Modern creationism makes no sense

Post Reply New Topic

Just as the knowledge that the earth is round was known to the ancient Greeks, but disappeared during the middle ages, it's quite possible that the theory of evolution could be lost, only to be rediscovered later.

The earth was still round during the middle ages, though, even though that knowledge was lost.

That doesn't make it any less true. If evolution were abandoned in favour of creationism just because some people are more comfortable believing in creationism, and in the face of all evidence to the contrary, then that would be giant leap backwards for science.

It wasn't lost to anyone who lived near the ocean where ships traveled out of sight of land (which they did). Even folks who lived by the Med know that the hull of a ship going away from land was the first part of the ship lost to sight.

ruveyn

That's not what I was talking about at all. A professor's teaching style is a completely separate issue, but they certainly do their students a disservice if they allow them to leave their class with completely erroneous ideas about the subject. Saying that students should be allowed to disagree with what their professor says in, for instance, a first-year physics course is ridiculous. If you manage to come to different conclusions than your professor on something like that, then you are just plain wrong.


I doubt whether that is at all true, and I can almost guarantee that you have no evidence to support your assertion.

Then perhaps you shouldn't have used it as a response to AngelRho, because it does appear to be what he was talking about when he mentioned professors "dictating" what students are to think, rather than, say, convincing them through discussion.


They may be wrong, but why prevent them from making their case? The best way to teach, not only them, but the rest of the class as well, is to allow them to explain the mistaken train of thought, and then point out what they've missed. That way, they'll have the chance to truly understand what it is they're learning, rather than having to take it all on faith.

The last few pages of this thread are an excellent example. Essentially, most of the people are saying, "you must believe in evolution because 'everyone' says it's correct." But that's a fallacious argument; for centuries, 'everyone' thought epicycles were correct, but in fact they embodied a fundamentally erroneous conception of astrophysics. The argument we've generally seen here is a fallacious appeal to authority that leaves creationists erroneously, but justifiably, convinced that evolution is a sham.

Rather, it's better to let them make their case and give them the respect to rebut their actual arguments. It was only when a couple of people pointed out the actual issues in his logical arguments, rather than merely dismissing him without evidence, that AngelRho retreated from those logical arguments, for example.


Interesting that you can "guarantee" things about people you've never met.

You're mistaken, though. I have both first hand empirical evidence and published theoretical evidence. My father's a professor and his wife is still teaching; They've commented on how students these days take little initiative and want the data handed to them on a platter, and how that's different from how it used to be. I live in close proximity to MIT, which I went to more than 30 years ago; I've seen first hand the changes in the student body, how it is taught, and how it learns from that teaching. There used to be a lot of dissent and intellectual foment; now there's just a lot of dictation and conformism.

This is also exactly what's to be expected, based on the generational theories of Strauss & Howe.

That is correct. The whole idea behind lighthouses and towers in general was to exploit and negate the fact that the earth had curvature. Thats why they had the crows nest atop the masts. The idea that the world was spherical was never lost on anyone but land locked peasants and its a good example of why experience and education outside the realm of ones peers is vital.

As far as I can tell, the crow's nest was not invented until the advent of the caravel, which was towards the end of the middle ages. Likewise, I can't find any evidence for the building of lighthouses, at least not in the western world, during the dark ages. The same goes for quadrants and sextants, which permit noncoastal navigation by determining latitude based on the curvature of the earth.

At what point did they start climbing masts and rigging?

As far as light houses go, you might be correct: the oldest I find reference to is hooks head in ireland, from the 1300s. But large dark age structures were often of wood, such as the motte and bailey castles. It seems unlikely that wood would survive that long in coastal areas. Lighthouse locations would be persistent however, and stone ones would be erected in the same places. However, I dont think night travel was that common.

Some common sailing tasks in the dark ages: Dover to Calais: 34 kilometers. Dublin to Holyhead 107 km. Limits of visibilty on a calm sea: 4.6 kilometers(unless you start climbing the mast). If you had a 20 meter mast you would still only see 5.5 kilometers.

Ruveyn is indeed correct. They left sight of shore often enough and for long periods of time. The distances for the Vikings to reach mainland Europe were also of comparable distances.

