Creationism VS Public schools

[Skaloop]

This is a trick challenge, right?

No, this is not a trick challenge. I leave those to you.

You want someone to demonstrate through substantiated research what's wrong with evolution? When substantiated research came up with evolution in the first place?

Yes. Since research is what evolution is based on, it is research that would be able to show it to be wrong.

Is this like asking someone to show, from documentation put out by the American Bowling Association, what's wrong with bowling?

I am not necessarily asking anyone to use current evolution-supporting findings. I am asking them to show some research that does not support evolution. Something that goes against evolutionary theory. For example, a true chimera. Or rabbit fossils in the Paleozoic.

So it's not like your bowling analogy. I don't want info from the ABA. I want info from anywhere else that can demonstrate what is wrong with bowling.

 

[Gracchus]

You want someone to demonstrate through substantiated research what's wrong with evolution? When substantiated research came up with evolution in the first place?

Well, that is how science is done.

I am glad to see that you admit that evolution has, from the very first, been supported by substantiated research. It would seem that you object to this procedure, which would explain why you prefer to base your world view on unsubstantiated ... (I must be diplomatic here) ... "conjecture".

 

[AV1611VET]

I am not necessarily asking anyone to use current evolution-supporting findings. I am asking them to show some research that does not support evolution. Something that goes against evolutionary theory. For example, a true chimera. Or rabbit fossils in the Paleozoic.

"Research" is the key word here.

Again, you want someone to show you from the Boy Scout Handbook what's wrong with scouting.

You want me to prove it?

Okay --- the Bible gives these four reasons evolution cannot occur.

What say you?

Let me guess what you're gonna say --- the Bible is not scientifically-substantiated research --- right?

 

[AV1611VET]

I am glad to see that you admit that evolution has, from the very first, been supported by substantiated research.

So was Phlogiston.

 

[Skaloop]

"Research" is the key word here.

Again, you want someone to show you from the Boy Scout Handbook what's wrong with scouting.

You want me to prove it?

Okay --- the Bible gives these four reasons evolution cannot occur.

What say you?

Let me guess what you're gonna say --- the Bible is not scientifically-substantiated research --- right?

You're right, the bible is not substantiated research. F.

As for your four reasons, even if I were to accept them, they do not preclude evolution from occurring now. Even if the world was created 6100 years ago, perfect and death-free, the fact remains that evolution is happening right now. But if it has such huge holes, as was originally alleged, then it should be easy to provide some examples of these huge holes that are evident in the here and now. The Bible shouldn't even be necessary to show evolution to be wrong. Remember, the original point was not that the Bible disagrees with evolution, or that the bible shows evolution to be wrong; it was that the theory had holes. I just want to know what the holes are.

 

[Gracchus]

Well, that is how science is done.

I am glad to see that you admit that evolution has, from the very first, been supported by substantiated research. It would seem that you object to this procedure, which would explain why you prefer to base your world view on unsubstantiated ... (I must be diplomatic here) ... "conjecture".

So was Phlogiston.

Indeed, phlostigon was a conjecture that was not supported by substantiated research. Perhaps you meant to say something else? Sometimes it is very hard to determine what you are trying to say.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're right, the bible is not substantiated research. F.

As for your four reasons, even if I were to accept them, they do not preclude evolution from occurring now. Even if the world was created 6100 years ago, perfect and death-free, the fact remains that evolution is happening right now. But if it has such huge holes, as was originally alleged, then it should be easy to provide some examples of these huge holes that are evident in the here and now. The Bible shouldn't even be necessary to show evolution to be wrong. Remember, the original point was not that the Bible disagrees with evolution, or that the bible shows evolution to be wrong; it was that the theory had holes. I just want to know what the holes are.

And around and around we go ---

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed, phlostigon was a conjecture that was not supported by substantiated research.

I find that very hard to believe.

Perhaps you meant to say something else?

You mean like Pluto being a planet? Substantiated by observation?

Sometimes it is very hard to determine what you are trying to say.

My views are extremely simple and reflected in my signature.

 

[Vene]

Yes AV, we know your beliefs are very simple. They are so simple you can't even demonstrate them (embedded age) with your own holy book.

 

[Split Rock]

So was Phlogiston.

I find that very hard to believe.You mean like Pluto being a planet? Substantiated by observation?

AVET is correct. All that science has come up with in the last 300 years is the wrong terminology for Pluto and the incorrect Phlogiston hypothesis. And no, that is not a computer monitor you are looking at now, and no you are not on the internet, and no your house is not being cooled by air-conditioning and your food is not being kept preserved in a refrigerator, and your car does not run on the burning of fossil fuels and you are not wearing clothing made of synthetic fibers. Scientists have provided us with nothing but lies about God.

My views are extremely simple and reflected in my signature.

Your views are twisted like a screw. You have nothing but admiration and respect for "Science," and nothing but disrespect, distrust, and hostility toward scientists.

 

[Cabal]

Again, AV:

It's not what we say, it's who we are.

Glad to see you don't care how terrible an argument is, you'll stick up for a n00b with the same Bible interpretation. How's that working out? Won many people over with that tactic yet?

 

[Split Rock]

Again, AV:

It's not what we say, it's who we are.

Glad to see you don't care how terrible an argument is, you'll stick up for a n00b with the same Bible interpretation. How's that working out? Won many people over with that tactic yet?

I think my thread on the subject established that creationists are not here to convince anyone else. They are here to keep themselves convinced they know The Truth, so they do not wind up in Hell.

 

[Skaloop]

You mean like Pluto being a planet?

This is merely a change in definition. It in no way reflects a change in Pluto itself, in our understanding of Pluto's properties, or in how we observe Pluto.

In the 1970s, the definition of "blockbuster movie" would have been a film that grossed $100 million. Today, the definition of "blockbuster movie" is a film that grosses $400 million. The definition changed because otherwise we'd have to include moderately successful films under the heading "blockbuster movie" when they don't really belong. We need to delineate what makes a blockbuster and what doesn't. Some that are borderline aren't going to make it. As it was with Pluto; the choice was between either naming several rocks in space as new planets, or changing the definition of planet to exclude them, thereby excluding Pluto as well.

 

[seeker777]

This is merely a change in definition. It in no way reflects a change in Pluto itself, in our understanding of Pluto's properties, or in how we observe Pluto.

In the 1970s, the definition of "blockbuster movie" would have been a film that grossed $100 million. Today, the definition of "blockbuster movie" is a film that grosses $400 million. The definition changed because otherwise we'd have to include moderately successful films under the heading "blockbuster movie" when they don't really belong. We need to delineate what makes a blockbuster and what doesn't. Some that are borderline aren't going to make it. As it was with Pluto; the choice was between either naming several rocks in space as new planets, or changing the definition of planet to exclude them, thereby excluding Pluto as well.

Excellent analogy, unfortunately many will ignore it completely.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes AV, we know your beliefs are very simple. They are so simple you can't even demonstrate them (embedded age) with your own holy book.

That's because Embedded Age is calculated from three different sources:

1. The Bible --- which gives us a timeline from Day One, up to the year 96 AD.
2. Historical records --- from 96 AD to the present.
3. Radiometric dating of the earth.

These three combined calculate to an embedded age of 6100 years.

HOWEVER, I have to disagree that Embedded Age cannot be demonstrated Sola Scriptura.

We read about Adam being formed and married on the same day.

I've never yet met a person who can show me his birth certificate and marriage license with the same date on them.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is merely a change in definition. It in no way reflects a change in Pluto itself, in our understanding of Pluto's properties, or in how we observe Pluto.

I have to keep asking though:

1. Why was this voted on by only a handful of people?
2. Why are there scientists who disagreed with changing Pluto's status?

What I see from "this side" of the science on Pluto, is that, within the IAU, there are scientists who still want Pluto to be classified as a planet; yet virtually every "scientist" here in CF is in agreement that Pluto was handled correctly.

That tells me that the "scientists" here in CF are just going along with the majority of the vote.

I've yet to see anyone tell me something like:

"Yes, AV, I see your point, and I agree with it too; but we have to follow what the IAU voted on, or we'll be left behind."

 

[mpok1519]

I don't think bc pluto has an identity crisis means we're all going to become ambidextrous.

embedded age = big steaming lump w/o credibility and the sooner its ignored humanity can move on and become better.

 

[Skaloop]

I have to keep asking though:

Why was this voted on by only a handful of people?

Because only a handful of people are part of the group that makes such decisions.

Why are there scientists who disagreed with changing Pluto's status?

Because scientists are not all the same person. There are some who disagreed with where to move the line in changing the definition. Just as some people would count a $300 million grossing movie as a blockbuster, but others wouldn't. Why do you think the choice should have been unanimous?

What I see from "this side" of the science on Pluto, is that, within the IAU, there are scientists who still want Pluto to be classified as a planet; yet virtually every "scientist" here in CF is in agreement that Pluto was handled correctly.

I don't really know if it was handled correctly. I'm not one of the experts who made the decision. I don't disagree with it, but that doesn't mean I think it is absolutely correct. Either choice would have been acceptable. Just as I would say that driving on the right side of the road is correct, but that doesn't mean driving on the left side is wrong.

That tells me that the "scientists" here in CF are just going along with the majority of the vote.

Well, if we are to talk about Pluto and planets with scientifically accurate terms, we do need to go along with what the scientific consensus is. If you want to talk in this casual, informal forum and call Pluto a planet, I won't really care.

I've yet to see anyone tell me something like:

"Yes, AV, I see your point, and I agree with it too; but we have to follow what the IAU voted on, or we'll be left behind."

Well, that is essentially what I am saying. I do agree with you that there has been a change in the scientific status of Pluto, and I will follow the IAU changes. What I don't agree with you on is that this is a black mark against science.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I have to keep asking though:

1. Why was this voted on by only a handful of people?

Just like any other word in the dictionary the meanings are defined solely by people. The word "planet" didn't come to us from God on a golden cloud. It was a word just like any other.

There are countless examples where words don't have a "hard-and-fast" strict meaning. They are used loosely. "stable", "metastable", "order", "disorder".

Here's another one that you might see every so often. SOmetimes people misuse the word "mineral". I've seen coal listed as a "mineral resource". But it is technically incorrect to call coal a "mineral". The word "mineral" has a very specific technical definition. It is any naturally occuring, inorganic substance with a definite crystal structure and a defined chemical structure.

That means that coal (made up of ORGANICS) cannot be a mineral. It means that LIQUID WATER isn't a mineral but ICE is. Liquid water is not a solid. Ice is. Ice is a naturally occuring inorganic solid with definite crystal structure and definite chemical structure.

So the word "Planet" was just a vague word without a specific technical definition.

Now here's a nice wrinkle for you, Einstien: Planet is derived from the greek plane which means "wanderer". It was applied to "wandering stars". People long ago thought that when they looked at the sky all the little lights that didn't stay in the same place as the majority of the others were "wandering stars"

So, are you going to complain about how Pluto is not a star?

Give me a break. You keep hashing this over and over and over and over, but I don't actually believe you read or digest anything anyone tells you about this.

Until 2006 no one had a specific technical definition for the word "planet". That way yahoos were just as right to use it as misuse it. But when the debate started up as to classifying Eris as a planet (since it is, if I recall, larger than Pluto) the debate came to a head. This had been an issue for some time.

Finally someone acted and a meeting was called to define the word technically.

Now I know you are not familiar with "technical accuracy" unless it has to do with some unique theology in your bible, and you assume that the rest of the world can take a hike as to their need for technical accuracy in other endeavors, but do keep in mind, not everyone is as abysmally uninterested in science as you are.

1. Why are there scientists who disagreed with changing Pluto's status?

There are people who disagree with any statement. The point is that this is an arbitrary definition and as such will likely have dissenters on the issue.

And please, spare us the need of unanimity...Christianity as a religion is built on fractured and differing theologies varying from one sect to another.

What I see from "this side" of the science

Now, be honest, AV, your "Side" of the science is the "Science can take a hike" side. You don't technically care one whit about science unless you can think of some asinine point to try to slag science. Your peanut gallery blather is annoying not because you blather it, but because you blather it so apparently disingenously. To me, it sounds like the bleating of the hypocrite.

That tells me that the "scientists" here in CF are just going along with the majority of the vote.

So do you think there is some fundamental law of nature or understanding of nature that would change if we mere shifted the "meaning" of an arbitrary word?

I've yet to see anyone tell me something like:

"Yes, AV, I see your point, and I agree with it too; but we have to follow what the IAU voted on, or we'll be left behind."

Is this good enough for you:

"Yes, AV, I see you don't understand science enough to realize that the arbitrary defintion of an informal term doesn't amount to a serious critique of science, and even if you bothered to come up with a serious critique of science we know you don't really care about science since you repeatedly say it can 'take a hike'. "

 

[Split Rock]

I've yet to see anyone tell me something like:

"Yes, AV, I see your point, and I agree with it too; but we have to follow what the IAU voted on, or we'll be left behind."

Your point seems to be that science is unreliable because the term "planet" was defined in a more exact way than in the past and Pluto wound up being reclassified. Why would anyone here agree with that? The rest of your list is equally lacking in support for your assertion that science changes with teh flavor of the week and is thus unrealiable (unlike your interpretation of scripture). So.. why would any of us tell you "I see your point and I agree with it?"