Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Creationism in schools [CLOSED]      Home login  
Joined: 6/17/2011
Msg: 842
Creationism in schoolsPage 60 of 61    (21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61)

I also think they rely on the fact that children believe whatever a grown up says with a straight face. That's why they want it in schools instead of bars. (Well, I can't truly speak to their motivations, but I am glad they don't push that stuff in bars.)

Maybe if it was in bars, they'd have better success trying to convince people that it's true. You know how it is. After a few drinks, everything sounds good!

And yes, of course they want it in schools. Lots of impressionable young minds to be brainwashed with this drivel. Organized religion is in serious trouble of becoming extinct in the foreseeable future - and they all know it. Church attendance is down, and more and more people are coming to the realization that this Creationist and Intelligent design garbage is just something that somebody made up at some point, and religions were created around it.
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 843
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/18/2013 9:16:16 AM

You say, atheism is not a belief. It sure is. Atheism is a belief that there is no god.

Whether atheism is a belief or not depends on the individual.

Let's use an example to illustrate this...

Mathematicians believe the Reimann conjecture to be true but, it is only a belief until the day it is proven one way or the other. That day, it will cease being a belief and become a fact, one that is provable and proven. In other words, any unproven proposition, implicitly or explicitly, represents a belief.

Mathematicians don't believe the Pythagorean theorem is true, they know it's true. It is a proven fact that the great majority of mathematicians understand, those who do not understand it, simply believe it is true. They just happen to be right.

The same applies to atheism or anything else. An individual who cannot prove the non existence of god, yet denies its existence, simply believes there is no god. An individual who can prove the non existence of god, does not hold a belief, that individual holds a proven fact.

A lot of atheists simply believe there is no god because they lack the proof that god does not exist. Their inability to prove god does not exist, in turn proves, they simply hold a belief.

It's amusing to see the extremes a lot of atheists go to deny that, "I don't believe in god" forces the implication "I believe god does not exist". As if someone who doesn't believe in god could simultaneously believe god exists.

It's so because atheism is belief-based, as is theism.

Not in all cases. The non existence of god can be proven (in spite of all the kicking and screaming from believers and non believers alike to the contrary). For those who understand the proof, the non existence of god is a fact. Therefore, atheism unlike religion is not always based on belief.

There is an implied fallacy in your statement too. Theism is a belief based on the existence of a deity, atheism is not. Unlike in theism, in atheism the belief (in the absence of proof) is always about an abstract logical premise not a mythical "superior" whathaveyou.

Joined: 3/28/2010
Msg: 844
view profile
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/18/2013 9:21:01 AM

A doctrine that has its only tenet in "there is no god".

The proper term for this would be "anti-theist".

Most of the time when the term "atheist" is used, it is really more describing anti-theism. Atheism is not a very definitive term, as it could include those that have no knowledge of god in the first place (so no choice or denial is involved). Or, it could simply be a non-compliance of belief in the unlimited variations of theism out there.

But to actively be "against" theism is where the "anti" part comes in.

Atheism is really more of a theist term anyway. In most religions, and especially christianity, it is important to label those who are outside of your dogma.

Ironically, it was early christians that were labelled atheists for their non-belief in the pagan gods.
Joined: 6/18/2012
Msg: 845
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/18/2013 9:34:17 AM
Apparently judging is a sin too, but that's cool, no one can force you to vote or judge against others.
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 846
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/18/2013 10:35:58 AM

That we still do suggests there's no way to once and for all prove much of anything. :)

What it suggests is that proofs are not instantly accepted. That is particularly true with proofs that affect human behavior. Those take the longest to take effect.

The ignorance that supports gods, religions and creationism has to be eliminated from the masses. Eradicating ignorance and superstition from the masses takes centuries.

Creationism is a thing of the past and, it is extremely unlikely it will ever make it back into the educational system of any modern society; but those efforts won't stop until the religious segment loses significant mass.

The good new is, the religious segment is losing considerable mass. The power of ignorance has greatly diminished in the last 4 to 5 centuries and the trend is clearly for it to continue.

Can we stop with the irrelevant semantics and BS and cut down to the crux, for ID to be taught as science it needs to follow scientific methodology, as such i would expect to see many peer-reviewed papers on the subject supporting it....

A reasonable position. One you cannot expect from those who deny proven fact to ever subscribe to.
Joined: 6/17/2011
Msg: 847
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/18/2013 2:08:23 PM

I'd like to know if the Creationists would be in agreement with teaching all creation stories in schools.

