|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Mutations occur now. That is what is observed. The way evolution happened in the former days we do not know. We conclude the past behavior of life, the universe, etc. is similar to what we see today, because the evidence is consistent with a consistent nature, ... AND there is no evidence of it being any different "in the former days" -- you certainly have not presented any.
Nor do we know what the created kinds were from which all adapting/evolving started. ... What is a "kind" -- please define and provide examples.
... Nor do we know aout nature in the far past, and how creatures would have quickly evolved/adapted to that. ... Again, we conclude the past behavior of life, the universe, etc. is similar to what we see today, because the evidence is consistent with such a consistent nature, ... AND there is no evidence of it being any different "in the former days" -- you certainly have not presented any. Your use of "former nature" does not rest on evidence or anything but personal fantasy, and as such is no argument of any kind of value.
... Nor do we know that any possibility existed in that former nature for them to be able to leave fossil remains! So the fossils we do see could and probebly do only represent a small small small small fraction of what variety of life LIVED and existed also when those creatures that became the fossils we do have died!!! It is accepted in science that the fossils only represent a small proportion of the amount of life that has existed on this planet, and new varieties are being found constantly. Curiously they all fit into the nested hierarchies predicted by evolution. It is always good to teach multiple lines of inquiry as a way to explore the validity of ideas. Another aspect of the fossil record is the space-time matrix of where they are found. This is discussed in Alfred Russel Wallace and Biogeography:
quote: These simple observations and the correlations of fossils in time and space provide strong evidence that the fossil record is best explained by evolution. WE also have the evidence from DNA that also shows life falling into the nested hierarchies predicted by evolution, and amazingly those nested hierarchies generally match the ones from the fossil record. There have been some minor anomalies, but they have been resolved. If they were not resolvable then that would be a problem. I know you don't really understand the value of correlations as very strong supporting evidence of scientific findings, but this is another such correlation of results from two entirely separate fields of study, one that did not need to occur ... unless both are documenting the same thing, the actual pattern of evolution in the past of life as we know it.
Science assumes the fossil record represents a good cross section/sampling of life on earth at the time of the fossil creation..no? Science concludes and accepts that the fossil record is a cross section/sampling of some of the life on earth and that there are some unknowns, missing evidence, in actual lineal descent. We talk about cousins species as more accurate to the patterns of descent from common populations. So far the best explanation we have of the diversity in the fossil record is evolution. This is tested by each new fossil. It is also tested by each new genome developed from DNA. So far evolution remains the best explanation of the diversity in the fossil record. Your "we can't know the past" is not an explanation. It is also worthless for education, it teaches nothing and only fosters ignorance. Your "things may have been different in the past" is not an explanation. It is also worthless for education, it teaches nothing and only fosters ignorance. Teaching that pigs may have flown in an entirely made up different past is actually teaching ignorant falsehoods. Maybe suitable for a course on mythology and silly things some people believe, but it certainly is not history or science.
Sorry, stop pushing your religion on kids. Says the one pushing personal fantasy without any basis on evidence. Science is not religion, it's fact based conclusions and validated theory that is based on evidence to explain it, subject to change when the evidence shows anomalous or unexpected results to tests predicted by the theories developed to explain the evidence. Show me a religion ready and prepared to change if the evidence invalidates it, and that is actively seeking such evidence. We have a choice when it comes to school history and science classes: Do we teach hid-bound blind religious dogma, or do we teach flexible thinking (that constantly adapts to new evidence) and how to find testable answers to questions. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... ALL remains of humans are post flood. Let's now have a lesson on the continued failings of creationist claims: 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
Where do you draw the line for human among these skulls? Other than "A" (chimpanzee) the skulls are arranged by their space-time matrix, so what is pre-flood and what is post-flood and how can we tell? Evolution explains these skulls, creationism doesn't. In school we should teach what works, not what fails. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I daresay I think you have NO remains of any man before the flood, or even shortly after it. ... Because there was no flood. Teaching evolution and religion in school should be based on fact, not fantasy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
There was no big bang, or first lifeform or same nature in the past. Making claims is easy. ... Says the person making up claims: you should know. Developing conclusions from evidence not so easy, as you should also know, because there is an absence of evidence for your assertions -- you can't find any ... so you try to make it up.
