It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:39 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
PatGreen
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:11 pm 
Offline
PP Quarterback

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:55 pm
Posts: 1836
i didn't say there was. my point is that if you're going to teach evolution and avoid pissing people off (i would assume that at that point it's more productive anyways), you might as well present it with the scientific data for each theory. that way, everybody's happy but every single one of those kids who wants to learn the science will. like i said before, it'd be more productive to just not teach it in high school and go to other topics that kids are lost at and just let them learn about it on their own or in college electives. i never, ever, once said that creationism is a scientific theory, and I assume no fault for your errors in inference. maybe we were just arguing different things, and it's just a message board communication breakdown.

i am not calling creationism a scientific theory.

i also don't know how you've picked two argument i purposely avoided making out of my posts in this thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PatGreen
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:17 pm 
Offline
PP Quarterback

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:55 pm
Posts: 1836
YankeeInRaleigh wrote:
PatGreen wrote:
those are the two main theories. okay, the teachers present the strengths and weaknesses of each flaw.

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.


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.

there are TWO MAIN THEORIES. not SCIENTIFIC THEORIES, just THEORIES. like i said. you can't argue that. you just can't! right or wrong, there are pretty much two ways the population looks at this (with some variables). Look at what i bolded in your post. I said the same exact thing in the post you decided to question my scientific integrity on!

you have an issue with my 'religious bias' which, by the way, has absolutely no weight or value, and something you are completely fabricating based on your personal issues with religion and probably your lack of understanding of how i can "have my cake and eat it too".


Top
 Profile  
 
YankeeInRaleigh
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:38 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:58 pm
Posts: 2631
Location: Take a guess...
Pat...just because you keep saying the same shit doesnt make your point valid.

You are advocating teaching a faith based belief, in science class. There is no justification for that. Creationism is not a scientific theory, it is a faith based theory. It doesnt belong in the same place we learn about molecules and ecology and genes. It belongs in the church.

Are you now going to propose that the church teach evolution to its members?


Top
 Profile  
 
YankeeInRaleigh
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:39 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:58 pm
Posts: 2631
Location: Take a guess...
PatGreen wrote:
YankeeInRaleigh wrote:
PatGreen wrote:
those are the two main theories. okay, the teachers present the strengths and weaknesses of each flaw.

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.


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.

there are TWO MAIN THEORIES. not SCIENTIFIC THEORIES, just THEORIES. like i said. you can't argue that. you just can't! right or wrong, there are pretty much two ways the population looks at this (with some variables). Look at what i bolded in your post. I said the same exact thing in the post you decided to question my scientific integrity on!

you have an issue with my 'religious bias' which, by the way, has absolutely no weight or value, and something you are completely fabricating based on your personal issues with religion and probably your lack of understanding of how i can "have my cake and eat it too".



Dude, keep in mind we are talking ONLY, about SCIENCE CLASS. I'm not going to argue this stuff outside that context. I have to wonder if you are arguing inside that context.


Top
 Profile  
 
PatGreen
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:02 pm 
Offline
PP Quarterback

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:55 pm
Posts: 1836
it seems that we both are arguing different contexts.


Top
 Profile  
 
Displaced Fan
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:04 pm 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

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

I'm glad you're not running the school system then. Any teacher could tell you that the term 'theory' in science is a group of tested and generally proved propositions. The term 'theory' when it applies to creation myths is an idea that hasn't been proved. Quite a difference. There are NOT two MAIN theories. You have an established, researched "theory" that has gone through the "scientific process" and come out the other side stronger. Then you have creationism....which has not come out the other side of the same tests intact. These are not the same.

There is a great theory floating around, supported by hundreds of thousands around the globe that may fit too. Just turn on Ancient Aliens. Should that be taught too or should we stick with science? Which unprovable whim should we allow face time along side tested and defined scientific research? Just because people believe in something does not make it true.


