Creation vs. Evolution II

[6days]

*And this is where the confusion comes from. You claim you don't want creationism taught in science classes, but you also claim you want teachers to "discuss" creationist talking points.

You essentially told gc he was making strawman arguments...and now you repeat them. *I will try defend what I really said ... not your strawmen arguments.

 

[Jose Fly]

You essentially told gc he was making strawman arguments...and now you repeat them. *I will try defend what I really said ... not your strawmen arguments.

Wow...there really is something fundamentally wrong with you.

I said "You claim you don't want creationism taught in science classes".

Your post #985: "Nobody said anything about teaching Biblical accounts."

Your post #995: "I objected to your strawman argument about teaching Biblical accounts in a science class."

Your post #998: "I said above that nobody wants creationism taught in public schools."

So the record shows that you have repeatedly claimed to not want creationism taught in science classes, exactly as I characterized.

I also said "you also claim you want teachers to "discuss" creationist talking points"(specifically, claims about "design").

Your post #951: "What many Christians would like though is that teachers and students have the academic freedom to discuss competing theories....the freedom to discuss strengths and weaknesses of TOE...etc".

Your post #983: "I did say that a teacher or a student should have the freedom to discuss competing ideas."

So again, the record clearly shows that you have been advocating for teachers to able to "discuss competing ideas", i.e., creationist talking points.

Now the only question is whether you have a short-term memory problem, are lying again, or just yell "straw man" whenever you can't counter someone's post.

 

[6days]

*you also claim you want teachers to "discuss creationist talking points.

Its a strawman Jose. You try to reframe what I said in order to make an argument you think you can handle.

I didn't say I want teachers to discuss....
I did however say I want teachers to teach the curiculum. And I said a *teacher or a student should have the freedom to discuss competing ideas.

I gave an example and a link to an article from today. *The claim was that our universe might have come from hypothetical dark stars....which came from hypothetical dark matter..... which is not explained where that came from. Any teacher could discuss it. Some might say it was nonsense...some might say it is feasible...while others might say they don't know.
Thats all cool isn't it?

So why does it frighten you that a teacher might discuss a statement from an atheist scientist, saying 'it has the appearance of design, but it isn't designed'. Why does it seem to rattle you that a classroom might discuss ideas from evolutionary biologists as to how information was created? *Would it feel like someone has peed in your fruitloops if a teacher discussed a recent secular article saying the speed of light may have been trillions of times faster at the dawn of the universe? Would your world crumble if a classroom discussed an article from Discover magazine saying 'Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory'?

Are you thinking that thought police are a good idea?
What are you afraid of.... *that someone might think for themselves?

 

[Arthur Brain]

The problem could be the nut that operates it.


Actually.... maybe you or someone can help me. I do most of this stuff on my phone. I have had the (*) problem off and on for a couple years, and through 2 different phones.*


What I usually do is copy the post I want to reply to, then I paste it in email and make my reply there, before I copy/ paste it back in TOL. *Its easier to save something that way since I'm away a few hours at a time.*


When I do post it back in TOL there is often lots of astericks both in my comments and in yours, or whoever I'm replying to. I usually then try do an edit to delete them...not always easy on this Samsung.*


Suggestions? Thanks.

Ah, can't help with that one I'm afraid, I'm not great where it comes to phones myself and couldn't use one to post on the forum, I think I'd end up kicking it across the room out of frustration...

Hopefully someone else can assist.

 

[redfern]

Its a strawman Jose. You try to reframe what I said in order to make an argument you think you can handle.

I didn't say I want teachers to discuss....

...discuss[/i] competing ideas.

...someone might think for themselves?

I am not seeing anything new in this “Teach The Controversy” rant that 6days is on. For those of us who are afflicted with living in the land of Christian fanaticism (aka, the “US”), 6day’s approach is not much different than was used over a decade ago in Dover, PA. There, just as here, the pretense was just that it was just an impartial desire for full disclosure in the classroom. But when it finally ended up in a courtroom, and the religious fanatics were not allowed to hide their real motives behind “that’s just a strawman” type dodges, then the real religious motivation was exposed.

