Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
42 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 41 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,075 Year: 4,187/6,534 Month: 401/900 Week: 107/150 Day: 0/38 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Nuimshaan
Member (Idle past 4183 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 08-11-2010


Message 121 of 2058 (579223)
09-03-2010 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by extent
05-04-2010 7:22 PM


Evolution of the Chimpanzee
It's interesting we have no "evidence" of the horseshoe crab changing shape or function...much less environment.

The chimpanzees in captivity at the zoo do not show potential for any abilities to sew clothes in the future...ad infinitum.

In fact, all of the apes at the zoo show no signs of turning human. And yet there they are fully developed after millions of years....and not one of them has turned human yet.

But...rumur is...that one did a long time ago...and produced a baby of extroadinary physical prowess and intelligence.

Hint: Only one kind of ancient chimpanzee would offspring the pre-human bloodline.

Whilst all others would not, therefore; chimpster at the zoo, and the raging gorilla to this day.

This "One Kind" of ancient chimpanzee bloodline would then be responsible for black people, white people, asian people, russian people, indians, mexicans, etc...

Now let's look at the story of the Horseshoe Crab:

In the same amount of time it took man to form through time during his evolution process of changing from the chimpanmanzee, the horseshoe crab did not change, and neither did the chimpanzee. Just the chimpanmanzee called man now.

Chimpanzees are called chimpanzees now. But a "special kind" long ago....called chimpanmanzee, is now called man.

Therefore; long ago there were chimpanzees and a special type of them called chimpanmanzees which were quite amazing indeed. And would one day fly in an airplane thinking he could fly so fast to escape having to eat or drink or think or poop or age anything differently than a modern chimpanmanzee flying in a plane wondering when he'll get there, and is there any snacks or food because he's hungry.

Meanwhile....while this shape shift from chimpanmanzee to the brainiac talking about it, the horseshoe crab still exists.

So, the story goes:

Some creatures on the Earth evolved...and others did not...and we cannot account for the divers manners of creatures alive at the same time in the ancient past....millions of years ago, and then give account for the times in the past where there was only one kind of kritter.

This kritter from our past...the one that morphed into divers manners of kritters now....in cases like the horseshoe crab...decided to cease all evolution and maintain reproduction after it's own kind...VERY SHORTLY, after it's inception from the offspring of the super old super water kritter we all came from.

Brilliant.

Thank You, Nuimshaan.

{Non-topic blather hidden - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide blather.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by extent, posted 05-04-2010 7:22 PM extent has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Nuimshaan, posted 09-03-2010 9:02 PM Nuimshaan has replied
 Message 123 by Coyote, posted 09-03-2010 9:05 PM Nuimshaan has taken no action
 Message 127 by Nij, posted 09-03-2010 9:44 PM Nuimshaan has taken no action

  
Nuimshaan
Member (Idle past 4183 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 08-11-2010


Message 122 of 2058 (579231)
09-03-2010 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Nuimshaan
09-03-2010 8:51 PM


The Super Specimen
IF you believe in evolution, then let me feed your brain with food for which you can never touch.

The horseshoe crab does not evolve...therefore; IS the supreme specimen, and IS AT THE TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN.

Because there is no further need for the horseshoe crab to evolve, and neither was there once it reached it's current shape and form, believe me, it is best suited for the water.

Perhaps the same will occur for this chimpanmanzee, and one day it will become the ultimate specimen best suite for the land.

Until then, the horseshoe crab rules.

Thank you, Nuimshaan.

{Non-topic blather hidden - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide blather.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Nuimshaan, posted 09-03-2010 8:51 PM Nuimshaan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Nuimshaan, posted 09-03-2010 9:24 PM Nuimshaan has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1335 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 123 of 2058 (579232)
09-03-2010 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Nuimshaan
09-03-2010 8:51 PM


Re: Evolution of the Chimpanzee
In fact, all of the apes at the zoo show no signs of turning human. And yet there they are fully developed after millions of years....and not one of them has turned human yet.

But...rumur is...that one did a long time ago...and produced a baby of extroadinary physical prowess and intelligence.

