Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... )


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... ) Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it'... - 12/30/2013 8:07:46 PM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, here, you are wrong. I didn't say the Theory of Evolution was wrong, just that it hasn't been proven completely. There is evidence, but there are holes and gaps.
Teaching Evolution as "this is what science thinks happened" and Creation/ID as "here is another theory that others think explains it," doesn't demean either, but it also doesn't teach something as settled science when it isn't settled science.
What is really interesting, is that there are people who cling to Evolution as tightly as some cling to the Bible; it's almost like it's their religion. There are gaps in our understanding, but people accept it as Gospel, applying faith where science hasn't shown the proof.

There's nothing in science that's "proven completely", and we're never going to know everything about anything. That's not how it works. That you said this makes it clear that you don't have a solid understanding of what science is and how it works.
The scientific method works like this: You have a hypothesis (a guess or idea), and you design an experiment to try and disprove it. You test and test to see if you can disprove your idea. If you can't, then that's basically what you might call a fact or datum, but it's still always open to someone coming along and doing another test and overturning it. Then, if you get a whole bunch of "facts", you can try to find a model that best fits them. You test that model over and over again, using it to make predictions and seeing if it fits future data that is discovered. If the model is the one that fits the data best, and is supported over and over again by the tests and can't be disproven, then it becomes accepted - "proven" - science and is called a theory.
Even this, like everything else in science, is open to being modified somewhat when someone has new data and a better fit model. But that's really hard to do, especially when there's such a massive amount of data supporting one conclusion like with evolution.


You have no idea what I know or what I don't know. Now, just to play along, understand that my comment was towards a poster that said that evolution is settled science. If there are gaps and unknowns, it's not settled, is it?

The problem with that statement is it is deliberately misleading, which is what the fundies prey upon, they confuse the overarching theory with the specific details. The overarching theory of gravity is settled science, gravity exists as a field, it behaves in certain ways that have been proven out time and again, even though no one has really worked out the internal mechanics of gravity, if it is a partcle or a string, you name it...but it is settled.

Science is settled that organisms evolve, that life evolved from simple to complex organisms, that humans evolved from a common ancestor with the other primates, what they don't know are all the steps, but the fact of evolution, like gravity, settled. The broad consensus of science is that natural selection guides development of species through mutation, it is accepted science, what isn't know are all the details.

Put it this way, you see a car going by on the street, you know roughly how it works, but you also don't know all the details of the firing order, how it is programmed to handle load and/or adjust valve timing, but you know it is a car. With evolution, the mechanisms on a broad scale are known and settled, the details are not. Settled science doesn't require all the details be accepted, for example, well over 90% of scientists working in climate accept that climate change is happening, where they differ is how fast it is happening, what can be done about it, and how much of it is man made and how much is natural.....

It is funny to me that the religious, with their need to have a creator who operates like a kid with an erector set, cast aspersions on Evolution for the holes scientists themselves note and work towards closing, when religious theory and dogma has more holes then a piece of swiss cheese and in explaining things, is as weak as one, too......


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 261
RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it'... - 12/30/2013 8:19:58 PM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, here, you are wrong. I didn't say the Theory of Evolution was wrong, just that it hasn't been proven completely. There is evidence, but there are holes and gaps.
Teaching Evolution as "this is what science thinks happened" and Creation/ID as "here is another theory that others think explains it," doesn't demean either, but it also doesn't teach something as settled science when it isn't settled science.

1. creation/ID isn't a theory.
2. Evolution is a fact. That is settled science.

Every step is known, then?

we don't know if our universe is made of strings or loops but this doesn't invalidate quantic physics, Galileo's trasformation are the limit of lorentz's one as speed approaches 0, the fact we knew a function just in one point doesn't meant there is no function or that point we knew is not valid, it's perfectly valid in the neighbourhood of 0 now we know also other things.
So what we know is known what we don't know is to be discovered but what we know to be false is false. Creatinism is proven to be false so teaching it is fraud.


Creationism has been proven false? Please cite.



