Evolution v Intelligent Design; Should we really teach evolution?

[buckybeam]

hmmmm i must be confused i thought this was discussion about teaching evolution or ID or both in USA public schools. sorry... ive been posting in the wrong thread haha

 

[Norsefire]

Same fallacy as earlier. I bet every example you would use would involve humans making things - which you then decide to apply to the entire universe. Why?

The forces of causation. Everything that happens either is done with or without intent, and that's what I can apply to the origins of the universe.

No, you are missing the key, which is categorization: Neither of these concepts are science and as such have no place in science class.

Then so many other things shouldn't be taught either. Regardless, they are scientific concepts, and therefore deserve to be taught as such

Well, you're the one saying intelligence and it seemingly changes and adapts, (evolves if you will), as this thread continues. I think we need to be precise here because there are countless science students that would benefit from it.

"Hi guys, listen I just thought I'd mention that well, it's 'possible' some intelligence did it all. No, don't ask for any further clarification, I wont give you any. Just thought I'd mention it. Now, let's get back to science".
"Excuse me", student raises hand "what do you mean exactly?"
"Didn't I just tell you not to ask for further clarification!? Intelligence just means intelligence!"
Students all leave classroom.
Is that what you're after? If not, you'll need to be specific.

The problem is you can't be specific, so being specific would simply be foolish.

I take it science was never your strong subject? How can detail be irrelevant? [lol]

Not at all; geography was my strong subject.

Detail is relevant, but if you don't have details, and you have no way of obtaining them, then it's foolish to throw wild imaginings onto the concept. The concept that our universe was created isn't illogical. However, once you start throwing all sorts of wild details and angels and demons and heaven and hell and all of this, which you can't base off anything at all, it becomes illogical.

2) I have already said I am ok with the idea. No really, I am - as long as it is in the appropriate place. Your detail-less 'something smart did it' statement has no place in a science class but don't let me stop you trying to get it taught in..... church perhaps - yes, that's the appropriate place for it. But wait, you don't mean god when you say god. Hmm.. maybe we could set up an "it's possible" class where we fill the kids heads with all kinds of "possibles".

Church? Why teach a non religous concept in a religious place?
Science classes are best suited for this sort of thing; what other class? History? Language? No, science! We could teach it alongside other no-evidence ideas such as dark matter or string theory.

And that is fine, start an X-Files fan club or something. Why try and shove non-science into science?

See above.

So you find the idea that life on earth was influenced by a higher intelligence, such as an alien civ, completely illogical and ridiculous? I don't.

 

[Norsefire]

Oli, watch this interesting video on DMT, the spirit, and the Afterlife

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MQUGjd21MA


After all of this, it's ridiculous to think there ISN'T an afterlife.

 

[Norsefire]

Here's another great video. If after this you are not convinced, well, I tried

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3445312818256670700&ei=tWKwSIfCBaeuqQKR05XfDA&q=NDE&hl=en

 

[Oli]

So a drug KNOWN to cause hallucinations is sometimes released by the brain when we're suffering the stress of dying.
Okay... and after that they start talking about "hallucinogens release the spirit from the known laws of physics".
Um, science?
No.
Proof?
No.
Not even an indicator.
It's an hallucinogenic they cause you you to see and experience things that aren't real!

"these entities [the ones "met" by people under the influence of DMT] are benevolent, but some aren't"
Oookaaay, what sort of data is that?

 

[Norsefire]

See the second video. Also, NDE's occur in people who have never ever even touched drugs.

It isn't scientific data, true, but if you rely solely on the empirical, that is foolish

 

[Norsefire]

