|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Alas, poor Ohio .... EvC related news | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Well thats easy. I just look around; nothing seems very designed. If you claim that these things ARE designed, it is for YOU to demonstrate that this is true.
quote: I don't need a designer until such time as I have a design that needs to be explained. Have you got one?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I wonder whether you will attempt to supply me with the evidence We're not yet at the point where you know how to assess scientific evidence in regards to theory; so providing the evidence at this point would be fruitless. Pearls before swine, if you will. At such point as you've proven yourself ameinable to honest debate and possessing of an open and rational mind, the evidence will be forthcoming. But you're asking us to set forth a banquet when you've made it abundantly clear you're not hungry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Projection.
quote: Sorry, perhaps you have a different definition of what an "answer" is, than me. I was asking for specific positive evidence for intelligent design is specific structures or systems, and how it is you know that any naturalistic explanations are incorrect, or if none are known, will never be known. See, those two conditions are necessary for anyone to reasonably claim that something is intelligently designed. Otherwise, you are just ignoring the scientific method and believing what you want to on faith. ...which is fine, of course, but it isn't rational nor scientific, and nor does it promote our understanding of nature. In fact, it shuts down inquiry altogether.
quote: We cannot prove a negative. You must provide positive evidence for your claims if you want anyone to take them seriously as science. If you just want to belive on faith, then I have no argument with you.
quote: We cannot prove a negative. Scientific ideas are supported by positive evidence. I have never said that an Intelligent Designer cannot possibly exist. All I am asking for is POSITIVE EVIDENCE showing that the "IDer Didit" is a better explanation for observations of natural phenomena that adds to our understanding of how the natural world works. I am also asking for an explanation of how it is you know that there isn't and could never be a naturalistic explanation for the systems and phenomena you have determined to be Intelligently Designed.
quote: No, not evidence for the Designer. I want evidence for the Intelligent Design.
quote: We cannot prove a negative. So far, since I have never seen any sound positive evidence of Intelligent Design, there is no reason to believe it is the source of design in nature.
quote: Nice try, but it won't wash. All we want is positive evidence for your positive claim. If you would like to take things on faith, then I have no argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
Why did I know your post would be as it was? Because far to many evolutionists are capable of asking question after question but seem remarkably incapable of answering them so let me phrase the question in a different manner. What scientically confirming evidence are you aware of that any entity, including those that you recognize as being a pattern, design, or intelligent design was so constructed by natural means alone. That is a fairly simple question, one any well educated evolutionist should be able to answer in a purely scientific manner. I await your answer with great anticipation. If scientific evidence is capable of confirming this, then logic dictates that science will also be able to confirm that these same entities were so constructed without any reliance on an external source of power or intelligence, and were reliant on nothing which is contrary to nature in the development of their own genetic information which was necessary for the construction of any pattern, design, or intelligent design which said entity may responsible for, and that said genetic information was derived by purely natural means alone, absent any reliance upon an outside source of power or intelligence, whether it be a known or an unknown. Cheers BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4368 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
I am Canadian and yet understanding the creation/evolution in the classroom problem I have a solution. (well somebody gotta)
To my fellow creationists and patriotic evolutionists this whole discussion has missed the great point.If the classroom is teaching that evolution and related subjects is true then it is at the same time teaching the Christian doctrine about origins is not true. If the classroom can teach Christianity or any religion is not true then there can not be opposition to teaching and defending Christianity as true in the area of origins or any other on the justification of Church/State. The classroom is either neutral or teaches one is right and one is wrong. Therefore the classroom has broken the Church/State barrior. Theefore creationism can not be prohibited while evolution is being taught. I can't see where my reasoning is wrong on this therefore the issue should be resolved in favor of creationism. In short GOT'IM. RegardsRobert Byers Toronto, Ontario
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Evolution and science belong in the science classes.
Creation myths belong in Religious Studies or Sacred Studies. There is no conflict as long as mythology is kept out of Science Classes. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
If the classroom is teaching that evolution and related subjects is true then it is at the same time teaching the Christian doctrine about origins is not true.
Well, ya see, the science classrooms don't teach that the Christian orgins doctrine is not true. It seems that a minority of Christians have an interpretation of parts of the Bible that is contrary to our current understanding of the origin of the Earth and the diversity of life on it. We are not about to start teaching a minority position of only one of the religions that are held to in the over all population are we? Since the various religions don't agree on origin issues teaching any one would be teaching the others as wrong. That we can't do since that would be favouring one of them. So how do we decide what to teach? We go with the evidence. We go with that which people of many different religions all agree on. That is what is taught in the science class. It is unfortunate that a few religiousists insist that if some physical details of the natural world contradict some of their ideas then the whole religion is wrong. There are a number of people here that had their faith damaged or destroyed by such an odd theology. It is not a problem for the 40 % of scientists who are also believers. It is not a problem for the majority of the religious. It is your problem. (added by edit)There are a few theads in the Education forum that you might want to read and add to. You will note that some of us (me ) would love to see enough time available to teach the details of creationism in the classroom. It would be ripped to pieces. You may forget that it was researchers who believed in a literal genesis that found the data that forced them to drop that idea. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-28-2004 04:40 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What scientically confirming evidence are you aware of that any entity, including those that you recognize as being a pattern, design, or intelligent design was so constructed by natural means alone. There are no other known processes that can account for the construction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If the classroom is teaching that evolution and related subjects is true then it is at the same time teaching the Christian doctrine about origins is not true. Creationism is hardly "the Christian doctrine about origins." For instance, the Catholic doctrine about origins is "the scientific theory of evolution is an accurate explanation of the development of species on Earth, and of man's physical form."
I can't see where my reasoning is wrong on this therefore the issue should be resolved in favor of creationism. What about all the religions that Creationism contradicts? Doesn't it violate their rights about separation? I know a religion that says that meat is bad. If the cafeteria serves meat - even if I abstain - isn't it saying that meat is not bad, and contradicting my religion? We'd better get rid of schools altogether to be safe. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-29-2004 02:41 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
what crash said
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4368 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Thanks all to my equation as to why Creationism can not be prohibited in the classroom and in the future won't be.
No one took on my equation; my arguement and so I claim victory. You'all beat around the bush (and up here in Canada we know all about the bush). Nosyned said the classroom dosen't teach creationist/christian doctrine of origins is wrong. Oh yes they do by teaching somthing else is true. And then prohibiting a rebuttal. I'm new to this forume but I accept the victory ribbon. On to the other conversations of EVCFORUM. All the best
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Nosyned said the classroom dosen't teach creationist/christian doctrine of origins is wrong. Oh yes they do by teaching somthing else is true. And then prohibiting a rebuttal.
That is NOT what I said. I said they don't attach the Christian doctrine of the majority of Christians. Of course, they teach that the creationist view is wrong. There is no choice. It is wrong but that is the fault of the creationists. I can't believe that you could type approximately correct English and still not be able to read what I wrote.
No one took on my equation; my arguement and so I claim victory. What "equation"? You said that we if we teach that creationism or any religion isn't true then we must also offer some time to teach that it is true. That seems to be the whole of your arguement, right? You have then had a bunch of post that deal directly with your so-called "equation". Now you declare victory without commenting on any of those posts?? I'm afraid Robert that you'd better slow down. You're not going to do well in the real tough science fora with that degree of logical capability. Prohibbiting rebuttal? Please go to the appropriate threads and supply the scientific rebuttal that you think should be allowed. I recommend Dates and Dateing, the Fossil sorting one and whatever others you think you have expertise in. There is no scientific rebuttal available unfortunately for you. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-29-2004 04:01 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Oh. Is that what he said? So anytime we teach that anything is incorrect, we also have to spend time teaching that it is correct?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Evolution contradicts the man made theory of The Inerrancy of a Literal Reading of Genesis. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Genesis is a true and literal representation of the creation of the earth. In fact, given the language and comparisons to other creation stories within Babylon during the penning of Genesis, it could be argued that the original Jews didn't take it literally either. Secondly, the science that is taught in the classroom should accurately portray the evidence that god included in his creation. In other words, science shouldn't be contradicted by reality, which most of "creation science" is. Being that the theory of an inerrant literal reading of Genesis is a man made theory, shouldn't we rely on what god left. After all, man wrote the bible but god wrote the rocks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
No one took on my equation; my arguement and so I claim victory. No, I did. I showed how it would necessitate the closure of all schools. Moreover the "Christian doctrine of origins", if there is such a thing, is not contradicted by the theory of evolution. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-29-2004 05:53 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024