![]() |
|
FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#1021 |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
reading some of those creationist claims involving star systems made me wonder... how do they explain why we can see light emissions from stars and galaxies much further away than 6,000 light years?
andromeda is some 2 million light years distant... if it (and us) were only created 6,000 years ago, we simply would not "see it" yet (a spiral galaxy, btw ![]()
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
![]() |
![]() |
#1022 |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
no, no, no, please!!! *whimper*
Please do NOT merge the two threads!!! Please - I want to talk about bases for determining curricula guidelines in the Kansas thread, and do NOT want to get into evidence details. The other thread is for discussing evidence for creationism, then the third thread is for discussing evidence for evolution. There's just too many angles to combine the threads - the subjects will get totally lost! ![]()
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! ![]() "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
![]() |
![]() |
#1023 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
i think you just don't want to have to answer my points ![]()
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#1024 |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
![]() Well, you're right in that I'm not in the mood to go over the evidence now - I've done two or three rounds over the last few years, and one needs to be in the mood for it! But truthfully, what intrigues me more is the underlying stuff - the definitions of science and worldviews/religions - and the ferocity of some people's reactions to what's going on, and what would make them so intense about it, etc. etc. I brought it to your attention twice now but don't recall seeing a response from you - did you see that if genetic info-adding was discovered, I would definitely give evolution another look-see and definitely give it more weight? Again, not all creationists are the same. I'm the best type *humble look* ![]() ![]()
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! ![]() "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
![]() |
![]() |
#1025 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
![]() my point on science... at its roots it's about theory and testing, not just theory if a theory is untestable by it's very nature (i.e. god), it is not a scientific theory evolution is a scientific theory because it can be debated via observation (as both sides have shown here) the idea the the earth is 6,000 years old is a scientific theory because it can be debated via observation (as both sides have shown here) the idea that there is a "creator" is not a scientific theory because it can be not be debated via observation... it can only be debated philosophically (your "morals" argument, for example)... so the term "creationism" is simply not science this has nothing to do with right or wrong... but has everything to do with whether it should have a major presence in the science classroom or not
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#1026 | ||||||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And also, as I pointed out with my examples about archaeologists and anthropologists and SETI scientists and Mars rover scientists - the search for indicators of intelligence, even extra-terrestrial intelligence, is by NO means foreign to the sciences, and is indeed entirely appropriate. Quote:
Let me start another post - I've been composing something in my head - my opening statement to my science class when we started a section on origins, if I were a biology teacher. I'll see if I can get my point across that way.
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! ![]() "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
#1027 | |||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
If I were a biology teacher ...
... here's how I would address the class when we started our section on origins:
"OK, class, today we're starting a rather fascinating topic - the topic of origins; or in other words, how what you see around us today got here! "I think the most important thing we can understand about this topic is that it is historical in nature - we're talking about things in the past that NO ONE has observed. However, that doesn't mean that we can do nothing - on the contrary, there's a lot we can explore, and we can and have made many wonderful discoveries about our world during this exploration. But it's important to know that we will never know for sure if we're right or not, so let's be respectful of people with different opinions on the subject. "I'd really like to underscore the importance of understanding the historical nature of this subject. Here's a quote that I think is helpful, from Ernst Mayr, a evolutionary biologist: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"Now on to some of the hypotheses. "A major dividing point right from the beginning, with intelligent scientists on both sides, is this: did our world get here though the intent and efforts of an extra-terrestrial intelligence, or though entirely unguided events? Again, we won't be able to PROVE either one, but we should be able to come up with some testable hypotheses for both. "Currently, the leading contender for the latter view, in this country, is a theory called neo-Darwinism, which, in a nutshell, says that the initial elements for life were somehow here and somehow came together to form the building blocks of life, and all life as we see it today came from these initial particles through the mechanisms of beneficial mutations and natural selection. Currently, this model is by far the most accepted model in the scientific community. This model, although not entirely scientifically testable, has some testable parts, and we will study and discuss these. We will also discuss the original Darwinian theory, along with a discussion of the scientific information thought to be correct in Darwin's day as he formulated his theory, and how it was proven wrong, and how the theory has been modified to take this into account. The major tenet of this theory is the concept of macro-evolution - that organisms can change on the order of particle to people. "As far as the former view - there are many creation stories in this world, with varying degrees of scientific testability and authenticity as historical literature. In this class, we'll discuss the creation account as described in the Bible. I've chosen this one for several reasons - I wanted to have a story that is written down as opposed to oral, and it has very high credentials as a piece of ancient literature, according to standards applied to all ancient literature, and it has the highest degree of relevance to our own culture and history here in the United States, and it has some very testable parts. This model is often referred to as Young Earth Creationism (YEC), which, in a nutshell, says that God was somehow here and in a one-time supernatural act created the universe with certain characteristics, as described in the Biblical book of Genesis. This model is also not entirely scientifically testable, but it has some testable parts, such as proposed age of the earth, and features of animal reproduction, and we will study and discuss these. "A third model that is becoming more and more popular falls into the former category but does not tie into any particular extraterrestrial intelligence; rather, it seeks to find hallmarks of intelligent design in the world around us, in the same way as archaeologists and anthropologists and SETI scientists and Mars rover scientists look for hallmarks of intelligent design. This model is titled Intelligent Design (ID). Again, this model is not entirely scientifically testable, but it has some testable parts, such as irreducible complexity and specified complexity. "ALL of these models have a starting point that we can't explain (IOW, where did God come from, or where did the chemical soup come from, or where did the extra-terrestrial intelligence come from?) - but since we ARE here, we'll just have to grant each model its starting point. And again, given the historical nature and inherent non-testability of many of the important features, maybe NONE of these are right! But certainly one of the two top-level concepts is right - either we're here through intelligent intent or we're not here through intelligent intent. "All three of these models, I again stress, have intelligent scientists behind them. Again, neo-Darwinism is by far the most widely held model, and we will spend the most time on it, but there have been many widely-held theories in the past that have been overthrown, and I don't think we should limit ourselves to only the most widely-held model, ESPECIALLY given the historical nature of the subject and that we CANNOT TEST to see if what the model said happened, actually happened. Let's treat each other as true scientists should - with consideration and respect, and only attack the data or the metholodology, not the person. "Keep open minds, keep free of bias, conduct your experiments with care, review data with open minds, let the data take you where it naturally goes instead of trying to force it to where you THINK it should go, be considerate of others' opinions, and ... let's start!" refpost
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! ![]() "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#1028 | |||
Friendly Neigborhood Sith Lord
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 2,080
|
Quote:
__________________
I was Press Secretary for the Berlioz administration and also, but not limited to, owner and co operator of fully armed and operational battle station EDDIE Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#1029 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
and remember "testable" means observable physical evidence from which theories can be implied... not necessarily proofs of absolute right or wrong here's the link i gave before concerning the evidence... theories are implied from evidence, just like many other scientific observations (i.e. we do not "truly know" that the sun is 93,000,000 miles from the sun, but based on other things we can observe here on earth (like the speed of light), we can make a pretty good guess)
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#1030 | ||||
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
Quote:
the real question is this... can things be created or can they evolve? once again, evolution can be tested (i.e. if it happens now, it might have happened in the past)... creation can not be until it has at least been observed in some small way, shape or form in our current world micro to macro evolution may be too big of a jump for you to accept, but at least it is a jump from something... can you present any present day evidence that implies "creation" (not particle to people, but nothing to people) is even possible? Quote:
Quote:
science is about seeing how much we can explain without having to revert to the unknowable (not the unknown)... once you hit the unknowable, it is no longer in the realm of scientific discussion
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#1031 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#1032 | |||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
And the idea that macroevolution brought about what we see today is NOT -repeat NOT - testable. We're talking something that happened in history. As the quoted paragraph pointed out, just because something CAN happen doesn't mean it DID happen. If we could actually SEE macroevolution (and IMO, we've had more than enough chances to see it, if it COULD happen, in things like fruit flies), then I would have a lot more respect for the theory of evolution. Quote:
Now given the RESULTS of a testable hypothesis, the original hypothesis might be modified, but that's about as close as you can get to what you're saying. Did you see my response about the transmission of germs? That addresses this, too. Quote:
I keep hearing examples like indirect measurements in astronomy, and I keep repeating that light is around NOW and we can observe and measure its properties NOW. That's a huge difference from what we have in the macrevolution idea. At the MOST, if we saw macroevolution occurring, we could say that it is a good candidate for what happened in the past. But we do NOT see macroevolution occurring, in the particle-to-people sense (which is the only sense that is controversial; microevolution is no problem).
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! ![]() "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#1033 | ||||||||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
Here's my problems: 1. Even if we DID see macroevolution happen today, that still does not mean that that's how we got here, although it would make it the strongest candidate, IMO. But ... 2. We do NOT see it happen today, and the cry of "well, we don't have enough time to observe it" does NOT give it a free pass, IMO. It wouldn't in any other scientific discipline; why should it here? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Elements of a creation theory can also be tested in the same way. And we HAVE observed creation in some small way, shape or form in our current world - arrowheads, for example. We infer creation of arrowheads vs. natural occurrance of arrowheads by looking for things that would go against it occurring naturally, such as a chip going across the stone and a vein of another type of rock in the stone at the same place, when they have different weathering rates naturally, and if it had happened naturally, the (supposed) chip line would not be even. Also, as I pointed out with my example of archaeologists, anthropologists, SETI scientists and Mars rover scientists, the inference of intent and design by observation of data is by NO means disallowed in science. Quote:
This should be a very simple point. Quote:
Yes, dolphins have one less element in blood clotting than humans - but IT WORKS IN DOLPHINS! Yes, other living creatures have less elements in the flagella - BUT IT WORKS IN THEM! And cow tails - their "proof" is the statement that tails evolved before flies? IOW, their "proof" is their unproven theory of evolution? I get downright angry when I read most of talkorigins' articles (which is where this one is from, altho it's on talkdesign's site). The level of proof they accept just astounds me, and the way they sidestep the actual issue to attack a strawman just astounds me. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! ![]() "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
#1034 | |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
Once again, I am NOT knocking science in any way, shape or form. I was only pointing out that people make decisions based on science, so scientists better be careful about what they say. You can certainly use David Korresh (sp?) and Fred Phelps to illustrate the same point that I'm trying to illustrate - people make decisions based on what perceived authorities say, so authorities should be careful about what they say, and we better not just swallow what authorities say without thinking about it.
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! ![]() "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#1035 | ||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
I'm NOT saying that every person would do this, or even if I think he made a logical inference or not (actually, I think in a strictly logical sense, there is no problem with his inference - the difference is that in most normal people, their sense of morality stops them.) What I am saying, and I hope you can agree with, is that people take things that "science" (and other authorities say) and make behavioral decisions based on them, so those authorities better be darn careful what they pass off as true. Quote:
However, in the second sense, there is certainly a logical connection between morality and belief in God. (We have to be careful to make sure we use "morality" in its most inclusive sense; i.e., a system of right and wrong. We can't use it as an abbreviation for the specifically Christian system of right and wrong, or else things will get confused.) Dahmer believed that evolution was true and we came from slime, and he made the perfectly logical inference of "so why should I bother to regulate my behavior?" Now that's "illogical" in the sense of most people don't make that inference, but it is NOT "illogical" at ALL in the true sense of the word "logic". If we came from slime, why SHOULD he bother to regulate his behavior, Gaffer? Can you give me any logical reason why he should not do what he wants to do? You do what YOU want to do; why should he not do what HE wants to do, as long as he's willing to face the consequences?
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! ![]() "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#1036 |
Quasi Evil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Maryland, US
Posts: 4,634
|
Science is independent from being "careful about what you say" (geez how scary is that. Tell it to Galileo...). Science just displays what we get from the data. Nothing more. Saying its science's fault (or evolution's) that Jeffery Dahmar killed and ate people is preposterous.
__________________
"People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." |
![]() |
![]() |
#1037 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
science ~ a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways
Quote:
can what we observe today have arisen without divine intervention? this is the question science attempts to answer... it attempts to develop logical real-world solutions to what we see around us... evolution is one of those... you can argue the evidence, as this thread shows you can not argue the "creation" premise, because it is based on nothing any human can observe or test... if i missed some kind of present day situation that infers that something can come from nothing (which seems to me to be what you are claiming god did when making us), please post it
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#1038 |
An enigma in a conundrum
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,476
|
..it's called "the poof factor"
![]()
__________________
Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." |
![]() |
![]() |
#1039 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
it is up to the listener to be careful... personally, i do not wish to live in the other kind of society
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#1040 |
An enigma in a conundrum
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,476
|
Oh so words mean something; I'm glad to hear that.
....I did not have sex with that woman ![]() Take a breath guys and gals, this thread is beginning to warp the heat tiles of the motherboard. ![]()
__________________
Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Evidence for Evolution | jerseydevil | General Messages | 599 | 05-18-2008 02:43 PM |
How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II | Nurvingiel | General Messages | 528 | 08-05-2006 03:50 AM |
Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution | RÃan | General Messages | 1149 | 08-16-2004 06:07 PM |