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:   Negative Impacts on Society
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 13 of 222 (94179)
03-23-2004 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by hitchy
02-27-2004 3:18 PM


add to the program
Some of the things that I see missing are a good foundation in logical thinking and the ability to find information to enhance self-learning. I think this is becoming more critical as we move further into the information age where the sheer mass of information means that it cannot be taught in a traditional (rote?) manner. This would go a long way to giving science classes a better base before the start of classes. Non-logical thinking pervades society from credit card debt to buying maximum oversized drinks in places where refills are free (as if the size of the cup regulates how much you can drink).
Teach a child to think and to learn and then introduce subjects to think and learn about to expand the horizons.
We also see increased compartmentalization of ideas as specialties become more diverse and evolve language for their purposes that do not "interbreed" with languages from other disciplines - a phylogenic tree of knowledge if you will. I think people should be very careful to introduce concepts that cannot be conveyed outside a special area, and would like to see more done with crossover "renaissance" thinking.
I also wonder if we (as Americans) shouldn't consider a modification to the public school system, ending mandatory education one year earlier, but add on optional public education for those who want to pursue higher education. Take senior year out of high school and combine it with a freshman college level course in a two-year (Associate degree?) course. Half of the senior year is wasted anyway right? And a lot of the freshman year at colleges is spent bringing students "up to speed" for later college level classes: this would reduce college course loads (and overall tuition costs). Develop an optional public school system that is not encumbered by students that don't want to learn for those who want to go further.
{{gets down off soap-box and wanders off into the crowd}}

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hitchy, posted 02-27-2004 3:18 PM hitchy has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 15 of 222 (94325)
03-24-2004 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Stipes
03-24-2004 1:31 AM


Why is it bad that students only want to learn what interests them?
If you don't know squat about a topic how do you know if it interests you?
should one be protected from bad moments in history?
synergy of information learned from topic (A) applied to topic (B) when (A) of little interest and (B) of high interest
etc...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Stipes, posted 03-24-2004 1:31 AM Stipes has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 19 of 222 (94390)
03-24-2004 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Syamsu
03-24-2004 7:52 AM


Re: lure'em in... ID?
The Supreme Court ruled Intelligent Design theory scientifically invalid, now that's the bizarre nature of American society IMO, where the courts rule science. Next they will be bringing Johnson and Behe to trial for proliferating this false theory?
I can find no source for any Supreme Court decision re ID as you state.
The People for the American Way make no mention of such a case while discussing the decision on creationism and while talking about intelligent design as the next wave of attack. This article attacks ID and I would expect them to mention it.
The Intelligent Design Network, Inc. also talks about the creationism ruling and the place of ID and does not mention any such ruling regarding ID. This article defends ID and I would expect them to mention it.
Johnson and Behe should be brought to trial for trying to get untested concepts into science classes before they have been scientifically validated, but I don't know what legal basis that would come under .... fraud?
Feel free to comment further on ID on my Is ID Properly Pursued thread (click) in the ID area of this board.
ps -- we did not have school prayer, nor did many public schools. It was not universal.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Syamsu, posted 03-24-2004 7:52 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Syamsu, posted 03-24-2004 10:20 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 22 of 222 (94425)
03-24-2004 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Syamsu
03-24-2004 10:20 AM


