Author Topic: Public Charter Schools Teaching Creationism And Right-Wing Propaganda In Texas  (Read 18852 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11192
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
The problem, BibleStudent, is that if you concede that "macroevolution" happens, you're effectively conceding that "macroevolution" happens too.

Small typo there, jaimehlers; the first "macroevolution" should be "microevolution".
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5236
  • Darwins +598/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Fixed.  I hate trying to post from my phone sometimes.

Offline G-Roll

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Darwins +50/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
I have never indicated that I dismiss the entirety of the ToE. Rather, my contention, as I stated in an earlier post, is that if fails to provide a verifiable explanation for soup-to-humans.



An entire world of info is at your finger tips. Yet you claim to not understand or dismiss the evolution of cells or what I think you mean by "soup to humans." 

Or

Are you dismissing  the whole beginning of life/the universe or what have you. To my understanding evolution does not cover the beginning of where life comes from rather how we got here.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
VERY simple animal life. Ediacaran "animal" life is very plant-like; very simple. I would be surprised if there were any logical fallacies in the conventional scientific view, that you could identify, without collecting a Nobel prize. There may be (a) unexplained gaps, or (b) things which are plain wrong.

In the case of (a) there is no fallacy, just a gap. In the case of (b) you wouldn't be able to identify it.

I was not referring to the “conventional scientific view” but rather to the arguments made by proponents of the ToE to try and elevate it to something that it is not.

Two of the more frequently occurring fallacies I hear are the “Argument to the Future” and the “Hasty Generalization

Example:
“We do not know how such and such occurred but we will someday.”
This is an Argument to the Future.

Example:
“Such and such fossil proves evolution.”
This is a Hasty Generalization

There are a handful of others that I hear on occasion but these two seem pretty common.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
I have never indicated that I dismiss the entirety of the ToE. Rather, my contention, as I stated in an earlier post, is that if fails to provide a verifiable explanation for soup-to-humans.



An entire world of info is at your finger tips. Yet you claim to not understand or dismiss the evolution of cells or what I think you mean by "soup to humans." 

Or

Are you dismissing  the whole beginning of life/the universe or what have you. To my understanding evolution does not cover the beginning of where life comes from rather how we got here.

At 0:36 he begins with:

"For the first billion of years or so, life existed entirely of simple single cells like bacteria and arachea [oh, really?...how does he know that?]. Around two billion years ago complex cells appeared [as if this is an irrefutable fact], cells like the ones that make up you and me and it seems [at least he phrased this a little more accurately..."it seems"] they appeared out of the blue" (oh my…out of the blue…go figure].

Notice how he doesn’t qualify his assertions by correctly stating that this is what the evidence might suggests. Rather he presents his information as though it is indisputable and completely accurate.



Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2339
  • Darwins +434/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Example:
“Such and such fossil proves evolution.”
This is a Hasty Generalization

There are a handful of others that I hear on occasion but these two seem pretty common.

Just as a quick note:

I'm not sure anyone makes such an egregious generalization.  I don't think anyone really says "this fossil proves evolution."

I think it's more like "the entirety of the fossil record coincides with what one would expect to find if the predications of the theory of evolution are valid.  This new fangled-dangled fossil here fits into the entirety of the fossil record nicely."

........................................

A broader point though - I'm getting a little lost on the lines of argumentation in this thread.  Because as I understand it, arguing about the what the theory of evolution says about the origins of life is...rather pointless.  The theory of evolution doesn't address how the first self-replicating entities (molecules, organisms - whatever label is valid in this context).  It doesn't attempt to address that question.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12537
  • Darwins +300/-32
  • Gender: Male
It would be nice if we could at least acknowledge that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.  Can we do that, BS?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
........................................

A broader point though - I'm getting a little lost on the lines of argumentation in this thread.  Because as I understand it, arguing about the what the theory of evolution says about the origins of life is...rather pointless.  The theory of evolution doesn't address how the first self-replicating entities (molecules, organisms - whatever label is valid in this context).  It doesn't attempt to address that question.

