Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9078 total)
154 online now:
DrJones*, vimesey (2 members, 152 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,003 Year: 6,115/6,534 Month: 308/650 Week: 78/278 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 372 of 2059 (740203)
11-02-2014 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by extent
05-04-2010 7:22 PM


How can we teach both evolution and religion in school when they seemingly conflict so much
with one another?

I think a very overt logical problem is to categorize two extremes and "lump" certain teachings into "one or the other".

The above quote is rhetorical in that it is forcing us to think of any scientific facts as "evolution" and any facts of design as, "religion". This false dichotomy is apparent if we discuss the full and viable anatomy of a Giraffe for example, because we could go through all of the confirmed scientific facts that show that a Giraffe is a complete and viable design without mentioning Christ, or Allah.

For example the blood-pressure in a Giraffe is designed specifically because of it's great height, to be higher, and all of the contingency plans in it's body, all of the correct and complete anatomical, morphological, viable physiology, have nothing to do with, "evolution", there isn't a name-tag on the lung saying, "all of this was thought out by evolution".

So I don't accept the common rhetoric used to falsely dichotomize this situation. Another example is DNA code - and code is always meaningful to intelligence, it is Special Pleading to say that to discuss DNA in regards to an intelligence, is "religious", as we wouldn't deem it to be religious to discuss english literature.

It is very plainly obvious, that intelligent people can look at scientific facts and believe that evolution is highly insufficient to explain them. When we think of all of the other intelligent facts that exist outside of organisms, we still have an amazing display of well thought-out scientific facts congruent to intelligent design. Abscission, photosynthesis, the precondition-of-intelligibility, mathematics, the anthropic principle, and so forth.

People should be given the right to decide for themselves if all of these marvels could create themselves, as a whole, rather than the invocation of the evolutions. I see no problem in telling the student all of the facts, and letting them decide for themselves. If they then believe evolution could make a Blastocyst turn into a Giraffe over a period of months, and think no intelligence is involved, then obviously that can be their choice, but they shouldn't be duped into accepting false-dichotomies, nor should they accept the No-True-Scotsman Fallacy, by being told that only phoney scientists don't accept evolution.

They should be told the truth. If you need to dupe them, then that speaks volumes about the weakness of your theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by extent, posted 05-04-2010 7:22 PM extent has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1499 by driewerf, posted 06-20-2020 12:30 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 373 of 2059 (740205)
11-02-2014 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by Percy
11-02-2014 7:29 AM


Re: How to teach Evolution
Evolution is an almost universally accepted theory within science

Rhetorical, because if a meteor struck the earth tomorrow, and 99% of scientists were killed, and 1% left, let us imagine that after it hit, design became "almost universally accepted". We also have to consider closet-dissidents. Notice oxygen, gravity and germ theory ARE universally accepted.

This is why a quantitive argument doesn't work, because it is still going to be an Ad Populum argument. It is actually GUARANTEED, that because of the teaching of exclusivity, that all adherents shall adhere. (Tautological, because it would be like saying that all footballers have football skills because they were taught them, rather than skiiing skills.) Of course - but so what?

Students should be taught to think critically, and shown the facts of science that show an eye is constructed to see and is "specified complexity" on every level, from the type of eye-design, to the structure, to the micro-structure, to the code. This is also part of a system that starts without their being an eye at all, just a Blastocyst, that leads to a full organism, with eyes.

To say evolution explains all of this, is basically to lie to people, IMHO.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Percy, posted 11-02-2014 7:29 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Coyote, posted 11-02-2014 10:15 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 459 of 2059 (741300)
11-11-2014 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 458 by Faith
11-11-2014 6:52 AM


Re: Coyotes call
On the other hand we have the testimony of the best and most trustworthy witnesses that put the Flood about 4300 years ago and all the facts hang together very nicely

I agree, and does it makes sense to have evidence of a mega-catastrophe, if it didn't happen?

Now if there was no fossil record or column, they would argue the following: "If there was a worldwide flood, where is all the evidence? Where are all the dead organisms of every type, showing everything on earth perished, where are animals preserved while they were living?"

You might think, "that's not fair, how can you know I would argue that, as an atheist?" Because you argue that missing footprints in the wilderness means there was no Exodus. You argue that secular-scientific versions of evidence for God, don't exist, and demand we provide it. You define miracles as, "things that have not happened" and then say, "show me one that has happened."

In short, I infer this about many athe-evos, because it would perfectly fit with their previous behaviour. Consistent behaviour would almost certainly make them argue that there should be a record of mass-preservation. We have one, and they tell us it's all a belief. In that case I guess I only imagined the fossils. You see, a lot of evolution-indoctrination, has made many believe that evidence of a flood isn't evidence of a flood. But the evidence is still evidence consistent with a flood, in many, many, areas, as you can read in the below link.

The evidence for catastrophe is overwhelming, lots of fossils are preserved in the 'death-throws', the suffocation-position, they are also captured in time in the middle of living, eating, fighting, etc....also with sediment in their throats. We would also expect to see every kind of organism or at least a huge percentage of many varieties, if everything on earth was wiped out. we would also expect mythical handed-down tales of the flood to exist in various myths around the world, if humanity spread out from Babel.

Here is a good overview of the flood, through some common subjects that are brought up, as you can see there are good, cogent PHD-written answers, expounding the flood-evidence, the search engine will also reveal many particular examples of evidence that would "fit" with a flood;

http://creation.com/noahs-flood-questions-and-answers

To say none of this is evidence consistent with a flood is like saying that scars on your body are not evidence of cuts in the past.

Logically, the evolutionist is 100% wrong, if he PRETENDS that there is no evidence consistent with a global flood. Confirmation evidence abounds and is prolific, there are many cogent arguments for it. To say there is "no evidence" and it's, "all belief" is to argue to the extreme. It would be like me saying the following, "no, atheism is not true, because atheists don't exist".

In denying the obvious evidence that would fit with a flood, this shows a great level of denialism. In the past we see creationists, and some even now, that will argue-to-the-extreme by pretending that no change at all happens, no speciation. When folk argue to the extreme, intellectually they are showing a great big sign that says: "BIAS rules me - and I will accept NOTHING you say - and deny every argument that would favour your belief, even if that argument makes sense".

What's amusing is actually reading the people that make these extreme arguments, committing intellectual suicide without knowing it, because they don't even know what "evidence" is yet. People who know what "evidence" is would never argue there is, "no evidence" for something, because they are aware that there is always SOME evidence that will "fit" with many theories.

Folk on boards like this will use a lot of bluff and bluster and rhetorical codswallop to try and fudge over the obvious evidence that fits with a flood.

It's no use trying to turn people that are riddled with bias and are indoctrinated. It's like trying to reason with a mob.

(I advise those who think we only "believe" in a flood to show us how the evidences mentioned, do not exist). Please read the link given, addressing many evidences that fit nicely with a world-flood, and are explained by it. Or are you saying these PHD guys are inventing consistent evidence? My only response to that is a resounding, LOL!!!

Just be honest - you don't study what the creation scientists say, the genuine ones with PHDs, because you want to concentrate on making out we don't exist, no cogent arguments exist, and we are all like hovind. How honest of you, how objective!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by Faith, posted 11-11-2014 6:52 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by PaulK, posted 11-11-2014 1:43 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 514 of 2059 (741551)
11-13-2014 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 467 by PaulK
11-11-2014 2:15 PM


Re: Coyotes call
But no. Mikey is not right. Mikey is ignorant and hopelessly wrong.

Question-begging-epithet. I mean for goodness sake - at least qualify specifically what I am, "wrong" about - flesh it it, heck tell me SOMETHING, instead of just blurting out your prejudice against me.

And you've been shown that.

By a post filled with ad-hominem statements about mike?

in case you didn't notice, in this post I shall say nothing about PaulK, nothing about what he does or does not understand.

Here is the list of epithets you used in place of argument:

- hypocrisy
- behaviour
- Creationism, (because of the, "ism")
- Mikey (because that term is used a derogatory name, instead of how mike would use it towards himself to be self-effacing.) ("make oneself appear insignificant or inconspicuous")

But no. Mikey is not right. Mikey is ignorant and hopelessly wrong.

This is a red-herring because by STATING mike is wrong, how has that shown what he said to be wrong? Also it's a silent-implication, because it is an allusion, because it IMPLIES that you are right.

If you are logically "correct" and thus, NOT ignorant, and NOT wrong as you IMPLY - then please SHOW how an animal preserved in the suffocation position would NOT be the kind of evidence someone would expect from a catastrophe?

The WHOLE of your post-entry was Question-begging-epithets, in that you mentioned ZERO, when it came to what I said about evidence.

So, Pauly, please describe to us what would qualify evidence of a mass burial, - please now state what evidence we would expect to see - generally speaking - just the basics? Are you saying fossils wouldn't be there, preserved while they were still living, in many, many examples? Please answer the question specifically.

Also, if you use any epithets at all, or state any more ad hominem things about, "mikey" then I will deem you to not be worthy of debate. Clever people don't need to use Question-Begging-epithets Paul, but your posts are absolutely riddled with them, 95% content is just 'opining about mike'.

we all know what the evolutionists think about mike - but mike doesn't care what they think, mike cares about correctness, and will remain correct no matter how much bluff and bluster is aimed at him.

I want your qualification of what constitutes evidence for a worldwide flood, and I want it to be logically objective. I don't believe the record-of-death, the fossil record, is a record of ordinary living and remnants of life on earth as a long history of events. I think it is logical that we would expect a record of death and thus far my statements remain in tact.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by PaulK, posted 11-11-2014 2:15 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 517 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2014 7:53 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 515 of 2059 (741553)
11-13-2014 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 511 by Faith
11-13-2014 1:25 AM


Re: Coyotes call
When someone makes statements about a person, it's then qualified that the opponent repeats the exact words back as their refutation. This is because logically, there is no initial cogency to the original ad hominem statement. So if he says to you, "no Faith, you are ignorant, you haven't understood", your answer would be logically sound, if you were to say back to him, "no Paul, you are ignorant, you haven't understood", that's because there is no cotent in ad-hominem statements. An issue isn't decided and a debate isn't won, depending upon a person's character or education, but it is down to the one that presents a sound and cogent case. (Just thought I would share that with you, as it can be a handy tool to use against them)

Paul, you don't know how to read the Bible.

If I were to now behave like PaulK, my response to you would be a way of talking about "PaulK". Have you noticed in the past, if I respond to your posts, he will use his debate with me, to mention you a lot, and if you debate with him, he will use that to say things about "mike" a lot.

So I guess my response to you, if I were to do it in his style would be this;

Paul is ignorant. Paul is hopelessly wrong, he can't read the bible because he still hasn't learnt how to read.

It's a perculiar thing, how much he DEPENDS on dropping our names with some sort of epithet in front of them, don't you think? Ad-hominem, certainly, for what have we got to do with the information we are discussing? Bizarre.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by Faith, posted 11-13-2014 1:25 AM Faith has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 519 of 2059 (741559)
11-13-2014 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 517 by PaulK
11-13-2014 7:53 AM


Re: Coyotes call
It's interesting that you focus on a reply to Faith rather than the earlier reply I made to your post. Does it make it easier to ignore the points I made there?

Oh I openly admit I ignored them, that's exactly my right, if I don't respect the way a poster debates.

Why should I go through your posts looking for cogent points when there are so few? You are asking me to respect the, "meat" of your argument, and ignore all of the bluff and bluster.

The very fact you mention I, "ignored" points, must mean that you believe that the points I did adrress were not cogent, IMHO.

Now you feel it is unfair, because I did not select the "meat" of your posts, but instead I chose to refute the question-begging-epithets, and ad hominem statements.

To which I would say, if you want to have a reasonable discussion with me and want the reasonable parts of your posts addressed, then makeALL of your post reasonable.

That way I will feel inclined to engage you intellectually. But I am not obliged to address people that don't have any debate-etiquette if I feel I am not going to get a reasonable discussion with them.

In short - just because you've said some things doesn't make you important. No but rather, what is important to me, is all the sound points I have made about evidence.

