Darwinism in schools?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tigress
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Johnny and Buffalo, you seem to be so hung up on talking about how diverse and complicated life is. You are right, it is quite amazing and that is one of the beauties of evolution. To have come this far with everything that life has accomplished. The earth is about 6 billion years old. It may seem hard for you to imagine, but we have had plenty of time to evolve.
 
buffalo said:
Adaptations do not rise to the level of macro-evolution.
Click to expand...
False because macro-evolution is an imaginary concept.

And yes, I read the article you cited in post #210. Like you, the author is blathering on with no real grasp of the concepts he is talking about and not presenting any real, coherent, logic-based reasoning. He can claim it untenable all he wants, but without evidence, it’s just empty words.
 
edwest2 said:
“wondrous act of God” is not supported by any scientific document.
Click to expand...
Of course not. When I said that I was not speaking as a scientist. I was speaking as a regular person with opinions and feelings about things. And I think many others will also share my feelings that contemplating evolution can be an spiritually uplifting experience. But if you don’t happen to feel that way about it that is OK too.
Science is conducted by men and men have biases, which, if they are leading scientists, they pass along to their students. That was abundantly clear in the link I provided to the article that appeared in Nature. I believe I have found the truth and clear evidence of bias at least among leading scientists. I used to trust science and scientists more. I trust science less today…
Click to expand...
So what do you trust to “correctly” answer the questions that science attempts to answer? If I am to defend science I should at least know what you think the best competition is.
 
Farsight001 said:
People who understand evolution.

Doesn’t change their research or the information discovered from them.

When your mind is closed to other possibilities, not even God himself can provide something that is convincing. Your unwillingness to see what is right before you doesn’t change reality.

Why do you capitalize abruptly like it is important? Oh…that’s right, you don’t understand evolution, so you remain under the delusion that abrupt appearance is somehow a problem.

Not entirely. Some would argue that it didn’t have wings, as it could not flap them and actually fly, but only glide.

And? You are oversimplifying things to about 5 powers of ten. The fact that some reptiles do not have teeth is quite irrelevant, especially since archaeopteryx came from dinosaurs, which were not reptiles, and became birds, which are also not reptiles. The comparison is utterly pointless.

Which ones didn’t have teeth? And just so we’re clear, I ask this only out of curiosity. It doesn’t really change things.

Once again, a gigantic oversimplification of things. Technically, people have claws too - that’s what finger nails are. How is this relevant?

This is also quite irrelevant. Fully functional in what regard? Feathers insulate, they assist in gliding, in flight, in keeping water out, and multiple other things. You need to elaborate on what you mean by fully functional.

Yes, yes there is. There are piles of papers and books on the subject. At least look for something before you claim it doesn’t exist.
Click to expand...
Books and papers and papers and books. All from the same academia that support your view. Parroted quasi science. My mind is OPEN to the scriptures. God made a man not a sub species. If it helps, fully developed and functional. If wings are fully developed they are functional. Were they broken? Inspection of the fossil feathers by electron microscope has even revealed the thousands of zip fasteners (barbs and barbules) which allow invisible mending to take place during preening. When you hope to find crude feathers evolving from reptilian scales, it’s a big disappointment.

Fully functional. The long bones were completely hollow. Various features including lack of air sacs in particular bones have lead some to the conclusion that Archaeopteryx was aquatic. Archaeopteryx did have a breastbone that was shallow, but some living birds also have very small breastbones. How about the robust furcula which was evidential that it was a strong flier, and therefore was a bird. It wasn’t some unfinished transitional dinosaur evolving into a bird.
 
Strange how very common it is to “hear” how great the evolutionary theory is and how much evidence is supposedly in favor of it. A lot like the typical atheist who has it bred into them to speak haughtily and treat anything against them with laughter, even though if they had one proven concept they would have it in their hands to throw it in their faces instead.

I would much prefer to hear any concrete evidence than be treated like a fool because I don’t take a very shaky unproven theory as “absolute truth, don’t question it, nonono!”

Darwinism should be taught in it’s own school outside of state fund. It begs the question in the first place what the point of public schools really is.
 
johnnyjones said:
Books and papers and papers and books. All from the same academia that support your view. Parroted quasi science. My mind is OPEN to the scriptures. God made a man not a sub species. If it helps, fully developed and functional. If wings are fully developed they are functional. Were they broken? Inspection of the fossil feathers by electron microscope has even revealed the thousands of zip fasteners (barbs and barbules) which allow invisible mending to take place during preening. When you hope to find crude feathers evolving from reptilian scales, it’s a big disappointment.

