Jump to content


Photo

A Science Class On The Halibut Fish.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
67 replies to this topic

#21 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 22 May 2008 - 09:08 PM

Fairy tales like this often amaze me, but it is a significant demonstration of how much faith there is in TOE.  And its not just your tale, its Dawkins tale.  Creationists have three basic stories that create the foundation of their faith in the scriptures of Genesis.  The first is creation and the fall.  The second is the flood of Noah.  And the third is the Tower of Babel dispersion.  "Science" advocates like to riddicule us for faith in such "folklore" and "mysticism.

The above paragraph seems a bit soap box to me - you don't really address any point here in a constructive way.

All the while they have constructed a myriad of mysical sories that you would have to belive to adhere to TOE.  One such as the fairytale just shared by you.

You see, God created the hallibut to show you evidence that TOE is wrong.  The fish begins it's metamorphosis from symetrical fish to asymetrical fish after its first month of life.  The process takes several weeks.  During this time, this fish becomes greatly disfigured.  Its skull deforms, and one eye begins the migration from one side to the other.  The spots/camoflauge also don't appear until this time.

During this metamorphosis The fish has to be at a great competitve disadvantage in any environment.  It is not fully camoflauged, it doesn't lay fully on the bottom of the ocean yet, it's skull is being deformed every day. And its eye is somewhere between symetrical and somewhere else along its pathway to its final resting place.  But it does survive by design, not nature.

And we are to believe that this several week process is a competitive advantage for the hallibut.  And the evolution fairy tale as presented suggests that a series of mutations for this entire metamorphosis happenned one by one over millions of years.  And each one was naturally selected, because it generated some reproductive advantage in its environment. 


Like I said I don't really know anything about fish but wouldn’t "not fully camaflauged" be better than not camouflaged? Being vulnerable during metamorphoses is nothing new – butterflies, moths, and flies are also vulnerable during this stage. I didn’t realize that the flat fish wasn’t born flat and side ways but it doesn’t really change anything because metamorphosis fits nicely within the framework of the TOE.

I'm sorry but that just begs the reasoning process.  Even my poorly trained scientific mind can't rationalize that one.  And there are a myriad of such fairytales in TOE.  The hallibut declares the glory of God.  Maybe someday, you will open your eyes to see it.  Without that glory, you will just stumble in the darkness of TOE.

Well, my mind isn’t a poorly trained scientific mind and I have failed to see where you have rationalized. The crux of your concern is basically that metamorphosis leaves an organism vulnerable therefore a process such as metamorphosis can’t be an advantage therefore the said process couldn’t have evolved. There are a few problems with this premise. The first is that you seem to be assuming that the TOE is able to see more than “one move ahead” and that the evolution of a system is of singular functionality. The second is that metamorphosis has been extensively studied by evolutionary biologist and is readily available in the literature.

I'll stick with the creation story and Noah's flood for now.  They at least are reasonable IMHO.


Reasonable? How? You think it is reasonable that a global flood occurred and a man was able to gather all of the animals from all over the world and secure and feed them on a boat for a month or two and then redistribute the animals all over the world when the flood stopped? Not to mention how did he get the animals off of his own continent once the flood ended – how did Australian organisms get back to Australia? On top of this – you think it is reasonable that this all occurred a few thousand years ago without leaving massive damage on the Earth?

#22 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 26 May 2008 - 04:43 PM

Got a chance to see the video, finally. Can't get any more Lamarckist than that. In fact, Dawkins inadvertently employs a form of Lamarckism which borders on the supernatural variety, claiming the desire of the fish drives evolution.

Good for a :lol: if you can get past the indoctrination of children.

#23 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 27 May 2008 - 07:05 AM

Reasonable?  How?  You think it is reasonable that a global flood occurred and a man was able to gather all of the animals from all over the world and secure and feed them on a boat for a month or two and then redistribute the animals all over the world when the flood stopped?  Not to mention how did he get the animals off of his own continent once the flood ended – how did Australian organisms get back to Australia?  On top of this – you think it is reasonable that this all occurred a few thousand years ago without leaving massive damage on the Earth?

View Post


Sphere,

Your lacking some knowledge about the Biblical Flood event and like most times using vast assumptions to feel that gap, which leads you to conclude false knowledge of the Flood and Creation Account.

You think it is reasonable that a global flood occurred and a man was able to gather all of the animals from all over the world and secure and feed them on a boat for a month or two and then redistribute the animals all over the world when the flood stopped?


1 - Were talking about God influenced man. Not just some random dude. If God can create all we know in 6 days, can He also not control what He created in any way he see's fit ?

2 - Noah didn't gather ALL the animals on the earth. Out of the specific KINDS of animals the numbers are estimated to be aorund 6,000 to 8,000 pairs. NOT some 400,000 Animals like I've seen some skeptics taunt at. :lol:

3 - Secure and Feed Them ? It's not hard to pen up animals and feed them you know. Especially if they went into sleep mode.

Woodmorappe calculated that the volume of foodstuffs would have been only about 15 % of the Ark’s total volume. Drinking water would only have taken up 9.4 % of the volume. This volume would be reduced further if rainwater was collected and piped into troughs.


4 - Redistributing the Animals ?
See How did the Animals Spread ?

Not to mention how did he get the animals off of his own continent once the flood ended – how did Australian organisms get back to Australia?


The same way land animals today jump from continent to continent. Also What makes you think that Australian Organisms originated in Australia ? Surely not the fossil record huh ? Also it seems your rejecting the Ice Age.

Oard suggests that even with present topography, a number of significant land bridges would have existed to facilitate migrations if the sea level were only 180 ft (55 m) below current levels. However, there is even evidence that the land in some places where land bridges would be necessary could have been higher still. Thus, land bridges facilitated by the Ice Age constitute a serious model to explain how some migrations could have been possible.


Sounds reasonable to me, much more resonable than the alternative.


On top of this – you think it is reasonable that this all occurred a few thousand years ago without leaving massive damage on the Earth?


The Flood was around 4,300 YEARS AGO.

"Lack of Massive damage !?!?!"


Evidence of Noah’s Flood can be seen all over the earth, from seabeds to mountaintops. Whether you travel by car, train, or plane, the physical features of the earth’s terrain clearly indicate a catastrophic past, from canyons and craters to coal beds and caverns. Some layers of strata extend across continents, revealing the effects of a huge catastrophe.

The earth’s crust has massive amounts of layered sedimentary rock, sometimes miles (kilometers) deep! These layers of sand, soil, and material—mostly laid down by water—were once soft like mud, but they are now hard stone. Encased in these sedimentary layers are billions of dead things (fossils of plants and animals) buried very quickly. The evidence all over the earth is staring everyone in the face.


I would like to know just how think
Mountains, Craters, Valley's and not to mention THE GRAND CANYON !
is not "Massive Damage" as you say. :o

Now I wont play the "Reason" game with you, but surely you must be aware of the amount of "Absurd Reasoning" that one must do in order to except the current ToE. I only say absurd b/c that's how you have portrayed the creation account. As Absurd, when in reality it fits and matches not only Logic and Reason but Science as well. When these three are concluded than it seems very reasonable. No need for extraordinary and extreme chances and possibilities, just that God caused a Global flood, allowed Noah to catch, store, and feed a pair of land animals from their Kinds, and release them to the wild to populate the earth as commanded by God.

It's only illogical to your logic, it's only unreasonable to your reason, does that make it wrong ? Of course not.

In an Evolutionary Worldview, why would you care what creationists think anyway ?

God is not bound by nature or science, so please tell me how you could reasonably say that God could not do such things ? When indeed God could do quite frankly whatever the heck He wanted to do. What makes you think God is somehow restricted ?

