Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 91 (8839 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-28-2018 1:02 AM
232 online now:
edge, kbertsche, PaulK (3 members, 229 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Calvin
Post Volume:
Total: 832,640 Year: 7,463/29,783 Month: 1,687/1,708 Week: 90/488 Day: 1/89 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
23NextFF
Author Topic:   What's the problem with teaching ID?
ringo
Member
Posts: 14595
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 61 of 337 (424327)
09-26-2007 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by pbee
09-26-2007 2:51 PM


pbee writes:

last I looked, we existed without any *scientific explanations to that effect.

Look harder.

I was under the impression that we were all independent beings with the inherent capacity of free thought.

We are free to think what we like. Our thoughts are more likely to be accurate/useful if they agree with the thoughts of others.

Those who trust their own thoughts too much are likely to turn out like Charles Manson.

There is as much worth(if not more) to the theory of creation than the originating of matter from nothing....

Do you really expect anybody to respect your individual "free thoughts" on science when you display such abject ignorance?

Radical atheists, are very careful not to cross the line into eternal realms.

What do atheists have to do with what we're discussing?


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 2:51 PM pbee has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 3:33 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 255 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 62 of 337 (424334)
09-26-2007 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by pbee
09-26-2007 1:55 PM


bluegenes satirically paraphrasing pbee implying that something written in ancient scriptures was evidence writes:

God didn't create the heavens and the earth, and here we are...

pbee writes:

Right, and no doubt we have science and reason to back-up such a statement.

My point was, and it would be obvious to most people, that because something is written down does not make it evidence.:rolleyes:

You seem to be one of these strange people who are suffering from the fixed delusion that words written in a book thousands of years ago by people who couldn't even map a tenth of this planet have some special, magic truth and knowledge of the secrets of the universe in them.

If that's the case, what makes you think an ancient book is magical?

pbee writes:

As I stated, the onset that life originated from nothing is utter nonsense. It defies all laws. It wouldn't be so bad if your proposal was backed by logic(at the very least). At least we would have something to contemplate.

Who proposed that life originated from nothing? Certainly not me. It did not, in my opinion, and also according to every abiogenesis hypothesis I've ever heard of.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 1:55 PM pbee has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 3:48 PM bluegenes has responded

  
pbee
Member (Idle past 3806 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 63 of 337 (424335)
09-26-2007 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by ringo
09-26-2007 3:09 PM


quote:
Look harder.
more time waisting. There is nothing, don't bother playing the wildcard it only works on ignorant and impressionable people.

quote:
We are free to think what we like. Our thoughts are more likely to be accurate/useful if they agree with the thoughts of others.
Sure, unless those same others take it to far. Are you going to now deny that our history is plagued with the fact that we are unable to maintain proper balance in all that we do? I believe some things(sensible ones) and I reject the illogical or insensible ones. Having it any other way is living a life of fools.

quote:
Those who trust their own thoughts too much are likely to turn out like Charles Manson.
I don't know who that man is, nor do I care since it has no bearing on your statement. The key here is "to much". A balanced person will strike a chord right in the middle. To much of anything will produce bad results. Just as some will applaud a person for a discovery, they all to often get overcome by emotion and end up placing more credibility than due in that same person(s) abilities.

There is no scientific law or divine status-quo pertaining to ones acceptance of published scientific information, so don't bother trying to impress anyone with such ridiculous nonsense. Science has been plagued with miss(insert adjective here) since the dawn of human observation. Is it even worth mentioning that every passed will look back and ridicule the level of reasoning and behavior applied by preceding generations? You would think we would of learned! Yet here we are here in the 21st century walking and talking as though this is it! ( like the fools that we are)

Bottom line is, science doesn't have the answers to the origins of life. I'm not saying we may never discover some conclusive evidence to decipher the big question, however, this is the state of things as they stand. This takes us right back to my original statement. Where the origin of life is concerned, science has nothing, nada, zero, nothing. It's as obvious as the daylight and yet people are just to stubborn and deluded to acknowledge it.

Proof that for some, science is just another label for religious fanatacism.

Edited by pbee, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by ringo, posted 09-26-2007 3:09 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
pbee
Member (Idle past 3806 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 64 of 337 (424337)
09-26-2007 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by bluegenes
09-26-2007 3:29 PM


quote:
My point was, and it would be obvious to most people, that because something is written down does not make it evidence.
Your point was quite clear, and my point was that if your going to provide illustrations, then it should at least stand on its own two feet. The original statement was backed with a few details to justify it's worth. Your statement did not stand to reason whatsoever.

quote:
You seem to be one of these strange people who are suffering from the fixed delusion that words written in a book thousands of years ago by people who couldn't even map a tenth of this planet have some special, magic truth and knowledge of the secrets of the universe in them.
Well you've proven that you can half haphazardly prop up an argument, but I doubt you are ready to patronize others based on your own insight just yet. Without ever discriminating the scriptures, I can say with full confidence that the content(theory) provided in that single account is beyond anything we have to this very day.

quote:
If that's the case, what makes you think an ancient book is magical?
Magic is for children and fairytales. Are you upholding such beliefs with you as an adult or are you still young at heart? I never once thought the scriptures were magical in any way shape of form. Your on your own with that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by bluegenes, posted 09-26-2007 3:29 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by AdminNosy, posted 09-26-2007 3:51 PM pbee has not yet responded
 Message 71 by bluegenes, posted 09-26-2007 4:14 PM pbee has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 65 of 337 (424339)
09-26-2007 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by pbee
09-26-2007 3:48 PM


Warning about behaviour for pbee
Your tone is starting to become a bit disrespectful.

