Regarding teaching evolution / creation in the schools.

[AirPo]

However, facts are all that should be provided and not authoritative assumptions.

Unless of course the facts support that authoritative assumption. As in evolution.

 

[LittleNipper]

Unles of course the facts support that authoritative assumption. As in evolution.

You must PROVE you have ALL the facts and interpreted them ALL properly. Evolutionists cannot claim this. They will say that they are constantly updating premises to accommodate their latest finds. Who can say that one day that they will not discover one find that will entirely nullify everything they presented as a correct interpretation of the former data. Who will be held accountable for all those that die and go to hell trusting fully in some pretentious theory then? GOD will hold people accountable for denying the truth.

 

[Split Rock]

The evidence must be PERFECTLY HARMONIOUS. If it is not, if there are any cloudy areas WHATSOEVER, you cannot claim HONESTLY to have a cut and dry case.

I remember Follower of Christ used to ask for "Absolute Proof!!!" before he would accept evolution. Are you asking for the same thing? If so, you will never get it, because science does not deal in "proof."

 

[Split Rock]

You must PROVE you have ALL the facts and interpreted them ALL properly. Evolutionists cannot claim this. They will say that they are constantly updating premises to accommodate their latest finds. Who can say that one day that they will not discover one find that will entirely nullify everything they presented as a correct interpretation of the former data. Who will be held accountable for all those that die and go to hell trusting fully in some pretentious theory then? GOD will hold people accountable for denying the truth.

Science is always willing to "update" theories when new evidence suggests that it is necessary. This is why Creationism is not scientific, even after you tack the word "Science" to the end of it.

It is your contention that belief in creationism is necessary for salvation. I find it strange indeed that a "merciful and loving" God would damn his children to eternal hellfire and suffering because they believed what the evidence suggested to them, and still believed in him.

 

[notto]

You must PROVE you have ALL the facts and interpreted them ALL properly. Evolutionists cannot claim this. They will say that they are constantly updating premises to accommodate their latest finds. Who can say that one day that they will not discover one find that will entirely nullify everything they presented as a correct interpretation of the former data. Who will be held accountable for all those that die and go to hell trusting fully in some pretentious theory then? GOD will hold people accountable for denying the truth.

Science can determine what is false. Creationism is false. How can the truth be false?

Evolution can be falsified tommorrow if evidence is found - you are correct on that account, but until it is, we accept it tenatively because it is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on this planet and actually explains the evidence in a way that lets us test it and make predictions from it.

Creationism does not do this and makes claims that are contrary to the actual evidence we have. That is why it at one time was the paridigm of thought but has since been abandoned. It does not explain what we actually find when we look at creation.

 

[AirPo]

You must PROVE you have ALL the facts and interpreted them ALL properly.

That's not true.

Evolutionists cannot claim this.

No one can.

They will say that they are constantly updating premises to accommodate their latest finds.

So what?

Who can say that one day that they will not discover one find that will entirely nullify everything they presented as a correct interpretation of the former data.

No one.

Who will be held accountable for all those that die and go to hell trusting fully in some pretentious theory then? GOD will hold people accountable for denying the truth.

Who will be held responsible for all the people who come back in their next life as slugs for trusting fully in some pretentious theology? Karma will hold people accountable for denying the truth.

 

[duordi]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1. Does the crater inventory include non-confirmed craters?[/font]

The simple answer is "no". Prospective new impact structres are only added to the listing if convincing details of shock metamorphic features, associated shatter cones or other similarly unambiguous evidence of formation by impact is presented, preferably in a published format. By excluding other prospective impact structures, we hope to maintain the integrity of the listing. As such, many promising, but hitherto unproven, impact structures are not included on the list.

Most of the terrestrial impact craters that ever formed, however, have been obliterated by other terrestrial geological processes. Some examples, however remain.

You would need to show that all of the territory has been equally researched. You are using the data outside its scope to make an assertion that has no validity. You also need to take into account that the earth has been reworked so if more are found in a certain area, that doesn't mean that it is any more likely to have impacts. It just meanst that more remain (i.e. Europe vs North America).

If you take the impact database as your data, then you must also accept the methodology used to develop it and confirm the craters (including the age of the craters)

You are using selective reasoning (blinders) to support your assertion with data that simply doesn't do that.

Hey, I put on the blinders for you and only considered the creaters in north America and Europe at your request.

If we only consider the creators which have been drilled the answers are the same.

It is obivous that you will never be satisified.

But that is OK.

I admire your faith.

So should I put you in the.... "I'll fight the catastrophic Earth history being taught in the schools no matter what the evidence" .... group ?


Duane

 

[Randall McNally]

Hey, I put on the blinders for you and only considered the creaters in north America and Europe at your request.

If we only consider the creators which have been drilled the answers are the same.

It is obivous that you will never be satisified.

But that is OK.

I admire your faith.

So should I put you in the.... "I'll fight the catastrophic Earth history being taught in the schools no matter what the evidence" .... group ?

Do the depths to which you misunderstand notto's argument know any bounds at all?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

So both grammar & high school science classes should be limited to experimentation, chemistry, the habitation of all LIVING things present, modern world topagraphy, existing oceanography, present day astronomy, and historic inventors / men of science with a mention of what each one believed in. This would include Galileo, Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Darwin, and Henry M. Morris.

