|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Randman's been suspended from the science forums, so he won't be replying to the Miocene Humans thread for a while.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mikehager Member (Idle past 6466 days) Posts: 534 Joined: |
Point of fact... it wasn't Tesla who's name Edison refused to say, it was George Westinghouse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Truth equals "undeniable fact." Well, here's the problem. Just like we don't agree on the definition of "truth" we also disagree on "deniable". From the YEC stand point, anything that doesn't appear directly in the Bible is "deniable". All you have to do is say, "I deny that". So, for example, gravity is not true, nor asprin, nor airplanes. All of these are easily "deniable". The question needs to be, is the person who's making such a claim basing it on rational reasoning, or strictly on belief.
I understood DNA tests to have determined that we share many similarities and differences with the great apes...not that we and they evolved from a common ancestor. There are multiple type of DNA tests. What he's refering to is mitochondrial DNA. Unlike normal DNA which mixes during sexual reproduction (ie I have my Mom's eyes and my Dad's hair), mitochondrial DNA passes directly from your mother to you - essentially as a clone. Because of the way it transfers, it's rate of change is very slow. So, by compairing the differences in mDNA between various groups we can figure out when various groups slit off. (for example - if the Aboriginies have something in common with the Polyneasians, but no other group has that same mutation, then we can deduce that the Aboriginies and the Polyneasians are more closely related to each other than to other groups.) Similiarly, we can look at the full range of mDNA mutations, estimate the time it would take for those mutations to have occured and work our way backwards to a single source. That's how we come to "Mitochondrial Eve", the single progenitor of the rest of humanity. Was "M Eve" a homo sapiens? No. But her offspring were the ones to survive, spread out and evolve. **Important**mDNA is how we locate mankinds common ancestor, not all creatures common ancestor. Two different methodologies. As for locating a common ancestor of all mammals, or all animals, or all life - we look at the morphology of the fossil record. We look at a broad group, "Kingdom Animalia, Phylum Chordata" - which includes all animals with spinal chords - lizards, snakes, mice, bats, kangaroos, whales, people. What's the oldest fossil that has a spinal cord? What's the simpliest fossil that has a spinal cord? Where do we find just one animal with a spinal cord and no others? If you look at a group of fossils and there are twenty different creatures with spinal cords, obviously you need to go back further. If you look at a lay and there's a lot of shellfish and nothing with a spinal cord, you've gone too far.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Was "M Eve" a homo sapiens? No. Actually that's a yes. For several reasons, one of which is that the oldest anatomically modern fossils date older than the mitochondrial eve dates. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Depends on if you believe to missing branches theory or not, but if we get into that, the creationists will say - "Look they don't even agree with themselves".
Note to Creationists - If person A wants to paint the house blue and person B wants to paint the house red, they both still want to paint the house.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
what about the dictionary?
fact n. 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy. 2. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact. Results of experiments are observed facts, they may validate OR invalidate the theory that the experiment is based on. Theories are based on observed facts, whether from general observation or the result of previous experiments. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Are you saying that only naturalistic explanations can be true and valid? Only Naturalistic explanations can be tested, verified, used or known. The supernatural explanation might well be true, but so what? It is useless. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Only Naturalistic explanations can be tested, verified, used or known. The supernatural explanation might well be true, but so what? It is useless. Jar? I thougt you were a theist? Surely it has some use.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
As a belief, certainly. As a guideline for behavior, certainly. As fact, none.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Let's vote on whether the "sun rises in the east" is {true} because:
(1) the sun circles the earth (2) the earth circles the sun (3) some other reason and see how many Americans get it right. Facts are not subject to popularity. They are subject to being observed, derived, experienced and validated. If it is not observed, derived, experienced and validated then it may be true or it may be a falsehood. Interpretations are not subject to popularity. They are subject to being logical, rational, deductive evaluations. If they are not logical, rational, deductive evaluations then they may be true or they may be delusions. Having someone who has no knowledge of the science involved make decisions on what should be taught in relation to that science is like having someone who can't {add\subtract} check your {long division\multiplication}: the result may be correct, but I certainly wouldn't base sending a speck of sand to mars on it. Perhaps we should vote on which form of creationism should be taught? There certainly seems to be a wide variety with a lot of internal disagreement ... from Hindu (scientific universe too young) to YEC (scientific universe too old) to {several, including {many\most?} christian} with no disagreement at all with the science of evolution (evolution is the process, god set the process in motion). Any disagreement between science and beliefs that is not directly related to evolution doesn't belong in a class on evolution for the same reason that other unrelated sciences don't belong. We live in a democratic republic that is dependant on an informed and educated public to make rational decisions on how to run the country and who best represents these concerns
...and 2/3rds of Americans are not hard-core Bible thumpers. There's a reason creationist criticisms of evolution have been effective ... Yes, the criticisms play to the ignorance and failure of logical rational evaluation of almost any topic in america, from the election of the president to the ability to properly answer the question about the sun given above. The real merit is demonstrating that much more attention should be given to teaching logical rational deductive thought processes and how to properly evaluate information that is provided. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
ToE is not a fact, and unfortunately evos making the claim that is a fact essentially is a large part of why the public needs to get involved and help get this area of pseudo-science back into real science.
It's not that ToE itself cannot be real science, but the indoctrination techniques, pseudo-logic and values-system employed by evos in the teaching and presenting of evolution is in need of correction, and unfortunately, the scientific community just seems to want to pass the buck, dismissing the problems of illogic and false data as merely the responsibility of textbook authors. Well, since that is the case, the public needs to promote a healthier curriculum not riddled with evolutionism, but with a sober and rationale presentation of the data and the underlying assumptions involved in assessing the data. That's real education, and hopefully America's schools can return to that in this arena and get away from some of the propaganda. This message has been edited by randman, 09-01-2005 01:34 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: I hope that people realize the answer to this particular question is (3). Indeed, the sun "rises in the east", but it is not because the earth circles the sun. (Bonus points for a precise reason. Answer: The earth rotates on its axis in a west to east direction. )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Because yeast is yeast and vest is vest. And if you go vest vast enough younger you grow.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Randman,
Your critisisms and your solutions don't match. You're saying - "There are these problems with ToE. It's a psuedo-science. It's unproven." Etc. But you're suggesting as a fix that we bring in something that's even less scientific, that's even less proven. Even if your critisisms are 100 percent correct (which is what we are debating), your solutions don't solve the very problem you bring up. This message has been edited by Nuggin, 09-01-2005 01:46 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
ToE is not a fact, and unfortunately evos making the claim that is a fact essentially is a large part of why the public needs to get involved and help get this area of pseudo-science back into real science. Saying dosn't make it so. I issued you a challenge earlier. 1 - Can you name One(1) ID/Creationist scientist who is actually persuing SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH in ID/Creation. 2 - This scientist must have a degree from a reputable acredited institution. He must also be schooled in one of the areas of life science. Biology, Zoolgy, or Genetics. 3 - Name this scientists research, experiments, and papers that demonstrate his contribution to creation science. Can you do it?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024