Author Topic: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...  (Read 8026 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #58 on: June 21, 2014, 06:49:38 PM »
skeptic54768, why do you ignore my posts? Is your god not one to praise honesty and humility? Wasn't pride the very first sin (Satan's sin)? The least you could do is say "I'm sorry. I was wrong.". Here, allow me to quote them for you:

Well, then you can see how strange it sounds to us creationists, right? Start with simple bacteria/protozoa/amoebas. Then somehow we get insects, mammals, fish, and reptiles from that????

You can see how at some point, the bacteria/protozoa/amoeba would have to have given birth to a different species at some point. Otherwise, only bacteria/protozoa/amoeba would exist right now....

The thing is that minor changes here and there, after a very long time (from our limited perspective) make beings end up completely different than when they started out. Imagine a Mercedes. It's a car. However, you're not happy with it. You start tinkering. Maybe take out the wheels and replace them with wheels from another brand. Then you put in a slightly bigger and more powerful engine. With that added horsepower, you can put in a more durable chassis, so why not? Then you decide to put in an even heavier chassis, but forget to upgrade the engine. That's OK; the car won't break down, it will just be a little slower. You get to it when you have the time. You finally replace the engine with a better one, but that engine is too powerful for the weight of your car. Upgrade chassis again. Wait, the wheels are beginning to bend under the car's enormous weight. Gotta replace them too, maybe with something from an RV.
Keep doing this long enough, and you end up with an RV instead of a car. Yes, they are still vehicles. However, all life forms are life forms. This is where I assume you'd think my analogy would fail.
If you don't like this analogy, think of the first vehicle. It was something powered by animal traction. Now we have space shuttles that look nothing like those first vehicles, but still evolved from it.

No agenda at all. I just go where the evidence leads me. I feel it's more compelling for creationism than evolutionism. Most people who learn about evolution at school/college do not learn to criticize it and find the flaws/holes in it! They just parrot what the teacher says and they smile and nod and think they know everything when they haven't even seen the other side of the argument.

Wrong.
84.3% of my the people in country are some sort of christian.
When I was taught Lamarckian evolution alongside Darwinian evolution[1], so that we could compare the two, I told my teacher that Lamarck seemed to have a point. In fact, I said that using a trait more often would result in it being more developed, like a muscle becoming stronger because you use it more often. She explained that using doesn't necessarily change the DNA, and it is the DNA that has the information that will be passed on. I agreed, but added that, removing traits from a group of members of a certain species, then allowing them to breed, would effectively remove sexual selection based on those traits, assuming, of course, that the creatures didn't simply die due to their lack of, say, legs. I can't recall what she said at this point, though. My point is that children can and do question things they are taught.
You know what else I questioned (before it was explained to me)? Integrals. And we're not talking about physical sciences anymore; this is math, where things can be proven. I saw no logical reason why calculating an antiderivative would allow us to calculate what an integral is used to calculate. Then there's the fact that the three fundamental forces are still being referred to as "four" fundamental forces. I spoke to my Mechanics teacher about this. The discovery was not all that recent, IMO. I argued that, if we were going to be conservative, we might as well go back to five fundamental forces and be done with it. Then there's the fact she told us there were only three states of matter. I approached her at the end of the class and asked her about plasma, Bose-Einstein condensates, and a third state that had been confirmed a few months before I asked her about it. Rigid bodies was another thing. And this entire paragraph was, at the most, two years ago, when I started college.
Don't assume that, just because you don't question what you are taught (creationism), others don't either.
 1. At this time, I was already an atheist.
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_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-434
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #59 on: June 22, 2014, 01:53:25 AM »
skeptic54768, why do you ignore my posts? Is your god not one to praise honesty and humility? Wasn't pride the very first sin (Satan's sin)? The least you could do is say "I'm sorry. I was wrong.". Here, allow me to quote them for you:

Well, then you can see how strange it sounds to us creationists, right? Start with simple bacteria/protozoa/amoebas. Then somehow we get insects, mammals, fish, and reptiles from that????

