's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Doug(23 posts)

Aug 18, 2003 12:51 PM
Here's my take in general.

I don't care if abortion is legal, I just wish people wouldn't do it.

I don't care if evoluton is taught, just show people the options.

It's about choice and the freedom of knowing the options.

Right now, let's say evolution is proven untrue, by evolution guys, then they replace it with another thinking saying look how this and that were ignored....

I don't want that to happen. I want people to know the data points, hear the lines of thought and come to their own conclusions.

I'ts been said that evolution may be the biggest hoax in scientific history, if an evolution guy proves it wrong, then it would be and we would all be duped by blind trust in expert testimony, rather than having the facts.

True education involves thinking, not being force fed what to think. I think you would agree with that.
I agree.DougSloan
Aug 18, 2003 1:04 PM
I'm not supporting or defending evolution theory, btw. I'm just clarifying what I understand the arguments to be. I see no reason not to teach both.

Sure. Teach flat earth too.OldEdScott
Aug 18, 2003 5:45 PM
What the hell? Teach any crazy thing anybody wants to assert. Let a thousand flowers bloom, as the Great Helmsman said. Schools shouldn't be gatekeepers of Reason & knowledge, for God's sake.

(DAMN! Missed the Hitler-in-the-subject-line opportunity again! Go ahead, troll-nm me anyway!)
The last thing that...Jon Billheimer
Aug 18, 2003 8:25 PM
...religious fundamentalists should plead for is free, rational thought!! The entire fabric is nothing but a bunch of assertions based on dogmatic interpretations of a document that is essentially mythical in nature. A couple of the fundamental premises are that the Bible is revealed truth and that its content is inerrant. So no free or rational thought with respect to its veracity or content is permitted. What a joke! Do I think such rubbish should be taught in the schools which my tax dollars support? Not on your life.
HUGE news! University of KY Medical School announcesOldEdScott
Aug 19, 2003 6:30 AM
it's going to teach Resurrection Science!

See, it makes SENSE. Christians contend the Bible teaches that if you accept Christ as your Personal Lord & Savior, you'll have everlasting life. Jesus Himself rose from the dead, and a couple of people saw him. So it's EMPIRICAL SCIENCE that resurrection actually happens.

Furthermore, no one yet has been able to prove that dead Christians aren't alive somewhere in Heaven. NOT ONE EXPERIMENT has disproved Everlasting Life. That proves Everlasting Life for Christians is a SCIENTIFIC FACT. I went to grad school, so I know about scientific facts.

What UK is going to do, is teach prospective Doctors with dying patients to CONVERT THEM TO CHRISTIANITY on their 'death' beds, thereby assuring that they will not die! It's a miracle in Scientific Medicine! And if anyone can prove those patients aren't alive in Heaven, I'd like to see the data. THERE IS NONE!

Whew. We just solved the health care crisis.
The same argument applies to the missing WMD :O) nmLive Steam
Aug 19, 2003 7:34 PM
I can get H!tler in there...Tri_Rich
Aug 19, 2003 6:39 AM
There are people who espouse that the holocaust never you might as well teach that in history.

Certainly creationism probably belongs in science class as a historical idea, much as the flat earth thoery is.
You mean Scientific H!tlerism? Excellent. nmOldEdScott
Aug 19, 2003 6:52 AM
Well, in that case...Dwayne Barry
Aug 19, 2003 7:01 AM
creationism (although I don't think it's usually called that) is included in most any beginning class on evolutionary theory (or biology, paleontology, etc. class).
Followed by Lyell's (sp?) uniformitarianism from geology which basically spelled the death of the "young" earth.
Lamarck's evolutionary ideas about the inheritance of acquired characteristics (wrong).
And then Darwin's and Wallace's evolution by natural/sexual selection or descent with modification or whatever you want to call it.
FWIW, I think Creationism should be taught in schools too.czardonic
Aug 18, 2003 1:33 PM
As historical literature, Creationism has a place in our schools. The Bibles influence on our society can't be denied.

But Creationism is not a substitute or an equivalent to Evolution. Evolutionary theory is one of humanity's crowning scientific acheivements. There is much to be learned from the study, experimentation and analysis that has allowed millions of years of life on Earth to be stiched into a plausible (if not definitive) narrative. Science education is not about the dissemination of atheistic dogma. It is about teaching students how to approach the unanswered questions of the Universe. It does not teach students what to think, it teaches them how to think.

