Teacher informs students of evolution lies in textbooks

Page 12 of 19 [ 277 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 19  Next

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

05 Mar 2014, 2:12 am

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/onheel.html
this is an examination of the sort of "evidence" that creationists put forward.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,350
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Mar 2014, 2:23 am

LKL wrote:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/onheel.html
this is an examination of the sort of "evidence" that creationists put forward.


I'm glad there's a logical explanation for those supposed human tracks from millions of years ago.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

05 Mar 2014, 2:31 am

Yeah, if you look at pictures of the supposedly anachronistic 'human tracks,' they're universally pretty obviously not human tracks to anyone but the most wishful of thinkers.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

05 Mar 2014, 8:03 am

sonofghandi wrote:
The people who say that many scientists insist that atheism and evolution are inseparable are generally those trying to detract from the credibility of said scientists in an effort to ignore scientific evidence that does not agree with their worldview.

I have never heard anyone say that for that reason, but that would not mean no one ever has. In any case, I was referring to something like this:
Quote:
The fact that Ham presented specific examples of fully credentialed scientists who adopted the Bible’s creation account of history had no effect on Nye, who continued to insist that scientists are evolutionists—by definition. The “Science Guy” insulated his assertion from scrutiny by defining “scientific” to suit his needs.

The common general definition of science includes observing, measuring, and interpreting natural processes. But Nye’s definition of true science seems to involve observing, measuring, and interpreting natural processes only according to evolutionary tenets.

http://www.icr.org/article/7897/


sonofghandi wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
I don't understand how using empirical data and rigorous peer reviewed research allows for any type of religious bias on the part of atheists.

Whether or not you realize this, you have just presented a "dogma-first" argument in the form of a statement saying you do not understand something you have actually just explained away.


How is this a "dogma first" argument? All scientists rely on empirical data and peer reviewed research no matter what their religious/spiritual beliefs are.

All scientists do not rely upon the *same* empirical data and peer-reviewed research, and some will categorically dismiss anything suggesting Creation or Intelligent Design.

sonofghandi wrote:
If you mean starting out with the belief in atheism as a basis for research, I suppose that it can come equally from either side.

Certainly, and there are YEC links I do not post here because of their own overtly-religious tones.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,672
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

05 Mar 2014, 8:20 am

leejosepho wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
The people who say that many scientists insist that atheism and evolution are inseparable are generally those trying to detract from the credibility of said scientists in an effort to ignore scientific evidence that does not agree with their worldview.

I have never heard anyone say that for that reason, but that would not mean no one ever has. In any case, I was referring to something like this:
Quote:
The fact that Ham presented specific examples of fully credentialed scientists who adopted the Bible’s creation account of history had no effect on Nye, who continued to insist that scientists are evolutionists—by definition. The “Science Guy” insulated his assertion from scrutiny by defining “scientific” to suit his needs.

The common general definition of science includes observing, measuring, and interpreting natural processes. But Nye’s definition of true science seems to involve observing, measuring, and interpreting natural processes only according to evolutionary tenets.

http://www.icr.org/article/7897/


Almost all scientists are evolutionists, true (as evolution is scientifically sound), but that does not mean they are atheists. Plenty of Christian scientists (the vast majority of christian scientists) fully accept that evolution is true. As for the whole Nye vs Ham debate, Ham presented exactly zero evidence that was scientifically acceptable. Nye does not insist that science is based on evolution, rather that evolution is based on science. You have it backwards.

leejosepho wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
I don't understand how using empirical data and rigorous peer reviewed research allows for any type of religious bias on the part of atheists.

Whether or not you realize this, you have just presented a "dogma-first" argument in the form of a statement saying you do not understand something you have actually just explained away.


How is this a "dogma first" argument? All scientists rely on empirical data and peer reviewed research no matter what their religious/spiritual beliefs are.

All scientists do not rely upon the *same* empirical data and peer-reviewed research, and some will categorically dismiss anything suggesting Creation or Intelligent Design.


Some will dismiss anything suggesting Creation or Intelligent Design because there is no actual scientific evidence for it, not because of any type of religious dogma (unless you count the Scientific Method as religious dogma). Creationists, ID, and YEC has absolutely no empirical data to support it. So are you saying that science should support every speculation thought up by anyone, even when these suppositions are not possible according to known scientific laws?

leejosepho wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
If you mean starting out with the belief in atheism as a basis for research, I suppose that it can come equally from either side.

Certainly, and there are YEC links I do not post here because of their own overtly-religious tones.


I have not seen a single YEC use anything but religious tones, with almost all of them staunchly in the conservative christian camp.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,672
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

05 Mar 2014, 8:27 am

leejosepho wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
The people who say that many scientists insist that atheism and evolution are inseparable are generally those trying to detract from the credibility of said scientists in an effort to ignore scientific evidence that does not agree with their worldview.

I have never heard anyone say that for that reason


Exactly who is saying that evolution and atheism inseparable? I have never heard it from a credible scientist. I have seen plenty of articles where that is an accusation against science, but I have not seen it as a viewpoint put forth by those who you seem to think say it.

There are plenty of atheists who believe we are the result of alien manipulation or that we are descendants of aliens rather than an evolutionary result (along with some even more bizarre explanations not involving evolution). There are plenty of scientists that accept evolution and still believe in God.