You can see how at some point, the bacteria/protozoa/amoeba would have to have given birth to a different species at some point. Otherwise, only bacteria/protozoa/amoeba would exist right now....

The thing is that minor changes here and there, after a very long time (from our limited perspective) make beings end up completely different than when they started out. Imagine a Mercedes. It's a car. However, you're not happy with it. You start tinkering. Maybe take out the wheels and replace them with wheels from another brand. Then you put in a slightly bigger and more powerful engine. With that added horsepower, you can put in a more durable chassis, so why not? Then you decide to put in an even heavier chassis, but forget to upgrade the engine. That's OK; the car won't break down, it will just be a little slower. You get to it when you have the time. You finally replace the engine with a better one, but that engine is too powerful for the weight of your car. Upgrade chassis again. Wait, the wheels are beginning to bend under the car's enormous weight. Gotta replace them too, maybe with something from an RV.
Keep doing this long enough, and you end up with an RV instead of a car. Yes, they are still vehicles. However, all life forms are life forms. This is where I assume you'd think my analogy would fail.
If you don't like this analogy, think of the first vehicle. It was something powered by animal traction. Now we have space shuttles that look nothing like those first vehicles, but still evolved from it.

No agenda at all. I just go where the evidence leads me. I feel it's more compelling for creationism than evolutionism. Most people who learn about evolution at school/college do not learn to criticize it and find the flaws/holes in it! They just parrot what the teacher says and they smile and nod and think they know everything when they haven't even seen the other side of the argument.

Wrong.
84.3% of my the people in country are some sort of christian.
When I was taught Lamarckian evolution alongside Darwinian evolution[1], so that we could compare the two, I told my teacher that Lamarck seemed to have a point. In fact, I said that using a trait more often would result in it being more developed, like a muscle becoming stronger because you use it more often. She explained that using doesn't necessarily change the DNA, and it is the DNA that has the information that will be passed on. I agreed, but added that, removing traits from a group of members of a certain species, then allowing them to breed, would effectively remove sexual selection based on those traits, assuming, of course, that the creatures didn't simply die due to their lack of, say, legs. I can't recall what she said at this point, though. My point is that children can and do question things they are taught.
You know what else I questioned (before it was explained to me)? Integrals. And we're not talking about physical sciences anymore; this is math, where things can be proven. I saw no logical reason why calculating an antiderivative would allow us to calculate what an integral is used to calculate. Then there's the fact that the three fundamental forces are still being referred to as "four" fundamental forces. I spoke to my Mechanics teacher about this. The discovery was not all that recent, IMO. I argued that, if we were going to be conservative, we might as well go back to five fundamental forces and be done with it. Then there's the fact she told us there were only three states of matter. I approached her at the end of the class and asked her about plasma, Bose-Einstein condensates, and a third state that had been confirmed a few months before I asked her about it. Rigid bodies was another thing. And this entire paragraph was, at the most, two years ago, when I started college.
Don't assume that, just because you don't question what you are taught (creationism), others don't either.
 1. At this time, I was already an atheist.

Sorry.

I do not feel that is a valid analogy. Start with a car and you will always get variations but they will still be cars. Start with a car and get an airplane or a train is more of what evolution is saying. Or start with a car and get a house.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 527
  • Darwins +60/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #60 on: June 22, 2014, 04:49:15 AM »
Skeptic; how do you account for the Gaia satellite measuring the Universe to be at least 24,000 years old simply using trigonometry alone? My Christian friends tell me that 'trigonometry is wrong' but they can't seem to be able to explain this to me, they just stop debating. I'd like to hear your views on this.

I am not sure how that works. But suppose you are right and the universe is 24,000 years old according to trigonometry. Wouldn't that be closer to our model than the evolutionary model? Why doesn't the math show billions of years? How does the math even show what you're saying? Very curious.

