|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
I love science. Look at all the ways that science improved our standard of living. The typical creationist lie! Well if you love science and all that, then why are you trying to destroy science education? Why are you spreading lies about science? Oh sure, you want to be able to pick and choose which parts of science to get rid of because you like your flush toilet too much. But whereas you are free to pick and choose which parts of Christianity to keep or ignore, science is an integrated whole filled with interdependencies, such that destroying one part of science will also destroy the other parts. You cannot pick and choose in science, because the whole thing has to work. So then, no, you have demonstrated that you do not love science. So please stop lying about it. Why do you hate science so much? Do you feel threatened by it? Do you think that it threatens your religion? If your religion is true then it should never have anything to fear from science. And if your religion is false, then it would only need fear science if that religion makes false claims about the real world -- which "creation science" does do quite a bit, doesn't it? But if your religion proves to make false claims, then shouldn't you want to know that so that you can leave it for a religion which is true? I mean, who would want to follow a false religion?
God commands His followers to "prove" all things. Yes, 1 Thessalonians 5:21. Even though some translations say "test", the meaning is the same, that you need to verify everything in order to discard that which is false and hold on to that which is true. So why do you refuse to obey God? Why do you refuse to test the nonsense, the falsehoods, the lies, and the deceptions of "creation science", but instead embrace them? Not only embrace them, but spread them. Don't you know any Christian doctrine? God is not to be served through lies and deception. But Christian doctrine does describe one who is served through lies and deception. I'm sure that he'll be pleased to meet you. Can you guess his name? But what's puzzling you is the nature of his game. So whom do you actually serve?
The way I see the situation is this: The Bible and science vs. evolutionists and misguidedhuman reasoning. Meaning what? What are you talking about? Explain yourself! Especially since you have demonstrated that you don't know what any of those words mean.
Again! Here is my question that you refused to answer; from Message 1327:
DWise1 writes: But why is it that you concentrate so much of your hatred of science against evolution. Why do you single out evolution? Why not physics? Or geology? Or astronomy? Each of those other sciences are key in exposing the falsehood of creationists' young-earth claims, so (assuming you are also a young-earther) you should really hate them. And yet you focus almost all of your hate at evolution. Why? You obviously do not understand evolution. Do you fear it? Do you feel threatened by it? Whatever kind of threat could evolution possibly pose to you? Keep in mind that there is no conflict between science and religion -- with the sole exception of a religion which makes false claims about the real world. And there is no conflict between evolution and creation. Again, unless your religion makes false claims about the real world. If you honestly believe that there are conflicts, then present your reasons for believing that. But then in my four decades of experience I have very rarely seen a creationist do anything with any amount of honesty. Or truthfulness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
No poster on this site has "observed" a dog producing a cat; a cow producing a raccoon; You keep trying to use this to refute evolution. Why? And how could you possibly think that that would work? Nobody but a creationist would ever use such a stupid claim. Not only does that have nothing to do with evolution, but it is the exact opposite of the conclusions that we would draw from evolution. For that matter, if we were to observe a "dog producing a cat" or a "cow producing a raccoon", then that would be evidence against evolution, as well as against most of the rest of biology. So why do you keep using that false claim? And why do you need to resort to misrepresenting and lying about science? Because you have nothing else? Only a creationist could be so stupid as to use that stupid nonsensical claim (among so many other false claims). And so many creationists are that stupid because so many of them use that claim! Why is that? What is so very wrong with you people? Over the decades, I've noticed a number of trends and characteristics among creationists. Very briefly:
candle2, I have you pegged as a low-ranking creationist who does not have any clue about the claims you use -- all that matters to you is that your claims seem to sound convincing to you. You are completely incapable of supporting or discussing or explaining your claims, so you avoid doing so in any way you can. But you need to know what your claims and your premises are based on, which means that you really need to learn. And we need to learn what your claims and premises are based on so that we can help you to learn. As well as to be able to have meaningful discussions with creationists for a welcome change. Your user name is ironic. A candle is used to shed light on a subject, whereas your mission is to cloak everything in darkness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Yet again you have avoided answering our simple and very necessary questions.
You still have not explained to us what an "evolutionist" is. You still have not explained what you mean by "evolution". All you have done has been to regurgitate standard creationist nonsense in a typically creationist brain-dead manner. And you still have not supported your use of the utterly stupid creationist "kind producing kind" argument (ie, that evolution is supposed to require dogs producing cats), which is so completely and utterly stupid that only creationists believe it.
