The ToE and common ancestry of all life forms did not come from looking at the evidence

[Gunfingers]

Well obviously:

 

[MSizer]

I can't remember who coined "teach the controversy" but it was an author who was describing ways to confuse people deliberately about established knowledge. The discovery institute recognized the power of the (unfortunately true) principle and use it to their full advantage.

 

[Man of Faith]

Poor argument MoF.

If I go out this AM and find snow on the ground and there was none when I came in last nite I CAN deduce it snowed. And even no one on the whole street can say they saw it snow and even if the weather prediction was for clear skies I can see the evidence. I need nothing more.

It is called reasoning MoF. You should try it every now and again - for a change.:sad4:

It doesn't tell you how the snow came about, just that it is there. Consequently, we see all the different life forms so we know they are there, but it doesn't tell us how they came about.

 

[Man of Faith]

Did that, won. Kitzmiller v Dover

That is a case about teaching intelligent design, not about teaching the problems with the ToE.

 

[MSizer]

It doesn't tell you how the snow came about, just that it is there. Consequently, we see all the different life forms so we know they are there, but it doesn't tell us how they came about.

OK, let's try this then.

Imagine you were walking through the woods and you came across an abandoned cabin. It was built on a foundation of smoothe rocks, and the walls were made of wooden planks.

If you noticed a stream not far from the cabin with a bed of smoothe rocks, and conspicuously, there was a section of them missing, would you not think that the rocks used to build the foundation had come from the river? And if you looked more closely at the planks, and deduced by the grain pattern that they were oak, and that there happen to be a bunch of oak tree stumps around the cabin, would you not assume the cabin was probably made from felling the nearby oak trees?

Do you think it's reasonable to say "but we didn't actually see the cabin being built, so there is sufficient doubt that the rocks were gathered from the river and that the oak was taken from the nearby trees, therefore, it is unreasonable to theorize that this cabin was built of nearby materials"?

Of course it's not.

 

[Man of Faith]

OK, let's try this then.

Imagine you were walking through the woods and you came across an abandoned cabin. It was built on a foundation of smoothe rocks, and the walls were made of wooden planks.

If you noticed a stream not far from the cabin with a bed of smoothe rocks, and conspicuously, there was a section of them missing, would you not think that the rocks used to build the foundation had come from the river? And if you looked more closely at the planks, and deduced by the grain pattern that they were oak, and that there happen to be a bunch of oak tree stumps around the cabin, would you not assume the cabin was probably made from felling the nearby oak trees?

Do you think it's reasonable to say "but we didn't actually see the cabin being built, so there is sufficient doubt that the rocks were gathered from the river and that the oak was taken from the nearby trees, therefore, it is unreasonable to theorize that this cabin was built of nearby materials"?

Of course it's not.

That is a reasonable assumption on the material that was used to build the cabin, but it doesn't tell me who built it or how long it took.

 

[Gunfingers]

Actually with a sedement analysis of the area where the rocks are missing, and a look at varying levels of fungal growth on the rocks in the cabin, you can probably get a decent idea of how long ago it was constructed and over what timeframe.

 

[Alceste]

Actually with a sedement analysis of the area where the rocks are missing, and a look at varying levels of fungal growth on the rocks in the cabin, you can probably get a decent idea of how long ago it was constructed and over what timeframe.

Plus you could count the tree rings on the stumps and bore samples of nearby trees in the same grove, match the annual climate indicator pattern and determine EXACTLY how many years ago it was built. Collecting DNA samples (hair, for example, or blood) from between the logs would tell you who built it.

Or, you know, you could just call it a miracle and say God did it, then interfere with the investigative efforts of anyone who says differently.

 

[Autodidact]

It doesn't tell you how the snow came about, just that it is there. Consequently, we see all the different life forms so we know they are there, but it doesn't tell us how they came about.

Can we use science to learn how snow comes about? Or do we have to rely on the Bible?