It hasn't been proven false, but it also hasn't been proven anything at all, which is why it shouldn't be taught in science class. Unlike Evolution, whose main structures have been proven out time and again, creationism has no proof other than, basically, "Only God can make a tree". The whole basis of creationism rests on two things 1)Evolution is disproven because it has holes and gaps, so therefore cannot be taught as science (and you are wrong, Desideri, Gravity isn't any more settled than evolution, in many ways evolution has more proof. We have not found a fundamental particle of gravity, there is no proof it is part of the string phenomena (since they cannot prove strings exist), the mechanisms of it are still all the realm of hypothesis and guesswork......yet it is settled science that it is at work.

Creationism tries to prove itself with circular logic, for example, they try time and again to prove that things like intelligence or the flagella on a protozoan single cell organism could not evolve, and every time they try and do that, their proof by contrapositive gets blown to kingdom come. The only proof of an intelligent designer is in the bible, which is bupkus as proof.....

Creationism is religious theory and conjecture, and like the existence of God, there is no proof able to be discerned. Saying evolution can't explain x, y and z doesn't imply only a creator can do it, it simply means we don't understand enough (yet) to figure it out, not that it is wrong. Whereas with Creationism, while there is no way to prove that a creator couldn't have done it in some form, there also is no set of logical tools you can use to prove creationism is correct, because there is no way to prove that something couldn't happen without a designer.

BTW, that doesn't mean there wasn't some form of deity shaping things. Evolution says that natural selection means a more successful mutation will live to breed and reproduce, that mutations that are adapted to an environment will live. Thus dinosaurs, whose body size and life requirements made them vulnerable, died out after the climate started changing and then the asteroid hit, whereas mammals, who were small and warm blooded, survived (this is a very broad picture, there is a lot more to it)...but what if there was a creator who wanted man to ascend, the climate change and the asteroid could have been there to force the path that would create man....not saying that is what happened, but it could have been the 'behind the scenes''..but the thing is, we could never prove that, it could have been a series of events that happened to create humans at the top of the apex....


Creationism at its very core starts with the assumption that a creator had to exist, and basically only looks for things that proves that, they ignore things, and spend most of their time trying to put a fork in evolution (and ending up with bent tines every time), instead of proving they were right.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 262
RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it'... - 12/30/2013 8:21:46 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
We have fossils that show the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, dinosaurs to birds, reptiles to mammals, apes to humans and pretty much every other so called "major" transition. Pick one and I'll discuss it.

Apes to Humans.
Show the transitions.

Australopithecus shows the first distinctly human traits (including the presence of a gene, the duplicated SRGAP2, that is essential to our brains.)
Homo habilis evolved from one of the australopithecines
About a dozen different species of Homo are known with the the most likely lineage leading to sapiens is habilis to erectus to heidelbergensis to us.


Whoops, those are all major transitions. Where are the in-betweens?

None of those are major transitions. They all represent gradual change between a very chimpanzee like animal and modern humans.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 263
RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it'... - 12/30/2013 8:25:39 PM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Here's the thing, though: we have experiments that demonstrate that gravity works, and we can even demonstrate how to counter gravity. Gravity has been proven to a much higher degree than the Theory of Evolution (which is an explanation of how Man evolved from lower forms). We have yet to prove the Theory of Evolution. We have proven that things can and do evolve, but we have not yet even come close to proving, by experimentation, how Man evolved. We don't have a complete timeline of skeletal records, either. We have some steps along the way, but there are so many gaps in that evolution that makes the Theory of how Man evolved suspect.

Nope. The ToE is one of the best supported theories out there and if you want to specifically talk about hominid evolution we know a great deal both from the fossil record and from our own biochemistry. You are welcome to present any gaps you think exist and I'll be happy to deal with them.


Any gaps I think exist?

Where is the fossil record between major transitions? If it's not there, then, it's assumed to be there, and, well, that takes some element of faith, no?