... Why would sane people teach your beliefs?? Because they are conclusions based on evidence, not mere belief, and sane people can look at the evidence and decide that the conclusions are valid. This is the kind of thing that needs to be taught: how to tell fact from fantasy, how to use evidence to support your arguments, how to apply rational thinking to the issues. Again, you are a poster child for the empty vapidness that is creationism: pontificating on things you don't have evidence for ... loudly, frequently, as if repetition can change reality; 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Mere belief foisted on evidences is all you have shown you are able to do actually. Further pretense is in vain. We have reviewed your thesis and reject it for the following reasons: The effort you've put into researching and documenting the evidence to substantiate your thesis is grossly insufficient for a school program based on facts. Repeating the same assertions without reference to facts is indiscernible from delusion, and has no place in school. You basic thesis provides nothing for educational value in schools, it leads nowhere. There is insufficient information provided to base a study plan for even a single class period. Please review these comments and make changes if you want your thesis to be accepted for school use -- as anything other than a bad example. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Don't pretend some thesis exists. The issues you face are supporting your religion as science. ALL THE THESIS AND CLAIMS AND BELIEFS OF ALL ORIGIN SCIENCES ARE WORTHLESS RELIGION. You are correct, there is no thesis to your one-trick pony ramblings. My mistake. There is also no proposed study plan to use in school. Further there is no information or question proposed to study in school. 531 posts to date, all wasted bandwidth. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
All study should involve truth. Your religious fables are dangerous poison for kids.
Message 1311: They should learn to despise lies, and treasure truth and learn the difference. Seems you haven't learned what you advocate teaching children. Amusing irony. Science is not religious, nor is it fables. It is fact based conclusions Fantasies built on fact free personal opinion of biblical myths are both. Your one-trick pony keeps leaving piles of ignorant underinformed blather. Unfortunately -- for you -- it doesn't contain any evidence to support your assertions, just wasted bandwidth ... just more evidence that creationist arguments like yours are worthless drivel with no place in any school. You make a strong argument for science and fact based education by demonstrating what develops from the lack of it. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Observation proves that human parents produce human babies; that puppies come from dogs; that piglets come from pigs; and, chimps procreate chimps. Which evolution (as defined by science) actually predicts. So it seems you have/use a different definition than science uses, if you think this challenges evolution (as defined by science). Can you define what you mean by "evolution?" This is necessary to have a rational discussion about evolution, don't you think?
No poster on this site has "observed" a dog producing a cat; a cow producing a raccoon; ... The observation of which would actually disprove evolution, so not observing it does not disprove evolution (as defined by science).
Never has a pregnant woman asked "I wonder what kind of animal will I give birth to? They know for certain that their offsprings will be a human. Why are they (and I) so sure of this fact? Because for thousands of years we have observed.this to be true. Again, this is predicted by evolution (as defined by science), so seeing this does not disprove evolution (as defined by science).
This is observable science. Science does not disagree with this proven fact; ... Facts are facts, they are not proven, nor do they need to be, they are facts.
... however, evolutionists (whose paradigm prevents them from seeing truth) reject "observational science." What's an "evolutionist?" What is their "paradigm?" Are the non-observational sciences?
Fossils exist. This is a proven fact. But, they don't comes with labels attached to them, stating how old they are, or how many offsprings they had. Indeed, but sciences (physics, chemistry, geology) have determined many ways to test for the ages of fossils. When several methods reach the same result we have high confidence in that result.
Humans (guided by their paradigm) ... Again, can you define this paradigm?
... place their own interpretations on them. That would be science interpreting the data, a standard aspect of any science.
Scientists (evolutionists) ... Are all scientist evolutionists" (and again, what is an evolutionist?)
... might accept evolution as being true, ... Most scientists do, based on a preponderance of evidence showing evolution (as defined by science) occurring again and again, with no evidence of it being erroneous or mistaken.
