Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8994 total)
52 online now:
PaulK, Pollux, Tangle (3 members, 49 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: 0/2

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..
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 116 (18883)
10-02-2002 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by RedVento
10-02-2002 1:53 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by RedVento:
quote:
Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:

Exactly.. I am really wondering if creationsists can be honest with themselves about their motives for NEEDING to be created by god.


Didn't you know that it isn't lying when you do it in god's name? (I know, I can be a bastard sometimes )


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by RedVento, posted 10-02-2002 1:53 PM RedVento 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

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 116 (18927)
10-02-2002 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Tranquility Base
10-02-2002 9:52 PM


Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

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!

It is not "brainwashing" to show that something 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.

Without these there is no "evidence" to speak of so you HAVE to talk creation myths.

I know this will never happen outside the US south in government schools.

Public schools where ALL children can get a fair education.

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.

Irrelevant. Creation is religiously inspired pseudo-science only, it is not a valid science.

If God created just think what stupidity you are arguing.

We're not arguing this, you are.

If God doesn't exist you simply allowed for the second obvious possibility.

Which is? Prove that your god does exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-02-2002 9:52 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-02-2002 11:51 PM nos482 has 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

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 116 (18974)
10-03-2002 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tranquility Base
10-02-2002 11:51 PM


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.

Don't quit your dayjob.

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.

Who created god?

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.

And how is this evidence of the existence of your god? For all you know it could be the Big Blue Banana.

I never said religion is valid science!

Stating that your god is "responsible" is the same thing.

All I say is that looking at the genomes and fossils to see if they have tell tale signs of creation is science.

Creation implies being made complete as they are now. We know that that isn't true.

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

It has been, you just don't (won't) want to see it.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-03-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-02-2002 11:51 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-03-2002 9:42 PM nos482 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

  
Mespo
Member (Idle past 1465 days)
Posts: 158
From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA
Joined: 09-19-2002


Message 52 of 116 (18984)
10-03-2002 10:42 AM


TB:

I'll issue my query again. Reread posts #22 & #24. Let's get pragmatic for just a minute. The Cobb County school board has created a real issue for themselves.

"the Cobb County School District believes that discussion of disputed views of academic subjects is a necessary element of providing a balanced education, including the study of the origin of the species. "

So, in practical terms, a science teacher will introduce alternate theories to the origin of species. Testing has to be an integral part of the teaching process. Students will need handouts and / or approved text materials to study for homework, work papers, quicky quizzes and final exams.

Again, I say, what texts? What references? Without a uniform approach, there will be chaos. Without administrative backing there will be anarchy. And the Cobb County school board will be vunerable to hammering in the court room and in the press. You can count on it. Even if their approach is wrong in the eyes of the scientific community, it has to be consistent.

So, how about giving the school board a hand, TB. Put together a draft of a lesson plan for alternative views for origin of species. Something that will hold up in court. Something that will deflect ridicule from the Creationist point of view.

(:raig


Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-03-2002 9:28 PM Mespo has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 53 of 116 (19012)
10-03-2002 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tranquility Base
10-01-2002 1:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

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.


Yeah - why does that gravity get rammed down our kids throats?

And the Holocaust? Come on people - its just a Zionist plot.

And we all know that white folks is superior. Why don't that get taught as a fact? It is common sense, after all....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-01-2002 1:04 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by nos482, posted 10-03-2002 5:19 PM derwood has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 116 (19013)
10-03-2002 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by derwood
10-03-2002 5:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

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.


Yeah - why does that gravity get rammed down our kids throats?

And the Holocaust? Come on people - its just a Zionist plot.

And we all know that white folks is superior. Why don't that get taught as a fact? It is common sense, after all....


Exactly. And another one "Not with my tax dollars..."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by derwood, posted 10-03-2002 5:01 PM derwood 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

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 116 (19037)
10-03-2002 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by nos482
10-02-2002 4:16 PM


Nos482,

Well, then I will not give up the debate. Thank goodness, I have a cut and paste button, if something needs to be typed again and again. LOL.

Where they get those kind of points that you made, which are typical of creationists', I do not see the logic. My guess, is there is none.

------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by nos482, posted 10-02-2002 4:16 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by nos482, posted 10-04-2002 7:44 AM acmhttu001_2006 has not yet responded

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 116 (19038)
10-03-2002 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by nos482
10-02-2002 4:21 PM


My bad.

Do not know.

------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by nos482, posted 10-02-2002 4:21 PM nos482 has not yet responded

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 116 (19039)
10-03-2002 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Tranquility Base
10-02-2002 9:52 PM


T.B.

Have not read nos482's reply to your letter. But the frequency with which you miss critical points, I shall say them at the expense of repeating old material.

If it is a fact, you are not brainwashing them. And what is fact? It is a statement that is backed up by evidence.

You sure have, heck, if we teach that life came from a
"created" stage, then what do we tell the little kiddies when they ask "Who created the earth and us?" I am so sure, you would not like it if we told them it was anyone but what you believe, God. Heck, we have to teach the rest of the creation myths, so no religions or anybody will feel left out. And then science becomes less of a disciplined field that it is and becomes something to be used at the hands of some "fanatics".

As to your second and third statements. I will not argue with you. You are a great Christian who we all want to emulate, esp. with her regard and concern with living up to the passage of Judge not, or else you will be judged with the same standards. [NOT A DIRECT QUOTATION, but if anyone wants to call me down on the carpet, I can find the quotation for you.] Well, if we are wrong, go ahead and save us all a nice cozy spot by the fire in Hell, and make sure there are plenty of smores when I get down there.

See ya.

------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

[This message has been edited by acmhttu001_2006, 10-03-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-02-2002 9:52 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 116 (19040)
10-03-2002 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by nator
10-03-2002 10:22 AM


schrafinator,

Do not worry, he/she ignores my posts too. Guess he/she is having fewer and fewer things to say.

------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by nator, posted 10-03-2002 10:22 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