Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-13-2005, 12:40 PM   #41 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
Also notice I did not say teach creationism. However I said if you teach evolution then teach both the evidence for and against it because if it is a scientific theory then it needs to stand up against all evidence. We can't simply choose the evidence that supports our theory and discard anything else.
Isn't it possible that the difference between teaching in public schools compared
to schools sponsered or affiliated with other organizations, is that in truly
public schools, a competition of ideas, not unlike in an evolutionary process,
will lead to the promotion of the best ideas at the expense of the ones that
are most difficult to examine, using scientific methods ?

Darwin's theory of natural selection grew to be dominate because it makes
the most sense. It simply observes that life forms, living in a given environment,
have the most success reproducing when they are influenced by their
environment to change physical characteristics and behavior, changes that
are then passed on via heredity. The validity of this idea can be confirmed
using scientific methods. These same methods can be used to evaluate any
competing idea, or theory, including intelligent design. If intelligent design
can better explain how things work in the physical world than Darwin's
theory does, it will follow that the study of ID will receive more time and
focus in school curriculum, than other ideas.

If ID is not competitive when studied using scientific methods, but holds
a place in public school curriculum disproportionate to it's value as a
scientific explanation for how things work, then it intrudes on the competition
of ideas, and weakens and confuses the school's mission to pass along
the best ideas of the sciences to students.
host is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 01:02 PM   #42 (permalink)
undead
 
Pacifier's Avatar
 
Location: Duisburg, Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
Evolution takes a lot of time (billions of years).

The moon is recieding from the earth at a fixed rate. around 50,000 years ago the moon would have been touching the earth.
The moon currently moves away from the Earth at a hefty 3.82±0.07 cm/year. The current Earth-Moon distance is 38,440,000,000 cm (384400 km). If we boldly assume that this rate of recession has held constant for 4,500,000,000 years, the moon would have moved 17,190,000,000 cm, about 44.7% of the overall distance. This does not seem at all consistent with the creationist claim, which would have the moon sitting on Miami.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
The sun is shrinking (about 5 feet a day or something like that).
The sun is neither shrinking nor expanding at any observable rate. The false claim is carelessly based on the premise of a paper that was once read as a meeting abstract, but was withdrawn by the authors before publication, when they discovered that they were in error. It's bad enough that the creationist argument is wrong, but it shows a sloppy and careless approach, that the entire argument is based on a paper that was withdrawn for good reasons. The webpage linked below will provide a more detailed refutation.
http://www.tim-thompson.com/resp8.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
Lunar dust falls on planets at a fairly fixed rate. There was a huge concern about this on the first moon landing. All the scientists did calculations and they determined that there would be around 52 feet of lunar dust on the moon (which has no atmosphere so the dust hits and stays). However there was a fraction of an inch.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_159a.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
I could list many more.
please do, and perhaps add some evidence for creationism, none of your "arguments" above has anything to do with creationism.l
__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein
Pacifier is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 01:14 PM   #43 (permalink)
Banned
 
Another indication that the competition of ideas does not favor a creationist
model is this, in the marketplace:
Quote:
<a href="http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Bottomley-ClocksRocks.htm">The Clocks in the Rocks
Richard Bottomley
Argon-Argon Geochronologist
Canadian University College

FOR: Faith and Science Conference, Glacier View Ranch, CO — August 2003</a>

* Predictions using the Old Earth Model work

If the flood really happened just a few thousand years ago then surely a flood model would more accurately describe the natural world, than an aged earth model, right? The oil industry spends billions of dollars every year on prospecting for oil. Yet they use an aged earth model. And it works. If the flood model was really a much better description of what happened geologically, would they use it? In a New York minute! I can assure you that they would have no hesitation if it was more effective or economical. When it comes to looking for oil, the bottom line is king.
host is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 01:36 PM   #44 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Perhaps because I wasn't trying to throw out facts that directly supported creation but mearly threw doubts on the timeline for evolution to stick with what my suggestion was. I have requested the powerpoint I saw recently that has the facts that a heard recently hopefully have it soon and i'll present you with the evidence.

Now here is some more. There are huge amounts of evidence stating there was huge flood that covered the whole world. This comes from sealife fossils being on mountains, the look of mountain ranges from above (looks like a tributary). The grand canyoun. How could a river so small create a gash so big? It would be one very deep but narrow gash, not a huge one. There was at one time much more water running through there. Over 300 ancheint unrelated cultures have stories of a massive flood. The oldest known tree is around 4300 years old. Guess how long ago the bible says the flood was, 4500 years ago. The oldest known language is around 6000 years old, guess how long ago the bible says the earth was created, 6800 years ago.