Henry Morris? What has he done that merits mention? Just because he's a creationist?

There is absolutely no reason to explain in detail any aspect of any theory. That is something that one can do as a personal persuit. Understanding evolution is not going to make anyone a better person. It is only going to provide more fuel for thought. However, facts are all that should be provided and not authoritative assumptions. That is again concerning the private sector. If we are going to entertain reason and logic, UNLESS the sacred is included as a necessary part of the contemplation along with the secular, THEN there is no room to insist that childern grow up to think as Darwin on Darwin. Provide ONLY the rudiments and train in areas of procedural methodology and leave the students to come to their OWN conclusions with their parents on their OWN dollar. That WOULD be a much better science education then is provided presently.

I'm thinking children should be taught science as science. This includes evolution. If people have a problem with it because of their religious beliefs, then that is their problem. I'm sorry, but science doesn't change simply because some people are emotionally uncomfortable with the results. That seems to be the only reason creationists/IDists are so uppity over "origins science". They love to preach "teach the controversy", "teach both sides", etc. But they are silent when it comes to any other branch of science.

 

[duordi]

Its fun to watch the debate but if you could do me a little favor.

At the end of one of your posts could you all address the thead subject at least once.

Please state if you would consider it OK to allow a catastrophic and non-catastrophic pre Earth history taught and also give some idea of which view point you come from.

For thoes of you that are more towards the slow consistant evolutionary group.
I took the Meteor record as adiquate evidence that a catastrophic hostory was possible.
If this is not satisfactory evidence for you, can you give some idea what would it take?

If you are in the catastrophic group would you consider the teaching of a castastrophic theory adiquate or would you require something else to be taught and what might that be?

If my questions do not fit your position I would like to hear from you also.
Just give an idea of your position, and what modifications in my teaching scope if any would be requred. Also include what evidence would be necessary for you to consider a view which is opposing your own, to be presented in public school.


Duane

 

[Randall McNally]

Its fun to watch the debate but if you could do me a little favor.

At the end of one of your posts could you all address the thead subject at least once.

Please state if you would consider it OK to allow a catastrophic and non-catastrophic pre Earth history taught and also give some idea of which view point you come from.

Hello? Is this thing on? I see your dichotomy and it is false. Moreover, your "non-catastrophic" designation is a strawman of uniformitarianism. Meteor strikes do not in any way contradict scientific uniformitarianism.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Okay, how does your catastrophe model explain Hawaii, Yellowstone and other "hot spot" volcanoes that we can track the movement of backward through history at a predictable rate of movement?

 

[notto]

So should I put you in the.... "I'll fight the catastrophic Earth history being taught in the schools no matter what the evidence" .... group ?
Duane

Actually I think that school children would see the flaws in you using the data in the way you are. You are selectively looking at the map and making conclusions without actually understanding or correctly using the data that is used to put it together.

 

[Valkhorn]

Okay, how does your catastrophe model explain Hawaii, Yellowstone and other "hot spot" volcanoes that we can track the movement of backward through history at a predictable rate of movement?

The real answer: it doesn't.

I predict Duane will think it does somehow by making up more garbage.

 

[Asimov]

The real answer: it doesn't.

I predict Duane will think it does somehow by making up more garbage.

I'll see your garbage and raise you a misrepresentation!

*just needed my 2000th post.*

 

[MartinM]

Prove it.

Well? Surely, if you're making the claim, you have a statistical analysis to back it up? You couldn't just be looking at the picture and trying to eyeball a pattern, could you? That would be rather silly.

 

[duordi]

Hello? Is this thing on? I see your dichotomy and it is false. Moreover, your "non-catastrophic" designation is a strawman of uniformitarianism. Meteor strikes do not in any way contradict scientific uniformitarianism.

I will put you down as...

Slow and non catastrophic model is the only acceptable model regardless of the evidence.

If my assumption is incorrect please correct me.

Duane

 

[Edx]

Slow and non catastrophic model is the only acceptable model regardless of the evidence.

What do you mean "regardless of the evidence"?


Ed

 

[Tomk80]

I will put you down as...

Slow and non catastrophic model is the only acceptable model regardless of the evidence.

If my assumption is incorrect please correct me.

Duane

You are strawmanning here. You were already called on this strawman in post #5. You happily go on strawmanning anyway. If you want to see why your assumption is incorrect, study post #5. If you don't understand post #5, ask questions about it, and we'll all be willing to explain post #5 more in depth.

And now I hope I have called enough attention to post #5, and hope that post #5 will be read thoroughly by Duordi, so Duordi can stop strawmanning after reading post #5.

 

[duordi]

Okay, how does your catastrophe model explain Hawaii, Yellowstone and other "hot spot" volcanoes that we can track the movement of backward through history at a predictable rate of movement?

As long as the volcanic activity and the plate movement very at a proportional rate to one another there is not a problem.
The gelogocal data is not exact that even deviation from this assumption is still possible to some extent.
Discrepencies from the predicted outcomes occur as they will if a catastrophic event is reality or not.

But of course this thread is not about this specific theory.

I place you in the slow consistant non-catistrophic group.

Do you consider presenting a casistrophic and non-catistrophic cinario with supporting evidence on each side palitable and if not what kind of evidence would it take to sway your opnion?


Duane