Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

No, this is ridiculous!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
Author
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 January 2005 at 6:08pm

Originally posted by SandMan SandMan wrote:

You have no solid justification for the stance that creationism isn't every bit as scientific as evolution.

Are you serious??

There is loads of scientific evidence supporting basic evolutionary theory.

There is ZERO scientific evidence (of which I am aware) that supports creationism.  Z-E-R-O.

 

Back to Top
AdmiralSenn View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 07 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2683
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AdmiralSenn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 January 2005 at 7:34pm
Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

Pardon me asking, but how does that sticker push creationsim? I read it about 30 times and I dont see it.


What he said.

Let's assume that the sticker was pushed through by extreme Christians of the variety who become visibly ill when the word 'evolution' is mentioned.. hardcore types who attack people they disagree with.

The sticker mentions nothing about who supported the idea of the stickers. It makes no reference to anything except evolution, and while it's pretty obvious that whoever came up with it is probably a member of a Creationist (not necessarily Christian or Jewish) religion, it does not endorse anything.

Pulling 'the government supports Christianity' out of that is ridiculous. You could infer that, but inferring things to that level is like inferring that the persona 'Clark Kent' hates Christians because he doesn't believe the same way they do. While it's certainly possible that the government is in fact supporting a Christian group's agenda and that Clark wants nothing more than to kill me and every Christian in the world right along next to me, neither statement can be gotten solely from the facts at hand.

And no, there would not have to be a sticker on every textbook stating that its subject matter is a theory only. Biological processes can be and have been observed and so have most of the other scientific ideas taught in schools. Science can show that F=ma by experimentation. Macroevolution cannot be verified by observation and experimentation, because the time period when the last major changes supposedly took place is at least several thousand years ago (by a standard that nearly everyone will accept), and at most billions of years ago. It remains a theory, unlike the facts taught in most textboooks.

I guarantee you that if our textbooks taught Creationism, one of the first things to happen would be a similar sticker or other warning that Creationism is not universally accepted and should be approached with an open mind, and it would be worded almost exactly the same way. I'm pretty sure that most of you that agree with the court's decision would support a sticker like that.

The issue here is that students tend to believe what textbooks tell them.. as a current student of the Florida education system, I can testify that we pretty much have no choice. There are literally thousands of kids my age and younger who are only dimly aware that Christianity even exists, much less that it presents a viewpoint that is older than and in some places contradictory to the idea of evolution. Teaching a controversial theory like evolution as fact without at least letting students know that it is in fact a theory is, as someone already said (sorry, I forgot who), very nearly State support for a religion, or rather discrimination against one. I know that the textbooks I've had to read say things empirically: The Earth was formed X billion years ago. Life arose from primordial chains of proteins and eventually evolved into intelligent, thinking humans. If the books were worded more accurately: Scientists believe the Earth to be X billion years old and so on, then I'm sure this wouldn't ever have happened. As I said, totally disregarding one of the larger sides in an argument this controversial amounts to government interference in religion, although whether it's government suppression or support of something like the Church of Science is debatable.

Removing the sticker is more a violation of the First Amendment than allowing it in the first place, if in fact stating something that is a fact is a violation of the First Amendment.

EDIT: And Clark, don't be so hasty in stating that there is zero evidence for Creationism. If you honestly believe that, then you haven't gotten out much, and/or you get all your information from sources that have a big interest in disregarding Christianity.

Edited by AdmiralSenn
Is God real? You'll find out when you die.

Okay, I don't have a clever signature zinger. So sue me.
Back to Top
phillll227 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 27 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1056
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote phillll227 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 January 2005 at 9:45pm
This is ridiculous.

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

The belief in evolution or creationism is inconsequencial to this discussion. Wether you like it or not, neither one can be taught in schools as fact because neither has conclusive proof. That said, I believe that the education system should explore and consider many theories to be understood critically. This leads to a higher level of thinking and insight.