I still don't accept your assement on the sun shrinking, space dust, and moon receeding. I need to look into the evidence more and see where the numbers I saw were found.

The earths magnetic feild is decreasing. That means as we go backwards in time it was increasing. It would have been way to strong 2 billion years ago for any life to exist, we would have been living in a catscan machine.

Oil pressure underground is huge, scientists have said that that kind of pressure in the earth can only last for around 10,000 years before it would have created wholes and released the pressure.

The earths rotation is slowing down, ever heard of the leap second? If we go backwards 2 billion years ago we would have been spinning so fast that nothing would have stayed on the earth. Everything would have just flown off.

Population studies done on the world population is consistent with the flood model. That is the population today could have easily been created from 8 people 4500 years ago.

The oldest coral reef is 4200 years old.

There are lots of things that point to the earth being old and their are lots of things that point to the earth being young. We cannot simply ignore one side or the other if we call it science. Science is about standing up under the scruitiny of all evidence. Not just that which agrees with our findings.
Rekna is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 02:02 PM   #45 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
I get a kick hearing new "facts" as to why the current models describing the creation of the earth must be wrong and why a Biblical (read Genesis) view is more likely.

Yet with very little effort, I can find sites such as this

http://www.griffithobs.org/IPS%20Pla...eationism.html

That demolish such nonsense as "moon dust" and the "magnetic field".

As to seashells on mountain tops, I know more than a little bit about geology, that being my first major oh so many years ago. And when one understands just a little bit about tectonic uplift and subsidence, then these mysteries too are solved.

Of course, the flood crowd can't answer how a civilization like the Chinese, which was around when the flood supposedly occured, didn't get wiped out. (The real evidence is that there very well might have been some cataclismic event that caused major coastal flooding in the Mediteranian a few thousand years ago...but not a global flood, that being an impossibility.)
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Last edited by Lebell; 02-13-2005 at 02:06 PM..
Lebell is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 02:19 PM   #46 (permalink)
undead
 
Pacifier's Avatar
 
Location: Duisburg, Germany
just a quick response...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
There are huge amounts of evidence stating there was huge flood that covered the whole world. This comes from sealife fossils being on mountains,.
You know Continental Drift, do you?
What is on top of a mountain today was not necessarily alway on top.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
Over 300 ancheint unrelated cultures have stories of a massive flood.
yep, floods happen, see tsunami...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
The oldest known language is around 6000 years old, guess how long ago the bible says the earth was created, 6800 years ago.
oldest known wrintings date 3200 BC many without wrinting system.

Although this question is still being debated, most linguists assume that the full language capacity had evolved by 100,000 BC.
http://www.linguistlist.org/ask-ling/oldest.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_language

Quote:
The oldest coral reef is 4200 years old.
come to the german eifel, you will find some fossil (stone) reefs there. this takes more than 4200 years.

The world’s oldest coral reef is the Chazy Reef in Isle La Motte, Vermont. It dates back to the Iapetus Ocean time period approximately 500 mio years old
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache...+reef%22&hl=de

what about all that old stones around if the world is just ~6000 years old?
__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein
Pacifier is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 02:24 PM   #47 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Stones like stalagtites that take millions of years to form yet have formed under US monuments? Let's face it man's ability to date things back is credulous at best. When I get the power point i'll post it and you guys can have a hay day. But conversations like this are pointless, this is why I didn't say teach creationism in schools. I said if you teach evolution make sure you provide both the evidence for and against it. Scientists keep revising their theories on the age of the earth. Now it is something like 4.5 billion years old. Yet many scientists are saying it would take much more than 4.5 billion years for evolution to do what it has. If we teach evolution we should present both sides it is only fair. (and by both sides i don't mean creationism, just present the flaws in evolution also)

Last edited by Rekna; 02-13-2005 at 02:26 PM..
Rekna is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 02:32 PM   #48 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
The problem is, Rekna, that there is little credible evidence to present.

For example, all of what you have posted to date has been easy to refute and more importantly, none of it has presented a serious challenge to the current theory.

(Oh, and I see we have some how mixed up the theory of Evolution with the theory of how the earth was created...they are somewhat related, but they are NOT the same.)