Hi Skeptic, thanks for replying. Star distance is calculated in several different ways according to their distance, each method calibrated by another, in much the same way as a micrometer is used for measuring thousands of an inch, a ruler for inches and tape measure for feet and metres. The micrometre can calibrate the ruler to ensure it is accurate, then the ruler can calibrate the tape measure.

Until November last year near stars (up to 10,000 light years away) were directly measured by trigonometry. This involved basically measuring the angle between the star and the sun, then six months later (when Earth was on the opposite side of the Sun) measuring the angle again. This enables a giant triangle to be drawn, and when we have two angles of a triangle we then know the third (2 angles minus 180 degrees gives the third angle). We know one length of the triangle (distance from Earth to the Sun x2) then using basic trigonometry we can find the lengths of the other sides. This gives us the distance to the star, we know that light travels at a fixed speed in a vacuum which tells us how long the light has been travelling. This isn't the age of the star, just the time it has taken the light to arrive. The Gaia satellite swings out further than Earth orbit to give us greater ability to measure further stars. It can calculate stars up to 30,000 light years away with a minimum accuracy of 24,000 light years.

To use the Bible as a science book to determine the age of the Earth, Bishop Ussher counted up all the ages of the characters in the stories to arrive at an Earth creation date of 4004BC. For the Bible to be used as an instrument to date the Universe, a creationist can only use this date; 4004BC. If hard concrete evidence of the Earth existing in 4005BC was found, then this shows the Bible cannot be used for dating.

A directly measured star age of at least 24,000 years proves that the bible cannot be used for dating the Universe.

Well, now that was interesting. But if God created the light in situ, wouldn't we see the same thing? It doesn't conclusively prove that God wasn't involved. Just like the example I always give of God creating Adam and Adam looked 25 years old even though he was mere seconds old.

The god of the Bible could not have placed 'light strings' from the stars to our eyes to make the universe appear old as this would be a lie. Virtually the whole of our view of the stars would be a lie.

Dendrochronology, dating by tree rings, takes us back about 11,000 years. The god of the Bible could not have created adult trees with rings because this would be a lie.

Can you see now Skep that the universe is way older than 6000 years?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Offline Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 527
  • Darwins +60/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #61 on: June 22, 2014, 07:23:47 AM »
I do not feel that is a valid analogy. Start with a car and you will always get variations but they will still be cars. Start with a car and get an airplane or a train is more of what evolution is saying. Or start with a car and get a house.

Surely one could say "Start with life and you will always get variations."? I have spoken with many creationists and they can never seem to give a coherent argument against evolution. Skep, can you explain to me?

Why can variations in life not give rise to different species over millions of years? I've only ever heard creationists answer "Well, because it can't." Which isn't an answer.

Can you explain to me?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #62 on: June 22, 2014, 07:35:01 AM »
Start with a car and get an airplane or a train is more of what evolution is saying.

Did you not read the very last line of the car analogy post? It said that the first vehicle started out being animal-powered. Now we have airplanes, spaceships, and trains that look nothing like cars, but still operate on the same basic principle and came from the same thing.
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_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #63 on: June 22, 2014, 07:57:13 AM »
I do not feel that is a valid analogy. Start with a car and you will always get variations but they will still be cars. Start with a car and get an airplane or a train is more of what evolution is saying. Or start with a car and get a house.
Why would this be a good counter-analogy?  Nobody has ever claimed that cars actually evolve.  The theory of evolution only involves life - self-replicating organisms that work off whatever their DNA says to do, regardless of the fact that it's a bit different from generation to generation.

A better question is why you are so unwilling to even consider that your god could have started with something very simple and let it change itself to see what it ultimately comes up with over time.  It's not like an immortal, eternal being would have to be concerned with getting things done quickly, after all.  It could afford to be very patient - after all, what's a few billion years when you have an unlimited number of them to go through?  It's almost like you're saying that your god couldn't have worked through the means of evolution.

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #64 on: June 22, 2014, 06:02:32 PM »
Wait? Are you meaning to tell me that creationism isn't banned as science in US public schools? And this thread is about you hoping that someday we can reach the point where it is illegal to teach belief A and not belief B?