Here is a list of some good circumstancial evidence that a soul exists

(1) NDEs occur while patients are brain dead.
(2) Out-of-body perception during NDEs has been verified.
(3) People born blind can see during an NDE.
(4) NDEs demonstrate the return of consciousness from death.
(5) The NDE study by Raymond Moody has been replicated.
(6) Experimental evidence suggests that NDEs are real.
(7) NDEs can be considered to be an objective experience.
(8) NDEs have been validated in scientific studies.
(9) Out-of-body experiences (OBEs) have been validated in scientific studies.
(10) Autoscopy during NDEs have been validated in scientific studies.
(11) A transcendental "sixth sense" of the human mind has been found.
(12) NDEs support the "holonomic" theory of consciousness.
(13) The expansion of consciousness reported in NDEs supports consciousness theories.
(14) The brain's connection to a greater power has been validated by indisputable scientific facts.
(15) The replication of NDEs using hallucinogenic drugs satisfies the scientific method.
(16) NDEs are different from hallucinations.
(17) The replication of NDEs using a variety of triggers satisfies the scientific method.
(18) Apparitions of the deceased have been induced under scientific controls.
(19) People having NDEs have brought back scientific discoveries.
(20) NDEs have advanced the field of medical science.
(21) NDEs have advanced the field of psychology.
(22) NDEs correspond to the "quirky" principles found in quantum physics.
(23) The transcendental nature of human consciousness during NDEs corresponds to principles found in quantum physics.
(24) NDEs have advanced the fields of philosophy and religion.
(25) NDEs have the nature of an archetypal initiatory journey.
(26) People have been clinically dead for several days and report the most profound NDEs.
(27) NDEs have produced visions of the future which later prove to be true.
(28) Groups of dying people can share the same NDE.
(29) Experiencers are convinced the NDE is an afterlife experience.
(30) The NDEs of children are remarkably similar to adult NDEs.
(31) Experiencers of NDEs are profoundly changed in ways that cannot occur from hallucinations and dreams.
(32) NDEs cannot be explained merely by brain chemistry alone.
(33) NDEs have been reported by people since the dawn of recorded history.
(34) The skeptical "dying brain" theory of NDEs has serious flaws.
(35) Skeptical arguments against the NDE "survival theory" are not valid.
(36) The burden of proof has shifted to the skeptics of the survival theory.
(37) Other anomalous phenomena supports the survival theory.
(38) NDEs support the existence of reincarnation.
(39) The scientific evidence supporting reincarnation also supports the survival theory.
(40) Xenoglossy supports reincarnation and the survival theory.
(41) Past-life regression supports reincarnation and the survival theory.
(42) Contact with "the deceased" has occurred under scientific controls.
(43) After-death communications have been reported by credible people.
(44) Dream research supports the NDE and survival theory.
(45) Deathbed visions support the NDE and survival theory.
(46) Remote viewing supports the NDE and survival theory.
(47) The efficacy of prayer has been demonstrated under scientific controls.
(48) The "Scole Experiments" during the 1990s support the NDE and survival theory.
(49) Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) supports the NDE and survival theory.
(50) Prominent atheists have had NDEs which caused them to believe in the afterlife.
(51) Psychometry supports the NDE and survival theory



More details, such as an explanation of them, can be found at the following link

http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

 

[Norsefire]

Not to mention:

Rev. George Rodonaia underwent one of the most extended cases of a near-death experience ever recorded. Pronounced dead immediately after he was hit by a car in 1976, he was left for three days in the morgue. He did not "return to life" until a doctor began to make an incision in his abdomen as part of an autopsy procedure. Prior to his NDE he worked as a neuropathologist. He was also an avowed atheist. Yet after the experience, he devoted himself exclusively to the study of spirituality, taking a second doctorate in the psychology of religion. He then became an ordained priest in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

And perhaps some of the most compelling:

A rare type of NDE called the "group near-death experience" is a phenomenon where a whole group of people have a NDE at the same time and location. They see each other outside of their bodies and have a shared or similar experience. In 1996, NDE researcher Arvin Gibson interviewed a fire-fighter named Jake who had a most unusual NDE while working with other fire-fighters in a forest. What makes it unique is that it happened at the same time as several co-workers were also having a NDE. During their NDEs, they actually met each other and saw each other above their lifeless bodies. All survived and they verified with each other afterwards that the experience actually happened. Jake's near-death experience was so interesting that Gibson's local chapter of IANDS invited him to tell his story at one of their meetings. Another example of a group NDE is described in the IANDS publication Vital Signs (Volume XIX, No. 3, 2000) and is described in a greater way in Eulitt's book entitled "Fireweaver."

And,

If NDEs are merely hallucinations, why do the vast majority of experiencers report being told an identical and unusual message? NDEs often include a phenomenon of the experiencer being told by a supernatural entity that, "Your mission on Earth is not finished. You must go back" or some slight variation of this. Assuming that NDEs are merely hallucinations, it is odd that people are having mass hallucinations of receiving similar unusual messages.

 

[Oli]

See the second video. Also, NDE's occur in people who have never ever even touched drugs.