This series ranges from chimp on the upper left to Homo s. on the lower right, with a series of intermediate steps in between.

How do you explain these? (Click to enlarge.)

{Hide off-topic reply to non-topic blather message - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide something.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Nuimshaan, posted 09-03-2010 8:51 PM Nuimshaan has taken no action

  
Nuimshaan
Member (Idle past 4183 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 08-11-2010


Message 124 of 2058 (579236)
09-03-2010 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Nuimshaan
09-03-2010 9:02 PM


Backtracking
We are forced to say evolution occured for different species at different rates, some faster, and some slower through time.

Otherwise, we cannot refute the discrepencies in our timeline when I backtrack the animal kingdom.

Meaning: When I backtrack the h-crab to the time of chimpanmanzee....I need astronomical years of evolution to see the creature from which the h-crab evolved from.

Further meaning: Millions of years ago, the horseshoe crab was identical to itself now, but chimpanmanzees and chimps are not identical.

So...if h-crab did change form through time with each successive baby, it's evolution process is so slow, that the Earth would be much.....much....much older than we think. Note: I have to take into account the billions of years it took for the super first ooze kritter to move it's water life onto land, way before the horseshoe crab maintained it's shape for billions of years.

If for millions of years, the horseshoe crab is proven to NOT have changed shape...but you still argue evolution occured for it...then I will force you to change your estimations of the age of the Earth at very least in any intelligent discussion.

Backtracking the chimpanzee with normal evolutionary rates, I can honestly say, that millions of years ago...when the chimpanmanzee existed...there were no apes just rats evolving into apes which would reach full ape form now in our zoos. Backtracking the chimp shows it must have evolved from a common ancestor alive at the same time man's common ancestor was alive. And both the apes common ancestor and man's common ancestor to survive through time until now...so we see the result....brilliiant.

I just showed a perfect example of how the mind cannot escape the truth. The chimps at the zoo now...evolved from a rat-like creature millions of years ago. And no chimp like creatures existed millions of years ago but man who hunted those rat-like creatures for food....\

Ancient ancestors of man had no idea they were hunting rat-like creatures that they would one day look at behind glass at the zoo and call them chimpanzees.

So....if the apes at the zoo evolved from rats....rats that were alive millions of years ago when man looked like a chimpanzee, called chimpanmanzee.....WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM APES.

Because there were no APES ON THE EARTH BACK THEN....ONLY RATS OF A SPECIAL BREED...ONES THAT WOULD ONE DAY SWING FROM TREES, AND GO OOO OOOO OOO IN OUR ZOOS.

Brilliant.

Thank you, Nuimshaan.

{Non-topic blather hidden - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide something.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Nuimshaan, posted 09-03-2010 9:02 PM Nuimshaan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Coyote, posted 09-03-2010 9:33 PM Nuimshaan has taken no action
 Message 126 by Nuimshaan, posted 09-03-2010 9:34 PM Nuimshaan has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1335 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 125 of 2058 (579239)
09-03-2010 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Nuimshaan
09-03-2010 9:24 PM


Nonsense
If this is an example of the type of religion you want taught in schools, you have provided the best evidence for laughing you and it right out of the schools.

It is gibberish.

Your post is so confused on the timelines and events that it is not even worth responding to. You appear to simply have no frame of reference with which to address a detailed and scientific response.

I suggest that you first try to unlearn old falsehoods, then you might be able to more adequately evaluate new information.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Nuimshaan, posted 09-03-2010 9:24 PM Nuimshaan has taken no action

  
Nuimshaan
Member (Idle past 4183 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 08-11-2010


Message 126 of 2058 (579240)
09-03-2010 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Nuimshaan
09-03-2010 9:24 PM


Ending the Argument.
Well here's what I suggest. So that both you and I can walk away from this topic with a sense of dignity and integrity....

At some point in time a Genesis effect happened on the Earth. Call it "the right circumstances" if you will, but please save face and admit that this event happened quickly in time....and spawned divers manners of life...all of which bring forth fruit after their own kind...right down to apples and oranges.

Thank you, Nuimshaan.