I agree !!!
This is why I am not responding to some of comments regarding the 'fine tuning' argument. We've already gone off in a couple of different directions and the conversation is starting to get diluted.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
It would be nice if we could at least acknowledge that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.  Can we do that, BS?

I have not reached a personal conclusion on the age of the Earth.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Darwins +265/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you

Example:
“We do not know how such and such occurred but we will someday.”
This is an Argument to the Future.

Example:
“Such and such fossil proves evolution.”
This is a Hasty Generalization


And both of your "examples" are what people who actually understand logic would call Strawmen.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5236
  • Darwins +598/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
I have not reached a personal conclusion on the age of the Earth.
You don't have to present a conclusion, but you should at least put where you're leaning, or at least what it is that keeps you from coming to a conclusion.

By the way, when you bring up arguments such as fine-tuning and then refuse to respond to anyone who addresses them, it comes across as dodging.  If things like fine-tuning are extraneous to the discussion, then you should refrain from bringing them up in the first place.

Offline G-Roll

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Darwins +50/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
........................................

A broader point though - I'm getting a little lost on the lines of argumentation in this thread.  Because as I understand it, arguing about the what the theory of evolution says about the origins of life is...rather pointless.  The theory of evolution doesn't address how the first self-replicating entities (molecules, organisms - whatever label is valid in this context).  It doesn't attempt to address that question.

I agree !!!
This is why I am not responding to some of comments regarding the 'fine tuning' argument. We've already gone off in a couple of different directions and the conversation is starting to get diluted.

I still am not clear on what BS argument is. Perhaps I am really slow...

BS are you arguing against the beginning of life or evolution?  As Jdawg and myself pointed out ToE doesn’t address the very beginning. Rather it explains the "soup to human" concept that you expressed disagreement with. When you responded to the video I posted you seemed to take issue with the beginning/where life originated rather than how we got to life as we know it now. I just wanted to clarify what your argument is as it is a bit unclear to me.
My understanding of ToE is pretty basic so I don’t plan on debating but I would like to see the thread on track and discussing an actual clear point. My apologies if I am the one who is unclear and derailing.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12537
  • Darwins +300/-32
  • Gender: Male
It would be nice if we could at least acknowledge that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.  Can we do that, BS?

I have not reached a personal conclusion on the age of the Earth.

If you can't even bring yourself to accept the myriad lines of evidence for a physically old Earth, then there's little point in expecting you to accept the truth of anything else brought your way.  Honesty is not a virtue to you.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2339
  • Darwins +434/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
BibleStudent, is it fair to say that your claim is:

"The available evidence points to the origin of life being the result of the actions of a singular, willful, sentient designer."
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
I have not reached a personal conclusion on the age of the Earth.
You don't have to present a conclusion, but you should at least put where you're leaning, or at least what it is that keeps you from coming to a conclusion.

Conflicting information, in general, along with some unresolved skepticism about dating methods.

Quote
By the way, when you bring up arguments such as fine-tuning and then refuse to respond to anyone who addresses them, it comes across as dodging.  If things like fine-tuning are extraneous to the discussion, then you should refrain from bringing them up in the first place.

I did not present the 'fine tuning' argument as something I wanted to tackle in this discussion. Rather, I was asked a question that I had to answer and I answered it with 'fine tuning.' Otherwise I would agree with your taking issue. I had to answer the question, though.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
It would be nice if we could at least acknowledge that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.  Can we do that, BS?

I have not reached a personal conclusion on the age of the Earth.

If you can't even bring yourself to accept the myriad lines of evidence for a physically old Earth, then there's little point in expecting you to accept the truth of anything else brought your way.  Honesty is not a virtue to you.

Actually, I am being very honest by admitting that I have not reached a conclusion. I simply have not taken enough time to examine, in depth, the evidence for and against a 4.5 billion year old Earth. Would you rather I just lied and answered your initial question with an uninformed affirmation that your claim of a 4.5 billion year old Earth was accurate.

This is the kind of stupid shit that breathes an element of absolute foolishness into these discussions.

