I believe the current school system works ok...
I learned Religious stuff in RE class...
I learned Science stuff in Science class...
Though cause I went to a Religious school both classes didn't want to answer questions with relation to sexual contraception or evolution cept what was stated in the books...
My RE teacher was quite "new age"... she called most of the teachings "examples" and most of the current rules "obsolete" in our current society..
Originally posted by Lana
Uhh, science, hence the name. Things that are taken as scientific theories and are backed up with real evidence.Creationism does not fall under this criteria.
In the UK the entire curriculum for Science changes Sept 2006 - for most core becomes a Geography type thing, its really dumbing down for the sake of figures. 🙁
Originally posted by Julie
I think this whole debate is centered on what science is...if it's a collection of theories on how things work, change, begin...then creationism as a theory of how things began is valid.
*sighs*
Creationism is not a theory. A theory is a scientific hypothesis that a large amount of evidence has been found to support it. Creationism HAS no evidence -- it is simply a belief. It is not scientific, it is not a theory, and it has no place in a science class.
Originally posted by Lana
*sighs*Creationism is not a theory. A theory is a scientific hypothesis that a large amount of evidence has been found to support it. Creationism HAS no evidence -- it is simply a belief. It is not scientific, it is not a theory, and it has no place in a science class.
Time to get out the Descarte, he claims Epistemology is based on doubt. 🙂
First of all boy genius, learn to use the quotation feature correctly, or at least use the cut and paste correctly, I know you have difficulty with relaying info and not distorting it, but please try harder.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Where Picador goes dodger follows...😆 The more you guys post..the more you support my initial argument of "Groupthink." I have no idea why you all have so much angst towards those whose beliefs oppose your own. If this forum carries so much importance to yourself PMS, and few other dinks whom support you, then I truly pity you, and perhaps I should tone my arguments a bit..so as I don't offend those who are "tender" hearted.
Instead of toning them down, keeping them focused and without deception would be a good start.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
I should start a new thread entitled Picador and Friends. 😆 😆
Claim a false victory and let it lie. Crawl into a whole for a while and let it lie. I know you know how to lie. Now you have to 'let it lie'.
However, if you are so compelled to start a thread about another member that would inevitably lead to a flame war, go right ahead. If you do, I look forward to your banning.
Originally posted by BackFire
The following is quoted from the "ABOUT US" section of that website."Our Mission
Our mission is to lead people to Jesus and help them grow in their relationship with Him. We strive to deliver compelling evidence for the Christian faith to seekers, believers, and a skeptical world. We seek to be non-threatening, practical and informative, using the technology of the Internet to answer tough questions about God, Jesus Christ, the Bible and Christianity."
This is obviously a website with a genuine bias and a specific cause that would lead them to only support creationism and any/all beliefs that fit into their view. Not a valid, sound, credible or reasonable source by any means.
This is a prime example of the Religious movement, with alterior motives, trying to push religious propaganda into the realm of science based on lies, deceptions and distorted ideas to help defend their actions.
Yeah, and whats even worse is that I pointed that exact same thing out last time he posted it. I told him that every internet search results that you try to find any sites that involve evolution and intelligent design, you can't find very many scientific fact-based pages...why? Because every bible-thumper site out there is ranting about it and it clogs the net with biased, unfounded crap posted by religious nuts.
I'm begining to think that he's mildly retarded for thinking that no one KNOWS HE MAKES SHIT UP!...OR GETS HIS INFORMATION FROM SITES THAT MAKE SHIT UP!
Originally posted by Darth Revan
Will someone explain to me how what I posted was trolling? I thought it was funny. Just because you didn't, and it made you angry, doesn't mean I was purposely trying to piss you off.And as long as we're talking about Muslims, who's to say the ID Advocate in the joke wasn't a Muslim? You act as if people must think it's funny because they don't like Christians, when it never actually specified any religious beliefs.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
....they want Jesus rules to govern our way of life....they want god to sit on the supreme court
Originally posted by Ushgarak
First of all, you still do not seem to grasp the concept that there is no such thing as absolute proof. This is a given in all things scientific and if you do not understand it, you still do not understand science. Again.
Hoboy..here we go...
def:
Proof: The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true
"Proof" allows something to be recognized as truth.
By stating that there is no absolute proof to science, what you are essentially stating is that their is no absolute truth to it.
The idea of no "absolute truths" existing in life, science, etc..is a fundemental concept that supports Humanistic Naturalism.
Your definition of "truth" is built of off of this religion. As I have stated before, this belief system strictly adheres to the idea that "relativity" is what makes up the natural world. That being stated, the statement of no "absolute truth"..is merely a philosophical viewpoint. It is in no way scientific. Understand?
Now..in order for us to determine what is "true" in science. One has to do many upon many tests. From these tests..one develops theories, some of which are sometimes found to be false, after all the evidence has been accumulated.
(ie Examples of theories proven to be false are "spontaneous generation"..flat earth..etc...)
Even if a theory is found to be false...this does not mean that an absolute truth does not exist. What it does mean however, is that from time to time..one can be wrong about with their explanations of what represents the truth. Unfortunately, it is apparent from what you/others define "truth" to be, that much of modern scientific thought has been highjacked by Humanist Ideology.
Much of modern science began during the Renaissance. It was initiated by Christians, who believed that in learning about the world that surrounded them, they were following God's command of "Subduing the earth" It wasn't until the late 1800's that the Naturalistic-humanism Ideals of Darwin, Galton, and other Humanists..begin to creep there way into science.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Scientifically? No. We have no idea what the scientific point of death is. We have some theories but nothing even remotely approaching an absolute idea."Will you die someday? "
Probably, but you cannot absolutely prove that.
"Does force = mass * acceleration? Does momentum = mass * velocity? "
According to classical phgysics, yes. That is a theory, however, that is continually under attack and our understanding of such physics is not complete. This is not absolute; all concepts of mass and acceleration are part of a theory that well explains observed phenomenon but NONE of it is absolute proof. You MUST wrap your head round this concept if you want to adhere to science.
Okay we're making progress..a few more questions for you Ush..
When determining death, mass, Acceleration, and other scientific concepts..do we use numerical/mathematical "constants"?
Are these constants true?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
As I said when I first made these points:"The phrase "scientific fact" is an oxymoron. So is the phrase "scientific proof." Science, unlike mathematics, does not consist of a collection of airtight proofs. Nor is it a large body of "facts"
Does science contain mathematical constants?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
That question is Maths, and hence irrelevant. Maths IS about fact, in contrary to the scientific method.Hence, once more, for the hard of thinking... there is no faith in my views. It is based only on evidence, not belief.
Again..do we use mathematical constants within science? A simple yes or no will do?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No- absolutely not, Something has to be far more than just an explanation to be a theory. It has to be evidnece and to withstand assault, as I have already described. Again, you are not grasping what a theory is. Try again.
When you answer my two inquiries above..I will. I think we'll come to a closure. Once you answer those two questions, with a "yes" or "no" response.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The problem is that it is not pseudo-scientific. It is perfectly valid science. Yes. it is up to deabte and new interpretation, but not for simple dismissal.
That is your opinion Ush. There are plenty of new interpretations regarding evidence deemed to "prove" Evolutionary theory. As another poster pointed out, logical inference is a subjective term. What you infer the evidence to prove..I can easily infer that it proves a different thing.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I am willing to accept that you accept scientific rationality. This is the point the stary of this thread makes- you follow along with that, because it is only logical and common sense to do so, but them dump it as soon as your faith is contradicted; that's what makes the issue so poor from your side.
I never dump anything that is presented before me, you see..I have no problem acknowledging that I follow a faith, and no problem admitting to the fact that their are some things that I do not have all the answers to. The problem with your ideas is that you try to pass them off as not being philosophical or faith based. Which is not true in the slightest.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
There is a fact as to what is and is not the scientific method. The scientific method is not a scientific pehneomenon, it is something that has been defined BY HUMANS. You don't use science to somehow 'discover' the scientific method. We just simply created it, hence we have absolutel control over what it is, hence it is a fact.
Okay Ush..Science is in a nutshell..the "study of natural phenomena"
Okay..so the method by which we determine the "study of natural phenomena"..is not based on the "study of natural phenomena"?
That's like saying that the method by which one uses to bake cakes..is not based on anything that involves baking..😕
Seriously..is that what your saying please clarify..
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, by your words and actiond, you ARE attacking science, so you only have yourself to blame.Darwinism... althougy that's a misleading term, because Evolution has moved way beyond its poriginal postulation... is NOTHING to do with religion or faith or any such thing; it is only an attempt to provide a scientific explanation to the observable evidence. You just have this self-imposed block that doesn't let you see that and makes you think that it is a philisophical belief when, unlike ID, it has nothing to do with philosophy at all.
All four of those? Beliefs ONLY. Not theories. No evidence for those being the explanation. I accept they are beliefs. I do not even unequivocably state them as wrong.
So either way, you are still boned.
For F*ck's sake Man..where are the damn transitionals?!!!
Where is the testable hypothesii that proves mutations can form new species!!!(and don't give me that damn fruit fly experiment..the fruit fly stayed a damn fruit fly!!)
How is the damn idea that life evolved from a few random mutations possible..if mutations are generally found to be degenerative within nature and the possiblity of a freaking beneficial mutation occuring in Nature over a billion year period is like a billion to 1?!!!
How the hell can you not see how irrational you sound?!!
If all of the crap that supports it has been proven wrong time and time again...what does that tell you about the theory"..is it based on faith..or science? For the love of the one who created you, if you get anything from this debate..I hope you at least realize that what you follow is nothing more than another faith based belief system.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Ok, this really is still the most stupid part of your entire post. I cannot understand how any grown person can be quite so stupid.LOOK AGAIN AT WHAT I SAID.
I explained it very clearly, step by step. I said that it was a valid use of satire. Look up what valid means. Look what the phrase 'valid use of' means. Then look at what I said again, and stop engaging with this totally mornic bilge about 'truth; that you seem to feel the need to indulge in.
Valid use of satire...😆...As you so often say to me..I'll let the public be your judge. A scientist you may be my friend..but an English teacher you ain't...😆
Originally posted by Ushgarak
A crappy definition is a crappy definition. Let;s see what Roget's says:"cre·a·tion·ism: Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible"
Belief only. The OED has a similar definition.
Creationism is NOT theory, it does not meet any of the cirteria of being a theory, and not even many Creationists think it is one.
Sorry, but your source there is talking shit. It;s not a theory.
You can take this argument up with the lexicographers at Merriam webster...You've been proven wrong..accept it like a man..and move on.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I am challenging crappy definitions that defy sense with better ones that do not...blah..blah..blah
One more time Ush..are mathematical constants used within science? Yes or no my friend..
the nice thing about science and mathematical constants is that they are prone to change... When new/more accurate data comes about the constant changes to recognise this break though...
Such as in the ageing of the universe... theres a constant that changes almost yearly based on improvement in telescopes, so we get better readings...
Like alot of science theories, when its proven slightly wrong it changes...
the bible never changes nor do the views of the people who use it as the answer to everything... They either have a poor understanding of science or a very limited view on the world....
Originally posted by FeceMan
It's trolling because this post adds nothing to the discussion of evolution and intelligent design; its purpose is, quite obviously, to make fun of one group of people. Now, as I said, were whob to do something like this, it would be labeled as trolling.Yup. Damn us extremists.
Nooo.... I just thought it was clever and funny is all. If you feel I am making fun of Christians, or, God forbid, you specifically, then I'm sorry. You don't have to read it. But just because you don't like it doesn't mean that I was purposely trying to make anybody mad.
Let me restate what I said earlier: it's about an ID proponant, not a Christian specifically. There are non-Christians (even *gasp* Muslims!) who believe that ID should be taught in science classes.
Besides which, it does add something. It is, to quote Ush, relevent satire.
Lighten up, for Christ sake.
Originally posted by Darth Revan
Nooo.... I just thought it was clever and funny is all. If you feel I am making fun of Christians, or, God forbid, you specifically, then I'm sorry. You don't have to read it. But just because you don't like it doesn't mean that I was purposely trying to make anybody mad.Let me restate what I said earlier: it's about an ID proponant, not a Christian specifically. There are non-Christians (even *gasp* Muslims!) who believe that ID should be taught in science classes.
Besides which, it does add something. It is, to quote Ush, relevent satire.
Lighten up, for Christ sake.
It was initiated by Christians, who believed that in learning about the world that surrounded them, they were following God's command of "Subduing the earth"
Which, of course, is why so many scientists in that time were afraid to reveal their hyphotheses and theories for fear of being excommunicated by the church.
A scientist you may be my friend..but an English teacher you ain't...
*snickers*
What a case of making clueless accusations...actually, he is.
Valid needn't always mean 'true'. It can also mean 'relevant', which it does in this case.
Mathematical constants (ie NUMBERS) are used in formulas in science that are based in theory. Take e=mc². e is energy, m is mass, c is the speed of light. We don't KNOW exactly what the speed of light is, it's simply an arbitrary number. What it is exactly isn't important. We could use pi in it's place for all it matters. The pull of gravity is 9.8 m/s² for use in calculations....however, we don't KNOW for sure if this is what it is exactly.
Do you understand? Math is used in science (chemistry and physics in particular), but the formulas and numbers used are based in theories.
As for the whole absolutes argument of yours....the ONLY way you can prove something to be 100% absolute is to be able to observe EVERY single instance in which it occurs. As this is impossible, it is therefore impossible to claim something to be absolute.
Science is said to have nothing to be absolutely proven because 1) that's impossible and 2) it is always changing. It's a simple as that. Really, it's not a hard concept to at all understand, I do not see why it continues to elude you. I figured this out at the age of 11.
What makes you so certain? If somebody pointed out a genuine fallacy in Muslim practice (ie, women in Islamic countries shouldn't be required by law to wear those ridiculous garments that cover their entire body), I don't know that it would be frowned upon as you say.
I'll take this opportunity to point out that I object to being labelled as a Christian-hating, hypocritical, atheistic cad as much as you object to being labelled as a Bible-thumping, Muslim-hating, tebacky-chewin' redneck. I recognize, and I hope you do as well, that there are idiots on all sides of any debate.
Why are you attacking ME for posting this when your complaint is that the mods either didn't close this or would close a thread of your other description?
EDIT: that was in response to FeceMan, if it wasn't obvious...