This is where Christians and Non-Christians differ the most. You see, had there been absolutely NO "what you call" Scientific Evidence, that shows a Flood, I would still indeed believe that it happen, b/c the Word of God says it did. Nonetheless there is indeed Vast amounts of Scientific Evidence that supports my Biblical Belief that a Flood did happen. Therefore my belief is then Enhanced greatly that the Bible is indeed a true History book and can be trusted in order to know the History of this "One of a KIND" planet.

You on the other hand, have put your faith and trust in the ever changing foundation of the ToE. I call this a sandy foundation. Every day your belief is changed by your own personal god called science. The kind of science you follow has been abused and ripped to pieces over the years. It's hardly even science as we used to know of science. The secular community has rode science hard and put it up wet. It's a shame. However the Bible has not changed. It's is indeed the Flawless work of God, and He has kept His promise of preserving it for us. It began to be collected some 5,000 years ago, and still today it is completely compatible with what we see today. Not just everyday ordinary observations, but in science as well. This is what we call a Rock Solid foundation.

The evidence is all around us my friend, but as long as one denies the Father in heaven, he will surely be blind. Yes I mean literaly blind to the evidence.
Read the passage in my SIG for more info.

These two short articles will get you up to speed on the Biblical Flood Account.

Simple and Complete look at the Ark & Flood

How did the Animals fit on the Ark ? Very Easily !

#24 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 27 May 2008 - 10:07 PM

Your lacking some knowledge about the Biblical Flood event and like most times using vast assumptions to feel that gap, which leads you to conclude false knowledge of the Flood and Creation Account.
1 - Were talking about God influenced man. Not just some random dude. If God can create all we know in 6 days, can He also not control what He created in any way he see's fit ?



Well, naturally appealing to magic is the easy way out.


2 - Noah didn't gather ALL the animals on the earth. Out of the specific KINDS of animals the numbers are estimated to be aorund 6,000 to 8,000 pairs. NOT some 400,000 Animals like I've seen some skeptics taunt at. :lol:



So Noah collected 6,000 to 8,000 pairs and then after the flood they evolved into the millions of animals we see today? Isn' t that the TOE with a twist?


3 - Secure and Feed Them ? It's not hard to pen up animals and feed them you know. Especially if they went into sleep mode.


Sleep mode? You would not only have to feed the animals during the flood, but you would have to feed the living food for the carnivores, store massive amounts of food for herbivores and then after the flood where did the food come from that the animals would need to continue to survive? Also, you couldn't just have a few of these animal - you would need many for a succesful breeding population. Do you know how much an elephant eats in 1 month? Asian elephants typically eat 200 lbs of food per day and 30-50 gallons of water per day - and that is just one elephant.


4 - Redistributing the Animals ?
See How did the Animals Spread ?
The same way land animals today jump from continent to continent. Also What makes you think that Australian Organisms originated in Australia ? Surely not the fossil record huh ?



How did koala's "jump continent to continent"? Swim? From your link:


Many of them could have floated on vast floating logs, left-overs from the massive pre-Flood forests that were ripped up during the Flood and likely remained afloat for many decades on the world’s oceans, transported by world currents.



:D I almost fell out of my chair when I read this. Lets take a look at the Surtsey Islands (where the author of your link claims something similar happened) - the animal life there today does not consists of large vertebrates. On surtsey you find insects, birds, and marine life. This type of ecological succession is what is thought to be common when something like a volcano destroys an island - however the ecological succesion of large animals in such a manner is ridiculous.

Also it seems your rejecting the Ice Age.
Sounds reasonable to me, much more resonable than the alternative.
The Flood was around 4,300 YEARS AGO.
I would like to know just how think
Mountains, Craters, Valley's and not to mention THE GRAND CANYON !
is not "Massive Damage" as you say. :D



I attribute it to dynamic geology - something that we know to exist on Earth and on other planets - how did mountains form on other planets and moons in our solar system? We know what kind of damage a flood does to the Earth and the Grand Canyon exhibits none of the features one might expect from a global flood.