Evolution predicts "kind producing kind"; that's called Monophyly. But we have already explained that to you repeatedly, like my Message 16 on 13 Feb 2019:
DWise1 writes: candle2 writes:
Yes, and evolution demands it because that's how it works: daughter species remain within its parents species' clade. We call it Monophyly, though more colloquially, "nested clades" (quoted from that Wikipedia link):
What we observe is that "kind produce kind." Both historical and observable science support this fact.quote: So, somehow you seem to think that "kind produce kind" disproves evolution. Could you please explain that position, because it doesn't make any sense. For example, if you believe evolution requires one kind producing offspring of a different kind then please state so explicitly and offer examples that you would expect and why -- a common creationist example I've seen is that evolution would cause us to expect a dog having kittens. In your subsequent posts you confirmed my suspicion and demonstrated that you do indeed believe in that must stupid of creationist false claims which you call "kind producing kind". Only "then why are there still monkeys?" or "but they're STILL MOTHS!!!" might be more stupid. Stop avoiding discussion. Stop being a mindless troll. Learn something. You cannot ever hope to fight effectively against evolution (though you have also refused to explain why you hate evolution so much) unless you learn as much as possible about evolution, not the lies and misrepresentations that the creationists have taught you. The audience can clearly see when you are only beating up a straw man and not your actual declared opponent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Can you explain stellar evolution? As a matter of fact, yes! Refer to my page, DWise1: Kent Hovind's Solar Mass Loss Claim. I wrote it in response to Kent Hovind's completely bogus solar-mass-loss claim. But just what the hell is stellar evolution supposed to have to do with biological evolution? They are two completely different things. Don't you know anything? The word "evolution" first appeared around 1610, more than two centuries before Darwin! It means "turning out" and is commonly used to refer to the development of something over time. Virtually all uses of the term have nothing to do with each other. The US Navy uses evolution all the time and could not possibly function without it -- every Navy evolution has the crew or part of the crew turn out in an organized manner to accomplish a task. You have been deceived by a common creationist deception which seeks to generate confusion about what evolution means by conflating biological evolution with all other uses of the word, "evolution". And you are most certainly confused. The creationists are taking you for a fool and you are letting them do it.
Can you explain biological evolution? Yes we can! I know that you cannot, but you could learn if you would only stop fighting so desperately to remain abysmally ignorant! We keep trying to explain it to you, but you keep shutting your eyes tightly and cramming your fingers into your ears and shouting "la la la" as loudly as you can in order to keep from learning anything. If your creationist position were really as strong as you pretend it is, then why can it only defend itself by keeping its followers ignorant? Why are you so completely incapable of supporting or discussing any of your claims? Could it be because they don't want you to know what's really behind those claims? Could it be because as soon as you start to learn the truth then you will start to see the lies in "creation science"? I've been studying "creation science" and this issue since 1981. I have seen many creationists abandon creationism as they learned how full of lies it is. A large number of them left Christianity as well, since any religion that must be supported by lies and deception has to be a false religion. As I understand, many of this forum's members are former creationists who finally learned the truth. You should learn from them.
Can you explain chemical evolution? Meaning what? Do you even have any clue what you're blathering about? From the Wikipedia disambiguation page:
quote: You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You're just throwing out random words that have no meaning. Time for an impromptu Greek lesson. There are at least two verbs for making vocal utterances:
All you are posting falls under λαλαω. It's pure nonsense.
If you can't, then you must either admit there is a creator, or that you have faith they happened on the own. What the hell is that supposed to have to do with anything? Yet again, there is no conflict between biological evolution and a Creator. Anybody who knows anything about the subject and has given it any thought should see that with no problem. Why would you think otherwise? THAT IS NOT A RHETORIC QUESTION! I EXPECT A MEANINGFUL ANSWER! Oh yeah, because you are being played for a fool by the creationists and their lies and deceptions. One of their lies is that science attacks religion and is trying to disprove God. That is absolute nonsense. Even if science wanted to disprove God (which it does not), it couldn't possibly disprove God. Guess who is able to disprove God. Creationists! Not because they are such dishonest liars and deceivers, but because of what they teach their followers. Think about it. What are you taught are the consequences of the earth actually being billions of years old? Here's John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR -- the creators of "creation science"):
quote:Having received my fundamentalist training from the Jesus Freak Movement in 1970, I have eyes to see and ears to hear (if your knowledge of the Gospels is as non-existent as your knowledge of science and of creationism, let us know so that we can try in vain to explain it to you). If Scripture is found to have no meaning (eg, if even one single error were to be found in it) then you are taught that your Bible would be absolutely worthless and should be thrown in the trash followed by you becoming a hedonistic atheist -- sadly, I've had far too many creationists vehemently insist on exactly that. And sure enough, the earth really is much older that 10,000 years, more like 3.5 billion (109) years old. So John Morris taught his followers that an old earth would invalidate Scripture and, by logical extension, Christianity and God, his followers believed him, the earth does actually turn out to be very old, therefore that disproves God. QED. Leading creationists also teach you the falsehood that if evolution is true then Christianity is false and God does not exist (or at least is a false god unworthy of worship). Well, evolution is true -- by which I mean actual biological evolution and other actual sciences, not the strawman misrepresentative lies that creationists have deceived you with. Therefore, as you were taught, you conclude that God does not exist. QED. Of course, creationism's disproofs of God are based on false premises and depend on you accepting those false premises. And since you do accept those false premises, then for you God is disproven. That you would be so eager to commit spiritual suicide for the stupidest of reasons makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to us normals. What is wrong with you people? Add to that creationist sources declaring that if evolution
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
And yet again you ducked and dodged and avoided answering my question. Your typical creationist dishonesty keeps coming out. Why do you believe that God must be served with dishonesty, lies, and deception?