Fully functional. The long bones were completely hollow. Various features including lack of air sacs in particular bones have lead some to the conclusion that Archaeopteryx was aquatic. Archaeopteryx did have a breastbone that was shallow, but some living birds also have very small breastbones. How about the robust furcula which was evidential that it was a strong flier, and therefore was a bird. It wasn’t some unfinished transitional dinosaur evolving into a bird.
Click to expand...
It’s great that your mind is open to the scriptures. My mind is open to scriptures as well, but scriptures is not the subject we are talking about. Please address the issues. I have little patience for diverts like that. You have, for example, still not explained what you mean by “fully functional”.
 
rossum said:
You really do have a problem here. Your lack of relevant knowledge is leading you into error. We have many fossils of feathered dinosaurs. Once again, your creationist sources are lying to you. I strongly suggest that you find better sources, that will not mislead you.

Here is an illustration:

http://blogs.discovery.com/.a/6a00d8341bf67c53ef014e8742250d970d-800wi

Sinornithosaurus

That is a non-avian dinosaur, with feathers.

rossum
Click to expand...
“Feathers were not preserved” from the ever reliable Wikipedia;), . Why did you say “with feathers” in your post? Then here come the creative words,“it is likely”’ Another supposition and creative sketch.
 
Darran said:
Strange how very common it is to “hear” how great the evolutionary theory is and how much evidence is supposedly in favor of it. A lot like the typical atheist who has it bred into them to speak haughtily and treat anything against them with laughter, even though if they had one proven concept they would have it in their hands to throw it in their faces instead.

I would much prefer to hear any concrete evidence than be treated like a fool because I don’t take a very shaky unproven theory as “absolute truth, don’t question it, nonono!”

Darwinism should be taught in it’s own school outside of state fund. It begs the question in the first place what the point of public schools really is.
Click to expand...
The library down the street from me has a room the size of a small house filled with studies on evolution, floor to ceiling, with dozens of shelves filling the entire room. And it’s one of the SMALL ones. So stop talking like evidence for evolution is paltry and weak.

It’s not a matter of not questioning it. It’s a matter of doing it properly, and understanding it first. I see a great analogy between anti-Catholicism and rejection of evolution. Anti-Catholics blather on and on about how we worship Mary and pray to the pope and aren’t allowed to read the bible, and when we explain otherwise, even with documentation, we are maligned and ignored and we get frustrated due to their attitude, not their disagreement. We’ve all conversed about theology with a non-Catholic who respectfully disagreed. It was a refreshing experience, right? Evolutionary biologists get the same ignorant treatment from adamant creationists - not really understanding the issue, and being ignored and maligned when trying to clarify. If you guys actually cared to understand what evolution really was, there would be no problem.
 
johnnyjones said:
“Feathers were not preserved” from the ever reliable Wikipedia;), . Why did you say “with feathers” in your post? Then here come the creative words,“it is likely”’ Another supposition and creative sketch.
Click to expand...
You should probably have read the bottom link instead of just the wikipedia link, but thank you for the case in point of the behavior of anti-evolutionists that I spoke of in my previous post.
 
johnnyjones said:
Intelligent design should be taught next to Darwinism. Evolution is not fact. So, whats wrong with teaching another supposed non factual “theory”.
Click to expand...
in science, theories are explanations for phenomena observed. that life evolves is presumed true. it is presumed that life changes to form new species over long periods of time–the theory is in how this is accomplished, the mechanism behind the facts observed. intelligent design doesnt fit this paradigm. you would first need to demonstrate that things are designed; then there could be an intelligent design theory, where scientists try to explain how things are designed, the mechanisms behind the process of creation.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Of course not. When I said that I was not speaking as a scientist. I was speaking as a regular person with opinions and feelings about things. And I think many others will also share my feelings that contemplating evolution can be an spiritually uplifting experience. But if you don’t happen to feel that way about it that is OK too.

So what do you trust to “correctly” answer the questions that science attempts to answer? If I am to defend science I should at least know what you think the best competition is.
Click to expand...
Public opinion is a common phrase used by the media and professional pollsters to find out what the population of a country thinks. How is ‘public opinion’ shaped and why does it matter? It matters because if the vast majority of the public thinks something is wrong or untrue, those who think otherwise may, if they wish, adopt methods of persuasion to help change public opinion so that it comes into line with their views.

I don’t understand what could possibly be “spiritually uplifting” about contemplating this. From the National Academy of Sciences site:

nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876#description

For those who advocate keeping certain ideas out of our schools:

evolutionnews.org/2005/10/lawsuit_says_national_science_foundation001072.html

I’m just one guy. I only get one vote in the voting booth:) Here are the foundational principles. First, Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII:

"36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

Why was Jesus born? Who was Adam?

Second, this is echoed and affirmed in Communion and Stewardship, a document prepared by the International Theological Commission and approved for publication by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004.

“In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith.”

If you want to defend science and you want my (name removed by moderator)ut, you need to answer a basic scientific question: is it readily apparent that the Darwinism currently taught in schools is a completely sufficient explanation for the development of life on earth? One that requires no supernatural intervention of any kind?

That’s the crux of the debate.

Peace,
Ed
 
hazmat said:
in science, theories are explanations for phenomena observed. that life evolves is presumed true. it is presumed that life changes to form new species over long periods of time–the theory is in how this is accomplished, the mechanism behind the facts observed. intelligent design doesnt fit this paradigm. you would first need to demonstrate that things are designed; then there could be an intelligent design theory, where scientists try to explain how things are designed, the mechanisms behind the process of creation.
Click to expand...
Observed?
 
johnnyjones said:
Your right, I’m not perfect. Try this link. Can it all be disproved?
creation.com/feathery-flight-of-fancy
Click to expand...
So you pick a creationist website that refers to one paleontologist who is a complete loner in his perspective?

The way I see it, you’re only shooting yourself in the foot. First of all, he’s one of the only paleontologists with this view. Second of all, his view is about this one fossil, and does not apply to the hundreds of others with clear and obvious feathers. Third of all, this man, despite his minority view, retains the respect of the scientific community! Why do you think that is? Could it be because he actually understands evolution and actually understands the issues at hand? It becomes a little silly for creationists to claim that they are being silenced because of their views when scientists like him are around and not being silenced.
 
PumpkinSeed said:
Johnny and Buffalo, you seem to be so hung up on talking about how diverse and complicated life is. You are right, it is quite amazing and that is one of the beauties of evolution. To have come this far with everything that life has accomplished. The earth is about 6 billion years old. It may seem hard for you to imagine, but we have had plenty of time to evolve.
Click to expand...
Where was all that dust on the moon evolution scientists prepared the lunar lander for ? It was all based on the BILLIONS of years old concept. 50 to 180 feet and even higher was the estimate… Sinking deep into the dust was one of the astronauts greatest fears .Whew, “science” really came through. 😉
 
ASimon said:
I’m fine with public schools teaching ID alongside evolution.

Just so long as Sunday School and religion classes teach evolution alongside ID.

Hey, equal time means equal time, folks.
Click to expand...
No…Religious Education classes are optional and private by nature, and thus can teach what they want.

Re: Evolution:
  1. Whether you believe it or not, it does not disprove the existence of God.
  2. There is a ton of problems with Evolutionary Theory on a scientific basis. Author Lee Strobel outlines a bunch of these well in Case for a Creator.
 
johnnyjones said:
Where was all that dust on the moon evolution scientists prepared the lunar lander for ? It was all based on the BILLIONS of years old concept. 50 to 180 feet and even higher was the estimate… Sinking deep into the dust was one of the astronauts greatest fears .Whew, “science” really came through. 😉
Click to expand...
Actually, that was one estimate by one man that was already obsolete when they landed on the moon. The guy’s math was wrong, plain and simple, and he even admitted that he was probably overestimating. So much dust was never actually expected. The claim that astronauts were worried about sinking is just plain made up. There is no historical documentation supporting such a claim. The creationists just plain lied about it. So much for their Christian integrity.
 
bscastro said:
.
2) There is a ton of problems with Evolutionary Theory on a scientific basis. Author Lee Strobel outlines a bunch of these well in Case for a Creator.
Click to expand...
He really doesn’t. He re-hashed the same decades-old lines that I had heard hundreds of times before. I didn’t bother reading the rest of the book because of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top