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #65 on: June 22, 2014, 06:04:33 PM »
Wait? Are you meaning to tell me that creationism isn't banned as science in US public schools? And this thread is about you hoping that someday we can reach the point where it is illegal to teach belief A and not belief B?

Teach beliefs all you want in religious studies. Teach science in science classes.
Cue "evolutionism/darwinism/evolution is a belief/faith".
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_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #66 on: June 22, 2014, 06:33:00 PM »
Wait? Are you meaning to tell me that creationism isn't banned as science in US public schools? And this thread is about you hoping that someday we can reach the point where it is illegal to teach belief A and not belief B?
It isn't a matter of creationism being banned as science, as whether it actually is science.

If creationism were science, then teaching it in a science classroom would be okay.  But it's not science.  What it is, is an attempt to treat Biblical doctrine as if it were a series of scientific observations, and thus draw scientific conclusions from it.  However, since it requires making so many assumptions in order to keep that doctrine from being falsified, it doesn't hold together at all.

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #67 on: June 22, 2014, 06:40:02 PM »
Wait? Are you meaning to tell me that creationism isn't banned as science in US public schools? And this thread is about you hoping that someday we can reach the point where it is illegal to teach belief A and not belief B?

Teach beliefs all you want in religious studies. Teach science in science classes.
Cue "evolutionism/darwinism/evolution is a belief/faith".
So, you are trying to refute a legitimate argument by simply citing said argument before I post it? Do you even know what it means to 'believe' something? If the belief in evolution is not a belief, then you are implying that it is an inherent truth that is forced upon humans to know against our own will, that therefore all humans must know it to be an absolute fact. Of course, if that isn't the case, then it is indeed a belief.

Also, a created world would contain science. Science might not be applicable to the supernatural (although can be applied to natural things that are a result of the supernatural), but nobody ever said they were going to teach bible stories in science class.

Do you think that creationists do not believe in cells or atoms? Do you think that a creation driven science class would toss out all things you classify as science? Do you think it would toss out even the grand majority of things you classify as science? The grand majority of science is accepted by the grand majority of both naturalists and creationists.

Macro-evolution, the big bang, billions of years, and probably a select few smaller subjects are the only things not accepted by most creationists. Meanwhile, like I said, the vast majority of science is.

Really, what the difference boils down to is an interpretation of history. How organisms got to the point they are currently at, how the universe got to the point it is currently at, etc. and these beliefs are based off of interpretations of the same evidence. Yet you think that only your conclusion deserves to be taught as a possibility?

Why not teach both and let the student decide what to believe (it wouldn't really elongate the lessons that much, as once again it would only deal with select sections of the explanation of history)? Why would you not want that? If evolution truly has such an insurmountable amount of evidence, then surely students would choose to accept it the majority of the time, right? Once again, the only difference being taught would be differences in interpretations. Interpretations of which are not true by definition, but rather rely on various evidence that a person chooses to believe.

Of course, you could just scrap interpretations altogether and only teach about what we know because of empirical testable observations made in the present, rather than belief driven interpretations of what we can never know for perfect truth: the past.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2014, 06:41:42 PM by Spinner198 »

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #68 on: June 22, 2014, 06:43:56 PM »
First you complain that I'm "refuting" something before you say it, then you go and say exactly what you said I had "refuted". Amazing.
You should look up the evidence for creationism and ID. Hint: there's none.
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_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #69 on: June 22, 2014, 06:58:32 PM »
First you complain that I'm "refuting" something before you say it, then you go and say exactly what you said I had "refuted". Amazing.
You should look up the evidence for creationism and ID. Hint: there's none.
Well first of all, I never claimed you refuted said argument. It wasn't a refutation at all. What I said: "you are trying to refute", key word trying.

