Religion in Schools (split fm Islamic Terrorism)

[MrWhyt]

A creationist has never had a problem defining them as being human whilst evolutionists had them as being brute, thug-like, and primitive. It is only in the very recent past that archaeology has realized that they were every bit as human as your great etc. grandfather.

Homo Neanderthalensis has always been considered to be human, it is in genus Homo after all.

edit:

It is only in the very recent past that archaeology has realized that they were every bit as human as your great etc. grandfather.

yes science is updated as new facts are brought into light, it's a feature not a bug.

 

[suffolkowner]

Homo Neanderthalensis has always been considered to be human, it is in genus Homo after all.

broadly yes Homo is human but narrowly as part of the modern human Homo sapiens species complex I think the answer is also yes

 

[lenaitch]

I am in general agreement but I might phrase it differently respecting facts and theories.

My sense is that facts are things that can be observed measured and generally agreed on. Not necessarily universally agreed but accepted by most people. The sun rises in the east every day is a fact easily verified.

Theories are working hypotheses designed to create a framework for understanding. Some theories have lots of facts in evidence that support them, and I put evolution and the general theory of relativity in that camp. Those theories support predictions that suggest that the theory, if not correct is at least workable and valuable. It helps to make sense of our world.

On the other, we could be wrong.

I was trying to phrase that and not come off like I was channelling Chretien.

We could absolutely be wrong. Place yer bets.

 

[lenaitch]

Actually, almost all of them that have been put under the microscope have been vindicated

Really? The virgin birth? The resurrection? There are those scholars who believe much of what the Christian bible says is metaphorical. At the other end, there are those would believe it is literal; that man walked with the dinosaurs.

There has been no observed evolution since Darwin wrote his thesis on it, none.

This simply displays a marked misunderstanding of the timelines involved in evolution. The Origin of Species was published less than 200 years ago.

I am really uncomfortable arguing religion so will drop it here. I understand faith - I really do; I simply don't possess it. What I don't get is organized religion. A belief system is very personal and I don't think it is fair to trash somebodies simply because I don't share it.

 

[suffolkowner]

You recall incorrectly. And it seems it didn't come from a tree farm.

Tree From Lunenburg County Chosen for Boston

news.novascotia.ca

If a theory is provable and ultimately proven, then it is no longer a theory; it becomes a fact until proven otherwise by more knowledge. Matters of science may not be proven, and are indeed continually evolving as we learn more, but its theories are continually put to the test. Matters of religion are based on a book written by many authors several hundreds years after the facts they describe, and many of the conclusions of its adherents/hierarchy have remained essentially unaltered for centuries. I would be truly interested in a key element, event or cornerstone of religious dogma that has withstood scientific analysis.

I am in general agreement but I might phrase it differently respecting facts and theories.

My sense is that facts are things that can be observed measured and generally agreed on. Not necessarily universally agreed but accepted by most people. The sun rises in the east every day is a fact easily verified.

Theories are working hypotheses designed to create a framework for understanding. Some theories have lots of facts in evidence that support them, and I put evolution and the general theory of relativity in that camp. Those theories support predictions that suggest that the theory, if not correct is at least workable and valuable. It helps to make sense of our world.

On the other, we could be wrong.

I think most modern scientific philosophy follows Popper in that while falsifiable it is not provable
So Theories in general are more broad than hypotheses but also have not been falsified or disproven furthermore their alternatives have

 

[Brad Sallows]

So? I don't understand your point.

A response to "science itself relies upon experiment". Scientific method can be applied without experimentation.

The concept of evolution is counter-intuitive to what we know of entropy and the deterioration of all living creatures.

What we know about entropy is just that any localized decrease in entropy must be offset (paid for) by an equivalent or greater increase somewhere else in any closed system. Localized order can be increased.

 

[Blackadder1916]

I am in general agreement but I might phrase it differently respecting facts and theories.

My sense is that facts are things that can be observed measured and generally agreed on. Not necessarily universally agreed but accepted by most people. The sun rises in the east every day is a fact easily verified.

Theories are working hypotheses designed to create a framework for understanding. Some theories have lots of facts in evidence that support them, and I put evolution and the general theory of relativity in that camp. Those theories support predictions that suggest that the theory, if not correct is at least workable and valuable. It helps to make sense of our world.

On the other, we could be wrong.

How appropriate that you should use "sun rise" as the example of a "fact" vice theory. The sun does not actually 'rise', it only appears to rise. It's a remnant of language expression when humans thought the earth was flat, that it was the centre of the universe or that the ball of light passing above them was god(s?) riding his chariot. And even if we continue acceptable use of the expression with that knowledge, it is not always true, as explained . . .

