Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   should creationism be taught in schools?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 196 of 301 (435871)
11-23-2007 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Beretta
11-23-2007 10:05 AM


The Morality of Creationist Lies.
C14 is not yet in equilibrium but is increasing -so we can't use that either since you need equilibrium before it can be applied.
This comment is off-topic for this thread, ... but it does demonstrate that creationism is morally bankrupt as well as logically flawed, and THAT is on topic.
Morally bankrupt because of the creationists that intentionally misuse science and science articles to fool gullible ignorant people, and the intellectual dishonesty of these misinformed people to repeat such information without making any attempt to validate it. Logically flawed, as arguments against any scientific finding are not arguments for creationism.
In essence, this is a falsehood you are repeating, and it is from a creationist that is lying about the science involved with C-14 dating.
Scientists know that C-14 in the atmosphere is produced by solar activity, and that this activity varies with dark spots on the sun, with an 11 year cycle. Because of this, the level of C-14 is oscillating with the oscillating solar activity, with peak highs and peak lows and there is no possible "equilibrium level" to be attained. It will always vary about an average, and even that average is the result of long term trends in solar activity and C-14 levels, levels that are KNOWN to have varied in the past. This has been mentioned before.
Solar cycle - Wikipedia
quote:
Total solar output is now measured to vary (over the last three 11-year sunspot cycles) by approximately 0.1%[1] [2] or about 1.3 W/m2 peak-to-trough during the 11 year sunspot cycle
The magnitude of this oscillation is much less than the average value and thus we can still use the average value to approximate ages with C-14 dating. We can further correlate known ages of tree rings and the like with measured C-14 from the same sources to correlate the age with the actual C-14 level in the atmosphere at the time the sample grew. This calibration makes C-14 dating more accurate than it is without using the calibration (and shows samples to be older than non-calibrated dates), and in either case it is well within the tolerances needed for most dating purposes.
An age for a sample of 40,000 years +/- 10% is STILL way older than any YEC scenario and accurate enough for most scientific needs, and the actual error is less than that. This is the reality of C-14 dating.
Weird ridiculous dates are obtained for things of known age showing that our assumptions are wrong ...
And when you actually cite the references for this I PREDICT that they will show that the creationists you got this from are intentionally misusing C-14 dating. Let me PREDICT the kinds of "tests" involved:
1. Marine life dates too old.
2. Coal, diamonds or oil dates too young.
Carbon 14 dating is based on a reservoir of carbon (12, 13, & 14) in air, water, etc, with an accumulation of C-14 from some source to counteract the removal that occurs with decay. In the atmosphere this is caused by the solar activity mentioned above, in marine environments C-14 is replenished from the air while C-12 can be replenished from calcium carbonate (very old calcium carbonate in some cases), and the C-14 in the earth can be replenished by radioactivity.
So each reservoir has different levels of C-12, C-13, and C-14, and the initial ratio of C-14/C-12 is different at the start. This is known by the scientists that properly use carbon 14 dating as the "reservoir effect" and it has been measured and documented for many marine environments. That information has been used by dishonest creationists to create the impression that the dates of marine organisms are wrong because they KNOW the dates that come from assuming atmospheric C-12 and C-14 in the sample will not be correct, and that to date them properly they should correct them for the particular reservoir they are from. They don't tell the labs this, and they don't tell the people this. That they don't do this and don't tell you this shows that they are intentionally misrepresenting the truth -- lying.
See CD011.4: C-14 age of a seal
It also does not invalidate C-14 dating that is done using samples where C-12 and C-14 were derived from atmospheric sources (land plants, organisms that eat land plants, etc).
Carbon-14 is also known to form from Nitrogen-14 and Carbon-13 while in the proximity of radioactivity, and this radioactivity has been shown to correlate directly with different levels of C-14 in coal and oil thus demonstrating, again, that the C-14 in these samples is not from atmospheric C-14. For a discussion of C-14 in diamonds see Message 24, and the documented misuse of another scientific study.
Also see Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits
Note that this is not some fanciful "alternative explanation" or "interpretation" dependent conclusion on the part of these creationists, but documented outright falsehood published by the creationists to fool ignorant gullible people.
Finally, note that the upper limit to dating with C-14 is ~50,000 years due to a number of factors (including that 11 year solar cycle, and the contamination due to buildup in testing machines), and that any sample at this limit is usually recorded either as indeterminate or >50,000 years.
Radiometric dating on rocks of known date are invariably extremely wrong, so lets not use it to date things we have no historical knowledge of and then assume they are correct.
And again, when you actually cite the references for this I PREDICT that they will show that the people are intentionally misusing the science involved in ways known to produce incorrect results.
See Correlation Among Various Radiometric Ages and Message 11 for additional comments on radiometric dating correlations (not promoted yet), and for a christian scientist view on the validity of radiometric dating see
Radiometric Dating
... but we go ahead and use it for things where we have no real clue of the age ...
Except that scientists interested in the truth don't misuse the dating technique, they study the actual C-14 levels in ancient atmospheres and find evidence of correlations of actual age with C-14 levels in ancient atmospheres, and they reproduce the results in different labs. Again, you can discuss this at Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III), where your continued failure to comment is noted, and is evidence of your denial of contradictory evidence.
Scientists are interested in the truth not in misrepresenting reality.
If teachers took a little bit of time out to try to understand why this controversy exists, they might find ...
... they have, and they found that creationists are typically lying about science and don't have any evidence FOR creationism.
This kind of rather blatant lying about science in creationist articles is why "examples" like this of creationism deserve scorn and not a place in school classes -- of any kind ... aside from the FACT that they are not evidence for creationism by any stretch of a fevered imagination.
If creationism is right why do creationists need to lie about reality?
Now do you have any evidence for creationism that can be taught in schools that doesn't involve falsehoods about science, ignorance and arguments against misrepresentations of evolution?
In summary you have presented a number of opinions that are not substantiated by any facts, references or evidence, several of them based on documented falsehoods by creationists, and all refuted by facts and by reality, while the evidence mounts that (a) evolution is valid science to teach in public science classes and (b) creationism is NOT valid science or worth teaching in ANY class, religious or otherwise.
You have made the case for teaching creationism worse.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : beginning words
Edited by RAZD, : clarity