You are in danger of crossing the line and earning a suspension. This is just a note to remind you to tone it down.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 3:48 PM pbee has not yet responded

  
pbee
Member (Idle past 3806 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 66 of 337 (424340)
09-26-2007 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by jar
09-26-2007 3:03 PM


Re: looking for some support to your assertions
I'm going to throw a bone here, and it isn't out of generosity. The scientific educational practices do vary geographically. So while I may recite teaching practices relative to our own region, they would most likely differ from your own.

Why would the big bang theory(unmeasurable by current scientific method) make it's way into school curriculum's whilst creation would not?

Since when is the concept of a force or source of energy unworthy of scientific consideration? It would seem as though the big bang theory gets it's props by personal status while creation gets repelled by fear. Whatever the case, these aspect of scientific education are bound by a biased and closed minded system.

Down the intelligent life beyond our own and in with illogical theories to circumvent the implications of the first rule.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 09-26-2007 3:03 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 09-26-2007 4:05 PM pbee has responded
 Message 74 by iceage, posted 09-26-2007 4:24 PM pbee has not yet responded
 Message 131 by bluescat48, posted 10-20-2007 7:28 PM pbee has not yet responded
 Message 133 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2007 12:07 AM pbee has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30368
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 67 of 337 (424341)
09-26-2007 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by pbee
09-26-2007 4:00 PM


Re: looking for some support to your assertions
Your assertion was that theories are being taught as fact.

I still await and example of a Theory that is taught as fact.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 4:00 PM pbee has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 4:07 PM jar has responded

  
pbee
Member (Idle past 3806 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 68 of 337 (424342)
09-26-2007 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by jar
09-26-2007 4:05 PM


Re: looking for some support to your assertions
There is about as much point to your question as me answering "you'll have to site in in schools around here and see for yourself". Doesn't make much sense does it. That's just the way it is unfortunately.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 09-26-2007 4:05 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 09-26-2007 4:10 PM pbee has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30368
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 69 of 337 (424343)
09-26-2007 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by pbee
09-26-2007 4:07 PM


Still looking for some support to your assertions
So you still cannot present a single example of a Theory that is taught as a Fact yet continue to assert that is happening?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 4:07 PM pbee has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 4:11 PM jar has not yet responded

  
pbee
Member (Idle past 3806 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 70 of 337 (424344)
09-26-2007 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by jar
09-26-2007 4:10 PM


Re: Still looking for some support to your assertions
Very good!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 09-26-2007 4:10 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by AdminNosy, posted 09-26-2007 4:17 PM pbee has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 255 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 71 of 337 (424346)
09-26-2007 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by pbee
09-26-2007 3:48 PM


pbee writes:

Well you've proven that you can half haphazardly prop up an argument, but I doubt you are ready to patronize others based on your own insight just yet. Without ever discriminating the scriptures, I can say with full confidence that the content(theory) provided in that single account is beyond anything we have to this very day.

Evidence, please. The book isn't magic, remember, so why should its authors know the secrets of the universe? These are people who didn't know how many continents there are on this planet, remember.

And if your semi-coherent ramblings are supposed to be support for the idea of teaching I.D. in schools (the topic) then try and explain how on earth they're supposed to do that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 3:48 PM pbee has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 4:22 PM bluegenes has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 72 of 337 (424347)
09-26-2007 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by pbee
09-26-2007 4:11 PM


Warning -- the sequel.
Posts which waste others time and the limited posts we have on a thread are not welcome.

If you are unable to respond both politely and to the point then don't bother.

These warnings a trilogy will not be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 4:11 PM pbee has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 4:55 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
pbee
Member (Idle past 3806 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 73 of 337 (424348)
09-26-2007 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by bluegenes
09-26-2007 4:14 PM


quote:
Evidence, please. The book isn't magic, remember, so why should its authors know the secrets of the universe? These are people who didn't know how many continents there are on this planet, remember.
Secrets to the universe? where does it say such things?

quote:
And if your semi-coherent ramblings are supposed to be support for the idea of teaching I.D. in schools (the topic) then try and explain how on earth they're supposed to do that.
It's easy... they speak honestly about what we know and don't know instead of filling children's heads with wild unreasonable theories. While I certainly won't draft a curriculum for you, I will go as far as saying it starts with "we really don't know how we got here but..."

My point is, that we tolerate cherry picked theories in classrooms for no other reason than conforming to a scientific mindset. Why present one theory and not another? Why place more emphasis on one theory than the other? Why teach one theory and not the other? Why draft assignments based on the big bang theory and reject ID based ones?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by bluegenes, posted 09-26-2007 4:14 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by jar, posted 09-26-2007 4:26 PM pbee has not yet responded
 Message 76 by bluegenes, posted 09-26-2007 4:44 PM pbee has responded

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3693 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 74 of 337 (424349)
09-26-2007 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by pbee
09-26-2007 4:00 PM


Creationism In Schools
pbee writes:

Why would the big bang theory(unmeasurable by current scientific method) make it's way into school curriculum's whilst creation would not?

Actually there is evidence for a Big Bang such as background radiation and the consequence of mathematical reasoning. However I believe Big Bang theory is taught in schools as a speculative theory arising out of our current scientific understanding. I have not actually looked at any modern textbooks to see the manner it is presented, so I could be wrong.

However, your question as to why not creation - whose creation myth are we going to teach? Biblical, Hopi, Acoma, Navaho, Norse, Egyptian, Babylonian? they are all on equal footing as far as scientific support.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 4:00 PM pbee has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30368
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 75 of 337 (424350)
09-26-2007 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by pbee
09-26-2007 4:22 PM


why teach the BB theory?
Why draft assignments based on the big bang theory and reject ID based ones?

Because there is evidence that supports a Big Bang while there is no evidence that supports ID. Before ID can be considered a Theory, there must be a model. So far no one has presented a model for ID.

There is no ID theory.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 4:22 PM pbee has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
23NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018