Evolution in 5 min video - Brian's Science & Nature Shack - Supported Forums

Recent Posts

Search by username

24HourForums.com > Supported Forums > Brian's Science & Nature Shack > Evolution in 5 min video

Share this topic...
- Digg - SlashDot - del.icio.us - Reddit - StumbleUpon - Facebook

Moderated by: Brian

Page: 1 2 3

New Topic

Author

Post

foxglovepress
Forum-Blogger^©
Original500^© Member

NON-PC!!

Joined:
Location:	USA
Posts:	7855
MyResume:
MyJob:	Love my FAMILY, COUNTRY and Dogs!!
MyForum:	Politics- Religion- Open Tal
MyLove:	Family and ?
MyWish:	A government for WE THE PEOPLE!
MyFile:	[Download]
MyIntro:	[Download]
MySex:	On Hold for now.....
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 03:57 pm

Quote

Alert

24HourNut wrote: foxglovepress wrote: JustifiedByFaith wrote: Brian,

The simple point is this:

Creationism and Evolution are the two main arguments for the origins of life.

Therefore, both must be looked at and discussed in the academic free marketplace of ideas and not one used and the other censored. It is man's attempts of suppressing God and His creation by making man in man's own image. We so desperately look into the eyes of a monkey to avoid looking into the eyes of God.

I agree! Why on earth would you not have a good discussion about BOTH in school? You can't just sweep the Creation under a rug, and say it doesn't exist. People should be given the chance to learn and discover this subject for themselves. If in fact Evolution were to be the winner, then what are they worried about? Creationism should have the chance to have equal time here! It's not as though it's a new subject. These are THE two subjects.
That's because Creationism is a religion or faith, and should be discussed in a classroom or school suited for it. Discussing science and where humans came from as you go back in time is for a science-based class. That's my take on it, anyway.

If you start bringing in "Well science can't explain it so let's discuss God as the possibility" now opens up all the other "could be" explanations whenever there is no current answer for something and you just want to discuss things there is no evidence for, that just exist in your head so to speak. That is not science.

Even Thomas Jefferson and other Founders said religion muddies the sciences, which is part of the reason that he purposefully kept religious instruction out of the first public school system he designed.

He was revolutionary and radical for his day, like many of the other Founders who were fending off organized religion's effort to get in bed with Government and schools whenever they could.

In this day and age we don't have to muddy sciences just because people have faith in various things.

So if Creation has areas that can be explained, or even proven, would you feel it should be given equal time in a science class?

Justice for Mark.....Imprison Employers Who Hire ILLEGALS!


Ads appear if not logged in.

Brian
Grand Poobah of Moderation

Joined:
Location:
Posts:	4182
MyResume:
MyJob:
MyForum:
MyLove:
MyWish:
MyFile:
MyIntro:
MySex:
Status:	Online
MyPOTD:

Posted: 04:38 pm

Quote

Alert

foxglovepress wrote: JustifiedByFaith wrote: Brian,

The simple point is this:

Creationism and Evolution are the two main arguments for the origins of life.

Therefore, both must be looked at and discussed in the academic free marketplace of ideas and not one used and the other censored. It is man's attempts of suppressing God and His creation by making man in man's own image. We so desperately look into the eyes of a monkey to avoid looking into the eyes of God.

I agree! Why on earth would you not have a good discussion about BOTH in school? You can't just sweep the Creation under a rug, and say it doesn't exist. People should be given the chance to learn and discover this subject for themselves.
Hi, Fox.

I agree with you that creationism shouldn't be swept under the rug like it doesn't exist. Creationism definitely exists outside the science class, so students need to have an understanding of it, and how it differs from a scientific theory. When teaching the history of the US, one thing that's always mentioned is that people used to think the world was flat until certain discoveries were made. Simply mentioning the flat earth theory doesn't lend credibility to it, when it's put in its proper context. I think creationism should be dealt with the same way, and when students have questions, those questions should be dealt with. And one thing science teachers should definitely get better at is saying, "We don't know that yet." (e.g., in the case of abiogenesis). But everything needs to be kept science-based in a science classroom. In science, you don't resort to a supernatural deity as a solution just because you don't have a a scientific solution yet.

"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last."

-- "A Long December", Counting Crows

24HourNut
Administrator

Body pillows rock!

