|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
No. I do not trust you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
You think you know. Nope, I think you do not know.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The decay happens there.
The decay is seen here. You are also forgetting the other non-parallax measurment of distance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This is a thread about what should be taught in school, so let's try a little exercise in critical thinking:
Christmas in the fishbowl comes in our time. Assertion: The "fishbowl" does not exist. Refute. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Some may care what you think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Since the fishbowl simply refers to the limits of where man has gone, claiming there are no limits is easily refuted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Whether we use a base line from here in the solar system such as the position earth travels in six months, or whether we use a radius line out where SN is, you cannot simply claim that the lines represent time and space at all points to the star. So the lines you draw are not distance.
As for the decay that we see here, I don't know for sure either way whether it represents what happens where the stars are. We do only see it here after all. The info is seen IN time...time here. So we would have to see things a certain way, because things here in the fishbowl must exist a certain way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Since the fishbowl simply refers to the limits of where man has gone, claiming there are no limits is easily refuted. Moving the goal posts already ... the post you are replying to states
This is a thread about what should be taught in school, so let's try a little exercise in critical thinking:
Christmas in the fishbowl comes in our time. Assertion: The "fishbowl" does not exist. Refute. Since the fishbowl simply refers to the limits of where man has gone, ... So the "fishbowl" is purely a philosophical concept, one that is fairly useless to what one should teach in school as "the limits of where man has gone" is changing daily. If not, please demonstrate that the "fishbowl" actually exists.
... claiming there are no limits is easily refuted. Please do so; your posited "fishbowl" changes daily, showing that "the limits of where man has gone" is not actually limited. Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
No. Of course Christmas and every other day is here in the fishbowl and in our time. Yes, kids should be taught what is actually known and where man has actually traveled. They need some basis in reality, not just your pi in the sky religion.
Even though the probes get further away, expanding where we have been, the distance is so small in the big picture of the universe that it basically could not matter! Who cares if it is a light day, or even several? Your religion claims to describe things billions of...not light days...but light years away!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... Yes, kids should be taught what is actually known and where man has actually traveled. They need some basis in reality, not just Fixed it for you. A sound basis in geography and history. That's a start. Let's also add critical thinking and logic to better understand their basis in understanding reality. Then we can add what science actually is and does (or doesn't do), how it works, not by belief, but by building on known facts, making hypothesis and how testing them shows a lack of belief in their validity. How hypothesis become theory and how theories are changed when new facts are discovered. We can talk about religion and how comparative religion shows similarities and differences between different beliefs. Then we can question if there is any means to test which religions are {better / closer to truth / valid} -- your basic "how do you know" question fundamental to a good education.
Even though the probes get further away, expanding where we have been, the distance is so small in the big picture of the universe that it basically could not matter! Who cares if it is a light day, or even several? ... This is your problem with religious beliefs being anti-science -- you need to deny the validity of science. Sorry, denial does not invalidate or obliterate science. Who cares? People who want to learn and know more. Who doesn't care? People who want to curl up with ignorance so they can maintain delusional (ie - contradicted by facts) beliefs. Creationists, for instance. We can teach about that too -- how the denial of the the reality around us is not healthy thinking.
... Your Describe them yes indeed, that IS what the current scientific model of the universe does: it describes what we think is the best explanation of the universe. A model that has been modified many times over the years as new information is added, and a model subject to further modification as new information becomes available ... thru the discovery of new information by scientific procedures. We can teach how Voyager 1 and Voyager 2, by measuring an increased electron density, confirm a prediction made by the current model for interstellar space being different from the space within the solar system (which is affected by gravity and the solar winds from the sun). We can teach how the actual degree of density has not been measured yet, and whether or not that can affect the current model, should it be different in degree than what is predicted. If it is different, then the model will be adjusted as necessary or a new mode will be developed. We can teach that this is how science works -- building on known facts to provide the best possible explanation for things, whether it's biology (evolution), geology (the natural history of continental plates, mountain building, erosion, etc over geological ages), climate (anthropomorphic climate change), physics (the model of the universe, radioactive decay, etc). We can teach how religion claims to explain everything, but does not have any mechanism to increase knowledge. How there is a fundamental difference between religion and science:
Religion: all your questions answered Science: all your answers questioned Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
quote:The real reasons for rise and fall of empires involve man's choice and God. Geography too actually. You have no sound basis. quote:When critical thinking becomes nothing more than religiously omitting all traces of God, it is better called dreaming dreams, making stuff up, or baseless doubts and total leaning to your own limited understanding. quote:How they have failed routinely in predictions and are always surprised at being shown wrong. How most of their cosmo models are pure belief based godless hogwash. Etc. quote: They need to know origin so called science is religion. If they live in a nation with Christian foundations, and/or a Christian majority, they should primarily deal in that when talking beliefs or creation.
