toldailytopic: Should creation be taught in public school?

[One Eyed Jack]

Well, I wasn't going to question its sanity to give you an excuse, but strictly the illusion idea is a philosophical position that falls back to the same basic assumptions as empirical science does, so I can't really object to it.

Anyway, I'll bite.

You must have thought I would too, huh?

How does general relativity help you to explain how the earth appeared tens of thousands of years after the extinction of the Neanderthals?

Stuart

Ask a sensible question, and I'll answer it.

 

[Flipper]

Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack
You call that sane? I invoke general relativity.

Although I completely agree that there's little about GR, or SR come to that, that's really intuitive, the implications of both are inevitable consequences of logical trains of thought based upon observable and rigorously defined principles.

Also, as you know, the predictions of both theories are very well supported by numerous experiments to a high degree of precision.

 

[Stripe]

Show us the evidence that ANY of it is not originally derived from a biological source, dissolved, recrystallised or reprecipitated though it may have been.

How would I tell the difference between dissolved and re-precipitated calcium carbonate from a biological source and from a non-biological source? :idunno:

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Although I completely agree that there's little about GR, or SR come to that, that's really intuitive, the implications of both are inevitable consequences of logical trains of thought based upon observable and rigorously defined principles.

Also, as you know, the predictions of both theories are very well supported by numerous experiments to a high degree of precision.

Indeed. We need to use the equations to stay in sync with orbiting satellites.

 

[Alencon]

This is absolute hogwash. Any scientist who even belches what sounds like "Intelligent design" is immediately and permanently banned from the peer review process, even if they themselves don't believe in ID.

I also find it interesting your use of the words "educated" and "qualified." Who exactly decides who is "qualified?" Why, it's those who are "educated." And who teaches those who are "educated?" Only those who are "qualified." The "scientific" community has become a bureaucracy that only listens to itself and ignores any scientific evidence brought to it by the rest of the world.

Then why does Michael Behe still teach at Lehigh and why does William Dembsky not seem to have any problem getting papers published in IEEE journals?

Actually having a science related degree and working in the field helps you to actually understand the science involved. THAT makes you qualified to review and critique published papers.

The "scientific community won't listen to me" cry is pure bunk. Try putting together a WELL RESEARCHED PAPER backed up by well thought out anlysis and facts and they might.

I seem to recall that Dembski has criticized the ID community for not doing adequate research and publishing quality papers and then crying that no one takes them seriously. No one takes them seriously because they don't produce anything worth taking seriously.

And please don't quote the Ben Stein film to me since it was pure dishonest garbage which many people have debunked and nobody seems to be defending.

 

[alwight]

How would I tell the difference between dissolved and re-precipitated calcium carbonate from a biological source and from a non-biological source? :idunno:

Well, you could actually examine it under the microscope and see for yourself that it indeed consists of micro-fossils of course.:idea:

From my part of the world again (Alum Bay), all you would have to do then is to explain all the other sedimentary layers here having totally different fossil types found in them.
Layers that have often been pushed up to near vertical in some cases by plate tectonics, weathered and eroded away for all to see, all within a few thousand years apparently, since the global flud that is.

Funny that the Romans here 2000 years ago never seemed to notice the ground moving under their feet?
Then there's the many Pagan burial mounds to be found here, still in place from well before the Romans came. :think:

 

[Stripe]

Well, you could actually examine it under the microscope and see for yourself that it indeed consists of micro-fossils of course.

Recrystallised CaCO₃?

I don't think so. :chuckle:

If it was recrystallised and did contain fossils that would be no evidence that the recrystallised stuff was from biological origins. :nono:

From my part of the world again (Alum Bay), all you would have to do then is to explain all the other sedimentary layers here having totally different fossil types found in them.
Layers that have often been pushed up to near vertical in some cases by plate tectonics, weathered and eroded away for all to see, all within a few thousand years apparently, since the global flud that is.