However, as the general theme of the thread is religion in schools, in full disclosure the above point was made to me over 60 years ago when I received my learning in the religious based education system of Newfoundland. There were many faults to be found with the Roman Catholic schools run by Nuns and Christian Brothers that I attended, but they did beat in (or out) some basic knowledge and method of thought/argument.

 

[YZT580]

I did not say

Really? The virgin birth? The resurrection? There are those scholars who believe much of what the Christian bible says is metaphorical. At the other end, there are those would believe it is literal; that man walked with the dinosaurs.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support the entire life of Christ as presented in the Bible, far more so than there is evidence to support for instance the existence of the city of Troy which was put down for years until newer discoveries proved its existence.

This simply displays a marked misunderstanding of the timelines involved in evolution. The Origin of Species was published less than 200 years ago.

I am really uncomfortable arguing religion so will drop it here. I understand faith - I really do; I simply don't possess it. What I don't get is organized religion. A belief system is very personal and I don't think it is fair to trash somebodies simply because I don't share it.

Changing from one specie to another requires a re-writing of the genetic code. All observed changes even within a specie are a result of a loss of information and not something new. The implications of that simple statement which is agree by most if not all scientists is profound. It implies that all genetic code was contained within the "earliest" living organism and we know that that just isn't true. No evolutionist has been able to get around that unfortunate fact and answer the questions regarding DNA.

I agree with your last paragraph. But I can assure you that you do indeed have faith and you believe in miracles. If you didn't, you wouldn't be able to accept evolution as being a viable description of origins and like you. It has been interesting.

 

[YZT580]

I think most modern scientific philosophy follows Popper in that while falsifiable it is not provable
So Theories in general are more broad than hypotheses but also have not been falsified or disproven furthermore their alternatives have

Shows what the mind can do. The incident I refer to occurred in 2005

 

[MrWhyt]

Changing from one specie to another requires a re-writing of the genetic code.

The genetic code is rewritten every time DNA imperfectly replicates and there is a mutation.

The implications of that simple statement which is agree by most if not all scientists is profound

citation needed

But I can assure you that you do indeed have faith and you believe in miracles

that's a lie.

 

[Kirkhill]

How appropriate that you should use "sun rise" as the example of a "fact" vice theory. The sun does not actually 'rise', it only appears to rise. It's a remnant of language expression when humans thought the earth was flat, that it was the centre of the universe or that the ball of light passing above them was god(s?) riding his chariot. And even if we continue acceptable use of the expression with that knowledge, it is not always true, as explained . . .

However, as the general theme of the thread is religion in schools, in full disclosure the above point was made to me over 60 years ago when I received my learning in the religious based education system of Newfoundland. There were many faults to be found with the Roman Catholic schools run by Nuns and Christian Brothers that I attended, but they did beat in (or out) some basic knowledge and method of thought/argument.

OK. The sun does not rise over my head. I fall under the sun. Cheers.

 

[suffolkowner]

A response to "science itself relies upon experiment". Scientific method can be applied without experimentation.

What we know about entropy is just that any localized decrease in entropy must be offset (paid for) by an equivalent or greater increase somewhere else in any closed system. Localized order can be increased.

of course the earth is not a closed system and there is no shortage of energy coming in to counteract entropy

 

[YZT580]

The genetic code is rewritten every time DNA imperfectly replicates and there is a mutation.


citation needed


that's a lie.

actually it is re-written constantly but there is no new code created. It is the old code mutated. A mutation is by definition a mistake and the vast majority of mutations result in sterilization or death. They don't result in a horse from a cow or a man from an ape. Instead you have a two headed calf but it is still a cow. Remember the thalidomide debacle? Literally hundreds of mutations but the genetic code still spelled out human. It has often been said that apes and man share over 90% of the code. It is closer to 70% but, even if it was 90% that would require literally millions of successful mutations some of which would have to have occurred simultaneously. Just the timeline to achieve that number of successful mutations is beyond the scope of the time evolutionists say that this change occurred. Things like our appendix and other issues within the human system have been defined as residual. The vast majority of these so-called historical remnants were thought to be useless. Modern medicine is discovering that they do indeed serve a function today. We just didn't know enough to identify their purposes.

 

[suffolkowner]

Shows what the mind can do. The incident I refer to occurred in 2005

what happened in 2005?

 

[MrWhyt]

actually it is re-written constantly but there is no new code created.

if ACGT is mutated to ACCT, thats new.

and the vast majority of mutations result in sterilization or death.

the vast majority of mutations don't do anything good or bad.

