• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Evolution isn't science"

There's a different account of the flood in the Epic Of Gilgamesh, which is older that the Bible, there's floods in Greek mythology, perhaps they refer to the same event, for example, the flooding of the Black Sea, muddled accounts of the flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates or the flooding of the Nile. Which account is true? You've only belief no evidence
Click to expand...
So we can agree that there was a world wide flood even if you don't believe the same version as me?
 
jesus_freak said:
OK I think science can be used to support some of the Bible, but not all so it shouldn't be taught as scientific fact because science can't explain things like raising people from the dead.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you should propose that the scientific stuff in the Bible should be taught.

Science also can't explain that donkeys and apples have a common ancestor.
Click to expand...

Erm, the point is that it can.
 
jesus_freak said:
OK my position is that the Bible is litteral and true, and that evolution should not be taught in public schools as fact and backed up with lies. I am willing to discuss this with anyone who has intelligent questions and I do not call people names and expect the same out of others, that gets us no where. I think it is possible to discuss without arguing and realize that I will probably change no minds but just like to have both sides represented fairly. Thanks.
Click to expand...
OK, there are some rules of conduct you need to know about. In general, you need to be prepared to produce a citation from a scientific paper published in a peer-reviewed and widely accepted journal of the scientific field that the paper you are quoting is relevant to. If you produce quotes from creationist web sites, you're going to find that everyone here who has the opposing viewpoint will quickly stop talking to you, and the reason is because the data from those sites directly contradicts the data from papers, and published in journals, like the ones I'm talking about above.

To the extent science can be said to "be done," or "advance," from the point of view of both the scientific, and the inclusive human, community, it is done in those journals. They're not some private cabal; they contain the sum of the knowledge of the sciences we have accumulated so far, along with a relatively much smaller number of books dating backward from the beginning of the Enlightenment (late seventeeth century or so- because, you see, before that they didn't have scientific journals, so we have things like Newton's Principia Mathematica). In fact, since the beginning of the twentieth century, essentially no major scientific discovery has been made that was not documented in such a journal, and most of them were announced to the world in such a journal.

Today, as far as the scientific community is concerned, if you wish to make an addition to the progress of science, you MUST publish your findings in such a journal, so that they can be examined, criticized, and ultimately accepted or rejected by that community, acting as individuals. Every accepted theory of science has gone through this process; in fact, as each scientist is educated, theoretically (and more or less really, depending on the level of skill and intelligence of the budding scientist) they examine each of these ideas at least once for themselves before accepting them.

I'm going to await your acceptance of the above before going on; I warn you, first of all, that there is a reason why scientists believe what they do and it can be found in those journals, second, that no one here is interested in conspiracy theories about all teh evul sciensetis, third, that science is not just composed of some random stories about how things happened, but instead a body of knowledge formed by the detailed examination of every statement made and comparison to observable facts that everyone agrees on. Any statement that disagrees with an observable fact is discarded; special statements that make verifiable predictions are called "theories."

If on that basis you are interested in having a rational conversation, you will be the first I (and no doubt many who have been here longer than I) have seen. And I have seen plenty (and those others no doubt plenty more).
 
jesus_freak said:
So we can agree that there was a world wide flood even if you don't believe the same version as me?
Click to expand...

No. He's saying that there's lots of flood myths floating around the region. It indicates a localised flood. The 'world' was a hell of a lot smaller for these people - they had no idea how big it really was. (Those clever Greeks did though, hell, they even calculated it using science!)
 
Ah, so you should propose that the scientific stuff in the Bible should be taught.
Click to expand...
I propose they teach scientific fact in schools. Not lies like the apendix is a vistigual organ, or the whole gill slits in human embreos ordeal.
 
No. He's saying that there's lots of flood myths floating around the region. It indicates a localised flood. The 'world' was a hell of a lot smaller for these people - they had no idea how big it really was. (Those clever Greeks did though, hell, they even calculated it using science!)
Click to expand...
did they also teach the world was flat?
 
OK, there are some rules of conduct you need to know about. In general, you need to be prepared to produce a citation from a scientific paper published in a peer-reviewed and widely accepted journal of the scientific field that the paper you are quoting is relevant to. If you produce quotes from creationist web sites, you're going to find that everyone here who has the opposing viewpoint will quickly stop talking to you, and the reason is because the data from those sites directly contradicts the data from papers, and published in journals, like the ones I'm talking about above.

To the extent science can be said to "be done," or "advance," from the point of view of both the scientific, and the inclusive human, community, it is done in those journals. They're not some private cabal; they contain the sum of the knowledge of the sciences we have accumulated so far, along with a relatively much smaller number of books dating backward from the beginning of the Enlightenment (late seventeeth century or so- because, you see, before that they didn't have scientific journals, so we have things like Newton's Principia Mathematica). In fact, since the beginning of the twentieth century, essentially no major scientific discovery has been made that was not documented in such a journal, and most of them were announced to the world in such a journal.

Today, as far as the scientific community is concerned, if you wish to make an addition to the progress of science, you MUST publish your findings in such a journal, so that they can be examined, criticized, and ultimately accepted or rejected by that community, acting as individuals. Every accepted theory of science has gone through this process; in fact, as each scientist is educated, theoretically (and more or less really, depending on the level of skill and intelligence of the budding scientist) they examine each of these ideas at least once for themselves before accepting them.

I'm going to await your acceptance of the above before going on; I warn you, first of all, that there is a reason why scientists believe what they do and it can be found in those journals, second, that no one here is interested in conspiracy theories about all teh evul sciensetis, third, that science is not just composed of some random stories about how things happened, but instead a body of knowledge formed by the detailed examination of every statement made and comparison to observable facts that everyone agrees on. Any statement that disagrees with an observable fact is discarded; special statements that make verifiable predictions are called "theories."