Hmm, you mean like the gap between sea and land? Gee, just like evolution predicted, they found 'the missing link'......missing link between humans and chimpanzees? Guess what they have found proof of it, what they found out was that some of the early homids that definitely were not chimps, continued to interbreed for a significant period of time, DNA analysis of the pro humans they have found shows that they were hybrids of human and chimp........if something with dna significantly like a human being had dna that is chimp, means that proto humans and chimps were close enough to breed.....there is your missing link, to be able to have offspring with a chimp means they were closely related.......and there is your missing link.

Yep, gaps still exist, and wanna know something funny? When they find the record, the fossils and such, they almost entirely match what evolution predicts..whereas Creationism can predict, what? *crickets*

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 264
RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it'... - 12/30/2013 8:26:40 PM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Here's the thing, though: we have experiments that demonstrate that gravity works, and we can even demonstrate how to counter gravity. Gravity has been proven to a much higher degree than the Theory of Evolution (which is an explanation of how Man evolved from lower forms). We have yet to prove the Theory of Evolution. We have proven that things can and do evolve, but we have not yet even come close to proving, by experimentation, how Man evolved. We don't have a complete timeline of skeletal records, either. We have some steps along the way, but there are so many gaps in that evolution that makes the Theory of how Man evolved suspect.

Nope. The ToE is one of the best supported theories out there and if you want to specifically talk about hominid evolution we know a great deal both from the fossil record and from our own biochemistry. You are welcome to present any gaps you think exist and I'll be happy to deal with them.


Any gaps I think exist?

Where is the fossil record between major transitions? If it's not there, then, it's assumed to be there, and, well, that takes some element of faith, no?


We have fossils that show the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, dinosaurs to birds, reptiles to mammals, apes to humans and pretty much every other so called "major" transition. Pick one and I'll discuss it.

I have a parrot, they never evolved from being dinosaurs, I promise you:)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 265
RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it'... - 12/30/2013 8:31:06 PM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
We have fossils that show the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, dinosaurs to birds, reptiles to mammals, apes to humans and pretty much every other so called "major" transition. Pick one and I'll discuss it.


Apes to Humans.

Show the transitions.


Australopithecus shows the first distinctly human traits (including the presence of a gene, the duplicated SRGAP2, that is essential to our brains.)
Homo habilis evolved from one of the australopithecines
About a dozen different species of Homo are known with the the most likely lineage leading to sapiens is habilis to erectus to heidelbergensis to us.


Domken-
Not to mention, as I mentioned in another post, they are able to get the DNA sequence of some of the very earliest proto humans, going back to close to when they think they split from the apes, and one of the things it showed was that some of the protohumans were hybrids of proto human and chimp, which means they could have sex and conceive with a chimp, which means they had to be very, very closely related. It could be this offspring, like a donkey, were sterile, so only the proto humans could breed and then have offspring.......the DNA evidence is pretty strong from what I read, it may be as close to proof as you could get. Course, I am sure the fundies will say those weren't humans, they were another ape, problem is the hybrids had genetic sequences no primate other than humans ever had.....

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 266
RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it'... - 12/30/2013 9:30:50 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
It is funny to me that the religious, with their need to have a creator who operates like a kid with an erector set, cast aspersions on Evolution for the holes scientists themselves note and work towards closing, when religious theory and dogma has more holes then a piece of swiss cheese and in explaining things, is as weak as one, too......


What's even funnier are those who rely on science when that science isn't settled. You have Australopithacus (yeah, butchered that name), neanderthals, and sapiens. No matter what DomKen says, those are not gradual transitions, but major ones. There is no skeletal proof of any intermediary between neanderthalis and sapiens. Science believes there is a link, but can not prove it. What is belief without concrete proof? Um, faith?

At least those who follow the religious teachings acknowledge that they rely on faith while doing so.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 267
RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it'... - 12/30/2013 9:34:47 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Creationism has been proven false? Please cite.

It hasn't been proven false, but it also hasn't been proven anything at all, which is why it shouldn't be taught in science class.


Thank you.