They don't result in a horse from a cow or a man from an ape

this is a frankly childish understanding of the theory of evolution. Also H. sapiens are apes.

Just the timeline to achieve that number of successful mutations is beyond the scope of the time evolutionists say that this change occurred.

citation needed

 

[IKnowNothing]

Fun fact- doctrinally the concept of evolutionary creationism/ theistic evolution (as well as the geologic age of the earth, timeline of humanity) is officially accepted and endorsed by the vast majority of mainline Protestant churches as well as the Catholic church.

evolutionary creationism/ theistic evolution = taking a non literalist approach to Genesis and reconciling faith with science by interpreting evolution as the method by which divine creation happened.

 

[suffolkowner]

actually it is re-written constantly but there is no new code created. It is the old code mutated. A mutation is by definition a mistake and the vast majority of mutations result in sterilization or death. They don't result in a horse from a cow or a man from an ape. Instead you have a two headed calf but it is still a cow. Remember the thalidomide debacle? Literally hundreds of mutations but the genetic code still spelled out human. It has often been said that apes and man share over 90% of the code. It is closer to 70% but, even if it was 90% that would require literally millions of successful mutations some of which would have to have occurred simultaneously. Just the timeline to achieve that number of successful mutations is beyond the scope of the time evolutionists say that this change occurred. Things like our appendix and other issues within the human system have been defined as residual. The vast majority of these so-called historical remnants were thought to be useless. Modern medicine is discovering that they do indeed serve a function today. We just didn't know enough to identify their purposes.

recreating a new nucleic acid code would be noncompetitive with what is already there plus limited in its outputs
you have 3 letter words-codons that can be comprised from 4 letters-nucleic acids from which you can assemble 22 amino acids
giving 64 possible combinations lots of redundancy

 

[suffolkowner]

if ACGT is mutated to ACCT, thats new.


the vast majority of mutations don't do anything good or bad.


this is a frankly childish understanding of the theory of evolution. Also H. sapiens are apes.



citation needed

because the third letter/position in the codon is semi redundant and there is much redundancy in codons vs amino acids. 64 vs 22
and thats if the mutation is in a coding part of the DNA

 

[MrWhyt]

Remember the thalidomide debacle? Literally hundreds of mutations but the genetic code still spelled out human.

thalidomide didn't cause mutations in the persons DNA

the researchers found that thalidomide acts by promoting the degradation of an unexpectedly wide range of transcription factors – cell proteins that help switch genes on or off – including one called SALL4. The result is the complete removal of SALL4 from cells.

The degradation of SALL4 interferes with limb development and other aspects of fetal growth.

After 60 years, scientists uncover how thalidomide produced birth defects

More than 60 years after the drug thalidomide caused birth defects in thousands of children whose mothers took the drug while pregnant, scientists at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute have solved a mystery that has lingered ever since the dangers of the drug first became apparent: how did the drug...

www.dana-farber.org

 

[CadNav]

In Ontario, actual in depth study of evolution is left to grade 11 and 12 university prep Biology. I think the big bang theory is left for grade 9 science?

The real sticking point likely comes from things like geology, the rock cycle, and dinosaurs, at elementary ages. Basic core understanding of the history of the natural world that contradicts doctrine and leads to uncomfortable questions/ discussions.


Evangelical/ evangelistic also have accepted use as adjectives re: people who behave like Evangelical Christians but for other causes
Merriam Webster - "marked by militant or crusading zeal"
Britannica - "having very strong beliefs and often trying to persuade other people to have the same beliefs"
Dictionary.com - "marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause"

Much like the word "zealot" no longer strictly applies to a Jewish sect wanting to rebel against the Romans.



This is like, laugh out loud ironic.

Wow, Ontario seems to have some pretty high quality education... in New Brunswick I learnt nothing about that, all twelve years... (I got detention in elementary school for telling my teacher that a nuclear power plant doesn't produce CO2)

I personally think that it's okay to gloss over it, and things that are theories should be represented as that, just theories.

I think that children should be given some credit to learn things for themselves, and then they can form their own opinions. When I was in High School, we had a debate team, and all the questions were about if ketchup or mustard was better, because they didn't want to offend anyone. The pushback from learning things like geology and dinosaurs usually come from the parents because they don't agree with the current theory. I think the only way we can properly deal with these problems is to either assume that the students are mature enough to deal with the content, and it can be taught with the assumption that the student understand people can agree or disagree with the course material, or the content can be taught later in school or not at all.

I would have loved to take a class in high school about "creationism versus evolution," or about religion in general.