| Nov 23rd, 2003 05:41 PM |
| Brandon |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mburbank
I think someone's recent absence from this board, particularly this thread, signifies that his manic depressive swings are growing deeper and more frequent. I think we should start a suicide watch.
|
This thread should have been like a freaking magnet for ol' Vinth.
|
| Nov 23rd, 2003 04:53 PM |
| Guderian |
Quote:
|
I recall my biology teacher once telling us that in science, there are no facts, there are only theories that are so well supported that everyone accepts them as fact...eh, I suppose I should probably go looking this up...
|
Well, that does make sense, depending on how you look at it. From one perspective, what you observe is factual - for instance, you look outside, you see a tree, thus it's a fact that there's a tree outside. Of course, the tree could just be an illusion, a hologram, or perhaps just another plant that happens to look almost exactly like a tree, but it isn't. It's similar with evolution - evolution has been observed happening in nature, but perhaps we're observing it wrong, or it's all an elaborate illusion of some sort. Now, the difference between evolution and the tree is that many more people have observed evolution over many more years than have observed that one particular tree. Naturally that doesn't make it "true", or a "fact"...but because it's really impossible to "prove" anything (including perhaps your own existence, but that's another debate), can it be argued that nothing is true and that facts don't exist?
Now, if nothing is true, can we assign "relative truth" to some things? For instance, can we say that, even though nothing is really true, it's safe to assume that what our senses observe is reasonably true? This is the whole basis of my saying that evolution is a fact, but the Darwin's theory is just an attempt to explain an observed fact, and it could be right or wrong (in fact, it's most likely the latter - I would be surprised if the current theory never had to be altered). If you can't accept your observations as being reasonably true, then you can't accept anything as being true; and personally, I would prefer not to descend any further into madness than I already have. 
Think of it this way - can you irrefutably prove that you're required to pay taxes this year? Theoretically you can't - the people who say you do may be lying, after all. Besides that, how are you supposed to prove what country you really live in? Maybe all the maps and signs that indicate where you live are just part of some elaborate hoax. Perhaps you think you live in Seattle, but you're actually living in Shanghai, and you're just being duped by some massive conspiracy.
You have to assume that certain things are reasonably true; in this case, you have to assume that you really do live in the country you think you live in, and you have to assume that you have to pay taxes this year.
Quote:
|
I recall my biology teacher once telling us that in science, there are no facts, there are only theories that are so well supported that everyone accepts them as fact
|
It works the same outside of science. The evidence that you live in a certain country or that you have to pay taxes to that country is so overwhelming that you just accept it as being true. But is it really true? As far as I'm concerned, that's irrelevant, and the same goes for the observed process of evolution - sure, it might all be a grand hoax, but for the sake of your own sanity, you should safely assume that it isn't.
Sorry if this doesn't really make sense.
|
| Nov 23rd, 2003 02:25 PM |
| AChimp |
Excellent! You leave out some rope, and I'll go get us some good seats. 
|
| Nov 23rd, 2003 02:17 PM |
| mburbank |
I think someone's recent absence from this board, particularly this thread, signifies that his manic depressive swings are growing deeper and more frequent. I think we should start a suicide watch.
|
| Nov 23rd, 2003 01:12 PM |
| AChimp |
Those would be the scientific laws, of which there are actually only a relatively small handful.
Newton's laws of motion, and universal constants like G and Avogadro's number come to mind.
|
| Nov 23rd, 2003 12:50 PM |
| Jeanette X |
I recall my biology teacher once telling us that in science, there are no facts, there are only theories that are so well supported that everyone accepts them as fact...eh, I suppose I should probably go looking this up... :/
|
| Nov 23rd, 2003 04:53 AM |
| Guderian |
Quote:
|
The failure of Lamarks theory is already taught. Well, I remember hearing about it. I think failed theories should only be taught if they relate to successful ones, like the various models of the atom.
|
Failed theories are useful tools for demonstrating how the process of science works; beyond that, they're fairly useless and could potentially clutter a student's mind with useless points.
And you'd best remember hearing about Lamarck's theory. 
Quote:
|
Nothing in a science class should be taught as 'true'. Science is about the constant observation and analysis of nature, so there is never really anything that is 'true', simply assesments of observations that are more accurate than others.
|
That's the point. Evolution has been observed in nature; that makes it a fact, or as close to a fact as you can possibly get in the scientific realm. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain why and how that observation occurs. When someone says that they don't believe in evolution, what they really mean is that they don't believe that Darwin's theory of evolution can explain the observed process of evolution.
To better get this point across, think about it like this: when Lamarck's theory of evolution was shown to be insufficient, did that make evolution wrong, or just Lamarck's theory to explain evolution?
