Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
-
I don't think we need worry too much about that possibility.perhaps after 20,000 posts or thereabouts we will get to prophecy...if the Good Lord doesn't rapture me first!!!!
In fact, I think we can predict that JC isn't going to be raptured by the time that this thread reaches 20k posts.
Odds anybody?0 -
-
.....I have already done so.... repeatedly....the fact that you don't like the answer doesn't mean that I have to waste my time repeating myself!!!!:pac::):D
J C, you've done nothing but repeat yourself for this entire thread.
As AH has said several times, there are perfectly obvious reasons why your answers to questions 1-9 are invalid, and the rest have not been addressed at all.
AtomicHorror: I hope you don't mind my borrowing your hobby horse for a while. I'm pretty sure it makes J C squirm.....anyway I look forward to him eventually meeting a Creation Scientist ... who will answer all of his scientific questions ...as well as 'setting him straight' on a few theological issues!!!:pac::):D
He's met several creationists (though you have yet to demonstrate that there's any such thing as a creation scientist). I'd go so far as to say that the constant hammering on the field that he's devoted his life to studying by people, such as yourself, who are in denial of the facts and completely ignorant of the entire field that they're trying to disprove, has gone a long way towards making him the strong advocate for atheism that he is.
Does it discomfort you to know that creationism has thus probably done more for atheism than the theory of evolution?....I have noted that Prof Dawkins only interviews people who are not scientifically literate ... he should try interviewing a top Creation Scientist, for a change and give the 'theologians' a break!!!!:pac::):D
I'd be very interested to meet a creation scientist - vis. someone engaged in creation research. If you know of any, could you post any information about either them or their research in this thread?
Note: I said either them or their research, so if you're still paranoid that they'll be horribly expelled from the scientific community, you don't need to mention their names.0 -
.... we are amongst you ... meeting you every day ... peer-reviewing your work ... lecturing your children ... and some of us have debated top Evolutionists ... always with the same result ... utter defeat for the Evolutionists!!!!:D:)The Mad Hatter wrote: »I'd be very interested to meet a creation scientist - vis. someone engaged in creation research. If you know of any, could you post any information about either them or their research in this thread?0 -
Advertisement
-
.... we are amongst you ... meeting you every day ... peer-reviewing your work ... lecturing your children ... and some of us have debated top Evolutionists ... always with the same result ... utter defeat for the Evolutionists!!!!:D:)
Well if that isn't trolling I don't know what is. I've only spent five minutes here asking you a few questions but it's been a complete waste of my life. I won't bother any more and spare me your platitudes too.0 -
.... we are amongst you ... meeting you every day ... peer-reviewing your work ... lecturing your children ... and some of us have debated top Evolutionists ... always with the same result ... utter defeat for the Evolutionists!!!!:D:)
Yeah, yeah, you can claim victory all you like, but as long as you fail to produce evidence, you'll continue to be laughed at. Also, shouldn't creation scientists be doing creation science? Otherwise you're just creationist reviewers, or creationist debators. What original research are creation scientists engaged in?0 -
If there is not one already I think we need a cat pic for the creationists. "I is in your institutions, doin' me science..." or soemthing.The Mad Hatter wrote: »Yeah, yeah, you can claim victory all you like, but as long as you fail to produce evidence, you'll continue to be laughed at. Also, shouldn't creation scientists be doing creation science? Otherwise you're just creationist reviewers, or creationist debators. What original research are creation scientists engaged in?
MrP0 -
.....a very interesting experiment indeed....copying the (RNA) Designs of the Creator...I guess imitation is the best form of flattery!!!!:D
In what way do the structures created by the team resemble any current form of life? I'm not aware of any currently-extant self-replicating RNA-based "life". In fact the only RNA-based genomes I'm aware of are found in viruses, which do not self-replicate.
The experiment imitates nothing that exists today, but serves to test the hypothesis that life might have begun from self-replicating RNA sequences. The results support the hypothesis, though they are not conclusive.