Secondly, I don't plan to believe somebody who claims that something has no evidence when that somebody wouldn't even accept any evidence if it really did exist. How are we supposed to provide you with the evidence if you just automatically assume that no such evidence exists? How can we tell you about these things if you just assume that anybody who does believe this evidence exists is automatically wrong? How can we convince you that evidence supports creation if you assume that such a thing is impossible from the get go and instead choose to rely upon a 'natural explanation', or in emerging cases pure theory crafting not based on empirical evidence (such as the multiverse theory being an 'explanation' for fine tuning supported life)?

If you just write off any evidence that we present to you as 'automatically wrong' then of course you aren't going to see any evidence. If you just choose to not believe something from a particular person or group because said person or group beliefs in creationism, then how would they attempt to present evidence to you?

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5670
  • Darwins +50/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #70 on: June 22, 2014, 06:59:37 PM »
Ugh, I hate the

Quote from: Spinner
Really, what the difference boils down to is an interpretation of history. How organisms got to the point they are currently at, how the universe got to the point it is currently at, etc. and these beliefs are based off of interpretations of the same evidence. Yet you think that only your conclusion deserves to be taught as a possibility?

argument.

Evolution, the big bang and abiogenesis do not share any similarities to creationism. The biggest reason there are no similarities is because there is no evidence for creationism outside of religious text, while there are thousands and thousands of scientific studies that have been, and currently are being, tested. Until creationism/ID can bring something valuable to scientific textbooks (valuable meaning that their position that God created the universe and everything in it [insert how here]), then creationism could have a shot at being considered somewhat scientific. Until then (and it'll never happen, BTW) ID has no place being taught along side evolutionary biology/big bang cosmology.

If, and it's a BIG IF, BTW, ID is to be taught in public schools, which creation story do you think should be taught in the science classroom, for the students to decide, Spinner? Given how there are many, many creation stories the entire semester would be spent teaching each one, just to make sure they pick the one that they wish to be is correct.
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #71 on: June 22, 2014, 07:04:41 PM »
Well first of all, I never claimed you refuted said argument. It wasn't a refutation at all. What I said: "you are trying to refute", key word trying.

I'm sorry. You are correct.

Secondly, I don't plan to believe somebody who claims that something has no evidence when that somebody wouldn't even accept any evidence if it really did exist. How are we supposed to provide you with the evidence if you just automatically assume that no such evidence exists? How can we tell you about these things if you just assume that anybody who does believe this evidence exists is automatically wrong? How can we convince you that evidence supports creation if you assume that such a thing is impossible from the get go and instead choose to rely upon a 'natural explanation', or in emerging cases pure theory crafting not based on empirical evidence (such as the multiverse theory being an 'explanation' for fine tuning supported life)?

I consider myself a reasonably good scientist. Open-minded, and willing to say that I am wrong (like I did above). However, after listening to the same tired, bullshit debates from ID proponents and creationists for five fucking years, I have concluded that no evidence actually exists.

If you just write off any evidence that we present to you as 'automatically wrong' then of course you aren't going to see any evidence. If you just choose to not believe something from a particular person or group because said person or group beliefs in creationism, then how would they attempt to present evidence to you?

You think belief is a choice? You think I "chose" to believe that certain spices and foods go well together, for example, while others don't? You're wrong. Beliefs are the result of analysis of evidence. What one can do is ignore the evidence against their beliefs while focusing on the rest (confirmation bias), which is something creationists are quite good at. Hence why they're creationists.
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_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #72 on: June 22, 2014, 10:18:16 PM »
We can't even have common core
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Core
because that would be Gubment telling states what to do. Even if it worked.

Offline Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 527
  • Darwins +60/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #73 on: June 23, 2014, 02:07:14 AM »
Wait? Are you meaning to tell me that creationism isn't banned as science in US public schools? And this thread is about you hoping that someday we can reach the point where it is illegal to teach belief A and not belief B?

Teach beliefs all you want in religious studies. Teach science in science classes.
Cue "evolutionism/darwinism/evolution is a belief/faith".
So, you are trying to refute a legitimate argument by simply citing said argument before I post it? Do you even know what it means to 'believe' something? If the belief in evolution is not a belief, then you are implying that it is an inherent truth that is forced upon humans to know against our own will, that therefore all humans must know it to be an absolute fact. Of course, if that isn't the case, then it is indeed a belief.

