How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[HOBBIT]

*shoots self* (no, not really)

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

*shoots self* (no, not really)

what??

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

*shoots self* (no, not really)

what??

[Grey_Wolf]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And you "know" how the Solar System was created?

Not even an astronomer would say that.

Yes, of course I do. I'm all-powerful and all-knowledgable Grey Wolf.

[Grey_Wolf]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And you "know" how the Solar System was created?

Not even an astronomer would say that.

Yes, of course I do. I'm all-powerful and all-knowledgable Grey Wolf.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Here's an example: taken from an interview of Jeffrey Dahmer, the mass murderer who killed and then ate children:

Sorry, Rian, if you're saying that scientific worldview caused Jeffrey Dahmer to eat children then I would seriously question your judgment.

There is no logical connection between absence of morality and absence of belief in God. Many nutters believe that "God told me to do it" (e.g. Yorkshire Ripper to name but one off the top of my head), so let's not go there!

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm sorry; I don't understand the first part of this sentence ....

Apols, badly phrased. Same effect would have been to:

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

modify this statement to SOME (or many, or even most) creationists.

As I've said many times (today, most recently), if I found some convincing evidence in the area of genetics, especially, I would be willing to change my opinion.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

There are also evolutionists out there who are hard-core atheists; do you have problems with them? If not, why not?

I don't think that "evolutionist" is a particularly useful label. For one, it (again, nice tactics) suggests that it's just one side of the story, when IMO it's the vast, vast majority view amongst people who know their onions in biology.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It's a terrible example, because planetary motion is happening NOW - you CAN make indirect measurements NOW!

Yes, but those measurements can be made compatible with either a Copernican or a Ptolemaic system. That's the point. The data remained the same but the worldview changed. As you said:

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It fit the evidence better.

As does evolution (compared with, say, ID). Would you recommend that we tell kids that there's this theory that the earth goes around the sun but other possibilities exist which also fit the data?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

yes, the RCC is more tolerant than today's evolutionists.

LOL! Nice one.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Here's an example: taken from an interview of Jeffrey Dahmer, the mass murderer who killed and then ate children:

Sorry, Rian, if you're saying that scientific worldview caused Jeffrey Dahmer to eat children then I would seriously question your judgment.

There is no logical connection between absence of morality and absence of belief in God. Many nutters believe that "God told me to do it" (e.g. Yorkshire Ripper to name but one off the top of my head), so let's not go there!

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm sorry; I don't understand the first part of this sentence ....

Apols, badly phrased. Same effect would have been to:

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

modify this statement to SOME (or many, or even most) creationists.

As I've said many times (today, most recently), if I found some convincing evidence in the area of genetics, especially, I would be willing to change my opinion.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

There are also evolutionists out there who are hard-core atheists; do you have problems with them? If not, why not?

I don't think that "evolutionist" is a particularly useful label. For one, it (again, nice tactics) suggests that it's just one side of the story, when IMO it's the vast, vast majority view amongst people who know their onions in biology.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It's a terrible example, because planetary motion is happening NOW - you CAN make indirect measurements NOW!

Yes, but those measurements can be made compatible with either a Copernican or a Ptolemaic system. That's the point. The data remained the same but the worldview changed. As you said:

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It fit the evidence better.

As does evolution (compared with, say, ID). Would you recommend that we tell kids that there's this theory that the earth goes around the sun but other possibilities exist which also fit the data?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

yes, the RCC is more tolerant than today's evolutionists.

LOL! Nice one.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

same here - we've already thought about it.

Who goes on the supposed thoughts and feelings of a fetus? Do you know of anyone doing that?

Your statement just enforces my point that we need to be careful about scientific info, because people use it to make decisions. And my example about the bill on fetal anasthesia (which does not require anesthesia to be given; it just requires the doctor to inform the woman, before the abortion, that medical studies show that the fetus can feel pain, and then give her the OPTION of administering anesthesia to the fetus) shows the importance of scientific info, and how a personal bias can affect the presentation of the data to others. If the majority of scientific studies concluded that, say, a 35-week-old fetus felt pain, would you support the passage of that bill if it covered giving this info to women who wanted to abort after the 35th week?

Let me put it differently then: until a fetus has a relatively developed brain, it can not think, until a fetus has a nervous system, it can not feel. Science can determine when both cases occur and you have a better basis to determine when an abortion can be done. Just what a fetus thinks or feels (and then I don't mean physical things) is anyone's guess and subjective. And therefore in my opinion not a good criteria to base medical prcedures on.

I support abortus as it is legally arranged here in Belgium: up to a certain week in the pregnancy and not after. Later abortions are only allowed in view of the mother's health. So I wouldn't support a bill that covered late-term abortion even with anesthesia for the fetus.

Most schools have in their science programme a feature on how the human body works and how the fetus develops in the course of the pregnancy. I think it is important that children learn this as well.

[EDIT:And I realise I am getting off topic so that is all I will say in this matter here]

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

same here - we've already thought about it.

Who goes on the supposed thoughts and feelings of a fetus? Do you know of anyone doing that?

Your statement just enforces my point that we need to be careful about scientific info, because people use it to make decisions. And my example about the bill on fetal anasthesia (which does not require anesthesia to be given; it just requires the doctor to inform the woman, before the abortion, that medical studies show that the fetus can feel pain, and then give her the OPTION of administering anesthesia to the fetus) shows the importance of scientific info, and how a personal bias can affect the presentation of the data to others. If the majority of scientific studies concluded that, say, a 35-week-old fetus felt pain, would you support the passage of that bill if it covered giving this info to women who wanted to abort after the 35th week?

Let me put it differently then: until a fetus has a relatively developed brain, it can not think, until a fetus has a nervous system, it can not feel. Science can determine when both cases occur and you have a better basis to determine when an abortion can be done. Just what a fetus thinks or feels (and then I don't mean physical things) is anyone's guess and subjective. And therefore in my opinion not a good criteria to base medical prcedures on.

I support abortus as it is legally arranged here in Belgium: up to a certain week in the pregnancy and not after. Later abortions are only allowed in view of the mother's health. So I wouldn't support a bill that covered late-term abortion even with anesthesia for the fetus.

Most schools have in their science programme a feature on how the human body works and how the fetus develops in the course of the pregnancy. I think it is important that children learn this as well.

[EDIT:And I realise I am getting off topic so that is all I will say in this matter here]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Those are some really old creationist tracks that have been debunked several times even on this message board nevermind in scientific circles. I mean the mud one has been abondoned by creationists because its such a poor argument. Same is true for the salt one.

I'm still reading through to catch up but I looked at the website to check it out and I see quite a few that I know have _not_ been debunked, the rest I'm not sure...Though there are a couple, (such as the mud one and the salt one ) That, while they have not been debunked, they are not particularly convincing.

Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf

The reason for the specific number of 6000 years is that in the bible they didn't know of any higher numerals. Multiply with 750 000 and you'll get the correct number of years for the age of the Earth.

Remember we're dealing with ancient people (who wrote the biblical stories) who had no concept of how the Solar System was created and grew and how the planets revolved around the Sun and not the Earth.

Actually, there is quite a lot of archeological evidence showing that ancient cultures understood how the solar system works as far back as 5,000 years. The idea that these people couldn't have understood those things is an assumption that cannot be substantiated. A lot of things get lost when a civilization falls. Just look at what happened when Rome fell. The same could be said of the ancient Mesopotamians or the Maya for that matter.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(Guys, would you please keep evidence discussions over on the Evidence threads?)

Sorry. Will do

[Spock]

I tried to move those two but without success, I may have to try something more drastic. You guys just don't listen to repeated requests to keep things on topic thread.

now the topics are merged under a common thread and encompass your divergence.

Again, apologies. (See above posts) It is indeed hard since the previous posts were responses to things in ~THE OTHER THREAD~

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Some of those "evidences" just crack me up!

I mean, that new species have DNA?!

They actually propose that finding a new species that didn't have DNA would be a falsifiable check?

Why don't I propose that if my son turns into a football that I would believe in macroevolution.

Talk about safe bets!

But that the kind of behavior one expects from true believers.

hmm... okay :shrug:

[The Gaffer]

Nah, all this pussyfooting around is getting a bit too much. By engaging with the debate we legitimise the unwarranted levels of skepticism around evolution.

Let's be 100% clear: this is a political attack on science.

I accept that most of the people here are honest and principled. However, this decency is being hijacked by a cabal of fundamentalist right-wingers to promote a political agenda.

We see the same thing from abstinence education to climate science: a concerted effort is being made to undermine messages which don't fit this agenda.

Time to wake up and smell the .. whatever it is you're supposed to smell when you wake up, the gammer's armpit in my case.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Let's be 100% clear: this is a political attack on science.

maybe... luckily they seem to be too small a minority to actually effect these changes upon our public school system on a broad basis

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I know you like to kid around, but will you be serious for a moment and agree that scientific info has a great deal to do with people's moral choices?

at the very core, my answer would be no... people kill in god's name, but i try ( ) not to criticize the religion

i'd say that dahmer's statements represent his "justification", just like the murders who say "god told me to do it"... he chose, or maybe even truly believed this justification, but it did not cause his actions... it was just how he framed what he was going to do anyway in his own mind

we don't know why people do things... chemical imbalances that cause insanity? "bad" upbringing? who knows for sure?

but we do know that there are good scientists, good christians, good atheists, good muslims, etc., so these can not "cause" moral choices in and of themselves... and, if you believe they do, you might as well throw that "free will" thing out the window

[Grey_Wolf]

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

Actually, there is quite a lot of archeological evidence showing that ancient cultures understood how the solar system works as far back as 5,000 years. The idea that these people couldn't have understood those things is an assumption that cannot be substantiated. A lot of things get lost when a civilization falls. Just look at what happened when Rome fell. The same could be said of the ancient Mesopotamians or the Maya for that matter.

Yes, I've read about Maya and other ancient civilisations who knew a lot more about the creation and evolution of Earth - but the people who wrote the Bible did not know or chose to forget about established facts.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

could you please give me details on the qoute unquoute "debunked myths"
I am interested to see what you have

here's some on the flood idea... which seems central to much of the young earth claims