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 185 by Beretta, posted 11-23-2007 10:05 AM Beretta has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 197 of 301 (435917)
11-23-2007 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Beretta
11-23-2007 10:05 AM


By the way, until last year I didn't know that creationists existed either, now I am one.
That would explain why you can't even get your creationist lies right.
Look up Mount St Helens on a creationist site, and find out what lies you're meant to be telling about this subject. 'Cos you're not even managing to get the lies right.
Better still, look it up on any site not run by religious whackjobs and find out the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Beretta, posted 11-23-2007 10:05 AM Beretta has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 198 of 301 (435992)
11-24-2007 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by reiverix
11-23-2007 11:39 AM


Re: Nonsense
[quote]I want to see your ID evidence. You are avoiding the topic of the thread and it is getting annoying. Pointless attacks on evolution does not make evidence of ID.[quote/]
I agree, attacks on evolution dont help our case, but it sure helps. Because those attacks can demonstrate that the very definitions (Mechanism) of Evolution make it impossible for them to pass their own tests. However Ill discuss that at another time. for now I would like you to ask a couple of questions and then you can see if I am avoiding the topic of the thread. Is Logic a science? Can you use Logic to establish, Facts, Truth or evidence that is, irresitable, irrefutable and incontravertable? Ill wait for your response and then we will get you that evidence you require.
Remember the dictionary defines Logic as the SCIENCE OF VALID REASOING. Ill wait for your reply.
D bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by reiverix, posted 11-23-2007 11:39 AM reiverix has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by RAZD, posted 11-24-2007 1:55 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 229 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2007 10:33 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 199 of 301 (435995)
11-24-2007 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Doubleneck
11-22-2007 8:40 AM