And if this is really imitation does that mean that you are now admitting that self-replicating and mutating RNA sequences might once possibly have existed?....more tellingly, however, the following quote, from the above linked article, illustrates the problem of producing new functional information without an input of intelligence (which the authors call 'laboratory tinkering')
More fundamentally, to mimic biology, a molecule must gain new functions on the fly, without laboratory tinkering. Joyce says he has no idea how to clear this hurdle with his team's RNA molecule. "It doesn't have open-ended capacity for Darwinian evolution."
If you'd read the article more closely, you'd know what the actual hurdles to that are. The nature of the RNA structure they're using does not allow for the replicative errors produced by polymerase-style activity. The time constraints of the experiment do not allow for the emergence of mutations induced by the environment. They need to switch to a polymerase-style ribozyme system and they need to do a Lenski-style multi-generational experiment.....nor will it EVER have any capacity to generate new functional information .... without an intelligent input from it's Human 'Creators'!!!!:pac::):D
Why not? What is "function" in the context of a broth of self-replicating RNA strands? The only functions I can think of that they could have in that simple state are replication and stability. The group already demonstrated that when they randomly induce (and yes it is tinkering) mutations in the strands, they generate new functional information (or at least improved fuctional information). Some of the strands gain an improved ability to replicate. They're even selected positively by natural selection. So the only question that remains is whether such random mutations can occur without intervention. You've already accepted that such mutations can occur, you just dispute the notion that they can confer function. But random is random whether it is induced by intelligence or by environment. So, at least in principle, does it not seem likely that this simple function (improved replication) can be generated by non-intelligent influence?.....I can do in 5 seconds what 'blind' non-intelligently directed natural forces could NEVER do ...even in a billion years...things as simple as writing this sentence, for example!!!:pac::):D
Well of course. How would a natural force get hold of a biro? Writing a sentence in now way resembles the emergence of complex biology.
.....I have already done so.... repeatedly....The Mad Hatter wrote:I suppose not, then?
That's a flat-out lie J C. You've replied to some of the questions, but the replies did not answer the questions asked. You replied only once, not repeatedly. You've failed to address several of the questions in any form.the fact that you don't like the answer doesn't mean that I have to waste my time repeating myself!!!!:pac::):D
What are you talking about? When asked to give evidence that evolution is "impossible" you repeatedly give us the same spiel on the mathematical impossibility of abiogenesis. You've no problem repeating the stock answers you get from creationist websites and literature. You just seem shakier about answering our more challenging questions.
Hilariously, even your straw-man for evolution is a straw-man for abiogenesis. You talk about protein synthesis when none would have occured. You talk about complex function when none would have been required.0 -
The Mad Hatter wrote: »AtomicHorror: I hope you don't mind my borrowing your hobby horse for a while. I'm pretty sure it makes J C squirm.
Of course I don't mind and thank you for not letting him off the hook. I'll post the questions up again shortly as it's been many pages since I did it last.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
...Mr P....that sounds like the ideal slogan for Evolutionists....with emphasis on the "soemthing"!!!!:pac::):DIf there is not one already I think we need a cat pic for the creationists. "I is in your institutions, doin' me science..." or soemthing.
MrP
...and here are some great mind expanding quotes from the great Phillip Johnson (b. 1940) Professor of Law at Berkeley
The following quote should provide some 'food for thought' for any Christians who have abandoned science to the Atheists and Materialists ....when it come to 'origins'!!!
"These questions (of origins) cannot be left to the sole determination of a class of experts, because important questions of religion, philosophy, and cultural power are at stake. Naturalistic evolution is not merely a scientific theory; it is the official creation story of modern culture. The scientific priesthood that has authority to interpret the official creation story gain immense cultural influence thereby, which it might lose if the story were called into question. The experts therefore have a vested interest in protecting the story, and in imposing rules of reasoning that make it invulnerable. When critics ask, "Is your theory really true?" we should not be satisfied to be answered that "it is good science, as we define science." Darwin on Trial (1993) p.159
..and this quote 'homes in' on the difficulties in having any objective morality in the absence of God!!!
"In attempting to refute my point, Gould resoundingly confirmed it. Science and religion are separate but equal in importance, he wrote, "because science treats factual reality, while religion struggles with human morality." That is naturalistic metaphysics in a nutshell, ......
...... The power to define "factual reality" is the power to govern the mind, and thus to confine "religion" within a naturalistic box. For example, a supposed command of God can hardly provide a basis for morality unless God really exists. The commands of an imaginary deity are merely human commands dressed of as divine law. Morality in naturalistic metaphysics is purely a human invention, as Gould conceded in the same review by remarking offhandedly that on questions of morality, "there is no 'natural law' waiting to be discovered 'out there'." Why not? The answer, of course, is that naturalistic metaphysics relegates both morality and God to the realm outside of scientific knowledge, where only subjective belief is to be found. Darwin on Trial (1993) p.161-2
....and herein 'lies the rub' that is Naturalism and it's circular reasoning:-
"Darwinists know (sic) that natural selection created the animal groups that sprang suddenly to life in the Cambrian rocks (to pick a single example) not because observation supports this conclusion but because naturalistic philosophy permits no alternative. What else was available to do the job? Certainly not God -- because the whole point of positivistic science is to explain the history of life without giving God a place in it." Darwinism and Theism March 1992
...and here are some of Prof Johnson thoughts on 'Theistic Evolution' :-
"What theistic evolutionists have failed above all to comprehend is that the conflict is not over “facts” but over ways of thinking. The problem is not just with any specific doctrine of Darwinian science, but with the naturalistic rules of thought that Darwinian scientists employ to derive those doctrines. If scientists had actually observed natural selection creating new organs, or had seen a step-by-step process of fundamental change consistently recorded in the fossil record, such observations could readily be interpreted as evidence of God’s use of secondary causes to create. But Darwinian scientists have not observed anything like that. What they have done is to assume as a matter of first principle that purposeless material processes can do all the work of biological creation because, according to their philosophy, nothing else was available. They have defined their task as finding the most plausible -- or least implausible -- description of how biological creation could occur in the absence of a creator. The specific answers they derive may or may not be reconcilable with theism, but the manner of thinking is profoundly atheistic. To accept the answers as indubitably true is inevitably to accept the thinking that generated those answers. That is why I think the appropriate term for the accommodationist position is not “theistic evolution,” but rather theistic naturalism. Under either name, it is a disastrous error." Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin Christianity Today October 24, 1994 p.260 -
-
AtomicHorror wrote: »What, no rebuttal for me? No answers to the big 13 questions? If you're just here to trade barbs then all you're doing is wasting time.
She seems to be attempting another quotevalanche, in the hopes, I suppose, that we'll all have the memory-span of a goldfish or creationist.0 -
J C and co. Questions 1-8 have not been answered. Questions 9 through 13 have not been addressed in any form.
1. Provide a genetic test for Created Kinds. According to you, the taxa is both real and fundamental, so it should be innately more testable than any element of Linnean taxonomy, which is merely a labelling system.
2. Define "Created Pair" in biological and genetic terms. As with 1, this should be easy. Please refrain from scripture-based definitions.
3. Specifically for J C or whoever originally quoted Dr. Gee: Explain whether you intentionally or unintentionally quoted Dr. Gee out of context by suggesting that he was talking about a topic (the theory of evolution) that he was not actually addressing. Justify whichever choice you made in terms of your morals.
4. Please name some scientists currently engaged in creation research. Preferably provide examples of research papers (not reviews or essays) published in the last two years. We will accept scientists engaged in primary research at any institution, whether their briefs specify creation science or not, if their work can be shown to be directly connected with creation science.