Can't you spell "flood"?

Plate tectonics is a theory in crisis without a reasonable driving force. There is a much better explanation. One that has a reasonable driving force behind it.

Deposition of different layers is easily explained as well.

That aside, you seem very keen to talk about increasingly diverse subjects. Why not stick with what we have?

Funny that the Romans here 2000 years ago never seemed to notice the ground moving under their feet? Then there's the many Pagan burial mounds to be found here, still in place from well before the Romans came. :think:

:squint:

So?

 

[alwight]

Recrystallised CaCO₃?

I don't think so. :chuckle:

If it was recrystallised and did contain fossils that would be no evidence that the recrystallised stuff was from biological origins. :nono:

Whatever, here though it really is fossilised material despite your recrystalising spin.
Sorry about bringing in real evidence, which I have gathered my own samples of btw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk

Can't you spell "flood"?

I'll keep that for real floods thanks. :thumb:

Plate tectonics is a theory in crisis without a reasonable driving force. There is a much better explanation. One that has a reasonable driving force behind it.

Creationist claptrap of course but if your God supposedly magicked it into its current place then neither of us has any rational way to discuss or confirm anything at all.

Deposition of different layers is easily explained as well.

Well, that assertion was easy enough anyway.

That aside, you seem very keen to talk about increasingly diverse subjects. Why not stick with what we have?

:squint:

So?

You don't have to respond to any of it of course Stripe if you don't like it, but I feel that any real evidence that creationism can't explain beyond asserting the supernatural of course, is very pertinent.

 

[DavisBJ]

Plate tectonics is a theory in crisis without a reasonable driving force. There is a much better explanation. One that has a reasonable driving force behind it.

Enyart has several times mentioned the accolades that YEC John Baumgardner received in the scientific community for his “Terra” computer program that models the tectonic driving forces due to magma motion. Stripe seems to think Baumgardner’s work is nonsense.

 

[voltaire]

Stripe. The evidence for platectonics is substantial. Some creationists can see this. Plates move incredibly slowly today and subduction could possibly be non existent down at the mantle level today, but not at shallow depths. This may be the reason you cannot see it happening in the past. The athstenophere was hotter and less viscous in the past, and therefore, plate tectonics was more likely then.

 

[voltaire]

And please don't quote the
Ben Stein film to me since
it was pure dishonest
garbage which many people
have debunked and nobody
seems to be defending.------Alencon. Please give some examples of dishones garbage in the film and examples of any claims that were debunked.

 

[Stripe]

Whatever, here though it really is fossilised material despite your recrystalising spin.

I notice you've run a long, long way away from what was being discussed.

Sorry about bringing in real evidence, which I have gathered my own samples of btw.

No need to apologise. If you want to discuss a sample you have, I'm all ears. Just don't pretend that was what we were talking about.

Creationist claptrap of course but if your God supposedly magicked it into its current place then neither of us has any rational way to discuss or confirm anything at all.

What part of "reasonable explanation" led you to believe I was proposing magic? :idunno:

Well, that assertion was easy enough anyway.

And your assertion had a few more words in it. :idunno:

I feel that any real evidence that creationism can't explain beyond asserting the supernatural of course, is very pertinent.

Okay. :idunno:

Enyart has several times mentioned the accolades that YEC John Baumgardner received in the scientific community for his “Terra” computer program that models the tectonic driving forces due to magma motion. Stripe seems to think Baumgardner’s work is nonsense.

I thought you weren't talking to me ... again... :idunno:

Stripe. The evidence for platectonics is substantial.