The only alternative theory that is being offered is one of Creationism, which has too many problems to list and is also immediately suspect from the standpoint that those who propose it are creating a theory based on an assumption (the Bible), which is beyond bad science.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 02:36 PM   #49 (permalink)
Junkie
 
And that is why religion is not a science. Religion isn't about proof it is about faith. But when we are teaching a science let's teach it like a science.
Rekna is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 02:45 PM   #50 (permalink)
undead
 
Pacifier's Avatar
 
Location: Duisburg, Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
Let's face it man's ability to date things back is credulous at best. When I get the power point i'll post it and you guys can have a hay day.
Ok, but please some more than the usual "Carbon-dating doesn't work. It's been shown to be inaccurate for objects older than 30,000 years." claim

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
But conversations like this are pointless, this is why I didn't say teach creationism in schools. I said if you teach evolution make sure you provide both the evidence for and against it.
sure, as soon as you find an evidence against it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
Scientists keep revising their theories on the age of the earth.
Yes, that the fantastic tihng about science:
when you get new information you can adapt and rework your theories.
reliogion on the other hand tries to irgnore or, if that fails, distort evidence.
__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein
Pacifier is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 03:40 PM   #51 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbelt
When it comes to a hard science, yes you CAN disregard what people want their children taught.

It's science class. We teach facts there. ID has no facts. The absolute bedrock of science if the ability to be falsible. ID cannot be falsified.

Democracy doesn't work for something like this. We can't just go and ask all the parents, "Give us the details of this bit of science" They don't know, they didn't spend their lives gaining a graduate degree in a field of science and studying something to find out what the truth is. Science doesn't work through majority opinion.

Children should be taught the truth, not what parents want to teach them. Schools have a duty to educate.
But what if the truth isn't known? For the record, I believe in evolution. But in another thread there WAS a debate over the scientific validity of ID, and many scholoars admited the possibility to be the same as that of evolution theory, so I don't see how it has no facts. There is no conclusive evidence for evolution-it doesn't stand up to the same tests as other well-known theorems.

Honestly, it doesn't seem that they even deal with the same thing: one gives a process (evolution) and one gives the reason for the start of the process (ID).
alansmithee is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 03:43 PM   #52 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by raveneye
So you're saying that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights amount to tyranny?
The Constitution is a series of laws that codifies the powers of the government. The Bill of Rights is something put into place to protect the public from the government. Neither has relevance to what I said.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 03:57 PM   #53 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fckm
See people, this is what happens when you don't pay attention in high school history class, you come out with the mistaken impression that the US is a democracy. We're not. We're a constitutional republic/democratic republic. The republic part is key.
Obviously we have a political scholar in our midst . Most people refer to a country with popular elections as democratic in regular discussion. I didn't say our political system was a democracy. If you failed to understand my usage of the word, that is a personal problem and not a reflection on MY education.

In a republic, those elected are put in place to represent the will of the people, not to rule indiscriminatly. If people have a problem with how some public affair is being handled, there are often direct referendums on to what should be done. They are usually labelled as "proposals" on a ballot. Suprisingly enough, these suggestions often become law :gasp:. So if a group of parents are not satisfied with how their publicly-funded school is being run they can make their opinions known to the democratically elected representitives to do something, or make a proposal.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 04:08 PM   #54 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
The Constitution is a series of laws that codifies the powers of the government. The Bill of Rights is something put into place to protect the public from the government. Neither has relevance to what I said.
The first amendment prevents creationism from being taught as science. Even though a majority of people want it thus. So the Constitution is allowing what you call a "tyranny of the minority". Hence the Constitution amounts to tyranny, in your view.
raveneye is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 04:08 PM   #55 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: Ithaca, New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
But what if the truth isn't known? For the record, I believe in evolution. But in another thread there WAS a debate over the scientific validity of ID, and many scholoars admited the possibility to be the same as that of evolution theory, so I don't see how it has no facts. There is no conclusive evidence for evolution-it doesn't stand up to the same tests as other well-known theorems.

Honestly, it doesn't seem that they even deal with the same thing: one gives a process (evolution) and one gives the reason for the start of the process (ID).
It doesn't matter what "scholars" say, the only thing that matters is what works. Electromagnetic theory is an excellent scientific theory. Why? Because every time I turn on my tv, microwave, computer, etc. I am revalidating Maxwell's works. Similarly, everytime I take an antibiotic, an anti-viral, a vaccine, a vitamin, etc. I am revalidating the work of countless biologists and their contributions to Evolutionary Theory.

