It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 2:44 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
Squanto
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:59 pm 
Offline
Carlos Spicy-Wiener
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:31 am
Posts: 9240
Location: FAP TURBO
Displaced Fan wrote:
PatGreen wrote:
Displaced Fan wrote:
Wasting your time on correcting cherry picked, out of context, miss-represented quotes/facts/information from creationist supporters is beyond a waste of time. It's like fighting smoke from a camp fire. Just move away and get on with your day. Religious organizations have done a lot of work and spent a lot of money on re-writing history, miss-quoting scientists/political leaders and trying to create the illusion that there is a gray area on this in the scientific community. There isn't.

i have a feeling you might be talking about me. even if you're not, i'm going to just say it, like i pretty much did.

evolution is real, it makes sense, we see evidence all the time. the grey area is not whether or not it's true, it's that unfortunately, we do not have 100% proof to say "here, this is the chain of logic, none of the steps taken to get to this conclusion are questionable."

it's similar to the global warming debate. most of the time it's not a question if it's real or not, it's how big of an impact humans have made, which changes things pretty significantly as far as what we are responsible for.



No man, honestly you are the only one on that side of the fence here that sounds intelligent and tries to see reality. You have your beliefs but you don't let them blind you. I mean....i think you are wrong :lol: but at least we have mutual respect. I saw Squanto correcting quotes and just rolled my eyes. The mis-quoting and quoting out of context are commonn tactics of the creationist argument and I was talking of the more broad debate.


Well, I wasn't really correcting so much. The paraphrased quote and what I put out are essentially the same thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
Displaced Fan
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 2:05 pm 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:34 am
Posts: 4097
Squanto wrote:

Well, I wasn't really correcting so much. The paraphrased quote and what I put out are essentially the same thing.

I'm sorry? :think: Should have looked a little closer. Thought it was the typical quote correcting that happens in these types of threads.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PatGreen
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 2:09 pm 
Offline
PP Quarterback

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:55 pm
Posts: 1836
YEAH YOU BETTER APOLOGIZE TO ME


Top
 Profile  
 
Displaced Fan
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 2:39 pm 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:34 am
Posts: 4097
PatGreen wrote:
YEAH YOU BETTER APOLOGIZE TO ME

I'm sorry....that you haz no freinds. :character-afro: boom

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
daz28
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 2:51 pm 
Offline
Star Sniper

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:31 pm
Posts: 3363
PatGreen wrote:
it's not unrealistic to think that Pythagorean's theorum breaks down someday.

I think I kid of get what you mean, but I don't think that facts will ever disprove mathematics. It's much more likely mathematics will disprove facts.

ie a circle will ALWAYS be 360degrees. At least in a 2 dimensional world. I agree that added dimension could and would adjust mathematics, but that would simply complicate the math but not disprove it.

Squanto wrote:
Einstein's actual quote was :


There are portions of every scientific discipline that are still theoretical. That doesn't mean that the portions that are proven to be true shouldn't be taught.

THIS.

Nothing peeves me more than someone claiming something might not be true because you don't have a permission slip signed by God himself.

Read, AND UNDERSTAND, the "THEORY" of relativity, before you make ANY statements about science fact/fiction.(I certainly don't mean "you" to mean you Squanto.

For the record, I've tried to read it, and I'm not smart enough. lol The parts I do understand are fascinating, though


Top
 Profile  
 
YankeeInRaleigh
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:39 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:58 pm
Posts: 2631
Location: Take a guess...
Skyline_BNR34 wrote:
For every "scientific fact" we find, we can find something in the Bible to disprove it



Really? EVERY 'scientific fact' can be disproven by the bible. Wow.

I wont ask for evidence of EVERY fact...how about just one, Sky. Lets hear ONE 'fact' that the bible can disprove.


Top
 Profile  
 
Displaced Fan
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:17 pm 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:34 am
Posts: 4097
Skyline_BNR34 wrote:
For every "scientific fact" we find, we can find something in the Bible to disprove it and for everything in the bible you can use science to do the same, so what are we to truly believe.

Before calling someone a fucking idiot for their beliefs, let them get taught both, and let them choose what to believe in.

Science hasn't proved everything and neither has religion. But if someone believes, don't try and put them down for what they believe in.


The problem....and respectfully here....is that religion hasn't "proved" a creation story, and by the very nature of faith, doesn't need to. It isn't defined by facts but by faith so anything it "disproves" it does so with faith and myth, not facts. That's not how disproving something works. I mean I just read a book about a kid who can fly which completely debunks gravity and modern "theories" of aeronautics. If I had faith that that book was true could I state a similar observation that it debunked "scientific facts"?

