Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8994 total)
63 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 61 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,234 Year: 10,982/23,288 Month: 234/1,763 Week: 201/390 Day: 21/69 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   This settles it.. Never moving down south..
nator
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 30 of 116 (18775)
10-01-2002 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tranquility Base
10-01-2002 8:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Arachnophile

I listed the survey results to tell you why this is happening in the US. People who vote for boards are the same people who fill out belief surveys.

As for creation being science or not the point is we are talking about the origin of life. The key aspects - the actual origin of novelty - has not been solved by modern science and hence in the interim you should not brainwash children into thinking we have.[/QUOTE]

First of all, I believe the GA school board wasn't talking about the origin of life. They were talking about alternatives to evolution.

Second, please show me a curriculum or school science text which states that scientists have provided any evidence as solid for abiogenesis as they have for for evolution. The texts I have seen are very tentative about it, as they should be.

You know, nobody understands how gravity works; there are several competing gravitational theories. Do you propose that we allow physics teachers to teach that nobody really understands gravity, so it might be that God is creating this force?

quote:
That is why I would not support teaching flat earth to 'be fair'. That has been proven beyond doubt to be untrue.

Yet people still believe that the Earth is flat, despite the evidence to the contrary.

You want to allow the God of the Gaps fallacy to stand in place of positive evidence in science classrooms; Scientists don't know how life started, therefore Godidit."

Sorry, this is poor reasoning and really awful science.

quote:
Macroevoltuion has not been proven. You can teach microevolution without teaching creaiton but not macroevoltuion. That is the point you fail to appreciate.

This is silly.

You have been shown umpteen times the evidence for macroevolution. You just ignore it.

[QUOTE]You have jumped the gun with your extrapolation of natural selction to macroevolution.[/B]


And you have ignored evidence which contradicts your previously-held religious views.

The supreme Court has seen through Creationism many times before, and it will continue to do so.

The only truly sad thing is that religious crazies will continue to bleed precious time and resources away from educational systems and universities and civil liberties organizations that would be better directed towards other problems.

For goodness sake, Creationists can't even agree on how old the Earth is, and the reason they are divided is because they DON'T DO SCIENCE TO REACH THESE CONCLUSIONS, THEY READ A RELIGIOUS BOOK.

All this because certain Christians want to shove their religious ideas down every child's throat. If you want to teach your kids that donkeys talk or that the stars are set into the firmament and that the Earth is only 6,ooo years old, you are free to do so in the religious school that you create and pay for yourself.

Keep your religion to yourself and out of the public schools.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-01-2002 8:33 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 51 of 116 (18979)
10-03-2002 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tranquility Base
10-02-2002 11:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
nos482

I agree it is not "brainwashing" to show that something is a fact - next time I will use inverted commas to indicate I am trying to be funny.

I am not referring to the Bible as evidence of creaiton. I am referring to the distinct lifeform families and distinct gene families as evidence. You seem to think that if God created there could not be any evidence. There is and I told you what we think it is. Since a priori God could have created, and a priori there could be evidence of this then it is scientifically biased to not consider the evidence from that point of view. And of course we think the eivdence strongly points that way. You obviously don't but that doesn't change the fact that there is evidence of distinctness in life and genes.

I never said religion is valid science! All I say is that looking at the genomes and fossils to see if they have tell tale signs of creation is science.

When outlining possibilities evidence is what we look at, not proof. That is exactly your problem - you think macroevoltuion is proven.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-02-2002]


TB, how does the use of the phrase "higher power" not indicate God/god?

Like I said in my reply to you that you have ignored, all you are doing is invoking the God of the Gaps fallacy; "We don't have perfect knowledge, therefore Godidit."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-02-2002 11:51 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 10-03-2002 10:51 PM nator has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 69 of 116 (19223)
10-07-2002 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by nos482
10-07-2002 7:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Read it again nos482.

The evidence is distinct lifeforms, distinct gene families and vast marine innundaitons on land. It does not prove anything but it is what we expect.


And how is this evidence for the existence of your god? This is evidence for evolution from what I see. What you're basically saying is something like this. "Since the banana is shaped "perfectly" to fit the human hand and has a little tab on the end to peel it from that this proves the existence of god." (BTW, the correct way to peel a banana is from the other end, and not the stem.) Do you know how silly your statement sounds to us.


I didn't realize that there was a "correct" way to peel a banana.

What advantage is gained by peeling it from the bottom?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by nos482, posted 10-07-2002 7:58 AM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by nos482, posted 10-07-2002 11:59 AM nator has not yet responded
 Message 71 by John, posted 10-07-2002 12:01 PM nator has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 78 of 116 (19306)
10-08-2002 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by RedVento
10-07-2002 12:47 PM


quote:
And finally accept that creationism is not, will never be, science. No ideology springing from a religous text can be construed as science. Period.


Actually, creationism could be practiced scientifically. Of course, it would have remained the failed theory that religious naturalists abandoned long ago in the 17th century if it were scientific.

http://www.skepdic.com/creation.html

"Religious creationism could be scientific, however. For example, if a theory says that the world was created in 4004 B.C. but the evidence indicates that Earth is several billions of years old, then the theory is a scientific one if it is thereby taken to be refuted by the evidence. But if, for example, the ad hoc hypothesis is made that God created the world in 4004 B.C. complete with fossils that make the Earth look much older than it really is (to test our faith, perhaps, or to fulfill some mysterious divine plan), then the religious theory is metaphysical. Nothing could refute it; it is airtight. Philip Henry Gosse made this claim in Darwin?s time in a work entitled Creation (Omphalos): An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot, published in 1857.

If the age or scientific dating techniques of fossil evidence is disputed, but considered relevant to the truth of the religious theory and is prejudged to be consistent with the theory, then the theory is a metaphysical one. A scientific theory cannot prejudge what its investigative outcomes must be. If the religious cosmologist denies that the earth is billions of years old on the grounds that their own ?scientific? tests prove the Earth is very young, then the burden of proof is on the religious cosmologist to demonstrate that the standard scientific methods and techniques of dating fossils, etc., are erroneous. Otherwise, no reasonable person should consider such an unsupported claim that would require us to believe that the entire scientific community is in error. Gish has tried this. The fact that he is unable to convert even a small segment of the scientific community to his way of thinking is a strong indication that his arguments have little merit. This is not because the majority must be right. The entire scientific community could be deluded. However, since the opposition issues from a religious dogmatist who is not doing scientific investigation but theological apologetics, it seems more probable that it is the creation scientists who are deluded rather than the evolutionary scientists."

------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."

-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by RedVento, posted 10-07-2002 12:47 PM RedVento has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Mammuthus, posted 10-08-2002 9:08 AM nator has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 98 of 116 (19762)
10-13-2002 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Tranquility Base
10-11-2002 3:54 AM


quote:

I am a realist but at the same time I am utterly convinced that God would tell you that that geo-column got there by the flood and 'I don't care that you thought the data pointed in a different direction'.


Then did God put all the evidence in place to deliberately mislead us?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-11-2002 3:54 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by nos482, posted 10-13-2002 8:44 AM nator has not yet responded
 Message 101 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-14-2002 12:52 AM nator 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