Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Full Version: Education Debate - Rubio Vs. Sanders
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
You still haven't answered Boudreaux's question, and you still haven't answered the obvious that punctuated equilibrium/evolution is still evolution...


You have time to be on this mb, but are too lazy to defend your points. You are either to lazy, or do not have the answers to the counter arguments that were made.


Either way, you lose the debate...
Quote:anchor... i keep hoping that you're kidding, but i really think you are serious.


I'm not kidding.


But you do appear lazy or incapable of defending your position.


Come off your high horse oh exalted one and teach us heathens... Lol, or you can do what is typical of your ilk, and just insult me and deflect. Your type is so predictable.
Quote:You still haven't answered Boudreaux's question, and you still haven't answered the obvious that punctuated equilibrium/evolution is still evolution...


You have time to be on this mb, but are too lazy to defend your points. You are either to lazy, or do not have the answers to the counter arguments that were made.


Either way, you lose the debate...
I'm not French  Sick
Quote:I'm not French Sick


Lol, sorry, auto correct on my phone stinks. I'll add your name to my dictionary.
Quote:What you have done is point out the incompleteness of sciences understanding of the beginnings of life. This is not an unknown. Nor is it evidence to support creationism. What you have not done is explain your position.

 
 

This is the fundamental crux of our disagreement.  You believe that sciences understanding of the beginning of life is simply "incomplete" implying that we know living systems develop from non living matter, we just don't know how.  That's a rational belief, but its just that a belief.  

 

I have cited and i will continue to cite the Law of bio genesis, meaning that what we KNOW is that every living system that we have ever observed was begotten by a previous living system.  I believe this scientific truth is at least paradoxical and in my opinion antithetical tot he concept of abiogenesis.  

 

You are right, there are a lot of people a lot smarter than me that think my conclusion is nonsense.  They have right to their opinion, just like the other LOT of people smarter than me who agree in the concept of a creator.  

 

As to my ability to type and express myself, you're welcome to go back line by line and see my opinions and conclusions on the matter and the train of thought that i used to get there.  Whether you agree with me or not is your business.  If you have a legitimate question about how i came to a certain conclusion i'll be happy to answer, but at the same time its a little trite taking the time to type out detailed responses only to be called DENSE or a SCIENCE DENIER because we disagree.  

 

Id like  back to the OP and what i said immediately after Eleventh Doctor brought up the idea of Creation in certain schools.  I have no problem with teaching the theory of evolution in schools.  I have no problem with teaching the big bang theory.  I have no problem teaching the hypothesis of abiogenesis.  My simple request from the start is that we teach the concepts in their TOTALITY so that each student can make up their mind based on a clear presentation of the facts.  

 

You don't want someone teaching from Genesis 1 in a classroom anymore than I want someone teaching "This is how we know life started, or this is how we know life became diverse" when the evidence is either contradictory or incomplete.  Call me crazy but that seems like a common sense conclusion.  

 

In my personal experience One of the best learning experiences that I had in my life was during my freshman Biology course.  Our entire final exam was based on the theory of evolution with mention of abiogenesis.  The thing that i respect most is that my professor remained committed to expressing the facts and didn't take a position either way.  He presented the relevant evidence and current theories arguments for and against.  For me this had a profound effect on me and actually strengthened my faith more than any other experience in my life.  For others who were of a more secular persuasion it just gave them more information about the possible origins of life and what markers they would be looking for in a conclusive explanation, and for for some people it just lead them to a more general sense of the wonder of life itself and the miracle, natural or otherwise, that it is.  

 

I think that people should have the opportunity to choose what institution they want their children to be educated in because nine times out of ten the child will reflect the parents views until a certain age anyway.  And within that choice i believe that the FULL exchange of ideas is only going to benefit the student and i wouldn't advocate a course of study that denied relevant information from anyone.  
Quote:I'm not kidding.


But you do appear lazy or incapable of defending your position.


Come off your high horse oh exalted one and teach us heathens... Lol, or you can do what is typical of your ilk, and just insult me and deflect. Your type is so predictable.
 

Lol.  First my posts are too long and i bloviate now my posts are too short and i'm lazy.   

 

[BLEEP]...  I'm so sorry that i just can't seem to make you happy anchorman...  [BLEEP]....  I am just trying so hard!
So two pages later and maybe I missed it, but does anyone who is arguing for creationism to be taught have evidence there is a creator?  I'm not asking the question to insult whoever has some evidence.  I'm truly curious as to the evidence schools will be teaching about creationism and why it is a good/sound theory.  

Quote:So two pages later and maybe I missed it, but does anyone who is arguing for creationism to be taught have evidence there is a creator?  I'm not asking the question to insult whoever has some evidence.  I'm truly curious as to the evidence schools will be teaching about creationism and why it is a good/sound theory.  
 

you have to point out someone who you think is advocating for creation to be taught in school but i digress.  

 

from a scientific standpoint creation would be a diagnosis of exclusion based on the totality of the known facts and natural laws surrounding the origin of life and energy.
Quote:So two pages later and maybe I missed it, but does anyone who is arguing for creationism to be taught have evidence there is a creator?  I'm not asking the question to insult whoever has some evidence.  I'm truly curious as to the evidence schools will be teaching about creationism and why it is a good/sound theory.  
The answer to your question is very long and full of lots of denial of the overall opinion of the scientific community. 

 

The short answer is no. Nothing has been provided. The "evidence" provided is purely "well science doesn't have definitive proof to the satisfaction of the opposition therefore obviously creator. "

Quote:you have to point out someone who you think is advocating for creation to be taught in school but i digress.


from a scientific standpoint creation would be a diagnosis of exclusion based on the totality of the known facts and natural laws surrounding the origin of life and energy.
There were multiple people, but that doesn't really matter. If it is going to be taught in schools than there needs to be evidence to back it up. Otherwise it is religion. Faith. If no evidence than I'm not understanding the argument for it.
Quote:So two pages later and maybe I missed it, but does anyone who is arguing for creationism to be taught have evidence there is a creator?  I'm not asking the question to insult whoever has some evidence.  I'm truly curious as to the evidence schools will be teaching about creationism and why it is a good/sound theory.  
 

My short answer to you is no.

 

This topic got so way "off topic" that I don't really pay much attention to it.

 

That being said, and I'm sure that "evidence" has been posted in threads above.  I'm of the belief that the possibility of a creator is not out of the question, not because there is proof of such, but the fact that there is no proof that can undeniably refute the claim.  My earlier argument, and I still stand by this, is that creationism and evolution are both theories and there is nothing wrong with teaching that both exist.  You don't teach by saying to a child that there is "only one right answer", especially when it comes to something like this.  You teach them the theory and let them discover the answer for themselves.  It's commonly known as "stimulating thought".
The idea that all observed living systems came from other living systems and don't come from non living systems is a natural law.  Far too often this is excluded from the conversation about the origins of life (which are themselves unproven).  My position is that we make sure we include this as relevant in the discussion.  I am not advocating that we teach science from a religious perspective, i am simply advocating that we don't teach theory as settled science, especially when it contradicts natural law.

Quote:There were multiple people, but that doesn't really matter. If it is going to be taught in schools than there needs to be evidence to back it up. Otherwise it is religion. Faith. If no evidence than I'm not understanding the argument for it.
 

That's where you are wrong in my opinion.  You want "evidence" to back up a theory, but yet you don't present "evidence" to refute the theory.  It's not religion or "faith", it's a theory.
Quote:The idea that all observed living systems came from other living systems and don't come from non living systems is a natural law.  Far too often this is excluded from the conversation about the origins of life (which are themselves unproven).  My position is that we make sure we include this as relevant in the discussion.  I am not advocating that we teach science from a religious perspective, i am simply advocating that we don't teach theory as settled science, especially when it contradicts natural law.
 

And here is where I contradict you and agree with you.  Nobody said anything about teaching science from a religious perspective, however "natural law" explains part of the evolution theory, but doesn't answer a fundamental question.  How did it start?

 

Is it so wrong to introduce the idea of creationism as one concept or idea of how we got here?  It's not religious teaching because there is no focus on any certain religion.
Quote:That's where you are wrong in my opinion.  You want "evidence" to back up a theory, but yet you don't present "evidence" to refute the theory.  It's not religion or "faith", it's a theory.
Unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying, creationism is from religion and is a full on belief. 
Quote:And here is where I contradict you and agree with you.  Nobody said anything about teaching science from a religious perspective, however "natural law" explains part of the evolution theory, but doesn't answer a fundamental question.  How did it start?

 

Is it so wrong to introduce the idea of creationism as one concept or idea of how we got here?  It's not religious teaching because there is no focus on any certain religion.
That leads down a rabbit whole though. You can't just teach what you are proposing as your idea of creator. You have to teach creators, and aliens, and spaghetti monsters, and simulation, and past Thursday, all of them.  
no you don't.  I was in a great biology class where the only thing discussed was this is what the evidence says, some people ascribe to a natural origin, some people ascribe to a creator/intelligent design.  Anything further is for your own personal beliefs and discussion in another forum.  That's pretty straight forward. 

 

More importantly, education on one subject isn't to be held in a vacuum.  1.) origins are fun to debate on message boards from time to time, but in reality unless you are talking about advanced level theoretical physics or theoretical generative medicine these topics would occupy maybe half a days worth of discussion in an earth science class or a biology class.  2.) if we aren't teaching kids how to be respectful of the forum that they are participating in then what's the point.

What boudreaumw said.  I have no problem with someone having their own set of "beliefs", but I do have a problem with teaching "beliefs" in a public setting with no evidence to back it up.  Stating I believe in something simply because it can't be disproven means you believe in almost everything and also believe in nothing. 

Quote:That leads down a rabbit whole though. You can't just teach what you are proposing as your idea of creator. You have to teach creators, and aliens, and spaghetti monsters, and simulation, and past Thursday, all of them.  
 

The question is, and this touches on religion, would be who/what is "the creator"?  Can the teaching be done in a way that for example teaches that some believe that there is/was a "higher power"?  What did the Mayans think?  What about the Inca?  What about the ancient Egyptians?  What about ancient Romans?  The list can go on and on and deals not only with modern belief, but the belief of past civilizations.

 

The major "issue" and backlash against teaching anything about creationism is mostly from the left, and it's because they think that it would be all about the Christian belief.

 

You are not teaching any specific belief, you are teaching that some people believe that this is a possible solution to the question about how life began.  Is it the "right" thing?  I'll leave that question open for people to decide for themselves.

 

Perhaps the solution is to take it out of a "science" class and teach it in a "history" class.
I think we call that history.  Not sure why that would be in a scientific discussion.

 

And you said that at the end which I overlooked :thumbsup:.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18