Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 18 of 180 (238837)
08-31-2005 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Mammuthus
08-31-2005 5:12 AM


Re: Creation in School
ah polls - that's torch of truth!
quote:
For instance, a CNN/Time magazine poll released September 13, 2001, asked Americans whether Congress should declare war. Sixty-two percent said yes. When they were then asked against whom war should be declared, 61 percent said they didn't know.
http://www.ajr.org/article_printable.asp?id=2748
(This is an interesting subject so I've dropped the anti-randman shield around the USS Firefox for the moment).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Mammuthus, posted 08-31-2005 5:12 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Mammuthus, posted 08-31-2005 6:07 AM CK has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 20 of 180 (238852)
08-31-2005 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Mammuthus
08-31-2005 6:07 AM


Re: Creation in School
On a sidenote, this article sort of sums up part of the problem:
BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | The struggle over science
quote:
Like others I spoke with, he is less concerned with the international league tables and the familiar salami processes of the budget, than the well-documented readiness of the Bush administration to manipulate and suppress scientific findings - manifestly to appease industrial interests and religious constituencies.
This is not just on global warming and stem cells, currently in the news, but on a whole range of issues - lead and mercury poisoning in children, women's health, birth control, safety standards for drinking water, forest management, air pollution and on and on.
"It's disturbing," Professor Lane told me. "This is the first time to the best of my knowledge through successive Republican and Democratic administrations, that the issue of scientific integrity has reared its head."
I cannot think of the name but there is a sci-fi book where America ends up as a nation where only pre-newtonian physics is taught and allowed - that's where the country seems to going.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 31-Aug-2005 06:14 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Mammuthus, posted 08-31-2005 6:07 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Mammuthus, posted 08-31-2005 6:43 AM CK has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 22 of 180 (238865)
08-31-2005 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Mammuthus
08-31-2005 6:43 AM


Re: Creation in School
quote:
I would have to see the numbers of the total number of US citizens who are achieving advanced degrees in science over several decades before I would conclude that there has been such a tectonic shift in the US.
I don't know about "several decades" but hasn't every survey about HE shown that the take-up of the "hard" sciences has declined year on year? It's certainly the case here in the UK.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Mammuthus, posted 08-31-2005 6:43 AM Mammuthus has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 30 of 180 (238904)
08-31-2005 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by paisano
08-31-2005 8:10 AM


Re: Creation in School
There has been a quite interesting debate in the media about the use of "balance" and how it should be applied. Many organizations have taken this to mean that all ideas should be presented as if they have equal validity regards of the actual merits of the idea.
So you get the nonsense where creationism is presented in the same manner as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.
your touched by his noodly appendage
Charles
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 31-Aug-2005 08:27 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by paisano, posted 08-31-2005 8:10 AM paisano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Nuggin, posted 08-31-2005 11:15 AM CK has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 72 of 180 (239417)
09-01-2005 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by TheLiteralist
09-01-2005 7:39 AM


Re: the truth hurts
quote:
Oh. I have a different definition, I guess, at least when I am discussing science. Truth equals "undeniable fact." Now, I don't mean that all that isn't undeniable fact isn't science, but then I don't equate science and truth, and I don't think that is an incorrect view of science.
Wait.. before we go too far down this road let me just check something with you know that in science that Fact=Observation rather than "This is true*".
* yes yes I know but let's keep it simple.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Sep-2005 07:53 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-01-2005 7:39 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-01-2005 7:50 AM CK has replied
 Message 74 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-01-2005 7:55 AM CK has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 75 of 180 (239422)
09-01-2005 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by TheLiteralist
09-01-2005 7:50 AM


Re: truth = observation?
No I'm not disagreeing but I'm slightly unsure from your post of your stance so was asking to clarify your position and to ensure that we are talking about the same things using the same terminology.
it seems strange to ask but many creationists use their own versions of every scientific term in existance ("I don't see why I should use YOUR terms") and it can get very confusing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-01-2005 7:50 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-01-2005 8:03 AM CK has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 77 of 180 (239427)
09-01-2005 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by TheLiteralist
09-01-2005 7:55 AM


