Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
54 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr (4 members, 50 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,075 Year: 4,187/6,534 Month: 401/900 Week: 107/150 Day: 38/42 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 2058 (573346)
08-10-2010 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Adequate
08-10-2010 7:53 PM


"If creationists could show that they were right, their position should be taught and evolution shouldn't. It would certainly pass the Lemon Test, since there would obviously be a secular purpose in teaching something which had been proved to be true."

we are right but secularists do not want to teach something that tells them they are wrong.

"let's leave that one up to scientists, shall we?"

no. i am not a elitist and scientists do not have a monopoly on origins. scientists are not the final authority and do not provide any answers instead they are the blind leading the blind.

"And if someone could produce another theory with the same predictions it would be worthy of consideration."

predictions mean nothing and are not part of the equation so your comment is moot. creation doesn't run by secular scientific models thus those criteria do not determine what is true or not and preditions are merely a tool of the blind to deceive the blind.

all you have to do to see that creation is true is visit a human, animal, plant nursery and you have your evidence without predictions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2010 7:53 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-11-2010 12:38 AM archaeologist has taken no action
 Message 19 by Huntard, posted 08-11-2010 2:54 AM archaeologist has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 17 of 2058 (573352)
08-11-2010 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by archaeologist
08-10-2010 11:21 PM


we are right

If unsupported assertion was a substitute for evidence creationists would have carried their point a long time ago.

no. i am not a elitist and scientists do not have a monopoly on origins. scientists are not the final authority and do not provide any answers instead they are the blind leading the blind.

On the whole when it comes to science I prefer that peculiar form of "blindness" which consists of knowing about science over the more conventional form of "blindness" which involves knowing damn-all about it.

predictions mean nothing and are not part of the equation so your comment is moot.

Predictions ... mean nothing?

Once more I am happy that science is in the hands of scientists and not those of your good self.

creation doesn't run by secular scientific models

Well, quite.

preditions are merely a tool of the blind to deceive the blind.

This is most amusing. But how else are we to test a hypothesis?

all you have to do to see that creation is true is visit a human, animal, plant nursery and you have your evidence ...

I've done that. No evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by archaeologist, posted 08-10-2010 11:21 PM archaeologist has taken no action

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 484 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 18 of 2058 (573356)
08-11-2010 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by archaeologist
08-10-2010 7:03 PM


for me, evolution should not be in the science classroom for it is not really science but based upon assumption, conjecture and hypothesis. prediction does not help it for the caliber of scientific prediction does not give the theory of ev. exclusive rights to results. in other words, predictions do not exclude other sources from producing the same results.

Quite right, as far as it goes. In fact, that's really an excellent point (albeit the only one). Any theory that makes better predictions than the ToE would be a good candidate to replace it.

So, let's look at how the ToE was used to make a real world prediction that was confirmed by a real world discovery.

There's a fish called Tiktaalik roseae. It lived 375 million years ago. It's an intermediate step between fish and tetrapods. Before it was discovered, a group of scientists predicted that a transitional species between fish and tetrapods lived between 363 and 380 million years ago. They found rock of that age and after several years of digging, discovered exactly what they predicted they would.

Now, please give just one example of a similar discovery by anyone using creation "science."


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by archaeologist, posted 08-10-2010 7:03 PM archaeologist has taken no action

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 19 of 2058 (573358)
08-11-2010 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by archaeologist
08-10-2010 11:21 PM


Hello archaeologist and welcome to EvC! (are you really an archaeologist by the way?)

archaeologist writes:

we are right but secularists do not want to teach something that tells them they are wrong.


Niether do the vast majority of Christians. This is not about secularism or not, this is about who has the evidence on their side. I'm sorry to tell you, that's not the creationist side.

no. i am not a elitist and scientists do not have a monopoly on origins. scientists are not the final authority and do not provide any answers instead they are the blind leading the blind.

Really? Nothing useful has ever come out of science? What's that thing you're typing on? Do you think that didn't come about because of science?

predictions mean nothing and are not part of the equation so your comment is moot.

Of course they are. Every scientific theory must make predictions that can be tested, that's the only way to determine if it's accurate or not.

creation doesn't run by secular scientific models thus those criteria do not determine what is true or not and preditions are merely a tool of the blind to deceive the blind.

Again, this is not about secularism.

all you have to do to see that creation is true is visit a human, animal, plant nursery and you have your evidence without predictions.