{Non-topic blather hidden - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide something.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Nuimshaan, posted 09-03-2010 9:24 PM Nuimshaan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Nuimshaan, posted 09-03-2010 9:54 PM Nuimshaan has replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4118 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


(1)
Message 127 of 2058 (579243)
09-03-2010 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Nuimshaan
09-03-2010 8:51 PM


Re: Evolution of the Chimpanzee
Wow. So much gibberish and wrongness, so little time to criticise it...

{Irrelevant reply to blather message hidden - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : I hid something.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Nuimshaan, posted 09-03-2010 8:51 PM Nuimshaan has taken no action

  
Nuimshaan
Member (Idle past 4183 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 08-11-2010


Message 128 of 2058 (579245)
09-03-2010 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Nuimshaan
09-03-2010 9:34 PM


The Mediator
I'm forced to play mediator between these two opposing forces...and I have come to this conclusion:

The creationists and the evolutionists are only disputing a rate of change.

On the one hand the creationists are saying that multiple forms of life were created in this amount of time.

On the other hand the evolutionists are saying that it happened much slower.

Either way...in the eyes of the Lord....there are many forms of life on Earth, and all are alive because they were formed in the past and live.

How long did it take? In the blink of an eye....The Genesis of Life...the perfect Earth for the perfect situation, the elusive....."Perfect Circumstances" as referrenced from chaos theory.

The intertwining of life and stars.....as the string theory suggests, and how it's all strung together....

We are ignorant of time though. As is evidenced by the Timex 3000.

I can calculate time down to the .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000013 of second with such a watch, and still no matter how fast something is moving it must travel a distance in a specific meazureable amount of time...no matter how miniscule this super fraction of a millisecond it may be.

I can go on and on...ad infinitum for time.

The speed of the object moving is not time...it's speed.

Time can witness a perfectly motionless rock for ever......

Time can witness that rock move at 40 trillion times the speed of light, and still say it moved from here to there in THIS amount of time.

None of this changes time, it doesn't time travel into the past, it doesn't skip events of now to the future, it all must happen, and however it happens, it did so while time had no power.

Time has no power whatsoever, it does not determine what will happen...what will happen is this, even if it's in a hurry, and even it it took too long.

A day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day....these are words spoken from where time stands still. And it because of this permanent source of witness and power, our attempts to move around fast in a ship...will fail to escape time, or slow it down, or speed it up...there is no other time travel than travel time.

Thank you, Nuimshaan.

{Non-topic blather hidden - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hiding blather.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Nuimshaan, posted 09-03-2010 9:34 PM Nuimshaan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Nuimshaan, posted 09-03-2010 10:27 PM Nuimshaan has taken no action

  
Nuimshaan
Member (Idle past 4183 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 08-11-2010


Message 129 of 2058 (579252)
09-03-2010 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Nuimshaan
09-03-2010 9:54 PM


God verses Man
Here's an excerpt from our lives:

Man: Why did you create evil?
God: It takes love to give creation free will, knowing full well it may not fare well, but some will get it and hold fast to that which is of the essence of it's creator.

Man: But why did you create the devil if you knew he would become evil?
God: I did not create the devil, I created Lucifer....and it takes love to create all things with a free will. It is unfortunate Lucifer has fallen, but love actually is love for real, and some have gotten it, despite the fact a sour, bitter, stubborn, destructive, lying son called Lucifer does not.

Man: If you knew man would eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then did you simply set a trap for man...like pouring poison in the corner of the ant colony...knowing they would be attracted to it, eat it, and then die>?
God: First of all, man was given the tree of life to eat from freely. Secondly a warning was given to man from me...whom man needs in his life to understand his situation and purpose....but free will is given by love's cause and so a choice was given. And mercy was shown without freeze of time or destroy and recreate.

Man: Well can't you just snap your fingers and remove all evil now...
God: Yes I could...but a lof of your friends would disappear, and loved ones, if I removed all evil in the world out of even flesh and ground and water at once.

Man: Whoa! You mean to tell me that even though you can tell the future, I can also change the future for which you will tell...based upon the free will decisions I make for my own future.....but after it's said and done, I made the decisions I made, and you predicted them....
God: Yes son. And I gave you good counsel while you yet lived.