Faith vs Fact
NO!!! Faith is NOT Fact.
Except with evolutionists -they have faith that evolution (large scale) has occurred despite the lack of evidence. Take RAZD's foraminifera for example - they remain foraminifera, that much is obvious but to him that is a pure example of evolution at its most obvious. How foraminifera could get the genetic info to change into something else with new and complex genetic information is what interests us that don't share the evolutionist's faith.I want to see foraminifera start to turn into something that does not just look like a type of foraminifera. Where did foraminifera come from -from foraminifera of course -that's the point -there is no proof for anything beyond that -only faith in what they believe has happened.
People actually believed the Old Testament stories as literal fact at one point but anyone who is being honest with themselves knows that they have over time become literal fables.
So the stories evolved from truth to fables or were they never true or are they maybe still true but mankind in general has chosen not to believe them for their own convenience.
I believe that PBS did a computer model of the Ark using the size and structure stated in The Bible. When it was surrounded by water, even though it was EMPTY, it fell completely apart.
Well it was a model and I believe their prejudice would be enough to make sure it would fall apart. And that's good enough for someone who has already decided that the Bible is rubbish.
Not to mention that 4 men with primitive hand tools couldn't have possibly built it.
And how do we know that their hand tools were primitive? Because we have the evolutionary prejudice that those people were backward and closer to apes than men. The Bible says man came preprogrammed from the hand of God not descended from the apes.Ancient civilizations like the Egyptians for example show us they were not backward.
There is nothing in the Bible to say that only the people who were saved in the ark built it. They could have paid any number of people to help them and they took a long time to build it as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Doubleneck, posted 11-22-2007 8:40 AM Doubleneck has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by RAZD, posted 11-24-2007 2:16 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 204 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2007 5:54 AM Beretta has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 200 of 301 (435996)
11-24-2007 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Dawn Bertot
11-24-2007 1:35 AM


Re: Nonsense
I agree, attacks on evolution dont help our case, but it sure helps. Because those attacks can demonstrate that the very definitions (Mechanism) of Evolution make it impossible for them to pass their own tests.
Would you like to reword that so that it makes sense? You can also talk about evolution on an evolution thread, like Criticizing neo-Darwinism
Remember the dictionary defines Logic as the SCIENCE OF VALID REASOING.
Not really.
log·ic -1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
2.a. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
- b. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
- c. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
- d. The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.
- e. Computer circuitry.
- f. Graphic representation of computer circuitry.
3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.
5. Computer Science
- a. The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.
- b. Computer circuitry.
- c. Graphic representation of computer circuitry.
(American Heritage Dictionary)
sci·ence -1.a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
- b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
- c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.
(American Heritage Dictionary)
Notice the difference.
{abe}
Can you use Logic to establish, Facts, Truth or evidence that is, irresitable, irrefutable and incontravertable?
Nope.
{/abe}
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : abe

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 198 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-24-2007 1:35 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 201 of 301 (436000)
11-24-2007 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Beretta
11-24-2007 1:47 AM