Re: lure'em in... ID 'em and jail 'em
there would be a large backlog of cases of Darwinists teaching bad science and immoral ideology.
What bad science? Do you mean any science that has been superceded by later discoveries \ evidence? That would not be on the same level as presenting a crude concept as scientific before any validation has occurred.
Evolution is science not ideology. Likewise there is no "Darwinists" science (nor new sects of "Gouldism" or "Dawkinism"). Science is based on knowledge not people. This is a common creationist misconception -- that one man formed a science like some bearded prophet from the mountain - and it demonstrates an inability to understand the basic differences between science and belief.
I'm not even so sure government shouldn't pay for religious education. If you're talking about native Americans and native American beliefs in stead of Christians and Christianity for instance, then somehow it becomes more clear to me that it's evil to root out religion from education.
Perhaps the reason you don't see other religions clamoring for inclusion in public schools is because they feel they cover the subject adequately in their churches and homes and wouldn't presume to have it taught by someone who was not of the faith in a cogent manner.
You obviously have some strong biases here. There was a course on comparative religions that was taught in California high schools until a group of parents objected to it -- fundamentalist christian parents.
The largest group of Americans who are intolerant of the beliefs of others is ... the fundamentalist christians.
And the attack on classroom content is not coming from some quasi-conspiratorial "root out religion" group, but from a vocal minority of ... fundamentalist christians.
taking so many years and hours in the day of a person, and the cultural heritage being completely ignored. I think this problem can largely be taken care of with vouchers
I'll offer you a trade ... vouchers in exchange for loss of all tax exempt status for all religious institutions, income, assets, etcetera. Why should my tax dollar support these institutions that are of no benefit to me? See this article in The World Union of Deists Quarterly Publication (click) for more information.
According to the tax appraiser's office for Pinellas County, Florida the dollar amount of exempt real estate held by religions in Pinellas county alone is:
$583,581,970.00!!!
That half a billion dollars plus could be added to the tax base and used to help the uninsured that the faith-healers can't heal, or to help clean up the environment, for education, etc., etc., etc. Instead it goes to promote superstition.
That amounts to a government subsidy of religion. When it is done for a business to attract more businesses, it is called a subsidy -- let's be honest eh?
Taxes are essentially a "user fee" -- if you make use of the social-economic system of the country you are in, then pay your share of maintaining and operating it, whether "you" are a person or a corporation or a club.
There couldn't be a Lysenko affair in a voucher system.
Pure opinion unsubstantiated by any basis in fact. I would "vouch" that the rise of private separate schools teaching creationism as science will end up doing just that, but that is my (not so humble) opinion.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Syamsu, posted 03-24-2004 10:20 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-26-2004 4:46 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 24 by Syamsu, posted 03-26-2004 8:30 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 25 of 222 (94946)
03-26-2004 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Servant2thecause
03-26-2004 4:46 AM


servant to subsidy
S2C
First off, I did not say "impose" either, but I will agree that the assault on education is from the fundamentalists who want to replace science with a hypothetical viewpoint based solely on a story in a book. Hardly science.
However, there is a difference between a teacher saying: "let us all bow our heads in prayer," and a teacher saying, "and this is a basic overview of what the Christians believe..."
Yes, and now we are teaching mythology in science class as if it were science. The place for that is in a humanities class, along with all the other creation myths.
Furthermore, if that discussion presents only one religious view of the myths of creation, then it is a violation of the principle of not endorsing one religion over another.
the theory of evolution, ... will NEVER be proven %100 percent (face it, we will never be as certain of the theory of evolution as we are that the earth is flat because every century the common theories and hypotheses of science have been altered or dropped altogether).
This old charlie-horse about the theory never being proved. No theory is every proved (but let's try to slide over that and imply that only theories of evolution are so endangered) -- a theory by nature cannot be proved, only disproved or invalidated or superceded by a better model.
A scientific theory also makes predictions, and as those predictions come to pass the theory becomes validated. The reason that theories have been altered and dropped in every science discipline is because the predictions fail to be correct or new information comes along that does not fit the theory or better theories are developed. This holds for the theory of gravity (which everyone accepts as true even though it has evolved from Aristotle to Galileo to Newton to Einstein and there are problems with it that are currently "fixed" by epicycles of dark matter and dark energy ... let's not get too fixed on any theory). I would say that the fact that theories have changed, are changing and will be changed is validation of the scientific process, adapting to knowledge as it become more complete. A cryptographer does not take only one try at solving a cipher. Likewise any belief put forth as unchanging truth in spite of contrary evidence is showing that it is not scientific. For instance the Young Earth Creation (YEC) model has been invalidated by mountains of evidence for an old earth, down to the counting of annual layers of mineral deposit to 567,700 years ago (see Age Dating Correlations for more complete discussion). In science an invalidated hypothesis is chucked out, in the pseudo-science world of creationism it keeps going like the energizer bunny on a solar cell while the evidence is chucked out by denial.
OR to put it mildly, why is it that evolution is such a "FACT" today when indeed the idea that the sun orbits the earth was such a "FACT" ten centuries ago?
We are now comparing modern science with ancient philosophy, for there were no real scientists until the scientific method was developed and the rigors of the scientific process were applied to the assembly of knowledge into coherent wholes. The fact is, the position of the earth at the center and the sun in orbit within the solar system was no more than a theory that was superceded when a better theory came along. Look at the history: the heliocentric model was accepted because it did a better job of explaining the observations. From wikipedia: "The geocentric model held sway into the early modern age; from the late 16th century onward it was gradually replaced by the heliocentric model of Copernicus and Galileo due to the simplicity and predictive accuracy of that newer model." Later evidence from space missions validated the latter theory and totally invalidated the former. And yet it is still possible that our understanding of how the solar system works and operates will change again. The issue of gravity and the fixes of dark matter and energy are central to the current understanding, and the pioneer satellites leaving the solar system exhibit the effects of dark matter ... where is it? Or will a new theory explain the effect without needed dark elements? That would change the model of the solar system yet again.
The conflation of evolution as theory and evolution as fact is because it is both. There is factual evidence of change in species over time. Documented, observed, verified independently fact. And that is all evolution is: change in species over time (including change within a species and change from one species to a new species). One example of this factual basis of evolution is the Foraminifera fossil record extending back hundreds of thousands of years with unbroken lineages ("This is the same organism, as it existed through 500,000 years," Arnold said. "We've got hundreds of examples like this, complete life and evolutionary histories for dozens of species."). Changing theories as new evidence comes along does not change the facts of the previous evidence.
First off, the idea that money spent via churches to further their "superstition" is NOT wrong legally, morally, or constitutionally. Whether the money spent in and by churches was a half-billion or a half-trillion, the money belongs to the churches
I'm sure Ken Lay feels the same way about his salary. You make no case for the need for the government subsidy of religion through tax-exempt status, just state that it has been so. History may be tradition but it is not reason enough for keeping something: it is never too late to stop going the wrong way.
(you have to remember that the whole separation of church and state ALSO applies to the government not being allowed constitutionally to meddle in the church's business, provided the churchgoers are not breaking any federal laws).
and taxing the income and property of church organizations does not interfere with the church's business, rather it goes to the maintenance and operation of the {social \ political \ economic} system that it benefits the church to operate within.
Now then, I was not trying to use that list of creation-believing scientists to argue that creation "must be valid because scientists believe it." Although that is how you misinterpreted the way ... the purpose of proving that it DOES NOT require believing in evolution to get further in the field of scientific research.
I get the feeling you are really replying to someone else, although the message you hit the reply button for was mine. I have not had the opportunity to misinterpret such a list, yet. I am sure that a list of scientists can also be assembled for any science that would show disagreement with the majority views of that science, from scientists within and outside the discipline. Which is to say that such a list proves nothing. I am also sure that all these friends and relations, especially those in biology related sciences, accept "micro-evolution" as valid within their personal creationist viewpoints. A Doctor or a Vet that does not accept "micro-evolution" is unfit to treat diseases from evolving bacteria -- the original medications should work as well as the new versions that have had to be developed as the bacteria evolved resistance to the originals. Tell me they accept "micro-evolution" and you admit that they accept evolution (remember that "change in species over time" bit?), and further, that they need it to properly understand and do their job. Tell me they don't and you tell me that they let their religious views interfere with doing their job to the point where they could be reprimanded.
It is not imperative that students believe in evolution in order to get a good-quality science education--for that they may recieve nonetheless. Therefore, if not to believe in creationism, at least try to understand the idea that it is important not to indoctrinate students with one theory exclusively over another, ESPECIALLY if it conflicts both with their beliefs AND is supported by their tax-dollars.
As I have asked before, how do you think the theory of evolution would survive without tax support? Honestly, if the theory of evolution was to be supported by ONLY private organizations and funding the same way creationism is being supported, do you think it would last?
And yet you think it is okay to support religions through tax subsidies. The ICR and other creationsist foundations are supported by tax subsidies.
The work of professors on independent research is not supported by tax dollars unless it is underwritten by government for some specific purpose (like star-wars and other weapons systems, disease research to save lives, etc). Government grants are given out to further the growth of knowledge, usually with a perceived direct benefit back to the society (vaccines, etcetera). The fact is that science in general is not directly financed by any taxes, that the flow of dollars is mixed with that from other institutions and donations and directed to where good science is being done according to the accepted methods and principles of doing good science. That evolution studies get some of this money is a measure of how valid the study is regardless of the discipline.
You also imply that creationism is another theory of value ("with one theory exclusively over another"), and yet there is no factual basis for the hypothesis and no predictions that can be used to test the validity of the concept that I am aware of. As such it is not a scientific theory anywhere close to the level of those currently used in the science of evolution. It is an untested hypothesis at best, and not something sufficiently developed to present in science class (same with ID btw).
After all, the belief in ID may be ridiculed in the science world but it is very prevalent in society; so, if creationism was allowed to be supported by taxation--or if evolution were to be demoted to the same sources of funds as the creationists use--would the theory still prevail in the world of education, government, and society?
When it comes down to it, if the study of evolution was limited to the creationsist wet dream of an ostracized private institution, there would be plenty of continued institutional and private funding for it to continue uncovering the truths of the world of evolution. I would expect drug companies to be the biggest donors, followed by hospitals, etcetera. And even then the value of creationism would not be any greater or any more validated, whether supported by more tax dollars or not. Money does not make evidence disappear from the world of reality, nor make myth any more real. "Truth will out" as the bard said, and the evidence of religious suppression of scientific truth is large and pervasive. In fact one could argue that evolution alone has continually suffered from more oppression by religious institutions than any perceived slight of creationism within science.
For a discussion of ID, we can start with Is ID Properly Pursued in the Intelligent Design section.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-26-2004 4:46 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 222 (94948)
03-26-2004 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Syamsu
03-26-2004 8:30 AM


Re: lure'em in... ID 'em and jail 'em
Darwinists already had their sort of Lysenko affair. Back in the earyly 20th century most American students were taught eugenics as a logical extension of evolution theory
Exactly as I predicted: "Do you mean any science that has been superceded by later discoveries \ evidence?" Next.
Some years ago the NABT (national association of biology teachers) proposed to formulate evolution theory using the words impersonal, and unguided process. We could with equal merit call gravity impersonal and unguided, but we don't, because it's a ludicrous formulation of a scientific theory.
It is also a statement that has not been invalidated, so "ludicrous" is just a matter of personal opinion and not fact. Gravity is very impersonal, it doesn't care who trips on a crack in the sidewalk, and the subsequent dance of descent down to the hard reality of earth is very unguided.
So you see, Darwinists are perfectly capable of delivering bad science to students, and this will be solved in a voucher system because ...
Sorry, were you making a logical progression there? It just jumped several tracks from bad facts to unsubstantiated belief. Invalid basis for any conclusion.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Syamsu, posted 03-26-2004 8:30 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by mark24, posted 03-26-2004 4:22 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 41 by Syamsu, posted 03-27-2004 9:35 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 222 (95008)
03-26-2004 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by mark24
03-26-2004 4:22 PM


Re: lure'em in... ID 'em and jail 'em
Thanks for the heads up. I am familiar with they type. Ever run into a character called (variously) SpiderMBA (aka Buxup2002 aka etc etc)?
Posts long "critiques" of book and then rants about part quoted while demonstrating a lack of understanding thereof. Gets humorous after a while.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mark24, posted 03-26-2004 4:22 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by mark24, posted 03-27-2004 9:34 AM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 44 of 222 (95108)
03-27-2004 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Syamsu
03-27-2004 9:35 AM


