Here Is What Louisiana Schoolchildren Learn About Evolution

[First]

The polls were wrong just only in the direction towards Obama.

Yes, thank you for this irrelevant aside that in fact made you even more wrong post-mortem.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

One thing i would like to see is an actual debate from scientific principles rather than the old WLC philosophical crap (cosmological argument).

Let's compare evidence for:

1) Evolution

2) Creation stories (all of them)

3) Creationism re-labled (AKA ID)

The debate would be extremely one sided though, it would go something like this:

1) Presentation of all available evidence for Evolution (this will take a LONG time).

Thats all simply because there is no scientific evidence for any creation story or ID, they are not scientific theories at all. Creationism and ID are religious standpoint that some people have in spite of all evidence to the contrary, it's the dismissal of all reason because it jives with what they feel they HAVE TO believe to cling to their faith.

Of course, that is rubbish, you can be a Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Jew (Jews don't believe in the creation story of THEIR book at all, haven't believed in it since medieval times i might add) and be both intelligent and educated enough regarding Evolution to know it's a fact, there are plenty of evidence for that.

 

[buckshot24]

Yes, thank you for this irrelevant aside that in fact made you even more wrong post-mortem.

Yes I was but the "reliable" polls were still wrong.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Yes I was but the "reliable" polls were still wrong.

What are you going for here, oil? Gold? Diamonds? Buried treasure?
There has to be a good reason you keep digging.

 

[buckshot24]

Thats all simply because there is no scientific evidence for any creation story or ID, they are not scientific theories at all. Creationism and ID are religious standpoint that some people have in spite of all evidence to the contrary, it's the dismissal of all reason because it jives with what they feel they HAVE TO believe to cling to their faith.

Any concept that relies on any supernatural explanation is by definition not science. Science will never be able to detect supernatural phenomenon because it must assume that it never happens. Likewise science can't rule out last thursdayism, it can say that there is no scientific reason for believing it. I don't think there is any scientific reason for believing that a deity exists let alone that he/it did something in the past. Those are religious considerations left to individuals.

 

[buckshot24]

What are you going for here, oil? Gold? Diamonds? Buried treasure?
There has to be a good reason you keep digging.

I don't see it as digging. First made some incorrect statements about my prediction assuming that it was based on more than it really was.

In another thread somebody said I didn't understand math because I said Romney was going to win. Math wasn't a part of my prediction.

 

[First]

Yes I was but the "reliable" polls were still wrong.

If by "wrong" you mean they leaned toward Romney more than they should have, and that the difference was so great for Gallup and Rasmussen, your two most cited polling firms, that you literally have no leg to stand on in any debate about polls every again....then sure! lol.

 

[First]

Math wasn't a part of my prediction.

Math was so lacking in your predictions about the 2012 election that you continued to cite mathematical polling models from Rasmussen and Gallup, constantly, day in and day out. Sure, this makes all the sense in the world.

lol.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Any concept that relies on any supernatural explanation is by definition not science. Science will never be able to detect supernatural phenomenon because it must assume that it never happens. Likewise science can't rule out last thursdayism, it can say that there is no scientific reason for believing it. I don't think there is any scientific reason for believing that a deity exists let alone that he/it did something in the past. Those are religious considerations left to individuals.

Aye, however, if the supernatural can act in the natural world it ceases to be supernatural and becomes natural and we CAN observe nature. 😉

So either creation cannot take place inside our universe or it can and then it can be both observed and measured.

I do agree that last thursdayism, like all such silly proposals (ALL religions) are unfalsifiable, that is kind of the point behind it not being science.

With that we can go back to what this thread is supposed to be about and declare that NO creationism or ID should NOT be taught in science classes.

 

[buckshot24]

Aye, however, if the supernatural can act in the natural world it ceases to be supernatural and becomes natural and we CAN observe nature. 😉

So either creation cannot take place inside our universe or it can and then it can be both observed and measured.

How so? Heck God could be intervening when an apple falls toward the earth. How could we detect that?

If God created a tree in your back yard among a patch of trees you'd never assume that God did it. You'd just think that it was always there and you didn't notice it before.

 

[zinfamous]

No, you're assuming that he doesn't know what he's talking about by asking did he copy it from somewhere instead of addressing what he said directly.

I have no personal problem with people who view evolution as factual, but that doesn't mean you can't have that belief challenged.

1. it's not a belief.
2. it is challenged daily (this is called "science," and this is how science works)
3. it has withstood any serious challenge to its "trueness" for well over a century, now

4. there is no such thing as an "evolutionist." Consider, perhaps, the terms: "scientist," "biologist," "any individual with a legitimate high school education," etc.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

How so? Heck God could be intervening when an apple falls toward the earth. How could we detect that?

All forces that act in our universe are observable and measurable, if god exerted force to stop an apple from falling in this universe it could be observed and measured.

If God created a tree in your back yard among a patch of trees you'd never assume that God did it. You'd just think that it was always there and you didn't notice it before.