Joined:
Location:	Long Island
Posts:	4932
MyResume:
MyJob:	Forumite Torture
MyForum:	Say Hello
MyLove:	A quiet, empty house (never happens)
MyWish:	To obtain very cool mutant powers
MyFile:	[Download]
MyIntro:	[Download]
MySex:	Male heterosexual
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 05:15 pm

Quote

Alert

foxglovepress wrote: So if Creation has areas that can be explained, or even proven, would you feel it should be given equal time in a science class?
I don't, because it is not science.

It's like saying let's discuss what we think air is made out of on a distant planet. Since the evidence is not complete or there are unanswered questions, should the class then spend time entertaining the "fairy dust" that some people think it is made out of? What about the people that say air everywhere is the Norse Gods' bad breath?

As for Creationism in a science or evolution class - do we give equal time to those that think the Universe started with the Devil creating it and God came along after the fact?

All that stuff is inappropriate for a science class and it just sucks people back toward archaic ways of looking at the world, and is inherently anti-scientific.

That is why we still have religous people thinking Noah filled the ark with slugs from other continents, dinosaurs and people roamed the Earth at the same time, the Earth is only 7k years old, the flood at New Orleans and previous large floods were God being angry, etc.

Because we don't know all the answers to how a flood started should the science class deal with "God being angry" as a reason? That's nuts, to me.

The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts.

foxglovepress
Forum-Blogger^©
Original500^© Member

NON-PC!!

Joined:
Location:	USA
Posts:	7855
MyResume:
MyJob:	Love my FAMILY, COUNTRY and Dogs!!
MyForum:	Politics- Religion- Open Tal
MyLove:	Family and ?
MyWish:	A government for WE THE PEOPLE!
MyFile:	[Download]
MyIntro:	[Download]
MySex:	On Hold for now.....
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 05:25 pm

Quote

Alert

24HourNut wrote: foxglovepress wrote: So if Creation has areas that can be explained, or even proven, would you feel it should be given equal time in a science class?
I don't, because it is not science.

It's like saying let's discuss what we think air is made out of on a distant planet. Since the evidence is not complete or there are unanswered questions, should the class then spend time entertaining the "fairy dust" that some people think it is made out of? What about the people that say air everywhere is the Norse Gods' bad breath?

As for Creationism in a science or evolution class - do we give equal time to those that think the Universe started with the Devil creating it and God came along after the fact?

All that stuff is inappropriate for a science class and it just sucks people back toward archaic ways of looking at the world, and is inherently anti-scientific.

That is why we still have religous people thinking Noah filled the ark with slugs from other continents, dinosaurs and people roamed the Earth at the same time, the Earth is only 7k years old, the flood at New Orleans and previous large floods were God being angry, etc.

Because we don't know all the answers to how a flood started should the science class deal with "God being angry" as a reason? That's nuts, to me.

Frank, if a science class can't look into and try and get answerers as to what the air on another planet is, science as we know it, would die out! How do you think all the absolutes were discovered to begin with? I'm sure at the beginning of science, things that have been discovered, were never even thought of. Part OF the science class should be trying TO prove Creation. If in fact it can not be done, don't you think that alone is reason to probe into the two subjects?

Justice for Mark.....Imprison Employers Who Hire ILLEGALS!

24HourNut
Administrator

Body pillows rock!

Joined:
Location:	Long Island
Posts:	4932
MyResume:
MyJob:	Forumite Torture
MyForum:	Say Hello
MyLove:	A quiet, empty house (never happens)
MyWish:	To obtain very cool mutant powers
MyFile:	[Download]
MyIntro:	[Download]
MySex:	Male heterosexual
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 05:46 pm

Quote

Alert

Fox, Creationism is not something that can be proven, it's not science. It's like saying "don't you think the science class on earthquakes should probe into ghosts since ghosts may be causing earthquakes?" Likewise, in my view, looking into what air is on other planets should not involve Creationism or fairy dust cults. That is in the "subjective faith and feelings" department. Unanswered questions should not mean make a class about God or Creationism. If that were the case there are A LOT of science classes, of varying types and levels, that would have to deal with faith stuff that has no legitimate place. They are no longer SCIENCE classes then.

If we bring in all the possible personal feeling things, from paranormal to Islam, that can explain something currently unanswered by science, then science classes go down the tube. That is what people meant by "muddying the sciences."

Religion has been attacking science since the days the Church burned books, printing presses, and tortured people over it. They can't get away with that in modern places like America so now they try to make Intelligent Design a science in an attempt to get their approved version of God into science classes.

The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts.