You see, though, teaching it in science class could very easily be a beneficial thing. It doesn't have to be taught as "the right way" or anything like that. It can be taught as an alternative explanation, with the pro's and con's included in that discussion.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 268
RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it'... - 12/30/2013 9:36:22 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
Yep, gaps still exist, and wanna know something funny? When they find the record, the fossils and such, they almost entirely match what evolution predicts..whereas Creationism can predict, what? *crickets*


Thank you.

Personally, I don't care what Creationism can predict.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 269
RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it'... - 12/30/2013 9:48:57 PM   
Arturas


Posts: 3245
Status: offline
quote:

Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) has introduced a bill -


...TICK TOCK...2014 O'CLOCK...DING DING DING.



_____________________________

"We master Our world."

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 270
RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it'... - 12/30/2013 11:19:12 PM   
eulero83


Posts: 1470
Joined: 11/4/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
It is funny to me that the religious, with their need to have a creator who operates like a kid with an erector set, cast aspersions on Evolution for the holes scientists themselves note and work towards closing, when religious theory and dogma has more holes then a piece of swiss cheese and in explaining things, is as weak as one, too......


What's even funnier are those who rely on science when that science isn't settled. You have Australopithacus (yeah, butchered that name), neanderthals, and sapiens. No matter what DomKen says, those are not gradual transitions, but major ones. There is no skeletal proof of any intermediary between neanderthalis and sapiens. Science believes there is a link, but can not prove it. What is belief without concrete proof? Um, faith?

At least those who follow the religious teachings acknowledge that they rely on faith while doing so.



now you are just being (or playing I don't know) obtuse, you have been explained connection had been proved not only by fossils but also mapping DNA, in your 3 items list you skipped 7 intrmediate species and just ignored domken post. By the way sapiens doesn't evolves from neanderthalis they are more like dogs and wolves.
You don't have to belive in science you have to understand it, and if you personally make no effort in understanding doesn't invalidate it.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 271
RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it'... - 12/31/2013 1:37:00 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
We have fossils that show the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, dinosaurs to birds, reptiles to mammals, apes to humans and pretty much every other so called "major" transition. Pick one and I'll discuss it.


Apes to Humans.

Show the transitions.


Australopithecus shows the first distinctly human traits (including the presence of a gene, the duplicated SRGAP2, that is essential to our brains.)
Homo habilis evolved from one of the australopithecines
About a dozen different species of Homo are known with the the most likely lineage leading to sapiens is habilis to erectus to heidelbergensis to us.


Domken-
Not to mention, as I mentioned in another post, they are able to get the DNA sequence of some of the very earliest proto humans, going back to close to when they think they split from the apes, and one of the things it showed was that some of the protohumans were hybrids of proto human and chimp, which means they could have sex and conceive with a chimp, which means they had to be very, very closely related. It could be this offspring, like a donkey, were sterile, so only the proto humans could breed and then have offspring.......the DNA evidence is pretty strong from what I read, it may be as close to proof as you could get. Course, I am sure the fundies will say those weren't humans, they were another ape, problem is the hybrids had genetic sequences no primate other than humans ever had.....

We are still very closely related to chimpanzees. There are scientists in the fields in question that think Pan and Homo should be combined into a single genus.
BTW to the best of my knowledge no one has ever established that chimps and humans are not cross fertile right now.

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 272
RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it'... - 12/31/2013 6:11:34 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
It is funny to me that the religious, with their need to have a creator who operates like a kid with an erector set, cast aspersions on Evolution for the holes scientists themselves note and work towards closing, when religious theory and dogma has more holes then a piece of swiss cheese and in explaining things, is as weak as one, too......

