Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8965 total)
53 online now:
14174dm, Coragyps, DrJones*, dwise1, frako, JonF, PaulK, PsychMJC, Tangle (9 members, 44 visitors)
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)
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 336 (619215)
06-09-2011 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Acalepha
06-08-2011 12:49 PM


That's what ID is for
Acalepha writes:

There are, however, many different theories of creation. The Christian religion has their belief which is different from the Muslim belief which is different from the North American First Nation's beliefs and so on and so on.

The solution is to teach intelligent design, in which the identity and actions of the creator or creators are sufficiently vaguely referenced, that few would find ID objectionable.

Who decides whose culture is valid and whose is invalid?

The school board, which in turn is elected by the community. First amendment, Schmirst amendment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Acalepha, posted 06-08-2011 12:49 PM Acalepha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 2:16 PM NoNukes has responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 336 (619355)
06-09-2011 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Acalepha
06-09-2011 2:53 PM


Re: Ok,, I understand
Acalepha writes:


I don't believe that "racial" groups exist.

I can assure you that people who are predominately of Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasoid origin do exist. I'm not sure what the point of denying that would be.

I use it [the term racist] to describe the prejudice against someone who belongs to a different ethnic group than your own.

So you believe that Christians, which would include Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Arabs, and Asians are an ethnic group, while Muslims who would include those same peoples in different ratios constitute yet another ethnic group.

I think your use of the term "race" to refer to religious beliefs is a gross misuse of the English language. You were rightly called on it. Religious discrimination isn't racism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 2:53 PM Acalepha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by DBlevins, posted 06-09-2011 3:45 PM NoNukes has responded
 Message 35 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 7:27 PM NoNukes has responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 336 (619399)
06-09-2011 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by DBlevins
06-09-2011 3:45 PM


Re: Ok,, I understand
DBlevins writes:


Sorry, but I have to call you out on this one. Race is an arbitrary classification and as such, does not exist as a classification with any scientific value.

I never claimed that race had any scientific value or that it wasn't arbitrary. But whatever little meaning or import "race" has, doesn't make religious identification either a race or an ethnic group.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by DBlevins, posted 06-09-2011 3:45 PM DBlevins has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by DBlevins, posted 06-09-2011 5:04 PM NoNukes has responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 336 (619420)
06-09-2011 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by DBlevins
06-09-2011 5:04 PM


Re: Ok,, I understand
DBlevins writes:

It appears to me to be a positive statement that racial classifications do exist.

The classifications do exist. Just because they are arbitrary and have little scientific meaning does not mean that the classifications are non existent. Current racial classifications fall roughly along the lines of descent from the now discredited racial classes I mentioned above.

People in the US self-identify themselves as belonging to one race or another regardless of the advantages or disadvantages of doing so, and that the rest of us respect those self-identifications as long as they pass the laugh test.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by DBlevins, posted 06-09-2011 5:04 PM DBlevins has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by DBlevins, posted 06-09-2011 6:32 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 336 (619467)
06-09-2011 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Acalepha
06-09-2011 7:27 PM


Re: Actually, you are wrong.
Acalepha writes:


The four distinct ethnic groups of old have disappeared long ago. This is mainly because of transportation and the mixing of the various genetic pools of the four groups.

Race certainly has very little to do with nationality. I'm not sure why you even bring up where your ancestors come from.

I don't care what your genes look like or even what you look like. I agree that racial groupings have only very little to do with genetics. The fact that the groupings are not scientifically defined is pretty much meaningless too. Race is a poorly defined classification that we might be better off without, but it still matters at least in this country (USA).

I do agree with you on one point, however. I completely disagree with the use of nuclear power for energy and weapons production.

My handle refers to nuclear weapons only. I've got no problem with safe, peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Also, I wouldn't spend to much more time arguing with Taz. His post was meant to be a parody. Apparently he's been suspended for fooling around once too often.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 7:27 PM Acalepha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 10:13 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 336 (619468)
06-09-2011 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Acalepha
06-09-2011 8:04 PM


Re: Hi Panda
Acalepha writes:


The force of this atom depends only on the distance between the two atoms. The more atoms there are in one place, the greater this force is going to be.

This is not right. Gravity depends on mass, and not all atoms have the same mass.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 8:04 PM Acalepha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 10:24 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 336 (619695)
06-11-2011 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Acalepha
06-10-2011 4:02 PM


Re: Ok,, I understand
Acalepha writes:

I am black.

I completely disagree with helping others according to racial profiling. We should help others based on their needs.

I thought you said earlier that you only looked black?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Acalepha, posted 06-10-2011 4:02 PM Acalepha has not yet responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 76 of 336 (619698)
06-11-2011 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Chuck77
06-11-2011 7:50 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Chuck77 writes:


Real Definition of Science:

I like how it's a state of "knowing". LOL.

Anyone can look up words in the dictionary. But someone who is carrying out a sincere discussion knows that not all of the definitions (and I note in passing that you did not include all of the definitions from your source) are applicable.

For example, under definition 2b, boxing is a science. Is that really what under discussion here? Are we really saying that the pugilistic arts should be taught in science class rather than in PE?

Definition 3a is closest to what we call science. It is a bit circular because it does rely on knowing what the scientific method. But that's easily cured by finding out what the scientific method is.

You can expect that scientists will rigorously defend the proposition that their work fits under the appropriate definition, and won't be the least bit concerned about the other meanings for science.

Is the Scientific method used when determining what a "transitional" fossil is? How about Puncuated equllibrium? Nope, just assumptions. THAT's what science is when it comes to TOE and the "Big Bang". 100% assumptions. It must be nice to use Natural Seclection(which happens) and the force behind TOE and not have to prove that it actually leads to animals changing into completly different species of animals. Yes, a different KIND of animal. All we observe is the finch beaks as the best example. Different beaks not different kinds. THAT'S Natural Selection.

Hopefully if you stick around a bit, you'll participate in some discussions here the evidence is discussed. You probably won't change your mind, but you might change your belief that scientists are just quacks even if you still know they are wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Chuck77, posted 06-11-2011 7:50 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Chuck77, posted 06-12-2011 1:15 AM NoNukes has responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 336 (619771)
06-12-2011 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Chuck77
06-12-2011 1:15 AM


Re: Who Observed What?
Chuck77 writes:

For example, under definition 2b, boxing is a science. Is that really what under discussion here? Are we really saying that the pugilistic arts should be taught in science class rather than in PE?"

No, Nuke, I just posted the definition of Science from Merrium Webster. I Do actually know we aren't talking about boxing as a science here.

The question was rhetorical. You were supposed to notice that other definitions, such as science is the state of knowing, which you selected and mocked, were equally inappropriate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Chuck77, posted 06-12-2011 1:15 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 336 (619931)
06-13-2011 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Acalepha
06-09-2011 2:16 PM


Re: Your solution is not practical
Acalepha writes:


You cannot teach about Genesis without imparting some of the Christian values to the student. This is the same about every other ethnic group that has a creation mythos.

So who decides the values we teach and do not teach?

The answer is that school boards would do it, and the result would disregard the rights of other ethnic groups and would be unconstitutional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 2:16 PM Acalepha 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