Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Teaching aids for Darwin-- for religiously challenged Yanks.


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#35 SamSpeedo

SamSpeedo

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 12:03 PM

You obviously haven't a clue as to what "Darwinism" is.
You obviously haven't a clue as to what Darwin proposed in his books.
You obviously havent' a clue as to what a tautology is.
You obviously do not understand what "the origins of life" entails.
You obviously do not understand that religion has never given "explanations".
You obviously have not read our Rules on not evangelizing in this website.
:naughty:


I’m not gonna debate evolution with someone who quotes the book of Matthew http://hypography.co...html#post289325

#36 REASON

REASON

    Reasonably Reasonable

  • Members
  • 1687 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 12:22 PM

I’m not gonna debate evolution with someone who quotes the book of Matthew http://hypography.co...html#post289325


Ha! That's not the reason I would give for why you shouldn't debate evolution with Pyro. :naughty:

#37 Pyrotex

Pyrotex

    Slaying Bad Memes

  • Members
  • 5701 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 02:29 PM

I’m not gonna debate evolution with someone who quotes the book of Matthew http://hypography.co...html#post289325

Oh, come now, Speedo. Anybody can quote the book of Matthew. Did you know it's the first book in the New Testament? Yeah. It is.

So, I'm just wondering, just curious really, why you wouldn't debate evolution with me?
Would it help if I quoted a different part of the bible?

#38 SamSpeedo

SamSpeedo

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 02:58 PM

Ha! That's not the reason I would give for why you shouldn't debate evolution with Pyro. :naughty:


Right on! I see dat Moderator, Editor under de name, too.

#39 Essay

Essay

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 808 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 04:04 PM

I always enjoy a good debate. As a (degreed) biochemist, who is not a moderator or editor, I'd like to try; but I'm busy and can't write much or often.

But whatever, I'm curious just what proposition or conjecture specifically that you would want to debate.

~ :naughty:

#40 REASON

REASON

    Reasonably Reasonable

  • Members
  • 1687 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 04:09 PM

Right on! I see dat Moderator, Editor under de name, too.


Yeah. That's not it. (although I would say it would be very difficult to debate evolution with just about any of the moderators at this site)

Pyro is particularly knowledgeable about both evolution and Christianity/Creationism. Something that is typically not true of those who believe in Creationism. :naughty:

#41 Pyrotex

Pyrotex

    Slaying Bad Memes

  • Members
  • 5701 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 04:53 PM

Right on! I see dat Moderator, Editor under de name, too.

What? There's a Moderator sign under my name?
Well, blow me down, there is. I never noticed it before.
So, does that disqualify me from debating evolution?
I think my feelings are hurt. :naughty:

I'm gonna go now and sulk. :D

#42 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • 6062 posts

Posted 15 January 2010 - 12:18 AM

You obviously haven't a clue as to what "Darwinism" is.
You obviously haven't a clue as to what Darwin proposed in his books.
You obviously havent' a clue as to what a tautology is.
You obviously do not understand what "the origins of life" entails.
You obviously do not understand that religion has never given "explanations".
You obviously have not read our Rules on not evangelizing in this website.

I’m not gonna debate evolution with someone who quotes the book of Matthew http://hypography.co...html#post289325

I will add to Pyro's impressive list above:
You obviously do not understand. Period.

#43 SamSpeedo

SamSpeedo

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 15 January 2010 - 01:28 AM

I sorry you feelings hurt. Don’t give me another infraction.

It seems that Speedo seriously disapproves of my previous comment to his post, quoted above. He even gave me negative-rep! OUCH! Shot through the heart! Oh, the pain, the agony, the public mortification! Everything's going dark... Or maybe not.



I dun it cause you gave me infraction for:

http://hypography.co...html#post289310

A quote all used by you, Boerseun, maikeru and Michaelangelica

An Moderator Boerseun says No Bible citations are acceptable here. http://hypography.co...html#post289926

#44 Pyrotex

Pyrotex

    Slaying Bad Memes

  • Members
  • 5701 posts

Posted 15 January 2010 - 05:42 PM

...I dun it cause you gave me infraction for: ...A quote all used by you, Boerseun, maikeru and Michaelangelica
An Moderator Boerseun says No Bible citations are acceptable here.