Now about the sticker.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Those are the exact words in the First Amendment. The sticker is not establishing that there is one correct religion nor is it prohibiting anyone from exercising their beliefs. Thus, it is clearly not in violation of the First Amendment.

The sticker is simply encouraging students to "study carefully and critically consider" the theory of evolution, which is, in fact, simply a theory.

If you had a child in the public education system, would you not want him/her to carefully consider theories and/or beliefs before jumping to conclusions?

If anything, not stating what that sticker stated could be in violation of the first amendment because it is teaching students in a forced environment that their religion is wrong and that evolution is right (correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Genesis state that God created Earth and all life on it?). Evolution clearly does not agree with Christianity, so would forcing someone to believe in something that is in disagreement with their religion in violation of the First Amendment?

Feel free to discuss.

Edited by phillll227
Back to Top
TheHoff View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 11 March 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 498
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TheHoff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 January 2005 at 9:50pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by SandMan SandMan wrote:

You have no solid justification for the stance that creationism isn't every bit as scientific as evolution.

Are you serious??

There is loads of scientific evidence supporting basic evolutionary theory.

There is ZERO scientific evidence (of which I am aware) that supports creationism.  Z-E-R-O.

 

Sandman has already done a good job discrediting arguments for evolution but after reading the quoted post I gotta put in my reasoning.  Might I add that there is a lot of evidence against the theory of evolution too.  I believed we already discussed the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and somebody hyperlinked a web site that didn't solve anything.  There are also no examples of the so called "missing link."  Eohippus [the mini horse that was the "missing link"] is now found in the same strata as full sized horses.  If you ever looked at results from geological explorations?  ALL have shown that the earth was once covered by water.  What "theory" supports that?  Creationism.  I'll even give you an example from the Bible.  Noahs ark and the great flood.  Fossil records show a very quick, world wide flood.  Petrification of wood also has taken a shot at "modern science."  Many researchers believe that it takes several millions of years to complete formation of silicified wood.  Experimental research by five Japanese scientists stated that "previous labratory expirements... concluded that wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification under the right chemical conditions... ...the timeframe for the formation of the petrified wood within the geological record is totally compatible with the biblical time-scale of a recent creation and a subsequent devastating global Flood" [Snelling 1995]  This was after many lab tests which led to the Japanese piecing together the puzzle.



Edited by TheHoff
Back to Top
DBibeau855 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK

Joined: 26 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DBibeau855 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 January 2005 at 10:05pm
Yeah, that kinda sucks, too bad the flood didnt flood the entire world. Im not going to go into it. But the flood in the bible didnt cover the entire world.

I think this is retarted. Im getting sick and tired of people nit picking at every little thing in the law, not because they should, but because they can. Some holier than thou PTA home maker mom desides to go on a mission to take prayer out of schools, or "under god" out of the pledge, or this article right here. Startin to really irk me out.
Back to Top
Hades View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2003
Location: Virgin Islands
Status: Offline
Points: 12983
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hades Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 January 2005 at 10:11pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Oh please. One doesn't have to be "liberal" to see that this is the correct decision.


Do you see a sticker on your engineering textbook that says that "structural theory is just a theory and should be viewed with an open mind"? How about a sticker on the psych book that says that "behavioral theory is just a theory..." etc.


Of course not. In engineering class they teach engineering; in psych class they taech psychology; in biology class they teach biology. If they want to teach evolution, they should go ahead - in comparative religion.


There are a zillion places stickers like this could have been put, but were not. Evolution was singled out. It is an obvious attempt by government officials to impose religious views on the public, and should be prohibited.


Legally speaking, this is a no-brainer. They never had a chance.



Yup. I first heard about this case about 6 months ago from Penn and Teller's BS show. Glad to see the correct decision was made.

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 January 2005 at 10:21pm
Originally posted by TheHoff TheHoff wrote:

Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

There is loads of scientific evidence supporting basic evolutionary theory.

