UK bans teaching of creationism in any school which receives public funding

  • Thread starter Thread starter ringil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest2 said:
Yes. The body and brain are integrated systems. So let’s say an eye started growing but it needs a optical nerve which also has to develop and then a region of the brain to connect to, and get this: the brain needs to able to process this information so that you know what all those shapes, shadows and colors are, otherwise, you’ll die when you fall into that dark spot in the ground.

Ed
Click to expand...
Exactly. and it would have taken 100,000 generations of “chance” mutations that didn’t even allow a single sight to be seen before the eye would be fully integrated with the brain enough to be of any use.

…It would have been a long and seemingly useless process until it was ready. just like growing wings. A little flap is useless until several hundreds of generations later when its large enough to be used as a wing. But that’s not part of evolution, and the evolutionist / scientism community cannot face these kinds of questions.
 
TEPO said:
I’m sorry this must be so painful for you to explain. But say a small chance mutation occurs with a lizard, and he has a little flap growing under his arm. That doesn’t make him able to fly at all. So he reproduces and some of the offspring have flaps and others don’t… Why would the mutation go any farther than that??? Why would the flaps continue growing more and more and more until they were large enough to allow a lizard to fly?
Click to expand...
A development leading to such a big change - taking a non-flying lizard to a flying one - does not generally happen suddenly, in one generation. It takes a long long long long time…over many generations. One branch of a family may develop a family ‘trait’ in that it has slightly more skin under its arms than others. Some mutations have caused this to happen. Mr lizard with such arms meets miss lizard with similar trait maybe caused by a similar mutation or a series of different mutations which have a similar effect on her arms. Offspring can carry this trait on, and natural selection does it’s bit over the following many many generations and eventually, Bob’s yer uncle, and a subsequent lizard finds his fledgling arm flaps very useful in helping him jump off a rock without hurting himself. Fast forward natural selection and many generations and teeny mutations…and you have Flying Lizard!
Which flying lizard are we talking about?
I recommend Steve Jones’s books. He’s a biologist with a very much better way of explaining his subject than I!
 
TEPO said:
Exactly. and it would have taken 100,000 generations of “chance” mutations that didn’t even allow a single sight to be seen before the eye would be fully integrated with the brain enough to be of any use.

…It would have been a long and seemingly useless process until it was ready. just like growing wings. A little flap is useless until several hundreds of generations later when its large enough to be used as a wing. But that’s not part of evolution, and the evolutionist / scientism community cannot face these kinds of questions. They just storm off.
Click to expand...
Oh help…oh dear…
 
TEPO said:
I’m sorry this must be so painful for you to explain. But say a small chance mutation occurs with a lizard, and he has a little flap growing under his arm. That doesn’t make him able to fly at all. So he reproduces and some of the offspring have flaps and others don’t… Why would the mutation go any farther than that??? Why would the flaps continue growing more and more and more until they were large enough to allow a lizard to fly?
Click to expand...
It is not difficult to get a basic understanding of evolution.

But yes, it is painful to try and explain it to somebody with a closed mind, somebody who has already decided that evolution doesn’t cut it.
 
Kelt said:
A development leading to such a big change - taking a non-flying lizard to a flying one - does not generally happen suddenly, in one generation. It takes a long long long long time…over many generations. One branch of a family may develop a family ‘trait’ in that it has slightly more skin under its arms than others. Some mutations have caused this to happen. Mr lizard with such arms meets miss lizard with similar trait maybe caused by a similar mutation or a series of different mutations which have a similar effect on her arms. Offspring can carry this trait on, and natural selection does it’s bit over the following many many generations and eventually, Bob’s yer uncle, and a subsequent lizard finds his fledgling arm flaps very useful in helping him jump off a rock without hurting himself. Fast forward natural selection and many generations and teeny mutations…and you have Flying Lizard!
Which flying lizard are we talking about?
I recommend Steve Jones’s books. He’s a biologist with a very much better way of explaining his subject than I!
Click to expand...
last post today. Chance mutation of wings happened independently in 4 unrelated species. That cannot be random.

…Maybe once, maybe twice but definitely not 3 times… But 4 times? I’m not buying it.:cool:
 
edwest2 said:
Yes. The body and brain are integrated systems. So let’s say an eye started growing but it needs a optical nerve which also has to develop and then a region of the brain to connect to, and get this: the brain needs to able to process this information so that you know what all those shapes, shadows and colors are, otherwise, you’ll die when you fall into that dark spot in the ground.

Ed
Click to expand...
Aaaaaargh! An ‘eye’ doesn’t ‘start growing’…without an optical nerve…and then find a part of the brain… Oh no wonder it doesn’t make sense to you…you’ve got it all arse backwards…to put it bluntly!!
 
Kelt said:
…
I recommend Steve Jones’s books. He’s a biologist with a very much better way of explaining his subject than I!
Click to expand...
There are hundreds of good books written for the layperson.

I particularly recommend Kenneth Miller’s books: “Finding Darwin’s God” and “Only a Theory”.
Easy to read for a non-scientist, but he goes quite in-depth into the scientific and philosophical aspects of evolution. At the same time he shows how compatible evolution is with Christian faith.
 
**
edwest2 said:
Name one thing “evolutionary biology” is useful for in the present.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Is that the criteria by which learning is given merit?

Man’s capacity to investigate and learn and gain understanding is intrinsically good.
 
TEPO said:
That’s a good point. But we have to be careful with this kind of talk or we might be branded with the stigma. The scientism community is warming their brands as we speak.
Click to expand...
The scientism community? What’s that?
 
TEPO said:
Here’s another one… How did some dinosaurs grow wings and fly while others walked on 4 legs while yet others like t-Rex walked on two legs and yet others were swimmers? Yet at the same time other animals were flying, swimming, walking on 2 and 4 legs at the same time, yet none of these animals related to each other?

…seems like animal life has a “set” range of abilities.
Or it could just be chance… 🤷

After all , it’s been said that multiple species were sprouting eyes around the same time.

And other animals that weren’t related have been known to be extra-large during certain times , like the sabertooth tiger, dire wolf , wooly mammoth, etc.
Click to expand...
A couple of posts ago you told us that you “believe” in evolution.
Can you please make up your mind and not waste our time here.
 
edwest2 said:
Regarding your last statement, being an obviously intelligent person, I think you know precisely what I mean. I am not being accusatory, simply stating what I’ve learned from long study of the subject and knowing the “steps” involved to implement it.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I am obviously not intelligent enough to understand your explanations under the title “propaganda 101”. I honestly tried.

But for the life of me I can’t figure out a connection between evolution, science and theistic evolution and “propaganda”. Could you please enlighten me.
 
TEPO said:
I’m sorry this must be so painful for you to explain. But say a small chance mutation occurs with a lizard, and he has a little flap growing under his arm. That doesn’t make him able to fly at all. So he reproduces and some of the offspring have flaps and others don’t… Why would the mutation go any farther than that??? Why would the flaps continue growing more and more and more until they were large enough to allow a lizard to fly?
Click to expand...
Excellent question. Many missing parts of the process exist, followed by assumptions. It seems to me that if a particular event in the past went differently, we would all look like lizard people. If you read the technical literature, it is obvious that pathways are assumed to exist that gradually got an organism to get from point A to point B, over a very long time. As I understand it, multiple systems are in play. You don’t get a flap that turns into a wing and then go to lizard flying school. It better be hard-wired into that brain. All the gliding, landing, dealing with wind currents, dodging obstacles/enemy flyers, etc.

Peace,
Ed
 
Hans_W said:
The scientism community? What’s that?
Click to expand...
One of the core tenants, and unifying doctrines, of the Enlightenment is the rejection of Formal and Final Causality. Alongside the Aristotelian-Scholastic Philosophy that preceded it. The language which I was using would of greatly implied the reality of Final Causation, as well as Formal Causation. These would be two doctrines that naturalism would attempt to refute, although that is becoming increasingly unlikely. As there has been attempts to formalise finality into a naturalist system, thus causing an abandonment of the epistemology held by those that would ascribe to a form of scientism.

Scientism used in the formal sense that I defined earlier
 
TEPO said:
last post today. Chance mutation of wings happened independently in 4 unrelated species. That cannot be random.

…Maybe once, maybe twice but definitely not 3 times… But 4 times? I’m not buying it.:cool:
Click to expand...
Let’s expand on that a bit. Your body plan has to have a muscular/skeletal system that allows for good movement in a one atmosphere environment, you have to be able to breathe an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere, some of the plants and animals around you have to be edible or you starve, and you have to be able to interpret sensory information correctly through sight, hearing, antennae or other.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Let’s expand on that a bit. Your body plan has to have a muscular/skeletal system that allows for good movement in a one atmosphere environment, you have to be able to breathe an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere, some of the plants and animals around you have to be edible or you starve, and you have to be able to interpret sensory information correctly through sight, hearing, antennae or other.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I’m hoping you two know you agree right?

Rather than “chance” mutations, you are both implying “ordered” mutations. As in they are acting for an end, which would ascertain the reality of teleology. This would actually contradict a core premise of naturalist philosophy 😉
 
Hans_W said:
I am obviously not intelligent enough to understand your explanations under the title “propaganda 101”. I honestly tried.

But for the life of me I can’t figure out a connection between evolution, science and theistic evolution and “propaganda”. Could you please enlighten me.
Click to expand...
Sure. The evidence I’ve read here and on other forums promotes a belief in evolution regardless if you understand it or not. The evidence shows that saying yes is the only option. Otherwise, threads like this appear constantly. That’s propaganda which is designed to change the beliefs of the target group. In this case, anyone who questions the theory. What does the Church have to say about quantum entanglement, nanotechnology or dark matter? Doesn’t matter. Only human origins does.

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top