Now I wont play the "Reason" game with you, but surely you must be aware of the amount of "Absurd Reasoning" that one must do in order to except the current ToE. I only say absurd b/c that's how you have portrayed the creation account. As Absurd, when in reality it fits and matches not only Logic and Reason but Science as well. When these three are concluded than it seems very reasonable. No need for extraordinary and extreme chances and possibilities, just that God caused a Global flood, allowed Noah to catch, store, and feed a pair of land animals from their Kinds, and release them to the wild to populate the earth as commanded by God.



Evidence doesn't even come close to suggesting this story. The only way that this could be explained is an appeal to magic which is the opposite of reason and logic.


In an Evolutionary Worldview, why would you care what creationists think anyway ?


What is "an Evolutionary Worldview"? I don't care what creationists think - I care what they do. What they are doing is trying to bypass the scientific process by attacking Evolution in schools - that is what fascists do. Also, I like to argue.


God is not bound by nature or science, so please tell me how you could reasonably say that God could not do such things ? When indeed God could do quite frankly whatever the heck He wanted to do. What makes you think God is somehow restricted ?



Again an appeal to magic - can't argue that. However, couldn't God create with Evolution seeing how evolution only answers how not who? Aren't you restricting God by not allowing the mix?



This is where Christians and Non-Christians differ the most. You see, had there been absolutely NO "what you call" Scientific Evidence, that shows a Flood, I would still indeed believe that it happen, b/c the Word of God says it did. Nonetheless there is indeed Vast amounts of Scientific Evidence that supports my Biblical Belief that a Flood did happen.


The scientific evidence that you propose to support the flood falls apart at even the most basic of investigation - therefore it is not scientific evidence. Using scientific terminology doesn't make it scientific.



You on the other hand, have put your faith and trust in the ever changing foundation of the ToE. I call this a sandy foundation. Every day your belief is changed by your own personal god called science. The kind of science you follow has been abused and ripped to pieces over the years. It's hardly even science as we used to know of science. The secular community has rode science hard and put it up wet. It's a shame.


What faith? I trust the scientific system to discover falsehoods not truths. I trust geologists like I trust my dentist (because I am neither a dentist nor a geologist).


However the Bible has not changed. It's is indeed the Flawless work of God, and He has kept His promise of preserving it for us. It began to be collected some 5,000 years ago, and still today it is completely compatible with what we see today. Not just everyday ordinary observations, but in science as well. This is what we call a Rock Solid foundation.


This is what I call faith in an assumption not a rock solid foundation :o . The bible has a traceable history and it is very clear that it has changed. Many stories in the old testament are extremely similar to stories from cultures that existed before the Bible was recorded.

#25 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 28 May 2008 - 05:27 AM

All you did was make the same assumptions and statements you made in your earlier posts.

I suggest you not speak about things you don't know anything about.

The links I provided answered the same questions you've posted twice now.

So you obviously would rather stick with your faulty knowledge, than actually find out the real story.


I trust the scientific system to discover falsehoods not truths.


If this were true, you'd not be so cocky, b/c you would know that this entire forum is filled with challenges to evolutionary worldview. And those challenges are not being met.

BTW
Magic is making a Dinosaur turn into a Chicken.

Magic is "In the Beginning, Nothing Exploded"

Magic is convincing someone like yourself that one time, long ago, something happen, and then you believe it, even though NO ONE has ever seen it, and there's NO visible evidence that it ever happen in the first place.

That's Magic :lol:

#26 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 28 May 2008 - 08:07 AM

All you did was make the same assumptions and statements you made in your earlier posts.

Specifics?

I suggest you not speak about things you don't know anything about.

Again specifics?

The links I provided answered the same questions you've posted twice now.

The answers were silly as I stated and gave reasons why in my previous post.