There is ZERO scientific evidence (of which I am aware) that supports creationism.  Z-E-R-O.

  Might I add that there is a lot of evidence against the theory of evolution too. 
[/quote]

There are some weaknesses - but often those serve more to discredit the basic understanding of science of those who argue those weaknesses than to actually discredit evolution. 

But more to the point, an argument against evolution does NOT equal evidence in support of creationism.

Quote I believed we already discussed the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

And poorly - this goes to my point above about basic understanding of science.  Read A Brief History of Time.  That will answer your questions on that particular subject.

Quote There are also no examples of the so called "missing link."  Eohippus [the mini horse that was the "missing link"] is now found in the same strata as full sized horses. 

And ditto.  This is evidence better understanding of your lack of understanding of science fundamentals than anything else.

Quote If you ever looked at results from geological explorations?  ALL have shown that the earth was once covered by water.  What "theory" supports that?  Creationism. 

If that is your "evidence" for creationism, then you are in trouble.  The earth covered in water is also consistent with evolution, as well as with a zillion other theories.

BTW - what does the bible/creationism say about the ice age?

Quote I'll even give you an example from the Bible.

Noahs ark and the great flood.  Fossil records show a very quick, world wide flood.  Petrification of wood also has taken a shot at "modern science."  Many researchers believe that it takes several millions of years to complete formation of silicified wood.  Experimental research by five Japanese scientists stated that "previous labratory expirements... concluded that wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification under the right chemical conditions... ...the timeframe for the formation of the petrified wood within the geological record is totally compatible with the biblical time-scale of a recent creation and a subsequent devastating global Flood" [Snelling 1995]  This was after many lab tests which led to the Japanese piecing together the puzzle.

The above is, AT BEST, weak evidence of a particular natural occurrence that is consistent with one element of the bible.  That is NOT evidence of creation.  Not even close.

BTW, a variety of people have described the recent tsunami as "biblical."  In biblical times, with a more limited population and poor communications, such an event could easily meet the criteria for a Noahian flood...

 



Edited by Clark Kent
Back to Top
phillll227 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 27 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1056
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote phillll227 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 January 2005 at 10:31pm
bump

i want an opinion on my previous post
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 January 2005 at 10:34pm

Your previous post simply restated points that had been raised and addressed earlier in this thread, and therefore does not warrant a separate reply.

Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 January 2005 at 11:55pm
Clark is absolutely correct on this one. As I can clearly see no one on this forum is a Federal Judge; thereby, either unwilling to be objective or just being ignorant to the law. The correct decision was made, and to discredit evolution, for whatever reason, is wrong. No one puts stickers on books in psych class to tell you that Freud was a loony and shouldn't be followed. I do study the law and hold it to its highest respect. This decision was the right one, but it's still funny to see those say that the judges, people appointed and approved after being in the profession for a long time, are "stupid liberals."
Back to Top
Homer J View Drop Down
Member
Member

Strike 2 for drug related images

Joined: 22 March 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4673
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Homer J Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 January 2005 at 12:01am
I believe in limited evolution, but I don't see how anyone pulled 10,000 years out of the Bible for the age of the Earth, or any age of the Earth, for that matter.
Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 January 2005 at 12:02am

Scientists have been able to estimate the Earth's age by using space, time and distance of light years, and visibility. It's pretty amazing calculations.

Back to Top
AdmiralSenn View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 07 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2683
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AdmiralSenn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 January 2005 at 2:09am
Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

Clark is absolutely correct on this one. As I can clearly see no one on this forum is a Federal Judge; thereby, either unwilling to be objective or just being ignorant to the law. The correct decision was made, and to discredit evolution, for whatever reason, is wrong. No one puts stickers on books in psych class to tell you that Freud was a loony and shouldn't be followed. I do study the law and hold it to its highest respect. This decision was the right one, but it's still funny to see those say that the judges, people appointed and approved after being in the profession for a long time, are "stupid liberals."