Brian
Grand Poobah of Moderation

Joined:
Location:
Posts:	4182
MyResume:
MyJob:
MyForum:
MyLove:
MyWish:
MyFile:
MyIntro:
MySex:
Status:	Online
MyPOTD:

Posted: 06:21 pm

Quote

Alert

foxglovepress wrote: 24HourNut wrote: foxglovepress wrote: So if Creation has areas that can be explained, or even proven, would you feel it should be given equal time in a science class?
I don't, because it is not science.

It's like saying let's discuss what we think air is made out of on a distant planet. Since the evidence is not complete or there are unanswered questions, should the class then spend time entertaining the "fairy dust" that some people think it is made out of? What about the people that say air everywhere is the Norse Gods' bad breath?

As for Creationism in a science or evolution class - do we give equal time to those that think the Universe started with the Devil creating it and God came along after the fact?

All that stuff is inappropriate for a science class and it just sucks people back toward archaic ways of looking at the world, and is inherently anti-scientific.

That is why we still have religous people thinking Noah filled the ark with slugs from other continents, dinosaurs and people roamed the Earth at the same time, the Earth is only 7k years old, the flood at New Orleans and previous large floods were God being angry, etc.

Because we don't know all the answers to how a flood started should the science class deal with "God being angry" as a reason? That's nuts, to me.

Frank, if a science class can't look into and try and get answerers as to what the air on another planet is, science as we know it, would die out! How do you think all the absolutes were discovered to begin with? I'm sure at the beginning of science, things that have been discovered, were never even thought of. Part OF the science class should be trying TO prove Creation. If in fact it can not be done, don't you think that alone is reason to probe into the two subjects?
I don't think Frank is saying we shouldn't look into things and try and get answers. I think what he's saying is, we need to do so based on data, rather than on vague imaginings.

But I also think you're off-base on one point, Frank: If creationism ever made a good prediction or proved to be the only explanation for a phenomenon, it would merit scientific study. The problem creationists have had so far has been, nothing they have ever pointed to can make any correct predictions, and naturalistic mechanisms have been found for the life we see around us.

Of course, the catch-22 of the situation is that if a creationist explanation is somehow demonstrated scientifically, what does that do to faith? The minute you prove a supernatural phenomenon as being real, doesn't that take it out of the realm of faith altogether?

"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last."

-- "A Long December", Counting Crows

foxglovepress
Forum-Blogger^©
Original500^© Member

NON-PC!!

Joined:
Location:	USA
Posts:	7855
MyResume:
MyJob:	Love my FAMILY, COUNTRY and Dogs!!
MyForum:	Politics- Religion- Open Tal
MyLove:	Family and ?
MyWish:	A government for WE THE PEOPLE!
MyFile:	[Download]
MyIntro:	[Download]
MySex:	On Hold for now.....
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 06:47 pm

Quote

Alert

Brian wrote: foxglovepress wrote: 24HourNut wrote: foxglovepress wrote: So if Creation has areas that can be explained, or even proven, would you feel it should be given equal time in a science class?
I don't, because it is not science.

It's like saying let's discuss what we think air is made out of on a distant planet. Since the evidence is not complete or there are unanswered questions, should the class then spend time entertaining the "fairy dust" that some people think it is made out of? What about the people that say air everywhere is the Norse Gods' bad breath?

As for Creationism in a science or evolution class - do we give equal time to those that think the Universe started with the Devil creating it and God came along after the fact?

All that stuff is inappropriate for a science class and it just sucks people back toward archaic ways of looking at the world, and is inherently anti-scientific.

That is why we still have religous people thinking Noah filled the ark with slugs from other continents, dinosaurs and people roamed the Earth at the same time, the Earth is only 7k years old, the flood at New Orleans and previous large floods were God being angry, etc.

Because we don't know all the answers to how a flood started should the science class deal with "God being angry" as a reason? That's nuts, to me.

Frank, if a science class can't look into and try and get answerers as to what the air on another planet is, science as we know it, would die out! How do you think all the absolutes were discovered to begin with? I'm sure at the beginning of science, things that have been discovered, were never even thought of. Part OF the science class should be trying TO prove Creation. If in fact it can not be done, don't you think that alone is reason to probe into the two subjects?
I don't think Frank is saying we shouldn't look into things and try and get answers. I think what he's saying is, we need to do so based on data, rather than on vague imaginings.

But I also think you're off-base on one point, Frank: If creationism ever made a good prediction or proved to be the only explanation for a phenomenon, it would merit scientific study. The problem creationists have had so far has been, nothing they have ever pointed to can make any correct predictions, and naturalistic mechanisms have been found for the life we see around us.