When I visit a nursery, I see what nice things nature produces. Where's the evidence for a divine creation?

-----

Also, a free tip, use the "peek" button on the borrom right of this post to see how I did those nice little quoteboxes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by archaeologist, posted 08-10-2010 11:21 PM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 8:41 AM Huntard has taken no action

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 2058 (573381)
08-11-2010 8:19 AM


"There's a fish called Tiktaalik roseae. It lived 375 million years ago. It's an intermediate step between fish and tetrapods. Before it was discovered, a group of scientists predicted that a transitional species between fish and tetrapods lived between 363 and 380 million years ago. They found rock of that age and after several years of digging, discovered exactly what they predicted they would."

i just finished dealing with this example in another thread and so i will post the link and the part i quoted, here as well:

"Tikaalik roseae is a intermediary form between fish and modern amphibians."

{http://www.nctexasbirds.com/freemasonry/species.htm}

there is no way to prove that that fish is an intermediary simply because there is no observation of it coming from a lesser species and noobservation of it producing a superior one. itis merely a 3-6 inch partial skull and the rest is just hearsay. there is no way to prove the claim and no evidence to support the claim. prediction is not evidence but is subjective and open to manipulation, just like the dating systems are.

that partial skull, found in a cliff, could have been put there by any reason and you have no proof and no way to prove that it lived 300+ million years ago. it could have died while swimming between those rocks or left there by a bigger fish who ate too much.

sorry but that is not a good example to use but it does demonstrate how desperate evolutionists are because that is not a fulfilled prediction, but conjecture to make the prediction look true.

"please give just one example of a similar discovery by anyone using creation "science.""

what you miss is, that secular science does not get to make the rules of what is or isn't science and God does not go by secular science rules or models He goes by His will thus we do not have to predict because creation was a one time supernatural act and secular science is designed to avoid that fact.

all life goes according to genesis 1. as the hybrid experiments discovered there is no breaking the boundaries God set for reproduction {or any boundary} that alone is proof that evolution did not take place.

the evidence is there, you just choose not to see it.


Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Huntard, posted 08-11-2010 8:33 AM archaeologist has replied
 Message 24 by bluescat48, posted 08-11-2010 8:48 AM archaeologist has replied
 Message 29 by Theodoric, posted 08-11-2010 10:12 AM archaeologist has taken no action
 Message 33 by Blue Jay, posted 08-11-2010 12:09 PM archaeologist has taken no action
 Message 42 by subbie, posted 08-11-2010 1:53 PM archaeologist has taken no action

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 21 of 2058 (573383)
08-11-2010 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 8:19 AM


archaeologist writes:

what you miss is, that secular science does not get to make the rules of what is or isn't science...


It most certainly does.

and God does not go by secular science rules or models He goes by His will thus we do not have to predict because creation was a one time supernatural act and secular science is designed to avoid that fact.

Predictions can still be made.

all life goes according to genesis 1.

No it doesn't.

as the hybrid experiments discovered there is no breaking the boundaries God set for reproduction {or any boundary} that alone is proof that evolution did not take place.

No it isn't. It is proof however that you apparently don't know what evolution says. Hint: species incapable of reproducing with one another is exactly what evolution predicts.

the evidence is there, you just choose not to see it.

Plesae stop projecting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 8:19 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 8:48 AM Huntard has taken no action

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 2058 (573384)
08-11-2010 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Huntard
08-11-2010 2:54 AM


thank you and everyone says that. i will only say that i am well educated.

"Niether do the vast majority of Christians. This is not about secularism or not, this is about who has the evidence on their side. I'm sorry to tell you, that's not the creationist side."

i can teach evolution but i would do it in a manner that states it is what som epeople believe but they cannot prove true. actually we have all the evideand evolutionists are desperate to find one.

keep in mind that not one discovery has been made in science and archaeology that disproves the Bible. all discoveriesprove it true and it is the conjecture and hypothesizing of the discoveror or scientist that contradicts the Bible not the evidence.

"Nothing useful has ever come out of science? What's that thing you're typing on? Do you think that didn't come about because of science?"

actually, the keyboard and other discoveries came from the intelligence God gave man at creation and science had nothing to do with it. people created things long before modern science came about. so you give credit unduly to a field that did nothing.

