Creationists Argue Nessie Exists

[Noztradamus]

Billabong Ness.


Sorted.

So. Nessie is really a bunyip?

 

[Tricky]

Creationists are rightly critical of this attitude -- that whatever evidence is found, the theory of evolution will be maintained but will be adapted to accomodate it.

How is it a scientific theory, then, if any evidence can be made to fit into it? How is it predictive or falsifiable?

That was a bit of an oversimplification. The pieces aren't "made to fit", they are "found to fit". The theory of (biologic) evolution is a gigantic set of interlocking evidence that does a pretty good job of explaining almost every aspect of life on earth. It has had so many predictions come true that it would take an enormous body of evidence to overturn the whole thing, larger than most science libraries. While such a thing is technically possible, the liklihood of overturning every well established biologic science, from genetics to epidemiology, is vanishingly remote.


Envision life on Earth as a big jigsaw puzzle. Sometimes you'll have a piece that you cannot find where it fits. Sometimes you try to fit it into the wrong place. A new fossil discovery may change the way we chronologically order certain subspecies, but it is not likely to overturn the entire tree of life. A new gene discovery may show that bonobos are more closely related to gorillas than to chimpanzees, but it is not going to overturn the well-established evidence that all of the anthropoid apes are phylogenitically related. Similarly, you can see that the evolutionary jigsaw puzzle, though it has a number of missing pieces, forms a large picture that, even incomplete, it easily discernable as a real picture.

So for creationists to be "rightly critical", they would need to come up with an alternative to evolution that explains all of the intricate evidence, that fits like a jigsaw puzzle (with a number of missing pieces) the way that evolution does. But they really don't try. Instead they point out to the holes in the jigsaw puzzle and clamor to throw the whole thing away. They do this even though their own jigsaw puzzle has only one piece, and it doesn't fit with any evidence. It doesn't even fit with itself.

 

[AvalonXQ]

That was a bit of an oversimplification. The pieces aren't "made to fit", they are "found to fit". The theory of (biologic) evolution is a gigantic set of interlocking evidence that does a pretty good job of explaining almost every aspect of life on earth. It has had so many predictions come true that it would take an enormous body of evidence to overturn the whole thing, larger than most science libraries. While such a thing is technically possible, the liklihood of overturning every well established biologic science, from genetics to epidemiology, is vanishingly remote.


Envision life on Earth as a big jigsaw puzzle. Sometimes you'll have a piece that you cannot find where it fits. Sometimes you try to fit it into the wrong place. A new fossil discovery may change the way we chronologically order certain subspecies, but it is not likely to overturn the entire tree of life. A new gene discovery may show that bonobos are more closely related to gorillas than to chimpanzees, but it is not going to overturn the well-established evidence that all of the anthropoid apes are phylogenitically related. Similarly, you can see that the evolutionary jigsaw puzzle, though it has a number of missing pieces, forms a large picture that, even incomplete, it easily discernable as a real picture.

So for creationists to be "rightly critical", they would need to come up with an alternative to evolution that explains all of the intricate evidence, that fits like a jigsaw puzzle (with a number of missing pieces) the way that evolution does. But they really don't try. Instead they point out to the holes in the jigsaw puzzle and clamor to throw the whole thing away. They do this even though their own jigsaw puzzle has only one piece, and it doesn't fit with any evidence. It doesn't even fit with itself.

I like your analogy, but I disagree with what the jigsaw puzzle looks like. It's not mainly complete but with whole here and there; it's actually a bunch of different small clusters of interlocking pieces with no pieces in between.

Each cluster of pieces shows a different picture, but evolutionists are trying to convince us that these regions with no pieces at all are actually full of blended pieces that we haven't seen yet, but will discover eventually.

On the other hand, the creationists claim that each cluster of pieces is mainly correct, but in fact we're dealing with a bunch of separate, independent puzzles -- that these missing "blended" pieces are missing because they're not there at all.

It's not a perfect analogy, of course -- but the "missing pieces" are the purported common ancestors among diverse species that we don't find in the fossile record. The major animal body plans each occur separate and fully-developed in the Cambrian with no intermediary or common source. No common ancestor for any two or more of the distinctive dinosaur types has ever been found. And so on and so forth.

 

[jerrywayne]

It seems odd to me that some lay creationists believe in Bigfoot. A giant ape-man or man-ape would seem positively Darwinian.