Several times 6days has ridiculed (“strawman”, “strawman”, “strawman”) mentions of him actually wanting some Christian creationist beliefs that are not compatible with mainstream science discussed as competing ideas. So, I did a quick review, and in the posts just in this new iteration of the Creation vs Evolution thread, I have found 18 posts in which he says that following scientific evidence will lead to the possibility of an intelligent designer for creation, and of those 18, about half of them specifically identified the God of the Bible as that entity. Just like the “Of Panda’s and People” fiasco in Dover, looking behind the Creationists’ impartial veneer revealed a starkly religious motivation.

 

[6days]

*am not seeing anything new in this “Teach The Controversy” rant that 6days is on.

How about you quote what was really said, instead of more strawmen? *

*

Several times 6days has ridiculed (“strawman”, “strawman”, “strawman”) mentions of him actually wanting some Christian creationist beliefs that are not compatible with mainstream science discussed as competing ideas.

*

I gave an example from an article just today. It is not a mainstream idea. *Are you suggesting such ideas are taboo in a classroom ?*

 

[Jose Fly]

I didn't say I want teachers to discuss....
I did however say I want teachers to teach the curiculum. And I said a *teacher or a student should have the freedom to discuss competing ideas.

So your position is that teachers should have the "freedom to discuss" whatever they feel like in science class. If teacher A wants to "discuss" the creationist talking point of "appearance of design", that's just fine. And if teacher B wants to "discuss" the idea that the sun orbits a stationary earth, that's just fine too. And if teacher B wants to "discuss" the idea of astrology being a valid scientific methodology, that's just fine too.

Or were you thinking this "freedom" should only be for the talking points you want students to hear, and no one else's?

I gave an example and a link to an article from today. *The claim was that our universe might have come from hypothetical dark stars....which came from hypothetical dark matter..... which is not explained where that came from. Any teacher could discuss it. Some might say it was nonsense...some might say it is feasible...while others might say they don't know.
Thats all cool isn't it?

Let's look at the article.

It describes the ongoing research of Dr. Katherine Freese, a professor of theoretical physics at the University of Michigan. As the article notes, her work is what "led to the building of underground particle accelerators around Earth, such as the machines at Cern in Europe". It then goes on to describe the particles she's looking for, why they're looking for them, and how they are going about it. It also talks about the upcoming James Webb telescope and how, "It could signal an end to one of the most challenging quests in modern science. Scientists have been trying to solve the problem of dark matter since the 1930s, but that there were hints to their possible existence even before that."

IOW, this is very high-profile, long-running, and productive research being carried out by some of the leaders in the field of theoretical physics and dark matter. So yes, a good science teacher has every reason to "discuss" this in class.

So why does it frighten you that a teacher might discuss a statement from an atheist scientist, saying 'it has the appearance of design, but it isn't designed'.

And now we see the sleight of hand you're trying to pull. You're basically trying to equate very high-profile, long-running, and productive research being carried out by some of the leaders in the field of theoretical physics and dark matter.....with a quote. And from that dishonest false equivalence, you try and argue that since teachers have the "freedom to discuss" the dark matter research, they should also have the "freedom to discuss" this quote that you think plays to your creationist beliefs.

Why does it seem to rattle you that a classroom might discuss ideas from evolutionary biologists as to how information was created?

No one said they shouldn't.

*Would it feel like someone has peed in your fruitloops if a teacher discussed a recent secular article saying the speed of light may have been trillions of times faster at the dawn of the universe? Would your world crumble if a classroom discussed an article from Discover magazine saying 'Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory'?

Stop trying to act like you're merely in this out of a sense of freedom and fair play. It's more than obvious to everyone here that your goal is to find some way to get creationist talking points into science classes. Not only are you lying, you're insulting the intelligence of everyone here who you think doesn't see through the charade.

Are you thinking that thought police are a good idea?
What are you afraid of.... *that someone might think for themselves?

Funny how in an effort to sneak your creationist talking points into science classes, you end up advocating for an "anything goes" approach to education, where whatever any teacher believes or thinks, they should have the "freedom to discuss" it.

Of course then you'll say "that's a straw man" and argue that you never advocated for such an "anything goes" approach. But then....you must be advocating for some level of oversight and control over what science teachers can and can't "discuss". So why is your level of oversight and control just fine, but mine is "the thought police"? If you limit a teacher's ability to "discuss" geocentrism, well....what are you afraid of? Why do you want the thought police to control everything?

Don't worry, I don't expect you to answer. We all know what's going on. You want teachers to have the "freedom to discuss" your crackpot fringe beliefs, but not anyone else's. IOW, you want exclusive, special privileges.

 

[Jose Fly]

I am not seeing anything new in this “Teach The Controversy” rant that 6days is on. For those of us who are afflicted with living in the land of Christian fanaticism (aka, the “US”), 6day’s approach is not much different than was used over a decade ago in Dover, PA. There, just as here, the pretense was just that it was just an impartial desire for full disclosure in the classroom. But when it finally ended up in a courtroom, and the religious fanatics were not allowed to hide their real motives behind “that’s just a strawman” type dodges, then the real religious motivation was exposed.

Exactly. As soon as creationists find themselves in an arena where they have to answer questions and explain themselves, and can't hide behind mined quotes and hand-waving, they're exposed as the religious crusaders they truly are.

Several times 6days has ridiculed (“strawman”, “strawman”, “strawman”) mentions of him actually wanting some Christian creationist beliefs that are not compatible with mainstream science discussed as competing ideas. So, I did a quick review, and in the posts just in this new iteration of the Creation vs Evolution thread, I have found 18 posts in which he says that following scientific evidence will lead to the possibility of an intelligent designer for creation, and of those 18, about half of them specifically identified the God of the Bible as that entity. Just like the “Of Panda’s and People” fiasco in Dover, looking behind the Creationists’ impartial veneer revealed a starkly religious motivation.

Doesn't take much, does it? That is one of the few good things about creationists....give them enough time and eventually they revert back to preaching, thereby giving up the con.

 

[redfern]

How about you quote what was really said, instead of more strawmen? *

*

I gave an example from an article just today. It is not a mainstream idea. *Are you suggesting such ideas are taboo in a classroom ?*

I know I posted my last message as a response to a post you made, but that was purely because it fit well under what you had posted. I had no expectation that you would admit to the correctness of the point I was making, and so my message was really for anyone else with an interest in this exchange to read and comment on. You may certainly pooh-pooh, ignore it, or treat it with whatever level of disdain or praise you feel appropriate.

 

[redfern]

… students do better when they taught how to think, as opposed to being told what to think.

You have a valid point. From infancy I was told by family members, priests, neighbors, friends, and sometimes even school teachers that a lady got turned into a pillar of salt, and that some guy lived inside a fish for a few days, and that animals talk, and … rivers to blood … and sticks into snakes … etc. Just like you say, they too told me those were honest and factual true accounts. You know – I was told what to think about these rather strange stories. Early on, I had some other similar stories repeated to me – about a jolly fat red dude who landed on our roof on Christmas eve, about a fairy that left money in place of my tooth that came out, and bunnies that hide Easter eggs. As I got older, as my suspicions grew about the reality of Santa, I was gently informed that it was really just a story to make me happy as a child, and kinda the same thing about the tooth and the Easter eggs. But no doubt about the reality of the far more incredulous Old Testament stories was permitted – those stories were factual, period.

But then something happened. I started to think – how to think, not what to think. But my thinking wasn’t that of a child having to leave childhood behind, it was of a young scientist who finally decided that some of what I had been told to think was far less likely to be true than the childish stories I had grown out of years before. I had to decide whether to succumb - like you have shown - that moving away from what you think about some Biblical accounts to the far more important and risky step of moving to the how to think about them. So I (mentally) laid the evidence on the table. I understood, had used, had taught, and had verified a number of pertinent fundamental ideas in science. On the religious side, I had a collection of ancient creation tales, of dubious origin, from a scientifically ignorant iron-age nomadic culture, that mocked some of the scientific principles that I was successfully using every day in my work.

Gotta agree with you – what to think about the truthfulness of religious myths is not nearly as important as having the personal integrity to break with tradition and even part company with former friends and colleagues if needed as a result of independent thought.

 

[6days]

*So your position is that teachers should have the "freedom to discuss" whatever they feel like in science class.

Sure..... anything pertaining to the topic. I already said, teachers should teach the cirriculum. And...they should be judged on how well the students do.*

And if teacher B wants to "discuss" the idea that the sun orbits a stationary earth, that's just fine too. ..