Also, a created world would contain science. Science might not be applicable to the supernatural (although can be applied to natural things that are a result of the supernatural), but nobody ever said they were going to teach bible stories in science class.

Do you think that creationists do not believe in cells or atoms? Do you think that a creation driven science class would toss out all things you classify as science? Do you think it would toss out even the grand majority of things you classify as science? The grand majority of science is accepted by the grand majority of both naturalists and creationists.

Macro-evolution, the big bang, billions of years, and probably a select few smaller subjects are the only things not accepted by most creationists. Meanwhile, like I said, the vast majority of science is.

Really, what the difference boils down to is an interpretation of history. How organisms got to the point they are currently at, how the universe got to the point it is currently at, etc. and these beliefs are based off of interpretations of the same evidence. Yet you think that only your conclusion deserves to be taught as a possibility?

Why not teach both and let the student decide what to believe (it wouldn't really elongate the lessons that much, as once again it would only deal with select sections of the explanation of history)? Why would you not want that? If evolution truly has such an insurmountable amount of evidence, then surely students would choose to accept it the majority of the time, right? Once again, the only difference being taught would be differences in interpretations. Interpretations of which are not true by definition, but rather rely on various evidence that a person chooses to believe.

Of course, you could just scrap interpretations altogether and only teach about what we know because of empirical testable observations made in the present, rather than belief driven interpretations of what we can never know for perfect truth: the past.

Creationism, and therefore the creationist god, have been mathematically dis-proven through trigonometry and star age. This is why creationism is not taught in UK science classrooms; because it is not science.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #74 on: June 23, 2014, 08:24:41 AM »
I do not feel that is a valid analogy. Start with a car and you will always get variations but they will still be cars. Start with a car and get an airplane or a train is more of what evolution is saying. Or start with a car and get a house.

The Wright brothers started with a bike.  Now we have stealth bombers.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1302
  • Darwins +96/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #75 on: June 23, 2014, 09:36:27 AM »
Wait? Are you meaning to tell me that creationism isn't banned as science in US public schools?

yes


Quote
And this thread is about you hoping that someday we can reach the point where it is illegal to teach belief A and not belief B?

Not quite.  My hope is that someday we will reach the point of understanding that only science belongs in the science classroom, and further that the general public will gain a better understanding of what constitutes valid science vs. myth/pseudoscience, and that the former stays in science class and the latter is eschewed/banned from science class.

If a belief can be shown to be science, then it belongs in science class.  Creationism/ID has not, thus does not.
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Offline LoriPinkAngel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1236
  • Darwins +127/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm Your Nurse, Not Your Waitress...
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #76 on: June 23, 2014, 03:04:02 PM »
Wait? Are you meaning to tell me that creationism isn't banned as science in US public schools?

yes


Quote
And this thread is about you hoping that someday we can reach the point where it is illegal to teach belief A and not belief B?

Not quite.  My hope is that someday we will reach the point of understanding that only science belongs in the science classroom, and further that the general public will gain a better understanding of what constitutes valid science vs. myth/pseudoscience, and that the former stays in science class and the latter is eschewed/banned from science class.

If a belief can be shown to be science, then it belongs in science class.  Creationism/ID has not, thus does not.


It must depend on the State/school.  I'm pretty sure the public schools around here (NY) don't call Creationism a science and my son is required by the state to study Evolution even at the Christian school he goes to.
It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long.  But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #77 on: June 23, 2014, 04:02:48 PM »
I do not feel that is a valid analogy. Start with a car and you will always get variations but they will still be cars. Start with a car and get an airplane or a train is more of what evolution is saying. Or start with a car and get a house.

The Wright brothers started with a bike.  Now we have stealth bombers.

Bwa ha ha ha ... that was awesome.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #78 on: June 23, 2014, 05:12:36 PM »
So, why should creationism be taught in science class, Spinner?