As for myself, I believe in evolution. Not because I am an atheist, but because of the science behind it. I believed in that validity of evolution long before I lost faith in Christianity.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

05 Mar 2014, 8:34 am

sonofghandi wrote:
So are you saying that science should support every speculation thought up by anyone, even when these suppositions are not possible according to known scientific laws?

We are in a battle of words and/or definitions here, and I am not interested in that. Some people believe science proves creation false, some believe science proves evolution false, some are in-between or wherever, and some folks holding whatever "position" -- I have none -- will say at least some of the folks elsewhere are not even scientists. Overall, my answer to your loaded question is "No."


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,573

05 Mar 2014, 8:47 am

"Brainwashed teacher tries to to pass the brain washing to students, gets compliments from fellow brainwash victims and the lobby interested in making America science-less.


_________________
.


AspergianMutantt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,766
Location: North Idaho. USA

05 Mar 2014, 9:21 am

Give it up guys, the brain washed religious nuts wont concede because their to afraid to admit that there is nothing more after death. their afraid of death and dying and oblivion. their afraid of the truth. and all they want to do is convince others because they don't want to face the truth them selves. you would have better luck analyzing their psychology and the way they think instead of what they think or believe to be true. Take and consider a schizophrenic person, same difference, ignore their self induced delusions and analyze the person..



TallyMan
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,833

05 Mar 2014, 9:46 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
"Brainwashed teacher tries to to pass the brain washing to students, gets compliments from fellow brainwash victims and the lobby interested in making America science-less.


^ This.

Trying to impart knowledge to these religious types is an exercise in futility. They put their fingers in their ears and say "Nah, nah, nah I can't hear you and by the way it was god wot dun it." Their mindset is completely locked onto their belief system and nobody can tell them otherwise. They believe it blindly to the point of abject stupidity despite being confronted with a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately all we can do is leave them to their delusions and hope that kids learn the truth about science and evolution before these nutjobs get to them and brainwash them.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,328
Location: Reading, England

05 Mar 2014, 9:59 am

leejosepho wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
So are you saying that science should support every speculation thought up by anyone, even when these suppositions are not possible according to known scientific laws?

We are in a battle of words and/or definitions here, and I am not interested in that. Some people believe science proves creation false, some believe science proves evolution false, some are in-between or wherever, and some folks holding whatever "position" -- I have none -- will say at least some of the folks elsewhere are not even scientists. Overall, my answer to your loaded question is "No."

You are making the mistake of assuming all points of view are of equal merit.



sapere_aude
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 51

05 Mar 2014, 11:13 am

I'm unclear as to just what the OP means by "evolution" - all of it? Every single living species? Or is it just the humans-evolved-from-apes aspect that you're opposed to?
To me, evolution is equal parts luck, genetic mutations and survival of the fittest, and I do get annoyed when people throw around the word "evolution" too readily. A few years ago I remember a news story that said hedgehog numbers weren't dwindling, and the lack of squashed hedgehogs on our roads was because they had evolved and learned to stay off the roads. To me, the intelligent hedgehogs knew to stay away from the big loud metal things and the dumb ones got run over. The species as a whole may now be considered slightly more intelligent, but nothing about the hedgehogs had actually changed, so calling it "evolution" is a bit of a stretch.
These days humans are more intelligent, healthier and live longer than ever before. Mostly that's due to our own advances in technology and medicine, but I call that evolution if it eventually benefits the entire human race.



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,920

05 Mar 2014, 11:19 am

I'm still curious what these alleged errors in the textbooks are. They are not mentioned in the articles as far as I can see.



TheBicyclingGuitarist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,342

05 Mar 2014, 1:21 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
So are you saying that science should support every speculation thought up by anyone, even when these suppositions are not possible according to known scientific laws?

We are in a battle of words and/or definitions here, and I am not interested in that. Some people believe science proves creation false, some believe science proves evolution false, some are in-between or wherever, and some folks holding whatever "position" -- I have none -- will say at least some of the folks elsewhere are not even scientists. Overall, my answer to your loaded question is "No."

You are making the mistake of assuming all points of view are of equal merit.


@leejosepho

I saw you quote Kent Hovind as a source of information. If you were to do just a little research, you would find that most if not all of everything Kent Hovind says about evolution is false. Sure he is a slick talker and makes a good presentation. So what? He ignores many facts and denies or distorts what he does not ignore. He also makes stuff up, total fabrication out of touch with reality. He invents his own definitions and terms that are not supported by any evidence and are not used by anyone except those who quote Kent Hovind as a source. If you rely on sources such as Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort or Ken Ham for your information about evolution, you will be basing your opinion on lies and distortions. Don't take my word for this. Check what they say against the actual evidence and what scientists have said (not the misquotes and quotations taken out of context found in creationist web sites, books and films). I for one am highly offended by how blatantly these creationists distort the truth, especially since they claim to be doing it in the name of God. They bring shame to Christ and make Christians and Christianity look really stupid.


_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008


khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

05 Mar 2014, 8:30 pm

I see a mixture of creation and evolution. I see physical life forms as an evolutionary process, a simpletons explanation, and consciousness as what defines existence as we know it. Physical existence being relative to state of consciousness, which is constantly evolving, but has no form. So the non-form "consciousness" perceives the physical form relative to whatever sense indulgence is taking place at any given moment. But no physical "form" is "real" as we perceive it. I know it probably makes no sense to anyone but me, but what form is really here to perceive?