missing the point again.
Except with evolutionists -they have faith that evolution (large scale) has occurred despite the lack of evidence. Take RAZD's foraminifera for example - they remain foraminifera, that much is obvious but to him that is a pure example of evolution at its most obvious. How foraminifera could get the genetic info to change into something else with new and complex genetic information is what interests us that don't share the evolutionist's faith.I want to see foraminifera start to turn into something that does not just look like a type of foraminifera. Where did foraminifera come from -from foraminifera of course -that's the point -there is no proof .for anything beyond that -only faith in what they believe has happened.
Yet the foraminifera demonstrate macroevolution as used in evolutionary biology - the formation of new branches in the taxonomic description of life on earth.
Saying that foraminifera remain foraminifera is like saying that mammals remain mammals, canines will remain canines and dogs will remain dogs. It also ignores that dogs are not foxes, which will also always be canines.
Of course this is so, and always will be. This is a basic fact of descent from common ancestor populations - you will always have organisms that are descendants of that common ancestor population, and it would be literally stupid to think otherwise.
The evidence of foraminifera given will not demonstrate evolution of forams into something else .. why? because the evidence used was selected to only discuss forams.
... they have faith that evolution (large scale) has occurred despite the lack of evidence.
Again the problem here is that YOU are not defining what macroevolution is. You are defining what a creationist straw man argument is.
Define macroevolution. Demonstrate that you know what you are talking about eh?
Define "large scale" -- is the formation of a new family of species "large scale"? What is the large scale difference between dogs and foxes? Canines and felines? Can you demonstrate that a cat is measurably more different from a dog than one foram is from another in a different order? Do you know what you are talking about?
Try to use the terms as used in the science of evolutionary biology rather than the misinformation of creationists.
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 199 by Beretta, posted 11-24-2007 1:47 AM Beretta has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 202 of 301 (436001)
11-24-2007 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Percy
11-22-2007 10:42 AM


Re: The Topic is Teaching Creationism in Schools
There is no scientific support for these ID interpretations. The scientific consensus does not include these ID interpretations.
There IS scientific support for these ID interpretations but in your evolutionary eyes, that would make those scientists not worthy of having an opinion.
You're right about the 'consensus' but history shows us that today's consensus may be tomorrow's garbage. Consensus does not determine truth -it is just your most popular opinion of the moment.
To keep science moving forward we really should agree to stick to the facts AND their possible interpretations not just the evolutionary interpretations of the facts. Just because you (and other evolutionists) don't like the ID ideas doesn't make them implausible -they are just not quite according to your taste.
Facts don't speak for themselves they must be interpreted, why should evolutionists refuse to allow the opposition's interpretations to be shown? If the reality of evolution is so obvious, children will get the point and evolutionists shouldn't be scared of that approach.
Everybody has the same bare facts but we come to different conclusions -why can creationists and ID proponents acknowledge that their ideas are interpretations of the facts and yet evolutionists fail to notice when they are interpreting and insist on calling their interpretations facts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Percy, posted 11-22-2007 10:42 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by ringo, posted 11-24-2007 3:27 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 205 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2007 6:01 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 208 by purpledawn, posted 11-24-2007 7:02 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 209 by RAZD, posted 11-24-2007 7:08 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 213 by Percy, posted 11-24-2007 7:42 AM Beretta has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 203 of 301 (436010)
11-24-2007 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Beretta
11-24-2007 2:20 AM


Beretta writes:
Everybody has the same bare facts but we come to different conclusions -why can creationists and ID proponents acknowledge that their ideas are interpretations of the facts and yet evolutionists fail to notice when they are interpreting and insist on calling their interpretations facts?
You seem to be very confused about what "interpretation" means. When an evangelist like Billy Graham speaks through an interpreter, do you think different interpreters can have fundamentally different interpretations? The message is lost if the interpretation is wrong.
It makes no sense to teach children wrong interpretations.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Beretta, posted 11-24-2007 2:20 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Beretta, posted 11-24-2007 6:36 AM ringo has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 204 of 301 (436023)
11-24-2007 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Beretta
11-24-2007 1:47 AM