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-434
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #79 on: June 24, 2014, 01:11:22 AM »
Why would this be a good counter-analogy?  Nobody has ever claimed that cars actually evolve.  The theory of evolution only involves life - self-replicating organisms that work off whatever their DNA says to do, regardless of the fact that it's a bit different from generation to generation.

A better question is why you are so unwilling to even consider that your god could have started with something very simple and let it change itself to see what it ultimately comes up with over time.  It's not like an immortal, eternal being would have to be concerned with getting things done quickly, after all.  It could afford to be very patient - after all, what's a few billion years when you have an unlimited number of them to go through?  It's almost like you're saying that your god couldn't have worked through the means of evolution.

I am not willing to consider God doing it because that is not how He said things were done. Plus, I don't consider the evidence for evolution as cut and dry as you guys do.

By the way, trueorigin seems to be working again, so here is the retina link:

http://www.trueorigin.org/retina.asp
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-434
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #80 on: June 24, 2014, 01:32:14 AM »
The god of the Bible could not have placed 'light strings' from the stars to our eyes to make the universe appear old as this would be a lie. Virtually the whole of our view of the stars would be a lie.

Dendrochronology, dating by tree rings, takes us back about 11,000 years. The god of the Bible could not have created adult trees with rings because this would be a lie.

Can you see now Skep that the universe is way older than 6000 years?

But this is all much closer to our Biblical estimate than the evolutionist's. Tree rings + the trigonometry are both actually on our side.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5670
  • Darwins +50/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #81 on: June 24, 2014, 01:34:28 AM »
^^Everything can be on your side if you try hard enough...
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-434
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #82 on: June 24, 2014, 01:35:46 AM »
Creationism, and therefore the creationist god, have been mathematically dis-proven through trigonometry and star age. This is why creationism is not taught in UK science classrooms; because it is not science.

Is it scientific to take one bone of a skeleton and construct a whole skeleton out of it?
Is it scientific to find pieces of the "same skeleton" hundreds of miles apart and putting together the whole skeleton based on an assumption that it must be the "same skeleton?"

Just curious as to your answer.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-434
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #83 on: June 24, 2014, 01:38:19 AM »
^^Everything can be on your side if you try hard enough...

No, in this case it's just very basic arithmetic:

11,000 years for tree rings is 5,000 years close to the Biblical age.
24,000 years from trigonometry is 18,000 years close to the Biblical age.

Both of those ages are approximately 4.5 billion years close to the evolutionist age.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5670
  • Darwins +50/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #84 on: June 24, 2014, 01:44:11 AM »
And light years, dendrochronology and geochronology all have to do with evolution, how?
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 527
  • Darwins +60/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #85 on: June 24, 2014, 02:17:51 AM »
^^Everything can be on your side if you try hard enough...

No, in this case it's just very basic arithmetic:

11,000 years for tree rings is 5,000 years close to the Biblical age.
24,000 years from trigonometry is 18,000 years close to the Biblical age.

Both of those ages are approximately 4.5 billion years close to the evolutionist age.

Skep, what you are completely failing to understand is that if the universe did not begin on 24 October 4004 BC, then the bible CANNOT be used to date the universe.

Trigonometry has shown unequivocally that the universe is AT LEAST 24,000 years old. This proves the bible cannot be used to date the universe.

So answer me this Skep; as the universe has been proven to be at least 24,000 years old, why can't it be 16.5 billion years old? Where is your biblical support for a 24,000 year old universe but not a 16.5 billion year old one?
A creationist has to cling to the clearly dis-proven date of 4004 BC or abandon the bible as a dating method.

The ONLY dating you are allowed is that the universe began in 4004 BC. And this, as we know, is unequivocally wrong.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #86 on: June 24, 2014, 07:51:41 AM »
I am not willing to consider God doing it because that is not how He said things were done.

That is slightly inaccurate.  You should have said: that is how someone else said that he said that is not how things were done.

At best, everything you think god said, is second hand.
 
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.