(the following is not directed at anyone in particular, especially not the poster I quoted above. Just a little rant)

Give me one, just one, example of the use of Creationism or ID in industry. You know what? You can't. Creationsim and ID in their current forms are absolutely useless, and provide no scientific insight into anything. Every single piece of evidence that supposidly "prove" Creationism or ID do nothing of the kind. Evidence such as "irreducible complexity" is used to attack Evolution, but add nothing in support of the "theory" of Creationism/ID.
It's a hoax. It's crap, pure and simple. Conservative Christian groups who feel that the literal interperatation of the Bible is of utmost importance are threaten by real Science. They are exploiting your sence of fair play. "It's all just theories anyway," they say, "There are plenty of scientists who support ID." Bullshit. When the Biology department at Harvard University starts teaching ID in freshman Biology, that's when you can start teaching ID in grade school. Until then, STFU or go take a class in a Real Science.
__________________
And if you say to me tomorrow, oh what fun it all would be.
Then what's to stop us, pretty baby. But What Is And What Should Never Be.
fckm is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 04:15 PM   #56 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by raveneye
The first amendment prevents creationism from being taught as science. Even though a majority of people want it thus. So the Constitution is allowing what you call a "tyranny of the minority". Hence the Constitution amounts to tyranny, in your view.
Where does the constitution mention creationism? Or ID? It states that the state cannot establish a religion. Teaching ID is not establishing a religion.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 04:19 PM   #57 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Quote:
There is no conclusive evidence for evolution
The evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming. Evolution is easily observable and has been documented in many species. Read Darwin's Origin of Species for starters.

There is no doubt that evolution is a fact.
raveneye is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 04:31 PM   #58 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
Where does the constitution mention creationism? Or ID?
Nowhere. Is this a serious question?

Quote:
It states that the state cannot establish a religion. Teaching ID is not establishing a religion.
Are you aware of these recent federal court decision?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/ev...tbooks.ruling/

Quote:
". . . the distinction of evolution as a theory rather than a fact is the distinction that religiously motivated individuals have specifically asked school boards to make in the most recent anti-evolution movement, and that was exactly what parents in Cobb County did in this case," he wrote.

"By adopting this specific language, even if at the direction of counsel, the Cobb County School Board appears to have sided with these religiously motivated individuals."

The sticker, he said, sends "a message that the school board agrees with the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists and creationists."

"The school board has effectively improperly entangled itself with religion by appearing to take a position," Cooper wrote. "Therefore, the sticker must be removed from all of the textbooks into which it has been placed."

Five parents of students and the American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the stickers in court, arguing they violated the constitutional separation of church and state.
So you see that it is possible to find that the teaching of evolution as a "theory" violates the Constitution, even though evolution is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Is that clearer now?
raveneye is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 04:38 PM   #59 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: Ithaca, New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
Obviously we have a political scholar in our midst . Most people refer to a country with popular elections as democratic in regular discussion. I didn't say our political system was a democracy. If you failed to understand my usage of the word, that is a personal problem and not a reflection on MY education.

In a republic, those elected are put in place to represent the will of the people, not to rule indiscriminatly. If people have a problem with how some public affair is being handled, there are often direct referendums on to what should be done. They are usually labelled as "proposals" on a ballot. Suprisingly enough, these suggestions often become law :gasp:. So if a group of parents are not satisfied with how their publicly-funded school is being run they can make their opinions known to the democratically elected representitives to do something, or make a proposal.
I appologize, I was a little agitated when I wrote my post, and shouldn't have worded it the way I did. My point is that around the founding of our country, our forefathers didn't think that the population at large was intelligent enough to make many decisions regarding government. That's why we have elections, and politicians. Supposedly, knowledgeble, intelligent people are elected into office to run our country. In practice, there are many flaws with this system, but as is pointed out by many, the system still works pretty well.

I would venture to say that the population at large has no grasp of Science at all. That the so called "average Joe" barely remembers the last Science class they have taken, if they've taken one at all. Why can't the population learn to trust Scientists who have a proven track record of results to determine what should and shouldn't be taught in grade school?

Every time the Creationism topic is brought, there are invariably two or three Scientists from the National Academy of Sciences or some other prestigous organization who try to act as the voice of reason, and try to explain why Evolution is a superiour theory to all that have come before it, and why Creationsim and ID in particular are so lacking as scientific theories. Just as invariably, the Young Earth Creationism Conservative Christians (let's face it, these people are not exactly a diverse group) trot out some crazy from whatever cellar they keep them locked in, who's never published in any respected peer reviewed Journal in their lives, and calls that person an example of the Many-Scientists-Who-Support-Our-Theory.

I can appreciate that this country historically distrusts government and Overriding Authorities, but seriously, this is starting to become a huge problem. In the past, Creationists have been relegated to the shadows, marginalized and ignored. With the rise of power of the Christian Coalition in Washington and their brand of Christian Ultraconservatives, I'm really afraid that this is going to be very bad for the US in general. I think that they are trying to make up for their past marginalization by forcing themselves into the classrooms, and in the process, damage what little educational sanity is left in this country.

