24 Dec 14
Originally posted by AgergWe don't need to prove gravity is real. It's what keeps us on the ground, right?
Well if you want to talk about giving creationism as equal a footing in the science classroom as evolution then you really should be committed to the talking snake theory. Daft it all sounds when you think about it for a moment, this is still the crap you want teachers to carry on peddling to youngsters.
As for not proving evolution is real; if we haven't a ...[text shortened]... oes not prove there does not exist some [b]sensible notion of a god, that exists in reality.[/b]
Personally, based on the debate that's been going on in this forum, I don't think it's possible to teach creationism anywhere, much less in a classroom. All that class would be is a lecture on theology.
Science has the advantage in that it deals with the material, whereas with creation, and creation's God, one needs contact with the creator to know the creator. Not everyone has it because it is based in faith, and most importantly, the Word of God.
Who would teach a class in creationism? A believer? An atheist? I'm thinking it shouldn't happen in a public school.
Seems though that science and evolution can't be separated. Gotta teach science. Right?
Originally posted by josephwWe don't need to prove gravity is real. It's what keeps us on the ground, right?
We don't need to prove gravity is real. It's what keeps us on the ground, right?
Personally, based on the debate that's been going on in this forum, I don't think it's possible to teach creationism anywhere, much less in a classroom. All that class would be is a lecture on theology.
Science has the advantage in that it deals with the material, whereas ...[text shortened]... ool.
Seems though that science and evolution can't be separated. Gotta teach science. Right?
But by typical theist reasoning, we haven't proven it is gravity that keeps us on the ground - perhaps it is the action of invisible noodly appendages that keeps us on terra-firma.
Personally, based on the debate that's been going on in this forum, I don't think it's possible to teach creationism anywhere, much less in a classroom. All that class would be is a lecture on theology.
If you fundamentalist types had your own way, children wouldn't be learning anything that wasn't sourced directly from a literal interpretation of the Bible. The current generation of scientists, engineers, technicians, and so on ... will at some point either die or retire and there will be nobody competent in the next generation to take their place. Millions upon millions of people will die because the artificially sustained population size that owes its very existence to the science you want to stamp out will over extend the supply of resources. Anarchy would ensue as people do what they can to stay fed and sheltered. The religious will of course proclaim all this havok to be the second coming of Christ and a land-grab for converts and "soldiers of God" will see to it that population levels return quickly to a sustainable level. Once equilibrium is restored (if some religious nut-job hasn't started firing off nukes at the unsaved trash who have "sided with Satan"`) what will be left is an infertile wasteland of broken machines, torn down buildings and empty bookshelves. The leaders of this new society will be religious zealots "correcting" or killing anyone who dares to oppose their ideals (like they did in "the good old days"`), civilisation will regress back to the stone age in terms of both learning and morality.
We owe it to future generations who will inherit what we leave behind to never allow creationism to be taught in science classrooms, to never let fundamentalists be taken seriously, and to marginalise / ridicule their faith at every opportunity.
Science has the advantage in that it deals with the material, whereas with creation, and creation's God, one needs contact with the creator to know the creator. Not everyone has it because it is based in faith, and most importantly, the Word of God.
It also has the advantage that it is useful, rational, requires no appeal to magical thinking, and most importantly of all, makes claims that are falsifiable. The "Word of God" (i.e. the word of man about some "God" character they invented) has none of these advantages.
Who would teach a class in creationism? A believer? An atheist? I'm thinking it shouldn't happen in a public school.
Seems though that science and evolution can't be separated. Gotta teach science. Right?
I agree - it shouldn't happen in a public school, and moreover until a child is at such point where he or she is a responsible adult, able to control his or her own scholarly direction, it should not be taught in private schools neither.
Evolution is a fact (whether it goes against your iron-age writings or not), and this fact was discovered via application of the scientific method.
26 Dec 14
Originally posted by sonhouseI try to not let anybody else's delusional thinking keeping me from thinking rationally. You should try that sometime old man before you kick the bucket.
Maybe it would if you had anything more than just quacking biased religious based politicized video's that are nothing and I do mean nothing, more than opinion pieces that they know full well has been refuted a hundred times over.
The REAL reason there are no YEC papers is because they are not submitting them, not because of some vast atheistic conspira ...[text shortened]... her people, THEIR delusional politicized thinking is a scourge on science and rational thinking.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 Dec 14
2 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfieI gleaned that recent experiments concerning chemical resistence in digestive processes vindicated explanations previously written by Dr. Behe. That is explanations which were strenuously criticized by some vocal opponents to ID.
what did you glean from this interview mr sonship?
A new paper came out from the National Academy of Sciences which confirmed Dr. Behe's previous assertions highlighting the limits of NeoDarwinian Evolution to explain some related matters pertaining to the body's chemical resistance in Malaria.
And I do not have to have mastered the subject in its entirety to get the essence of the two speakers' conversation.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
27 Dec 14
Originally posted by sonshipSummarize or link to text version?
Coming at you again.
Dr. Michael Behe discusses the objection of the National Academy of Sciences that Intelligent Design is not Falsifiable
[b] Falsifying Intelligent Design - Dr. Michael Behe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf26zlgZ0es[/b]
27 Dec 14
Originally posted by sonshipImpressive, it takes only two minutes for this "PhD" to demonstrate his ignorance about falsification and evolution!
Coming at you again.
Dr. Michael Behe discusses the objection of the National Academy of Sciences that Intelligent Design is not Falsifiable
[b] Falsifying Intelligent Design - Dr. Michael Behe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf26zlgZ0es[/b]
Fiddling around with bacteria isn't going to falsify ID because the designer has no known properties that we can test.
The theory of evolution doesn't claim that bacteria with certain properties will evolve, nor even that bacteria will evolve.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhat would you say about his comment on the difficulties of falsifying NeoDarwinian Evolution ?
Impressive, it takes only two minutes for this "PhD" to demonstrate his ignorance about falsification and evolution!
Fiddling around with bacteria isn't going to falsify ID because the designer has no known properties that we can test.
The theory of evolution doesn't claim that bacteria with certain properties will evolve, nor even that bacteria will evolve.
He turns the tables. I suppose you were skeptical of this also ?
Falsifying Intelligent Design - Dr. Michael Behe