For example, the Bible says that rain happens when the windows in the firmament that divides the waters above from earth are opened? Are we stick with that, or can we use science to learn about the evaporative cycle?

 

[Autodidact]

That is a case about teaching intelligent design, not about teaching the problems with the ToE.

Read what the court said about science and science teaching.

 

[MSizer]

Plus you could count the tree rings on the stumps and bore samples of nearby trees in the same grove, match the annual climate indicator pattern and determine EXACTLY how many years ago it was built.

Correct. And using the climate indication patterns in the grain you could tell exactly which year the first tree was felled, and exactly which year the last tree was felled. So, you would know whether it was built in one season, or slowly over the course of, say, 19 years. You'd be able to tell exactly. (Isn't dendrochonology a wonderful contributor to scientific discovery?)

 

[themadhair]

Read what the court said about science and science teaching.

He won't. Jones articulately and succinctly summed up exactly why creationists are full of it.

Full text of the ruling here:
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

 

[TheGodless1]

I have found that BOTH religion AND science say the same thing. One uses data to explain Evolution while Religion uses Mythology to explain the exact same thing. Too bad dogmatic views such as Christianity become blinded by faith instead of having a larger view of how Science and Religion can conjoin to explain the creation of Earth and man.

 

[Tristesse]

It doesn't tell you how the snow came about, just that it is there. Consequently, we see all the different life forms so we know they are there, but it doesn't tell us how they came about.

Evolution doesn't explain how life came about either. It just explains what happens to life after it has formed. And to the best of my knowledge this thread is about evolution, not abiogenesis. So, lets stick to the topic at hand and not deviate.

 

[Tristesse]

That is a case about teaching intelligent design, not about teaching the problems with the ToE.

haha I.d. is about teaching that evolution is false, they have no other theory of their own. It's creationism with a different name. Thats all. Oh and by the way in science it's encouraged to challenge a theory. Thats how theories become solidified, is by scrutiny. And scientists do this all the time with evolution.

 

[Willamena]

Cause and effect rules.

But so does its antithesis.

 

[MSizer]

I have found that BOTH religion AND science say the same thing. One uses data to explain Evolution while Religion uses Mythology to explain the exact same thing. Too bad dogmatic views such as Christianity become blinded by faith instead of having a larger view of how Science and Religion can conjoin to explain the creation of Earth and man.

What is this common "thing" that they both explain. Unless the bible has had a few big recent revisions, I don't remember any descriptions of the geological column, the fossilization process or tectonic plates.

 

[ragordon168]

What is this common "thing" that they both explain. Unless the bible has had a few big recent revisions, I don't remember any descriptions of the geological column, the fossilization process or tectonic plates.

i think he means more in a figuartive way than litteraly.

science is the facts - raw data that is the basis for theories and .. well everything really.

the bible is the story - back at its creation people would always be asking where everyting came from. as the leaders of society the priests/priestesses would have to come up with some reason, since they didn't have the scientific method they used stories to stem the questions and further incorporate their god(s) into peoples lives.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

That is a case about teaching intelligent design, not about teaching the problems with the ToE.

What makes you think that there are no discussions and teachings concerning the problems of ToE?
There are plenty of books and lessons concerning specific problems.

What scientists do not discuss is only the question of evolution itself. The evidence for that is simply too great.

Now some (like you) might doubt ToE. As I have done already with others I would also propose a question to you: "What is your (better) alternative?"

 

[Man of Faith]

Actually with a sedement analysis of the area where the rocks are missing, and a look at varying levels of fungal growth on the rocks in the cabin, you can probably get a decent idea of how long ago it was constructed and over what timeframe.

That's nice, but the real question is bigger than that. How old is the rock that the house was built on? That is the question that either makes or breaks evolution by common ancestry. If it is 10,000 years old, evolution cannot be true because it takes billions of years, if it is billion of years old then evolution can be put into that timeline.

We cannot determine the age of the rock without making assumptions about the past.