Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8994 total)
57 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 55 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..
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 116 (18672)
10-01-2002 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RedVento
09-27-2002 11:25 AM


RV

What you call stupid others call common sense.

Creation is a possibility for the origin of life.

You really think it is out of place for a teacher TO BE ALLOWED to say: 'Although we will mainly talk about evolution of course it is possible that life was created by a higher intelligence. Here's some evidence . . .'?

Your blindness far outweighs any supposed stupidity on our part.

Why do our kids have to have evolution forced down their throats? You may think it is a fact. I disagree and so does about half of the US.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-01-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RedVento, posted 09-27-2002 11:25 AM RedVento has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 10-01-2002 2:28 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 20 by RedVento, posted 10-01-2002 12:36 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 53 by derwood, posted 10-03-2002 5:01 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 116 (18684)
10-01-2002 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by acmhttu001_2006
10-01-2002 2:28 AM


Anne

Sorry to have touched a raw nerve there but don't you think teaching evolution only is entrenched 'naturalism only' brainwashing? Of course it is. If a teacher can't say - here's evidence that 'God' created then that is pandering to the religion of 'no God'. There are at least two possibilities for how we got here. You're trying to withold one of them from kids. There are plenty of scientific reasons to suspect that 'God' was involved in the origin of life on Earth. If you don't believe that then the brainwashing sure worked on you.

The science of origins concerns how we got here, not how we got here only by natural means.

And over half of the US believes that God had something to do with creation. And over half believe that evolution may not be true.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-01-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 10-01-2002 2:28 AM acmhttu001_2006 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by The Arachnophile, posted 10-01-2002 5:10 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 15 by nos482, posted 10-01-2002 8:16 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 34 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 10-02-2002 11:58 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 116 (18706)
10-01-2002 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by The Arachnophile
10-01-2002 5:10 AM


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.

That is why I would not support teaching flat earth to 'be fair'. That has been proven beyond doubt to be untrue. Macroevoltuion has not been proven. You can teach microevolution without teaching creaiton but not macroevoltuion. That is the point you fail to appreciate.

You have jumped the gun with your extrapolation of natural selction to macroevolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by The Arachnophile, posted 10-01-2002 5:10 AM The Arachnophile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Mammuthus, posted 10-01-2002 9:58 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 21 by nos482, posted 10-01-2002 12:40 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 30 by nator, posted 10-01-2002 10:59 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 37 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 10-02-2002 12:10 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 109 by The Arachnophile, posted 10-24-2002 11:14 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 116 (18707)
10-01-2002 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by nos482
10-01-2002 8:16 AM


Nos: see ^

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by nos482, posted 10-01-2002 8:16 AM nos482 has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 116 (18780)
10-01-2002 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Mammuthus
10-01-2002 9:58 AM


Mammuthus

Gravity and QM work just fine. QM works to over 10 decimal places.

Macroevolution has not been demonstrated at all let alone quantitaively.

Please stop confusing macroevoltuion with proven natural selection. We have no problem with you brainwashing kids with Galapogos and finches. It's where you try and push that natural selction (or anything else) has been proven to have generated the genuine novelties that distinguish higher taxa that we claim unjustified brainwashing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Mammuthus, posted 10-01-2002 9:58 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Mammuthus, posted 10-02-2002 4:37 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 33 by nos482, posted 10-02-2002 8:05 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 116 (18926)
10-02-2002 9:52 PM


All

I do not support brainwashing of any kind. I used the term 'OK to brainwash about Galapogos' to emphasize that Galapogos is a fact!

Have I said anywhere that I want to teach anyone about specific 'creation myths'. You can't class 'organisms and genes exist in distinct families which is suggestive of creation by a higher being' as a specific creation myth. After making such a statemnt a teacher would then demosntrate the statment with evidence. No Bible, no Koran at all. I know this will never happen outside the US south in government schools.

I believe you have seared your own consciences to think that creation cannot be discussed as a possibility for the origin of distinct lifeforms in a science class.

If God created just think what stupidity you are arguing. If God doesn't exist you simply allowed for the second obvious possibility.


Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by nos482, posted 10-02-2002 10:01 PM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 59 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 10-03-2002 10:45 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 116 (18940)
10-02-2002 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by nos482
10-02-2002 10:01 PM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by nos482, posted 10-02-2002 10:01 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by nos482, posted 10-03-2002 8:26 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 51 by nator, posted 10-03-2002 10:22 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 116 (19027)
10-03-2002 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Mespo
10-03-2002 10:42 AM


Mespo

I partially agree. I would be very happy to do that if I was over there. To show that I am not just talking here is an example:

1. Mainstream science admits it is possible that a higher being created life on earth
2. The fossil record contains few examples of smooth transitions.
3. Supposed fossil lineages contain convergences that stretch credability.
4. Genetics shows that the major novelties that distinguish organisms correspond to new biochemical steps
5. The genetic systems that make life work appear to contain a minimal number of parts to function.
6. The primordal soup origin for the first lifeform is extremely unlikely.