Well, you have given me pause. If those other guys said the same thing I infracted you for, then I'll try to fix that.
As for the Bible citation rule, I didn't know that. I do know that quoting scripture for the purpose of evangelizing or converting is forbidden. I'll think about that one, too.
The only citation in this thread I've given you was for the "Survival of the Survivors" post. You gave (IMHO) a false representation of evolution and you suggested going to Genesis for the origin of life, which I construed as evangelizing.
P

#45 lemit

lemit

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1115 posts

Posted 15 January 2010 - 09:17 PM

Darwinism is a tautology, survival of those that survive. It tells nothing of the origins of life, for that religion offers better explanations. (See Bible, book of Genisis)

I've never read any Darwin, so this question is an honest attempt to get information: does Origin of Species really have nothing about the origins of life? The story in Genesis starts out looking a little like the physical world we know (if you squint hard enough), but it falls apart with the introduction of humans.

I don't suspect for a second the post I'm quoting is an attempt to learn anything, so I'm not directing this at its author, although if he knows the answer and wants to offer it honestly, I'm very willing to read his answer too.

Thanks.

#46 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • 9008 posts

Posted 15 January 2010 - 11:02 PM

I've never read any Darwin, so this question is an honest attempt to get information: does Origin of Species really have nothing about the origins of life? The story in Genesis starts out looking a little like the physical world we know (if you squint hard enough), but it falls apart with the introduction of humans.

I don't suspect for a second the post I'm quoting is an attempt to learn anything, so I'm not directing this at its author, although if he knows the answer and wants to offer it honestly, I'm very willing to read his answer too.

Thanks.



The original "Origin of a Species" has nothing to say about life from non life. The theories of actual evolution of life from non life, while not complete, have lots of indications of how it might have happened but as I understand it the original theory of evolution nor it's modern counterpart says how life came from non life. .

#47 Michaelangelica

Michaelangelica

    Creating

  • Members
  • 7797 posts

Posted 16 January 2010 - 12:54 AM

My, my all I wanted to do was to point out an interesting, topical/hip/cool web site for non-loony science teachers.

Do Yank Churches scan the web (like the CIA) trying to prove that Creationism is the go?

ISTM that a very cursory look at how we have bred fruit flies in the last 50 years would be enough proof of the origin of the species.
I can't really see how evolution conflicts with the Jewish bible (old testament). It still leaves room for a super-entity to say "bang" or "let there be life" doesn't it?

Anyway thanks for the Mathew Quote. It seems yank science really is 'challenged' by fundamentalist thinking.

#48 SamSpeedo

SamSpeedo

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 16 January 2010 - 02:39 AM

I don't suspect for a second the post I'm quoting is an attempt to learn anything, so I'm not directing this at its author, although if he knows the answer and wants to offer it honestly, I'm very willing to read his answer too.

Thanks.


You and pyrotex and Boerseun and maikeru and Michaelangelica all quote my against rule post, is that a dig? I can't make post like that, but you can? Do you see infraction card?

#49 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • 6062 posts

Posted 17 January 2010 - 12:16 AM

You and pyrotex and Boerseun and maikeru and Michaelangelica all quote my against rule post, is that a dig? I can't make post like that, but you can? Do you see infraction card?


It's called "context", Sam. Read the whole Bible-quote bit between me and Pyro again.

Oh... whoops... you're suspended. My bad.

#50 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • 3058 posts

Posted 17 January 2010 - 12:20 PM

I think I have figured out why evolution has always rubbed me the wrong way. If you look at the subject called History, science is very often used to gather and verify data, such as carbon dating to make sure pottery is from a given time and atomic composition to make sure it is from a given geological area. Although history makes heavy use of science, history is not itself science. The modern study of history is a good science foundation with a Liberal Arts cap.