You claimed that "evolutionists" believe in such things as "a dog producing a cat; a cow producing a raccoon; or, an [non-human] ape producing a human" or "bobcats producing pigs." We have all explained to you that that is a utter false accusation. The only people who believe such a stupid thing are creationists, including you yourself. My question, which you avoid answering like the plague, is why you would make such a stupid and utterly false accusation! In particular, I want to know what kind of reasoning went into creating such a stupid claim (that would include a detailed description of how you think evolution is supposed to work).
Answer the question! You also claim that evolution requires such events as "a dog producing a cat; a cow producing a raccoon; or, an [non-human] ape producing a human" or "bobcats producing pigs." That is not only completely and utterly false, but it is the exact opposite of what evolution would have us expect -- as we have explained to you repeatedly! My question, which you avoid answering like the plague, is why you would have such a stupid and utterly false expectation of evolution! In particular, I want to know exactly what your misunderstanding of evolution is that would lead you to such a stupid idea (that would include a detailed description of how you think evolution is supposed to work). So cut the crap already and answer the damned question! Everybody on this forum is responsible for the claims that they post. That means that they are responsible explaining, supporting, and defending the claims that they make. You are no exception. When you make a claim here, you are responsible to answering questions about those claims, including explaining, supporting, and defending them. If you are so abjectly ignorant of your own claims that you are completely incapable of explaining, supporting, or defending them, then do not post them! Ignorance of your own claims is not an excuse.
In typical dishonest creationist manner, you have persistently dodge your responsibility and you are receiving our contempt which you so richly deserve. So far, you have been little more than a troll. Only you can change that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
[In reply to candle2:] So far your arguments are as dangerous as taking a toy rubber hatchet into an axe fight, one painted red to look like blood rather than the real thing. I quote Dr. Jonathan Sarfati of Answers in Genesis (AiG) issuing the same warning to creationists who are being misled by false creationist claims. Just in case it needs to be pointed out, Dr. Sarfati is a professional young-earth creationist. And here, he agrees with what I've been telling YECs for decades. In 2002, AiG published their first "please don't use these bogus claims" article. Apparently since that list included bogus claims that he would use routinely, Kent Hovind replied with a hostile response. On 02 December 2002, Dr. Sarfati replied in AiG Negative Feedback:
quote: I also quote Dr. Don Batten of AiG, another young-earth creationist, from his article, What About Carl Baugh?, about the false claims of professional YEC Carl Baugh and their detrimental effects:
quote: I should point out that Dr. Batten's essay is not posted on AiG's site, but rather by Glen Kuban who is well known for his debunking of Baugh's bogus "human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints" claims. Kuban's story is that originally AiG's website was shared with another evangelical organization which did not allow them to post Batten's essay -- though I don't quite remember whether I got the story from Kuban or from AiG itself. I authenticated Dr. Batten's essay and that it is what Dr. Batten had actually written. I did so independently of Glen Kuban. I got AiG's webmaster's email address from the AiG website and sent him an email with links to the essay and asking whether it was authentic. The AiG webmaster verified that the essay was indeed authentic. And then there's Steve Rauch. In the 1990's, an evangelical Christian PhD candidate in Physical Geology ran a very active Christianity/science discussion web ring through conservative Christian Calvin College. Being an honest Christian, he was very highly critical of YEC. I still have some excellent essays he had written, but since then he graduated and started a career in education and a family, so he no longer wants to be involved in the creation/evolution discourse, having far better things to do with his time. I requested permission to repost his essays and he declined. I am also withholding his name in order to protect his privacy. From that web ring I got a quote from an ex-creationist, Steve Rauch:
quote: Will candle2 read any of what even professional creationists know about his false claims? I very much doubt it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
You haven't asked any questions, except maybe how does evolution work. That is a damned lie! Which makes you a damned liar! I very specifically asked what you based your utterly stupid claims of "a dog producing a cat; a cow producing a raccoon; or, an [non-human] ape producing a human" or "bobcats producing pigs." on. And you dare to lie to our faces about that? You damned liar! Here it is yet again, this time from the message that you just avoided responding to:
DWise1 writes: You claimed that "evolutionists" believe in such things as "a dog producing a cat; a cow producing a raccoon; or, an [non-human] ape producing a human" or "bobcats producing pigs." We have all explained to you that that is a utter false accusation. The only people who believe such a stupid thing are creationists, including you yourself. My question, which you avoid answering like the plague, is why you would make such a stupid and utterly false accusation! In particular, I want to know what kind of reasoning went into creating such a stupid claim (that would include a detailed description of how you think evolution is supposed to work).
Answer the question! You also claim that evolution requires such events as "a dog producing a cat; a cow producing a raccoon; or, an [non-human] ape producing a human" or "bobcats producing pigs." That is not only completely and utterly false, but it is the exact opposite of what evolution would have us expect -- as we have explained to you repeatedly! My question, which you avoid answering like the plague, is why you would have such a stupid and utterly false expectation of evolution! In particular, I want to know exactly what your misunderstanding of evolution is that would lead you to such a stupid idea (that would include a detailed description of how you think evolution is supposed to work). So cut the crap already and answer the damned question! So cut your stupid lying crap! Answer the question, you damned liar!
{ blathering nonsensical creationist crap, none of which candle2 understands. This is an attempt at a Gish Gallop, bombarding the opponent with such a large number of specious claims as to overwhelm him.That works well in creationist debate formats where the opponent is given only 10 or 20 minutes where he would need hours to respond effectively. Gish Gallops work less well in written formats like this, so creationists in their infinite dishonesty resort to overloading opponents with "impossible questions", questions which we are still researching and for which one needs extensive specialized advanced education to be able to respond to. Furthermore, the creationist demands absolutely complete knowledge or other impossible demands, such as we witness candle2 doing here. And even then after the opponent has spent considerable time and effort in responding, the creationist won't even read it but rather will either dismiss it outright or else throw even more "impossible questions" at his opponent.In contrast, the questions that the creationist's opponent will ask are quite reasonable and very answerable. Questions such as, "What do you mean by that?" or "Please explain how you arrived at that conclusion." Faced with such reasonable and easy-to-answer questions, the hypocritical creationist flees in terror, either by disappearing altogether or by throwing yet another ton of "unanswerable questions" at his opponent. So by using that thoroughly dishonest trickery, candle2 demonstrates yet again what a dishonest hypocritical POS he is. And since his religion must be supported by nothing but lies and deception, he demonstates yet again how completely and utter false his religion is. And since his god must be served with lies and deception, he has demonstrated yet again that his god is the Lord of Lies. The irony here is that he is also so ignorant of Christian doctrine that he very likely does not even realize who the Lord of Lies is. } I am so excited, much like a kid in a candy shop, waiting for proof that evolutionists have. No, you're not. You're just lying yet again, you lying POS.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
You posted about how certain processes have shaped biological, chemical, and cosmic evolution. But, they are mere guesses and nothing more. They are to be taken with a grain of salt. Funny thing about knowledge. When you study something, you can actually learn a lot about it. But you personally (and your fellow creationists) don't bother to study anything in order to carefully guard your own precious pig ignorance and laugh derisively at those who actually study (and so actually know what they are talking about), then you are nothing more than ignorance fools whose foolish utterances only deserve contempt and embarrassed pity. Yes, the New Testament does teach that Christians (I'm sure you've heard something about those guys) will be called fools because of their beliefs -- part of the Jesus Freak Movement (1970) was a clown ministry called "Fools for Christ". But what that was not talking about misguided idiots like you who make fools of themselves for no good reason and in doing so bring disrepute upon Christianity and the Christ. To quote St. Augustine on that very matter (De Genese ad litteram):
quote: And to quote an evangelical Christian and a creationist, then also a Ph.D. candidate in geology (now a PhD Geology), who believes that the earth is approximately 4,600,000,000 years old, and has taught evolution in historical geology courses (and is thoroughly disgusted by YEC nonsense and their having usurped the title of "creationist" from proper creationists):
quote:
Bottom Line: If you have taken the time and trouble to actually study a subject and learn something about it, then what you have to say should have some merit. If you have not bothered to even look into a subject and still blather and pontificate about it in complete pig ignorance, then what you say has no merit at all. candle2, caster of Darkness, what you say not only has no merit at all, but it has even less than no merit.