They wouldn't be. They would want only the Christian Creation/Intelligent Design taught - and presented as scientific FACT, instead of theology. So there would be such criteria as: Adam and Eve, The Ten Commandments, Noah's Ark and the Global Flood - and probably Young Earth stuff as well. It wouldn't surprise me if they would try to teach the notion that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.

As a sidenote..... I am a member of Oh-kay Kyoopid (not spelled like that,it wouldn't show when I spelled it the correct way) , and their method of matching involves answering literally dozens of questions on every subject imaginable - including religion. I was very disturbed to read the answers that a lot of women were giving to the following question:

"Should evolution and creationism be taught side-by-side in school?"

1 Yes, students should hear both sides
2 No, creationism has no place in schools
3 No, evolution has no place in schools

I was appalled at the number of women chose #1 in their answer. And the strange thing is, that some of these same people answered other questions, such as "Do you believe in god?" and "Are you religious?" all with "no". What the hell? I found it baffling.
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 848
view profile
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/18/2013 2:48:13 PM
Oh holy cow. Here we go again. Liars left and right. The pseudo-reasoning employed by religion's advocates stand as proof that religion teaches people to lie.
Joined: 3/28/2010
Msg: 849
view profile
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/19/2013 8:54:08 AM

Besides, I am not saying that students should learn that dinosaurs and men coexisted; I am saying that students should learn about the existence of this paintings.

There you are lying again. Of course that's what you want taught, because you believe it's the truth. You're just trying to circumvent the rules by pretending differently. You don't like that reality contradicts your beliefs, and your strategy is that if you can't have it stopped being taught, you'd like to introduce your beliefs as a viable alternative to conventional reality.

Sorry, but that's not how education works. You don't plant suggestions in student's heads for them to decide what is true or not true. Besides, cave drawings of something you interpret as a dino is no more evidence of dinos and humans co-existing than that face of the virgin mary in that piece of toast is evidence for the virgin mary appearing to people. It's beyond stupid

And let's pretend for a moment that we all went crazy, and allowed schools to teach science and fairy tales side by side and let students decide which is true. There wouldn't be any converts to the fairy tales.

O really, would you provide some testable evidence for that?

It's not just that there's an overload of evidence that suggests the accepted reality concerning humans and's how we came to discover this reality.

Where did the concept of young earth creationism originate from?
It originates from a wonky interpretation of a chapter in a fairy tale book that even the majority of those who believe in the fairy tale book don't interpret that way.
Joined: 6/17/2011
Msg: 850
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/19/2013 9:35:56 AM

Besides, I am not saying that students should learn that dinosaurs and men coexisted; I am saying that students should learn about the existence of this paintings.

You make it sound as if the existence of these paintings is being kept hidden from them. Why would this be of tremendous important curriculum, dan? If students were learning about prehistoric peoples, and the subject of cave paintings came up, there would be nothing wrong with them learning about those particular paintings. As long as the students realized that there is no scientific evidence to support the concept of man co-existing with dinosaurs....just as there is no evidence to support cave paintings of "astronauts" were sightings by ancient man.
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 851
view profile
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/19/2013 10:19:35 AM

Ok lets reed the papers that are suppose to refute Sanford.
Even evolutionary scientists like Motoo Kimura and Tomoko Ohta have published peer revied articles that conclude that most mutations are ´´invisible´´ for natural selection. Natural selection doesn´t remove the majority of negative mutations.

Sanford misrepresents Kimura, so to assume that his 'peer reviewed' articles support Sanford is to be led into error.

I wanted to avoid long quotations, but I can see I'm going to have to highlight some crucial bits for you...

Demonstrate evolution, adaption, and/or increasing complexity

This blog (non-technical), written by a devout christian, refutes the pillars of Sanford's argument (with references) point by point. Note that he addresses Sanfords misrepresentation of Kimura -

The errors in Genetic Entropy are so pervasive that it might take a whole new book to fully expose them. I’ll break it down to the topics listed below:
(1) Kimura’s Distribution of Mutations
(2) Evidence for Beneficial Mutations
(3) Gene Duplication
(4) Natural Selection: What Sanford Claims
(5) Natural Selection: What Studies Show
(6) Evidence for Genomic Deterioration
(7) Synergistic Epistasis and Other Theoretical Considerations
(8) Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of John Sanford

This is a simple explanation of the way adaption and evolution,(positive mutation) occur. More, or changing, information equals increasing complexity.
Living organisms are open systems, i.e. they are constantly exchanging matter and energy with the environment.
The fact that an organism survives implies that, in its present form, it has been able to adapt itself to the environment. If the environment changes slowly enough, living entities can evolve (over a long enough time period) a new set of capabilities or features which enable them to survive even under the changed conditions.
Over long periods of such evolutionary change, creatures may even develop into new species. This was the message of Charles Darwin’s (1859) bold theory of evolution through cumulative natural selection.
He demonstrated that adaptation to the environment was a necessary outcome of the exchange processes going on between organisms and their surroundings.

What decides who will survive and who will not?
....those which are better suited to cope with the prevailing conditions will stand a better chance of survival.... they are also more likely to procreate.
...the effects of this natural selection accumulate over time.

A species perfects itself, or adjusts itself, for the environment in which it must survive, through the processes of both cumulative natural selection and inheritance.

...species evolves because natural selection acts on small inheritable variations in the members of the species.

We now know that the genotype or genome of an organism is its genetic blueprint. It is present in every cell of the body of the organism.
The phenotype, on the other hand, is the end-product (the organism) which emerges through execution of the instructions carried by the genotype.

It is the phenotype that is subjected to the battle for survival, but it is the genotype which carries the accumulated evolutionary benefits to succeeding generations.

The phenotypes compete, and the fittest among them have a higher chance of exchanging genes among themselves.

Genes of individuals with characteristics that enable them to reproduce successfully tend to survive in the gene pool, at the expense of genes that tend to fail. This feature of natural selection at the gene level has consequences which become manifest at the organism or phenotype level. Cumulative natural selection is not a random process.

Phenotypes (organisms) are subject to evolutionary pressure, but it's the genes (the map) that accumulate information, and pass it on via inheritance.

A few more regarding increasing complexity...
Test Your Knowledge of Information Theory
Creationists think information theory poses a serious challenge to modern evolutionary biology - but that only goes to show that creationists are as ignorant of information theory as they are of biology.

Whenever a creationist brings up this argument, insist that they answer the following five questions. All five questions are based on the Kolmogorov interpretation of information theory. I like this version of information theory because
(a) it does not depend on any hypothesized probability distribution (a frequent refuge of scoundrels)
(b) the answers about how information can change when a string is changed are unambiguous and agreed upon by all mathematicians, allowing less wiggle room to weasel out of the inevitable conclusions, and
(c) it applies to discrete strings of symbols and hence corresponds well with DNA.

All five questions are completely elementary, and I ask these questions in an introduction to the theory of Kolmogorov information for undergraduates at Waterloo. My undergraduates can nearly always answer these questions correctly, but creationists usually cannot.

Q1: Can information be created by gene duplication or polyploidy? More specifically, if x is a string of symbols, is it possible for xx to contain more information than x?

Q2: Can information be created by point mutations? More specifically, if xay is a string of symbols, is it possible that xby contains significantly more information? Here a, b are distinct symbols, and x, y are strings.

Q3: Can information be created by deletion? More specifically, if xyz is a string of symbols, is it possible that xz contains signficantly more information?

Q4: Can information be created by random rearrangement? More specifically, if x is a string of symbols, is it possible that some permutation of x contains significantly more information?

Q5. Can information be created by recombination? More specifically, let x and y be strings of the same length, and let s(x, y) be any single string obtained by "shuffling" x and y together. Here I do not mean what is sometimes called "perfect shuffle", but rather a possibly imperfect shuffle where x and y both appear left-to-right in s(x, y) , but not necessarily contiguously. For example, a perfect shuffle of 0000 and 1111 gives 01010101, and one possible non-perfect shuffle of 0000 and 1111 is 01101100. Can an imperfect shuffle of two strings have more information than the sum of the information in each string?

The answer to each question is "yes". In fact, for questions Q2-Q5, I can even prove that the given transformation can arbitrarily increase the amount of information in the string, in the sense that there exist strings for which the given transformation increases the complexity by an arbitrarily large multiplicative factor. I won't give the proofs here, because that's part of the challenge: ask your creationist to provide a proof for each of Q1-Q5.
Furthermore, John Sanford’s “genetic entropy” argument, if taken seriously, proves too much for ID creationists and old-earth creationists, even though Sanford’s Genetic Entropy book got endorsements from the likes of Behe. If Sanford is right, then no species could persist for more than a few thousand or tens of thousands of years, without miraculous intervention. That’s fine for YECs, but it would be a huge problem for old-earth creationism or for those in the ID movement who wish to pretend that ID is fine with universal common ancestry, just as it would be for mainstream science.
Evolution of complexity, information and entropy
Evolution of Biological Information
Summary: This paper and the corresponding Evj computer program show how information, measured in bits... appears in DNA by.. natural selection.
Claim CF002; Complexity does not arise from simplicity.

Complexity arises from simplicity all the time.
The Mandelbrot set is an example (Dewey 1996). Real-life examples include the following: A pan of water with heat applied uniformly to its bottom will develop convection currents that are more complex than the still water; complex hurricanes arise from similar principles; complex planetary ring systems arise from simple laws of gravitation; complex ant nests arise from simple behaviors; and complex organisms arise from simpler seeds and embryos.

Complexity should be expected from evolution. In computer simulations, complex organisms were more robust than simple ones (Lenski et al. 1999), and natural selection forced complexity to increase (Adami et al. 2000). Theoretically, complexity is expected because complexity-generating processes dissipate the entropy from solar energy influxes, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics (Wicken 1979). Ilya Prigogine won the Nobel Prize "for his contributions to non-equilibrium thermodynamics, particularly the theory of dissipative structures" (Nobel Foundation 1977). According to Prigogine, "it is shown that non-equilibrium may become a source of order and that irreversible processes may lead to a new type of dynamic states of matter called 'dissipative structures' " (Prigogine 1977, 22).

Adami, C., C. Ofria and T. C. Collier, 2000. Evolution of biological complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(9): 4463-4468.
Dewey, David, 1996. Introduction to the Mandelbrot set.
Lenski, R. E., C. Ofria, T. C. Collier and C. Adami, 1999. Genome complexity, robustness and genetic interactions in digital organisms. Nature 400: 661-664.
Nobel Foundation 1977. The Nobel Prize in chemistry 1977.
Prigogine, Ilya, 1977. Time, structure, and fluctuations,
Wicken, Jeffrey S., 1979. The generation of complexity in evolution: A thermodynamic and information-theoretical discussion. Journal of Theoretical Biology 77: 349-365.
Claim CB102; Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
Source: AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center.

It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
-increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
-increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
-novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
- novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
-Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
-RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
-Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
-The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).

Max, Edward E., 1999. The evolution of improved fitness by random mutation plus selection.
Musgrave, Ian, 2001. The Period gene of Drosophila.

Adami et al., 2000. (see below)
Alves, M. J., M. M. Coelho and M. J. Collares-Pereira, 2001. Evolution in action through hybridisation and polyploidy in an Iberian freshwater fish: a genetic review. Genetica 111(1-3): 375-385.
Brown, C. J., K. M. Todd and R. F. Rosenzweig, 1998. Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15(8): 931-942.
Hughes, A. L. and R. Friedman, 2003. Parallel evolution by gene duplication in the genomes of two unicellular fungi. Genome Research 13(5): 794-799.
Knox, J. R., P. C. Moews and J.-M. Frere, 1996. Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance. Chemistry and Biology 3: 937-947.
Lang, D. et al., 2000. Structural evidence for evolution of the beta/alpha barrel scaffold by gene duplication and fusion. Science 289: 1546-1550. See also Miles, E. W. and D. R. Davies, 2000. On the ancestry of barrels. Science 289: 1490.
Lenski, R. E., 1995. Evolution in experimental populations of bacteria. In: Population Genetics of Bacteria, Society for General Microbiology, Symposium 52, S. Baumberg et al., eds., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-215.
Lenski, R. E., M. R. Rose, S. C. Simpson and S. C. Tadler, 1991. Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. American Naturalist 138: 1315-1341.
Lynch, M. and J. S. Conery, 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155. See also Pennisi, E., 2000. Twinned genes live life in the fast lane. Science 290: 1065-1066.
Ohta, T., 2003. Evolution by gene duplication revisited: differentiation of regulatory elements versus proteins. Genetica 118(2-3): 209-216.
Park, I.-S., C.-H. Lin and C. T. Walsh, 1996. Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of the Escherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B. Biochemistry 35: 10464-10471.
Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe, 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
Schneider, T. D., 2000. Evolution of biological information. Nucleic Acids Research 28(14): 2794-2799.
Zhang, J., Y.-P. Zhang and H. F. Rosenberg, 2002. Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey. Nature Genetics 30: 411-415. See also: Univ. of Michigan, 2002, How gene duplication helps in adapting to changing environments.

Sanford's ideas about 'genetic entropy' are not supported by observations of reality.
There are other functions that are equally indispensable to the survival of all living systems, ranging from bacteria to cultures. In any of these systems, adaptation has been achieved by the process, already mentioned, which hinges on the gaining of information by means of genetic change and natural selection, as well as on the storing of knowledge in the code of the chain molecules in the genome.
- Konrad Lorenz, Nobel Prize lecture, 1973

Joined: 6/17/2011
Msg: 852
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/19/2013 12:41:35 PM

lying, you realize no one reads posts that long right? :)

I read it, Jeffrey. While I don't pretend to have understood much of it, it still left me quite a bit more knowledgeable than I was before. Lying has highlighted in bold the points he wanted to emphasize, which is great. Dan399 is constantly whining about proof, and information to back up points that contradict his, so Lying obliged him.

You're not going to change anyone's mind who doesn't already agree with you

Probably not.
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 853
view profile
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/19/2013 1:22:13 PM
Again , exactly what parts of the model are ´´unproven´´ please tell me which premises are ´´unproven´´
I know I can ask this question 100 times and I still won´t get an answer.

A proven model is one that provides accurate explanation of the data and makes accurate predictions of future events. So, you have to explain what data or observation this model explains, and what accurate predictions it has made. Without this data, this is simply a hypothesis, idea or philosophy. It remains outside of the domain of proper science, thus it does not count as scientific evidence.

Once again, you are trying to give this mathematical model a free pass, saying it's good because it uses good data. Rainiqui asked a very good question, which you have not answered. If this model is as good as you claim it is, then why hasn't it been peer-reviewed? What is Sanford so afraid of that he won't allow this model to be properly criticized, as all scientific theories must?

At the very least, answer me this: do you think the peer-reviewed process is crucial for science?

And please provide evidence that ancient organisms where simpler in the past, If you want to know the definition of ´´simple´´ and ´´complex´´ in this context reed the blind watch maker, amazingly Dawkins makes an excellent job in explaining the concept of complexity.

The book is free on line reed from page 15

So please provide testable evidence that ancient organisms where simpler in the past…

As I said before, the burden of proof is on you. You have made a claim that all animals are a "deteriorated" form of some super-animal in the past. You must now provide proof for this, and if not then I have no obligation to believe you. As you know, it is always the person making the positive claim to provide the proof (just like it's up to the person who says God exists who must provide the proof). Provide the proof for your assertion, or admit that this idea is not to be taken seriously.

I never aserted that,

Yes you did. It follows from your idea that all animals are a deteriorated form of some super-animal, along with the fact that a 6000 year timeframe is not nearly enough time for evolution to get rid of that deteriorated DNA.
Joined: 12/7/2010
Msg: 854
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/19/2013 2:15:21 PM
you want creationism taught so bad, then enroll your child in a school that teaches creationism.

other than that fuck off.

Joined: 12/7/2010
Msg: 855
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/19/2013 4:59:39 PM
you want creationism taught so bad, then enroll your child in a school that teaches creationism.

other than that fuck off.

but that's the sad part

not really.

I invite their children to be laughed at the same as any other retard.

Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 856
view profile
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/19/2013 8:55:05 PM
(0h kay qyu pid)

Yea, the questions in that place are very revealing of people...their dishonesty, and their confusion and ignorance.

lying, you realize no one reads posts that long right? :)

If you can't make yourself clear in a couple paragraphs or so you need to learn pith writing skills. And don't try to go point-counterpoint responding to every little until you ask yourself "Even if I'm right, what's the result?" You're not going to change anyone's mind who doesn't already agree with you, nor is anything we say here going to become a matter of law if we prove a position. If you want people to read what you write, KISS.

If a person isn't reading a post like that, with its length, then they have no business discussing this in here or even trying to have an opinion on the subject.
Joined: 2/14/2010
Msg: 857
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/19/2013 10:37:46 PM

There are ancient drawings showing beings that look like alien astronauts. Should we teach students that ancient man was visited by aliens? (many people actually believe this). Of course not

How do you know that? Have you ever seen an Alien astronaut? The point is that if we ever find an Alien, and if this Alien happens to be similar to what ancient man have drawn, then it would be obvious that ancient man also saw Aliens.