What you are saying is they didnt go way out to the middle of the ocean; of course not. Why would they?

Ok, fine, I found something that evolution can't explain:

I actually agree with Ruveyn that sufficiently observant and thoughtful people living on coasts might have independently concluded that the earth was round. I disagree with you that this would have included everyone but "land locked peasants".

My point was that since that knowledge was not needed for the actual navigation of the period, even most sailors might not have known it. If it had been a well established fact, the quadrant and oceangoing navigation should have been invented earlier.

To get back to the subject, if there's another dark age, some people might still retain knowledge of evolution, but I can imagine it being lost from what passes for scientific knowledge. It would still be true, though, even if most people didn't know about it.

That is reasonable. The average sailors wouldnt be told much more than "Shut up and pull sail."



Math, clocks and literacy. The equation symbol, for instance, wasnt invented until the 1600s. Cardano, Pascal and others were fundamental in advancing science and math, and from that, the ability to navigate by formula. You need spring wound clocks as pendulums are disrupted by wave motion. You need this to calculate longitude.

The discussion wasn't about teaching styles, you're going off on an irrelevant tangent because of some personal agenda of yours. Professors can still use discussion as a teaching technique or whatever, but AngelRho seems to think that students should be allowed to walk out of the classroom with completely wrong ideas. It's a lousy professor who would agree with that sentiment.


AG posted this before, please read it.
The problem is that most people are not equipped to engage the evidence in any meaningful way without years of experience with and understanding of the prevailing orthodoxy. Galileo was only able to overthrow Ptolemaic astronomy after spending years studying astronomy. He knew the orthodoxy of his time better than anyone else, and that's why he was able to go beyond it. Someone who does not have any understanding of the current scientific understanding cannot really hope to make a real case for any alternative idea.


I didn't see a single place where AngelRho (or any other creationist) was at all affected by facts or evidence. He merely repeated vague claims against evolution and maintained that he would continue holding to his false beliefs. AngelRho only ever backed down after he and Keet crassly questioned my educational background and got called out for it.


Such nonsense is often thrown about, and almost always false.


Anecdotal evidence is useless, especially when it essentially comes down to old fogeys talking about how it was in "the good old days." People have been decrying nonexistent declines in morality, work ethic, intellectual curiosity, etc, since the dawn of recorded history. Without actual quantitative data to support your assertion, my null hypothesis is that you are full of crap.


As much as I find it difficult to take those ideas seriously, I'll play along. How do you think your asserted decline in our educational system matches with their ideas? And why, if the alternation of generational archetypes is cyclical, as they claim, would you present your case as though there were a real decline in educational values?

Wait, I didn't see where I got called out for anything, mainly because I've spent the day out with my wife, but, still, your education matters not if you don't think. You seem to be a "go with the flow" type of person, which I cannot respect, regardless of whatever you claim to know or believe.

Towards the end of page 18. You tried to bring the cost of my college education into the argument. My response was a lot more polite than it could have been.


And on what possible basis do you claim I don't think? Because I don't take your pet theory seriously?


Well, you obviously don't know me very well, but in any case your respect isn't all that important to me. Constantly seeking approval from others isn't really my thing.

No, I don't know you personally, and neither do you know me. However from your posts on WP, you are all "consensus this, majority that" in regard to evolution and the other items claiming to be science but rather are a form of just-so mythos taught as science. And when it comes to the Bible, you are willing to contort your thoughts just so you can have your cake and eat it too (assuming that you still are a Christian. Last I knew you were, but people treat things like that lightheartedly nowadays and I haven't seen you say anything in other topics to provide indication either way.)

First off, the scientific consensus really does matter. Your educational background does not put you on nearly the level where you can understand, must less contest, the established ideas in most scientific disciplines.
Second, I have studied a lot of the evidence for evolution. As a biology major, that goes with the territory. I mean, unless you're postulating that I am completely ignorant of my field of study and you, with no formal background in the subject and probably little to no self-study of legitimate sources in the field, somehow know it better than I do, you don't have much of a leg to stand on here.


No, I just disagree with how you interpret the Bible. I am continually astounded at how dense conservative Christians can be on this topic. You have to recognize that it is possible for people to read the same passage and come to different conclusions.