My point is that the whole question is a red herring intended to misrepresent your opponents.

Nice try, but addressing you ad-hominem, question-begging-epithets isn't a red-herring, I am directly addressing things you stated that were false, such as, "behaviour", "ignorant".

Notice I am addressing words, because there was no argument - it was simply stated, I am, "hopelessly ignorant" etc....

E P I T H E T S. For by and large, I am not an ignorant person. This is a red-herring, because it IMPLIES I am ignorant, and thereby, you are not (taking focus away from the points I made)- but you didn't prove I am ignorant and you are not. So in debate, it is still an equal burden.

You also didn't specifically qualify my ignorance in an area, and your PHD expertise in that area. Here is your chance to do so. You alluded that I have a lack of knowledge of Geology, please now show your PHD as a Geologist - or did you think that by automatically being, "evolutionist" that would automatically make you a scientist and me a nitwit? No - you are just an amateurist like me, discussing things on a debate board, and if that is not so, please now show your PHDS.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2014 7:53 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 520 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2014 8:33 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 521 of 2059 (741564)
11-13-2014 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 517 by PaulK
11-13-2014 7:53 AM


Re: Coyotes call
Why should I argue against my own beliefs? Why would you expect me to ?

Because objective-endeavor shows a scientific attitude.

I don't believe in macro-evolution, but what the heck has that got to do with homological vertebrate bone-structures qualifying as evidence of evolution?

They absolutely 100% qualify according to the rules of evidence.

Do I want to admit it? No - but objectively, I can see that homological bones would make tremendous sense to a shared-ancestry. Heck, they just would - end of story.

At least that line of evidence, has me foxed (But fortunately for me, Affirmation-of-the consequent is fallacious). I can't explain it, I don't want it to exist, I don't believe macro-evolution happened, but many times I have admitted it is confirmation -evidence because I actually understand what scientific evidence is, and the many types there are, why they differ, why the same evidence can be either tenuous or incontrovertible, depending on the claim etc... I've studied it and thought about it for many hours, because I am not, "hopelessly ignorant".

It is ironic, but most evolutionists here won't know why the ponen/tollens rule apply to confirmation/falsification evidence, when they apply, how they are qualified, etc . I do know - even if you call me a, "brainless sh*thead with no teeth and a 2mm penis"

You need to exercise a grain of humility. I am not hanging on your every word, friend, you are just another atheist with an attitude problem to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2014 7:53 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 523 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2014 9:00 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 528 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-13-2014 11:47 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 522 of 2059 (741566)
11-13-2014 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 520 by PaulK
11-13-2014 8:33 AM


Re: Coyotes call
I pointed out the rather obvious fact that we should expect fossils found in suffocation positions if the scientific view of Earth's history is true. We expect that many, many catastrophes have occurred. Why should we try to argue otherwise ?

What makes you think I disagree with that information? Because I omitted to explain the entirety of my thoughts?

Uniformity has evidence for it, so does catastrophe - the flood was a major catastrophe. We would agree, many types of evidence would "fit".

This is what I initially said in this thread - that to say there is no evidence at all for the flood, none consistent with it, that you wouldn't expect fossils in suffocation-positions to be there, is not true.

OBJECTIVELY speaking, a person must think logically and delineate. In this example, you have to start by asking yourself this question:

IF there was a worldwide flood would it follow there was evidence of catastrophe of perhaps many types, consistent with such a flood?

OBVIOUSLY and objectively, it follows that there are many types of evidence that would follow if that had happened. If that is not so, it's then only fair to qualify what would follow.

Now usually evolutionists will qualify what evidence would follow, as being "everything we do not see". Which is not rational behaviour - it's biased, NO - we are genuinely asking, would evidence of catastrophe, suffocated animals still living, throats filled with sediment etc, be expected of a worldwide flood?

To which I would equate such a question with asking,

"would scars on a body be evidence consistent with cuts on the body in the past?"

It is blatantly clear that a lot of evidence fits with the flood, as it was a catastrophe.

You are being evasive - but I am being objective about this, because I would also say that homological bones are evidence in favour of macro-evidence. If I were to say, "no they are not", that would be to argue to the extreme, it would be like arguing that the moon does not exist, "because I don't want it to exist".

Notice I don't want confirmation of macro evolution to exist as evidence, but that doesn't mean that logically it isn't qualified! It's just something that would, "follow". The fact I can admit it shows I have understood scientific evidence, for it doesn't then follow that "macro evolution certainly happened" just as it would not follow that evidence of the flood meant that a "world flood certainly happened".

For those reasons you gave - a history of catastrophes, would also, "fit" the evidence.

My argument is that there is compelling confirmation evidence that fits with a worldwide flood. PHDs at Creation.com write articles about such specific evidence each week, but to go into the minutia of each, here, would be impossible.

It's off topic, but I attempted an amateur explanation of homological bones, here: http://creationworldviews.blogspot.co.uk/...imagination.html - I am not saying I am evolutionist, no - a clever person simply knows not to argue that the moon is not there, if they have moon-hated.

Nor do I believe evolutionary-scientists are, "wrong" about everything they say, just because they are evolutionist - if an atheist says, "it's a sunny day" that doesn't mean it isn't!

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2014 8:33 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 524 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2014 9:08 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 536 by PaulK, posted 11-13-2014 1:25 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1140 of 2059 (841672)
10-18-2018 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1138 by RAZD
10-15-2018 2:29 PM


Re: This is a thread about what should be taught in school
RAZD writes:

We can agree that abiogenesis has not reached a definitive theory on the origins of life on this planet, at best we can say that before a certain time (say 4 billion years ago) there is no evidence, that after 3.5 billion years ago that there is plenty of evidence of (single cell) life, that the actual point of life's origin is not known, nor is the actual process. We can say that there are a number of different hypothesis, but no conclusion yet.

RAZD, no offence but I think you are using a rhetorical device here called, "playing it up".

To prove claims of abiogenesis you don't need evidence of single celled organisms as we already know they exist.

Singled cell organisms are the "complete" stage of abiogenesis, so the evidence for abiogenesis can't be the complete stage. It's misleading to say, "we have single celled organisms" as though they are only a prediction of early evolution when they exist today as full lifeforms that didn't abiogenesis.

RAZD writes:

that the actual point of life's origin is not known, nor is the actual process

Again I think this is misleading. I could for example say, "the point of origin of the Antikythera mechanism is not known nor the process" and then by using the unqualified question-begging term, "process" this then IMPLIES without qualification, that there was any such natural "process".

But if something is riddled with the features of intelligent design, inductively 100% of the tally of evidence shows such features altogether are only found in intelligently designed things. 0% of such features found together, are ever found in something not designed.

So it seems to me based on the evidence, there is every reason to disregard abiogenesis as science fiction. They have not so much as shown even 5% of a cell can come about this way.

Also there are no physical reasons ever found to have a chain of sophistiaced IDed features on life's level. That is to say, the only reason homochiral amino acids fold and the right ones connect, is to produce the function of a protein, with a goal in mind which is achieved. Specified complexity -> function -> end goal.

We can see this applies also on the macro-level in an organism. (It's anatomy)
EXAMPLE: an eye. The parts are specifically arranged complexity. The parts are in the correct place to lead to a specific function which achieves a specific goal, which is only a sub-goal, with other sub-goals consisting of the same features. (ears, mouth nose, etc...)

Question: Can you give me a rational reason to believe that there is any physical reason why a goal should be met?

In other words, if part of a wall constructs itself by accident, is there any reason for the build to continue with an end goal in sight? (prescience)

No, there is no physical reason, that's why we only find sophisticated designer features where there is teleology. (a designer).

Conclusion: Abiogenesis is a joke. And there would only be reason to believe it if all of the Cambrian phyla could be shown to have their conspicuously absent transitional ancestors. So there is no direct evidence pre-Cambrian, of any evolution unless you argue from 1% of the evidence and ignore the 99% missing evidence, IMHO.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1138 by RAZD, posted 10-15-2018 2:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1141 by JonF, posted 10-18-2018 2:07 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 1142 by RAZD, posted 10-19-2018 7:43 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 1163 by Stile, posted 10-23-2018 9:19 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022