Seriously, how is a country who's economy is so dependant on technology supposed to support itself if it's children are graduating high school without understanding the fundamental differences between Science and Psuedoscience? If certain voting blocks in this country keep trying to confuse children by inserting nonsensical and useless garbage into the Science curriculum?

EDIT: inserted some linebreaks for readability
__________________
And if you say to me tomorrow, oh what fun it all would be.
Then what's to stop us, pretty baby. But What Is And What Should Never Be.

Last edited by fckm; 02-13-2005 at 04:40 PM..
fckm is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 04:39 PM   #60 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Quote:
Evolution takes a lot of time (billions of years).
Does it? Well, anything that takes time must exist.

You do realize that you just acknowledged the existence of evolution with that statement.

raveneye is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 04:47 PM   #61 (permalink)
Junkie
 
I never said evolution doesn't exist. I believe in micro-evoltion as there is lots of evidence for it. But macro-evolution I haven't seen any evidence for yet.
Rekna is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 04:54 PM   #62 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: Ithaca, New York
^regarding macroevolution, see www.talkorigins.org
__________________
And if you say to me tomorrow, oh what fun it all would be.
Then what's to stop us, pretty baby. But What Is And What Should Never Be.
fckm is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 04:55 PM   #63 (permalink)
Upright
 
Well, then this country is doomed, isn't it?

Creationism has absolutely no connection with science, only some bastardized pseudoscience.
Sean O is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 05:05 PM   #64 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fckm
I appologize, I was a little agitated when I wrote my post, and shouldn't have worded it the way I did. My point is that around the founding of our country, our forefathers didn't think that the population at large was intelligent enough to make many decisions regarding government. That's why we have elections, and politicians. Supposedly, knowledgeble, intelligent people are elected into office to run our country. In practice, there are many flaws with this system, but as is pointed out by many, the system still works pretty well.

I would venture to say that the population at large has no grasp of Science at all. That the so called "average Joe" barely remembers the last Science class they have taken, if they've taken one at all. Why can't the population learn to trust Scientists who have a proven track record of results to determine what should and shouldn't be taught in grade school?

Every time the Creationism topic is brought, there are invariably two or three Scientists from the National Academy of Sciences or some other prestigous organization who try to act as the voice of reason, and try to explain why Evolution is a superiour theory to all that have come before it, and why Creationsim and ID in particular are so lacking as scientific theories. Just as invariably, the Young Earth Creationism Conservative Christians (let's face it, these people are not exactly a diverse group) trot out some crazy from whatever cellar they keep them locked in, who's never published in any respected peer reviewed Journal in their lives, and calls that person an example of the Many-Scientists-Who-Support-Our-Theory.

I can appreciate that this country historically distrusts government and Overriding Authorities, but seriously, this is starting to become a huge problem. In the past, Creationists have been relegated to the shadows, marginalized and ignored. With the rise of power of the Christian Coalition in Washington and their brand of Christian Ultraconservatives, I'm really afraid that this is going to be very bad for the US in general. I think that they are trying to make up for their past marginalization by forcing themselves into the classrooms, and in the process, damage what little educational sanity is left in this country.

Seriously, how is a country who's economy is so dependant on technology supposed to support itself if it's children are graduating high school without understanding the fundamental differences between Science and Psuedoscience? If certain voting blocks in this country keep trying to confuse children by inserting nonsensical and useless garbage into the Science curriculum?

EDIT: inserted some linebreaks for readability
I personally agree with the countries originators in the regard of people's ability to rule themselves directly (i posted as much in another thread). The republic system is an elaborate buffer.

And the country doesn't rely upon the masses to lead, only the upper crust. I did a report on this very problem, comparing the differences between American and other industrialized countries school systems. American schools are designed to work well for those who are planning on attending college, and divide their classes likewise. Those are the students who recieve the primary positive attention. The rest are not really worried about, which could be a big problem; this is also different how most countries handle the "masses" for lack of a better term. IMO, America's strength hasn't ever come from the masses, but from the outliers. As long as there are people who don't think the earth is 6000 years old (or whatever it's supposed to be) who create the innovations, things should be fine. Someone doesn't have to understand the intricacies of the internal combustion engine to work an assembly line, the same reasoning should apply for other technologies.

And personally, I was suprised when I first heard that there were people who still thought the earth was only a few thousand years old. Sure, the bible says the earth was created in 7 days, but what's a day to GOD? A day could be millions of years. But if people want their children to be ignorant, it's their problem. I don't see it as a problem of what's the proper view, but what rights people have over their children's education.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 05:06 PM   #65 (permalink)
undead
 
Pacifier's Avatar
 
Location: Duisburg, Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
I never said evolution doesn't exist. I believe in micro-evoltion as there is lots of evidence for it. But macro-evolution I haven't seen any evidence for yet.
the principles are the same, "macro evolution" just takes more time (thus making it more difficult to observe). what kind of evidence you want to see?
__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein
Pacifier is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 05:07 PM   #66 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
edit:

You know what, I just spent several minutes reading over a "refutation" of the famous Scientific American article dealing with creationists and I am embarassed to say that I had to be so forceably reminded that there are people for whom no evidence will ever be enough and that there are people for whom their faith rests in the absolute innerrency of the Bible in matters historical.

I have less and less tolerance for such conversations as I get older, much in the same way I would tire arguing with someone who believed the earth was flat and demanded equal school time to say so, so I think I'll bow out of this one.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 05:20 PM   #67 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Location: south east
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
Also notice I did not say teach creationism. However I said if you teach evolution then teach both the evidence for and against it because if it is a scientific theory then it needs to stand up against all evidence. We can't simply choose the evidence that supports our theory and discard anything else.
Evolution doens't really have much going against it that isn't based ON FAITH, or at least not that i can thing of.everything i can think of is based on "the bible says this, so what evolution is saying can't be true because it doesn't comply with that statement from the bible" and the bible is far from a scientific book. Schools are supposed to teach scientific "truth" as and creationism doesn't really have that going for it. if creationism is to be tought it sould be in SUNDAY SCHOOL and not in public schools. Public schools are way to diverse and it would only start problems for the students. But if it is to be tought it should be tought along with evolution not as a substitution for evolution. and really i dont see what the big deal is about this. I find it way more amazing that God could create something as amazing as evolution...


...but thats just my two cents
__________________
Zero Cool
stay sexy
jaypc2 is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 05:29 PM   #68 (permalink)
Psycho
 
jonjon42's Avatar
 
Location: inside my own mind
The thing is evolution thus far has stood the test of countless peer reviews. Countless articles have been put forward as evidence for evolution, and many survived peer review. I have yet to see a single article in a reputable journal get published that supports ID or creationism. If they want it to be taught in the sciences they need to prove themselves to the scientists.
__________________
A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....
jonjon42 is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 05:40 PM   #69 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Here is my problem with not stressing that it is a theory when taught. When I grew up I was taught that the big bang was practically a scientific fact. Now these same scientists that said it was a fact are coming out and saying no we were wrong it wasn't the big bang.
Rekna is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 05:56 PM   #70 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
Here is my problem with not stressing that it is a theory when taught. When I grew up I was taught that the big bang was practically a scientific fact. Now these same scientists that said it was a fact are coming out and saying no we were wrong it wasn't the big bang.

.Actually "They" still back the big bang for the most part....theoretical research is investigating the Cause of it now. I would recommend you research the world of science before commenting further, as this seems to be a somewhat weak area for you. The vast majority of information you put forth is seriously flawed by even the most liberal standards, as you seem to repeat headlines, and avoid details.

If indeed you were taught that the Big Bang was "practically" a scientific fact....would that not mean you were taught it was a theory. Evolution carries far more weight in the community you have decided to go up against (science) than creation for one simple reason...............There is varifiable data to back up much of its conclusions. Creationism has only the faith of people who generally fail to research the science in the first place. Most scientists have read at least one version of the Bible. Few theologians bother to study the world of science. And that is indeed a pity.
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
tecoyah is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 06:06 PM   #71 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Considering i'm a PHD student in a scientific field...I find you commenting on my scientific background a bit insulting. I base my thoughts on what I have learned through life from others but more importantly what I personally have observed. I have observed a lot throughout my life based in God. God was something I struggled with for most of my life until I started seeing his miracles in action. Now I have learned to just trust him. And he has rewarded me in my life for my faith. He has rewarded my friends for their faith. But call me stupid, call me unintelligent, call me whatever you want.
Rekna is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 06:57 PM   #72 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
I never said evolution doesn't exist. I believe in micro-evoltion as there is lots of evidence for it. But macro-evolution I haven't seen any evidence for yet.
Have you looked for any evidence? It's all around you.
raveneye is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 09:30 PM   #73 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Where are all the missing links? We see similar species but where is the half-man half-ape?
Rekna is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 11:12 PM   #74 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
God was something I struggled with for most of my life until I started seeing his miracles in action. Now I have learned to just trust him. And he has rewarded me in my life for my faith. He has rewarded my friends for their faith. But call me stupid, call me unintelligent, call me whatever you want.
What kind of rewards are you talking about ? Are the rewards that you and your friends attribute to faith in God, similar ? A belated "happy birthday" to you,
BTY.
host is offline  
Old 02-13-2005, 11:28 PM   #75 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Rekna:
For a good example of "missing links" look at the evolution of Cetaeans ( Whales, Dolphins, and Porposes. ) You can see the movement of the nostril from the front of the skull to the top, for example, as several intermediate species exist in which the "proto-blowhole" is halfway up the bridge of the nose, moving toward its' current position on the crown of the skull. You can also see the gradual vestigiation of the hind limbs and elongation of the forelimbs in Whales as their ancestors became totally Marine ( whales were originally an otter-like terrestrial mammal ). National Geographic did a very good article on this awhile back.

Another good example of evolution-in-action is the Influenza and AIDS viruses. AIDS can actually be seen evolving inside the body of its' host: drug-resistant strains evolve, survive, and reproduce within the body until the patient no longer responds to drugs. If the medication is withdrawn for a few months, the drug-resistant strains are supplanted by HIV-1 or other non-resistant strains. Flu is much the same; it keeps changing every year or so because it is evolving to be resistant to antibiotics. Tuberculosis, Polio, and Malaria are all doing the same thing.

A further intermediate species are the several species of dinosaurs which we now know to have been covered in feathers.
The_Dunedan is offline  
Old 02-14-2005, 01:29 AM   #76 (permalink)
Junkie
 
hannukah harry's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
Considering i'm a PHD student in a scientific field...I find you commenting on my scientific background a bit insulting. I base my thoughts on what I have learned through life from others but more importantly what I personally have observed. I have observed a lot throughout my life based in God. God was something I struggled with for most of my life until I started seeing his miracles in action. Now I have learned to just trust him. And he has rewarded me in my life for my faith. He has rewarded my friends for their faith. But call me stupid, call me unintelligent, call me whatever you want.
if you don't mind, i'm curious as to what field you're studying. i'm not calling you unintelligent or stupid, but for someone who is a 'PhD student in a scientific field" you seem rather ignorant of science. faith is great, but blind faith in opposition to logic, reason and that which is right in front of your face is not so good.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
Where are all the missing links? We see similar species but where is the half-man half-ape?
there's really no such thing as a 'missing link.' every living thing from the first cell to modern life (including us humans) are 'missing links.' one day, humanity will evolve and we will be their transitional form. everything is a transitional form between the form species that evolved into it and the species it evolves into (with the exception of species that die out and end their branch).

also, there no half-man half-apes. but if you look back in the evolutionary tree, you will find a creature that splits off in two directions, one path leading to modern man, the other to apes/monkeys/chimps/etc. i think you really should do some research into evolution (from credible non-creation/ID sources). if you are really studying a scientific field, you should have no problem finding information on evolution that isn't suspect (ie. from a peer-reviewed journal).
__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer
hannukah harry is offline  
Old 02-14-2005, 01:35 AM   #77 (permalink)
undead
 
Pacifier's Avatar
 
Location: Duisburg, Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
Where are all the missing links? We see similar species but where is the half-man half-ape?
Evolution theory does not predict half-man, half-ape creatures. It predicts a gradual succession of creatures that look like men but are progressively more hairy, less intelligent, and less upright as we move back through time (along with other sundry reshaping issues such as foreheads sloping back etc).

Look at a australopithecus fossil thats not just "a hunched-over, small-brained, hairy man".
That is the "missing link" you're looking for.!
__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein
Pacifier is offline  
Old 02-14-2005, 05:02 AM   #78 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
I'm still looking for a reason (see. evidence in support of) for us to give ID even passing consideration next to Evolution.

Through 2 pages, which include direct challenges, there has not been one whit of evidence given that supports ID.

Rekna, if you are indeed going for your doctorate in the sciences (I would also like to know what your undergraduate, Grad and current field were) you know that there is a process for scientific consideration. ID does not and has never met these requirements.

If they did the scientific community WOULD happily includ it, but there isn't. ID is not falsible, it relies UTTERLY on faith. There is no evidence to support it, never has been. It relies completely on badmouthing the evolutionary process. It doesn't say (The eye is too complicated to evolve, here is why...) No, it just says the eye is impossible to evolve so God had to do it.

It's utter bunk and until ID even TRIES to be intellectual about this, it belongs in the gutter. I don't want the upcoming generation to have it's head filled with armchair theology when these arguments had been decided over 60 years ago.

http://ydr.com/story/opinion/58516/
Quote:
Shippensburg professors: ‘Let science be science’
PABLO DELIS
Sunday, February 13, 2005


With this letter we want to express our deep concern and opposition to the Dover Area School Board’s decision to add the concept of intelligent design to the biology curriculum.

As professors of biology, we find the teaching of ID in the schools of Pennsylvania as part of the science curriculum to be inappropriate.

The introduction of the ID concept, taught as if it were a valid alternative scientific theory to classic evolutionary theory, will do a monumental disservice to the students in your district.

With this change in the curriculum, instead of science, students are given fringe beliefs and unsubstantiated speculations.

Administrators or teachers enacting this modification of the curriculum are presenting students with misinformation about the content and process of science.

They are eroding the academic preparation of the students and diminishing their chances for a successful professional and academic future.

The concept of intelligent design is not scientific. ID cannot be investigated using the scientific method. ID is not based on objective evidence. ID cannot be falsified through experimentation or realistic predictions. ID is not a competing theory for evolution. ID has not and is not being taught, as a biology concept, in any university with objective scientific standards. ID is not found in any respectable biology textbooks as accepted science. ID is “modern” creationism. Intelligent design is a veiled strategy to teach religion instead of science.

Arguably, ID may be appropriate in a philosophy or comparative theology course but not as part of the science/biology curriculum.

Theological themes, philosophical arguments, common beliefs, moral points of view and ethical controversies are a fitting part of a well-rounded social/cultural curriculum but not part of science education.

Science is based on a strict series of steps widely known as the “scientific method.”

The teachers in your district, as good professionals, know this very well. The scientific method requires falsifiable hypotheses and objective and accepted testing methodology.

The concept of intelligent design implies by logical inference an “intelligent designer,” supreme being, all mighty, deity. These “ideals” are all various versions of God. Science cannot investigate the belief in God because a supernatural force is, by definition, not amenable to experimentation using the scientific method, and, therefore is not science.

We expect our freshman students to arrive at college with the best possible academic background, including a solid understanding of the scientific method and a clear idea of what science is and is not.

In a time of unprecedented discovery and technical advances, from the human genome to nanotechnology, we should not have to revisit once more these misrepresentations in science.

We should not be fighting cultural and scientific wars that were resolved, in legal and experimental grounds, over 60 years ago.

Let science be science.

For the sake of the students, we urge you to reconsider your decision and return to the original scientific standards of biology in your curriculum.

Pablo Delis is an assistant professor in the Shippensburg University biology department. This letter was also signed by 15 other professors in the university’s biology department.
This is the school I attended for my undergrad and that I am at now at for graduate. My field for both, Geoenvironmental Studies.

These people know what they are talking about, they devoted their lives to studying it. People who advocate ID have made no such commitment.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 02-14-2005, 05:06 AM   #79 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Quote:
Where are all the missing links? We see similar species but where is the half-man half-ape?
1. Humans are apes. We belong to the family Hominidae which we share with gorillas, chimps, and orangs. Hominidae is one of two families in the ape superfamily, the other one being the Hylobatidae containing the gibbons or "lesser apes."

Consider: there is no bone in your body that you don't share with a chimp. Every single chemical known to be produced in the human brain has also been found in the chimp brain. The immune systems, digestive systems, lymph systems, nervous systems of humans and chimps are virtually indistinguishable from each other in fine detail.

Humans and chimps are practically identical in their DNA. The only obvious visible difference is human chromosome 2 evolved by fusion of two chimp chromosomes. Other than that human and chimp chromosomes are indistinguishable. Overall, if you look at any random DNA sequence in humans and chimps, the difference is only about 2%.

Now that the human genome has been sequenced it won't be long before we'll know exactly what genes are different between the two and what their sequence differences are. In the next decades researchers will be converting chimp genes to human genes in embryo by gene therapy, and we'll have chimps that are increasingly similar to humans.

2. There are intermediate fossils galore. New ones are being found all the time. You might start with Ardipithecus.

3. If you're really serious about learning about macroevolution, you should find a book about evolution and take the time to read it and think about it. You will get some wonderful insights into how animals and plants came to be the way they are.
raveneye is offline  
Old 02-14-2005, 07:32 AM   #80 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: In the id
"It is an alternative which we do not seek but as a free people we will not submit to having our rights taken from us by that greatest of all tyrants a numerical majority." ~J.H. Cochran
iamnormal is offline  
 

Tags
65%, americans, creationism, public, schools, support, teaching

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:17 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360