quote:I care how far man has actually gone, when they are making claims about where they have not gone. I like to see the basis for the claims, and they have none. quote:We should care about fact and truth. We should resist demented evil delusions. quote:People who try to impose a reality of vile made up dreams and fables are in denial. quote:Nothing is verified and all of it is fishbowl based belief based and God forsaking nonsense that is shown to be false all the time predictably. Science is little more than running around trying to patch up their religion as they get busted, and doing so with more fishbowl philosophy of course. Many tire of that one trick little pony. quote:Great. So?? Life in the fishbowl! quote: When it is different you mean.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
So you’ve been to this next Christmas already? Or someone you know real well has?
Fascinating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The real reasons for rise and fall of empires involve man's choice and God. Geography too actually. You have no sound basis. Gibberish, we're still talking history and geography as a starting point. No sound basis for what? History and geography?
When critical thinking becomes nothing more than religiously omitting all traces of God, it is better called dreaming dreams, making stuff up, or baseless doubts and total leaning to your own limited understanding. That wouldn't be critical thinking would it? That would be teaching thinking to a prescribed agenda without allowing freedom of thought.
How they have failed routinely in predictions and are always surprised at being shown wrong. How most of their cosmo models are pure belief based godless hogwash. Etc. Please provide one such example and then show who determined they failed and how they determined it. (Hint: it wasn't by religious belief). Claims are easy to make, can you substantiate them?
They need to know origin so called science is religion. ... We can agree that abiogenesis has not reached a definitive theory on the origins of life on this planet, at best we can say that before a certain time (say 4 billion years ago) there is no evidence, that after 3.5 billion years ago that there is plenty of evidence of (single cell) life, that the actual point of life's origin is not known, nor is the actual process. We can say that there are a number of different hypothesis, but no conclusion yet. (see see Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I)and Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) for some of the active avenues of research). Certainly there is room for discussion. ... If they live in a nation with Christian foundations, and/or a Christian majority, they should primarily deal in that when talking beliefs or creation. Why? What would give your Christianity any authority on what is right and what is wrong when talking about history and geography or how science works? What gives Christianity that privilege when the place to teach religion is the home and the church? That would not be critical thinking would it? That would be teaching thinking to a prescribed agenda without allowing freedom of thought. You would force non-Christians to accept your beliefs over their own, rather than keep an open mind. Would it be equally valid for a nation with Hindu foundations and/or a Hindu majority to have the same control over what is taught?
I care how far man has actually gone, when they are making claims about where they have not gone. I like to see the basis for the claims, and they have none. Wrong, there is plenty of evidence that has resulted in the current model of the universe. Perhaps if you actually looked into the matter instead of blanket denial of it you would know better. Assertions are not evidence or invalidation, it's just opinion.
We should care about fact and truth. We should resist demented evil delusions. Agreed. Now how do you determine which are "demented evil delusions" and which are real? Answer: test them, compare the evidence for them, use critical thinking and an open mind.
People who try to impose a reality of vile made up dreams and fables are in denial. Indeed. The question is how we determine which are "vile made up dreams and fables" and which are based on reality. Assertions are not sufficient, popularity (a logical fallacy) is not sufficient, opinion is not sufficient, belief is not sufficient. Facts and evidence are a good starting point. Certainly any belief that is contradicted by evidence should not be considered as valid. Building from that basis, any belief that is not contradicted and that hold across a broad spectrum of religions and beliefs can be considered with an open mind. This would best be accomplished through a Comparative Religions course, comparing beliefs not just between one religion and another, but between one sect and another (eg - there are many -- a majority of? -- Christian sects that do not see a young earth or a world wide flood as factual, but as allegorical, ... and of course there are many religions with no such beliefs).
