PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     New to forum and some opinions

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
TristanJ

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello all,
With the recent demise of my favoured apologetics forum, I went on the hunt for a new "stomping ground" and found myself here! I thought I'd set a few things out in my first post so that people may be less confused later on as to where I stand.

1) I am a fairly staunch atheist with hints of limited ignosticism, although i don't consider the ignostic world view to be 100% self-consistent.

2) I believe very strongly that creationism has no place being taught in a science class, and I'm sure this will spark heated debate.

3) Please don't evangelize me or use any of your "I will pray for your poor misguided soul" nonsense. I don't need to be patronized or see your smug superiority of my rationale. That has no place in any intellectual debat.

That being said, the main thing I wanted to bring up:
I have been trolling this forum for the last couple of days now and one thing that worries me is the large number of high school students (and some creationists in general) with ENORMOUS misunderstanding of what evolution posits. Over and over I see posts asking "why don't apes give birth to humans" and "when was the last time you saw a leg growing out of a tree". To me this indicates either gross intellectual dishonesty in warping the facts of evolution in order to discredit it or a massive failure in the education system of North America (being a Canadian after all). What is the general opinion on this from the users of this forum?

On a secondary note, I found a rather amusing passage from Dawkins' A Devil's Chaplain:
"Physics is a genuinely difficult and profound subject, so physicists need to - and do - work hard to make their language as simple as possible ('but no simpler,' rightly insisted Einstein). Other academics - some would point the finger at continental schools of literary criticism and social science - suffer from what Peter Medawar (I think) called Physics Envy. They want to be tought profound, but their subject is really rather easy and shallow, so they have to language it up to redress the balance"
I was wondering if a form of this applied to creation science/ID: They hijack and manipulate real scientific theories and ideas in order to intellectualize and add credibility to their idea.

(Edited by TristanJ 5/28/2006 at 3:08 PM).


-------
Regards,
Tristan Jones

http://scramble.geniigroup.com
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 3:05 PM on May 28, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I was wondering if a form of this applied to creation science/ID: They hijack and manipulate real scientific theories and ideas in order to intellectualize and add credibility to their idea.


You were wondering? Come on, be honest... we both know that's the way it really is.

That being said, the main thing I wanted to bring up:
I have been trolling this forum for the last couple of days now and one thing that worries me is the large number of high school students (and some creationists in general) with ENORMOUS misunderstanding of what evolution posits. Over and over I see posts asking "why don't apes give birth to humans" and "when was the last time you saw a leg growing out of a tree". To me this indicates either gross intellectual dishonesty in warping the facts of evolution in order to discredit it or a massive failure in the education system of North America (being a Canadian after all). What is the general opinion on this from the users of this forum?


In most of the cases you've seen on this board, I would say the problem starts with students who haven't even taken biology [yet, hopefully].

Other than that, which is only speculation at any rate, it's most often the latter of the two situations you proposed. However, I'd like to add to it. I do agree that the U.S. public school curriculum doesn't do nearly as much justice to the ToE as it should, but it always depends on the teacher.

One of my two biology teachers was a staunch Evangelical Christian (a wonder how that even works out), and even a member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Although she voiced belief for Theistic Evolution, she was more or less a coach for a team of Creationists in a high school-wide debate on the subject of Evolution.

My CIS human anatomy teacher was completely different. He went so far as to bring up articles about Intelligent Design that were published in science magazines. We'd have discussions on the issue of ID being taught in public school science classes. Mr. Emmel and I would have a grand time blasting away at the students who thought we should "be fair and teach both sides of the issue equally".

Lastly, it's not always the direct fault of the curriculum or teacher. Most Creationists by a long shot literally refuse to pay attention during units on Evolution. I've seen A average students deliberately fail tests by filling in answers that their personal beliefs agreed with.

3) Please don't evangelize me or use any of your "I will pray for your poor misguided soul" nonsense. I don't need to be patronized or see your smug superiority of my rationale. That has no place in any intellectual debat.


You won’t see much of that here. Cipher, if you’ve seen any of his posts, will only attempt to make your vocabulary seem miniscule compared to his. A few others are obviously heavy-duty Christians, but they won’t bug you about that stuff. Then there’s Zerocool, who doesn’t seem to bother replying if he finds himself losing.



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:22 PM on May 29, 2006 | IP
TristanJ

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 09:22 AM on May 29, 2006 :
You were wondering? Come on, be honest... we both know that's the way it really is.
Can't deny that. I guess I should stop being so timid about the sensibilities of other people (within reason of course). Yes I would say this is obviously the case, ESPECIALLY with regards to the 2nd law (of thermodynamics).


Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 09:22 AM on May 29, 2006 :
In most of the cases you've seen on this board, I would say the problem starts with students who haven't even taken biology [yet, hopefully].

Other than that, which is only speculation at any rate, it's most often the latter of the two situations you proposed. However, I'd like to add to it. I do agree that the U.S. public school curriculum doesn't do nearly as much justice to the ToE as it should, but it always depends on the teacher.

One of my two biology teachers was a staunch Evangelical Christian (a wonder how that even works out), and even a member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Although she voiced belief for Theistic Evolution, she was more or less a coach for a team of Creationists in a high school-wide debate on the subject of Evolution.