What's even funnier are those who rely on science when that science isn't settled. You have Australopithacus (yeah, butchered that name), neanderthals, and sapiens. No matter what DomKen says, those are not gradual transitions, but major ones. There is no skeletal proof of any intermediary between neanderthalis and sapiens. Science believes there is a link, but can not prove it. What is belief without concrete proof? Um, faith?
At least those who follow the religious teachings acknowledge that they rely on faith while doing so.

now you are just being (or playing I don't know) obtuse, you have been explained connection had been proved not only by fossils but also mapping DNA, in your 3 items list you skipped 7 intrmediate species and just ignored domken post. By the way sapiens doesn't evolves from neanderthalis they are more like dogs and wolves.
You don't have to belive in science you have to understand it, and if you personally make no effort in understanding doesn't invalidate it.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/science/08cnd-fossil.html?ex=1187236800&en=7850f1c15db850d7&ei=5070&emc=eta1&_r=0
    quote:

    Two fossils found in Kenya have shaken the human family tree, possibly rearranging major branches thought to be in a straight ancestral line to Homo sapiens.

    Scientists who dated and analyzed the specimens — a 1.44 million-year-old Homo habilis and a 1.55 million-year-old Homo erectus — said their findings challenged the conventional view that these species evolved one after the other. Instead, they apparently lived side by side in eastern Africa for almost half a million years.

    If this interpretation is correct, the early evolution of the genus Homo is left even more shrouded in mystery than before. It means that both habilis and erectus must have originated from a common ancestor between two million and three million years ago, a time when fossil hunters had drawn a virtual blank.

    Although the findings do not change the relationship of Homo erectus as a direct ancestor of Homo sapiens, scientists said, the surprisingly diminutive erectus skull implies that this species was not as humanlike as once thought.

    Other paleontologists and experts in human evolution said the discovery strongly suggested that the early transition from more apelike to more humanlike ancestors was still poorly understood. They also said that this emphasized the need to search more widely for fossils from the critical period at the still unknown dawn of our own genus, Homo.


http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree

Homo neanderthalensis. is in the same genus as Homo sapiens. and we sure seem to have a common ancestor.

This stuff sure doesn't sound like settled science, does it? The first article mentions challenging a "conventional view." That there is a "conventional" view implies the existence of "non-conventional" views, doesn't it?

Herein lies the belief system employed in science. It's not been proven. The Sliding Filament Theory of muscle contraction was the only theory taught when I was in college (seems like eons ago), but it was taught as the most accepted theory and that science didn't know for sure how a muscle contracts. I'm perfectly okay with that, too. Teaching Evolution as settled science is wrong, imo, when it's not settled science.



_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to eulero83)
Profile   Post #: 273
RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it'... - 12/31/2013 6:53:41 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

I have a parrot, they never evolved from being dinosaurs, I promise you:)


I heard that birds did in fact evolve pretty directly from reptiles. The scales turned into feathers. Somewhat disturbing thought, actually: I don't like reptiles - they're all bastards.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 274
RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it'... - 12/31/2013 7:03:53 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:

I have a parrot, they never evolved from being dinosaurs, I promise you:)

I heard that birds did in fact evolve pretty directly from reptiles. The scales turned into feathers. Somewhat disturbing thought, actually: I don't like reptiles - they're all bastards.


Did English Swallows evolve from African Swallows, or was it the other way 'round?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 275
RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it'... - 12/31/2013 7:10:38 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
None of those are major transitions. They all represent gradual change between a very chimpanzee like animal and modern humans.


Having had this conversation with him in the past he's getting hung up for two reasons:

1. A digital labelling scheme is used to represent the analog phenomenon.

2. He learned about "evolution" from creationists.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 276
RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it'... - 12/31/2013 8:40:26 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
None of those are major transitions. They all represent gradual change between a very chimpanzee like animal and modern humans.

Having had this conversation with him in the past he's getting hung up for two reasons:
1. A digital labelling scheme is used to represent the analog phenomenon.
2. He learned about "evolution" from creationists.


Right, because my college biology and anthropology had nothing to do with human evolution...


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 277
RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it'... - 12/31/2013 11:17:31 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
It is funny to me that the religious, with their need to have a creator who operates like a kid with an erector set, cast aspersions on Evolution for the holes scientists themselves note and work towards closing, when religious theory and dogma has more holes then a piece of swiss cheese and in explaining things, is as weak as one, too......


