Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8965 total)
73 online now:
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,074 Year: 4,822/23,288 Month: 1,727/1,286 Week: 41/353 Day: 41/45 Hour: 4/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4853
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 98 of 336 (619902)
06-13-2011 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Mazzy
06-12-2011 11:52 PM


Evolved Warts
There is no need to choose a particular version of creation to be taught in schools. Rather all that needs to be done is the truth, warts and all, of the current contradictions and debate within evolutionary theory to be taught and how this relates to the outdatedness of Darwins simplistic ideas.

An interesting insight into your creationist thinking might be for you to give us some details of what "warts" you think you see in Evolution.

You might also like to give us some idea why you think 150 years of refined detail all the while strengthening Darwin's basic premise is somehow a weakness of the theory.

Finally, what makes you think the present controversies in Evolution, like diversity in clades, the pace of evolution and evo-devo, are not being taught? Are you enrolled in such a course of study?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Mazzy, posted 06-12-2011 11:52 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Mazzy, posted 06-13-2011 11:54 PM AZPaul3 has responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4853
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 109 of 336 (620077)
06-14-2011 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Mazzy
06-13-2011 11:54 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
Well generally those well educated in TOE do not need to ask such questions.

Agreed. The exception being when trying to assess the ignorance of a creationist.

So when I ask for what warts you see in the Theory of Evolution you come back with:

You remember Ardi, the famous human relative that threw brain size tied to bipedal walking and knucklewalking ancestry in the bin.

Well some researchers now do not think Ardi is human at all but an early representative of the African great ape.

So this is some great wart that calls all of evolutionary theory into question? This examination and learning of new detail?

Your own personal emotional hyperbole is more apt.

John Sanford discusses how evolution is impossible due to entropy ...

Pity Dr. Sanford. A great scientific career ended with a decent into religious dementia. We have seen this before. He offers nothing but unsubstantiated assertion in his latest fantasies. His Mendel's Accountant computer model was made, as with most creationist models, with a pre-determined, biblically-inspired result programmed in. He did not model the reality of the world.

Such a waste of what once was a fine scientific disciplined mind.

Seriously it is 150 years of an evolving theory that could not even predict the Y chromosome disparity in humans and chimps.

And why would you expect the Theory to predict such a thing? This is again a refining of the detail of one of the many vectors of genetic evolution not some deficiency of the overall theory.

And, since you are so familiar with this subject, you should recognize that the speed of Y-chromosome evolution in chimps and its divergence from human these past 6 million years is another evidence of the Theory's efficacy.

You have evo researchers privvy to the same research disagreeing on major reasoning at times.eg, bird ancestry. After 150 years evolutionists have more questions then they have answers. Don't you think?

And a wonderful thing it is. As more answers come and even more questions arise the Theory becomes ever more robust and accurate.

The more we question and learn the more your poofing god hypothesis is shown to be hopelessly wrong. You have learned nothing and remained stagnant for some 2500 years.

What is not being taught is that TOE is far from being proven, despite 150 years.

How would you know what is being taught about the Theory? Are you enrolled in such a course of study?

As for the Theory being "far from proven," it never will be. This is science, not religion. Everything is open to new facts. Unlike religion, we learn, not just regurgitate a creed.

It is not about teaching any creation model as a fact either. It is about presenting the basis for all sides and the refutes also in a balanced way, so the community can choose individually for themselves how much weight they place on any model and if TOE is actually based on science.

That's sounds like a high minded ideal. Too bad it is a subterfuge.

You have no model let alone one with anything even approaching the level of fact and the explanatory power of the Theory. Science is not a popularity contest. Reality is not dependent on what the community believes.

Your only goal is to proselytize fresh young minds away from reality and into a mind-numbing, dictatorial, uncritical allegiance to a myth.

Edited by AZPaul3, : making an edit ... obviously.

Edited by AZPaul3, : some more edit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Mazzy, posted 06-13-2011 11:54 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020