My CIS human anatomy teacher was completely different. He went so far as to bring up articles about Intelligent Design that were published in science magazines. We'd have discussions on the issue of ID being taught in public school science classes. Mr. Emmel and I would have a grand time blasting away at the students who thought we should "be fair and teach both sides of the issue equally".

Lastly, it's not always the direct fault of the curriculum or teacher. Most Creationists by a long shot literally refuse to pay attention during units on Evolution. I've seen A average students deliberately fail tests by filling in answers that their personal beliefs agreed with.
Well I'm glad you had at least one teacher with sense in his head. The fact that these students would fail a test without taking the time to learn the details is astounding, and seems to indicate to me that they are A-students not due to an open and inquiring mind. Of course this is a huge generalization and I'm sure it would not apply in every case.


Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 09:22 AM on May 29, 2006 :
You won’t see much of that here. Cipher, if you’ve seen any of his posts, will only attempt to make your vocabulary seem miniscule compared to his. A few others are obviously heavy-duty Christians, but they won’t bug you about that stuff. Then there’s Zerocool, who doesn’t seem to bother replying if he finds himself losing.
I would like to believe that this won't occur, but I have found several instances of this on the boards before. As for Cipher, he is welcome to attempt it and then we'll see if he can "language it up" over me and whether that will have any realistic bearing on the quality of his debate.


-------
Regards,
Tristan Jones

http://scramble.geniigroup.com
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 01:54 AM on May 30, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As for Cipher, he is welcome to attempt it and then we'll see if he can "language it up" over me and whether that will have any realistic bearing on the quality of his debate.


It hasn't so far, and I'm pretty sure it won't in the future.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:25 AM on May 30, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm now on this sector. Allow me to envelope this forum by instilling sense to a apparently irrational specie.

(1) The Theory Evolution is also an inconcievable notion  conceptually deviced by a ingenious being, expanded by a set of timorous beings and believed by the irrational.
Evolution presents a crisis conspired by the uninformed species whose faith lies on the existence of mutations.

I HEREBY GIVE YOU (AS A DOGMATICALLY ESTABLISHED ATHEIST AND IGNOSTIC ACADEMIC) ,THE HONOUR OF CORRECTING ME BY PRECISELY AND SIMPLY ELUCIDATING ME IF MY DEFINITION IS ERRONEOUS.

(Please dont give me links (Read that!) or plagiarise material, that will just establish how "uninformed" you are about the ToE, tip!

EntwickelnCollin, you are free to dispute.




-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 09:17 AM on June 2, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

(1) The Theory Evolution is also an inconcievable notion  conceptually deviced by a ingenious being, expanded by a set of timorous beings and believed by the irrational.
Evolution presents a crisis conspired by the uninformed species whose faith lies on the existence of mutations.

I HEREBY GIVE YOU (AS A DOGMATICALLY ESTABLISHED ATHEIST AND IGNOSTIC ACADEMIC) ,THE HONOUR OF CORRECTING ME BY PRECISELY AND SIMPLY ELUCIDATING ME IF MY DEFINITION IS ERRONEOUS.


There's nothing to correct. You've provided an opinion, not a definition.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:04 AM on June 2, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ENK: "There's nothing to correct. You've provided an opinion, not a definition."

OK, elucidate me according to you own opnion as to what the ToE says. [Stop using lazy argumentation by dodging requests, you know what I mean!]

E.g. I assert

(1) Creationisn stipulates that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. This is self explanatory.  

*I understand that a lot of the finer detail of evolution may be lengthly to explain but this this/would has already ( no reply!) served to show how the theory has been accepted without tangible scrutiny by its enthusiasts (esp on these Forums!).  Again the plight of the evolutionists!

Further, if what I said in my previous postis merely an "opinion" would it not be safe to conclude that the general notion of evolution may be reduced to merely an opinion (which it is!), which nullifies our argument!

Maximum Respect, CipherComplete.

(Edited by CipherComplete 6/2/2006 at 10:24 AM).


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 10:20 AM on June 2, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK, elucidate me according to you own opnion as to what the ToE says. [Stop using lazy argumentation by dodging requests, you know what I mean!]


The Theory of Evolution: that populations of life change over time as a result of mutating allele frequencies and the advantages that such mutations would have in certain environments.

In a nutshell, that’s what Evolution is. There’s nothing in the definition about “irrational devising” or what kind of person the theory was invented by. Whether or not the “notion of the ToE” is inconceivable or not is your un-provable opinion and a subjective application of the theory’s scientific validity. You have no way to measure the irrationality of people who accept the theory and those who do not.


Further, if what I said in my previous postis merely an "opinion" would it not be safe to conclude that the general notion of evolution may be reduced to merely an opinion (which it is!), which nullifies our argument!


I suppose we can stipulate that all scientific conclusions (including those of scientific laws) are opinions at heart, since everything the brain calculates is after all based on its perception. Conclusions offered by science can, however, be tested and have the capacity to be disproved. “The Theory Evolution is also an inconcievable notion” has no such capacity.


(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 6/2/2006 at 11:02 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:58 AM on June 2, 2006 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.