Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I believe you will find the evidence in the bold above . . . if you will relinquish your bias and intransigence long enough to actually check the experiments out. Of course, to quote rifle, you, he and the others are so "hidebound" that you wont even make the effort.
|
Wow! I'm so glad you've finally found something I said to be of use to you, tho' I'm pretty sure
I correctly hyphenated it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalfNelson
neither evolution nor creationism should be taught in a science class. They should both be taught in a philosophy/religion class. Science should be reserved for that which can be observed and tested.
|
Well, you obviously have ZERO understanding or knowledge of all the research that's been done and that is ongoing in evolution, genetics, DNA mapping, geological records and processes, the obvious fossil evidence, long-time scale hydrology, deep molecular physics and so on and so forth...
Nope! Instead, you just latch on to the standard talking points and blurt them out, on command, from the hive master. Typical, and it also really clarifies your amazing lack of education in an area that is, granted, well beyond the grasp of most folks now. This would be akin to you critiquing the latest findings in neurosurgical techniques. Oh, you can sit quietly in the back of the seminar room and listen intently (which Christian do not know how to do...) but DO NOT RAISE YOUR HAND to comment until you've also done at least the
minimum 4 or 6 years of study. Got it?
No? Perhaps you need an example? OK: your very next line is on display for all to read...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalfNelson
Evolution is predicated on the assumption that earth has existed for billions of years, which is based on the faith that the current method of dating the earth is accurate, which also assumes that the earth, as observed over the course of modern science, has behaved in the exact same why since it came to be.
|
There's no unsupported, wild-a$$
assumption that the earth's been around for that long. inmstead, we have all the now-well-proven methods of artifcat aging, plus the accumulation of millions of easily counted
[this assumes, of course, that one can, or will, count...] annual sedimentary or ice season or atmospheric dust, sedimentary varves, ancient volcanic debris layers, or asteroid/meteorite deposits.
Nope: you simply *********r eyes tightly shut to not only exclude those
individual events, but also to exclude the "strange" coincidental fact that they all co-mingle, and co-support each other. Literally millions, by now, of independent field and lab studies over tens of decades, all neatly swept off the table by you as "junk science" by biased, globally conspiring agent-provocateur scientists? Sure.
Oddly, those studies also provide, as they must, all the information necessary for you or the church to go repeat them, but just as oddly (
) no-one in religion ever does this important validation step. And yah wanna know why? I didn't think so.
The obvious explanations elude your mind, since of course, that signals the end of your belief system. So you'd prefer to hold on to an outrageously illogical, oh and also completely evidence-free, version of how it happened: to wit:
"POOF! [out of nothing, and by an entity with no originations Himself...]", said your imaginary god one lonely afternoon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalfNelson
Science takes on faith, that nothing existed in the past that could drastically alter the findings of things in the present. What if there were particles that existed that back then, that have since disappeared, leaving no trace other than the fact that they drastically distort that which we can observe today?
|
Fine. Why didn't you say so? An hypothesis you mean? good! This is a start for you! Sadly, if we were to check that one out, it would lack any detectable evidence, so eventually, especially since it only answers a question no-one asked, it would be dropped. As well, our investigations have, in fact, answered the majority of questions with complete satisfaction. All except the
"How do we make the research resutls suport our pre-determined conclusions?" version.
That we'll have to leave in the ever-more frantic hands of religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalfNelson
There is simply nothing pertaining to how things were, long before written documentation of things, that does not require a certain amount of faith.
|
Oh blah. This is simply unsupportable nonsense speculation and wishful thinking. You mean when I [as a professional paid geologist] personally oversaw those sediment sampling drillings in the northern Canadian Rockies, the multiple
annual levels of debris that went back a few hundred years were all in our imaginations?
[we stopped there, but could easily be still drilling, well into the hundreds of thousands of years of sedimentary record].
Or the ongoing work in the Green River formation, or on Lake Baikal, that clearly shows annual levels for
several millions of years of pre-history? It's all faked? you'd have to prove that silliness, since the only reason for faking it would be... well, I dunno, frankly. Science seeks the truth, no matter how uncomfortable that might make some kid's parents. and hence, the OP's quesrtion, BTW. Science and religion [and their specific content] are
not on trial here
(if they were, you'd lose...); just where they should be philosophically explored.
And yes, technically,
I agree: everything does take a certain amount of faith, like that your computer will turn on again this morning, but that,
really.... all laptops are in truth run by a global coven of witches. Well OK then; some of those sorts of ideas are just, well,
nutto. Like an Insta-poofy Creation event, or that
"there's not evidence of an ancient earth!! Nyahhh!"
More simply put,
your scientifically illiterate blatherings do
not make
your commentary somehow valid. In fact, they only further prove
that illiteracy, on a pathological scale. Congrats!