Sure! And if a student wants to argue that the earth is *flat... go for it. The teacher should have the academic freedom to say... We can't talk about that.....or, thats off topic...or, you are a doofus....or, lets look and see if there is evidence for, or against that...or, whatever. The teacher of course could not teach that the earth is flat... but should be allowed to discuss it if it came up.

You want to know something Jose? The students who were taught how to think and explore an idea will do better than the students simply told what to think Maybe that has something to do with why home schooled students score higher in college entrance exams than those in public school?

(re. article)
IOW, this is very high-profile, long-running, and productive research being carried out by some of the leaders in the field of theoretical physics and dark matter. So yes, a good science teacher has every reason to "discuss" this in class.

We agree. Even though there is many different scenarios of how the universe began, and disagreement amongst scholars, *teachers should have the freedom to discuss ideas...even this one, depending on unproven hypothetical ideas that other scientists disagree with. *It's even ok to discuss dorky ideas such as some Dawkins has mentioned such as aliens seeding life on earth.

Would it feel like someone has peed in your fruitloops if a teacher discussed a recent secular article saying the speed of light may have been trillions of times faster at the dawn of the universe? Would your world crumble if a classroom discussed an article from Discover magazine saying 'Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory'?

Stop trying to act like you're merely in this out of a sense of freedom and fair play.

Your non answer shows you have no answer. Suddenly it seems there are viewpoints from secular scientists that can't be discussed?

We all know what's going on. You want teachers to have the "freedom to discuss"*yourcrackpot fringe beliefs, but not anyone else's.

I DO want teachers and students to have the freedom to discuss your crackpot beliefs (or Shermers...or Sanfords...or Darwins....or Newton....or Pasteur...or Horner...etc) ...if its related to the topic being taught. Why are you afraid of students being allowed to critically examine all the evidence and ideas?

 

[Lon]

Hey, whaddya know....Lon gets it! Yes, you do have to first establish your premises as true. And just a tip....simply saying "It's true, I know it" is not how you do that.

You are the one that doesn't look at proofs and proof sets. Let me say this again: You CANNOT rule out intelligence and purpose as part of your existence and this universe. In fact, you HAVE to recognize both as necessarily existent AND in some form or another, like water, were pre-existent before you got here. Proof? These are the easy ones. It is as easy and simple as this: You cannot have two apples without one apple and another apple. It sounds like it is silly because it isn't that hard. Principles of the identity of the universe cannot be argued against. In a nutshell, being an atheist is literally denying 1+1 equals something.

Since you absolutely refused to say what you mean by "creation", your above statement is meaningless.

By someone that used the term himself :noway: What did you mean by it.

What did God look like? What did God sound like? Did you touch God?

Let's start here: Can you 'touch' two plus two equals four? Yes/no? (No) Second: Is 'four' real non-the-less? (yes)

What does it matter? Is there a time limit? Why would God behave so irrationally?

He or you? We had a guy on here that became an atheist because God didn't uphold the Twin Towers until all police and firemen came out safe. To me? His denial of God's existence based on how a god ought to behave isn't rational for the denial.

Other people tell me, with as much conviction and sincerity as you, that they've had divine revelations about Mormonism being the one true path, about Islam being the one true path, and about Buddhism being the one true path.

People hold to their life purposes. Even a Buddhist can be a deist, however.

Why should I believe you over them?

It may well be you are a deist too, so I don't know enough to meaningfully address this query. If you are a deist, it is a good place to start. If you are an atheist, that goal-post is much further back. Tell me just a bit about your belief, if this was asked in sincerity and not just an aversion side-step (not really able to tell when you are sincere and when you are not here on TOL).

 

[6days]

*You know – I was told*what*to think about these rather strange stories. Early on, I had some other similar stories repeated to me –*

*

You and I don't often agree. However, I think we agree on this. Parents must teach their kids how to think. Too often I see Christian parents and pastors give really dumb answers to good questions kids have.

Ex. Why did God let my dog die? Why won't God heal Gramma? If Jesus is God, why couldn't He come off the cross? *etc

 

[redfern]

You and I don't often agree. However, I think we agree on this. Parents must teach their kids how to think. Too often I see Christian parents and pastors give really dumb answers to good questions kids have.