So kids in a fundamentalist school are being taught that Nessie is a fact. This is messing with secular knowledge. I've noticed in the world that more and more folks are making up there own secular knowledge and pretending it is true. This is a religionizing of secular knowledge. Is Nessie real? Yes, without question. Is President Obama a secret fascist who will take your guns away when he is re-elected? Of course, it's common knowledge. Did the Jews plan the 9/11 attacks. Yes, indeed. Everyone knows that! And so on.

Faith is the idea that if you believe something, it is true: because you believe it is true, it is true. This is what secular methods (such as the scientific method) were supposed to counteract. Yet, with some in the intelligentsia proclaiming a post-modern world where all views are paradoxically both true (for the advocate) and myth, the faith-based has impinged on the casting of secular knowledge.

 

[AvalonXQ]

It seems odd to me that some lay creationists believe in Bigfoot. A giant ape-man or man-ape would seem positively Darwinian.

I've not seen a lot of that; usually it's dinosaurs and other Mesozoics they're into.

I'd expect the ones that are into Bigfoot would claim it's an upright-walking forest ape that is explicitly nonhuman and provides evidence that certain "cavemen" were also nonhuman apes.

 

[H3LL]

I miss-read:

Is Nessie still a thing? Since I saw an episode of MonsterQuest a few years back claiming it had been killed by global warming, I just kind of figured it was over.

as:

Is Nessie still a thing? Since I saw an episode of MonsterQuest a few years back claiming it had been killed by goblin warring, I just kind of figured it was over.

I prefer my version.



Maybe someone would like to make a "Goblin Warring" thread.

.

 

[EHocking]

So. Nessie is really a bunyip?

... a large mythical creature?

Yes.

 

[Tricky]

I like your analogy, but I disagree with what the jigsaw puzzle looks like. It's not mainly complete but with whole here and there; it's actually a bunch of different small clusters of interlocking pieces with no pieces in between.

Each cluster of pieces shows a different picture, but evolutionists are trying to convince us that these regions with no pieces at all are actually full of blended pieces that we haven't seen yet, but will discover eventually.

On the other hand, the creationists claim that each cluster of pieces is mainly correct, but in fact we're dealing with a bunch of separate, independent puzzles -- that these missing "blended" pieces are missing because they're not there at all.

It's not a perfect analogy, of course -- but the "missing pieces" are the purported common ancestors among diverse species that we don't find in the fossile record. The major animal body plans each occur separate and fully-developed in the Cambrian with no intermediary or common source. No common ancestor for any two or more of the distinctive dinosaur types has ever been found. And so on and so forth.

There are big holes in the fossil record, of course, but each "section" of the puzzle is connected by a common thread. DNA. Every living creature on Earth has it. The closer two species are related, the closer their DNA resembles each other. If there were separate, independent puzzles, there would be no reason for this, and each "section" would have no predictive power for other sections. Yet we find connections between sections all the time.

Yes, I've heard the argument "an Intelligent Designer" could use the same parts, but this explanation has no predictive power and no evidence for it. Maybe if we found a parts warehouse...

One of my favorite examples of the interconnectedness of the theory of evolution is about probably the two greatest names in biologic science. Charles Darwin was off on the Beagle, figuring out that somehow creatures (like the Galapagos finches) were passing information from one generation to another. He did not have a good idea how this happened, but he predicted one would be found. He did not even know at the time about Gregor Mendel's experiments with pea plants, giving us the basis of genetics. Darwin's prediction was proved by a different scientist who had never even heard of Darwin, studying completely different organisms. That's a great example of how the pieces fit together in the "big puzzle".

 

[H3LL]

I think we invented a no true lake fallacy or something.

It would seem so.

Now it's about time to put it under loch and quay.



.

 

[Rolfe]

That might be a pun if we were talking about canals.

But we're not.

Rolfe.

 

[H3LL]

Sooooo....

Back on topic and needing a loch USAian Citizen of the United States of America or knowledgeable person to comment:

The Scotsman Article states:

Boston-based researcher and writer Bruce Wilson, who specialises in the American political religious right, said: “..........."

Mr Wilson believes that such fundamentalist Christian teaching is going on in at least 13 American states.

He added: “There’s a lot of public funding going to private schools, probably around 200,000 pupils are receiving this education.

“The majority of parents now home schooling their kids are Christian fundamentalists too. I don’t believe they should be publicly funded, I don’t believe the schools who use these texts should be publicly funded.”

My bold.


Should they be publicly funded?

Is there a legal case to stop the funding?

Anybody?



.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Should they be publicly funded?

We have yet to establish a) what books, if any, actually say these things and b) what publically funded schools, if any, use them.

The article specifically quoted books produced by institutions catering to religious schools, not public schools. I would expect that there are no public schools using these books.

 

[H3LL]

That might be a pun if we were talking about canals.

But we're not.

Rolfe.

If you say so.

Caledonian Canal

.

 

[Rolfe]

Pedant.

Rolfe.

 

[H3LL]

We have yet to establish a) what books, if any, actually say these things and b) what publically funded schools, if any, use them.

Can't help too much with the USA but in the UK it seems to be ACE (Accelerated Christian Learning).

I think your "if any" and "actually said" not very worthy of your usual high standard of apologetics - Must try harder.

http://www.aceministries.com/

Quick summary from a totally bias blog:

http://leavingfundamentalism.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/what-is-accelerated-christian-education/

And 5 Lies:

http://leavingfundamentalism.wordpr...lies-told-by-accelerated-christian-education/

I did ask for USA input.

Ace is an .inc (©2012 Accelerated Christian Education, Inc. on their website).

An .inc tends to be American.

The article specifically quoted books produced by institutions catering to religious schools, not public schools. I would expect that there are no public schools using these books.

If you are stating as fact that no religious school in the US nor home skoolin' receive public money I would have to agree.

Are you?

ETA: You use publically(sic) funded schools and public schools in the same quote,which is somewhat confusing, particularly as public school means something completely different in the UK.

Some clarity for this humble island dweller please. I could make a good guess but might miss something ... probably.

I hope that helps.




.

 

[Lucian]

We have yet to establish a) what books, if any, actually say these things and b) what publically funded schools, if any, use them.

The article specifically quoted books produced by institutions catering to religious schools, not public schools. I would expect that there are no public schools using these books.

Private Christian schools, however, are receiving public funding through the voucher program.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I think your "if any" and "actually said" not very worthy of your usual high standard of apologetics - Must try harder.

My Google fu has not turned up the source of the KKK quote, which concerns me far more than the dinosaur stuff. I was mainly referring to that.

 

[H3LL]

Home skoolin' seems to come under the angelic wings of LCA (Lighthouse Christian Academies) part of ACM (Accelerated Christian Ministries).

I haven't nailed down their publishing wing yet.

What a tangled, tax exempt, web they weave.

However, several JREFers, may want to apply for their nice FREE Information Pack.

Or perhaps not. Wasting their hard earned, well deserved, tax exempt dollars wouldn't be the christian thing to do.



.

 

[sadhatter]

Private Christian schools, however, are receiving public funding through the voucher program.

I would have no problem with the school teaching whatever it wants, should it stop dipping into the ******* kitty. Seriously, you want to teach that Jesus was the 3rd president of the united states, have at 'er. But they should not receive the same benefits, up to and including reduced pricing for events that are given to public schools.

Stripped of all the jargon, it should work like this , "Teach an agenda free curriculum, get some help, teach a curriculum that is specific to a given agenda ,do it on your own." , schools should be teaching knowledge and skills, what works, and what will help you, trying to cater to the whims of the hundreds of religions out there, is simply counterproductive.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I would have no problem with the school teaching whatever it wants, should it stop dipping into the ******* kitty. Seriously, you want to teach that Jesus was the 3rd president of the united states, have at 'er. But they should not receive the same benefits, up to and including reduced pricing for events that are given to public schools.

Stripped of all the jargon, it should work like this , "Teach an agenda free curriculum, get some help, teach a curriculum that is specific to a given agenda ,do it on your own." , schools should be teaching knowledge and skills, what works, and what will help you, trying to cater to the whims of the hundreds of religions out there, is simply counterproductive.

I disagree.

As long as they include the established curriculum, and their students take and pass the proficiency tests, I don't have any problem with whatever other stuff the parents also want their kids taught, and I think it's perfectly reasonable for us to fund their education just as we would a public school.

I see it as a black box. Funding for students' education goes in, students with sufficient understanding of the State curriculum to pass standardized tests comes out; the rest is the parents' business.