Science has proved many MANY things. Religion....nothing comes to mind. I am not talking about religious schools or religious science programs but only the relgious teachings.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Squanto
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 10:15 am 
Offline
Carlos Spicy-Wiener
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:31 am
Posts: 9240
Location: FAP TURBO
Skyline_BNR34 wrote:
For every "scientific fact" we find, we can find something in the Bible to disprove it and for everything in the bible you can use science to do the same, so what are we to truly believe.

Before calling someone a fucking idiot for their beliefs, let them get taught both, and let them choose what to believe in.

Science hasn't proved everything and neither has religion. But if someone believes, don't try and put them down for what they believe in.


Science has proven a lot of of things true or false.

Religion has proven nothing. By it's very nature, you're supposed to believe what the book says, and not question anything. What does that prove?

Religions were founded because things happened that people couldn't understand, and didn't have the tools to analyze. They wanted an answer, so they came up with a story that explained it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PatGreen
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 10:20 am 
Offline
PP Quarterback

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:55 pm
Posts: 1836
Squanto wrote:
Religions were founded because things happened that people couldn't understand, and didn't have the tools to analyze. They wanted an answer, so they came up with a story that explained it.

i'm not entirely sure that's true. i don't disagree that the bible proves or disproves nothing- that is not what it was written for and certainly not what its main purpose is. but i don't think the bible is just a book about the figurative "stork". and that could easily be pretty inflammatory.


Top
 Profile  
 
Squanto
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 10:44 am 
Offline
Carlos Spicy-Wiener
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:31 am
Posts: 9240
Location: FAP TURBO
I've read 2 or 3 books about the genesis of religion, and that's a common thread in all of them.

It's not intended to be inflammatory or insulting, but an idea that many religious scholars seem to share.


Top
 Profile  
 
PatGreen
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 10:56 am 
Offline
PP Quarterback

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:55 pm
Posts: 1836
i think it's more that people used religion to explain things they didn't understand, not that religion was created to explain what they couldn't understand.

i guess it's a mutual disagreement.


Top
 Profile  
 
Displaced Fan
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:41 am 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:34 am
Posts: 4097
I have studied religion both from within the church when I was a youth and as a college student. Having a minor in Anthropology I have taken a lot of Anthro of religion classes and classes about religious history from a linear perspective. If you take yourself outside of your personal beliefs and really dive into the history of humans/spiritualism/myths you see an interesting tree like pattern branching out from Africa. Also, the nature of religious beliefs morphed depending on geographical location/knowledge/type of society (hunting/gathering, fishing, farming) and their proximity to other civilizations based on shared borders or extent of their trade system.

Despite these differences though, the common theme of all religious systems is its role in giving answers for intangible/unknown phenomena. This could be anything from weather patterns, tidal patterns, astronomy, migrations, birth, death and so on. The one most crutial quality though is the creation story. It defines a culture, gives them structure and identity as well as gives them a bond for unity which are all essential for tribal survival. In nearly every religion there is an ethnocentric stance in their stories where they are special/right/better than other people and that is the classic tribal view point. It doesn't go away and it doesn't lose value just because we happen to no longer hunt with spears or live in grass huts.

As for any creation myth being taught in school as science it would be ridiculous. These are stories that claim to be from "God" and carry no proof to be shouldered on, just accepted on faith. There are thousands of creation stories ranging from the one we are familiar with to those that we would laugh at like being born of a raven feather that fell from a passing god/bird. So which is right? I mean they all are taken on faith. Many of them have supporting texts that claim to be divine and infallible. Many of those texts have some similarities or points that could be mirrored up with modern science. They have ardent believers who also think science is wrong. Our draw towards Christianity is a simple random chance of where and when we were born. If we were born in ancient Greece we would want it taught in our science classes that the weather is controlled by Zues. If we were born in India we may very well want it to be taught in science class that there are an infinite number of universus all created by Lord Brahma who was born from a lotus flower that sprouted from Vishnu's belly button. If we were rich maybe we would want our kids in public school to learn about Xenu and his H-bombs.

People want their beliefs to be proved and people have been striving to do so for who knows how long. They want validation. Before the modern media of the last one hundred years or so we didn't have to face people who thought differently than we did. We had our communities of like minded people and we taught what we all felt should be taught. Now the world has shrunk and we are neighbored by oposing opinion. We afford freedoms to all of them while also affording freedom from them. It's that simple. Nothing makes the Biblical creation story special other than it happens to be the most common myth here in America 2012. It is still a religious story with no proof and only holds up to the light of faith, but blows away in the light of science like all other myths. This isn't me shitting on religion, it's just the way it is. If you believe it, great, love to you and yours.