The evidence that there is something happening to the crust of the Earth is substantial. The popular explanation is called plate tectonics (PT). PT has no reasonable driving mechanism. The better explanation does have a driving force that is easily explained. It just doesn't have the catchy name. :chuckle:

 

[philosophizer]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for May 10th, 2011 09:42 AM

toldailytopic: Should creation be taught in public school?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

The public school system is run by the government. Our government is supposed to be based in democracy. Each school district is managed by a school board that should be selected by citizen voting. The school board should then decide for its district what subjects will be in the curriculum by voting. Anyone who disagrees with the school board's choices should be able to choose an educational program other than the public school system for their children. Any state or federal mandates for the curriculum should be limited to setting basic guidelines that any school must have in order to properly prepare students for the world.

So to answer the question, if the school board says so, then yes. If it doesn't, then no. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Public education is not a right, it's a privilege.

 

[DavisBJ]

I thought you weren't talking to me ... again...

Stripe thinks when someone comments on what he says it is the same as them talking to him (3rd person “he” vs 2nd person “you”). And he pretends to teach English?

The popular explanation is called plate tectonics (PT). PT has no reasonable driving mechanism.

Stripe keeps making the claim of no driving mechanism for PT, but avoids telling what is in error about Baumgardner’s work at Los Alamos on the subject.

 

[Silent Hunter]

The public school system is run by the government. Our government is supposed to be based in democracy. Each school district is managed by a school board that should be selected by citizen voting. The school board should then decide for its district what subjects will be in the curriculum by voting. Anyone who disagrees with the school board's choices should be able to choose an educational program other than the public school system for their children. Any state or federal mandates for the curriculum should be limited to setting basic guidelines that any school must have in order to properly prepare students for the world.

So to answer the question, if the school board says so, then yes. If it doesn't, then no. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Public education is not a right, it's a privilege.

:squint: . . . you're so out of touch with the reality of public school I don't know where to start correcting your non-understanding . . .

. . . if the government funds the schools and the government is a-religious (cannot favor one religious dogma over any other) then creationism (a religious dogma having no basis in science) cannot be taught in a public school no matter how the school board "votes" . . .

 

[Silent Hunter]

Stripe thinks when someone comments on what he says it is the same as them talking to him (3rd person “he” vs 2nd person “you”). And he pretends to teach English?

Stripe keeps making the claim of no driving mechanism for PT, but avoids telling what is in error about Baumgardner’s work at Los Alamos on the subject.

:mock: Stripe

:chuckle:

 

[alwight]

So to answer the question, if the school board says so, then yes. If it doesn't, then no. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Public education is not a right, it's a privilege.

That's a false argument regarding science which relates to testable facts and evidence that are not really a matter for a democratic vote.
Scientific truth isn't decided by a show of hands, it is demonstrably true and also falsifiable.
Science classes should only ever teach real science imo, what happens in more theological studies however perhaps would be somewhat different.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe thinks when someone comments on what he says it is the same as them talking to him (3rd person “he” vs 2nd person “you”). And he pretends to teach English?

:rotfl:

You cannot be serious! Is this really the silly game you're going to play?

Stripe keeps making the claim of no driving mechanism for PT

He does, doesn't he.

but avoids telling what is in error about Baumgardner’s work at Los Alamos on the subject.

First I've heard of it. And your posts are the first I've heard of Baumgardner that I can recall.

Regardless of who it is, anyone who proposes a process that might save PT theory is doomed to failure.

 

[DavisBJ]

First I've heard of it. And your posts are the first I've heard of Baumgardner that I can recall.

Regardless of who it is, anyone who proposes a process that might save PT theory is doomed to failure.

Stripe admits to being ignorant of some of the more significant scientific work done on the driving forces behind PT, but gaily declares any such ideas as failures anyway. Isn’t ignorance grand?

 

[voltaire]

Stripe. The driving force for PT is subduction and ocean ridge spreading. Subduction occurs plates are already bent under each other and gravity pulls denser ocean floor into less dense mantle where high temperatures lower the density. Ocean floor spreading occurs because the crust has been pulled apart at the ridges and is very thin which promotes partial melting of the mantle where it is thin. This melting produces new basalt which is the ocean floor. Its all happening very slowly now but was accelerated in the past.