So you obviously would rather stick with your faulty knowledge, than actually find out the real story.
If this were true, you'd not be so cocky, b/c you would know that this entire forum is filled with challenges to evolutionary worldview. And those challenges are not being met.

I have yet to read a real challange that couldn't be explained on this forum. All dissent against the TOE is either ill posed or the result of misunderstanding.

Magic is making a Dinosaur turn into a Chicken.

Magic is "In the Beginning, Nothing Exploded"

Magic is convincing someone like yourself that one time, long ago, something happen, and then you believe it, even though NO ONE has ever seen it, and there's NO visible evidence that it ever happen in the first place.

That's Magic  :o


Well when you strawman it like that it sounds like magic - however when you realize that there are many lines of evidence converging in support of an ancient universe, an old earth, and for biological evolution (you yourself believe in evolution within "kinds" so what is the hurdle for speciation since TOE proposes these mechanisms are the same). BTW the word explosion is a misnomer when describing the Big Bang - the big bang was the expansion of space. To understand the elegence of the physics involved you need more than a laymans reading - you need technical mathematical training not to mention quantum field theories, general relativity, special relativity on top of general graduate level physics classes. I am going out on a limb and guessing that you have none of these - so to repeat your own words to you:

I suggest you not speak about things you don't know anything about.


:lol:

#27 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 28 May 2008 - 08:13 AM

From A.Sphere

What is "an Evolutionary Worldview"? I don't care what creationists think - I care what they do. What they are doing is trying to bypass the scientific process by attacking Evolution in schools - that is what fascists do. Also, I like to argue.


Fascism relies on aggressive repression of the opposition. (Expelled) That's what science is doing not Christians.

Unfortunately, scientists have had free reign of the educational process for years, but the opposition is organizing their armies. I live in South Carolina. We have a State Law that all school books must be factual. I for one think that's a good law. I hope you would agree.

So I took the initiative to ask the school system to have access to their chosen Biology text books for 2009 school year. They have been very helpful and have given me full access.

The first book I am reviewing is high school level... Biology, from McDougal and Littell. A book used in many school systems. I am writing a detailed and referenced paper of the factual errors and logical fallacies within this book. So far, I have written 15 pages worth, and I am about one third through the book. I probably will have 30 pages worth in the final report. I plan on submitting this review next month. Interestingly these factual errors all are affiliated with TOE.

Now certainly I plan to defend my commentary, but it will be easy to do so. I have not used one religious comment, and I have used scientific publications to refute the evolutionary dogmas that are presented throughout. Now I think we should teach science in science class. Don't you? But I don't think we need false scientific information and fallacious logic being taught to promote a theory. Especially an untestable theory.

Now I agree that religion should not be taught in public schools. And this is not what I am advocating in any way. However, I am uncomfortable with the indoctrination and dogmatic approach to TOE as presented in this book. This appears quite religious to me, even though I am not arguing that in my paper. I believe that the factual errors logical fallacies will be sufficient to weaken TOE and prevent this dogmatic approach to being presented as science.

My plan is to continue this process with every science book being used in our system within the state. Until bad science is removed from the classrooms, I plan on being a thorn in the school systems side. When science is taught in the classrooms, I will be satisfied.

I have stated this before, and I will state it again. Logic is more important to science than evidence. If the logic is flawed then the evidence doesn't matter. Everything in TOE is a logical fallacy....

Natural Selection is a tautology
Homologies are used with circular logic.
Vestigial organ/structures are used with circular logic.
The geological column and fossil dating uses circular logic.
Biological definitions related to TOE use equivocation.
Genetic evolutionary evidence is a tautology.

There is no evidence for TOE that the evidence is not reasoned with a logical fallacy. It's bad science. Now I certainly understand why many are sold on the theory. The evidence does look impressive if you don't think logically and you cannot recognize these fallacies. Unfortunately, that is what you have in our school systems, so the indoctrination is easy. But no more! Here comes the army. You better get some better weapons than are in your current arsenal. Or eventually the sandy foundation will fall.

#28 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 28 May 2008 - 11:55 AM

There is no evidence for TOE that the evidence is not reasoned with a logical fallacy.  It's bad science. 


Nah, you just need a better education like he's got below. :lol:

To understand the elegence of the physics involved you need more than a laymans reading - you need technical mathematical training not to mention quantum field theories, general relativity, special relativity on top of general graduate level physics classes.


That's like saying, Only smart people can understand. Lame :D

Explosion, Expansion, step off your soap box for a second.

All the images look the same:
Posted Image

Does that look like some sort of calm expansion to you ?

I'll refrain from reading or replying to anymore of your posts, I don't have the mental capacity to absorb and then decifer your absolute amazing knowledge.

:o

#29 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 28 May 2008 - 04:32 PM

Nah, you just need a better education like he's got below.  :lol:
That's like saying, Only smart people can understand. Lame  :D


It is impossible to understand the big bang, inflation, quantum field theory, and quantum mechanics without mathematics - any attempt to do so will result in misunderstandings due to limited analogies. I didn't say you were incapable of learning the mathematics - I said that without it you couldn't truly understand it.

Explosion, Expansion, step off your soap box for a second.


All the images look the same:
Posted Image

Does that look like some sort of calm expansion to you ?


Wow how did you take a photograph of the Big Bang! This picture gives a false representation of the big bang which has translated itself to the way in which you understand it (or you wouldn't say "explosion, expansion,..."). There is a huge difference between an explosion and the expansion of space. Take a look at this picture and lets pretend that it is you that took the photograph. If it were an explosion you would just sit back in the empty space and wait for it to happen like looking accross a field at a hand grenade. Now, with the big bang it is different because the big bang is literally the expansion of space itself. In other words there is no space for you to wait in to take the picture. To talk about the big bang like it is an explosion into space is incorrect.


I'll refrain from reading or replying to anymore of your posts, I don't have the mental capacity to absorb and then decifer your absolute amazing knowledge.

:o


I am glad that you have finally realized this - it will make things much easier. Look, it wasn't my attempt to come off condescending, truth be told I thought you were coming off that way - condesention and arrogance often rear their heads in print when they weren't meant to so I tend to ignore it.

#30 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 28 May 2008 - 04:41 PM

From A.Sphere
Fascism relies on aggressive repression of the opposition. (Expelled) That's what science is doing not Christians.

View Post


I said that is what fascists do. They put forth ideas in school to kids without running it by the experts. This way they don't have to convince scientist they only have to make them. Convincing the experts is a long drawn out process but that is the only way that we can protect the progression of knowledge. Even if creationism were the correct ticket we can't make exceptions - it has to make a run through the gauntlet of inquiry until it has convinced the majority of mainstream scientists (just like the TOE had to). If creationist gave up challanging the TOE via children and made more of an effort to do actual research and publish papers and attend conferences I would be in support of that and I would dissent at any attempt to bar them from journals or conferences if I thought the paper or presentation made a good point.

#31 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 May 2008 - 04:51 PM

I said that is what fascists do.  They put forth ideas in school to kids without running it by the experts.  This way they don't have to convince scientist they only have to make them.  Convincing the experts is a long drawn out process but that is the only way that we can protect the progression of knowledge.  Even if creationism were the correct ticket we can't make exceptions - it has to make a run through the gauntlet of inquiry until it has convinced the majority of mainstream scientists (just like the TOE had to).  If creationist gave up challanging the TOE via children and made more of an effort to do actual research and publish papers and attend conferences I would be in support of that and I would dissent at any attempt to bar them from journals or conferences if I thought the paper or presentation made a good point.

View Post


The accademic community in the universities, and even public schools has become very fascist. Its unamerican, and it needs to be stopped. Its basically materialistic thought control.

Terry

#32 Guest_kega_*

Guest_kega_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 May 2008 - 03:08 AM

The accademic community in the universities, and even public schools has become very fascist.  Its unamerican, and it needs to be stopped.  Its basically materialistic thought control.

Terry

View Post

i dont think that it matters what country the schools are in. its not just unamerican its anti truth and we should be teaching truth to our kids not made up just-so stories

#33 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 29 May 2008 - 05:21 AM

i dont think that it matters what country the schools are in. its not just unamerican its anti truth and we should be teaching truth to our kids not made up just-so stories

View Post


Who decides truth? I vote that the experts in the field considered decide what should be taught. Right now they believe that the TOE is what should be taught. You want to change that then you have to take it up with them rather than dumping it on children at public universities. Regardless of what you may think is wrong about the TOE bypassing the system of knowledge and infiltrating schools is immoral. Going to a public school and telling children that there is actual debate in scientific circles regarding the TOE and ID is equivalent to lying to them. Even if the TOE is wrong the ends do not justify the means. If a group of people who deny that the holocaust occured decided to bring it to public schools rather than convince historians by publishing you would be just as angry.

#34 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 29 May 2008 - 05:26 AM

The accademic community in the universities, and even public schools has become very fascist.  Its unamerican, and it needs to be stopped.  Its basically materialistic thought control.

Terry

View Post



What? How do you know this? Do you have any personal experience with this outside propaganda flicks like "Expelled"? How is it materialistic thought control? Thats a big statement coming from someone who argues on the side that wants to actually bypass the scientific community and teach children that ID is an alternative theory to the TOE - I mean if that is not thought control then I don't know what is :) .

#35 Guest_kega_*

Guest_kega_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 May 2008 - 05:31 AM

Who decides truth?  I vote that the experts in the field considered decide what should be taught.  Right now they believe that the TOE is what should be taught.  You want to change that then you have to take it up with them rather than dumping it on children at public universities.  Regardless of what you may think is wrong about the TOE bypassing the system of knowledge and infiltrating schools is immoral.  Going to a public school and telling children that there is actual debate in scientific circles regarding the TOE and ID is equivalent to lying to them.  Even if the TOE is wrong the ends do not justify the means.  If a group of people who deny that the holocaust occured decided to bring it to public schools rather than convince historians by publishing you would be just as angry.

View Post


John 14:6 Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me.

Take it up with him.

#36 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 29 May 2008 - 06:57 AM

What?  How do you know this?  Do you have any personal experience with this outside propaganda flicks like "Expelled"?  How is it materialistic thought control?  Thats a big statement coming from someone who argues on the side that wants to actually bypass the scientific community and teach children that ID is an alternative theory to the TOE - I mean if that is not thought control then I don't know what is  :) .

View Post


Permit Teaching alternative thinking is democratic, permit Teaching only one thinking is tyrannical.

#37 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 29 May 2008 - 07:13 AM

Permit Teaching alternative thinking is democratic, permit Teaching only one thinking is tyrannical.

View Post


I am all for alternative thinking however as far as science goes primary education should teach watered down versions of what the experts are publishing about in journals. Should we allow alternative ideas to be taught in history even if historians do not agree with these alternative ideas?

You and I have different ideas of what tyranny is. Lets take a look at what tyrannical governments do. In North Korea, a country we can all agree is tyrannical, children are taught that when Kim-Ill Sung died that 100 swans landed in a field and bowed towards his body. Now experts in North Korea knew that this was impossible however it didn't matter what they thought because it was taught in schools to children. So many of these children believe it. Also in North Korea it is taught that US military would torture babies by pulling them apart until they were limbless even though North Korean historians know this is not what mainstream historians believe. In Nazi germany it was believed that the germanic people were superior to all other races even though scientists knew that this was not true - again it didn't matter what they thought because it was taught to children in school and so they believed it. This is why all ideas in science and history must make multiple runs through the gauntlet of experts. The TOE has done this. Now for it to be replaced by ID, ID must make its run over and over until scientists are swayed. Until then it can't be taught in school. This is protection from tyranny.

#38 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 29 May 2008 - 09:34 AM

Who decides truth?  I vote that the experts in the field considered decide what should be taught.


Like who ? Richard Dawkins ?

We've seen his knowledge or lack there of. That's what this topic is all about.

#39 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 29 May 2008 - 12:09 PM

Like who ? Richard Dawkins ?

We've seen his knowledge or lack there of. That's what this topic is all about.

View Post


Yeah him and the other thousands of biologists doing research in evolution :) . I feel better trusting them to determine what is mainstream science than you or me or the icons of ID who aren't even active researchers in the fields of biology that are related to explaining the variety of life on earth. Just like I trust dentists to decide what constitutes a cavity - because I am not a dentist.

What lack of knowledge? Dawkin's simplified evolution for children and it came off sounding like Lamarkian evolution but surely you don't think that Dawkin's doesn't know the difference - again you're grabbing for straws here. I would like to see the whole clip where I am sure he gives a watered down explanation about natural selection.

#40 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 29 May 2008 - 02:12 PM

Yeah him and the other thousands of biologists doing research in evolution  :) .  I feel better trusting them to determine what is mainstream science than you or me or the icons of ID who aren't even active researchers in the fields of biology that are related to explaining the variety of life on earth.  Just like I trust dentists to decide what constitutes a cavity - because I am not a dentist.

What lack of knowledge?  Dawkin's simplified evolution for children and it came off sounding like Lamarkian evolution but surely you don't think that Dawkin's doesn't know the difference - again you're grabbing for straws here.  I would like to see the whole clip where I am sure he gives a watered down explanation about natural selection.

View Post

It never takes long for an evolutionist to reveal his true colors. Trust. Faith.

I have trust too... It's called religion.... I trust the scriptures written by men ....I trust those men were inspired by God.....It's God's book, and I trust Him.

You have trust and faith too. In men writing books and papers. That's religion.

Science is not about trusting. It is mostly about distrusting. It is about skepticism. When scientific people begin to trust each other.....That is faith, and that is religious.

Science is about logically agreeing with evidence data and the conclusions within. It is not about trusting those conclusions. Science always distrusts conclusions. That's why we have many new discoveries from people who challenge the establishment. The establishment is the church of the faithful. Science doesn't allow an establishment. It always challenges and always changes. No "facts" in science last very long. It's a process of learning.

Do you always trust the highly trained car mechanic who says you need x,y, an z. And the cost is $1000? According to your logic presented, you would.

However, trust implies that truth has been determined. That is certainly how I approach the scriptures. Trust in science also implies that the truth has been determined. But science never claims truth. It only claims the search for it.

At least you were honest in your comments. Your trust is evident in your posts.

In regards to Dawkins, I believe that he knows the difference. However, the evolutionary explanation is unreasonable....You see children one day a hallibut recieved a behavioral mutation that caused it to lay on the ocean floor rather than swimming freely along like most other fish. Now this specific hallibut which lay on the ocean which could only see it's predators with one eye and had one fin not being used somehow had a reproductive advantage over all the other hallibuts. And after 1000's of years most of the hallibut's started laying on the ocean floor this way. Then one day another hallibut recieved a random mutation, and the fin that wasn't being used any more dissapeared. Now children, please understand that this mutation caused this hallibut to be much more reproductive that all the other hallibut's that had the fin. So nature selected it. Then one day thousands of years later another hallibut received a mutation that caused the eye that hadn't been used for thousands of years to migrate about half way around its head. And this mutation really made the hallibut reproductively more advantageous than all the others. And the story goes on and on for millions of years until you get the hallibut that we have today. Children, do you get it? Teachers, do you understand? :) :) :)

And God told Noah to build and ark, because He was sending a flood......at least that part makes sense.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users