EDIT: Besides, we don't need to take this thread into yet another direction and away from the topics already being discussed.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12537
  • Darwins +300/-32
  • Gender: Male
Actually, I am being very honest by admitting that I have not reached a conclusion. I simply have not taken enough time to examine, in depth, the evidence for and against a 4.5 billion year old Earth. Would you rather I just lied and answered your initial question with an uninformed affirmation that your claim of a 4.5 billion year old Earth was accurate.

Admitting your unwillingness to even peruse the evidence doesn't make the unwillingness any more honest.

This is the kind of stupid shit that breathes an element of absolute foolishness into these discussions.

Well, what sort of evidence would convince you?  If none, then my original point stands re: your unwillingness to change your mind in light of demonstrated truth, preferring what you would on some level know is likely a falsehood.

EDIT: Besides, we don't need to take this thread into yet another direction and away from the topics already being discussed.

Your unwillingness to change your mind on a topic no matter what, is very much on-topic.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
I still am not clear on what BS argument is. Perhaps I am really slow...

BS are you arguing against the beginning of life or evolution?  As Jdawg and myself pointed out ToE doesn’t address the very beginning. Rather it explains the "soup to human" concept that you expressed disagreement with. When you responded to the video I posted you seemed to take issue with the beginning/where life originated rather than how we got to life as we know it now. I just wanted to clarify what your argument is as it is a bit unclear to me.
My understanding of ToE is pretty basic so I don’t plan on debating but I would like to see the thread on track and discussing an actual clear point. My apologies if I am the one who is unclear and derailing.

No apologies needed (at least not for me).

My position is that I believe an Intelligent Designer is the cause of life. I do not consider the entire ToE to be in error. Frankly, I find the whole thing to be rather fascinating. However, the evidence relating to an ancient past is sorely lacking and much of the phylogenetic tree is based on enormous assumptions. Further to that, efforts to determine the mechanisms for producing the ‘irreducibly complex’ structures we observe has produced virtually nothing in the way of an explanation.

Albeit brief on my part, I hope that help clarifies.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79

Admitting your unwillingness to even peruse the evidence doesn't make the unwillingness any more honest.

Who said I was "unwilling?" I said, if you had read my comments correctly, that I had not yet taken the time to reach an informed decision. Are you drunk or just acting like an idiot on purpose?

Quote
Well, what sort of evidence would convince you?  If none, then my original point stands re: your unwillingness to change your mind in light of demonstrated truth, preferring what you would on some level know is likely a falsehood.

How the hell am I supposed to know that until I explore the issue in greater depth?

Quote
Your unwillingness to change your mind on a topic no matter what, is very much on-topic.

It is rather evident that you are either intentionally being a prick or you forgot to take your medication today. Grow up !!

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12537
  • Darwins +300/-32
  • Gender: Male
Who said I was "unwilling?" I said, if you had read my comments correctly, that I had not yet taken the time to reach an informed decision. Are you drunk or just acting like an idiot on purpose?

Well, if you were willing, then it stands to reason that you would have done it by now.  Nothing was stopping you, and it's pretty relevant to the topics you've been posting about for ages.  What's your reason for refraining?

How the hell am I supposed to know that until I explore the issue in greater depth?

You can thus avoid the issue by refusing to explore the issue in any depth at all.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2014, 01:56:02 PM by Azdgari »
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
BibleStudent, is it fair to say that your claim is:

"The available evidence points to the origin of life being the result of the actions of a singular, willful, sentient designer."

See my most recent reply to G-Roll. If that does not help clarify my position then just let me know how I might be able to elaborate.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
The problem, BibleStudent, is that if you concede that "microevolution" happens, you're effectively conceding that "macroevolution" happens too.

Small changes add up, and there's no qualitative difference between the two.  Indeed, there are plenty of computer programs on the internet which demonstrate this, not to mention the fact that biology itself strongly supports the theory of evolution.  If it didn't, then we would have to look for something else which explained the required mechanisms.

Nonsense. If you can provide a confirmed example of a ‘snakes-from-lizards’ type of transition, I would be glad to examine it.

Quote
Saying "I believe in intelligent design because I don't understand how evolution explains 'soup to humans'" is tantamount to an argument from incredulity.  It's like claiming that computer programmers work magic because you don't understand how we get from binary to Windows.