"Every scientific theory must make predictions that can be tested, that's the only way to determine if it's accurate or not."

predictions cannot be tested becuase as i explained in the other post, there is no way to prove the claim and no evidence to support it either. that fish is a partial skull and everything else is pure conjecture or hearsay not proof. anyone can make a prediction and turn anything they find into the result of same.

" this is not about secularism."

yet what you do not realize is that the lack of beliefs play a role in the results and analysis of those results. i love quoting wm. dever as he makes a big deal out of the impossibility of objectivity but then turns around and dismisses the bible because it writers were not objective. i quote:

"...contrary to the 'revisionists' biblical criticism, of any school i know, has never claimed to be 'objective'. The distinguished Oxford professor emeritus James Barr has pointed out that that is a caricature. And not since the death of 19th century positivism have any respectable historians been naive enough to think that they could be be entirely objective..." {pg.83}

but wait it gets better:

"This is a book that, although it hopes to be true to the facts we know, does not attempt objectivity; for that would be impossible and perhaps even undesirable." {pg. ix}

now for the best part:

"The perspective of all the biblical writers is a factor that limits their usefulness in another regard. itis no exaggeration to say that all the biblical literature...constitutes what is essentially 'propaganda'. The writers make no pretense to objectivity..." {pg. 71}

{all quotes taken from Did God Have a Wife Eerdmans 2005}

so which is it? is objectivitydesirable or not? is it possible or not? what Dever did was destroyhis credibilitywith those remarks as he plays by a double standard and hypocritical rules. much like the evolutionist does in science. they demand observation (among other things) but do not fill that demand themselves.

you cannot have it both ways.

"When I visit a nursery, I see what nice things nature produces. Where's the evidence for a divine creation?"

yet not one plant can reproduce outside of its kind, just like animals and humans. verses 12, 21, 24, 25 all mention this fact. the boundaries are set and cannot be broken.

sure there may be the odd offspring but they cannot produce a third or fourth generation it stops with them. the evidence is there if you are honest with yourself and will let yourself see it.

Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Huntard, posted 08-11-2010 2:54 AM Huntard has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 08-11-2010 9:14 AM archaeologist has taken no action
 Message 27 by nwr, posted 08-11-2010 9:37 AM archaeologist has taken no action
 Message 38 by Coyote, posted 08-11-2010 12:35 PM archaeologist has taken no action

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 2058 (573386)
08-11-2010 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Huntard
08-11-2010 8:33 AM


"It most certainly does."

sorry but it doesn't, they do not have the authority nor the right to do so.

"Predictions can still be made."

doesn't mean a thing. with creation there is nothing to predict, we already know what will take place and what we will find. notice that the sun and moon rule the day and night, respectively, just as genesis says. the proof is there.

"No it doesn't."

yes it does but i could have added chapters 2 and 3 and possibly 4 in there as well, if i wanted to be anal about it.

"No it isn't. It is proof however that you apparently don't know what evolution says. Hint: species incapable of reproducing with one another is exactly what evolution predicts."

another escape route for the evolutionist to continue believing in something that never existed. i know what evolution says and claims and it has to make up those fairy tales because the Bible beat them to it thousands of years ago.

like a ponzi scheme evolutionists have to continue to make stuff up or their house of cards will fall flat. have you noticed how over the years (i am talking about the last 40 or so) evolutionists are changing their theory to look more and more like creation?

"Plesae stop projecting."

what you miss is, that secular science does not get to make the rules of what is or isn't science...

"It most certainly does."

and God does not go by secular science rules or models He goes by His will thus we do not have to predict because creation was a one time supernatural act and secular science is designed to avoid that fact.

"Predictions can still be made."

all life goes according to genesis 1.

"No it doesn't."

as the hybrid experiments discovered there is no breaking the boundaries God set for reproduction {or any boundary} that alone is proof that evolution did not take place.

"No it isn't. It is proof however that you apparently don't know what evolution says. Hint: species incapable of reproducing with one another is exactly what evolution predicts."

the evidence is there, you just choose not to see it.

"Plesae stop projecting."

not projecting, i have years of study and discovery to draw from. the evidence is there you just refuse to see or acknowledge it.

{i obviously do not know what i did as my own words got quoted and the quoted words were left alone. }

Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Huntard, posted 08-11-2010 8:33 AM Huntard has taken no action

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 3419 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 24 of 2058 (573387)
08-11-2010 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 8:19 AM


the evidence is there, you just choose not to see it.