Ex. Why did God let my dog die? Why won't God heal Gramma? If Jesus is God, why couldn't He come off the cross? etc

What is even more interesting is what you got out of what I wrote. To borrow a phrase from a recent poster, in my comments I peed in your fruitloops, you ate them, and now you are telling everyone we both like fruitloops.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Thanks Michael Freelight is a very intelligent, sincere person with a broad vocabulary. He's well versed in many beliefs and teachings. He likes some of the UB and labors to carry that message as well as other philosophies. I'm motivated by the UB as well as a desire to reform old beliefs which are a block for people coming to Jesus today. I believe that God created the life that evolved according to his plan. Other believe all life was created at the same time in 6 days a very short time ago.

Dear Caino,

Thank you for your feedback. I guess I should have done this a long time ago. I'm very surprised. I know you own the thread, but when I go there, it has all of freelight's workings on it. Language that is hard to understand and too intricately woven. You are way different. I'm so sorry that I misunderstood you. I've got to tell you though, Jesus mentioned stuff in Genesis as if it were fact, and that is because it is fact. For us to think differently is really calling Jesus a liar. Or God a liar. If we are mistaken by being YEC, at least we are not condemned for it. God will make it clear to us if we have been wrong after Armageddon is over with. It is written that, when the seventh angel sounds, 'the mystery of God shall be finished, as He hath declared to His servants, the prophets.' See Rev. 10:7KJV. Thanks once again.

Much Love, In Jesus Christ,

Michael

 

[Jose Fly]

Sure..... anything pertaining to the topic.

Your advocacy of this "anything goes" approach to science reminds me of the time during the Dover trial when Michael Behe admitted on the stand that if we change the rules to allow ID creationism in, you also have to allow astrology.

That you creationists are willing to weaken science education that much just to get your religious beliefs in says a lot about you....and none of it good.

Sure! And if a student wants to argue that the earth is *flat... go for it. The teacher should have the academic freedom to say... We can't talk about that.....or, thats off topic...or, you are a doofus....or, lets look and see if there is evidence for, or against that...or, whatever. The teacher of course could not teach that the earth is flat... but should be allowed to discuss it if it came up.

Funny how the king of shouting "straw man" keeps arguing against straw men, in this case the mistaken notion that if a student brings up something like a flat earth or creationism, teachers are prohibited from discussing them in any way.

There is no such law preventing teachers from doing exactly what you say you want, so again......one has to wonder just what it is you're complaining about.

 

[Jose Fly]

You are the one that doesn't look at proofs and proof sets.

Lon, every interaction with you is the same; you make a bunch of bald assertions, you expect me to just accept them as true, and when I don't you claim that I am refusing to accept "truth".

Do you not see the problem in that?

Let me say this again: You CANNOT rule out intelligence and purpose as part of your existence and this universe.

Try and keep up...I never said intelligence and purpose weren't part of the universe.

In fact, you HAVE to recognize both as necessarily existent AND in some form or another, like water, were pre-existent before you got here. Proof? These are the easy ones. It is as easy and simple as this: You cannot have two apples without one apple and another apple. It sounds like it is silly because it isn't that hard. Principles of the identity of the universe cannot be argued against. In a nutshell, being an atheist is literally denying 1+1 equals something.

Honestly Lon, that's one of the stupidest things I've read from you. If that really is the best you can do, I feel completely justified in rejecting your assertions.

By someone that used the term himself :noway: What did you mean by it.

You're still dodging. I asked you earlier to define "creation" and you refused. Until you define the term, any arguments you make using that term are meaningless.

Let's start here: Can you 'touch' two plus two equals four? Yes/no? (No) Second: Is 'four' real non-the-less? (yes)

You dodged again. Did you touch God? Did you hear God? If so, what did God sound like? What did God look like?

He or you? We had a guy on here that became an atheist because God didn't uphold the Twin Towers until all police and firemen came out safe. To me? His denial of God's existence based on how a god ought to behave isn't rational for the denial.

You dodged again. Is there a time limit for how long one must wait for God to show up? Yes or no?

