|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
dad writes:
As I sometimes explain to people, evidence is evident - i.e. everybody can agree what the evidence is. If you have a dead body with a hole in it, it is clear to everybody that the body is dead and there is a hole in it. Any interpretation of the cause of death or the origin of the hole is not evidence. You are not in a position to say what is evidence or not, only to deny and reject evidences you don't like. Similarly, the Bible is evidence that somebody wrote something down. The interpretation that it is true is not evidence."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
How so? You could do the same experiments yourself and get the same results, regardless of your rteligious beliefs. Claims of ratios being caused by the present nature, or tree rings etc are faith based. ABE:
dad writes:
I don't diss scripture. I have more respect for the Bible than most people do. I notice you mention the bible. Funny how when people diss Scripture.... If you want to discuss the Bible, we have threads for that. Edited by ringo, : No reason given."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
And we assume that the earth has always been a sphere. What's wrong with that? you assume trees grew in this nature (therefore slowly as today and that the rings represent yearly patterns) and you assume that isotope ratios were formed in this nature exclusively. If you want to challenge the assumptions, you can certainly do that. But you can't just speculate that nature coulda/woulda/shoulda been different in the past just because it gives you the result you want. You have to challenge the assumptions with substance, not just wishes.
dad writes:
Who's silencing your beliefs? Then you silence opposing beliefs"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
Nobody is silencing your beliefs. When/if you return from your suspension you will be free to express your opinions/beliefs but you do have to do it within the rules. Just wait and see who silences opposing beliefs here."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
You have it backwards. The sensible approach is to assume that there is no change unless there is evidence of a change. You're the one who has to back up the idea of a change. NOW trees grow in a seasonal/yearly pattern. Now all we need is this present nature in the past so we could also say the same for rings in the far past! And by the way, the Bible doesn't say anything about a change in nature. It does not back up your idea about multiple tree rings."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Nope, that's not a fact. At best it's an impression.
The fact is that I sense God's presence when I pray. Phat writes:
Nope, that's not reality. It's more like wishful thinking.
The reality is that God exists and seeks to know us. Phat writes:
Show us that evidence.
The evidence is that More gets done at a soup kitchen full of prayer warriors than simply a bunch of liberals talking football, women, and politics. Phat writes:
Nope, that isn't the truth. It's just a mantra. The truth is that Jesus Christ is alive."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Kleinman writes:
Why don't you tell us how it "should" be taught? ... evolution isn't taught properly in schools."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
You haven't even made it clear whether you accept evolution or not. In this thread, try to be coherent. Tell us what the schools are doing wrong and what they need to do to put it right. Just follow the "Do you really understand the mathematics of evolution? topic in the "Biological Evolution" forum."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
So you don't accept evolution as it is understood by scientists. And you think mathematics trumps reality.
What I don't accept is this mathematically irrational notion that reptiles can evolve into birds and fish can evolve into mammals. Kleinman writes:
There are people on this forum who understand introductory probability theory but they don't seem to be convinced by your version of what evolution really, really, really is. So that doesn't seem to be a solution. A good starting point to put this right is to require biology students to master introductory probability theory in their dumbbell math courses so that they might have some understanding of stochastic processes such as DNA evolution."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Kleinman writes:
You have it backwards. What makes them scientists is doing science. And the science they do indicates that species do evolve into other species. Just because people claim that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals don't make them scientists. I suppose next you're going to roll out the old creationist claim that it isn't "real science".
Kleinman writes:
Exactly. It's what we use to describe the science. It doesn't define reality.
And mathematics is the language of science. Kleinman writes:
If they disagreed with Taq, they'd say so. Where are all your experts in probability theory that can explain how reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals?"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Kleinman writes:
So you know better than every scientist? That smells cranky.
If they are real scientists, why haven't they given the correct mathematical explanation for the Kishony and Lenski evolution experiments? Kleinman writes:
Only if the model is based on accurate observations of reality. The mathematics is always secondary. That's right! But if you do the mathematical modeling correctly, you can predict the behavior of a physical system."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
Why should they waste their time on a crank? Publish a whole flock of papers; convince some real scientists that you're right. That's how science works. If you think there is some scientist out there who claims my explanation is incorrect, have them explain why."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Kleinman writes:
So where DO birds come from? Where DO mammals come from? And you will also understand why reptiles cannot evolve into birds and fish cannot evolve into mammals."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
But that isn't what science DOES tell us. If you're going to oppose the actual science, you have to propose an alternative. There are far, far too many genetic differences and far, far too few replications to account for these differences. That is what science can tell you. So where DO birds come from? And where DO mammals come from?"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kleinman writes:
So, evolution is only possible within the mammal "kind".
Don't be bashful, just say that mammals evolve into mammals. Kleinman writes:
It would also be classic creationism. Your slip is showing. But don't start with dogs evolve into cats. That would be mathematically irrational."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024