Wrong: the video states that DMT is formed IN THE BRAIN while dying, so previous drug use is irrelevant.
They become users when the pineal creates DMT for them...

(1) NDEs occur while patients are brain dead.

Hallucinogens formed in the body while dying invalidate that.

p

(2) Out-of-body perception during NDEs has been verified.

To what degree of reliability?

(3) People born blind can see during an NDE.

So?
I understand people born blind also sometimes dream with vision.

(4) NDEs demonstrate the return of consciousness from death.

Um, "I nearly died but I didn't actually" proves what?
Other than the patient recovered.

(5) The NDE study by Raymond Moody has been replicated.

Many pseudoscience experiments have been replicated.
What level of reliability do they have?

(6) Experimental evidence suggests that NDEs are real.
(7) NDEs can be considered to be an objective experience.

How can they be considered to be "objective" when they rely purely on single-witness reports backed up after the event by others that were in a stress situation?

(8) NDEs have been validated in scientific studies.

As what?
Something other than hallucination and/ or peripheral information gathering?

(9) Out-of-body experiences (OBEs) have been validated in scientific studies.

I doubt it.
Not by real scientists.

(10) Autoscopy during NDEs have been validated in scientific studies.

Again, what level of reliability?
Hallucinations/ peripheral information processing...

(11) A transcendental "sixth sense" of the human mind has been found.

Wrong, considering that at last count we had around 22 senses anyway.
Transcendental? Do tell.

(12) NDEs support the "holonomic" theory of consciousness.

So what? You can find "support" for all sorts of things but until one or the other is proven then they're just interesting data to be investigated and filed.

(13) The expansion of consciousness reported in NDEs supports consciousness theories.

Expansion of consciousness? Hallucinations...

(14) The brain's connection to a greater power has been validated by indisputable scientific facts.

Now this I find totally unbelievable. Scienctific verfication that there IS a "greater power" let alone a connection with it would have rocked science to its core.

(15) The replication of NDEs using hallucinogenic drugs satisfies the scientific method.

Which supports your theory how?
And invalidates mine how?

(16) NDEs are different from hallucinations.

In what respect?

(17) The replication of NDEs using a variety of triggers satisfies the scientific method.
(18) Apparitions of the deceased have been induced under scientific controls.

So?
The sunjects were human, therefore prone to common human tropes and archetypes for hallucination.

(19) People having NDEs have brought back scientific discoveries.

name just ONE.

(20) NDEs have advanced the field of medical science.

ALL human "sicknesses" advance mediacl science one way or another - even war.
Surgery improved massively because of the need to treat wounds *especially bullet and fragment wounds).

(21) NDEs have advanced the field of psychology.

There's a surprise - a field that studies the brain and thought processes benefits from investigating people undefrgoing hallicinations...

(22) NDEs correspond to the "quirky" principles found in quantum physics.

(23) The transcendental nature of human consciousness during NDEs corresponds to principles found in quantum physics.
Oh yeah, and a political party here in the UK claims that ancient Sanskrit poetry fallows the form of parrticle equations from quantum physics: therefore one day we can all levitate because quantum physics "proves" the scripts are right.

(24) NDEs have advanced the fields of philosophy and religion.

Religion?
Does religion "advance" at all?
Philosophy?
Oh we gave it some thought...

(25) NDEs have the nature of an archetypal initiatory journey.

Because they were human and MUST experience the archetypical hallucinations.

(26) People have been clinically dead for several days and report the most profound NDEs.

Several days?
Regardless intensity of hallucination doesn't make it any more "real".

(27) NDEs have produced visions of the future which later prove to be true.

So have wild guesses, science fiction writers and oija boards.
None if which is sufficiently weighty to put any serious belief into it.

(28) Groups of dying people can share the same NDE.
(29) Experiencers are convinced the NDE is an afterlife experience.
(30) The NDEs of children are remarkably similar to adult NDEs.

Since they were all human...

(31) Experiencers of NDEs are profoundly changed in ways that cannot occur from hallucinations and dreams.

There's a complete list of how dreams and halluciantions can change people?
People can undergo radical change just by thinking and coming to a conscious realisation...

(32) NDEs cannot be explained merely by brain chemistry alone.

I'll believe that when the definitive book on brain chemistry is written and there's no more to learn from study.