There is no Bible or anything in this. The data does suggest creation irrespective of whether it is true or not. Evolution has a potential answer for each of these and we have potential answers for each of those rebuttals. But IMO these should be presented.

I would be quite happy if say two or three lessons were spent on it. An intro day, a fossil day and a genetics day. Alternatively of course the fossil aspect could be incorporated into the mainstream fossil lessons etc but can anyone imagine that being done free of bias? Pragmatically it probably should be done separately although ideally it should be merged and the pros and cons presented for each framework.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-03-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Mespo, posted 10-03-2002 10:42 AM Mespo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 10-03-2002 10:56 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 64 by RedVento, posted 10-04-2002 12:33 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 116 (19029)
10-03-2002 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by nos482
10-03-2002 8:26 AM


nos482

You asked 'Who created god'? Even sceince works one step at a time. You first explain how phenotype depends on underlying genes (Mendel) then you understand the DNA origin of genes (Watson & Crick). Ther is nothing wrong with one step at a time. I do not beleive the origin of God is worth thinking about on this side of eternity.

Kinds and distinct gene families are suggestive that the steps between kinds may be too big for evoltuion. It is suggestiver , it doens't prve anything. And of course I claim not distinction between Jehova and the Big Blue Banana. The geo-column is strongly suggestive of the Biblical flood however (IMO).

You said that stating that 'my god is "responsible" (for life) is the same thing (as science)'. Really? I can state one thing by faith and another by science. I believe by faith that my God is responisble for life on earth. I also scientifically beleive that the data backs it up, although not neccesarily uniquely.

Creation implies completely funcitonal not 'complete as today'. Who says they can't change? I don't. Some 19th century creationists might have. You're using a poor strawman there.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-03-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by nos482, posted 10-03-2002 8:26 AM nos482 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 10-03-2002 11:02 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 116 (19178)
10-06-2002 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by RedVento
10-04-2002 12:33 PM


RedVento

So if God did create and the geo-column was due to a global flood you are saying that the distinctneess of gene families in genomes and the domination of marine sedimentaiton on our continents is irrelevant? So scientific evidence is only relevant if God doesn't exist.

No. I,let alone God, will tell you that they were relevant. The potential God inhabited universe you allow for is ridiculous.

The Biblical God not only claimed to do things that must have left evidence he even told us that they did leave evidence! And that evience is there.

There is somehting in between your silly strawman 'Big Blue Banana' God and evolution.

Your logical breakdown is that you a priori pretend that God can't have left evidence.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-06-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by RedVento, posted 10-04-2002 12:33 PM RedVento has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by nos482, posted 10-06-2002 10:16 PM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 73 by RedVento, posted 10-07-2002 12:47 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 116 (19189)
10-07-2002 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by nos482
10-06-2002 10:16 PM


^ 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by nos482, posted 10-06-2002 10:16 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by nos482, posted 10-07-2002 7:58 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 116 (19285)
10-08-2002 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by nos482
10-07-2002 7:58 AM


nos

Have a look at the use of the word 'distinct' in my post. Maybe it's nothing to do with bananas.


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 76 by nos482, posted 10-08-2002 7:59 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 116 (19286)
10-08-2002 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by RedVento
10-07-2002 12:47 PM


RV

My 2 lesson syllabus for creation (see Quetzal's thread) outlines the evidence for creation that is Bible free. This is appropriate for a governmnet school course. It will not stop me from elsewhere demonstrating evidence of the Biblical God.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-08-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by RedVento, posted 10-07-2002 12:47 PM RedVento has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by nos482, posted 10-08-2002 8:07 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 80 by RedVento, posted 10-08-2002 10:12 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 116 (19466)
10-10-2002 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by RedVento
10-08-2002 10:12 AM


RV

Why is any of that relevant?

All we are talking abou is using the tools of science to identify the origin of genomes and strata. Stop saying 'if this, if that'. Let's go one step at a time. If science tells us we were created by a space bunny then so be it.

Science has uncovered many evidences suggestive of creation and flood. You can sidetrack to space bunnies. I will use science to track down what happened.

The fact that I believe the Bible is only relevant if you doubt my scientific integrity. There is nothing unscientific about a believer finding evidence for creation if one has scientific integrity.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-09-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RedVento, posted 10-08-2002 10:12 AM RedVento has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Mammuthus, posted 10-10-2002 9:47 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 85 by RedVento, posted 10-10-2002 11:38 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 116 (19467)
10-10-2002 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by nos482
10-08-2002 8:07 AM


nos

In your happy little universe it is obviously impossible to conceive of the scenario that God did create and leave behind evidence. That is quite ridiculous. You paint creationists as stoneage thinkers but use this type of logic.

As in the above post my agenda is irrelevant if I have integrity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by nos482, posted 10-08-2002 8:07 AM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by nos482, posted 10-10-2002 8:41 AM Tranquility Base 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