Re: Faith vs Fact
Except with evolutionists -they have faith that evolution (large scale) has occurred despite the lack of evidence.
Not only is this not true, but the people you're addressing know it's not true.
As would you, if you ever bothered to look at the evidence instead of reciting dumb lies from your creationist script.
I want to see foraminifera start to turn into something that does not just look like a type of foraminifera.
But foraminifera haven't done so. Why demand evidence for something that scientists agree has not happened?
Well it was a model and I believe their prejudice would be enough to make sure it would fall apart.
Your beliefs are not evidence for anything except your limitless capacity for self-deception.
And how do we know that their hand tools were primitive?
Archaeology.
Because we have the evolutionary prejudice that those people were backward and closer to apes than men.
Speak for yourself.
Ancient civilizations like the Egyptians for example show us they were not backward.
Well, the Egyptians certainly didn't have the technology we do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Beretta, posted 11-24-2007 1:47 AM Beretta has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 205 of 301 (436025)
11-24-2007 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Beretta
11-24-2007 2:20 AM


Re: The Topic is Teaching Creationism in Schools
There IS scientific support for these ID interpretations ...
Put up or shut up.
You're right about the 'consensus' but history shows us that today's consensus may be tomorrow's garbage.
As happened to creationism.
History also shows us that no abandoned paradigm has ever been resurrected a hundred years after being thrown in the trash.
Facts don't speak for themselves they must be interpreted, why should evolutionists refuse to allow the opposition's interpretations to be shown?
Because they aren't "interpretations", they're a bunch of dumb lies about how "all earth's creatures have 2 eyes". We can't teach that to children 'cos it's a lie.
If the reality of evolution is so obvious, children will get the point and evolutionists shouldn't be scared of that approach.
If you really can't figure out for yourself why lying to children is wrong, this article will explain it to you.
Everybody has the same bare facts
No you don't. Scientists have the facts, you have dumb lies about how "all earth's creatures have 2 eyes" and red blood cells in dinosaurs and a volcano producing "hydrological sorting", and on and on and on. With only two exceptions I can think of, everything you've claimed as a fact turned out to be a ridiculous fiction.
why can creationists and ID proponents acknowledge that their ideas are interpretations of the facts
Because it isn't true, and they're addicted to untruth.
evolutionists fail to notice when they are interpreting and insist on calling their interpretations facts?
Because they are facts rather than interpretations.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Beretta, posted 11-24-2007 2:20 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Beretta, posted 11-24-2007 7:12 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 206 of 301 (436027)
11-24-2007 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by ringo
11-24-2007 3:27 AM


Interpretations
It makes no sense to teach children wrong interpretations
Well then we should stop teaching them evolution in that case.
Materialism may be all we can see but that does not mean that is all there is. It's like the old example of two computers discussing how they came about by assuming what is going on inside is all there is.
They don't realize that they were put together by somebody outside of their little world so they write that off as a possibility and all their hypotheses about what happened are all wrong because they can't see their creator and their stories of how they happened to be get sillier and sillier while they try to make sense of their existance.
OR we can teach evolution as a possibility and not exclude creation as an alternative possibility and see where the evidence/the facts lead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by ringo, posted 11-24-2007 3:27 AM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2007 6:58 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 216 by Percy, posted 11-24-2007 8:06 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 217 by nator, posted 11-24-2007 8:16 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 222 by RAZD, posted 11-24-2007 8:45 AM Beretta has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 207 of 301 (436033)
11-24-2007 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Beretta
11-24-2007 6:36 AM


Re: Interpretations
Well then we should stop teaching them evolution in that case.
But evolution is not a "wrong interpretation", it's a theory that's been proven correct.
There's a difference.
Materialism may be all we can see but that does not mean that is all there is.
This is true, but has nothing to do with the subject under discussion.
OR we can teach evolution as a possibility ...
If you believe evolution to be "wrong", as you said at the start of your post, why should we "teach it as a possibility"?
and not exclude creation as an alternative possibility and see where the evidence/the facts lead.
The facts confirm evolution and completely discredit creationism, which is why all the "facts" you come up with to support creationism turn out to be false, Mr "all earth's creatures have 2 eyes".
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Beretta, posted 11-24-2007 6:36 AM Beretta has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 208 of 301 (436035)
11-24-2007 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Beretta
11-24-2007 2:20 AM


