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

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?

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

*shrug*

"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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

------------------
'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

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.

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/

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

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.