For one thing, nobody discredited evolution. Did you even read it?

Bad comparison. The sticker did not say that evolution is wrong. Again, psychology is testable.. you may have a hard time interpreting the results because people are so widely varied, but it's testable. You can measure brain wave activity and analyze people's actions to see which things they do are conscious or unconscious.

Again, the incident in question did not say 'evolution is bad' or anything to put a negative face on anything. It stated facts, plain and simple, as well as some advice that would do all of us some good - approach the subject with an open mind, something I addressed in my earlier post - people tend to accept what they're spoon-fed in school as truth.

Since when is 'objective' interpreted as 'striking down anything that mentions that non-Christian ideas are potentially wrong'? Because that's what it looks like you mean. Objectivity is not always 'side against the religious types', although if you look at the people who use the word objectivity, many of them mean that.

And although the word stupid is questionable (I take a lot of convincing before I say somebody is stupid [except in jest]), many of the judges in our country are liberals. Just because they were appointed and have been around for a long time does not make them pillars of objectivity.

No offense to Clark, but sometimes I wonder if half of the people who say 'Clark Kent is right' on this forum ever even read the stuff in question. If everything is always so obviously right, there wouldn't be a debate over it.. because I can assure you that despite your most fervent wishes, neither 'side' of thought, conservative or liberal or whichever set of labels is in use this week, is stupid, certainly not to the point where things that are patently obvious are hotly debated.

To be fair, if the sticker had said 'Remember, there is another side to the issue' or something to that regard, that very well would have been grounds for removal, because that endorses opposition to evolution. Ruling against something that states a simple fact (evolution is a theory) on religious or freedom of speech objections is as ridiculous as a mob of Christians attacking someone for saying that not everybody is a Christian. Most people who would get involved in these debates know these things. Neither of the two statements endorses the opposite view or condemns the one at hand, and both responses are equally absurd.

EDIT: And SebastianBlack, children aren't forced to go to church until they're (17? 18? Somewhere around there). They also are not graded by teachers on the content of the Bible and how well they can analyze situations based on their teachings as fact. The law, at least, does not force any religion on people, regardless of anybody's personal experience with oppressive parents or a peculiarly restrictive church.. the majority of people are not forced to read the Bible and then tested on it, and so a disclaimer on it would be ridiculous and might actually be removed on the same grounds that this sticker was, but with actual reason.

Edited by AdmiralSenn
Is God real? You'll find out when you die.

Okay, I don't have a clever signature zinger. So sue me.
Back to Top
Darur View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Stare directly into my avatar...

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 January 2005 at 2:20am
/me salutes AdmiralSenn


Real Men play Tuba

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
DONT CLICK ME!!1
Back to Top
TheHoff View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 11 March 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 498
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TheHoff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 January 2005 at 8:04am
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by TheHoff TheHoff wrote:

Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

There is loads of scientific evidence supporting basic evolutionary theory.

There is ZERO scientific evidence (of which I am aware) that supports creationism.  Z-E-R-O.

  Might I add that there is a lot of evidence against the theory of evolution too. 

There are some weaknesses - but often those serve more to discredit the basic understanding of science of those who argue those weaknesses than to actually discredit evolution.  

But more to the point, an argument against evolution does NOT equal evidence in support of creationism.

But an argument for evolution makes creationism obsolete?  Double standard.

Quote I believed we already discussed the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

And poorly - this goes to my point above about basic understanding of science.  Read A Brief History of Time.  That will answer your questions on that particular subject.

After reading some of your arguments I seriously doubt you have the intelligence to read a book like that and actually understand it enough to realize flaws in it.  Its easy to copy something from a paper, but totaly different to read and comprehend.

Quote There are also no examples of the so called "missing link."  Eohippus [the mini horse that was the "missing link"] is now found in the same strata as full sized horses. 