God: I warned you. If I warned you, it was my free will decision to do so, and nothing has the power of my will.

God: Perhaps you should listen to my warnings, because they ARE out of love, and ARE good for your body, and your life, and your world....ad infinitum, world without end.

{Non-topic blather hidden - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hiding blather.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Nuimshaan, posted 09-03-2010 9:54 PM Nuimshaan has taken no action

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3957
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 130 of 2058 (579286)
09-04-2010 1:38 AM


Nuimshaan, 24 hour suspension / Many messages hidden
I miss Brad McFall and the good old days when we could get real high quality gibberish, that contained heavy hints of profound insight.

And people were replying to Nuimshaan - Are you that desperate to do something with your keyboard?

I want one reply to this message. It's a scavenger hunt - Someone find the last message in this topic that actually had a real connection to the topic theme. There may be a "get out of 1 suspension card" in it for you. Message must be pre-message 125.

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add message 125 sentence.


Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Nij, posted 09-04-2010 3:06 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4118 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 131 of 2058 (579291)
09-04-2010 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Adminnemooseus
09-04-2010 1:38 AM


Re: Nuimshaan, 24 hour suspension / Many messages hidden
Message 119:

Tempo writes:

Religion, or more particularly, creationism, should not be taught in schools. This is because there are too many variations of creationism, since there are so many different religions. None of these are supported by observed evidence or data.
Evolution is backed up with biological data and the fossil record, but even more importantly, evolution is a theory that effectively demonstrates the scientific method. For these reasons, it should be taught in schools.

Following that, there was a backlash at archaeologist before it turned into the nonsense from Nuimshaan and associated bored criticisms.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix link. It was [url=mid=577190] etc. Change to [midt=...]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-04-2010 1:38 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-04-2010 8:17 PM Nij has taken no action

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3957
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 132 of 2058 (579471)
09-04-2010 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Nij
09-04-2010 3:06 AM


Contact with the topic theme has been pretty rare
Yeah, I managed to overlook that one in all the clutter.

Next previous contact (sort of) is message 114. From there you have to go back somewhere prior to message 100.

So we've had 2 topic theme contacts in 30+ messages.

I'm going to close this one down if the next messages aren't on topic.

NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE - AFTER ALL, IT IS OFF-TOPIC.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Nij, posted 09-04-2010 3:06 AM Nij has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5059
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 133 of 2058 (579478)
09-04-2010 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by extent
05-04-2010 7:22 PM


This video has been removed due to terms of use violations

But if it's typical, I'm sure that it presents a misrepresentation of evolution, which does not accurately inform the students about science nor about scientific concepts. Then, if it's typical, it proceeds to disprove that misrepresentation, AKA "disemboweling a strawman". And, if it's typical of "creation science's" "balanced treatment" "instructional" material, it then urges the students to decide, right then and there, between the Creator (which it is careful to not specifically identify, obvious though to Whom they refer) and atheistic evolution. In short, they are compelling belief.

Is that consistent with the goals and purpose of science education? The 1990 Science Framework for California Public Schools Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve included California's State Board of Education Policy on the Teaching of Natural Sciences, which supercedes the 1972 Anti-Dogmatism Policy (text here of the 1990 policy copied from http://ncse.com/media/voices/california-state-board-education):

quote:
The domain of the natural sciences is the natural world. Science is limited by its tools — observable facts and testable hypotheses.

Discussions of any scientific fact, hypothesis, or theory related to the origins of the universe, the earth, and life (the how) are appropriate to the science curriculum. Discussions of divine creation, ultimate purposes, or ultimate causes (the why) are appropriate to the history-social science and English-language arts curricula.

Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. Dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.

To be fully informed citizens, students do not have to accept everything that is taught in the natural science curriculum, but they do have to understand the major strands of scientific thought, including its methods, facts, hypotheses, theories, and laws.

A scientific fact is an understanding based on confirmable observations and is subject to test and rejection. A scientific hypothesis is an attempt to frame a question as a testable proposition. A scientific theory is a logical construct based on facts and hypotheses that organizes and explains a range of natural phenomena. Scientific theories are constantly subject to testing, modification, and refutation as new evidence and new ideas emerge. Because scientific theories have predictive capabilities, they essentially guide further investigations.