Simply put, I happen to believe that the Sabres are the best team in the world. Evidence has been proposed to me that they aren't but I think that is clearly bullshit. I point to Pat Lala, Hasek, the French Connection and even Darren Pupa but they still tell me they have "stats". I then talk about injuries, the No Goal, Danny Brierre and Satan....they still try to squash the truth by saying we have no evidence...I mean Cups. I scream about chicken wings, Pegula and RJ but no one sees the truth. I have 100% faith that we will win the Stanley and drink from its sweet sweet bossom and I wish a plague on all other false teams and their skewed stats and fake hockey agendas. But then again.....that is faith. ;)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
SABRESAllTheWay
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:00 pm 
Offline
MegaDouche
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:41 am
Posts: 2752
Location: Fairfax, VA
Displaced Fan wrote:
I have studied religion both from within the church when I was a youth and as a college student. Having a minor in Anthropology I have taken a lot of Anthro of religion classes and classes about religious history from a linear perspective. If you take yourself outside of your personal beliefs and really dive into the history of humans/spiritualism/myths you see an interesting tree like pattern branching out from Africa. Also, the nature of religious beliefs morphed depending on geographical location/knowledge/type of society (hunting/gathering, fishing, farming) and their proximity to other civilizations based on shared borders or extent of their trade system.

Despite these differences though, the common theme of all religious systems is its role in giving answers for intangible/unknown phenomena. This could be anything from weather patterns, tidal patterns, astronomy, migrations, birth, death and so on. The one most crutial quality though is the creation story. It defines a culture, gives them structure and identity as well as gives them a bond for unity which are all essential for tribal survival. In nearly every religion there is an ethnocentric stance in their stories where they are special/right/better than other people and that is the classic tribal view point. It doesn't go away and it doesn't lose value just because we happen to no longer hunt with spears or live in grass huts.

As for any creation myth being taught in school as science it would be ridiculous. These are stories that claim to be from "God" and carry no proof to be shouldered on, just accepted on faith. There are thousands of creation stories ranging from the one we are familiar with to those that we would laugh at like being born of a raven feather that fell from a passing god/bird. So which is right? I mean they all are taken on faith. Many of them have supporting texts that claim to be divine and infallible. Many of those texts have some similarities or points that could be mirrored up with modern science. They have ardent believers who also think science is wrong. Our draw towards Christianity is a simple random chance of where and when we were born. If we were born in ancient Greece we would want it taught in our science classes that the weather is controlled by Zues. If we were born in India we may very well want it to be taught in science class that there are an infinite number of universus all created by Lord Brahma who was born from a lotus flower that sprouted from Vishnu's belly button. If we were rich maybe we would want our kids in public school to learn about Xenu and his H-bombs.

People want their beliefs to be proved and people have been striving to do so for who knows how long. They want validation. Before the modern media of the last one hundred years or so we didn't have to face people who thought differently than we did. We had our communities of like minded people and we taught what we all felt should be taught. Now the world has shrunk and we are neighbored by oposing opinion. We afford freedoms to all of them while also affording freedom from them. It's that simple. Nothing makes the Biblical creation story special other than it happens to be the most common myth here in America 2012. It is still a religious story with no proof and only holds up to the light of faith, but blows away in the light of science like all other myths. This isn't me shitting on religion, it's just the way it is. If you believe it, great, love to you and yours.

Simply put, I happen to believe that the Sabres are the best team in the world. Evidence has been proposed to me that they aren't but I think that is clearly bullshit. I point to Pat Lala, Hasek, the French Connection and even Darren Pupa but they still tell me they have "stats". I then talk about injuries, the No Goal, Danny Brierre and Satan....they still try to squash the truth by saying we have no evidence...I mean Cups. I scream about chicken wings, Pegula and RJ but no one sees the truth. I have 100% faith that we will win the Stanley and drink from its sweet sweet bossom and I wish a plague on all other false teams and their skewed stats and fake hockey agendas. But then again.....that is faith. ;)

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Displaced Fan
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:31 pm 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:34 am
Posts: 4097
Just wanted to clear up a bit. The Bill itself actually doesn't say creationism. It basically allows teachers to go over strengths and weaknesses in modern scientific theories and it specifically mentions creationism and climate change:
Quote:
This bill prohibits the state board of education and any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or principal or administrator from prohibiting any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught, such as evolution and global warming. This bill also requires such persons and entities to endeavor to:

(1) Create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues; and

(2) Assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies.

Tennessee isn't alone and now it and Lousiana both have similar laws on the books and Oklahoma is trying to take a few steps backwards as well:
Quote:
The “Monkey Bill,” as it was known, became law last week without Gov. Bill Haslam’s signature; though he disapproved of the law, he saw no point in vetoing it because the legislature had the votes to override. Tennessee now joins Louisiana, which passed a similar law in 2008 for the purpose of promoting “academic freedom.” Others, including Oklahoma, also are considering such a law.