Of course, the catch-22 of the situation is that if a creationist explanation is somehow demonstrated scientifically, what does that do to faith? The minute you prove a supernatural phenomenon as being real, doesn't that take it out of the realm of faith altogether?

I understand what you both are saying, and agree...to a point! I'm waiting for JBF and Mud to get in here because they can address a couple of issues I'd like to address, but don't have the knowledge to. One being, didn't they find remnants of the Ark? I've heard off and on of a few "proofs" of Jesus and God's story, here on earth. I thought DNA said a lot to dismiss the theory of us coming form Apes. Am I wrong on that? I'm afraid on this subject, I know enough just to get myself in trouble, and not enough to get out! <heh>

Justice for Mark.....Imprison Employers Who Hire ILLEGALS!

Brian
Grand Poobah of Moderation

Joined:
Location:
Posts:	4182
MyResume:
MyJob:
MyForum:
MyLove:
MyWish:
MyFile:
MyIntro:
MySex:
Status:	Online
MyPOTD:

Posted: 07:01 pm

Quote

Alert

foxglovepress wrote: I understand what you both are saying, and agree...to a point! I'm waiting for JBF and Mud to get in here because they can address a couple of issues I'd like to address, but don't have the knowledge to. One being, didn't they find remnants of the Ark? I've heard off and on of a few "proofs" of Jesus and God's story, here on earth. I thought DNA said a lot to dismiss the theory of us coming form Apes. Am I wrong on that? I'm afraid on this subject, I know enough just to get myself in trouble, and not enough to get out! <heh>
Hi, Fox.

I can clear up some of that for you. ::thumbs::

1) It's pretty much impossible to find remnants of "the Ark". Even assuming you knew where to look (which isn't at all clear in this case, from the discussions I've hear/seen) How do you prove that the plank(s) of wood you found are from the Ark? It's not like it's going to have "S.S. Noah" printed somewhere on it. The most you'd be able to show is that you found a really large boat that dates back to the time of Noah (if that time period could be nailed down). It's like finding a piece of the "true cross".

2) Most of the "proofs" I've heard of the Jesus narrative rely on hearsay or on taking the Bible as the final authority. Hearsay (e.g., "There was a man named Jesus of Nazareth, who people say performed many miracles and rose from the dead.") is no good because the source of the hearsay can't verify its authenticity. (All they can say is that that's what they heard.) Josephus is an example of this. And of course, you can't prove one Bible story by citing another as evidence.

3) I'll have to look it up again, but I think what's been shown is that we're "cousins" of great apes, rather than descendants. If I recall correctly, they're our closest living relatives. We might be descended from a monkey or monkey-like creature, but that descendant isn't around today. You might be right though, that DNA tests disproved that we were descended from great apes. I just don't know if that was ever a working hypothesis that got disproven.

"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last."

-- "A Long December", Counting Crows

24HourNut
Administrator

Body pillows rock!

Joined:
Location:	Long Island
Posts:	4932
MyResume:
MyJob:	Forumite Torture
MyForum:	Say Hello
MyLove:	A quiet, empty house (never happens)
MyWish:	To obtain very cool mutant powers
MyFile:	[Download]
MyIntro:	[Download]
MySex:	Male heterosexual
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 07:02 pm

Quote

Alert

But I also think you're off-base on one point, Frank: If creationism ever made a good prediction or proved to be the only explanation for a phenomenon, it would merit scientific study. The problem creationists have had so far has been, nothing they have ever pointed to can make any correct predictions, and naturalistic mechanisms have been found for the life we see around us.
Hmm .. I'm not sure how I am off-base when that is my position as well. Earlier, I was not talking about possibilities or ifs, I was talking about what is science and what isn't. Just the possibility that Creationism will one day make a good prediction like that doesn't promote it to a science. It has to actually do it first. The purple people-eating tooth fairy could also possibly one day explain something science can't. Hell, ghosts can explain a lot science can't. Same for UFO abductions.

The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts.