I do not see how Creationism makes a similar contribution to the educational process. It teaches neither what nor how to think. It simply dictates belief in an absolute answer, absent any explanation or methodology. It is akin to teaching the multiplication tables by rote memorization, rather than teaching students the means by which to multiply any number combination they may encouter.
I agree. Teach it right after Greek mythology. nmContinental
Aug 18, 2003 1:37 PM
Aug 18, 2003 2:30 PM
then you better include all the other creation myths throughout history. the christian one isn't the only one around. then again...let's just save it for comparitive religion or literature class where it really belongs. isn't that what people go to church to study? why have the schools do the church's job?
Right. It belongs in the literature curriculum. (nm)czardonic
Aug 18, 2003 2:33 PM
creationism is not science though! (nm)ColnagoFE
Aug 18, 2003 2:28 PM
What are you blathering about?Dwayne Barry
Aug 19, 2003 4:32 AM
What are the "facts" that refute evolution?

It is probably one of the most robust theories in terms of factual support from a vast array of fields including biology, genetics, ethology, and paleontology.

If you understood science you would understand that all theories and "facts" are both probalistic and probational. You're problem is that you are trying to refute a theory that was proposed almost 150 years ago, and the core of which has since been bolstered by almost every line of evidence available from the natural world some of which were not even available when the original theory was formulated.

In short, creationists pick a handful of points from here and there, often misrepresent them (the best example being that punctuated equilibrium somehow refutes evolutionary theory as a whole) and then say, "see we told you it wasn't true" followed by the non sequitor, therefore "God did it!". Ignoring the 9,999 facts that clearly support evolution and failing to point out there's not 1 iota of evidence to support the alternative theory of creationism.

"True education involves thinking, not being force fed what to think." I agree, I'd suggest starting with Darwin's Origen of Species, and you'll see how wonderfully reasoned and supported by the available evidence of the time it is. If you can suggest a Creationist treatise that offers the evidence in support of this theory, I'm sure I'll be more than entertained reading it.
agreeDuane Gran
Aug 19, 2003 6:04 AM
As a Christian evolutionist, I agree with you. Most of the arguments I've seen from Christian publications for the case against evolution have disappointed me. Most of the arguments hinge around showing how scientists have been dead wrong about their conclusions at times while ignoring the vast amount of evidence that is well supported. They often criticize the record in paleontology while ignoring the ever increasing evidence found in genetic research.

As an example in paleontology, I often see a duality in the critiques from anti-evolutionists. If two species are very similar they will claim that they aren't different and therefore no change has occurred. If two fossil records are different enough to declare them different species, they cry for the missing link. It is helpful to realize that fossilization is a very rare process, requiring an unlikely set of circumstances. If a representative sample of life forms didn't happen to step into a tar pit on regular intervals (and we are suggested to find them all) that doesn't damn the fossil record.
It is also quite ironic...Dwayne Barry
Aug 19, 2003 6:14 AM
that perhaps one of the best examples of a good fossil record with plenty of intermediaries (the so-called missing links creationists like to cry about), some interesting side branches, etc. is our own.
Also...Dwayne Barry
Aug 19, 2003 4:40 AM
"I'ts been said that evolution may be the biggest hoax in scientific history, if an evolution guy proves it wrong, then it would be and we would all be duped by blind trust in expert testimony, rather than having the facts."

You seem to have no appreciation for how science works. If an evolution guy "proved" it wrong, which BTW would take an edifice of work as there is an edifice of data to support it. That scientists name and his fortune would be made. There is no surer route to fame and fortune in science than causing a paradigm shift within a field. What vested interest would your hypothetical scientist have in remaining an "evolutionist" if he thought the theory was wrong and could support his contention with data?
I think.......CARBON110
Aug 19, 2003 6:09 AM
Dwayne just dropped everyone on the climb and is riding away from the group....written across his top tube where you might usually find the cyclists name is one word and one word only written in bold letters.... LOGIC
It may be fun to argue with creationists, but it's pointlessContinental
Aug 19, 2003 6:28 AM
Creationist can sit on the edge of the Grand Canyon and see the Colorado river eroding the rock a mile below and conclude that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. They can go a quarter mile under Lake Erie and see a 20 foot layer of sea salt under layers upon layers of sedimentary rock, all full of fossils from creatures that don't exist and conclude that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. They can look at the shape of the continents and know the rate of contintental drift and conclude that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. They can peer into the sky and see light from galaxies millions of light years away anc conclude that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. So, how are we going to use facts and logic to show them the absurdity of their beliefs?
Got that nail RIGHT on the head. Nice job (nm)Silverback
Aug 19, 2003 8:01 AM
It may be fun to argue with creationists,filtersweep
Aug 19, 2003 9:47 AM
My favorite argument is that god placed fossils on this planet to confound scientists...
To further confuse scientists GodContinental
Aug 19, 2003 10:04 AM
Created light patterns that looks just like supernovas, even though the supernovas never existed. and He sped up the decay rate of isotopes to make it look like the earth is much older than 10,000 years.

Obviously, God has a great sense of humor. Or he is really, really mean. Lot's wife would probably say really, really mean.