Are you suggesting that ancient man simply imagine creatures that happened to be similar to dinosaurs that were discovered centuries after?

Besides, I am not saying that students should learn that dinosaurs and men coexisted; I am saying that students should learn about the existence of this paintings.

Interesting Dan, because there are quite a few people with stories of how they were 'abducted' by aliens, 'probed' by them, etc... so are you saying that because they've "seen" alien astronauts we should be teaching it in schools? Do *you* believe their stories? Have *you* ever seen one? If you "saw" an alien tomorrow, how exactly would that "prove" they visited earth thousands of years ago? Ever found any alien fossils/skeletons? Unless they appeared to you, communicated with you, said they'd been on earth 3000yrs ago, and pointed you to say some secret chamber in the pyramids nobody had found (which they knew because, cough cough, they built them), and you could show that to the world, what "proof" would you have of it?

Is a lizard a "dinosaur"? If there was a cave drawing of a lizard, 4" high, couldn't it be mistakenly looked at as a dinosaur? According to evolution probably 90% of the species that ever lived on this planet are gone, so how would you prove that drawing is of a 30' high dinosaur, and not a 3" high lizard-like creature that has since died off?

BTW, I'm certainly not against students learning about the existence of said paintings, I'm sure there's probably already literature with probably pictures of them - *non-christian* scientific literature, with no mention of them somehow being "proof" of God, or dinosaurs walking with man, etc. The paintings themselves, in that case, are *fact* (and quite honestly should be preserved in photo's since they'd degrade over time anyways), actual scientific research (archaeology) leading to finding the cave they were painted in, etc. Attributing them to being "dinosaurs" is opinion, not fact without more evidence , and does not constitute "science".
Joined: 2/14/2010
Msg: 858
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/19/2013 10:59:23 PM
I'm reminded, BTW, of the other year when there was a ruckus down in GA over Bobby Jindal's school voucher law, whereby families could get public school money (vouchers) to send their children to a school of their choice.

Where apparently "christian" books think the slave masters were "nice guys" who "treated their slaves well", the KKK was a good group of guys, "abstract algebra is too dang complicated", Dragons were real, as well as (of course) man and dinosaur walking together.

It was especially funny when those Christian groups who thought it was a "great idea", were suddenly horrified when they realized that the law *also* allowed parents to send their kids to Muslim schools, Buddhist schools, Jewish schools, etc. I mean, OMG, they didn't want their tax dollars going to pay for kids to learn the Muslim faith!! But somehow everyone else should be a-ok with other taxpayers paying to send *their* kids to Christian schools.

Was ruled unconstitutional by the courts.
Joined: 6/17/2011
Msg: 859
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/20/2013 8:05:07 AM

Sure, no one is saying that we should teach the ´´Christian story´´ all I saying is that students should learn about the scientific facts that support the idea of a created universe.

There ARE no "scientific facts" supporting Intelligent Design, Creationism, or Noah's Ark, or Adam and Eve, dan!! And no, we DON'T know how the Universe was created. But the absence of that knowledge doesn't mean that you automatically factor in a god or a deity!!
Joined: 9/25/2012
Msg: 860
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/20/2013 8:50:36 AM

For example this piece of art represents a plesiosaur, it is not an ambiguous reptile Have you ever seen an Aardvark? Or an Armadillo? And how pompous does one have to be to make such a bald, unsupported claim such as 'it is not an ambiguous reptile'?? It is ambiguous, and logically the only thing that can be asserted about it relative to dinosaurs is that it represents a dinosaur skeleton - something we can also make representations of today. I suppose that means that dinosaurs must be roaming the earth as I type.....

Ay caramba dude. You have been stomped in this thread like a narc at a biker rally - and your delusion still persists. I admit to marvelling at your stultifying stubbornness in the face of Reason and Logic. Clearly you have no respect for either. Please carry on.
Joined: 6/17/2011
Msg: 861
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/20/2013 11:00:31 AM

And just a question, ¿what evidence would convince you than men and dinosaurs coexisted?

Fossilized human remains found near dinosaur fossilized remains. Or fossilized human remains that proved to be as old as the dinosaur's remains. I'm not choosy. You pick.

Dan, I also have a question for you: Do you actually believe that humans and dinosaurs could have co-existed? I think that T-Rexes for example, would have found the sparse human population quite a tasty treat. How do you suppose ANY humans could have possibly survived?
Joined: 2/14/2010
Msg: 862
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/20/2013 11:05:09 AM

Well a prediction that can be made is that people from the 40s should have less genetic disorders than people from the 90s right?
Well this prediction happens to be true.

´´in Man,
Reported Genetic Disorders 1966 to 1999. The number
of medically reported genetic disorders in 1966 was
1,487. The number reported by 1999 was 11,099.´´

Which is, Dan, a decidedly UNSCIENTIFIC measure - a scientific measurement would be #of cases per *population*, ie, 5 cases per 100,000 people. The world's population since 1966 has roughly doubled, which unskews those numbers a bit. It also fails to account for other factors, such as companies dumping toxins into the water/ground/atmosphere, such as GE dumping PCB's into the Hudson river - what is the effect of ever more complex man-made toxic chemicals on those numbers? The long-term effects of all the above-ground nuclear testing (and resulting fallout - I for one remember hearing the 'scares' about Strontium-90 from nuclear testing in milk on children... hey, I was born in the peak of Strontium-90 values worldwide - my mother remembers getting her feet x-rayed in shoe stores to 'fit shoes'). Radiation can break down DNA strands (just as cosmic rays, which are mostly constant). One could well expect an increase in genetic disorders after Fukushima the other year. Simply spouting off 'numbers' without any research into things the might cause such things is not at all 'scientific'.
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 863
view profile
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/20/2013 1:18:11 PM
Ok, finally I got a specific answer, so if I understood well your objection that the model doesn´t make predictions. So if I prove that the model makes correct predictions that will prove that the model is correct and that evolution is wrong right?
Well a prediction that can be made is that people from the 40s should have less genetic disorders than people from the 90s right?
Well this prediction happens to be true.

Back in the 40s many genetic illnesses weren't reported as such (e.g., Down's Syndrome was only determined to have been a genetic illness in 1959). The number of people reporting mental and health issues also rose in light of the Rosenhan experiment and others - a change in reporting criteria led to much higher reported cases (this was covered in the BBC's documentary The Trap). Our greater ability to diagnose genetic illnesses today does not mean that they are more prevalent (just like our greater ability to chart and record earthquakes today does not mean that earthquakes happen more often than in the past). In the future, cancer might be considered a genetic illness (and there is indeed data pointing to that possibility), and the number of genetic illnesses will rise accordingly, but this doesn't mean cancer didn't happen in the past, we just didn't recognize it as such. In short, you seem to be mistaking our greater ability to recognize genetic illnesses with an actual rise in genetic illnesses.

First: You don´t know that maybe naturalistic magazines are not even willing to consider the article because it has ´´creationists implications´´ Do you have evidence that Sanford is afraid of peer review?

If Sanford is not afraid of peer review then he would have done it by now. Sure it might have gotten rejected (as many others do), but it's important to at least try. Instead, he seemed to have published into his own publication - a strange thing to do if he wasn't afraid of peer-review.

Second, Weather if the article is peer reviewed or not is irrelevant, the relevant thing is weather if the information is accurate or not, so do you have any reason to assume that the information is wrong?

The process of peer-review is one of the ways to determine if a theory is accurate or not (once again, you are assuming it's true, giving it a free pass). To say that peer-review is irrelevant is a statement of the utmost ignorance. Peer-review is critically important, and ALL scientific theories MUST go through a peer-review process! There is no exception.

Third, are you sure that the model has never been peer reviewed?

I believe Rainiqui showed this.

Fourth, The premises in on described on the article are based on peer reviewed articles anyway (mutation rates, ratio of beneficial and detrimental mutations, the effect on natural selection etc. are all based on accepted peer reviewed data. )

Once again, scientists can often get things wrong even when the best data is used (like I said before, scientists used the latest data that was used to break through the sound barrier when creating the first supersonic jet fighters - and they didn't go supersonic). This is no substitute for peer-review and testing. Scientists are not infallible or all-knowing - even peer-reviewed data is not 100% accurate (in science, nothing is 100% accurate). The proper scientific procedure regarding a theory like Sanford's is to be skeptical but you are taking the exact opposite stance, accepting it fully even though it has been proven accurate or peer-reviewed (your approach is not scientific).

Evolution states that ancient organisms where simpler ID states that ancient genomes where more complex, both models make a positive claim, therefore the burden prove is on BOTH!!! So please provide evidence that supports your claim

LOL, that's rich. YOU are the one who came into this thread with the claim that ancient organisms were more functional/perfect. I was not the one making such claims (although LC provided plenty of evidence for evolution anyways), the only thing I did was ask you for proof of yours. Instead of providing that proof, you rather disingenuously say that I am the one who needs to provide proof. Sorry, but the burden of proof is clearly on you.

Furthermore, what does the proof/disproof of evolution have anything to do with proving Sanford's calculations? Disproving evolution will not make creationism true, yet all you've done so far is assert a non-proven, non-peer-reviewed idea, provide no proof or evidence of it, and then attack evolution!

Then again, this is what creationists like you ALWAYS do - you never provide any proof for your side, and instead just attack the other side. Why am I not surprised?

Yes, and that can be proven by the apparent fact that time deteriorates genomes.

There is no fact that time deteriorates genomes. This is a mere assertion, which you are passing off as a fact. If this is a fact then please cite one peer-reviewed scientific theory/model/calculation that shows this.

Evolution will never get rid of the deteriorated DNA, not in 6,000y not in Billions of years

Well then, it should be very easy, using DNA analysis, to prove the theory of deteriorated genes. So where is it?
Joined: 2/14/2010
Msg: 864
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/20/2013 8:14:03 PM

Interesting Dan, because there are quite a few people with stories of how they were 'abducted' by aliens, 'probed' by them, etc... so are you saying that because they've "seen" alien astronauts we should be teaching it in schools? Do *you* believe their stories? Have *you* ever seen one? If you "saw" an alien tomorrow, how exactly would that "prove" they visited earth thousands of years ago? Ever found any alien fossils/skeletons? Unless they appeared to you, communicated with you, said they'd been on earth 3000yrs ago, and pointed you to say some secret chamber in the pyramids nobody had found (which they knew because, cough cough, they built them), and you could show that to the world, what "proof" would you have of it?

Things are very simple, If we ever find an Alien, and this Alien looks like something ancient people draw, we must conclude, or at least consider the possibility, that aliens visited ancient people.
Same logic applies with dinosaurs, if ancient people painted things that looked like dinosaurs we must consider the possibility that humans and dinosaurs coexisted,

... and if we ever find a God, and that God looks something like ancient people have drawn, then maybe we could conclude that God exists. However just like the people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, who from your own comment it doesn't sound like you believe in either, the people who believe in God can't come up with any actual *proof* of it... thus why it is called a *belief* system and a religion, and not "science".

The people who believe they were abducted by aliens are welcome to their beliefs. The people who believe in the "God" of their choice are also welcome to their beliefs. I don't really care either way, until someone tries to cram *their beliefs* down my (or my children's) throats as "the truth", then I take issue to it.
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 865
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/20/2013 10:04:46 PM

the decent minds here wanna go back n forth argueing something that's unresolvable?

It is solvable and it has been solved. It is a fact that the earth (and the heavens) are older than 6000 years old. The creationist premise is patently absurd. To even suggest it should be taught in schools is downright ridiculous unless it is taught alongside Greek mythology.

What may well be unsolvable is making some minds understand the impossibility of earth being only 6000 years old. All the posts in the world won't fix the reasoning problems present in those brains. Ironically, the only thing that will fix those problems is, the very thing that is being denied, evolution.

This isn't the only thread that suffers from this problem, among others are, "Is god worthy of being worshiped", "The god delusion", "What is god ?" and pretty much any thread that directly or indirectly questions the existence of a sacred psychological crutch many people are unable and unwilling to live without.

As if that wasn't bad enough, premises as trivial (not to mention brutally obvious) as, "Proving a negative" are also sources of arguments. Anyone who has attended a course of Logic 101 can solve that "problem" in two sentences or less. Yet after 40+ posts there are still some who argue, against what has been proven for over a century, using dismal arguments.

It's disappointing to log in, look at this forum for something interesting to discuss and see just the same few threads every day. :)

I agree.

Joined: 1/24/2003
Msg: 866
view profile
Creationism in schools
Posted: 1/24/2013 6:40:24 PM

CLOSED - Period

the other Any site related question not answered via the HELP link, then email CSR@POF here || Site Rules Here || Posting Clarifications ||
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Creationism in schools [CLOSED]