Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is needed for creationists to connect evidence to valid conclusions
TheDarin
Member (Idle past 5689 days)
Posts: 50
Joined: 01-04-2008


Message 76 of 147 (446806)
01-07-2008 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by nwr
01-04-2008 4:35 PM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
They are being told deliberate lies about science and scientists. They are being taught a strawman version of evolution, so that evolution can be ridiculed. The leadership of the creationist cult seems to have found how to use this indoctrination as a form of mind control, to dissuade people from thinking for themselves and examining the science for themselves. I consider what they are doing to be dishonest, and clearly immoral. What they are doing is not the Christianity that I learned as a child.
EVO's are telling students deliberate lies about science and scientists. They are being taught a strawman version of ID, so that ID can be ridiculed. The Darwin cult seems to have found how to use this indoctrination as a form of mind control, to dissuade people from thinking for themselves and examining the origins of man for themselves. I consider what they are doing to be dishonest, and clearly immoral. What they are doing is not the science as it relates to the origin of man is preaching theory as fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by nwr, posted 01-04-2008 4:35 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 01-07-2008 10:11 AM TheDarin has not replied
 Message 78 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-07-2008 10:20 AM TheDarin has not replied
 Message 79 by nwr, posted 01-07-2008 10:22 AM TheDarin has not replied
 Message 80 by Granny Magda, posted 01-07-2008 11:19 AM TheDarin has replied
 Message 82 by sidelined, posted 01-07-2008 12:28 PM TheDarin has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 77 of 147 (446815)
01-07-2008 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by TheDarin
01-07-2008 9:41 AM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
The evidence that might lead you to conclude that you could substitute "ID" for "evolution" and still have a valid paragraph is completely lacking.
Also, you're ignoring the evidence of the truth of the original paragraph, such as that creationists do actually teach a strawman version of evolution. Your many misstatements concerning evolution and science just in this thread alone are clear evidence of this.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by TheDarin, posted 01-07-2008 9:41 AM TheDarin has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 78 of 147 (446817)
01-07-2008 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by TheDarin
01-07-2008 9:41 AM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
so inform us of the real ID that isn't ridiculous. please. give us a real model and real science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by TheDarin, posted 01-07-2008 9:41 AM TheDarin has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 79 of 147 (446821)
01-07-2008 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by TheDarin
01-07-2008 9:41 AM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
EVO's are telling students deliberate lies about science and scientists.
Can you document that? If correct, then most of the scientists I know would sure want to do something about that.
They are being taught a strawman version of ID, so that ID can be ridiculed.
Then I wonder what is the real version of ID (if there is one).
I have certainly read some of Dembski's work. I have read Behe's 1996 book. The claims that this is science are being ridiculed because they are ridiculous.
The ID proponents had an opportunity to give their best account at the Dover trial. What they presented was ridiculous, and this shows up clearly in reports of the trial. Surely you are not suggesting that the ID proponents presented only a strawman version of their own ideas at the Dover trial?
The Darwin cult seems to have found how to use this indoctrination as a form of mind control, to dissuade people from thinking for themselves and examining the origins of man for themselves.
Sorry, but that makes no sense. If it were correct, it would be the kind of scandal that the news media love to cover. There would be a series of exposes on television news programs all over the nation.