Bad scientist or bad science?
Dawkins wrote, "we are born selfish, therefore we have to teach altruism."
Please provide the title of the book, the edition and the page for this quote (the edition is needed to correlate with the page as the same quote would be on different pages in different editions). This is the proper way to cite quotations, and anything less is not acceptable (it could be just made up, something creatortionistas do). I might also add that continuing to post something like this that you cannot show to be an actual verbatim quote is bearing false witness.
Well somebody brought up the Lysenko affair. That was ages ago too, so how come I can't bring this up which happened at about the same time?
The point is that science is self correcting as new evidence comes into play and happens faster when there are not ideological barriers (such as imposed totalinarianism or theocracy). You mentioned bad scientists as if they were intentionally imparting bad science instead of ones that thought they had it right only to find that the evidence proved otherwise. Your example does not show intentional bad science.
Well okay then I propose that we formulate evolution theory as:
- the stupid process that originates new species
This has not been invalidated on equal terms.
And in spite of your obvious sarcasm you would be close to the truth. It is a stupid process as there is no plan for what is going to come from it. It is mindless in process. Gravity is likewise mindlessly stupid.
Anyway you have basicly abdicated your inaleinable right to an opinion on it, by saying people need not decide for themselves what to learn. You will need to find some expert to formulate an opinon for you.
Whine away. Sheesh. Tell me how you can decide to learn about something you know absolutely nothing about - not even that it exists? The whole concept of teaching is that those with knowledge teach those without. Anything less is day-care, and I don't think we want day-care classes in high school, well for those who want an education anyway.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Syamsu, posted 03-27-2004 9:35 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-27-2004 5:54 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 50 by Syamsu, posted 03-27-2004 11:37 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 47 of 222 (95194)
03-27-2004 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Servant2thecause
03-27-2004 5:54 PM


Re: Bad scientist or bad science?
First off to clarify
there are creationists
and "creatortionistas" -- a term I use for those who knowingly continue to post false information and misleading quotes taken out of context and known hoaxes as facts even after they have been shown to be false.
any site that post paluxy footprints as true falls in this category
any site that posts list of "quote mines" from scientists is also in this category.
there are many examples.
but you want an example of someone who "knowingly threw false information out into the open to further their cause"
I give you this:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/crexpose.htm
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-27-2004 5:54 PM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 222 (95317)
03-28-2004 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Syamsu
03-27-2004 11:37 PM


Re: Bad scientist or bad science?
I have found the quote, small thanks to you ( do a google on {dawkins "we are born selfish"} and you will find it easily). It is (properly):
Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.
So you have it wrong even though the meaning is similar -- for future use this is called a paraphrase, not a quote. I expect you to get it correct next time.
If you are going to use it continuously you should memorize it properly or keep a copy for handy reference. You can find it here: Dawkins - Selfish Gene (click) - bookmark it. See Chapter 1 page 3 on the website, fyi.
I asked you because I was curious about the context, not because I doubted that he would say something like that. He can be very caustic in his comments.
I also found The Book Jacket (click) ((correcting "use" to "us" for meaning)):
Our genes made us. We animals exist for their preservation and are nothing more than their throwaway survival machines. The world of the selfish gene is one of savage competition, ruthless exploitation, and deceit. But what of the acts of apparent altruism found in nature - the bees who commit suicide when they sting to protect the hive, or the birds who warn the flock of an approaching hawk ? Do they contravene the fundamental law of gene selfishness ? By no means: Dawkins shows that the selfish gene is also the subtle gene. And he holds out the hope that our species - alone on earth - has the power to rebel against the designs of the selfish gene. This book is a call to arms. It is both a manual and a manifesto, and it grips like a thriller.
Now, that gets a little too effusive if you ask me. I have always had a little trouble with this whole concept for a number of reasons.
The major reason comes from the field of mathematics game theory, where it has been shown (proven) that altruism pays off better than being selfish, particularly by John F. Nash (click) and his work on equilibria in non-cooperative games (that won the Nobel Prize). To me this means that it would also have an evolutionary advantage that would tend to select for at least some altruism over pure selfishness. This explains observed altruistic behavior in several species of animals of varying intellectual capacity. Pack behavior in communal raising of young from one breeding pair is one such example. The bees mentioned above is another.
A second main reason for my objection is from Dawkin's own argument that we must teach altruism. This is essentially admitting that the mind can overpower gene selection, and I would argue that if that is possible, it has already occurred. The mechanisms here are sexual selection and family selection (see pack above) rather than individual "natural selection" (survival) -- where altruistic behavior is rewarded with sexual access and where the survival of offspring is enhanced by support from other members of the family carrying the same genes but not direct ancestors. There is a lot of literature on this subject.
the Darwinist eugenical textbook doesn't get admitted, but the Lysenko affair does.
The point about Lysenko is the same point as about "Neodarwinist" social theory -- that it is bad science that has been invalidated by later evidence. One is no better than the other. Lysenko was mentioned in the first post on this thread as an example of how bad science has a negative effect on society. Neodarwinist social theory could have been used as an equally valid example. Institutionalizing bad science is bad for society regardless whether the bad science involves a recommended healthy diet or some pseudo-science based on faith.
Physicists may be getting a good chuckle out of "stupid gravity" but that it would be a chuckle of agreement, imho, that the idea of assigning lack of intellect to natural processes (whether it is weather, gravity or evolution) is silly but not a contradiction.
You can just read the introduction that highly credentialled scientists in the discipline give to see that evolution is bad science, and discard it.
I presume you are back on Dawkins again ... (seems like Dawkins haters just can't get off the topic of their pet peeves) even though the field of evolution is not dependant on him to be correct, especially in books written for public consumption.
By this argument I could read the introduction of any one creationist book and know that the whole concept is bad science and discard it. The difference is that there isn’t anything that I can read that shows creationism to be even mediocre science.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Syamsu, posted 03-27-2004 11:37 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Syamsu, posted 04-13-2004 3:59 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 63 of 222 (95826)
03-30-2004 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by NosyNed
03-29-2004 5:20 PM