What's even funnier are those who rely on science when that science isn't settled. You have Australopithacus (yeah, butchered that name), neanderthals, and sapiens. No matter what DomKen says, those are not gradual transitions, but major ones. There is no skeletal proof of any intermediary between neanderthalis and sapiens. Science believes there is a link, but can not prove it. What is belief without concrete proof? Um, faith?

At least those who follow the religious teachings acknowledge that they rely on faith while doing so.


Not at all. Faith is belief without evidence. Science is belief based upon evidence. Evolution is the best model we have to explain the evidence. How many times has that been said on this thread? And what would constitute absolute proof anyway? The best we can hope for in any epistemology is best fit or reasonable approximation. Concrete proof is the Providence of abstract math.

I think I said this before: given the nature of the process of fossilization we are damn lucky to have so many available. Your reliance on the gaps is (sorry DS) absurd. Missing pieces of evidence is not evidence of absence of natural processes. There are many things yet in Nature to be discovered. I agree with you. Science is never settled (hooray!) But a Model stands despite the gaps. The gaps are an invitation for further research.

Do we believe the expansion of the Universe is accelerating at the far edges? We do. Do we have concrete proof. Of course not. We have evidence.

When Einstein developed his theories of relativity all he knew of the Universe was the Milky Way. Surprise, surprise, there is so much more in Nature than he knew.

I do apologize on behalf of science fans to all those detractors who demand all the answers to everything TODAY! Sorry, you don't always get what you want.

< Message edited by vincentML -- 12/31/2013 11:18:44 AM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 278
RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it'... - 12/31/2013 12:41:00 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
It is funny to me that the religious, with their need to have a creator who operates like a kid with an erector set, cast aspersions on Evolution for the holes scientists themselves note and work towards closing, when religious theory and dogma has more holes then a piece of swiss cheese and in explaining things, is as weak as one, too......

What's even funnier are those who rely on science when that science isn't settled. You have Australopithacus (yeah, butchered that name), neanderthals, and sapiens. No matter what DomKen says, those are not gradual transitions, but major ones. There is no skeletal proof of any intermediary between neanderthalis and sapiens. Science believes there is a link, but can not prove it. What is belief without concrete proof? Um, faith?
At least those who follow the religious teachings acknowledge that they rely on faith while doing so.

Not at all. Faith is belief without evidence. Science is belief based upon evidence.


As much as I don't want to admit it, that is very well stated, Vince. Thank you for the correction.

quote:

Evolution is the best model we have to explain the evidence. How many times has that been said on this thread? And what would constitute absolute proof anyway? The best we can hope for in any epistemology is best fit or reasonable approximation. Concrete proof is the Providence of abstract math.
I think I said this before: given the nature of the process of fossilization we are damn lucky to have so many available. Your reliance on the gaps is (sorry DS) absurd. Missing pieces of evidence is not evidence of absence of natural processes. There are many things yet in Nature to be discovered. I agree with you. Science is never settled (hooray!) But a Model stands despite the gaps. The gaps are an invitation for further research.
Do we believe the expansion of the Universe is accelerating at the far edges? We do. Do we have concrete proof. Of course not. We have evidence.
When Einstein developed his theories of relativity all he knew of the Universe was the Milky Way. Surprise, surprise, there is so much more in Nature than he knew.
I do apologize on behalf of science fans to all those detractors who demand all the answers to everything TODAY! Sorry, you don't always get what you want.


The problem, though, isn't that the Theory of the Evolution of Man isn't being taught as "the best model we have to explain the evidence," but "this is how it happened." There is a difference between "2+2=4" and "I think 2+2=4," no?




_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 279
RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it'... - 12/31/2013 12:54:30 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
 
While that may indeed be the case, its significance is this.  This is how we do things.  We have this thing where we think (with some certainty greater than 50%) that the sun will appear to rise in the east, and appear to set in the west tomorrow, because that is what it has done for recorded history, but that is not certain that it will, there are variables.   Evolution theory is pretty much about the same stage.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 280
Page:   <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... ) Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125