... but science is not so kind to this concept. So you state, but fail to demonstrate. Nothing you have said challenges evolution (as defined by science) in any way. What you have demonstrated, if anything, is that your model of evolution (whatever that is -- you have yet to define it) is wrong. In science we discard failed models. Will you? That is how you learn. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Evolutionists believe minute changes, which they refer to as micro evolution (it is nothing more than variations in a species), over the course of eons, leads to macro evolution. Evolutionists require great amounts of time in order for a species to evolve and create a totally different species. They believe that "time" can do the impossible. Evolutionists must have great faith to believe in their concept, because it certainly isn't observable. There is no way possible for them to prove their assertions. Curiously I don’t know any scientist, biologist, ecologist, or otherwise that believes any of this muddled twaddle And I notice you did not define EVOLUTION, which is probably why this twaddle you rattle on about. Please give it a whack, and now also define what you mean by macro evolution ... just for fun. And then tell me what you mean by a totally different species. Because good debate depends on all parties understanding what each other says.
I only believe in science that can be proven. True science never relies solely on assumptions Never took a real science have you? Nothing is proven in any science. If you think otherwise give an example. The theory of gravity is not proven, for example, so if you don’t believe science unless proven, I invite you to jump off a 10 story building. You can test the theory and perhaps invalidate it. Do you know what the scientific method is? Occam's Razor? Anything on Popper’s theories? It seems you have a lot to learn. A good first start is that what you think you know is probably wrong.
And what I observe is "kind producing kind" Don’t you mean kinds reproducing within their kinds ... ? Not producing (some other) kind. Curiously, what I observe is clades reproducing (generation after generation), offspring within their clades Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Religion though should be taught in my opinion, and taught early and continuously so that religious beliefs are held to the same standards of evidence as reality or science. Religion has done some good in the world but mostly harm, and it's important that both the good and harm be acknowledged. Comparative religion could be taught as a sociology course where all religions are compared and contrasted. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Faith based beliefs should not be supported by taxpayers. This is true for evolution. So you keep saying, yet you have presented no evidence for this claim, it is just assertion of your opinion, your belief. Curiously opinion and belief have shown remarkably little ability to change reality. Now, I see evidence of evolution occurring every day, not because I believe in it, but because I know what it is, what the scientific definition is for this process, and how it works. You still have not defined it, and this is a grave oversized in a debate about evolution. Your failure to do this leads me to the conclusion that you do not know what it is. Your argument is based on ignorance. That can be remedied if you are willing. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You have no idea of how stellar evolution could happen, nor does anyone else. ... You have no idea how ignorant this makes you look. Search engine: Stellar evolution Results: many pages of result covering this topic, among them:
quote: Many more paragraphs after that. Other results are similar (and don’t contradict this). A remarkable trove of information on a topic of how stellar evolution occurs, readily available for anyone who wants to learn. To say we have no idea of how stellar evolution could happen is demonstrably poppycock.
... You know that I know better than this. You haven’t shown it.
Science knows absolutely well that nothing (the size of the period at the end of this sentence) exploded into the universe that we know today. ... Aside from knowing that this description of the Big Bang is bogus, with the term originally meant as mockery, you once again could avail yourself with another trove of information with a google search. Once again there are pages of results, including:
quote: You’ll note that this doesn’t give an original size of the singularity. You’ll also note that the expansion is not called an explosion.
... The idea is laughable. Straw man arguments are always laughable, you should stop making them.
It takes great faith to believe in evolution. Do you want to talk about scientific biological evolution or another straw man argument? You haven’t said anything remotely related to scientific biological evolution yet. So far your arguments are as dangerous as taking a toy rubber hatchet into an axe fight, one painted red to look like blood rather than the real thing. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Good grief. You really don’t understand what science is, do you ? ... See Message 9, The Methods of Historical Science to demystify the process for the public: from over a year ago, and Message 24 as an example
Try learning ... Apparently not possible. troll or too willingly ignorant to make a difference, sad. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
But, understand, candle2, that lacking sufficient knowledge of some specific topic is not disproof, especially in areas where evolution is not involved like abiogenesis. Insisting on proof and duplication is the creationist displaying his own ignorance of the subjects involved and the creationist’s simplistic childish view of the complexity of reality. It make you look really stupid. Realize that the only people learning from these discussions are the lurkers. Not that it is a bad thing to provide educatio. See The Methods of Historical Science to demystify the process for the public:, Message 10 from over a year ago. Same ignorant assertions, no changes. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I don't know how old the Earth is, but the Bible teaches that it is more than 6000 years It does nothing of the sort. The age of the earth is not mentioned, to say nothing of providing a number. Prove me wrong or accept my comment as valid: Cite verse that gives a number. Agreed that is older (much older) the point is you claiming an actual number in the bible. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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