If on that basis you are interested in having a rational conversation, you will be the first I (and no doubt many who have been here longer than I) have seen. And I have seen plenty (and those others no doubt plenty more).
__________________
Click to expand...

ummm....I accept, do you accept that only scientific facts should be taught in public schools? do you accept that all proven lies should be removed from text books?
 
jesus_freak said:
Not lies like the apendix is a vistigual organ,
Click to expand...

Vestigial. And that doesn't require any evolutionary theory. The appendix serves no function in a human. I assume you picked that gem up from one of the standard creation science websites? Hmm...

or the whole gill slits in human embreos ordeal.
Click to expand...

Not heard that one before either.
 
jesus_freak said:
OK my position is that the Bible is litteral and true, and that evolution should not be taught in public schools as fact and backed up with lies. I am willing to discuss this with anyone who has intelligent questions and I do not call people names and expect the same out of others, that gets us no where. I think it is possible to discuss without arguing and realize that I will probably change no minds but just like to have both sides represented fairly. Thanks.
Click to expand...

You consider the bible to be literal and true? Even this passage?...

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7)
Click to expand...

You're impressed by a book of "truths" which outlines the proper rules for selling one's own child into slavery? What kind of person are you? :eek:
 
"The Greeks" did not believe the earth was flat. Aristotle showed the earth was round, and made a fairly good calculation of its size. No educated person since Aristotle has believed that the earth was flat.

Throughout the ages there have obviously been people who thought the earth was flat, and some of them were Greeks.
 
Vestigial. And that doesn't require any evolutionary theory. The appendix serves no function in a human. I assume you picked that gem up from one of the standard creation science websites? Hmm...
Click to expand...
sorry about the spelling and
The human appendix is not really vestigial. It has an immunological function as part of the lymphatic system. Its lymphoid follicles produce antibodies.
[/QUO<H2>[edit] Source

</H2>
Click to expand...
 
Let me put this another way, jesus_freak: imagine that each of these scientific journals is a moderated forum, and that the forum rules are that what you say cannot contradict any objectively observable feature of reality, and that if it attempts to contradict a well-established theory it must provide compelling evidence for doing so. Also, imagine that there are many fora, and that the producers of those fora make money from advertisers every time someone clicks on an article on their forum; so they not only have a motivation to get articles, they have a motivation to accept controversial articles that many people will click on. Now imagine that if they accept too many controversial articles that are later proven wrong, everyone stops reading the entire forum and it dies. But if they accept many controversial articles that are later proven right, then everyone wants to read their forum and it and they prosper and grow.

That's how scientific publication works, jesus_freak. So basically, what you have to do to get published is not just hew the line, but first, find something new, and second, provide evidence to support it. If your something new is cool enough, and especially if it overturns a major preexisting theory or creates a new theory that explains things no other theory has ever explained and predicts things no one has ever seen that later turn out to be true, then they give you prizes for it.

Now, the only way you can figure out what this is about is to get educated about it. That means you either have to go read ALL those journals (which would take many lifetimes) or you have to learn about it from someone who has taken that information and squeezed it down to the most important parts (so you can understand enough of it to get to the areas people are working on, or that no one has worked on yet, and make a contribution).

So when you say that science should not be taught in schools, what you're basically saying is that we should abandon this entire thing that we've done since, say, about the sixteenth century, where we've made all these technical advances, and invented stuff like electric lights, and computers, and refrigerators, and cures for having your arm turn black and bloat up and start stinking from a little cut on your finger, and all go back to dying of the black plague. Have I got that right?
 
Last edited:
So when you say that science should not be taught in schools,
Click to expand...
whoa,whoa,whoa putting words in my mouth again please stop this. I say EVOLUTION should not be taught as scientific fact.
 
Ah ha, I've learnt something.

Sorry, the appendix is still vestigial but if you had read the vestigial page you would see:

"Vestigial features need not be functionless; however, functional ones generally have very reduced or limited functions."

I would certainly say that applies to the appendix.
 
or the whole gill slits in human embreos ordeal. Not heard that one before either.
Click to expand...
maybe this can help...
You can hardly attend high school or college now days with out hearing or reading this "whopper". In fact, neither gills nor their slits are found at any stage in the embryological development of any mammal including man. The folds in the neck region of the mammalian embryo, that are erroneously called "gills", are not gills in any sense of the word and never have anything to do with breathing. They are merely flexion folds, or wrinkles, in the neck region resulting from the sharply down turned head and protruding heart of the developing embryo. These folds eventually develop into a portion of the face, inner ear, tonsils, parathyroid and thymus. No reputable medical embryology text claims that there are "gill slits" in mammals. Still, the gill slit myth is perpetuated in many high school and college biology text books as "scientific evidence" for evolution. Even Dr. Spock in his book 'Baby and Child Care' claims that "as the baby lies in the amniotic fluid of the womb, he has gills like a fish." Perhaps the "gill slit" myth continues to be taught because there is no better "evidence" for evolution. How many of you were taught the gill slit myth in school??
Click to expand...
 
Ah ha, I've learnt something.

Sorry, the appendix is still vestigial but if you had read the vestigial page you would see:

"Vestigial features need not be functionless; however, functional ones generally have very reduced or limited functions."

I would certainly say that applies to the appendix.
Click to expand...
ok sorry...do you agree that it should not be taught the appenix has NO fuction?
 
And I say GRAVITY should not be taught as scientific fact.
Click to expand...
Ok...ummm...hold a bowling ball 20 feet above your head and have it droped. Thats a pretty weird analogy I think.
Now explain how nothing exploded and formed a rock, then how rain on a rock(no matter how long) can cause life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom