Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Here we go again...

This is topic Here we go again... in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/316.html

Posted by HMS White Star (Member # 174) on :

I just like to share something I just picked up on my news service... http://express.isyndicate.com/reuters/ReutersOnlineNews/10_23_1999.rontz1552-story-bcnewsscienceevolution.html

Have fun

------------------
Pinky we will so rule the world...as soon as I figure out what step 2 is.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Throw another state on the barbie...

You notice how the articles when these things happen always happen "quietly?"

That's because they aren't being subjected to open discussion. One powerful group (Bauer's in this case) silently, secretly puts forth its agenda behind closed doors, pushes it through, and whoops! There goes any concept of the idea that we're living in a free society... which, in the end, is just what they want.

These things happen quietly, because if they happened with noise and fanfare, the opposition would have a chance to get its cannons into place and make it a fair fight, which is the LAST thing the C'ers want.

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

------------------
'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

What do you mean, what are WE hiding? Walt Brown (noted creationist, for those of you who don't know) has challenged many leading evolutionists to a formal debate, and now has issued a standing invitiation to anyone who wants to try, and yet no one has taken him up on it in years. Any idea why?

And I still say that both should be taught completely optionally. Maybe I'd better get into state politics instead of national, eh? That way, only those of you who live in Tennessee would have to deal with my ideas. At least for a while, that is. : )

------------------
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people . . ." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1791

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Oh, the fun never stops around here, does it?

First of all, this really has little to do with creation or evolution. It's just some nice-sounding Orwellian doublespeak. Note how none of the content has changed, just a few of the buzzwords.

Regarding teaching both: Again I say unto thee, nay! A thousand times nay! Creationism belongs in a theology class, not a science class. The reasons are many and have been pointed out time and time and time and time and time again, though you refuse to acknowledge them.

Regarding debates: Wha huh? These sorts of debates happen all the time, almost always at creationist events. Why? Because creationists are totally unwilling to actually argue in a venue where scientific accuracy counts. Instead, they pack their halls with people who, like yourself, will simply ignore whatever the invited scientist has to say. Beyond that, these debates are almost never about the science involved. I dare you to show me a single such debate where the creationist doesn't start attacking the evolutionist.

------------------
"Quadrilateral I was, now I warp like a smile."
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I should add, attacking the evolutionist on entirely unrelated matters. Accusing them of being athiests and so on, none of which has any bearing on the matter at hand. But they know their audience, I suppose.

------------------
"Quadrilateral I was, now I warp like a smile."
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

Sol, I know exactly what you're talking about... i work at Darien Lake and every year they have several speakers discussing Evolution/creation....usually they turn into scientist-bashing fests.

------------------
"I'm looking for someone to change my life.
I'm looking for a miracle in my life.
And if you could see, what its done to me...
To lose the love I knew, could safely lead me to
The land that I one knew...
To learn as we grow old, the secrets of our souls."
Question, The Moody Blues

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Sol:

So you suggest teaching evolution as a scientific fact, and completely ignore another theory that fits the fact better, just because the other theory happens to involve the direct intervention of a supernatural entity at some point? Your big bang/random chance theory requires that, too, you know. And since the theory I defend fits the facts far better, I'd suggest that IT should be taught as scientific fact instead. Does anyone have an aspect of nature that my beliefs don't explain? My point is that neither can be prooven, so neither should be taught as fact.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I suggest teaching scientfic fact in school as opposed to a totally unsupported patchwork pulled together by various forces wishing to seek the teaching of their religion of choice, yes. Despite you proclaiming that your theory is supported by the facts, it would seem that the truth is in fact exactly the opposite.

------------------
"And I can't approach myself, skating over this perdition."
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

You keep saying that my theory doesn't work and that yours does, but you never point out any holes in mine, or any evidence irrefutably in favor of yours. If you'd care to do so, I'm listening.

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :

There are far to many religons, for one to be taught in school. It belongs in Church.

------------------
"One Tequila, Two Tequila, Three Tequila, Floor". George Carlin

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I'm not suggesting that any particular creation story be taught, just that the scientific theory that says that the world reached its present state through natural processes that were set in motion by a supernatural being some milenia ago. Again, as an option, not as fact.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Between First and myself, every point you've made has been refuted. You can claim otherwise if it makes you happy.

------------------
"And I can't approach myself, skating over this perdition."
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Uh, no. You missed several involving various methods of dating the universe/Earth/system. You never did explain that amorphous paste on Archaeopteryx. You never explained how what is effectively a computer program capable of making a copy of itself could arise by random chance. And you never explained away the data that points to a decrease in the speed of light and atomic vibration. Oh, and nothing against liquefication and a global flood, either. So now, which one of us is claiming something that didn't happen to make theirself happy?

------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I discounted every "Archie is a hoax!" point, including that "paste". First has repeatedly shown you more then a few reasons why electromagnetic radiation cannot have slowed down. He's also pointed out that the hydrologically sorted layer theory is utterly without basis and has been experimentally disproved.

------------------
"And I can't approach myself, skating over this perdition."
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Would you care to refresh my memory as to the supposed c decreaseand liquefication refutations? I really have no idea what you're talking about. And perhaps you'd care to describe the details of these experiments involving liquefication. Every experiment I've heard of produced the results predicted. And I repeatedly asked you to explain the fact that Archie's furcula was oversized, cracked, and turned the wrong way. You never did.

------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

That's because you've blinded me with the truth! Hooray!

------------------
"And I can't approach myself, skating over this perdition."
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Are you going to respond to my points, or just avoid that some more by being sarcastic?

------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited October 25, 1999).]

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Can't a fellow have an honest change of heart?

But to be fair, no, I am not. I could unload every single paper ever written on the subject and it wouldn't do any good. You wouldn't believe me if I said the sky was blue and water was wet. So why should I waste your time and mine?

------------------
"And I can't approach myself, skating over this perdition."
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by Chimaera on :

Public debates between creationists and evolutionists are, in my opinion, quite pointless. It is highly unlikely that anyone will change their mind on the subject, nor do they have to because it is, after all, a free and democratic society (supposedly). Although I haven't really been keeping up with the debate here on the forum on a regular basis, I do have two thoughts on the subject:

Firstly, both sides of this debate carry with them an atmosphere of righteousness that is based on a false premise. For science, which is based on fact and observation, it is a belief that because scientific principles are backed up by observations and facts, that one cannot be wrong. In fact, a little trip through the history books shows us that observations are completely open to (mis)interpretations (a fact exploited by some creationists I've seen recently on television and in the newspapers). Fortunately for science, the history books conveniently forget the wrong theories while carving in stone those that have worked. And bad theories are always debunked eventually. The problem is, this leads many in the "science camp" to dismiss that which cannot be quantified, measured, calculated, or theorized within the boundaries of the modern scientific world view.

Religion has a similar problem. Principles that come from god, the creator of the universe and humanity, cannot in their minds be questioned. And the Bible is the world of God (in the Christian world, anyway), therefore it cannot be questioned. Some modern Christians are very pragmatic when interpreting the Bible, rather than take the words literally, which is perhaps an (un)conscious acknowledgment that it was written by men millenia ago who did not understand the world as we do today.

But no doubt the problem with a debate is obvious, if both sides are right, why bother even listening to the other? Faith and reason do not easily cooperate.

Secondly, if things like creationism are to be taught at all in public schools, they should be taught in a religious studies class. Teaching creationism in biology class (which a school district in British Columbia tried to do, but thankfully was prevented by the provincial education ministry) is like telling physics students the Earth is flat and teaching chemistry students the four elements of fire, water, air and soil. I have no quarrel with religious belief, although I'm not a religious person myself, but I do think that we need to keep such things in perspective in modern public education.

------------------
"But, it was so artistically done."
-Grand Admiral Thrawn

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I'd politely disagree with a few points, but...

*shrug*

------------------
"And I can't approach myself, skating over this perdition."
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by Baloo (Member # 5) on :

Chimaera: Hear, Hear!

"Teaching creationism in biology class [parenthetical phrase deleted] is like telling physics students the Earth is flat and teaching chemistry students the four elements of fire, water, air and soil."

Well, I, for one, enjoyed hearing about geocentrism (for example) in a physics class that not only taught what science believes today (well, actually a bit more than 20 years ago, but...) but also detailed how modern science came to these conclusions. If you just teach bald fact, you are not teaching science, but simply indoctrinating the students into the "cult" of knowledge. You must also present the process by which the facts (as they are understood now) were arrived at, and ultimately concede that the current laws and theories may possibly be usurped when new evidence (should it be uncovered) is discovered.

By demonstrating how knowledge is not only refined and increased, but sometimes even overthrown by new knowledge, you will hopefully teach your students to understand how to come to their own conclusions.

It amazes me to discover how many people don't realize that no-one had any idea that DDT could have harmful effects on the environment until they began finding signs of it. At one time it was generally, though not universally believed that tobacco was actually good for you. My great-grandmother actually grew the stuff, and not only smoked it, but dipped snuff and even used it to make poultices (effective for treating bee stings, according to my mother's first-hand account).

Towards the end of the previous century, it was seriously proposed that the U.S. patent office be closed, as everything that could possibly be invented had been. Obviously they were wrong.

As we prepare to enter the third millennium, let's not assume that everything we know today is the final word on the matter. Thousands of years of human history have provided us with countless examples of societies and people who thought they knew everything, and ruthlessly (I wonder where Ruth is?) squashed debate as counterproductive or subversive.

The problem with science (and theology, for that matter) is that we have no choice but to use a very imprecise tool to examine and interpret what we observe: the human mind. It's entirely possible that the theory you hold so closely to your heart is not the only interpretation of the evidence.

--Baloo

------------------
Carpe Canem (Translation: Damn! The dog pooped on the carpet! AGAIN!!!)
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Precisely, Baloo! Teach the theories, evidence, and reasoning, but never absolute fact. Don't just say "People used to believe the world was flat, but we now know this to be false." Explain WHY exactly we know the world isn't flat.

How about this for an approach. Teach the two or three most prevalent theories, then shortly point out references to books about the more obscure ones. If anyone's interested, they can just go to their library and check out the book.

Of course, you'd have to talk to the textbook manufacturers to actually do anything. They're really the ones who decide what gets taught, aren't they? Most schools probably just order whatever's cheapest, with no regard to content.

------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

*chuckles*

Oh...

*chortles*

hee-hee...

*laughs*

I'm sorry, I'm just really amused right now...

Okay, I've calmed down. I just find it hysterical that one of the most often used (though least-well reasoned-out and most nonsensical) attacks by fundie-types against the teaching of evolutionary theory and science and "modern thought and philosophy" is that it corrupts morals by teaching that there are no absolutes! And here we have folks saying that absolutes should not be taught!

A-HAHAHAHAHA! *ROTFL*

Sorry, where was I?

Oh, yes. You want to talk about hard-to-refute arguments? Solve the following without referring to "miracles."

Much of the argument for C'ers hinges on the "Ark Theory." However, we know from knowing the tensile strength of such wood as the ark is said to be made of, the supposed dimensions of said ark, the number of species now alive (as well as those now extinct but known to have lived in the past) and the laws of physics, biology, genetics, and other such non-absolutes, that:

1) A wooden ark that big would have collapsed under its own weight, much less its weight fully loaded.

2) More species exist now, or have ever existed, for Noah to fulfil his promise of putting two of each on the ark.

3) The poop would have fouled the whole ship.

4) A sample of two is probably not enough for a breeding population (which is why evolution takes place communally, rather than individually).

5) The animals would likely have eaten each other. The ship alone couldn't have held enough to feed them all.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I say absolutes should not be taught in science classes because, as far as science is concerned, they don't exist. Math, maybe morality, but not science.

As for the ark, well, darnit, I'm a doctor, not an engineer. Well, I'm not a doctor, either, to be honest. I've never given it any thought, nor am I smart enough to even begin to figure something like that out if I had, so you'll have to ask someone else. Sorry.

------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Wot? You mean that famed book by whatsisname you've been using doesn't actually provide you with any defense against counter-creationist arguments? It's only good for offense? Geez.

And you don't need to be an engineer (okay, maybe to figure out the bit about collapsing under its own weight) for most of it.

All-Wooden ships can only be built so large. Wooden ships with some iron bits and reinforcing can be built a bit bigger, but not much. That's the reason galleons aren't enormous.

Much of the rest is just math.
1) Calculate how big the ark was to have been. (You'll probably need to convert cubits to feet.)

2) Calculate how much living space 8 people can have without going nuts. Calculate the average size of all known species of land-dwelling animals which exist now or can be found as fossilized remains. (Don't forget the Baluchitherium and the Brachiosaurus) Double that (at least), and add extra for the animals for which there had to be more than two of. Add more for room enough for the animals to move a bit, and for alleys between the pens for care and feeding access. Factor in how much the average animal eats and excretes in 40 days for each animal.

Compare results from 1 and 2.
$20 says the answers conflict, probably before you're even halfway through step 2.

And I simply must say that declaring a victory for your side because WE non-technical folks don't answer YOUR attacks to your satisfaction, and then skedaddling from a retaliatory attack and claiming YOU can't argue the details... smacks of a headlong journey into Hypocrasyland.

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited October 26, 1999).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Of course my book has defences. It's just more physics, geology, and astronomy. I don't think it ever brought up the dimensions of the ark at all. As for your points: The dino's could be carried as eggs, as could birds and reptiles for a while, and they could take young of the mammals. I haven't done the calculations yet, but I will at some point.

And I never declared victory. I said I was winning, not that I'd won. I'll only win when I convince you and Sol that I'm right (and if I can convince you two, I can convince anyone!). If I make points that you don't refute, and I refute all yours, that puts me in the lead, does it not? And the reason I don't argue the points is that I don't have the data on hand. I'll try and figure it out, but no guarentees.

------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

Posted by Baloo (Member # 5) on :

Omega: If I tell you something you can't refute, that doesn't mean that I'm right and you're wrong. I haven't earned any "points". The reverse is also true. This forum is not here so we can each convert the others to our own point-of-view. It's here largely so we can discuss with others (not harangue) our beliefs, as well as being a place to gripe about something that gets our goat.

It is also a place where we can discuss in a civil manner the things upon which we do not agree. If someone hears your reasoning and agrees with you that does not mean he is a genius who "saw the light". Conversely, if you state your case and someone obstinately does not agree with you despite what you've told them, it does not make them an idiot. Winning and losing have no place here.

I would welcome some signs of humility (rather than hubris) from someone who follows the Christian faith. If you read something that someone else said and it makes you mad, just remember that you have been doing the same thing to others as well. The tone of your posts suggests your objective is not to state your position and allow others to decide if they believe. It sounds more like you are somehow trying to stroke your own ego by "counting coup" against the heretics.

I want to hear your viewpoints and opinions, but find it unpleasant when you attempt to cast any disagreement with your position as the ravings of a lunatic (that goes for any non-creationists in the crowd as well). Despite the name of this particular forum, the object is not to piss each other off, but to vent one's spleen or state one's position in an atmosphere of civil discourse. Greater minds than ours have misinterpreted the evidence before. Sometimes a theory fits the facts as we know them, but the key is as we know them.

Everyone here is willing to listen respectfully to your evidence, opinions and conclusions as long as you do not imply they are fools for not immediately disavowing everything they KNOW is correct (whether truly correct or not) to embrace your teachings. Be prepared to have someone else present evidence that they believe refutes your points and do not take it personally.

It is disrespectful of all the people here to dismiss what they believe is true as so much "piffle", and you would be (and probably are) rightly annoyed when others treat your beliefs with the same disrespect.

--Baloo

------------------
Carpe Canem (Translation: Damn! The dog pooped on the carpet! AGAIN!!!)
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited October 27, 1999).]

Posted by Epoch (Member # 136) on :

This is always such a fun topic to deal with and deal with it I will end up doing. Since I'm becoming a teacher this is a topic I will more then likely face at some point in my career. Now for reference sake I'm an Evolutionist. Science is one of my true loves and no one or thing is ever going to change that. I also believe that there is a god or some supreme being out there that created the universe. There are holes in both sides of this debate/argument. On creations side genetic factors is a big one. I find it hard to believe that the world was populated by two people and then again by 8 with out us all being severly deformed and having mental problems. Then on evolutions side there are gaps in the links between our evolving. The main thing I believe is that Church and religion has no room in public schools, there is just to many different people. I've had to deal with a substitute teacher who was a creationist, and she was teaching my biology class. What an absolute mistake that was. She announced to the class that you can only believe in Science or God not both. That is why I feel it should be kept out of public schools.

------------------
If you need it I can build it. Just as long as there is a box of junk for me to use.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

How can a Creationist teach biology? Biology and evolution share too much common ground.

Oh, and the reason for actual gaps in the fossil record isn't hard to explain: The actual chances of dying under just the right conditions to end up fossilized is actually rather small. There can't be many predators around to carry off the bones, the body must be covered fairly quickly, and later be in a position to fossilize (as opposed to calcify, which just hardens things - a common C'er trick used on the more gullible is to submerge something (like a hat or scarf)in mineral-laden water, wait until it gets hard and crusty, and call it "fossilized," thus "proving" that objects can fossilize quickly)

F'rinstance, how many people do you know who died on the banks of a river just before a small flood?

Thus, most dead things don't end up fossilizing, they just decay.