Let's end the political smears

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by TheDarin, posted 01-07-2008 9:41 AM TheDarin has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 80 of 147 (446853)
01-07-2008 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by TheDarin
01-07-2008 9:41 AM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
Hi TheDarin,
TheDarin writes:
EVO's are telling students deliberate lies about science and scientists.
Perhaps you would like to back up this slander with some evidence? In Message 59 of your eyelid thread, you complain about other members being "mean" to you, but you seem more than happy to insult every pro-evolution biology teacher or lecturer on the planet, a category that includes people on this board. Please play nice.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by TheDarin, posted 01-07-2008 9:41 AM TheDarin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by TheDarin, posted 01-07-2008 12:43 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 81 of 147 (446871)
01-07-2008 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by TheDarin
01-07-2008 9:14 AM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
I like the way you communicate. Thanks. I like the running metaphor.
Thanks.
The thing is though. EVO, like it or not, is in the business of expertise on the issue or origins of man. It's like a pro-athlete looking into the camera and saying "I am not your hero - so don't look to me as one." When in fact, like it or not, he is a hero and a role model to MANY. In the same way, while you say you are only in this argument to discuss running(EVO), you are also the very group that holds the keys (very vocally I might add) to the opposing argument to ID.
EVO has taken on not only the case for "running:, but you have settled quite nicely into the role of subject matter experts on the topic of "where the race began" and "who/what pulled the trigger."
You didn't understand the metaphor. The problem is that many (mostly Creationists, but also others because unfortunately our educational system isn't so hot when it comes to teaching evolution) don't understand that the Theory of Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the origins of life itself, or cosmic origins, or the price of tea in China. The Theory of Evolution begins only once life exists, because it is a description of the natural processes of life itself. I know it can be confusing when you hear "the solar system evolved..." etc, but the word "evolution" has different contextual meanings, and the Theory of Evolution has a very specific definition and purpose that limits it to the description of the observed process of changes in life forms over generations.
When I say that studying the process of running has nothing to do with the starting point, I'm referring to the fact the the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with how life came to exist - whether that be abiogenesis, panspermia, aliens, or a deity. Evolution is the model of the process of changes over time in already existing life, and that's literally all it is.
Evolution doesn't exclude the existence of a deity (as you can see, we have quite a few theists who also accept Evolution right here on this site, including the actual site administrator), and neither does it say that one cannot exist. It just doesn't count the deity as relevant.
Think of it this way:
1+1=2, right?
1+1+x=2 is also true.
Why do we not use the x every time we discuss 1+1? Because it must be equal to 0, and is thus not relevant. The simplest expression is preferred - that being, the expression with the fewest terms.
Similarly, if we can model an observed process without adding a deity into the model, the deity is clearly irrelevant to that model. We don't talk about god, for example, when talking about how an internal combustion engine works - it's just not relevant.
If (the currently seen diversity in life) = (life) + (time) + (evolution),
and
(the currently seen diversity in life) = (life) + (time) + (evolution) + (god)
then (god) is not really relevant in this case. If you want to believe that the (life) portion requires god, that's fine - but since a deity is not required for Evolution to work, there's no reason to talk about one in the Theory.
Yes, the Theory of Evolution is inevitably going to bring up issues for some theists, particularly Christians who take the Bible literally - it directly contradicts a lot of Genesis. There's not much we can do about that - the Genesis account does not match up with anything we see in nature, and perhaps more importantly, not everyone in a public science classroom is a Christian, and so teaching Christian Creationism "alongside" Evolution would be wrong for a whole host of reasons (violating the establishment clause of the COnstitution for non-Christians, and let's face it, stories from ancient books with no corroborating evidence taken on faith have nothing to do with science).
ID has proven to be nothing more than Creationism in disguise. Replace (god) in my equasions above with (undefined intelligent designer) and we have the same problem. ID has a lot more problems than that (many of the "designs" even in humans are, frankly, stupid given other creatures with superior structures, "irreducible complexity" has been debunked repeatedly...), but the most significant in this case is that it's simply not science. No scientific papers have ever been published for ID. No experimentation is ongoing regarding ID. The only people claiming ID to be science are running a PR campaign, trying to convince non-scientists that IT is science, but not actually participating in the scientific method. Given these facts, it clearly doesn;t belong in a science classroom.
Secondly, science has not proven EVO as it relates to origins of man or monkey to man. Yet you flaunt your monkey to man charts as if they are science. Monkey to man is as much theory as ID; and you have no problem allowing the monkeys and big bangs into the textbooks.
The "monkey to man" charts are science. The evolution of man, including our common ancestry with modern apes (note - we didn't evolve from modern apes, we simply all had a common ancestor. Think of us like extremely distant cousins), has been very well studied.
I think a big part of your misunderstanding here is the definition of the word "theory." ID is not a scientific theory, while the Theory of Evolution is.
Why do I say this?
A scientific theory is a model of observed natural processes that makes certain testable predictions. To become an actual theory, those predictions must be rigorously tested, and the predictions mist be borne out. For instance, the Theory of Evolution predicts that we should see significant genetic similarities between humans and other primates. This prediction has been verified, and so it counts as evidence for the Theory of Evolution.
Note that we don't say that Theories are facts. The observations used in creating a theory are facts, certainly, but a theory is simply the most accurate model we have that describes a natural process. When predictions are shown to be false, the theory is revised or even thrown out in favor of a new model with greater accuracy.
I know the word "theory" can have other meanings - in a show like CSI, you may hear a character say "I have a theory.." and it really just means he's got an idea. But in science, it's quite different.
Now let's examine ID as it pertains to a scientific theory. ID makes no actual predictions that can be tested. It simply tacks on the "designer" to Evolution, and claims validity. The only thing that remotely looks like a testable prediction is the "irreducible complexity" bit - it's been debunked repeatedly, and for some reason ID supporters refuse to use the scientific method to experiment regarding it. As I said earlier, no scientific papers have been submitted regarding ID, and no research is currently being done regarding it.
So we can see that ID is not an actual scientific theory. This (and the Dover trial, which showed that ID as it was being presented was just Christian Creationism in disguise - amusingly, in the "textbook" to be used, a previous version had actually used the word Creationist. The new edition had replaced the word with "design proponent" bus the editor made a typo - it said "Cdesign proponentIST", caps added, making what was called amusingly in the trial a "transitional form" between Creationist and design proponent) means that ID has no place in a science classroom setting. Philosophy? Maybe. Comparative religion classes? Sure. But not a science classroom.
Creationists and ID proponents can't just claim validity and expect the scientific community to accept it. Saying "it's just a theory" is inaccurate to the point of almost being a lie. The whole thing is an attempt by people of faith to add some scientific legitimacy (since otherwise science is seen to be a legitimate pursuit - Creationists have no problem with medical science or NASA, for instance) to their beliefs, and react to a perceived insult because science classrooms teach something that can be taken as contradictory to their beliefs. For them, it's not about legitimate science - it's fear that their beliefs may be wrong, and offense at the suggestion that the Bible may not be literally true. One can hardly blame them for being upset over something that would change a big part of their worldview - but many Christians and other theists have managed to accept evolution as an accurate description of nature without losing their faith.
This is why we have the "cognitive dissonance" that spawned this thread - Creationists are trying, desperately, to prove the Bible literally true, and to disprove evolution because it contradicts their current worldview. This means they'll accept the existence of Jerusalem as proof the rest of the Bible's veracity, and not understand why we point out that Harry Potter isn't a true story just because London exists. One fits their worldview, and anything that backs it up is given credence far beyond what the "evidence" actually deserves, right down to making verification of one claim somehow apply to a whole host of claims related only because they are included in the same series of books.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by TheDarin, posted 01-07-2008 9:14 AM TheDarin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-07-2008 3:05 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 128 by arachnophilia, posted 01-07-2008 8:47 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 82 of 147 (446878)
01-07-2008 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by TheDarin
01-07-2008 9:41 AM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
TheDarin
EVO's are telling students deliberate lies about science and scientists. They are being taught a strawman version of ID, so that ID can be ridiculed.
You claim much and evidence nothing. What lies are being told about science and which scientists? What is the strawman version being taught and could you give us the real Intelligent Design hypothesis?
Instead of whining about things present your case so that we know the issues you wish to discuss. We are not mind readers,TD, so either put up or shut up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by TheDarin, posted 01-07-2008 9:41 AM TheDarin has not replied

  
TheDarin
Member (Idle past 5689 days)
Posts: 50
Joined: 01-04-2008


Message 83 of 147 (446882)
01-07-2008 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Granny Magda
01-07-2008 11:19 AM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
When NWR in message 63 made a similar statement I didn't see you calling for him to back up his/her statement.
Just as Christians pray that God will do a broadcast from Heaven and prove that he exists with some heaven-wowing demonstration.
You too hope and pray to your mutations that you will one day demonstrate to the world that a man evolved from ape.
God created man from the dust of the earth - so I understand that is why we have so much in common with, say, yeast.
Evolution Happens. But Ape to Man did not.
I'm done in here....
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.
Out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Granny Magda, posted 01-07-2008 11:19 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by reiverix, posted 01-07-2008 12:58 PM TheDarin has not replied
 Message 85 by Percy, posted 01-07-2008 1:05 PM TheDarin has not replied
 Message 86 by jar, posted 01-07-2008 1:08 PM TheDarin has replied
 Message 87 by NosyNed, posted 01-07-2008 1:34 PM TheDarin has not replied
 Message 98 by Granny Magda, posted 01-07-2008 2:56 PM TheDarin has not replied

  
reiverix
Member (Idle past 5818 days)
Posts: 80
From: Central Ohio
Joined: 10-18-2007


Message 84 of 147 (446886)
01-07-2008 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by TheDarin
01-07-2008 12:43 PM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
Evolution Happens. But Ape to Man did not.
Dang it. I had high hopes for you. You seemed like you genuinely wanted to learn, but when the debate goes against your mindset, you spout a few personal beliefs and run to the sunset.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by TheDarin, posted 01-07-2008 12:43 PM TheDarin has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 85 of 147 (446888)
01-07-2008 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by TheDarin
01-07-2008 12:43 PM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
TheDarin writes:
When NWR in message 63 made a similar statement I didn't see you calling for him to back up his/her statement.
As I already pointed out, simply substituting "ID" for "evolution" doesn't result in a valid paragraph. You didn't even get the turnabout right. For example, your first sentence should have claimed that EVO's are lying about creation and creationists, not science and scientists.
But more importantly, the back up for Nwr's statements, off-topic though it is, is plastered all over this thread. I've been trying unsuccessfully to nudge the thread back onto the topic, but most people have been posting off-topic corrections to your off-topic misstatements.
God created man from the dust of the earth - so I understand that is why we have so much in common with, say, yeast.
Evolution Happens. But Ape to Man did not.
Another instance of creationist inability to reason clearly. You acknowledge the relationship of man to yeast, but deny a relationship between man and ape? The genetic evidence says you're dead wrong, and even worse, the connection between a 6th century BC religious text and science isn't even tenuous - it's non-existent. You're both ignoring evidence and making invalid connections between evidence and conclusions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by TheDarin, posted 01-07-2008 12:43 PM TheDarin has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 86 of 147 (446889)
01-07-2008 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by TheDarin
01-07-2008 12:43 PM


Towards the topic
Evolution Happens. But Ape to Man did not.
So why do you have a problem there?
All of the evidence shows that humans and the modern apes descended from a common ancestor, something that had not yet evolved into what we see today and that most likely, humans and chimps split fairly recently.
What prevents you from connecting the evidence for that (genetic, morphological) with the conclusion that we descended from an earlier primate?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by TheDarin, posted 01-07-2008 12:43 PM TheDarin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by TheDarin, posted 01-07-2008 1:35 PM jar has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 87 of 147 (446898)
01-07-2008 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by TheDarin
01-07-2008 12:43 PM


Out of the Kitchen ...
I'm done in here....
And we get asked why there aren't many creationists here.
They can't take a bit of heat. Dare them to use evidence and reason and suddenly there is important business somewhere else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by TheDarin, posted 01-07-2008 12:43 PM TheDarin has not replied

  
TheDarin
Member (Idle past 5689 days)
Posts: 50
Joined: 01-04-2008


Message 88 of 147 (446899)
01-07-2008 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by jar
01-07-2008 1:08 PM


Re: Towards the topic
What prevents you from connecting the evidence for that (genetic, morphological) with the conclusion that we descended from an earlier primate?
Would you care to connect those dots for me? This I'm waiting to see, for no one has been able to do this before... wait one second and let me get the video camera... OK I'm ready.... let's see the ape to man dots. Actually, dots won't do. Let's see the scientific test...it's all about the science after all. Test away...camera is rolling.
After you show me a sample of ape EVOLVING INTO a man, I'll show you a sample of design and creation - or I could go first if you wish.
Edited by TheDarin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 01-07-2008 1:08 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 01-07-2008 1:46 PM TheDarin has replied
 Message 92 by Rahvin, posted 01-07-2008 2:11 PM TheDarin has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 89 of 147 (446901)
01-07-2008 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by TheDarin
01-07-2008 1:35 PM


Re: Towards the topic
Well, here are the dots.
The genetics show that humans and chimps are related. We also find a series of fossils leading back to predecessors of both.
And remember, what we are talking about are not modern ape to modern man, but something different from either leading to both. Of course, man is an ape, both you and the chimp are first cousin primates.
But that is not the issue or question.
The question is, "What is it about man and ape both being descended from a common ancestor bothers you?"

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by TheDarin, posted 01-07-2008 1:35 PM TheDarin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by TheDarin, posted 01-07-2008 2:01 PM jar has replied

  
TheDarin
Member (Idle past 5689 days)
Posts: 50
Joined: 01-04-2008


Message 90 of 147 (446904)
01-07-2008 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by jar
01-07-2008 1:46 PM


Re: Towards the topic
What bothers me is this. You LEAP out of ID simply becuase you see a RELATIONSHIP? NOT from a test indicating it's a sure thing. No one has proven ape evolving into man. It is a Theory.
Design and Creation are happening all around us - it's happening now all around us, just as mutations are.
The dots I'm connecting are...
Mutations do not have the track record that design and creation have when it comes to results that even remotely look like a human or an ape.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 01-07-2008 1:46 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 01-07-2008 2:04 PM TheDarin has not replied
 Message 93 by Rahvin, posted 01-07-2008 2:24 PM TheDarin has not replied
 Message 96 by Percy, posted 01-07-2008 2:50 PM TheDarin 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