Please show this evidence.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 8:19 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 8:55 AM bluescat48 has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 2058 (573388)
08-11-2010 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by bluescat48
08-11-2010 8:48 AM


i have already given some--go to the nurseries and see for yourself that life reproduces exactly as genesis said.

we have museums filled with archaeological evidence supporting the biblical record.

there is so much but if you only listen to those who tell you what you want to hear and are not serious about it then i could give you the ark (an example) and you would never believe me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by bluescat48, posted 08-11-2010 8:48 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Theodoric, posted 08-11-2010 10:18 AM archaeologist has taken no action
 Message 35 by cavediver, posted 08-11-2010 12:20 PM archaeologist has taken no action
 Message 36 by bluescat48, posted 08-11-2010 12:21 PM archaeologist has taken no action
 Message 55 by Theodoric, posted 08-11-2010 9:38 PM archaeologist has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33887
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 26 of 2058 (573397)
08-11-2010 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 8:41 AM


archaeologist writes:

keep in mind that not one discovery has been made in science and archaeology that disproves the Bible.

I'm sorry but as a fellow Christian I must point out top you that that is simply a false statement. Many, many parts of the Bible have been shown to be factually false.

For example, the Creation myths in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are mutually exclusive, if one was true the other must be false; the Biblical Flood has been absolutely, totally refuted; it never happened; the evidence is overwhelming that the Exodus and Conquest of Canaan never happened as described in the Bible.

Posting such totally false assertions does nothing to help your cause or Christianity.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 8:41 AM archaeologist has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 1348 by candle2, posted 04-28-2020 6:44 AM jar has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5968
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 27 of 2058 (573404)
08-11-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 8:41 AM


archaeologist writes:
i will only say that i am well educated.

Sorry to break the news, but ignorance is oozing out of all of your posts.

archaeologist writes:
i can teach evolution but ...

No, you can't. You have clearly demonstrated a complete cluelessness about evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 8:41 AM archaeologist has taken no action

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 30 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 28 of 2058 (573410)
08-11-2010 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by archaeologist
08-10-2010 7:03 PM


in fact evolutionary origins cannot be repeated either for scientists do not know the original conditions that sparked life nor how or when the process 'took over' developement of that life form. They can't even prove the process actually exists, let alone responsible for their claimed changes in life over millions of years.

extrapolation backwards is not proof nor evidence of existence. the science classroom should not be discussing origins but topics that are scientifically proven--photosynthesis, tectonics, silt movement in rivers and so on. origins, both creationism and evolution require faith and last i heard faith is not wanted in the science lab. yet the former has more proof than the latter and we can see that proof everyday and do not have to wait millions of years to see results.

I thought you said you were educated? You make the entry level creotard mistake of conflating evolution and abiogenesis.

Why do we secular minded individuals persistently find ourselves telling you idiots to read a fucking book? Study the subject before you try and debate it. ANY atheist, evolutionist, etc. is far more versed in YOUR bible than you are in any science literature. Why can't you nimrods afford us the same respect for a reasoned debate? You don't take the time to know have a junior high level understanding of the subjects you wish to debate at a doctorate level.

"I'd challenge you to a battle of wits, but you are only half prepared"


"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by archaeologist, posted 08-10-2010 7:03 PM archaeologist has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by subbie, posted 08-11-2010 10:16 AM hooah212002 has seen this message

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7309
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 29 of 2058 (573413)
08-11-2010 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 8:19 AM


One sentence says it all
there is no way to prove that that fish is an intermediary simply because there is no observation of it coming from a lesser species and noobservation of it producing a superior one

That you even wrote this sentence shows that you have no idea what the TOE is about. It also shows you have no clue about lots of things.

Using this view no one could ever be convicted of murder. Unless there is a verfiable observation of it happening then there is no evidence that it ever happened.

Oh, you might want to do some research so you understand that the TOE doesn't say anything about lesser and superior. There is no lesser and superior, except in the fundie strawman versions of the TOE.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 8:19 AM archaeologist has taken no action

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 484 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 30 of 2058 (573414)
08-11-2010 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by hooah212002
08-11-2010 9:54 AM


"I'd challenge you to a battle of wits, but you are only half prepared"

You give him far more credit than he deserves.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by hooah212002, posted 08-11-2010 9:54 AM hooah212002 has seen this message

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022