And ditto.  This is evidence better understanding of your lack of understanding of science fundamentals than anything else.

Based on what?  That even though there is no proof there HAS to be something out there?  A "it has to be out there" comment shows that evolutionism is a belief system, much like a religion.  How is this showing [back to the horse] a lack of understanding?  This has to be the vaugest comment I have ever read.  Prove that I am wrong on this.  Classification on this clearly shows that this is a modern day animal.  "You don't understand" only works with teenage girls. 

Quote If you ever looked at results from geological explorations?  ALL have shown that the earth was once covered by water.  What "theory" supports that?  Creationism. 

If that is your "evidence" for creationism, then you are in trouble.  The earth covered in water is also consistent with evolution, as well as with a zillion other theories.

BTW - what does the bible/creationism say about the ice age?

Did I only use the earth covered in water as support for creationism?  No, I had about 3 points arguing different areas from fossil records to flaws in well recieved modern science.  You just took one of my points out of context because you had no legitiment agrument against it.

BTW- there is nothing in the Bible to rule out the ice age.  God had to do something with all the water after the great flood.

Quote I'll even give you an example from the Bible.

Noahs ark and the great flood.  Fossil records show a very quick, world wide flood.  Petrification of wood also has taken a shot at "modern science."  Many researchers believe that it takes several millions of years to complete formation of silicified wood.  Experimental research by five Japanese scientists stated that "previous labratory expirements... concluded that wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification under the right chemical conditions... ...the timeframe for the formation of the petrified wood within the geological record is totally compatible with the biblical time-scale of a recent creation and a subsequent devastating global Flood" [Snelling 1995]  This was after many lab tests which led to the Japanese piecing together the puzzle.

The above is, AT BEST, weak evidence of a particular natural occurrence that is consistent with one element of the bible.  That is NOT evidence of creation.  Not even close.

No, it shows serious errors in modern science thinking.  Go back to the drawing boards.  Consistant with the Bible timeframe?  I don't see anything supporting evolution in that.  It does back up the Bible.

BTW, a variety of people have described the recent tsunami as "biblical."  In biblical times, with a more limited population and poor communications, such an event could easily meet the criteria for a Noahian flood...

You are taking arguments by a very minor population of the Christian realm to make your points.  These people are the uneducated ones in the history of geology.  If I took some athiest drug lord out of prison who believed in evolution it would not be hard to discredit his reasoning.  This is basically what you are doing. 

[/QUOTE]

Back to Top
WGP guy View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Quoted F and S bomb.

Joined: 14 August 2004
Location: Lao People’s Dem. Rep.
Status: Offline
Points: 1327
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WGP guy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 January 2005 at 8:29am
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

  Z-E-R-O.

 



Yay!  You can spell! j/k

All I can say is, if I was a science teacher, I wouldn't make it.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 January 2005 at 10:05am
Originally posted by TheHoff TheHoff wrote:

But an argument for evolution makes creationism obsolete?  Double standard.

Nope - scientific standard.

(made up approximate numbers to follow)

If 99% of scientific evidence is consistent with evolution, and 1% is inconsistent, a good scientist will conclude that evolution is a pretty darn good theory.

If 20% of scientific evidence in consistent with earth's creation 5000 years ago, and 80% is inconsistent, a good scientist will conclude that creationsim is a pretty bad theory.

It is the SAME standard, applied CONSISTENTLY, that leads to different conclusions.

The bottom line is that if you want to apply the scientific standard, the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution is, well, overwhelming.  Are there blanks to be completed, inconsistencies to be figured out?  Sure - that is the nature of science. 

 

Originally posted by Hoff Hoff wrote:

Originally posted by me me wrote:

Read A Brief History of Time.  That will answer your questions on that particular subject.

After reading some of your arguments I seriously doubt you have the intelligence to read a book like that and actually understand it enough to realize flaws in it.  Its easy to copy something from a paper, but totaly different to read and comprehend.

Now you are just making me giggle.

Do I fully understand quantum mechanics?  No - but to quote/paraphrase Richard Feynmann:  "Nobody understands quantum mechanics".

I suggested Hawking's book because it is the SIMPLEST treatise of its kind on the market - he does a pretty good job condensing what is essentially college physics into a single slender book, and making it fairly understandable.  He does, however, also specifically address concerns about the 2d Law when applied to the Big Bang, which also involves order from chaos and is therefore seemingly inconsistent.  His reponse will approximate the response to the anti-evolution argument. 

As to finding flaws - as to the parts of physics that I do not understand, I am comfortable taking Hawking's word for it.  Are YOU prepared to challenge Stephen Hawking in his field of expertise?

Originally posted by hoff hoff wrote:

...Based on what?  That even though there is no proof there HAS to be something out there?  A "it has to be out there" comment shows that evolutionism is a belief system, much like a religion.  How is this showing [back to the horse] a lack of understanding?  
 

Time for a quick parable:

Let's say, over the course of a few years of excavation, we discover a bunch of old human skeletons.  Using available dating technology, we conclude that these skeletons vary in age from 1000 to 2000 years old.

We also notice that the older skeletons are consistently shorter (in height) than the younger skeletons.  Generally speaking, the younger the skeleton, the taller the skeleton.

We do no, however, find any skeletons between 500 and 700 years of age.  There is a gap.  Other than height and age, however, there is virtually no difference between the older and younger skeletons.

From this pile of oversimplified evidence, which of the following do we (as scientists) conclude:

A - Humans got consistently taller during that 1000-year period.  The missing skeletons may have destroyed, or maybe just haven't been found yet.  If we found the missing skeletons, they would probably fit into the "growing taller" theory.

B - The missing skeletons are missing because they don't exist.  They are evidence that God brought down a flood (or whatever), and wiped out humankind, and then re-created humans 200 years later, just a little taller.

This is how science WORKS.  You NEVER have all the evidence.  You look at the available evidence, and reach the logical conclusion.  When inconsistent evidence comes up, you tweak.  If the missing horsey comes up wrong, we tweak - we don't throw throw out evolution.  That makes no sense, given the volumes of evidence supporting the basics.

Evolution is not just something that Darwin sat down and dreamed up.  Evolution (small e) is a mathematical necessity, and disputed by nobody.  Add to that the volumes and volumes of fossil evidence which lines up oh-so-nicely, add to that the growing volumes of genetic evidence that also lines up oh-so-nicely, and you get a very powerful argument indeed that humankind evolved from something else.

To flat out disbelieve Evolution is to disbelieve science.  And nobody typing on a computer gets to disbelieve science.  Science is not a bunch of separate facts and theories - everything is connected.  The same theories and facts that support the Big Bang (and therefore disproves a world 5000 years old) also led to space travel and nuclear weapons.  You cannot simply dismiss the Big Bang unless you also think the moon-landing and Hiroshima were frauds.  That would be like believing that 2+2=4, but then arguing that 20+5 does NOT equal 25.  It is all interconnected and interreliant.

Evolution is not "merely" a theory.  Evolution is SCIENCE, and that is what they teach in SCIENCE CLASS.

Quote Did I only use the earth covered in water as support for creationism?  No, I had about 3 points arguing different areas from fossil records to flaws in well recieved modern science.  You just took one of my points out of context because you had no legitiment agrument against it.

No - I took one point because the others were addressing evolution, not creationism.

There is a qualitative difference between (i) an argument/datum supporting theory A, and (ii) an argument/datum inconsistent with theory B.

AT BEST (in a fantasy world), your fossil evidence brings evolutionary theory tumbling down.  Even if that were the case, however, this would not amount to a shred of evidence for creationsim.  Evidence against evolution is qualitatively different from evidence for creationism.  And, of course, your fossil evidence does not bring evolutionary theory tumbling down.