5. Please provide an example of the "downward mixing" that should be visible in the fossil record if it is actually evidence of a turbulent flood. We will accept any organism that should only have emerged in the last 100 million years being found at any dated layer below 400 million years. This would be rather modest mixing in the top 10% of layers, but one irrefutable example will suffice.
6. Please clearly confirm that you have now accepted that either a) Your Designer is inept b) your Designer is disinterested in individual human survival c) irreducible complexity is not evidence of design but of mutation or d) redundancy (and thus new function) can arise by mutation. This is not an arbitrary four-way choice, the logic is explained here.
7. Please provide data confirming the rapid sedimentation/rock formation processes that you describe as occurring during the The Flood. The data may be from any primary source but must be based upon wet lab or field work data, rather than a mathematical model or simulation. Since you describe the process as having taken only a few years, this should be testable. The process must be naturally-occuring, fast enough and common enough to explain the build up of the entire fossil record within 10,000 years.
8. Please provide data demonstrating the mathematical, chemical or biological impossibility of the process of evolution. Some conditions: a) Whether the process did or did not occur is not relevant to the "possibility". b) Please confine your data to the process of evolution itself, that being the emergence of variation within life from a pre-formed common ancestor species. c) Abiogenesis is not a consideration. d) Data supporting Creation also does not impact on "possibility".
9. Following on from question 1, it has been asserted that kinds are defined not by genetics but by interbreeding capacity, producing fertile or infertile offspring. Please suggest a means by which we could test the difference between a genuine Created Kind and a false kind or pseudokind that has arisen by the emergence of a new species unable to breed with its former Kind due either to a chromosomal mutation, gene insertion mutation, extinction of an intermediate species or other means in the distant past.
10. Please explain by what mechanism a Created Kind such as the Motherfly Kind could have diversified to produce 148,000 known species (not counting extinct or unidentified species) within the 4,400 years since Noah's Flood. Please explain why such rapid speciation is no longer occurring.
11. Do you think it was morally wrong for an Answers In Genesis film crew to mislead Richard Dawkins into providing an interview for them?
12. J C, why, when attacking abiogenesis, do you do so on the basis of the random formation of peptides- a process not claimed to be a part of any of the conventional abiogenesis hypotheses?
13. J C, following your claim that the Creator is "probably" irreducibly complex, can you explain how this irreducibly complex being came into existence? As irreducible complexity cannot arise without intelligent intervention, what intelligence created the Creator?0 -
Maybe you'd get answers if you ended every question with "!!!:rolleyes::pac::D"?0
-
I think this thread might be finally over.
Even wolfsbane hardly ever comes round any more, while J C's lost the plot entirely and can barely string a coherent sentence together.
It must be just about time to award it to the evolutionists. Unless J C can stage a late (and unexpected) comeback and answer those 13 tricky questions.
I'm sure he still thinks he's 'won', but the true outcome must be pretty obvious to any sane person who gets this far.0 -
Embryology 1
Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo develops, it passes through stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind. A well-known example of this ridiculous teaching is that embryos of mammals have “gill slits,” because mammals supposedly evolved from fish. (Yes, that’s faulty logic.) Embryonic tissues that resemble “gill slits” have nothing to do with breathing; they are neither gills nor slits. Instead, those embryonic tissues develop into parts of the face, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.
Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution (a).
a. “This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by Haeckel and is often stated as ‘ontogeny [the development of an embryo] recapitulates [repeats] phylogeny [evolution].’ This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology.” Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm, The Process of Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 66.
“It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.” George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1965), p. 241.
Hitching, pp. 202–205.
“The enthusiasm of the German zoologist, Ernst Haeckel, however, led to an erroneous and unfortunate exaggeration of the information which embryology could provide. This was known as the ‘biogenetic law’ and claimed that embryology was a recapitulation of evolution, or that during its embryonic development an animal recapitulated the evolutionary history of its species.” Gavin R. deBeer, An Atlas of Evolution (New York: Nelson, 1964), p. 38.
“...the theory of recapitulation has had a great and, while it lasted, regrettable influence on the progress of embryology.” Gavin R. deBeer, Embryos and Ancestors, revised edition (London: Oxford University Press, 1951), p. 10.
“Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars.” Walter J. Bock, “Evolution by Orderly Law,” Science, Vol. 164, 9 May 1969, pp. 684–685.
“...we no longer believe we can simply read in the embryonic development of a species its exact evolutionary history.” Hubert Frings and Marie Frings, Concepts of Zoology (Toronto: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1970), p. 267.
“The type of analogical thinking which leads to theories that development is based on the recapitulation of ancestral stages or the like no longer seems at all convincing or even interesting to biologists.” Conrad Hal Waddington, Principles of Embryology (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1956), p. 10.
“Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated,” American Scientist, Vol. 76, May–June 1988, p. 273.
“The biogenetic law—embryologic recapitulation—I think, was debunked back in the 1920s by embryologists.” David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979. [See also Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 119.]
“The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel.” Ashley Montagu, as quoted by Sunderland, p. 119.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences24.html#wp10090860 -
-
Embryology 1
Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo develops, it passes through stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind. A well-known example of this ridiculous teaching is that embryos of mammals have “gill slits,” because mammals supposedly evolved from fish. (Yes, that’s faulty logic.) Embryonic tissues that resemble “gill slits” have nothing to do with breathing; they are neither gills nor slits. Instead, those embryonic tissues develop into parts of the face, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.
Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution (a).
a. “This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by Haeckel and is often stated as ‘ontogeny [the development of an embryo] recapitulates [repeats] phylogeny [evolution].’ This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology.” Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm, The Process of Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 66.
“It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.” George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1965), p. 241.
Hitching, pp. 202–205.
“The enthusiasm of the German zoologist, Ernst Haeckel, however, led to an erroneous and unfortunate exaggeration of the information which embryology could provide. This was known as the ‘biogenetic law’ and claimed that embryology was a recapitulation of evolution, or that during its embryonic development an animal recapitulated the evolutionary history of its species.” Gavin R. deBeer, An Atlas of Evolution (New York: Nelson, 1964), p. 38.
“...the theory of recapitulation has had a great and, while it lasted, regrettable influence on the progress of embryology.” Gavin R. deBeer, Embryos and Ancestors, revised edition (London: Oxford University Press, 1951), p. 10.
“Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars.” Walter J. Bock, “Evolution by Orderly Law,” Science, Vol. 164, 9 May 1969, pp. 684–685.
“...we no longer believe we can simply read in the embryonic development of a species its exact evolutionary history.” Hubert Frings and Marie Frings, Concepts of Zoology (Toronto: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1970), p. 267.
“The type of analogical thinking which leads to theories that development is based on the recapitulation of ancestral stages or the like no longer seems at all convincing or even interesting to biologists.” Conrad Hal Waddington, Principles of Embryology (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1956), p. 10.
“Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated,” American Scientist, Vol. 76, May–June 1988, p. 273.
“The biogenetic law—embryologic recapitulation—I think, was debunked back in the 1920s by embryologists.” David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979. [See also Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 119.]
“The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel.” Ashley Montagu, as quoted by Sunderland, p. 119.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences24.html#wp1009086
Random quotes are meaningless. Provide empirical data for 'your' assertions.0 -
Advertisement
-
BrianCalgary wrote: »Very interesting post that the embryonic stages was tossed aside as a proof prior to 1970.
Yet it was still taught in High School as late as 1978 as being a proof of evolution.
One reason why certain sciences can't be trusted.
...or the education system?0 -
BrianCalgary wrote: »Very interesting post that the embryonic stages was tossed aside as a proof prior to 1970.
Yet it was still taught in High School as late as 1978 as being a proof of evolution.
One reason why certain sciences can't be trusted.
The science curriculum in a certain education system is not the same thing as "science". My leaving cert biology book talked about a biochemical pathway that had some years previously been shown not to exist. That was not the fault of scientists but of educators. The science, the primary literature, was up to date and entirely open.0 -
Embryology 1
*snip*
That one misguided area of science once cited as evidence for evolution has been discarded does not falsify evolution. An even older set of evidence, the fossil record, is still valid. I understand that you point to that gaps in that evidence, but to falsify a theory you need contradictory data, not gaps in the data.0 -
Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo develops, it passes through stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence.
What a bizarre post.
That statement quoted above isn't true, and in fact the quotes you reference demonstrate it isn't true, since Haeckel (they guy they are all talking about) put forward his hypothesis in 1874 and were reprinted till the early 20s when they are largely abandoned.
If "evolutionists" had been teaching his ideas for over a hundred years, why are "evolutionists" proclaiming the ideas long dead in the 50s and 60s
Either the person who wrote this passage doesn't know who Haeckel was and assumed he was putting forward this idea long before Darwin, or they can't count.
Given this is copied and pasted from a Creationist website I would not rule out either of those possibilities.0 -
BrianCalgary wrote: »One reason why certain sciences can't be trusted.
It was taught in some school books up until the late 60s that there was oxygen on the moon (I've seen them and they are hilarious) I don't think any scientists ever believed there was air on the moon, let alone believe this up until the 1960s
To me this would be an example why the education system needs to move closer to science and scientists, rather than further away as Creationists appear to want.
When you get non-scientific people writing the school books you are in trouble and you get this sort of non-scientific nonsense propagating the curriculum.
Ironically this appears to be what Creationist want.0 -
I really like these ones:AtomicHorror wrote: »4. Please name some scientists currently engaged in creation research. Preferably provide examples of research papers (not reviews or essays) published in the last two years. We will accept scientists engaged in primary research at any institution, whether their briefs specify creation science or not, if their work can be shown to be directly connected with creation science.
10. Please explain by what mechanism a Created Kind such as the Motherfly Kind could have diversified to produce 148,000 known species (not counting extinct or unidentified species) within the 4,400 years since Noah's Flood. Please explain why such rapid speciation is no longer occurring.0 -
It was taught in some school books up until the late 60s that there was oxygen on the moon (I've seen them and they are hilarious) I don't think any scientists ever believed there was air on the moon, let alone believe this up until the 1960s
To me this would be an example why the education system needs to move closer to science and scientists, rather than further away as Creationists appear to want.
When you get non-scientific people writing the school books you are in trouble and you get this sort of non-scientific nonsense propagating the curriculum.
Ironically this appears to be what Creationist want.
Science education has been inadequate in many countries for a very long time. Things are better these days, but science is still taught as a collection of facts that follows the consensus rather than being taught as a method. Even at third level I see major flaws. Hell, I see flaws at PhD level.0 -
And when did you biology teacher qualify, and when was the biology book you used written, and how much effort did your biology teacher stay up to date with the latest news? Or was your biology teacher somebody who just got their qualification and lost all interest in the topic?BrianCalgary wrote: »Very interesting post that the embryonic stages was tossed aside as a proof prior to 1970. Yet it was still taught in High School as late as 1978 as being a proof of evolution.
I suspect the latter, since your biology teacher(s) certainly seemed to have failed to interest you in any serious way in what you are or the nature of the awe-inspiring, magnificent biological world that you inhabit.
Perhaps it would be fairer to say that certain facts will be ignored by people who, though splendidly unaware of the topic in question, believe that they know better.BrianCalgary wrote: »One reason why certain sciences can't be trusted.
Do go to your doctor or your cleric when you're sick?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Think we're descending into off-topic generalisation now.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement