Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-20-2019 5:37 AM
18 online now:
PaulK, Pressie, xongsmith (3 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,218 Year: 9,254/19,786 Month: 1,676/2,119 Week: 436/576 Day: 31/80 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Author Topic:   Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School?
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 308 (388088)
03-04-2007 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by fooj
03-04-2007 3:02 PM


Re: Non-public schools are not required to teach evolution.
The discernable technological benefits are that biology makes sense in the light of evolution; geology makes sense in the light of the evolutionary timeline; and medicine makes sense in the light of genetics.

To assert that evolution is a theory with no technological benefits is nonsensical. The benefits of evolutionary biology are found in every field that deals with the world of living things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by fooj, posted 03-04-2007 3:02 PM fooj has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by fooj, posted 03-04-2007 4:00 PM crashfrog has responded

fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 4287 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 287 of 308 (388097)
03-04-2007 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by crashfrog
03-04-2007 3:25 PM


Re: Non-public schools are not required to teach evolution.
quote:
To assert that evolution is a theory with no technological benefits is nonsensical. The benefits of evolutionary biology are found in every field that deals with the world of living things.

Biology would exist with Darwin's theory; Geology is just earth physics; and medicine never needed Darwin's theory when DNA was discovered.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2007 3:25 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2007 4:05 PM fooj has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 288 of 308 (388098)
03-04-2007 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by fooj
03-04-2007 4:00 PM


Re: Non-public schools are not required to teach evolution.

Biology would exist with Darwin's theory;

But it doesn't make any sense without evolution. It's not predictive or explanitory without evolution; without evolution it's just a kind of stamp collecting.

Geology is just earth physics;

And it's "earth physics" that provides a great deal of support for evolution. The evolutionary timeline is necessary to explain the features of Earth's geology and to use geology for practical purposes (oil exploration, for instance. No oil exploration company employs creationist or "Biblical" geology.)

and medicine never needed Darwin's theory when DNA was discovered.

Genetics, again, is a part of evolution; and evolution is necessary to explain many of the features of genetics. To assert that evolution isn't useful to medicine is foolish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by fooj, posted 03-04-2007 4:00 PM fooj has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6631
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 289 of 308 (388101)
03-04-2007 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by fooj
03-04-2007 3:02 PM


Silly rabbit. Facts are for kids.
Hi, fooj. Welcome to EvC.

A fact is something that is true. We can know that something is true if there is a lot of evidence that supports it.

There is a lot of evidence to show that evolution is true. So evolution is probably a fact.

We should teach children facts that are true, especially when those facts are important in understanding why the world is the way it is. Evolution is important because it explains just about everything in biology. Children should be taught about evolution.


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by fooj, posted 03-04-2007 3:02 PM fooj has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30986
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 290 of 308 (388104)
03-04-2007 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by fooj
03-04-2007 3:02 PM


Re: Non-public schools are not required to teach evolution.
A theory (aka strong conclusion) which brings with it no discernable technological benefits cannot be a fact.

Sorry but the age of the universe is not a theory. It is though, a very strong conclusion, strong enough to use the description I included.

While in science we never "prove" anything conclusively true, we can disprove things.

Those things which are proven to be false, must be abandoned. That includes things like a Young Earth or Universe. They are simply wrong and so we put them aside.

Second, the theories such as the Theory of Evolution (as opposed to the Fact that Evolution happened) certainly do have "discernable[sic] technological benefits". The whole field of Genetics is based on the Theory of Evolution; all of modern geology is based on an old earth; all of astronomy is based on an old Universe. The fact that we can use other animals to test new drugs is based on the fact that they are related to us.

While the Theory of Evolution is only the best explanation so far of how Evolution happened, and that we know the theory will change as new information comes to light, we will not go backwards to those things that have been shown to be false.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by fooj, posted 03-04-2007 3:02 PM fooj has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by fooj, posted 03-04-2007 6:40 PM jar has responded

fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 4287 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 291 of 308 (388123)
03-04-2007 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by jar
03-04-2007 4:40 PM


Re: Non-public schools are not required to teach evolution.
quote:
Second, the theories such as the Theory of Evolution (as opposed to the Fact that Evolution happened) certainly do have "discernable[sic] technological benefits". The whole field of Genetics is based on the Theory of Evolution; all of modern geology is based on an old earth; all of astronomy is based on an old Universe. The fact that we can use other animals to test new drugs is based on the fact that they are related to us.

The method for decoding DNA comes with genes, thus I disagree that genetics is based upon Darwin's Theory of evolution. While it is true that most geologists have the premise of an old earth, a young earth geology fits in well with Gold's theory of a hot biosphere. Secondly, astronomy borders on psuedoscience by giving us theories of light years and black holes. I subscribe to the nuclear plasmologist's theory of astronomy. There was no big bang, the universe gave no indication of when it began but life on earth began suddenly.

Lastly, while the theory of Gold's and the nuclear plasmologist are technically discoveries made by two evolutionists, they fit in well with a young earth creationist model. No light years, no fossil fuels, no black holes. C has always been about the max speed of an electron. (I believe photons are much faster than 186K-miles/sec.)

There will never be overwhelming proof of an old earth at this rate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by jar, posted 03-04-2007 4:40 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Chiroptera, posted 03-04-2007 6:54 PM fooj has responded
 Message 294 by jar, posted 03-04-2007 7:21 PM fooj has responded
 Message 295 by RAZD, posted 03-04-2007 7:26 PM fooj has not yet responded
 Message 296 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-04-2007 8:35 PM fooj has not yet responded
 Message 301 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2007 9:05 PM fooj has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6631
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 292 of 308 (388127)
03-04-2007 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by fooj
03-04-2007 6:40 PM


Re: Non-public schools are not required to teach evolution.
Hi, fooj.

quote:
I subscribe to the nuclear plasmologist's theory of astronomy.

Huh? You just get to decide what "theories" will support your preferred conclusions? Cool. How does that work?


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by fooj, posted 03-04-2007 6:40 PM fooj has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by fooj, posted 03-04-2007 6:56 PM Chiroptera has responded

fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 4287 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 293 of 308 (388129)
03-04-2007 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Chiroptera
03-04-2007 6:54 PM


Re: Non-public schools are not required to teach evolution.
I meant a nuclear plasmologist's theory. I wish I knew the guy's name. He discovered galaxies, "gas clouds", stars all exhibit plasma matter like behavior.

Edited by fooj, : Adding some detail.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Chiroptera, posted 03-04-2007 6:54 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Chiroptera, posted 03-04-2007 8:39 PM fooj has not yet responded
 Message 298 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-04-2007 8:44 PM fooj has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30986
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 294 of 308 (388137)
03-04-2007 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by fooj
03-04-2007 6:40 PM


Young Earth is simply Willful ignorance.
The method for decoding DNA comes with genes, thus I disagree that genetics is based upon Darwin's Theory of evolution.

Sorry, but DNA was simply another step in the field of Genetics. Unfortunately for the Biblical Creationists and the Young Earth supporters, it is just another nail in the Coffin of Ignorance called YEC and Biblical Creationism. Two really big things came with the discovery and partial decoding of DNA. One is the fact that every living thing is related. But the second biggest thing is that DNA totally destroyed any hope that there was ever a world-wide flood or a single creation where all kinds were made in a short period of time.

In one very short period of time the Noachian Flood and Special Creation were totally disproved by the most unexpected means.

If either of those had been true, there would be indications of such a bottleneck in the DNA and the bottleneck would be the same for EVERY species. Well, bottlenecks can be seen, but they are all at different periods in the past.

Lastly, while the theory of Gold's and the nuclear plasmologist are technically discoveries made by two evolutionists, they fit in well with a young earth creationist model.

Again, since no one has EVERY presented a Young Earth Creationist Model, it doesn't much matter. In addition, simply fitting with some model does not add much support. What supports the absolute FACT of Evolution and Old Earth, even older Universe, is that many, many different lines of question all lead to the same conclusions.

Young Earth or Biblical Creationism should only be taught in schools as examples of really bad science and as clear examples both of how Science rejects pseudoscience and as how ignorant people can be persuaded to believe absolute nonsense.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by fooj, posted 03-04-2007 6:40 PM fooj has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by fooj, posted 03-04-2007 9:00 PM jar has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 295 of 308 (388138)
03-04-2007 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by fooj
03-04-2007 6:40 PM


Re: Non-public schools are not required to teach evolution.
Welcome to the fray fooj.

There will never be overwhelming proof of an old earth at this rate.

Start here for PROOF that the world is NOT young:

Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)

While we cannot prove how old the earth is exactly, we can eliminate the possibility of it being less than 4.5 billion years old.

Along the way we definintely can show that the earth cannot be less than 12,000 years by the annual counting of tree rings.

Denial of facts is not belief it is delusion:

de·lu·sion –noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by fooj, posted 03-04-2007 6:40 PM fooj has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 296 of 308 (388145)
03-04-2007 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by fooj
03-04-2007 6:40 PM


The method for decoding DNA comes with genes, thus I disagree that genetics is based upon Darwin's Theory of evolution. While it is true that most geologists have the premise of an old earth, a young earth geology fits in well with Gold's theory of a hot biosphere. Secondly, astronomy borders on psuedoscience by giving us theories of light years and black holes. I subscribe to the nuclear plasmologist's theory of astronomy. There was no big bang, the universe gave no indication of when it began but life on earth began suddenly.

Lastly, while the theory of Gold's and the nuclear plasmologist are technically discoveries made by two evolutionists, they fit in well with a young earth creationist model. No light years, no fossil fuels, no black holes. C has always been about the max speed of an electron. (I believe photons are much faster than 186K-miles/sec.)

There will never be overwhelming proof of an old earth at this rate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by fooj, posted 03-04-2007 6:40 PM fooj has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6631
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 297 of 308 (388146)
03-04-2007 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by fooj
03-04-2007 6:56 PM


critical thinking skills
Sounds like a nut to me, fooj. Too bad you don't remember his name.

You shouldn't accept a scientific "theory" just because it leads to the conclusions you want. You should examine it to see whether the data actually supports it. This plasma junk -- what do mainstream scientists say about it? Why don't you like the evaluations of the mainstream scientists? Are they factually incorrect? Illogical? Or are the conclusions just the sort of conclusions you don't want to accept?


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by fooj, posted 03-04-2007 6:56 PM fooj has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 298 of 308 (388147)
03-04-2007 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by fooj
03-04-2007 6:56 PM


I meant a nuclear plasmologist's theory. I wish I knew the guy's name. He discovered galaxies, "gas clouds", stars all exhibit plasma matter like behavior.

There's no such thing as a nuclear plasmologist.

There's no such thing as a plasmologist, either.

You guys just make this stuff up as you go along, don't you?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by fooj, posted 03-04-2007 6:56 PM fooj has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by fooj, posted 03-04-2007 9:04 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 4287 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 299 of 308 (388149)
03-04-2007 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by jar
03-04-2007 7:21 PM


Re: Young Earth is simply Willful ignorance.
quote:
Sorry, but DNA was simply another step in the field of Genetics. Unfortunately for the Biblical Creationists and the Young Earth supporters, it is just another nail in the Coffin of Ignorance called YEC and Biblical Creationism. Two really big things came with the discovery and partial decoding of DNA. One is the fact that every living thing is related. But the second biggest thing is that DNA totally destroyed any hope that there was ever a world-wide flood or a single creation where all kinds were made in a short period of time.

The worldwide flood was not dependent on any DNA bottlenecks. Rather bottlenecks would prevent a good outcome from a flood which is described in genesis. (eg, fresh water mixing with salt water). The flood merely curtained the mountains or hills; and there was an ideal gene pool from which everything spring. DNA became limited by change in atmosphere, and inbreeding became a problem. I don't believe most fossils are flood related though, since the earth was cleaved after the flood. This happened because of the waters on the high place (translated heaven) broke.

quote:
Young Earth or Biblical Creationism should only be taught in schools as examples of really bad science and as clear examples both of how Science rejects pseudoscience and as how ignorant people can be persuaded to believe absolute nonsense.

I think you are overeacting. If it is not plausible fact as you say, noone will waste their time teaching it. You also have failed to show how genetics can be random. Since the tools for decoding are in the organism and since 'primates' are not like bugs, they could not have speciated into human beings. [u]There is no mechanism in the sperm of apes and primates to suggest the ability to speciate.[/u]

quote:
Again, since no one has EVERY presented a Young Earth Creationist Model, it doesn't much matter. In addition, simply fitting with some model does not add much support. What supports the absolute FACT of Evolution and Old Earth, even older Universe, is that many, many different lines of question all lead to the same conclusions.

I think it is relevent to point out when an unusual model is forced into an old-earth chronology, when it points the other way.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by jar, posted 03-04-2007 7:21 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2007 9:09 PM fooj has not yet responded
 Message 305 by jar, posted 03-04-2007 9:25 PM fooj has not yet responded

  
fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 4287 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 300 of 308 (388150)
03-04-2007 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Dr Adequate
03-04-2007 8:44 PM


Real title
plamacist then. The reference is still very obscure. I wish I could find it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-04-2007 8:44 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019