What is the Advantange
quote:
Facts don't speak for themselves they must be interpreted, why should evolutionists refuse to allow the opposition's interpretations to be shown? If the reality of evolution is so obvious, children will get the point and evolutionists shouldn't be scared of that approach.
So your reasoning is to teach our children all interpretations and let them weed out what is right?
Since churches teach, children of religion are already taught about their respective creation beliefs and can then make the choice you speak of. I don't understand the need to have it taught along side secular science also.
Creationism is a religious view and I don't see that there is even a consensus among Christians that creationism is viable outside of religion.
What purpose does it serve other than to expose more children to religion?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Beretta, posted 11-24-2007 2:20 AM Beretta has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 209 of 301 (436036)
11-24-2007 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Beretta
11-24-2007 2:20 AM


Re: The Topic is Teaching Creationism in Schools
To keep science moving forward we really should agree to stick to the facts AND their possible interpretations not just the evolutionary interpretations of the facts.
No, to keep science moving forward you stick to facts and tested explanations of the evidence that show our understanding to be correct.
Science does not include any little old interpretation you like -- the earth is flat is an interpretation, it is false.
Facts don't speak for themselves they must be interpreted, why should evolutionists refuse to allow the opposition's interpretations to be shown? If the reality of evolution is so obvious, children will get the point and evolutionists shouldn't be scared of that approach.
False. Facts are Facts, they represent the truth of reality. You can understand them and thereby understand reality.
There are NOT two realities.
Everybody has the same bare facts but we come to different conclusions -why can creationists and ID proponents acknowledge that their ideas are interpretations of the facts and yet evolutionists fail to notice when they are interpreting and insist on calling their interpretations facts?
Because they don't stand up to the test against the evidence. They are either a fanciful pile of made up wishes that are not tested (or untestable) OR they are already invalidated concepts that - unlike scientists - creationists and IDologists won't let go (irreducible complexity among others).
Creationists also have not purged their house of the lies and the liars, and until they do that, then any "interpretation" is highyl questionable AT BEST.
That is not science.
There IS scientific support for these ID interpretations but in your evolutionary eyes, that would make those scientists not worthy of having an opinion.
No, everyone can have an opinion. The difference between support for a concept and science is that science doesn't worry about WHO supports it but WHAT supports it -- the evidence, the tests, the validation, reality.
Science is about understanding the evidence of reality, while creationism and IDology are about misinterpreting it to fit fantasy.
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 202 by Beretta, posted 11-24-2007 2:20 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Beretta, posted 11-24-2007 8:24 AM RAZD has replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 210 of 301 (436038)
11-24-2007 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Dr Adequate
11-24-2007 6:01 AM


Re: The Topic is Teaching Creationism in Schools
As happened to creationism.
History also shows us that no abandoned paradigm has ever been resurrected a hundred years after being thrown in the trash.
Creationists by and large assumed that evolution had been proven more than a hundred years ago. Those that did were wrong. The abandoned paradigm has to be resurrected if that is where the evidence leads. Scientists are battling scientists on this issue not fools battling science nor religion versus science. If creation science is not the consensus at this time, that is no reason to write it off if the evidence points in that direction.At least allow for ID if not the Biblical creation account.
Because they aren't "interpretations", they're a bunch of dumb lies about how "all earth's creatures have 2 eyes". We can't teach that to children 'cos it's a lie.
You're right there -lets not teach lies.
red blood cells in dinosaurs
The fact of red blood cell remnants found in dinosaur bones only goes to show that it is extremely unlikely that such fragile structures could have lasted 10's of millions of years and casts doubt on the geologic time scale as it is generally accepted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2007 6:01 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by RAZD, posted 11-24-2007 7:21 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 212 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2007 7:37 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 214 by nator, posted 11-24-2007 7:45 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 220 by Percy, posted 11-24-2007 8:32 AM Beretta has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024