Quote:
|
There is a difference between "this is what 98% of the world thinks, make sure you know it for the test, but if you don't want to believe it then that's your concern" and "This is entirely true and you aren't allowed to believe otherwise."
|
Again, it seems to me that you are attacking the theory to explain the process, not the process itself. Anyone that claims a theory to be entirely true and not subject to alteration is a fool; or to put it another way, they are religious/dogmatic. There are dogmatic thinkers when it comes to Darwins theory, and they are incorrect in their thinking. However, when it comes to science, one has to assume that the observations you make are correct and thus can be considered facts; if you don't, the whole process of science falls apart. Perhaps in the field of philosophy this may not be the case, but philosophical musing is not for the science classroom.
|
| Nov 22nd, 2003 10:25 PM |
| Jeanette X |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jeanette X
Evolution need not be taught as being true.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Guderian
Yes, it does need be taught as true. Evolution is an observed fact. It is Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection that should not be taught as fact, as it is only an attempt to explain the process of evolution.
|
There is a difference between "this is what 98% of the world thinks, make sure you know it for the test, but if you don't want to believe it then that's your concern" and "This is entirely true and you aren't allowed to believe otherwise."
|
| Nov 22nd, 2003 08:49 PM |
| george |
Quote:
|
when it is said that organs were built over time, it means that for example, the eye was originally just a more primitive form of the eye, like a light sensitive cell or something. not half an eye.
|
this made me laugh. thank you for explaining that to us professor ass head.
|
| Nov 22nd, 2003 08:22 PM |
| cow-go-moo |
creation scientists either don't believe, or understand evolution, so they make up shit like:
' Logic dictates that if evolutionism is true and the eye was built incrementally over time from nothing to its present state of functional wholeness, then it must have at some point in the past been only half of an eye.'
when it is said that organs were built over time, it means that for example, the eye was originally just a more primitive form of the eye, like a light sensitive cell or something. not half an eye.
|
| Nov 22nd, 2003 07:56 PM |
| Sethomas |
That would be especially interesting, considering that Owen Flannagan shows statistics stating that only 40% of members of the scientific community believe in a greater power.
|
| Nov 22nd, 2003 06:43 PM |
| Big Papa Goat |
The failure of Lamarks theory is already taught. Well, I remember hearing about it. I think failed theories should only be taught if they relate to successful ones, like the various models of the atom.
Quote:
|
Yes, it does need be taught as true. Evolution is an observed fact. It is Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection that should not be taught as fact, as it is only an attempt to explain the process of evolution.
|
Nothing in a science class should be taught as 'true'. Science is about the constant observation and analysis of nature, so there is never really anything that is 'true', simply assesments of observations that are more accurate than others.
Quote:
I think Vince said that the scientific community was 60/40 in favor of creationism.
I would love to see the evidence for that.
Quote:
|
I believe in microevolution, not macroevolution. The evidence, if you match up both sides, is about 60/40 "intelligent design" vs evolution. Sexual organs and procreation, blood clotting and memory recall are items that natural selection or just "luck" over billions of years can't explain well enough for me or at all. I've had to do the research on it, and it is a very interesting subject to say the least. Seems as history has went on, evolution has become ever the religion based on facts that are slowly fading away. More and more scientists, if honestly asked, have stated that evolution isnt the be all end all of mankind's history and it shouldn't be taught as such. If education was truly free of bias, they would teach intelligent design as or, or at least the questioning points of evolution.
|
I just hope there aren't a lot of people that think like this. [/quote]
|
| Nov 22nd, 2003 05:34 PM |
| Perndog |
Quote:
|
-Christianity is not subject to alteration due to new observations.
|
No, they just fudge a little bit more to account for every new observation.
|
| Nov 22nd, 2003 03:47 PM |
| kellychaos |
It's funny how science can debunk religious "miracles" like "The Shroud Of Turin" but that religion hasn't been able to produce similiar tangible evidence that counters scientific theory. My conclusion. Apples and oranges. That is all.
|
| Nov 22nd, 2003 02:32 PM |
| Guderian |
Quote:
|
The topic is whether creation should be taught along with evolution in our schools.
|
Christian creationism should only be taught in a class devoted to religion. Additionally, other creation myths from different religious traditions should be taught alongside it. Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection should also be taught in the classroom (the science classroom that is), along with alternative theories that have been devised to explain the observed process of evolution, such as Lamarck's failed theories. As the biblical explanation for evolution is not scientific, it should not be taught in the science classroom.
Quote:
|
So, naturally, I've been spending some time searching for facts and info, because I'm curious about the "Science" part of Creation Science.
|
There is no such thing as "creation science". Creationists have never submitted a single paper to the scientific community for review and criticism. Creationists have never even attempted to make use of the scientific method. Why is this? A few points that need to be made:
-Science is based on observable phenomena that are subject to critical analysis. Christianity is based on things that are completely beyond human analysis, by their own admission.
-The specific conclusions of Christianity are its definition. The specific conclusions of science are the result of applying the scientific method.
-Christianity is not subject to alteration due to new observations. Science is.
"Creation science" makes use of Christian ideas, not scientific ones. It is in all respects religious, and in no respects scientific.
Quote:
|
They discuss certain fossil discoveries, gaps in fossil records, the Grand Canyon, simple molecules evolving into living cells, etc.
|
Yes, and thousands of years ago people believed angry gods tossed thunderbolts from the heavens, because they had not yet come up with an explanation for lightning. Seriously, if science could explain everything, then there would be no more need for scientists.
Quote:
|
What I've found, so far, in a nutshell, is this: "We can't explain it, so it must have been created."
|
Same logic as above. Also, a prime example of religious egocentrism, assuming that "creation" must be the Christian variety, and all others are wrong by default.
Quote:
|
This is about what I expected to find, so if any of you know any Creation Science sites or books that offer something of at least a little more substance, I'd be happy to chcek them out. Thus far, this looks like a bunch of horseshit.
|
To be perfectly honest, that's all your going to find. You could try looking up some Christian apologetic sites, like http://www.christiananswers.net/, but frankly most of the points they raise have either been refuted or are unsupportable.
Quote:
|
Evolution need not be taught as being true.
|
Yes, it does need be taught as true. Evolution is an observed fact. It is Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection that should not be taught as fact, as it is only an attempt to explain the process of evolution.
Quote:
|
I think Vince said that the scientific community was 60/40 in favor of creationism.
|
I would love to see the evidence for that.
Quote:
|
I don't understand why so many people think that evolution counters Christianity. Anyone who interprets the bible that literally needs to be shot anyway.
|
Correct on both counts.
|
| Nov 22nd, 2003 10:01 AM |
| The One and Only... |
I don't understand why so many people think that evolution counters Christianity.
Anyone who interprets the bible that literally needs to be shot anyway.
|
| Nov 22nd, 2003 12:56 AM |
| AChimp |
Creation science is just plain junk, IMO.
There was a public "debate" about this a few years ago at my university. The creation scientist rattled off a whole shitload of numbers that were absolutely irrelevant to his argument, and made himself look like an idiot when he started talking about why evolution could not ever possibly occur. His examples? Legs.
"Duh... if we evolved from stuff in the sea, then why don't fish have legs?"
He based his entire argument on the fact that it was almost mathematically impossible for a fish to give birth to, say, a dog.
To be fair, the atheist side wasn't much better, but at least he had a firm grasp of what evolution was about, rather than a Powerpoint presentation about his rebirth as a Christian.
|
| Nov 22nd, 2003 12:54 AM |
| The_Rorschach |
If really to want , a list of Creationist shown science, in order to fight, me would transport happly therefore it
|
| Nov 22nd, 2003 12:38 AM |
| sspadowsky |
Yeah, I found what I expected to find. It was a pro-con debate. Well, not really a debate, it's more of a group writing assignment. We're given a set of topics, and each of us chooses a pro or con position. I chose the con position, so I was looking for Creation Science ideas to debunk. I just had hoped that I would find SOMETHING that would be at least the slightest bit plausible. At least something that involved a reasonable facsimile of scientific theory. But it turned out to be, "We don't buy the evolution theory, so these things must have been created."
|
| Nov 21st, 2003 11:54 PM |
| Sethomas |
My state mandates an economics course to graduate. But that's irrelevant, and number one dude is a fucking tool for trying to shift the purpose of this thread.
Creation science is so fucking stupid it's laughable. I'm mostly Catholic and I realize this. Some idiot actually sells a book out of the classifieds of the national Mensa Bulletin that claims to have rebuttals to evolution and even demonstrate the feasibility of Noah's ark. I guess that's proof that a high IQ won't necessarily save you from being a complete moron.
|
| Nov 21st, 2003 11:38 PM |
| Brandon |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
What makes me angry is that we don't teach economics at the high school level.
|
I just love how you can hijack any thread and turn it into a discussion on economics. 
|
| Nov 21st, 2003 09:50 PM |
| AChimp |
Yeah, but then he never backed any of it up.
|
| Nov 21st, 2003 09:24 PM |
| Big Papa Goat |
I think Vince said that the scientific community was 60/40 in favor of creationism.
|
| Nov 21st, 2003 08:40 PM |
| camacazio |
I agree. The problem is that no matter how many classes are made mandatory in high school, most people will still be too stupid to understand how the world works.
|
| Nov 21st, 2003 08:32 PM |
| The One and Only... |
What makes me angry is that we don't teach economics at the high school level.
|
Topic Review (Newest First)