Right, but if God acts in this universe only in ways that no one would ever observe then he can't be doing much of anything beyond random trees where no one would notice.

This is NOT the assertion theists generally make about god, that he's some fucker fiddlin around making trees and shit that no one ever notices.

All this squirming to get around everything until you contradict every religion and theistic claim about creation just bores the hell out of me, it's not clever at all.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

How so? Heck God could be intervening when an apple falls toward the earth. How could we detect that?

If God created a tree in your back yard among a patch of trees you'd never assume that God did it. You'd just think that it was always there and you didn't notice it before.

If God only does things in such a way that they could always be explained without the use of a God, what purpose does having a God serve?

 

[buckshot24]

All forces that act in our universe are observable and measurable, if god exerted force to stop an apple from falling in this universe it could be observed and measured.

I wouldn't have the first idea how you would devise a test to measure God pulling an apple towards the earth.

Before anybody objects, I'm not saying God is actively working gravity, just that we would have no idea if he was doing it or not.

Right, but if God acts in this universe only in ways that no one would ever observe then he can't be doing much of anything beyond random trees where no one would notice.

This is NOT the assertion theists generally make about god, that he's some fucker fiddlin around making trees and shit that no one ever notices.

Maybe God doesn't do anything or maybe he does everything. The point is that science couldn't tell us one way or the other. Science simply doesn't have the tools to detect God let alone make God a conclusion of observed phenomenon.

Lets take abiogenesis, suppose it really is absolutely impossible for life to come about through purely mechanistic natural causes. Could science ever conclude that God must have started life? No, they would stop being scientists as soon as they conclude that.

All this squirming to get around everything until you contradict every religion and theistic claim about creation just bores the hell out of me, it's not clever at all.

There are a lot of theories about how JFK died but you wouldn't have a problem saying only one of the theories (if any) is correct, would you?

 

[buckshot24]

If God only does things in such a way that they could always be explained without the use of a God, what purpose does having a God serve?

You're assuming God would only exist to be an answer to an observed phenomenon. If God exists he just exists. If he doesn't perform obvious undeniable miracles on a daily basis then you'll have to ask him why he doesn't.

 

[stormkroe]

Hey guys, what'd I mis...er boy (goes back to work).

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I wouldn't have the first idea how you would devise a test to measure God pulling an apple towards the earth.

Well if it is anything other than gravity then surely it can be measured since we KNOW how gravity acts on everything (even if the theory of gravity is known to be flawed and nowhere near as robust as the theory of evolution).

Before anybody objects, I'm not saying God is actively working gravity, just that we would have no idea if he was doing it or not.

Maybe God doesn't do anything or maybe he does everything. The point is that science couldn't tell us one way or the other. Science simply doesn't have the tools to detect God let alone make God a conclusion of observed phenomenon.

Sure it does, if it's an previously unknown force that acts outside of the known physics then it is measurable, the question then becomes if we should take the religious route and say "god did it" or investigate further. Science IS a tool (or rather a set of tools) to investigate the natural world.

Lets take abiogenesis, suppose it really is absolutely impossible for life to come about through purely mechanistic natural causes. Could science ever conclude that God must have started life? No, they would stop being scientists as soon as they conclude that.

Incoherent since science could never rule out what occurs in nature as not having a naturalistic cause, just an unknown cause.

Basically it boils down to the argument that science cannot be used to prove god, this is entirely correct since science cannot prove ANYTHING, it can be used to attain evidence that points to a conclusion, if that conclusion is verified through testing a theory is formed. This theory is then tested forever.

Now, the reason why science cannot be used to provide evidence for a god is because of how the testing works, the testing occurs by attempting to falsify the theories claims, this isn't possible with the god claim since it's an unfalsifiable claim.

It's also a squiggly squirmy claim that changes depending on how the debater needs it to change to still be possible.

 

[buckshot24]

Well if it is anything other than gravity then surely it can be measured since we KNOW how gravity acts on everything (even if the theory of gravity is known to be flawed and nowhere near as robust as the theory of evolution).

The theory of gravity could just be measuring how hard God pulls on stuff depending on how much mass it is being pulled towards.

Sure it does, if it's an previously unknown force that acts outside of the known physics then it is measurable, the question then becomes if we should take the religious route and say "god did it" or investigate further. Science IS a tool (or rather a set of tools) to investigate the natural world.

Which is my point.

Incoherent since science could never rule out what occurs in nature as not having a naturalistic cause, just an unknown cause.

We couldn't use science to determine in the first place that abiogenesis is impossible naturally, that part I'm assuming just to make a point.

Now, the reason why science cannot be used to provide evidence for a god is because of how the testing works, the testing occurs by attempting to falsify the theories claims, this isn't possible with the god claim since it's an unfalsifiable claim.

Agreed.

 

[Retro Rob]

1. it's not a belief.
2. it is challenged daily (this is called "science," and this is how science works)
3. it has withstood any serious challenge to its "trueness" for well over a century, now

4. there is no such thing as an "evolutionist." Consider, perhaps, the terms: "scientist," "biologist," "any individual with a legitimate high school education," etc.

My point is to have it challenged on this forum, personally. "Science" wasn't challenging him, Carfax was.

If there's no such thing as an evolutionist, there's no such thing as a creationist. Consider, perhaps "Chrstian" "Bible Scholar".. any individual with a legitmate Bible education.

I guess a person who doesn't accept evolution doesn't have a legitmate highschool education.

Can't begin to tell you how full of stupid that statement is.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If there's no such thing as an evolutionist, there's no such thing as a creationist. Consider, perhaps "Chrstian" "Bible Scholar".. any individual with a legitmate Bible education.

But that's silly. Science is not a belief system. It is a method. There is no method to religion -- its rituals and windowdressing notwithstanding. "Revelation" is not a method.

 

[Paratus]

But that's silly. Science is not a belief system. It is a method. There is no method to religion -- its rituals and windowdressing notwithstanding. "Revelation" is not a method.

It's right there in the name: Scientific Method

Amazing how many people miss that.

 

[james7679]

If I say one thing, will I be chastised forever? Not that I really care, but, just checking the temperature. And after a few hours of reading this thread I have come to this one thought to raise. Do not dismiss it. Do not just respond, flippantly, and disregard the proposal. Go to bed, go smoke a bowl, have a beer, but whatever you do, don't answer immediately, really ponder it.

Okay here goes;
First, you should not be arguing at all the point of evolution. Creationism says Micro-evolution. Most science, teaches Macro-evolution. So the real argument is this;
1. God doesn't exist therefore we were not created by a diety. But merely evolved over billions of years after a "big bang" occurred.
2. A "big bang"? Explain how that works again...

Simply put, a first hand account is all that can solve this argument. Since no one was around to take pictures and write an eyewitness account about the big bang and the Bible is easily dismissed as being just that, there's only one way to settle this, the end. Both ideas have an ending. Both end with massive loss of life and pain and suffering.

Ask yourself this;

Do I really know, either way? Do I have any evidence? When I die, what if I'm wrong and there was a God?

 

[sandorski]

If I say one thing, will I be chastised forever? Not that I really care, but, just checking the temperature. And after a few hours of reading this thread I have come to this one thought to raise. Do not dismiss it. Do not just respond, flippantly, and disregard the proposal. Go to bed, go smoke a bowl, have a beer, but whatever you do, don't answer immediately, really ponder it.

Okay here goes;
First, you should not be arguing at all the point of evolution. Creationism says Micro-evolution. Most science, teaches Macro-evolution. So the real argument is this;
1. God doesn't exist therefore we were not created by a diety. But merely evolved over billions of years after a "big bang" occurred.
2. A "big bang"? Explain how that works again...

Simply put, a first hand account is all that can solve this argument. Since no one was around to take pictures and write an eyewitness account about the big bang and the Bible is easily dismissed as being just that, there's only one way to settle this, the end. Both ideas have an ending. Both end with massive loss of life and pain and suffering.

Ask yourself this;

Do I really know, either way? Do I have any evidence? When I die, what if I'm wrong and there was a God?

You should have followed your own advice(bolded). There is no Micro/Macro Evolution, just Evolution.

1) Evolution has nothing to do with the existence/non-existence of "god". This is an old Strawman theist argument. Evolution is based on what the mountain of Evidence shows.

2) No one knows.

Uhhh,no.

 

[Paratus]

If I say one thing, will I be chastised forever? Not that I really care, but, just checking the temperature. And after a few hours of reading this thread I have come to this one thought to raise. Do not dismiss it. Do not just respond, flippantly, and disregard the proposal. Go to bed, go smoke a bowl, have a beer, but whatever you do, don't answer immediately, really ponder it.

Okay here goes;
First, you should not be arguing at all the point of evolution. Creationism says Micro-evolution. Most science, teaches Macro-evolution. So the real argument is this;
1. God doesn't exist therefore we were not created by a diety. But merely evolved over billions of years after a "big bang" occurred.
2. A "big bang"? Explain how that works again...

Simply put, a first hand account is all that can solve this argument. Since no one was around to take pictures and write an eyewitness account about the big bang and the Bible is easily dismissed as being just that, there's only one way to settle this, the end. Both ideas have an ending. Both end with massive loss of life and pain and suffering.

Ask yourself this;

Do I really know, either way? Do I have any evidence? When I die, what if I'm wrong and there was a God?

Pascal's wager?

You better be Catholic because otherwise what if you die and God expected you to confess your sins AND do good works AND believe in him?


Or am I off base with your reasoning?

 

[Lonbjerg]

This is hillarious...even the religous nutters....aren't as nuts as Rob M LOL

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/pat-robertson-challenges-creationism/?hpt=hp_c2