I had been erroneously working under the assumption (based on the sales pitch) that evolution is pure science. But in reality, evolution has a science foundation with a liberal arts cap. That liberal arts element makes it political and dogmatic. It creates the same emotion as discussion of the civil war between northerns and southerners.

If it was pure science, all the way to the history cap, the theory should be able to make predictions in the lab. This is a necessary requirement of the scientific method and can be done by the rest of science. But it is not a requirement of history. For example, if we look at those pictures, of the ascent of man from ape to present, that is a popular learning tool, what would the next picture in the series look like, after man? Pure science can usually make such a prediction and will even attempt this, to push the frontier. But history does not try to predict the future, but is concerned about the past.

If you look at the bible, face it, there are many things that can't be verified by science with smoking gun evidence. But there are also history records in the bible about ancient empires, for example, that is verifiable. The bible is not just mythology, but also record keeping.The history cap of evolution would like to throw out the entire bible, rather than filter it for verifiable data. If you know anything about history, when we throw out data, the history can get subjective. Again, I apologize if I mistakenly ragged on the science foundation. I did not yet understand that evolution had a liberal arts cap that subjectively rubbed me wrong.

Below is the introduction page of the first addition of Charles Darwin's important book. It is definitely a pivotal work. Notice the bottom of the title; "or the preservation of selected races in the struggle for life". This is not usually part of the history cap, which has been placed on top of the science foundation.

I am not saying Darwin was a racist, but rather his historical times shaped the way he would see things and his book needed to be relevant to those times. Darwin was a well educated and wealthy Englishman, whose culture and class demonstrated survival of the fittest at his time. Based on that real time observation, why not look for natural data to extrapolate this to nature. Was the cart before the horse? This does not challenge the science foundation, it is a history question.

Well before Darwin ever saw animals in Galapagos, Darwin lived in the social jungle as one of the fit animals from blue blood stock. If he could show the social jungle also existed in nature, that would explain the way of the world; selective advantage=selective race, as his title indicated. The Church was not as concerned about race, but recruited everywhere including in the jungles. It had a history of helping the poor, which were not the fittest of the social animals. Later social Darwinism was not accepted, like the Church had always maintained. But the natural history cap that has been spawn (cart before horse) was retained due to the blur created with the science foundation. This is not Creationism, just a history cap concern., which will be lumped into creationism, to blur the history cap so it creates the illusion of being pure science.

Posted Image

#51 maikeru

maikeru

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 794 posts

Posted 17 January 2010 - 12:56 PM

I think I have figured out why evolution has always rubbed me the wrong way. If you look at the subject called History, science is very often used to gather and verify data, such as carbon dating to make sure pottery is from a given time and atomic composition to make sure it is from a given geological area. Although history makes heavy use of science, history is not itself science. The modern study of history is a good science foundation with a Liberal Arts cap.

I had been erroneously working under the assumption (based on the sales pitch) that evolution is pure science. But in reality, evolution has a science foundation with a liberal arts cap. That liberal arts element makes it political and dogmatic. It creates the same emotion as discussion of the civil war between northerns and southerners.

If it was pure science, all the way to the history cap, the theory should be able to make predictions in the lab. This is a necessary requirement of the scientific method and can be done by the rest of science. But it is not a requirement of history. For example, if we look at those pictures, of the ascent of man from ape to present, that is a popular learning tool, what would the next picture in the series look like, after man? Pure science can usually make such a prediction and will even attempt this, to push the frontier. But history does not try to predict the future, but is concerned about the past.


Evolution is scientific. The development and realization of the theory and concepts are historical. The controversy over its teaching in schools is political and religious. There are notable differences. Dobzhansky himself said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." It can be used to generate predictions and testable results in accordance with the scientific method. Has been doing, is doing, and will continue doing so. What rubs people wrong is not the "liberal arts cap" but the fact that it provides a logical and understandable explanation for why life is, and that's something that religion used to do very well. While it doesn't undermine or directly attack religion, it makes one wonder about the "Emperor's new clothes." Darwin knew that.