From time to time natural science teachers are asked to teach content that does not meet the criteria of scientific fact, hypothesis, and theory as these terms are used in natural science and as defined in this policy. As a matter of principle, science teachers are professionally bound to limit their teaching to science and should resist pressure to do otherwise. Administrators should support teachers in this regard.

Philosophical and religious beliefs are based, at least in part, on faith and are not subject to scientific test and refutation. Such beliefs should be discussed in the social science and language arts curricula. The Board's position has been stated in the History-Social Science Framework (adopted by the Board).1 If a student should raise a question in a natural science class that the teacher determines is outside the domain of science, the teacher should treat the question with respect. The teacher should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural science and encourage the student to discuss the question further with his or her family and clergy.

Neither the California nor the United States Constitution requires that time be given in the curriculum to religious views in order to accommodate those who object to certain material presented or activities conducted in science classes. It may be unconstitutional to grant time for that reason.

Nothing in the California Education Code allows students (or their parents or guardians) to excuse their class attendance on the basis of disagreements with the curriculum, except as specified for (1) any class in which human reproductive organs and their functions and process are described, illustrated, or discussed; and (2) an education project involving the harmful or destructive use of animals. (See California Education Code Section 51550 and Chapter 2.3 of Part 19 commencing with Section 32255.) However, the United States Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, and local governing boards and school districts are encouraged to develop statements, such as this one on policy, that recognize and respect that freedom in the teaching of science. Ultimately, students should be made aware of the difference between understanding, which is the goal of education, and subscribing to ideas.


"Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding."

Students need to have some degree of understanding of science and scientific concepts. Including "creation science" detracts from that goal.

Students are not to be compelled to believe in the subject matter, but rather to understand it. For example, in 1982 the US Air Force instructed me in Communism. Obviously, the intent was not to compel me to embrace Communism, but rather for me to know more about our opposing superpower (that was during the Cold War). "Creation science" "public school" materials explicitly and specifically seek to compel belief.

Including "creation science" in the science classroom would obviously be contrary to science education.

OTOH, it is very important for creationists that their children do learn everything they can about evolution. If they wish their children to be able to fight against evolution, then keep them ignorant of their avowed enemy and being grossly misinformed about that enemy will only guarantee their defeat. And the defection of their children to their enemy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by extent, posted 05-04-2010 7:22 PM extent has taken no action

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3877
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 134 of 2058 (579482)
09-04-2010 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jar
08-11-2010 10:29 AM


What would the curriculum be? - Do a new topic?
As I ask in the thread about Should Sacred Studies be part of a general public school curricula, "Should Sacred Studies, the study of religions, their history, their effects on society, the basic tenets of each and inter-relationships be taught as part of the general public education in the US"?

My answer is "most certainly."

I just glanced though the above cited. Your message 1 did not include any specifics, nor did I find such in the following message (again, I was a quick look).

I propose that you start a new topic and include some specifics in your message 1. What aspects of Christianity would you include within a "will be constitutional" framework?

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 08-11-2010 10:29 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by jar, posted 09-04-2010 9:56 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message

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


(1)
Message 135 of 2058 (579484)
09-04-2010 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Minnemooseus
09-04-2010 9:35 PM


Re: What would the curriculum be? - Do a new topic?
What aspects of Christianity would you include within a "will be constitutional" framework?

There is lots covered in that thread, but of course Christianity would only be one of the religions covered.

It's hardly worth a whole new thread IMHO, particularly since there are many many examples already in practice, for example the studies in the UK.

The minimal religions covered would the the Judaic family (stressing the similarities), the Indus Valley religions, the historic pantheon (Greek, Roman, Norse), Egyptian, and then the Philosophic religions, the writings of Mencius, Confucius, Taoism, Buddhism.

Typical questions would be things like what did (pick a religion) say about (pick a subject).

It would cover both the good and bad effects of religion over time.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-04-2010 9:35 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Coyote, posted 09-04-2010 10:59 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022