You mentioned that the world and universe are more than 10,000 years old. I don't know how old the Earth is, but the Bible teaches that it is more than 6000 years old. For context, here is what I had said in Message 1377 to which candle2 is "replying" here:
DWise1 writes: Guess who is able to disprove God. Creationists! Not because they are such dishonest liars and deceivers, but because of what they teach their followers. Think about it. What are you taught are the consequences of the earth actually being billions of years old? Here's John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR -- the creators of "creation science"):
quote:Having received my fundamentalist training from the Jesus Freak Movement in 1970, I have eyes to see and ears to hear (if your knowledge of the Gospels is as non-existent as your knowledge of science and of creationism, let us know so that we can try in vain to explain it to you). If Scripture is found to have no meaning (eg, if even one single error were to be found in it) then you are taught that your Bible would be absolutely worthless and should be thrown in the trash followed by you becoming a hedonistic atheist -- sadly, I've had far too many creationists vehemently insist on exactly that. And sure enough, the earth really is much older that 10,000 years, more like 3.5 billion (109) years old. So John Morris taught his followers that an old earth would invalidate Scripture and, by logical extension, Christianity and God, his followers believed him, the earth does actually turn out to be very old, therefore that disproves God. QED. Leading creationists also teach you the falsehood that if evolution is true then Christianity is false and God does not exist (or at least is a false god unworthy of worship). Well, evolution is true -- by which I mean actual biological evolution and other actual sciences, not the strawman misrepresentative lies that creationists have deceived you with. Therefore, as you were taught, you conclude that God does not exist. QED. Interesting. While I was talking about how it is the creationists who succeed in disproving God, candle2 completely avoids that inconvenient truth. He also commits a direct and deliberate lie about the Bible! Saying:
candle2 writes: ... the Bible teaches that it is more than 6000 years old. It does not do any such thing. RAZD has already challenged that demonstrably false claim in Message 1389, to which I am quite certain candle2 will never reply. Instead, many people have tried to use the Bible to figure out the age of the earth. The chronology of Bishop James Ussher (1581 — 1656) is the best known example which placed Creation at around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC, so about 6,000 years old. The Hebrew calendar comes up with a very similar year count. YECs believe in that 6000-year age. For example, in Wendell Bird's article in the December 1978 issue of the Institute for Creation Research's (ICR) newsletter, Acts & Facts, Bird presented the Creation Model, which creationists are infamous for refusing to present to the public (especially during a creationist debate). In it he writes:
quote:I present that information on my The Creation Model page. So YEC requires an age of 6,000 years. However, using that value would expose their fundamental deception that their opposition to evolution has nothing to do with religion (complete and utter lie!), so they routinely round it up to 10,000 years instead. In the quote that I provided, John Morris of the ICR used that 10,000 year value.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
dad writes: you assume trees grew in this nature (therefore slowly as today and that the rings represent yearly patterns) and you assume that isotope ratios were formed in this nature exclusively. Sorry for this imposition, but this cry is going out to every forum member with any experience in dentrochronology. IOW, what all this stuff about tree rings is about. OK, so just what exactly are tree rings about? What do they show, exactly? As far as I can assume, each ring denotes the passage of one year. OK, so what would we expect to see if multiples of years were to be compressed into a single year? Is dad able to explain that away?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Not quite what I was asking about.
My basic question was regarding what evidence we would expect under the conditions that dad wanted to impose upon us. Such as expansive growth spurts within a single growth season. Would those express themselves as multiple rings or rather instead as extra-wide xylum rings. I would assume extra-wide xylum rings instead of multiple rings. Spurts of growth, what? dad wants to impose a particular model upon us. Shouldn't we apply that particular model in order to see what it yields? IOW, complete and utter BS!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
I have no doubt that "dad" will never return. He has done his "religious duty", misguided though it may be. Here it is encapsulated:
quote: So then he came, he didn't quite see, he pissed everybody off, and he walked away feeling completely vindicated because everybody hates him. But wait, nobody hates him simply because he's a "Jesus Freak" (and everybody who hates damned fool religious nuts for being the totally hateful pieces of slime that they truly are), but rather because he truly and simply is such a totally hateful piece of slime. But there is room for improvement. Will "dad" seek it? Sorry, not likely. But then that is the great pleasure of the pessimist:
Are we going to be smugly correct? Or are we going to be very pleasantly surprised? Edited by dwise1, : extraneous last line replaced
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
I think that I get the concept of "The Tribe" but feel that my definition is limited to Christians who claim to have been "Born Again". Thus jar is not a tribal member unless he too is a missionary and quite good at being a stealth operative--he ranks evidence ahead of belief, which hinders his ability to accept the Spirit...in fact he continually asks what "Accepting Jesus" or "Feeling The Spirit" or "Being In Communion with The Spirit even mean. Tribal members never ask such questions. Also regarding our suspended member Faith, I hesitantly even included her in The Tribe due to the fact that she was not an effective missionary. But then again, I have many hangups I need to correct in myself, so I will at this point shut up. Except you are applying it far too liberally. It's not just one single "Christian Tribe", nor one single "'born again' Christian Tribe", nor one single "fundamentalist Christian Tribe." Instead of "Tribes", why not just call them "Legion" because they are so many? Many whom you would assume would be in the same "tribe" as you aren't. That is because Christian sects (especially on the Protestant branch of that religion's evolution) repeatedly and almost continually splinter off into new branches over the most minor of petty disagreements. Eg, Ed Babinski's 1986 cartoon on this point:
A young woman in my Country Two-Step class (whenever that can come back) is a fundamentalist Christian, but she and members of her small sect hate it when we confuse them with those people. In fact, even though outside observers cannot distinguish their sect from dozens of other such sects, the members of each sect believe that the others are all apostates who spread false teachings and hence are not saved. A joke that I posted at Message 948 illustrates that:
quote: So the chances of two random "born again" (or any other kind of "true") Christians being in the same "Tribe" are extremely small. Even though a great many such "Tribes" will have nearly identical characteristics and engage in nearly identical tactics. But that still does not make them the "same Tribe", especially among themselves between the different "Tribes". My point to "dad" in Message 1441 was that he is obviously engaging in that kind of tactic, which is not meant to convince anybody except himself. And part of what he is trying to convince himself about is the pernicious myth of "us poor persecuted Christians", which is a martyr complex that leads them to engage in hostile social misconduct that inevitably generates hostile reactions thus making their "persecution" a self-fulfilling prophesy (and to add insult to injury, they then accuse us of actually hating God instead of them -- no, we hate them personally because they are personally so hateful and insist on acting hatefully). We've all seen "dad" doing that. Besides refusing to engage in discussion, he became increasing defiant with the moderators, basically daring them to persecute him through censorship. So why was he here if not for the reasons given in that essay I quoted? And if he had other -- possibly even legitimate -- reasons for being here, why has he disappeared? Obviously, he had gotten what he came for, yet another feeding of his "Christian martyrdom fantasy syndrome."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
mike the wiz writes:
Should this "right" to decide be limited to the subject or evolution, or shall we expand it to all sciences? Should people have the "right" to reject heliocentrism? Quantum physics? Decide to accept (or believe) the Phlogiston "theory"? People should be given the right to decide for themselves if all of these marvels could create themselves, as a whole, rather than the invocation of the evolutions. I see no problem in telling the student all of the facts, and letting them decide for themselves. Obviously, people can decide to believe whatever they want to, even complete and utter nonsensical lies. They do have that right. Even students in science class. But that has nothing to do with the purpose of science education; from From the Science Framework for California Public Schools Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve, 1990, , Anti-Dogmatism Statement (my emphasis added):
quote: and later in the same framework document:
quote: To illustrate that point, I have often pointed out that when I was in the US Air Force during the Cold War we were given classes in Marxism and Communism where were obviously not for the purpose of compelling us to become Marxists or Communists, but rather for us to know more about the enemy. Promote understand, not compel belief. Mike's confusion seems typical of creationists because the primary purpose of Christian education is indoctrination which requires that the students believe in what they are being taught, which is completely different from the purpose of public school education as stated above. And indeed, in every instance of a "balanced treatment" creationist class that I've heard of, the creationist materials would pressure the students to choose between their "unnamed Creator (nudge-nudge-wink-wink)" and "atheistic evolution", which would usually be reinforced by the creationist teacher. Flagrant use of the public schools to proselytize.
And how would you organize education if half of the class adopts a wide range of "theories"? In my own public school experience, especially in science classes, old theories would routinely be presented first in order to provide historical background for the development of the current theories, including heliocentrism, phlogiston, and flat-earthism (often including the misconception that that's what everybody thought at the time, though some did include how Eratosthenes accurately measured the circumference of the spherical earth circa 200 BCE). Regardless of what the students want to believe or reject, they would still be held responsible for understanding the ideas and theories that they choose to reject. Because -- yet again -- the goal is that they understand the subject matter regardless of what they believe. However, a "balanced treatment" type of class could provide an ideal opportunity to refute nonsense like "creation science", so such a class would provide the perfect opportunity to present those teachings and demonstrate exactly why they are false. Of course, that is not at all the outcome that creationists want, but if you're going to have to conduct a two-model class, then you may as well do it right! And part of that would be to do what no self-aware creationist would ever do: actually present the "creation model" and allow it to be examined. Remember, all that creationism does is to misrepresent evolution and other parts of science and then attack those misrepresentations, but never will they ever present their "creation model" nor, when their critics present it for them, will they ever discuss, support, or defend it. One well-known true two-model class was taught by two professors at San Diego State University, Roger Awbrey and William Thwaites -- the campus bookstore used to sell copies of the class notes, but I don't know whether they still do. I am not certain of the precise dates, but the class was conducted during the 1980's and around or after 1990 the university cancelled the course under immense pressure from campus Christian clubs protesting against the class. And why did they hate that class so vehemently? Because it gave equal time to creationism and allowed the students to learn what creationism actually taught, what science taught, and what the evidence actually shows. I think that they also took a poll of the students' positions at the beginning and at the end of the course and creationism lost ground every time. At the time, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) was still in El Cajon, about 20-30 miles away from the campus. Not only was the ICR the foremost creationist organization at the time such that to know anything about creationist claims you needed to turn to the ICR (and they were the stars of the creation debate circuit), but they were the founders of "creation science" and Dr. Henry Morris was "The Father of Flood Geology". They were the pros from Dover. And they provided the creationism lectures in the Awbrey and Thwaites' course. So, basically the class was divided with half the lectures being presented by guest speakers from the ICR (including Henry Morris and Duane Gish (M&D), the real stars) and half the lectures by Awbrey and Thwaites (A&T). As I recall from reading (I could be wrong on the order), the ICR would present their lecture on a particular topic and A&T would participate in the Q&A. Then in the next lecture, A&T would present the actual science behind that topic. Or maybe it would be the other way around, but either way the creationist claims would be open for examination, especially against the actual science and the actual evidence. That provided the students with all the information so that they could make an informed decision. And that is why the campus Christians hated that class so much: it exposed the facts about creationism that creationists depend on keeping secret to that they can deceive their victims into converting. Over the decades, I've used a few of the notes in discussion. Such as their list of distinguishing characteristics of birds and coelosaur dinosaurs and showing that Archaeopteryx' characteristics is a mixture of purely coelosaur characteristics, purely avian characteristics, and a number of characteristics that are intermediate between coelosaurs and birds. Also in response to probability arguments that assume that every single amino acid in a protein must be specified, I've used their notes showing that only a small number of loci must have a specific amino acid, some others can have any of a particular type of amino acid, and many other loci can have any amino acid. The class is also where a common claim by Duane Gish was soundly refuted in public. The creationist claim about the bombadier beetle is that the chemicals it uses explode spontaneously when mixed together, so it needs another chemical to inhibit that and then another to ignite it when needed -- claim's bottom line is that such a set-up could never evolve since all beetles would have exploded before evolving the inhibitor. A&T demonstrated that that claim was false by mixing them together and no explosion. Gish stuttered and stammered something about a mistranslation, but for years thereafter that claim remained in common use even by Gish (who later finally made some vague "corrections" while retaining the original claim). So, if a class makes appropriate use of presenting "competing theories" to show what those "competing theories" actually are about and why they are wrong, then that could be worthwhile. Unfortunately, there's usually not enough class time to devote to actual science, so the students will suffer from time wasted on "competing theories". Also, too many science teachers would not be qualified to do a proper job of using such training opportunities (eg, one of my younger son's science teachers was the home economics teacher performing a collateral duty).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Kleinman writes:
It's very simple. Mutations are random events and you compute the joint probability of two mutations occurring using the multiplication rule. And it doesn't matter whether the mutations are beneficial, neutral, or beneficial. You should have learned this in your introductory probability theory class. The biggest blunder that biologists make in their understanding of evolution is the effect of the multiplication rule of probabilities.PaulK writes: Please explain this alleged blunder - because I believe that the error is yours. We did learn it in our probability classes. What we're not sure of is whether you had learned it. Or whether you have any understanding of how it would apply in biology. Of course, that begs the question of whether your vague "multiplication rule" (which you repeatedly invoke by name, but which I have not seen you explain) is the same thing that we had learned. Your insistence on applying it in cases where what we had learned is not appropriate makes us wonder whether you know what you are talking about. So explain please what you are talking about. And, yes, I do realize that in doing so you would be violating the Cardinal Rule of Creationists. But if you are ever possibly going to have any kind of credence, then you must violate that Cardinal Rule. So explain what your "multiplication rule of probabilities" is, what situations it applies to, and how it would apply to the case of the probability of a particular mutation appearing in a population of asexual organisms wherein all you need is for one single individual to get it. For that last point, consider this analogous problem. Since writers often describe getting a particular beneficial mutation with the metaphor of "winning the lottery", consider the probabilities of winning the lottery. We can easily calculate the probability of a single individual attempt winning the lottery and we would use what we were taught to be the multiplication rule. But what about the situation of at least one player out of millions of players winning? Just how would the multiplication rule apply there?