Originally posted by hoff hoff wrote:

Noahs ark and the great flood.  Fossil records show a very quick, world wide flood.  Petrification of wood also has taken a shot at "modern science."  Many researchers believe that it takes several millions of years to complete formation of silicified wood.  Experimental research by five Japanese scientists stated that "previous labratory expirements... concluded that wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification under the right chemical conditions... ...the timeframe for the formation of the petrified wood within the geological record is totally compatible with the biblical time-scale of a recent creation and a subsequent devastating global Flood" [Snelling 1995]  This was after many lab tests which led to the Japanese piecing together the puzzle.

...

it shows serious errors in modern science thinking. 

No, it doesn't.  Your statement shows your lack of understanding of scientific thinking.  All your petrification data shows is that science is always a work in progress.  That is how science works.  Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is apparently inconsistent with Newtonian physics.  Quantum mechanics, in turn is apparently inconsistent with Relativity.  Yet all three of those are taught in schools today, and used by engineers around the world every day.  How could this be, if the three theories are inconsistent?

BECAUSE THAT IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS.  Science is always a work in progress.  Newton, Einstein, Feynmann - it all works.  We are still working out the kinks, and maybe one day we will figure out everything.  Those theories are incomplete - that doesn't make them WRONG.

Similarly, evolutionary theory is incomplete - nobody disputes that.  But incomplete is not the same as wrong.  Evolutionary theory might still be proven wrong - that is the nature of science.  But given the volume of evidence supporting the evolution of man, that is overwhelmingly unlikely.  While the kinks are still being worked out, Evolution is at this point as much of a scientific fact as the Big Bang.

Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 January 2005 at 10:37am
Once again Senn, most judges in America, especially in Federal Court are not liberals, that's a stereotype. I read Clark's posts very carefully, as do I yours as well. However, when it comes to the matter of the law itself, regardless of how you feel about christianity and evolution, the stickers were an unnecessary form of degredation towards evolution. Especially since, in one argument for that case, the book was shown to state "Scientists believe the theory of evolution..." The judge believed that there is no need for a sticker when this statement allows for people to see it is both a theory, and an opinion of scientists. And yes, judges are the pillar of objectivity. Regardless of how biased they may seem and probably are, they are the absolute closest to objectivity we have in the land. I understand you aren't working to become a lawyer as I am, along with being in law enforcement; however, the ruling was passed and it definitely was the correct one.
Back to Top
phillll227 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 27 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1056
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote phillll227 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 January 2005 at 1:11pm
Clark, explain to me how the big bang is fact, and how it has any relevance to this debate.

Dune, how is the sticker "degrading" the theory of evolution by encouraging students to approach it with an open mind, study it carefully, and consider it critically? Isn't that the whole idea of being educated? Isn't careful study and consideration the basis of modern science? From a legal standpoint, the validity of the theory is irrelevant to these questions.



Edited by phillll227
Back to Top
Bunkered View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
What AM I smoking?

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5690
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bunkered Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 January 2005 at 1:33pm
I do not see where the Bible says anything about how long the Earth has been around.
Maybe the 7 days of creation were not really individual days. For a heavenly being that has been forever, and will continue to be forever, who says that 1 day wasn't a few billion years?

Pangaea runs parallel to things in the Bible. The whole bit about God creating land, and then dividing the land by water... That sounds pretty darn close to Continental Drift Theory to me.
Evolution is also not necessarily opposed to what the Bible says. When God created animals, he did it in order from less complex to more complex creatures... That's basically what Evolution is.

There is plenty of historical data that backs up a lot of Bible stories.
There is plenty of scientific data that backs up Evolution.
Who's to say they aren't BOTH right?

I'm tired of the attacks on Creationism and on Evolution, because not ONE person on Earth KNOWS which, if either, is correct.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.