Nothing is verified and all of it is fishbowl based belief based and God forsaking nonsense that is shown to be false all the time predictably. Science is little more than running around trying to patch up their religion as they get busted, and doing so with more fishbowl philosophy of course. Many tire of that one trick little pony. Denial is not refutation, opinion is not refutation, and invoking a personal fantasy is most certainly not a refutation of the scientific evidence, process, predictions and testing. Beliefs are not tested for invalidation, science is, because science questions all answers, even (if not most particularly) the scientific ones. Questioning all answers is the essence of critical thinking.
When it is different you mean. The electron density already is different, the next question is how different will it get the further Voyager 1 and 2 penetrate the interstellar medium beyond the heliopause, and how does that compare to the predicted values. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
History cannot be understood in any depth without God. You do not have to agree. Perhaps in some country of 95% atheists, you might peddle your godless version of history.
There is no freedom of thought when faith in God and truth is religiously oppressed and denied. As for the failings of science, ideas are constantly being changed as old ones are shown to be wrong. They found comets could not have brought the water in oceans, so they dropped that for example. Of course they jumped to godless belief based conclusions such as 'it must have come from asteroids'. Ha. Your billions of years claims and all origin claims are pure religion. No fact or reality to them whatsoever. You cannot test God or origins with paltry science. Not since science is bound with the straightjacket of fishbowl philsophy, godless conjecture and criteria, and a tiny pool of possible explanations for the unknown. Questioning is fine, but godless inquisition and propaganda is not fine. Tell us how electron density will tell us what time is like?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
RAZD writes: We can agree that abiogenesis has not reached a definitive theory on the origins of life on this planet, at best we can say that before a certain time (say 4 billion years ago) there is no evidence, that after 3.5 billion years ago that there is plenty of evidence of (single cell) life, that the actual point of life's origin is not known, nor is the actual process. We can say that there are a number of different hypothesis, but no conclusion yet. RAZD, no offence but I think you are using a rhetorical device here called, "playing it up". To prove claims of abiogenesis you don't need evidence of single celled organisms as we already know they exist. Singled cell organisms are the "complete" stage of abiogenesis, so the evidence for abiogenesis can't be the complete stage. It's misleading to say, "we have single celled organisms" as though they are only a prediction of early evolution when they exist today as full lifeforms that didn't abiogenesis.
RAZD writes: that the actual point of life's origin is not known, nor is the actual process Again I think this is misleading. I could for example say, "the point of origin of the Antikythera mechanism is not known nor the process" and then by using the unqualified question-begging term, "process" this then IMPLIES without qualification, that there was any such natural "process". But if something is riddled with the features of intelligent design, inductively 100% of the tally of evidence shows such features altogether are only found in intelligently designed things. 0% of such features found together, are ever found in something not designed. So it seems to me based on the evidence, there is every reason to disregard abiogenesis as science fiction. They have not so much as shown even 5% of a cell can come about this way. Also there are no physical reasons ever found to have a chain of sophistiaced IDed features on life's level. That is to say, the only reason homochiral amino acids fold and the right ones connect, is to produce the function of a protein, with a goal in mind which is achieved. Specified complexity -> function -> end goal. We can see this applies also on the macro-level in an organism. (It's anatomy)EXAMPLE: an eye. The parts are specifically arranged complexity. The parts are in the correct place to lead to a specific function which achieves a specific goal, which is only a sub-goal, with other sub-goals consisting of the same features. (ears, mouth nose, etc...) Question: Can you give me a rational reason to believe that there is any physical reason why a goal should be met? In other words, if part of a wall constructs itself by accident, is there any reason for the build to continue with an end goal in sight? (prescience) No, there is no physical reason, that's why we only find sophisticated designer features where there is teleology. (a designer). Conclusion: Abiogenesis is a joke. And there would only be reason to believe it if all of the Cambrian phyla could be shown to have their conspicuously absent transitional ancestors. So there is no direct evidence pre-Cambrian, of any evolution unless you argue from 1% of the evidence and ignore the 99% missing evidence, IMHO.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024