Brian
Grand Poobah of Moderation

Joined:
Location:
Posts:	4182
MyResume:
MyJob:
MyForum:
MyLove:
MyWish:
MyFile:
MyIntro:
MySex:
Status:	Online
MyPOTD:

Posted: 07:21 pm

Quote

Alert

24HourNut wrote: But I also think you're off-base on one point, Frank: If creationism ever made a good prediction or proved to be the only explanation for a phenomenon, it would merit scientific study. The problem creationists have had so far has been, nothing they have ever pointed to can make any correct predictions, and naturalistic mechanisms have been found for the life we see around us.
Hmm .. I'm not sure how I am off-base when that is my position as well. Earlier, I was not talking about possibilities or ifs, I was talking about what is science and what isn't. Just the possibility that Creationism will one day make a good prediction like that doesn't promote it to a science. It has to actually do it first. The purple people-eating tooth fairy could also possibly one day explain something science can't. Hell, ghosts can explain a lot science can't. Same for UFO abductions.

Hi, Frank.

This was Fox's original question to you:

Foxglovepress wrote:So if Creation has areas that can be explained, or even proven, would you feel it should be given equal time in a science class?

Her question was predicated on an "if". I certainly agree that creationism can't be considered scientific if it doesn't have anything that can be explained or proven, but if it ever was able to make predictions or have some aspect of it proven empirically, that would make it scientific, right?

"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last."

-- "A Long December", Counting Crows

24HourNut
Administrator

Body pillows rock!

Joined:
Location:	Long Island
Posts:	4932
MyResume:
MyJob:	Forumite Torture
MyForum:	Say Hello
MyLove:	A quiet, empty house (never happens)
MyWish:	To obtain very cool mutant powers
MyFile:	[Download]
MyIntro:	[Download]
MySex:	Male heterosexual
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 08:00 pm

Quote

Alert

Brian, yes I agree, I took her differently for some reason. My bad!

The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts.

NON-PC!!

Joined:
Location:	USA
Posts:	7855
MyResume:
MyJob:	Love my FAMILY, COUNTRY and Dogs!!
MyForum:	Politics- Religion- Open Tal
MyLove:	Family and ?
MyWish:	A government for WE THE PEOPLE!
MyFile:	[Download]
MyIntro:	[Download]
MySex:	On Hold for now.....
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 08:38 pm

Quote

Alert

Brian wrote: foxglovepress wrote: I understand what you both are saying, and agree...to a point! I'm waiting for JBF and Mud to get in here because they can address a couple of issues I'd like to address, but don't have the knowledge to. One being, didn't they find remnants of the Ark? I've heard off and on of a few "proofs" of Jesus and God's story, here on earth. I thought DNA said a lot to dismiss the theory of us coming form Apes. Am I wrong on that? I'm afraid on this subject, I know enough just to get myself in trouble, and not enough to get out! <heh>
Hi, Fox.

I can clear up some of that for you. ::thumbs::

Justice for Mark.....Imprison Employers Who Hire ILLEGALS!

Brian
Grand Poobah of Moderation

Joined:
Location:
Posts:	4182
MyResume:
MyJob:
MyForum:
MyLove:
MyWish:
MyFile:
MyIntro:
MySex:
Status:	Online
MyPOTD:

Posted: 08:46 pm

Quote

Alert

foxglovepress wrote: Brian wrote: foxglovepress wrote: I understand what you both are saying, and agree...to a point! I'm waiting for JBF and Mud to get in here because they can address a couple of issues I'd like to address, but don't have the knowledge to. One being, didn't they find remnants of the Ark? I've heard off and on of a few "proofs" of Jesus and God's story, here on earth. I thought DNA said a lot to dismiss the theory of us coming form Apes. Am I wrong on that? I'm afraid on this subject, I know enough just to get myself in trouble, and not enough to get out! <heh>
Hi, Fox.

I can clear up some of that for you. ::thumbs::

He should be able to shed light on some of this. I have heard some of the proofs people try to use, but I don't want to get into those, if they're not what you had in mind.

"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last."

-- "A Long December", Counting Crows

NON-PC!!

Joined:
Location:	USA
Posts:	7855
MyResume:
MyJob:	Love my FAMILY, COUNTRY and Dogs!!
MyForum:	Politics- Religion- Open Tal
MyLove:	Family and ?
MyWish:	A government for WE THE PEOPLE!
MyFile:	[Download]
MyIntro:	[Download]
MySex:	On Hold for now.....
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 08:50 pm

Quote

Alert

24HourNut wrote: Brian, yes I agree, I took her differently for some reason. My bad!

Well it's confusing because I've actually talked of two ideas here. IF Creation had some proof, then shouldn't it be brought into the science class? The other idea is,

(Part OF the science class should be trying TO prove Creation. If in fact it can not be done, don't you think that alone is reason to probe into the two subjects?)

I think a science class designed TO prove Creation would be a good idea! I think this