If evolution adequately explained soup-to-humans, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.


Quote
In answer to your post directed at me, this is the problem.  You believe that a 'designer' is responsible no matter what, because of your religious belief.  Because of that, you refuse to consider that you could easily be wrong about that.  Your personal credulity in this designer deity of yours acts like a filter, preventing you from seeing or understanding anything that contradicts it.

There was a time when your accusation would have probably been true. I am not going to take the time to explain my lengthy journey from belief to severe doubt and back to belief. Suffice to say, I *may* have incorporated a bias into my interpretations at one time but that is no longer needed to influence my beliefs based on the information available.

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1348
  • Darwins +101/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream

My position is that I believe an Intelligent Designer is the cause of life. I do not consider the entire ToE to be in error. Frankly, I find the whole thing to be rather fascinating. However, the evidence relating to an ancient past is sorely lacking and much of the phylogenetic tree is based on enormous assumptions. Further to that, efforts to determine the mechanisms for producing the ‘irreducibly complex’ structures we observe has produced virtually nothing in the way of an explanation.

Albeit brief on my part, I hope that help clarifies.

emphasis added.

Wait, what?  In all these seventeen pages, and in other threads, there have been numerous attempts at proclaiming something irreducibly complex, and all have been answered with detailed explanations that they are NOT, in fact, irreducibly complex.  Are you actually reading the replies?
It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist today.  I decided to take my religion seriously, and that's when it started to fall apart for me.
~jdawg70

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79

My position is that I believe an Intelligent Designer is the cause of life. I do not consider the entire ToE to be in error. Frankly, I find the whole thing to be rather fascinating. However, the evidence relating to an ancient past is sorely lacking and much of the phylogenetic tree is based on enormous assumptions. Further to that, efforts to determine the mechanisms for producing the ‘irreducibly complex’ structures we observe has produced virtually nothing in the way of an explanation.

Albeit brief on my part, I hope that help clarifies.

emphasis added.

Wait, what?  In all these seventeen pages, and in other threads, there have been numerous attempts at proclaiming something irreducibly complex, and all have been answered with detailed explanations that they are NOT, in fact, irreducibly complex.  Are you actually reading the replies?

I have yet to see one successful argument that an 'irreducibly complex' mechanism is not 'irreducibly complex.'

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Darwins +86/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
First off, can we stop calling it Darwinism and just call it the ToE via natural selection?

So, I think I've explained this plenty of times in various different ways throughout this thread, but for you:

  • You believe that god designed and created nature.
  • Nature encompasses all natural processes/mechanisms.
  • Therefore, based on your belief, you must accept that all natural processes/mechanisms are designed and created by god.
  • The ToEvNS is a natural process/mechanism.
  • Therefore, based on your belief, you must accept that the ToEvNS is designed and created by god.
  • Therefore, to say that your god is a more plausible explanation than the ToEvNS is to say that god is a more plausible explanation than god.

The first point in that list shows that you agree that ID can be behind the ToEvNS.

The section of your post that creates a dilemma for your argument is this:

The ToEvNS is a natural process/mechanism.

There is no dilemma. Your contention here is that I've posited the ToEvNS as the explanation, but it doesn't matter if it is or not. What matters is that it is proposed as a natural mechanism whether it is true or not. If it is, then you must believe god designed and created it. If not, you must put forward a different natural mechanism that provides a better explanation. This is where you fall down.

Quote
Since you seem rather sensitive to previous inferences and assumptions I have made, would you please explain what you feel the ToEvNS explains?

I'm not sensitive towards what you've said, just frustrated. The ToEvNS explains the change in gene frequency over time.

Quote
I have never indicated that I dismiss the entirety of the ToE. Rather, my contention, as I stated in an earlier post, is that if fails to provide a verifiable explanation for soup-to-humans.

You are perfectly at liberty to personally find the ToE to be wanting in certain aspects. However, that's never been my point of contention (even though I think you're wrong to). What I am trying my best to do is explain to you that every time you dismiss the ToE, or any other theory or hypothesis in fact, you are inadvertently claiming that your god didn't create or design nature this way, but a different way, without providing an alternative.