(33) NDEs have been reported by people since the dawn of recorded history.

So have ghosts, goblins etc.
Proves nothing except that we're still the basic model underneath.

(34) The skeptical "dying brain" theory of NDEs has serious flaws.
(35) Skeptical arguments against the NDE "survival theory" are not valid.

Which are...?

(36) The burden of proof has shifted to the skeptics of the survival theory.

Nope: the claim still has to be supported.

(37) Other anomalous phenomena supports the survival theory.
(38) NDEs support the existence of reincarnation.
(39) The scientific evidence supporting reincarnation also supports the survival theory.
(40) Xenoglossy supports reincarnation and the survival theory.
(41) Past-life regression supports reincarnation and the survival theory.

Again: support isn't proof.

(42) Contact with "the deceased" has occurred under scientific controls.

Ooh link please: science here's a bombshell.
I doubt it.

(43) After-death communications have been reported by credible people.

Credibility precludes mistakes?

(44) Dream research supports the NDE and survival theory.
(45) Deathbed visions support the NDE and survival theory.
(46) Remote viewing supports the NDE and survival theory.

Again, support does not.... and remote viewing is just as spurious.

(47) The efficacy of prayer has been demonstrated under scientific controls.

Actually it was totally invalidated...

(48) The "Scole Experiments" during the 1990s support the NDE and survival theory.
(49) Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) supports the NDE and survival theory.

Support is not...

(50) Prominent atheists have had NDEs which caused them to believe in the afterlife.

Atheists are still human... and atheists can convert with ot without nearly dying.

(51) Psychometry supports the NDE and survival theory

Support isn't... Pyschometry?
Another la la la "discipline"

Reading the link now...

 

[Norsefire]

The mere fact that people with NDE's can recall, and move about, the world and accurately recall what they witness disproves hallucinations. Not to mention group NDE's; let me guess, that's also a "hallucination"?

Oh please. Well, I won't tell you "I told you so" in the afterlife

 

[Oli]

Okay here's a typical example of the actual "scientific support" NDE as real has:
(19) People having NDEs have brought back scientific discoveries.

After she recovered, she began to have strange visions in her mind that she couldn't explain. One of these visions concerned a friend of hers. When Dr. Kason thought of her friend, she would see a vision in her mind of a "brain covered with pus." Dr. Kason knew that this was an excellent symbolic vision referring to the deadly disease meningitis. The problem was that her friend was perfectly healthy at the time, exhibited absolutely no signs of meningitis, and there was no reason to suspect she had it. Dr. Kason begged her friend to get tested for meningitis. After an amount of reluctance, her friend got tested. Surprisingly, the test was positive.

So a woman had a "premonition" AFTER (note that - after) her NDE and it turned out to correct.
And they claim this as
A) NDE did it - after all no-one EVER has premonitions without an NDE. Oh, wait...
B) it's a "scientific discovery". Sheesh, science just got far easier...

The entire list is equally factual.
They're grasping at straws.
And non-existent straws at that...

 

[Norsefire]

Group NDE's....please disprove that. You can't.

The soul exists

 

[Oli]

I've just looked at a few more links from that site.
Follow a heading stating "incontrovertible proof that..." and EVERY subsequent source given has "if X and Y are true then..." or "it would seem that..."
The entire thing is dishonest and misleading.
Apparently deliberately so.

 

[Oli]

Group NDE's....please disprove that. You can't.

The soul exists

Common heritage: common hallucinations.
Look up the dynamics of eyewitness groups and how they reinforce each other even on known-to-be-incorrect statements....

 

[Norsefire]

Ridiculous; the testimony and evidence is there.

 

[Oli]

FFalse testimony and deliberately misinterpreted evidence judging by that site.
The guy is a self-promoting charlatan.

 

[Norsefire]

False? NDE's have been recorded since forever. Now you just sound like you're in denial.

 

[Oli]

Lots of things with no basis in fact have been recorded sionce forever.
It doesn't make them real.
Every single point on that extensive list you gave turned out to be a deception.

 

[Norsefire]

A deception? Rofl. Deception means "lie"

 

[Oli]

So what word would you use when the site states "incontrovertible proof" and the referenced sources all use the words "if true then..." and "it would appear..."?
Does that fit your definition of "incontrovertible" more nearly than "deception"?
Yes: that list is an outright lie.