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalfNelson
Simply put, science can only attempt explanations based on what is known, which naturally cannot account for things which are unknown. Modern science has absolutely zero knowledge about the ancient past, as supposedly no human being was there to document it.
|
Zero knowledge, huh? OK: I'm done at this point, but Thank God
you're not in charge of the high school education system, with such clod-headed comments like these.
Science is, in fact, the ongoing investigation of the unknown, and it builds on what it learns. its knows a lot about lots of things. Sadly for your hide-bound perspective. It also predicts things, and if
those are accurate, and reliably so, and to an ever-increasing level of confidence, then we begin to rely on the findings as true. and we press on. If they were not true, then a lot of our larter work and findings would collapse, and yet, they do not.
This is akin to building a new house: if the foundation's made of styrofoam, then the later structure, built on false assumptions, collapses. But if it's built on reinforced concrete, it will stand. As do the modern findings in science. Sorta buttresses the earler work,
dohn'it?
You don't like this, so you make stuff up. OK then; go for it. Too bad for your kids though...
BTW, if an hypothesis is found to be incorrect by scientific research, it's abandoned, and another possible explanation is sought. Not so with the church; you'd
better go with all the ancient lies, or else. So what if it's easily proven to be contradictory or downright false? So what.
Finally, this classically ignorant zinger by you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalfNelson
With regard to science and religion, I fail to see any meaningful contribution to society being made by science that is contrary to the Bible.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Hue
An institution which offers instruction in two subjects which directly oppose one another
is in opposition of... the value in study.
A school is a learning enviroment which requires... structure & order.
Providing two subjects which directly oppose one another injects
academic & social... "division"
Academic & social division... within a learning enviorment... is disorder.
|
You don't seem to want to acknowlege,
Blue Hue, that no-one here wants to disallow the provision of a scientific education
as well as one in comparative religions. One, however, does
not belong in the same physical classroom, under the same curriculum as the other. Scientists do not belong in the Sunday Morning church service to provide a valid counterpoint to what the minister is saying, and
that would surely not be allowed, now would it? Nor are any scientists demanding that, unlike the demands of the various Christian PTA groups in some backeard school districts.
Just as clearly, the touchy personal subjct of one's personal spiritual education probably belongs more in the home or church, but as an academic exercise, and in a comparative way, the huge topic of all the world's religions should be available to an interested student as a Comp religion course.
Meantime, down the hall, the overall Scientific Method (i.e:
"How to Think Critically" and how to design simple means to find good answers) rightfully belongs on it's own in a science class. The facts of Evolution, BTW, actually belong in a biology or genetics class, but may be provided as examples of how science works. The danger inherent to them in this sort of advanced thinking is obvious to the intransigent dogmo-theists (IDTrs) amongst us.
There's a whole lot of intellectual dishonesty in this thread, to be sure. A lot of people know they'er cornered, and are fighting like a trapped alley cat in a garbage can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalfNelson
I will agree that Microevolution, as something that has been observed, should be discussed in a science class, but Macroevolution has never been observed.
|
Wrong. Again. As usual. "Macro-Evolution" is not some bizzare overnight thing, as I'm sure you'd require in the infamously stupid
"I'll believe it when my cat gives birth to a dog overnight!!!..." line. This only shows one's preferred gross ignorance of the subject.
In fact, we have all sorts of irrefutable evidence, and since we can easily show the valid mechanisms and key elements of adaptive mutations and speciation, I'll ask you specifically:
Q: Which specific part of that observed and recorded process suddenly stops working, in your educated opinion, and ceases in the accumulation of new genetic variations, good, bad or neutral?
Does it only stop when you want it to? How convenient!
And then you go on from there with
your wildly inaccurate assumptions, easily dis-proven, about the so-called assumptions of proven scientific facts. Your understanding and knowledge of modern scientific accomplishments and limitations is appallingly inadequate, as evidenced by the absolute statements you continue to make here, all grossly inaccurate.
Compelling arguments you make, HN.
What was it that Warren T Rat stated in Fivel?
"I'm surrounded by..." etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
A class like that would likely be an elective, giving parents and students a choice.
|
Exactly what we're suggesting,
jimmiej. Trouble is, a whole lot of intellectually challenged and terrified Christian parents demand that science's systematics
never be explained without a challenge from a non-scientific body of information.
Tell me please: why is a course that focuses solely on
Critical Thinking and Research Design so terrifying to Christians? That's what this is really all about. It's
not about Evolution or geology: those belong in their own specific classrooms: Biology 101, Geology 202, etc. Those bodies of accumulated information are, yes, a result of Critical Thinking and careful research design, but science
in and of itself is not a listing of the facts that resulted from it's application.
Do I need to re-post this simple question for clarity? Not lost in my usual run-on posts? OK then.