Re: the truth hurts
We need to establish a bit of your terminology and then we can get into the rest - what do you think a "scientific proof is"?
When I use "fact" in the context of science, I use it to mean -
quote:
in science, a fact is data supported by a scientific experiment. A fact is an honest observation. A scientific fact is an honest observation seen by many scientists. A scientific fact is a scientific observation that is so accepted that it becomes difficult to consider other interpretations of the data. A fact may tentatively support or refute a model of how the universe works. Facts do not prove a model is correct. One observation of any phenomenon does not prove anything.
Fact - Wikipedia
You wish to read this as it's an overview of how fact,theory interconnect in regards to the TOE.
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Sep-2005 08:06 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-01-2005 7:55 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-01-2005 8:17 AM CK has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 87 of 180 (239471)
09-01-2005 10:14 AM


Creationism? How about the basics!!
One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.
Shortened link. Please use peek to see how you can shorten such links in the future.
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-01-2005 10:15 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Yaro, posted 09-01-2005 10:56 AM CK has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 118 of 180 (239611)
09-01-2005 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by jar
09-01-2005 2:15 PM


Re: Let's vote on the facts?
Ah this is the matter that caused me to raise my anti-randman shields around the USS Firefox. The crux of it was this - The scientist that Randman mentions (Gerland Van Dyke)goes around christian groups giving talks on his evidence (Randman saw one in the 1980s). He has never (AFAIK) produced any peer-reviewed material on the matter at all.
Nothing, nada - this was established at the time, it is therefore rather
disingenuous for Randman to be making statements like:
quote:
Why don't you google their web-pages and then see the research they are currently engaged in for yourself?
Because in regards to Van Dyke he already knows the answer...
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Sep-2005 02:38 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 09-01-2005 2:15 PM jar has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 126 of 180 (239631)
09-01-2005 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by randman
09-01-2005 2:32 PM


What a joke
You call that rag a "peer-reviewed" journal - Peer review refers to fellow experts in the field, not your chums who have all the conclusions already worked out.
And before you make the obvious response check out the "Statement of Belief":
quote:
All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
What a joke - how can that magazine be engaged in science, when you have to agree to the conclusions before you submit the research!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 2:32 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2005 3:23 PM CK has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 138 of 180 (239657)
09-01-2005 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by randman
09-01-2005 3:15 PM


Re: Let's vote on the facts?
quote:
asked and answered
em..with examples who didn't seem to be doing anything..
Behe is an interesting one and I'll search for the actual quote (or I'll retract this statement in the morning) - he says he doesn't even try to put stuff in peer-reviewed journals and one of the main reasons is that he can make more money the other way.
quote:
If you guys won't accept Behe, then we have nothing to talk about. There is no level of accreditation you would accept.
Common creationist tactic, you are trying to argue the scientists not the science.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Sep-2005 03:25 PM
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Sep-2005 03:26 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 3:15 PM randman has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 159 of 180 (239776)
09-01-2005 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by randman
09-01-2005 7:28 PM


Way off topic and science in a non-science forum
That looks awfully like you are trying to have a debate about science and QM (which is odd because a) you are barred from the science forums and b) the last time you were discussing QM you were getting knocked out of the park by John but doing your usual "NANANANANANANANANAN".
If the discussion goes in that direction - what does it directly have to do with the OP?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 7:28 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by randman, posted 09-02-2005 11:47 AM CK has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 164 of 180 (239897)
09-02-2005 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Phat
09-02-2005 3:22 AM


Re: Sorry to speculate and sound arrogant, but..
What about native indians and their spirit guides?
What so inherently easier to believe about a man who could walk on water and could raise from the dead.
For the outsider your belief seems equally as valid/invalid as any other.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 02-Sep-2005 09:43 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Phat, posted 09-02-2005 3:22 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by jar, posted 09-02-2005 11:08 AM CK has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024