Edit: Also....the sole flaw with a creation myth is that there isn't any proof? REALLY? Isn't that more like THE reason it shouldn't be taught as a valid alternative idea? PROOF for crap's sake is the heart of science.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Displaced Fan
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:09 pm 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:34 am
Posts: 4097
PatGreen wrote:
there are TWO MAIN THEORIES. not SCIENTIFIC THEORIES, just THEORIES. like i said. you can't argue that. you just can't! right or wrong, there are pretty much two ways the population looks at this (with some variables). Look at what i bolded in your post. I said the same exact thing in the post you decided to question my scientific integrity on!


Pat, again, one is a an idea with no supporting evidence and the other is the opposite. Majority opinion, or any opinion for that matter makes no difference. We don't teach science based on what people believe, we teach based on evidence. If you don't maintain those boundries then why even teach science? Lets just create a class called "Shit People Think May Be True 101" and call it a day.

School education should not be about what makes people happy. It should be about what is true.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Displaced Fan
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:19 pm 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:34 am
Posts: 4097
I'm sorry....Pat I respect you and I think you're a good guy but WTF? The only flaw is that there isn't proof? Huh? Besides that there is a list mile long where intelligent design completely contradicts moutains of evidence to the contrary....an idea with zero proof should be taught along side of established facts?

Also, the old trick of saying "since science hasn't figured it all out yet, they must be wrong!" is about as weak as it gets. Same thing they said when they were poking around for how our solar system works. "Those darn scientists can't figure out "orbits" and they argue over math and particulars...told ya we were the center of the universe!" Come on.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Squanto
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:27 pm 
Offline
Carlos Spicy-Wiener
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:31 am
Posts: 9240
Location: FAP TURBO
Quote:
the·o·ry   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice,


Let's consider creationism for a second, using these dictionary definitions of theory

1. Although creationism could be considered 'commonly regarded as correct' based on those with religious beliefs , it does not contain a set of testable propositions. The idea of a supreme being creating life isn't empirically testable, therefore it cannot meet this definition of theory.

2. Creationism is in fact a proposed explanation whose status is conjectural, but it cannot be subject to experimentation, since the underlying idea of a supreme being gain isn't empirically testable.

I cannot see any circumstance where creationism could be called a theory. It's a a belief system. Not something that's scientifically testable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PatGreen
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:34 am 
Offline
PP Quarterback

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:55 pm
Posts: 1836
well folks, i certainly feel as fair and complete as i have been in this entire thread, i couldn't have been more clear i never argued with the things that people are complaining to me about. i feel that i am just being attacked because for some reason, the people who outright hate anyone who is religious are trying their best to discredit me and my opinions by fabricating arguments and assuming things i've never said. not to mention, i don't think they read at all. maybe i haven't been quite clear enough, so after i respond to these "responses" that were posted i will post a simple, clear, concise point that maybe will make sense.

Displaced Fan wrote:
I'm glad you're not running the school system then. Any teacher could tell you that the term 'theory' in science is a group of tested and generally proved propositions. The term 'theory' when it applies to creation myths is an idea that hasn't been proved. Quite a difference. There are NOT two MAIN theories. You have an established, researched "theory" that has gone through the "scientific process" and come out the other side stronger. Then you have creationism....which has not come out the other side of the same tests intact. These are not the same.

There is a great theory floating around, supported by hundreds of thousands around the globe that may fit too. Just turn on Ancient Aliens. Should that be taught too or should we stick with science? Which unprovable whim should we allow face time along side tested and defined scientific research? Just because people believe in something does not make it true.


Edit: Also....the sole flaw with a creation myth is that there isn't any proof? REALLY? Isn't that more like THE reason it shouldn't be taught as a valid alternative idea? PROOF for crap's sake is the heart of science.

first off, any kids are lucky to have me as a teacher and i am wonderful at teaching math and science. i can go ahead and give you my recommendations from both high school math that i student taught in- or you can ask kids i've tutored or my former employer at environmental education centers run by the state.

okay, past your little passive-aggressive digs to boost your own self esteem. i've already explained that in that statement i was using theory as the colloquialism. pretend instead of theory, i said opinion. there are two main opinions on how life has become what we know it today. the scientific theory of evolution and the belief of creationism. right or wrong, whatever your opinion, you can't argue that, no matter how much you hate christianity. here's the deal. you cannot convince everyone that subscribes to creationism that evolution is real, whether it is because of their ignorance or their faith. unfortunately, for the aliens, a couple hundred thousand around the globe isn't the same as a hundred million in one country and probably 50% within the state that this law/decree/whatever has power. so you have to appease the masses somehow, you just do. if you are in any position of power like that, you will have to accommodate masses like that.

i never, ever, everrrrrr said that creationism should be taught in schools! in fact, i said the opposite! I also said that i believe in evolution and why everyone thinks i would support the creationist idealism be taught in science class is solely due to their inability to read completely or actually understand the words i am writing.


Displaced Fan wrote:
Pat, again, one is a an idea with no supporting evidence and the other is the opposite. Majority opinion, or any opinion for that matter makes no difference. We don't teach science based on what people believe, we teach based on evidence. If you don't maintain those boundries then why even teach science? Lets just create a class called "Shit People Think May Be True 101" and call it a day.

School education should not be about what makes people happy. It should be about what is true.

to borrow and paraphrase something from you...well i'm glad you're not in politics. you can straw man it all you want, and you won't get a fight from me about it being wrong, but you can't possibly ever ignore THAT many people with the same opinion. you just can't.


Displaced Fan wrote:
I'm sorry....Pat I respect you and I think you're a good guy but WTF? The only flaw is that there isn't proof? Huh? Besides that there is a list mile long where intelligent design completely contradicts moutains of evidence to the contrary....an idea with zero proof should be taught along side of established facts?

Also, the old trick of saying "since science hasn't figured it all out yet, they must be wrong!" is about as weak as it gets. Same thing they said when they were poking around for how our solar system works. "Those darn scientists can't figure out "orbits" and they argue over math and particulars...told ya we were the center of the universe!" Come on.

think of it as a plain white argument. seriously, step out of all the bullshit and look at it. right or wrong, stop your brain from your preconceived notions until you've read this and understand that this is how the other side works.

the opinion is that God created everything and we didn't come from apes. Okay. if you accept that God created everything, we find that he created separate species that were similar (Homo erectus? any of those pre-human humans). they acknowledge that those are real. but see, the opinion is that they are not the same species as homo sapien and that's all there is to it. correct me if i'm wrong, i don't think that there is any concrete proof (and please understand the difference between logical proof and concrete proof- because i don't think you know the difference, or maybe you just ignore it) that we are the same species further developed. okay, if you believe in creationism, the ONLY STEP is that you believe God created everything.

why i say that the main point against creationism is that there is no evidence or facts to back it up is because if something only has one premise, evidence FOR the opposition is not necessarily evidence AGAINST this belief. many of the people who subscribe to creationism say that everything is a different species and have gone extinct. and that's kind of hard to disprove. multiple times more species that we have records of have gone extinct than the amount of species on the planet now. if they believe God created everything as it is now, then they can easily justify, logically (like real logic, p^q stuff), that everything is a result of God's work. and because they can say that, the only way to dismantle that is to prove evolution right or prove that God is not real. neither one of those have been done.

and the lapses and inconsistencies in the theory of evolution just gives the creationism subscribers more reason to say "hey no your shit doesn't make sense!". carbon dating is pretty fucked up man. lots of stuff goes wrong with it and there are a lot of errors with it. that's a big deal when you're trying to convince a HUUUUUGE crowd to accept carbon dating as credible evidence. also, like i had said previously, WE DO NOT HAVE A CHAIN OF EVENTS OR STATEMENTS THAT BULLET EACH STEP TO EVOLUTION. there is no CONCRETE proof that evolution is real!! i get it, i believe in evolution, i do! i see the science, i see the evidence, i see how behavioral traits later manifest themselves into physical adaptations, which is only the precursor to evolution. and so do you! and so does probably 60-70% of the population.

the most important part is that you need to note that we believe in evolution because the data shows (here's the key part) beyond a reasonable doubt to us personally, evolution is real. i'm not justifying ignorance or stupidity. at all.


Squanto wrote:
Quote:
the·o·ry   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice,


Let's consider creationism for a second, using these dictionary definitions of theory

1. Although creationism could be considered 'commonly regarded as correct' based on those with religious beliefs , it does not contain a set of testable propositions. The idea of a supreme being creating life isn't empirically testable, therefore it cannot meet this definition of theory.

2. Creationism is in fact a proposed explanation whose status is conjectural, but it cannot be subject to experimentation, since the underlying idea of a supreme being gain isn't empirically testable.

I cannot see any circumstance where creationism could be called a theory. It's a a belief system. Not something that's scientifically testable.

you missed that i was being colloquial with theory at that point. or i didn't state it clearly enough. additionally, please bear in mind the merriam webster definition is not going to help when you're trying to convince a huge portion of the population that their belief of life is crap and not even worth being called a theory.


Top
 Profile  
 
PatGreen
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:42 am 
Offline
PP Quarterback

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:55 pm
Posts: 1836
okay let me be clear with my opinion/arguments. this is what i've said the whole thread, and i'm not even sure how any of these premises can be argued with other than number 3, and i guess loosely number 6.

1. i do not believe in creationism.
2. i do not believe creationism should be taught in school at all.
3. i believe that both of these subjects could easily be left out of public schools and there is much more science material (and plenty of practicable material that would be more important throughout life to hold on to) that could be learned in its place. additionally, because the whole tip-toe around this and parental fights and whatever are bypassed, this could be the most reasonable method.
4. there are several gaps, holes, and inconsistencies in the theory of evolution. the people that believe in it believe, to themselves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that evolution is real.
5. you can't ignore the large percentage of the population that reject this theory, no matter what science backs it up, because we do not have a foolproof chain of logic that has each step tested and completely proven.
6. if they are only saying they are going to evaluate the creationism belief and the theory of evolution, i am not too upset about it, because they will be unwillingly teaching the kids the real science behind both ideas, and for most people will be validating evolution and disregarding classic creationist beliefs.


Top
 Profile  
 
NYIntensity
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:10 pm 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 4463
The thing for me is that people will complain if creationism and evolution don't get equal attention. If you spend 4 weeks discussing creationism, it can become almost an indoctrination. 4 weeks of evolution would be an easy curriculum to fill.

_________________
ksquier89 wrote:
Holy fucking fuck...Boyes couldn't suck a dick if it landed in his mouth.


Top
 Profile  
 
NYIntensity
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:22 pm 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 4463
FWIW, gravity is also "just a theory".

_________________
ksquier89 wrote:
Holy fucking fuck...Boyes couldn't suck a dick if it landed in his mouth.


Top
 Profile  
 
Displaced Fan
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:59 pm 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:34 am
Posts: 4097
Sorry Pat, after being respectful I couldn't get past your shit about digs, passive agressivness or saying I hate christianity. I went a long way to keep things towards the positive. Bottom line is that we have laws to protect us from religion in this country. I'm not going to argue about it anymore. Until you or any other person comes out with evidence that can be tested, measured and peer reviewed...the unproven hypothesis of intelligent design will not be a valid scientific alternative to evolution. Not for one second have I shit on religion or the belief in God. In fact I said the opposite.

Why is it everytime someone pokes at creationism/int design, all the christians in the room act like you attacked them.....even when they think the the idea of a 10,000 year old earth is silly? Creationist does no equal main stream Christianity. Pssst.....They aren't on your team.

I completely understand your positions on evolution and creationism. I completely accept your faith. I am also happy that we have scientists that bridge the gap between faith and science. I am happy that we live in a country that gives you the right to belief and my right for disbelief. I never attacked your religion. I discussed the validity of a creation myth's place in a science class. I never attacked christianity. I attacked creationists...not even close to the same thing....and I even did that tactfully.

As to the "loads of people believe it so it should get face time" arguement, a HUGE number of Americans are pissed that Pluto isn't a planet anymore without one clue (or care) as to what the Kuiper belt is or why Pluto was declassed. We should never teach based on making people happy or how many people believe something. We teach based on facts.

_________________
Image


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

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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