Re: Creationism in the classroom
that very point has puzzled me for some time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by NosyNed, posted 03-29-2004 5:20 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 65 of 222 (96119)
03-30-2004 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by coffee_addict
03-30-2004 3:29 PM


yes, when it comes to faith "resistance is useless"
I understand that california used to have a comparative religions class in high school
literalists (fundamental christian ones) objected.
I also heard a comment from someone (can't remember)
"why would you want a science teacher to teach creation?
not only is it bad for science
it is lousy for religion"

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by coffee_addict, posted 03-30-2004 3:29 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 79 of 222 (98270)
04-06-2004 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Servant2thecause
04-06-2004 9:13 PM


carbon 14
and any rebuttal to the problem with carbon-14 equilibrium.
what problem?
please take this up on Age Dating Correlations
EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth
where the calibration of C-14 is discussed along with concurrent information from several sources that all have to be in error in some way but showing similar results.
the link to diatom varves in Lake Suigetsu (Japan) appears to be down at the moment but the same article is available in pdf format hee:
Atmospheric Radiocarbon Calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late Glacial Fluctuations and Cosmogenic Isotope Production where you can see some of those correlations in the graphs.
this information is also discussed on accuracyingenesis.com - Lake Varves and they show the calibration curve:
their conclusion:
The apparent close correlation of the dating results from multiple sources appears to be strong evidence for an earth much older than 10,000 years!
And evidence that properly conducted C14 radiometric dating can approach reasonable accuracy, possibly within better than 10 percent.
The accuracy in improved by using the above curve to calibrate the results. Also note that the upper limit for C-14 is about 50,000 years so this curve covers most of the C-14 ages possible to measure.
enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Servant2thecause, posted 04-06-2004 9:13 PM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 82 of 222 (98321)
04-07-2004 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Servant2thecause
04-07-2004 2:15 AM


C-14 age calibration
The problem for the earth's speculated age is that equilibrium has not been reached in the atmosphere (the ratio has not equalized).
This is irrelevant with the curve as it now gives age in actual counted years for tested c-14 results. You can actually work back from it to what the relative proportions would have been at the time the specimens stopped uptake of C-14.
Those layers show an earth over 45,000 years.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Servant2thecause, posted 04-07-2004 2:15 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 97 of 222 (99636)
04-13-2004 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Syamsu
04-13-2004 3:59 AM


Re: Bad scientist or bad science?
don't have it wrong about Dawkins, Mark has it wrong, you are simply nitpicking at formalities to disguise the truth.
What I did was give you the correct quote. What you had was a paraphrase presented as a quote: that is dishonest. Either get the quote right or say it is a paraphrase. I suggest you say it is a paraphrase in the future, seeing as you seem to be incapable of seeing the significance of the error.
Curious that you had to go back to Newton for an example ... why not Gallileo? And what bearing does that have on relativity? Science? The universe?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Syamsu, posted 04-13-2004 3:59 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Syamsu, posted 04-14-2004 1:14 AM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024