@RolandTaylor what do you make of this "if you believe in evolution, you must be smart" business?
I even cringe and fall down to my knees in dispair when ever someone says "believe in [widely accepted theory]"
by the way, @Roland, I'm strongly opposed to teaching anything but evolution in the class room. And, like you would expect, prepared to argue about it all night long
It's easier for me, we don't even have a discussion about it over here. The few creationists we have all seem to keep silent on the matter. Literally nobody of any authority is demanding that something other than evolution be taught.
similarly Abraham's family (according to extra-biblical writings) knew that he would be a great man in the earth from following signs in the starts
*stars
@StefanoPalazzo of course not, because it would be silly to teach horoscopes; but if you think you can use that one on me, you have another thing coming.
I don't think you should be teaching evolution - period.
And I will never back down from that.
Evolution teaches children that they are an accident with no purpose
@Roland you're making, again in the nicest possible way, a bunch of arguments that don't have much to do with the point. Like, I can't claim you're wrong on X, because I'm wrong on Y, or I can't claim to know X, because I don't know Y
I think we shouldn't teach astrology (in its current form, as I have said, it is a corruption) - and I'm sure we both agree on that. We also should teach history. However, we should not teach evolution (this is not history).
Roland, Evolution is a historical teaching going back to people like Anaxamander. Surely it should be included in a lesson on historical perspectives of Biology, at the very least, no?
@JonathanSampson well, when it comes to the scientific method I avoid talking about Truth. It sounds like "proof". Which there isn't (ever. nor should there be)
Creationism (from the Judeo-Christian perspective) is backed up by evidence, prophesies fulfilled, and by written history (that can be verified), and Astrology is just a bunch of made up stuff, where is the correlation?
In science, we must have a testable hypothesis. This can be taught (in context) to children. A theory can be taught as "the current consensus", the nearest thing we have to "truth".
Astrology is not testable, and the few areas of it that are have been found to be untrue
@StefanoPalazzo Stefano, you cannot falsify evolution - you can falsify models of evolution. We see this down throughout history with people like Anaximander and Aristotle, up to more modern names like Lamark.
there are two competing models for the evolution of the flagellum. Both make the point that something doesn't need to have the same function as it develops (example: mouse trap (complicated) as a tie clip (simple))
@JonathanSampson nope, I'm asking to find a phenomenon that the current theory fails to explain that's all
"well like I said, people have tried. They have been laughed at, but they would be taken seriously the moment their argument had merit" - I've seen a lot of atheists who stopped laughing at us Christians when they realized our arguments have merit.
@StefanoPalazzo Years ago, Microbiologist Dr. Michael Behe suggest we test his theory by placing bacteria lacking a flagellum on a slanted service where food is at the higher altitude to determine whether they would develop a flagellum. To my knowledge, nobody has given him a go.
Newton's laws provide a good model for gravity. Einstein's models are more accurate. There are still inconsistences between the experiments and theory. So we try to use the experimental data to come up with a better model. That is science.
@StefanoPalazzo Atheists have no basis for assuming the future will be like the past. They may posit that it's always been like that in the past, but this would be begging the question.
@JonathanSampson So you're saying I need to believe in some god before I can use observation, reason and experiment to form models and develop them into theories? Is that so?
@StefanoPalazzo I'm speaking of the Atheistic worldview. On what grounds can it justify the act of inductive reasoning, and the assumption the future will be like the past.
@StefanoPalazzo You believe it, correct? You believe that Gravity will operate the same tomorrow as it does today, determining how you will go about planning future research, aquiring grants, etc.
@JonathanSampson it worked today as it did yesterday and the day before and the day before so it is a reasonable assumption that it will work the same way tomorrow
@dv3500ea You're making the probability argument, which assumes the future will be like the past - providing the basis for your argument from probability. This is begging the question.
@JonathanSampson We have scientific theories that suggest that the laws of Physics won't change over night. I won't lay out the evidence for them (I'm not a physicist)
@dv3500ea Probability is based on the assumption the future will be like the past. This is begging the question since I'm asking what justification you have for assuming the future will be like the past.
@StefanoPalazzo I'm not asking you to prove the future will be like the past. I'm asking for the justification of the belief that the future will be like the past.
@dv3500ea If you suggest the future will be a certain way, because today and yesterday were also that way, you're speaking of probability. Or, complete static.
@StefanoPalazzo You believe that tomorrow, when you swing your feet over the edge of the bed, your body will move downward to the floor. What is the justification for this?
@dv3500ea as I told Stefano (you can read the trasnscripts) I don't only base my beliefs on writings in the Bible. Also, the Bible is not just a piece of literature.
@StefanoPalazzo No, Physics is correct - today. What justification do we have for assuming what we understand about physics (e=MC^2) will be valid tomorrow?