It may well be you are a deist too, so I don't know enough to meaningfully address this query. If you are a deist, it is a good place to start. If you are an atheist, that goal-post is much further back. Tell me just a bit about your belief, if this was asked in sincerity and not just an aversion side-step (not really able to tell when you are sincere and when you are not here on TOL).

You dodged again. Why should I believe your assertions about God over others who are just as sincere and sure of their assertions about God?

 

[quip]

Let's start here: Can you 'touch' two plus two equals four? Yes/no? (No) Second: Is 'four' real non-the-less? (yes)

Four is a concept, an abstraction...meaningless sans contextual reference. Is god likewise a meaningless concept without someone such as you catechizing the very divine ideal ....into existence?

 

[Lon]

Lon, every interaction with you is the same; you make a bunch of bald assertions, you expect me to just accept them as true, and when I don't you claim that I am refusing to accept "truth".

Two plus two is four. The 'proof' is when you follow what is expected. If you/me/they don't, there is no teaching them math. Premises do indeed lead to a logical end. If something doesn't make sense to you, sure, ask a few questions, it may be the other guy's fault BUT look to yourself too! School was supposed to equip you to figure out what you do not understand....on your own.

Do you not see the problem in that?

Yes, but I own my own ignorance and education. If someone who has the where-with-all to make a true statement doesn't make sense, there is 1) a giver of the information and 2) a receiver of the information. I've made a bold assertion that is true: "If there is intelligence in the universe, it cannot have not been pre-existent. True, there are no new elements in the universe. In fact, there is nothing in this universe that isn't already here. Intelligence, awareness, and meaning exist in the universe.

Try and keep up...I never said intelligence and purpose weren't part of the universe.

There is no 'keep up.' This is the first you ever said it. Try to forgo the patronizing for a bit.

Honestly Lon, that's one of the stupidest things I've read from you. If that really is the best you can do, I feel completely justified in rejecting your assertions.

Says a LOT more about your comprehension than my delivery. Me? I assume people with multiple degrees have a fair amount of intelligence behind even their assertions. You can go ahead and take the low-road....

You're still dodging. I asked you earlier to define "creation" and you refused. Until you define the term, any arguments you make using that term are meaningless.

Er, no. There is no point dodged. I made the point that you believe you were created. Wherever we go from here, my point was simply to agree with you: You were created by your parents, purposefully and meaningfully.

You dodged again. Did you touch God? Did you hear God? If so, what did God sound like? What did God look like?

No, I did not. I'm trying to figure out what you expect and where you are looking. God is Spirit, YET He created the entire physical universe. That means He can touch you, speak to you and etc. in tangible ways. The Apostle Paul tells us that God touches us in real and tangible ways BUT He doesn't have hands like your and mine. We are finite creatures, thus I understand a desire to see, hear, and touch God. Paul says it is possible, but God is also logically tangible. He has healed. He has met needs. He does answer prayer of those who know Him.

You dodged again. Is there a time limit for how long one must wait for God to show up? Yes or no?

No, Jose. I did not dodge. What I did was ask questions, in real concern, to meet your need. I'd suggest your patience needs a bit of work.

You dodged again.

lain:

Why should I believe your assertions about God over others who are just as sincere and sure of their assertions about God?

Er, this is a matter of differentiation. If a guy doesn't believe in apples, 'what kind of apple?' is secondary to the first. It is moving the cart before the horse. I prefer to discuss what is actually agreed upon. "The whole ball of wax" is a rather large topic and it is easy to get lost and/or forget where we were heading. I think 'a god,' like 'an apple' the pertinent here. So, in fact, you shouldn't believe someone else 'over' me, but 'including' me in this instance.

-Lon

 

[Lon]

Four is a concept, an abstraction...meaningless sans contextual reference. Is god likewise a meaningless concept without someone such as you catechizing the very divine ideal ....into existence?

I think this is true, and maybe more so for you. It is similar to your other philosophizing as well in that only what 'matters to you' can matter or exist to you. God is relational as well as separate and self-existing. We actually, are not self-existing according to the Apostle and other scriptures. We are sustained by God. To a point, if God is meaningless, it is due to ignorance, sure. I'm not sure if I adequately hit your question. Please ask for whatever isn't here. Thanks.