay rates. Where do you get the idea that "the earth radiates alpha and beta particles as if it has a surplus?". The earth contains radioactive materials some of which decay by alpha and beta decay. Neutrons could affect the percentage of C-14 in a sample, and sometimes we do find that to have occurred. But the result is to make samples seem to new and not too old.
I assumed it was an error, not because I understood carbon dating, but because I did not believe the earth was that old, let alone the coin. I thought carbon dating was somehow wrong and did not know how. I can understand that. Quite frankly, what you are describing is the probably pretty common among Creationists. You don't have to understand evolution, cosmology, or carbon dating in any detail to reject them. Because there is no question that those things are inconsistent with your interpretation of Genesis.
I still assume it is wrong because I have studied the global flood as a hobby, and it adds up fine. You probably won't want to get into a debate about this. Your ideas are going to be challenged and evidence is going to be asked for. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD writes: Perhaps you would care to start a thread on this topic so you can present your evidence and findings? It might be fun. And have the thread filled with abuse? What for? Well, if you actually have objective empirical evidence that you can present clearly there should be no problem. If you evidence is similar to your coin story then yes you could expect a similar response and for the same reason: you need to substantiate claims with objective empirical evidence. If you enter an axe fight with a wet noodle you can expect the noodle to be sliced and diced by everyone skeptical of your claims. But would be interesting to compare your evidence to what Faith has provided ... and see if it is any better. On the other hand, if you want to review the evidence against a world wide flood you can start with reading Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? (it can be reopened for comments) ... 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024