Quote
I do not deny microevolutionary changes….and, yes, I believe they occur because of the complex mechanisms that God created….even if those mechanisms had somehow evolved from another mechanism.

Microevolution and macroevolution are terms coined by scientists. All macroevolution is is microevolution at the level of speciation and there are many observed cases of speciation. I suggest you research it. You must accept that your god is behind this mechanism if you believe god designed and created nature.
If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11192
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
I do not deny microevolutionary changes…

*sigh*



Any more questions about "micro evolution" and "macro evolution"?[1]
 1. I wrote both terms between quotes because they were made up by theists who had no idea what the fuck they were talking about.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12537
  • Darwins +300/-32
  • Gender: Male
I have yet to see one successful argument that an 'irreducibly complex' mechanism is not 'irreducibly complex.'

What would "success" entail?  If "success" means "changed BibleStudent's mind" then no argument can possibly be successful, because your mind isn't open to any new ideas.

If that is not what "success" means, then please define it so that folks know what they would need to do in order for their argument to count as "successful".  "Soundness" and "validity" clearly are not adequate.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1348
  • Darwins +101/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
*sigh*

Any more questions about "micro evolution" and "macro evolution"?[1]
 1. I wrote both terms between quotes because they were made up by theists who had no idea what the f**k they were talking about.

excellent OAA.  Allow me to present another example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtyqS68ViWk

Can you tell the exact frame at which the "baby" becomes a "toddler?"  The "child" becomes a "preteen" (age notwithstanding)?  No, you cannot.  Yet you cannot deny that these differentiations exist, even if they are simply created by our need to have differentiations.
It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist today.  I decided to take my religion seriously, and that's when it started to fall apart for me.
~jdawg70

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5236
  • Darwins +598/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Nonsense. If you can provide a confirmed example of a ‘snakes-from-lizards’ type of transition, I would be glad to examine it.
No, the nonsense is demanding a specific example, one that science hasn't yet found (because snakes generally do not leave fossils due to the lack of hard tissues), and using that to declare that 'macroevolution' is nonsense.  Especially when what you really mean is that they are actually totally unrelated to each other, an unjustified assumption which is almost always based on the Biblical 'kinds' argument.

Quote from: BibleStudent
If evolution adequately explained soup-to-humans, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
It does explain it adequately.  If it didn't, then it wouldn't serve as the cornerstone of biology.  If you want something that doesn't explain biology adequately, you should look to intelligent design, because that does not adequately explain anything in biology.  It's equivalent to saying Bill Gates designed Windows without giving the slightest detail how he went about it, an 'explanation' which has no explanatory power whatsoever.  Even though it's verifiably true (which is manifestly not true of intelligent design), it's still worthless as an explanation of how he made Windows - the same mistake that advocates of intelligent design consistently make.  On top of that, they can't even be sure whether there was a designer at all, let alone being able to tell if it was a group effort or a solo project.

If you're convinced that there is a designer, confirmation bias (seeing what you expect to see) will fool you into seeing evidence of design where there is none.  Indeed, that's the most likely reason why the evidence seems to support what you believe so strongly - because you believed you knew what you would find before you ever started looking at the evidence.  That's why scientists have to work really hard to overcome their biases when they perform experiments.  Otherwise they'd find what they expected to see, and not what was really there to see.

Quote from: BibleStudent
There was a time when your accusation would have probably been true. I am not going to take the time to explain my lengthy journey from belief to severe doubt and back to belief. Suffice to say, I *may* have incorporated a bias into my interpretations at one time but that is no longer needed to influence my beliefs based on the information available.
What makes you think that you aren't still incorporating a bias into your interpretations?  Biases are tricky like that, especially when you're dealing with something you can't really prove exists in the first place.  If you can't or won't honestly admit doubt in something, then the odds are very high that you're suffering from confirmation bias and are letting it influence your perceptions and judgment.  And it's evident talking to you that you've pretty effectively squelched any doubts you might still have that your "intelligent designer" exists.