ABE:For the lottery problem, here are a couple realistic numbers to work with:
The probability of winning this real-life lottery is 1 in 41,417,353 (ie, p = 2.4144469106946549674480645829781e-8) Number of attempts to win: 39,144,818(based on the population of California, which is reasonable since most players will buy more than one ticket, plus some games are multi-state) Edited by dwise1, : Changed "to biology" to "in biology"Labeled "winning the lottery" as a metaphor Edited by dwise1, : ABE with some numbers to work with
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Just because Kleinman has a PhD in Mechanical Engineering and is an MD and is licensed in both! Neither of which is evidence of his expertise in science, but rather increase the likelihood that he is hostile towards science in general and evolution in particular. Refer to one of the standard creationist list (or any of the many variations derived from it) of "scientists who are creationists". While there are a small number of creationists with doctorates in an actual science, most of them are engineers -- there are also a number of "scientists" with doctorates in theology, bible studies, religion, or religious education (eg, Kent Hovind, though his PhD is bogus) or in other unrelated fields such as "food science" (which turns out to be a valid area of study, but is still not relevant). I'm a retired software engineer, but I spent most of my career working alongside engineers in more rigorous fields plus I took some EE courses at university (for fun and in order to round out my technician training). I repeatedly encountered negative attitudes towards scientists and the practice of science. In university department newletters, I would see several jokes in which scientists, mathematicians, and engineers would tell "Polish jokes" about the other fields (see one below). In one EE lecture in particular, we were taught about the delta function which you would use to slam a system (a linear circuit, in our case) with an instantaneous pulse of infinite amplitude in order to analyze its response -- the pulse has an area under the curve (ie, its integral) of 1, such that as you shrink its Δt to zero, its amplitude increases towards infinity. Our professor, a practicing EE, was very proud of that delta function. As he told it, it was engineers (MEs most likely) who came up with it and used it with great success, but it took those stupid mathematicians 100 years to figure out why it worked. And the professor stood there gloating over the superiority of engineers over mathematicians. And that's a lot of the attitude I would see from engineers in my 35-year career. MDs are only a little bit better than engineers, but having not worked closely with them I don't have many examples. I have noticed that "biological scientists who are creationists" tend to be MDs. An infamous example of an anti-evolution MD was Michael Denton who wrote a book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis -- that book led to him becoming part of the Discovery Institute. What he learned from conversations after he published that book was that he knew a helluva lot less about evolution than he had thought he did. He is quoted as saying that if he were to write that book again, it would be completely different, but he had no intention of ever rewriting to correct it. One of his mistaken ideas in particular involved protein comparisons. He applied Ladder of Life reasoning (basically that each "previous stage" had stopped evolving once the daughter species had arisen) and declared that protein comparisons do not support evolution -- of course not, when you have the entirely wrong idea about evolution. Then he tried grouping the organisms in a nested clade manner and suddenly everything fit to a T, but he stuck with his Ladder of Life false view. He presented those nested clades in Venn diagram form, but an article translated that to a phylogenetic tree format, exactly what we see all the time. I have presented that several times, most recently at Message 210 in What would a transitional fossil look like? . Just because Kleinman is an engineer and an MD (assuming he's telling the truth about that -- he is a creationist, after all) doesn't mean that he knows anything about evolution. This is a joke that a math professor told us in order to make fun of those stupid engineers. The topic we were covering was inductive reasoning in which you make a series of observations (AKA steps) in order to find a general rule or pattern, whereupon you "take the inductive step" of stating that general rule. Related here from memory (from about 30 years ago):
There was an engineer who used inductive reasoning to prove that all odd numbers are prime. He tested all the odd numbers up to 13 and found them all to be prime, so he then took the inductive step that all odd numbers are prime. Welll ... 9 is not prime, but statistically speaking in a sampling of that size you would expect at least one bad data point, so he just threw that one out.
We had some foreign students in the class -- Chinese, I think -- who take their studies very seriously and for good reason. They were taking notes throughout the joke, not realizing that it was a joke, and they ended up sitting there completely bewildered.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024