Yes, any science minded person that enjoys their freedom from christian agendas should be pissed....but there is a greater trump card. The Bill simply opens the door for some teacher somewhere to bring up creationism in a classroom.....but it is still illegal to do so. I see a school getting their asses sued over this when some teacher takes this Bill as permission to talk religion and parents lose their shit.

IMO I see no future where this Bill doesn't get challenged as unconstitutional (though it is written pretty well) and no future where this is the last we hear of it.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PatGreen
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:56 pm 
Offline
PP Quarterback

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:55 pm
Posts: 1836
Displaced Fan wrote:
Just wanted to clear up a bit. The Bill itself actually doesn't say creationism. It basically allows teachers to go over strengths and weaknesses in modern scientific theories and it specifically mentions creationism and climate change


I feel like that is exactly the scientific method and don't know what is upsetting.


Top
 Profile  
 
Displaced Fan
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:15 am 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:34 am
Posts: 4097
That's exactly what the people who wrote and voted for this bill would like you to believe. There is no problem with teachers today discussing opposing opinions in the scienctific community. They don't need the help of some bill. This was made specifically as a wedge for creationists and global warming skeptics to teach non-science. If this was the scientific method then anything discussed must first be tested, measured, published and peer reviewed right? What this bill does is say that teachers can have discussions about opposing ideas/debate but not that those ideas must be scientific. You could potentially teach about aliens seeding this planet with life if you'd like since there are people that propose that as an alternative to evolution. Or perhaps teach about big foot since it offers alternate evidence to modern therioes of hominid evolution. Shit, cover the Lochness monster as a valid theory since it shows dinosaurs didn't kick the bucket. No, this Bill isn't about fostering the scientific method, it is about affording room for a right wing/religious agenda. Opening the door of our public school's science classroom to wild opinion isn't exactly the scientific method.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PatGreen
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:32 am 
Offline
PP Quarterback

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:55 pm
Posts: 1836
I mean...i guess


Top
 Profile  
 
YankeeInRaleigh
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:34 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:58 pm
Posts: 2631
Location: Take a guess...
PatGreen wrote:
Displaced Fan wrote:
Just wanted to clear up a bit. The Bill itself actually doesn't say creationism. It basically allows teachers to go over strengths and weaknesses in modern scientific theories and it specifically mentions creationism and climate change


I feel like that is exactly the scientific method and don't know what is upsetting.


What's upsetting, is that creationism is not a 'scientific theory', and it has no place in science class. And honestly dude, it kind of worries me if our ecologists/evolutionary biologists dont agree with that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PatGreen
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:37 pm 
Offline
PP Quarterback

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:55 pm
Posts: 1836
YankeeInRaleigh wrote:
What's upsetting, is that creationism is not a 'scientific theory', and it has no place in science class. And honestly dude, it kind of worries me if our ecologists/evolutionary biologists dont agree with that.

i am not disagreeing. here's the deal.

step 1. most people believe in evolution.
step 2. the rest of the people, a significant percentage, believes that we were put here, like we are.

those are the two main theories. okay, the teachers present the strengths and weaknesses of each flaw.

case 1. here are the facts (insert pro evolution arguments here). the issues are that we are not able to create life in a laboratory and we can't explain some phenomenon with it.

case 2. God put us all here. There is no real, scientific data that is for or against this. it explains everything with the sole flaw that we can't prove or disprove it.

i dunno, i think teaching the strengths and weaknesses (properly) of each theory (the two main theories) kind of takes care of itself and allows those who want to learn the science to learn it without pissing everybody off. seems to me that it's a good solution to a problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
YankeeInRaleigh
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:03 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:58 pm
Posts: 2631
Location: Take a guess...
PatGreen wrote:
YankeeInRaleigh wrote:
What's upsetting, is that creationism is not a 'scientific theory', and it has no place in science class. And honestly dude, it kind of worries me if our ecologists/evolutionary biologists dont agree with that.

i am not disagreeing. here's the deal.

step 1. most people believe in evolution.
step 2. the rest of the people, a significant percentage, believes that we were put here, like we are.

those are the two main theories. okay, the teachers present the strengths and weaknesses of each flaw.

case 1. here are the facts (insert pro evolution arguments here). the issues are that we are not able to create life in a laboratory and we can't explain some phenomenon with it.

case 2. God put us all here. There is no real, scientific data that is for or against this. it explains everything with the sole flaw that we can't prove or disprove it.

i dunno, i think teaching the strengths and weaknesses (properly) of each theory (the two main theories) kind of takes care of itself and allows those who want to learn the science to learn it without pissing everybody off. seems to me that it's a good solution to a problem.



Pat, we ARE disagreeing. If you really think that there is ANY place in a SCIENCE class for creationism, then...at that point I have to call into question your scientific integrity because of your very obvious religious bias. There is no falsifiable science behind creationism. End of story.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron