Originally posted by twhiteheadNothing prevents your access to the first; the second neither supports nor denies my claim. What of the plethora of others mentioned?
I didn't claim it was. However, you posted two sources, one of which you know I cannot check, and you did not quote it for my benefit, the other did not support your opinion.
My conclusion is that you are unable to support your claim.
Originally posted by twhiteheadFor even the reason of debate and learning they should be taught,
Why do you think creation and ID should be taught in school? Do you also think that creation stories from all known religions should also be taught? Or do you think that each student should be taught the stories from his/her own religion?
Should other scientific hypotheses that have been proved to either be false or without merit also be taught in school ...[text shortened]... e teach that the earth is flat, or talk about some of the more famous perpetual motion machines?
having to defend and think in terms other than just one is not a bad
thing. You feel a threat or something knowing there are other ways
people can view the same thing you look at and come up with different
ideas on the what and why?
Kelly
Originally posted by snowinscotlandIf there was anything that belonged just to my brother it was lost.
Evolution can and should be taught as science and creationism/ID can be taught in RE.
You have not answered twice now; 'If the genes that do not reproduce are not lost there is no selection, and hence no change in the genepool, and no evolution. Do you understand that?'
If there wasn't it, wasn't no big deal.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI did read those posts. It seems you change your stance to suit your opponent, but you're not concerned with the consistency of your position as you move from debating one aspect of this issue to another.
I suggest you read the threads in question and see the context of my
posts were speaking about two different things.
Kelly
It is a bankrupt argument that doesn't come from a single position--I'm only trying to determine how your stated views in this thread can be self-consistent.
Originally posted by KellyJayWell in that case, I think we're in agreement. I think that religion has had a very large impact on culture and civilization and we'd be doing our schoolchildren a disservice to deny them knowledge about any significant aspect of humanity.
What I'm suggesting is that I think all three can and should be
taught in school, you can call one science and the others something
else as far as I'm concern does not matter to me.
Kelly
Religion can be taught in, well, courses about religion, or in the context of history when religion played a role. I only have three rules for how things like creationism should be approached in public school.
1. Elective
Religion must only be taught in public school on an elective basis. No public school student should be compelled to take a course about a particular religion. (Requiring public school students to be knowledgeable about religion in general on a non-elective basis, on the other hand, is perfectly legitimate and ought to be left up to the school and the community.)
2. No advocacy
Religion must not be taught in public school from a position of advocacy (either for or against).
3. In context
Religion should be taught in any context in which it makes sense. For instance, all of the following are examples in which religion had an impact on historical events, and would therefore provide an appropriate context in a history classroom: (a) the Crusades, (b) the Spanish Inquisition, (c) the Salem Witch Trials. Similarly, in debate, philosophy, religion, or mythology classes, religion could be a legitimate topic of discussion as long as it is done free of advocacy.
You have not answered thrice now; 'If the genes that do not reproduce are not lost there is no selection, and hence no change in the genepool, and no evolution. Do you understand that?'
I shall try to put it another way; it might be a bit more difficult for you, having a more rigid stance on what you are 'allowed' to believe...
In generation 1, we have genes A, B and C. A&B reproduce, creating AB and AB, and C does not.
Generation 2, we have AB and AB.
Do you understand that, for whatever reason, the genetic base of the population has shifted, in this case, in favour of genes A and B?
Originally posted by KellyJayMy examples of evidence were valid to show how your analogy could be answered, probably with a high degree of accuracy.
Yes, the more informaiton you have the better the odds of finding out
where it was, a very valid point indeed. As I was pointing out, just
seeing the current rate of something does not at all tell us much, we
need a lot more, and the lot more, as all of your examples were need
to be valid points that have something to do with the quesiton at
hand.
Kelly
Is there a particular question you have in mind, that you believe cannot be answered by using evidence?
It feels like you are hinting at something with "current rates" & "not telling us much", can you be specific?
Kind regards
Originally posted by timebombtedYour examples as I agreed with showed that you needed not only
My examples of evidence were valid to show how your analogy could be answered, probably with a high degree of accuracy.
Is there a particular question you have in mind, that you believe cannot be answered by using evidence?
It feels like you are hinting at something with "current rates" & "not telling us much", can you be specific?
Kind regards
more information but information that actually is what you think it
is and goes to the question at hand. I have no issues with that, it is
wise and insightful; however, my point is that simply seeing a rate
in the here and now is not enough, it isn't even close! With both
examples of the car and candle you need more than the current
rate today, you need to know if there were other factors involved
that could influence what is being looked at, if there were stops and
starts involved, if there was anything we are not currently aware of
that could cause our findings to be off, and so on. Granted the more
the we know the better off we are, but we need to be sure of what
we know or better said, think we know.
Kelly
Originally posted by severoonI place almost all of the importance on there is nothing but randomness evolved in
So.....which is it?
"I don't have an issue one with small changes if that is what you
think evolution is fine, but when you promote those small changes
can do more than just small changes that is another level of change
all together."
...or...
"I'm in agreement too that
simply the size of the change may be small, it doesn't mean the
effect it aspects of nature and you'll have to agree with this, if nothing else I've said.
getting the right pieces mutated, in the proper place, at the proper time, using the
proper amount of energy, with all the proper stops and starts required, and so on!
Natural selection does not put the anything any where, it is an after the mutation
is done filter; we would have to have everything just right for the filter have
something to accept and random mutations do not cut it considering that all the bad
mutations that are also occurring typically out number the so called good ones and
would stand a better chance of ending a life form than making it better.
You do not place enough importance on critically examining the claims that those
types of mutations over time can do the things being suggested. Building a
complex system requires a lot of thoughtful effort, time, planning, and the right
materials and so on.
The first of my statements you quoted was speaking about major changes in the
scope of new organs and alike, major large undertakings through mutations.
The second statement of mine you quoted was speaking about how even a small
change can have large or drastic effects such as all of a sudden cause death or
becomes crippled in some form and dies, those are after all the affects of many
of the mutations we see today!
Kelly
"Natural selection does not put the anything any where, it is an after the mutation is done filter; we would have to have everything just right for the filter have something to accept and random mutations do not cut it considering that all the bad mutations that are also occurring typically out number the so called good ones and would stand a better chance of ending a life form than making it better."
Ah...I see your confusion. You've not understood the basic theory!
Evolution theory is constructed around the paradoxical idea that, even though a *particular* mutation is more likely to end a life or mess up self-replication than promote it, when there are many of these experiments run in parallel over a large population the statistics skew the other way. This is one of the fundamental, but very difficult things to understand about statistics that trips many people up.
Your error in understanding the theory is very common in students taking intro stats classes. Here's a question that, if you can figure out the answer, will shed some light on the principle you're missing in your argument above:
You flip a fair coin 1000 times. What is the likelihood this run of flips will result in exactly 500 heads and 500 tails?
Most intro stats students feel that if it is a fair coin, the chance of half-half heads and tails will be fairly high--because if it's true the chance of any one particular flip will be 50-50, then the sum of such flips should also be 50-50, right?
Wrong. In fact, the chance of getting exactly 500 heads in such an experiment is quite low. And it's the very same statistical principle applied to a single fair flip that, paradoxically, results in half heads over a large number of flips decreasing in likelihood the more flips you add.
If you study this problem and understand how to get the right solution, I am sure you will recognize that your argument against evolution theory as stated above is invalid.
The only other point in your post that needs addressing is...
"Building a complex system requires a lot of thoughtful effort, time, planning, and the right materials and so on."
Who says? Nature builds complex systems all the time without any effort, time, planning, etc. Consider water. You have a bunch of molecules randomly bumping around. According to your argument here, I should have to add a bunch of energy and do a bunch of planning to organize those billions of molecules if I want them in some regular, organized pattern.
Actually--all I have to do is take energy *away*. If I remove heat, the water will freeze, and when water freezes, the molecules "magically" line up into a hexagonal pattern. You don't have to do anything, and the hand of god isn't required to reach down and exert some miraculous force to make it happen. Water is content to form this highly organized, non-random structure all on its own...the more energy you remove, the more organized the water gets.
In this instance, your argument is based on a misunderstanding (or total ignorance?) of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Creationists often argue that evolution and evolution theory contradict the Second Law because the Second Law says that "things must always tend toward randomness." In fact, the Second Law does NOT say that. It says: "Things tend toward a state of lower energy."
So your argument would only hold if one were to calculate the energy of formation for DNA (or RNA, or chlorophyll, etc) and that energy were higher than the sum of its constituent parts in an unformed state. If you do the calculation, you'll see that DNA (RNA, chlorophyll, etc) has *lower* energy than that of its constituent parts in an unformed state.
Likewise, frozen water marshals itself up into an orderly formation because that formation is dictated by the Second Law--even though entropy goes down, it is a lower energy state.
I'm afraid that your opinions on this matter are informed by what seems to be a wide expanse of misconceptions about science and scientific precepts in general. Please try to understand that I'm not attacking you here--but read everything I've said in this post and previous ones and I think you'll see what I'm saying is correct. To briefly review just a few of the problems with your arguments thus far:
- you didn't recognize that the basic purpose of science and the scientific method is to make reliable predictions (ID doesn't make predictions)
- you didn't recognize the difference between evolution theory ("Darwinism" and the theories that followed) and the fact of evolution
- you haven't grasped the basic statistics that is key to understanding how evolution theory is connected to observable evolution
- you are either unaware of or have misinterpreted the Second Law of Thermodynamics
I could go on, but I feel that we're at the point where you either must address each of these concerns before we can advance the discourse, or it's pointless--you'll just continue this pattern of flitting from one misunderstood aspect of science to another, making a hash of everything along the way.
Originally posted by KellyJayIf I misinterpret your last passage, please forgive, but to summarize it seems you are hinting that the rate of radioactive decay has not been constant in the past and it may have stopped and started at unknown points in time?
Your examples as I agreed with showed that you needed not only
more information but information that actually is what you think it
is and goes to the question at hand. I have no issues with that, it is
wise and insightful; however, my point is that simply seeing a rate
in the here and now is not enough, it isn't even close! With both
examples of the ca ...[text shortened]... etter off we are, but we need to be sure of what
we know or better said, think we know.
Kelly
If this is not what you are talking about, please can you be specific?
If this is what you are talking about, then can you please direct me to some line of evidence showing this? or is it merely your belief?
Originally posted by timebombtedThe only thing I'd say about that rate of decay is we have only
If I misinterpret your last passage, please forgive, but to summarize it seems you are hinting that the rate of radioactive decay has not been constant in the past and it may have stopped and started at unknown points in time?
If this is not what you are talking about, please can you be specific?
If this is what you are talking about, then can you please direct me to some line of evidence showing this? or is it merely your belief?
been looking at it for a short time period, so the window isn't all
that big to really know what happens over thousands of years let
alone millions and so on.
Kelly
Originally posted by severoonThe coin flip is all fine and good, but like I was saying we are not
"Natural selection does not put the anything any where, it is an after the mutation is done filter; we would have to have everything just right for the filter have something to accept and random mutations do not cut it considering that all the bad mutations that are also occurring typically out number the so called good ones and would stand a better chance ...[text shortened]... f science to another, making a hash of everything along the way.
talking about infinite time here, we are also not talking about
about getting an infinite number of chances to get it right either!
The window of getting it right would be very small no matter how
much time was before or after the event!
If you have the right material for life in the right quantities and if it
gets mixed it wrong in either the amounts, or the order you will more
than likely lose the right material you had because it would have
changed into something else! If you never get the right environment
it doesn't matter that you had the right material, if the environment is
favorable and changes into an unfriendly one all bets are off. The faith
people have that all the proper scenarios came to pass in every
situation so such a thing was even remotely possible is phenomenal,
let alone have it happen in such as successful way that we see the
variety of life we do today. There more times things go wrong, the less
likely that life could ever get started to go down the evolutionary path.
I'll address your other points later.
Kelly