also a flaw in the ID logic: evidence for a theory cannot be solely refutation of another theory. eg "evolution doesn't make sense because of X,Y and Z, thus ID must be true."

[Edited on August 5, 2005 at 8:23 PM. Reason : fore!]

8/5/2005 8:23:23 PM

HEY PEOPLE, WE DONT KNOW 100% FOR SURE THAT EVOLUTION HAPPENED

therefor, we should teach alternatives. right? or wrong?

8/5/2005 9:35:20 PM

In a science class or not? Thats the issue here....

8/5/2005 9:37:22 PM

aaronburro

IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW PHYSICS AND PHILOSOPHY WERE RELATED

THEN YOU CAN'T COMMENT ON THIS TOPIC ANYMORE.

[Edited on August 5, 2005 at 9:39 PM. Reason : .]

8/5/2005 9:38:53 PM

Evil Doers, all of you. How dare you question the word of the all mighty Bush.

8/5/2005 9:40:31 PM

Oy...

I always love how aaronburro will call my argument crap then proceed not to address any of my points. Instead he takes everyone else's comments (usually out of context) and responds with mindless drivel.

Here's my main argument.... AGAIN:

Quote :

"You can teach evolution. You can teach it's shortcomings. But you can't teach a theory that relies solely on the failures of another. Science has not and never will operate like that. Science demands evidence, and what evidence is there for ID? Just that evolution doesn't explain anything, and a religious/philosophical belief in a higher being. "

For the record, I have never once mentioned anything about creationism in my posts. ID theory is not science, and it has nothing to do with its religious implications. The only evidence for ID is the evidence AGAINST evolution. No scientific theory works like that.

Lets assume, for the sake of argument, that we can accept the failings of evolution as evidence of ID. In this case, with evidence to back it, ID becomes a viable scientific theory. Right? Wrong:

Quote :

"Why [must God] be the one to explain these "irreducible complexities?" What if aliens from another world came and seeded earth with life? The real assumption is that if modern science can't explain the origins of a certain phenomena, then these phenomena were created by an outside source. THAT is a better assumption, but even that assumes too much... Why all of the sudden should we take science as it is now and draw the line between the explained and unexplained? How can we be so presumptuous to believe that unexplained phenomena will stay unexplained?"

ID is not science. It is at best a religious and philosophical conjecture about the origins of the Earth. It belongs in classes discussing these topics, NOT in a science classroom. Teaching ID in the classroom would allow societal beliefs to be placed along scientifically based theory, and that's not right. It sends the wrong message to kids, and we owe it to them not to let this happen.

[Edited on August 5, 2005 at 10:08 PM. Reason : "Not all conservatives are idiots, but most idiots are conservatives."]

8/5/2005 10:05:46 PM

i think the main problem is that those who believe ID should be taught dont know what the correct definition of a theory is or what the correct definition of science is

[Edited on August 5, 2005 at 10:26 PM. Reason : 9]

8/5/2005 10:25:25 PM

he can do what he wants because you are an evil doer

8/5/2005 10:25:31 PM

Quote :

"Science proves that if I put water in my freezer it will freeze."

actually, science doesn't prove a god damned thing. thats where you are 100% WRONG. if you accept the basic premise of science, then it logically can prove stuff. But thats it. Thats what I've argued from the beginning, and you have NEVER addressed that point(or my establishment point). you bitch on and on and on about how ID is stupid, but you ignore the fact that nothing can be truly proven, except logically. And I can logically prove that 2+2=5.

Quote :

"no more good can come to this thread because he's driven all fucking logic and sense out."

actually, logic was driven out of this thread when you started your ad hominem.

There is more to philosophy than simply having creation issues. If I apply your limited view, then I can claim that computer science is philosophy.

Quote :

"Science never explains creation."

You're right, but it sure as fuck tries to.

Quote :

"Where does science claim that? It claims that it can learn things from observations, it never says it can undeniably prove anything."

If thats the case, then why are you so adamant about keeping ID out of the classroom? If science can't prove a damned thing, then why is it so fucking important to you? (BTW, i've been saying the same fucking thing the whole time here, so it should therefor be ironic when someone says "OMFG! ITS NOT SCIENTIFIC!!!" Big fucking deal. if science doesn't mean a god damned thing, then why should the inclusion of something "non-scientific" into the "scientific" matter?)

Quote :

"also a flaw in the ID logic: evidence for a theory cannot be solely refutation of another theory. eg "evolution doesn't make sense because of X,Y and Z, thus ID must be true.""

Also a flaw in your logic: attacking creationists attacks on evolution doesn;t attack ID, nor my establishment argument.

Quote :

"aaronburro IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW PHYSICS AND PHILOSOPHY WERE RELATED THEN YOU CAN'T COMMENT ON THIS TOPIC ANYMORE. [Edited on August 5, 2005 at 9:39 PM. Reason : .]"

Thank you so much for contributing to discussion instead of being an arrogant asshole and resorting to ad hominem (irony, I know).

Quote :

"I always love how aaronburro will call my argument crap then proceed not to address any of my points. Instead he takes everyone else's comments (usually out of context) and responds with mindless drivel."

Actually, I've addressed your pathetic argument in detail. You have just ignored my argument. Every last bit of it. In fact, I EVEN FUCKING ADDRESSED IT IN THIS GOD DAMNED POST! If you can't quote my fucking addressing of your bullshit "OMFG ID BASES ITSELF BY ATTACKING EVOLUTION" then don't bother posting again.

Quote :

"Teaching ID in the classroom would allow societal beliefs to be placed along scientifically based theory, and that's not right. It sends the wrong message to kids, and we owe it to them not to let this happen."

Really? 1 fucking hour of class-time to uphold the fucking Constitution would send the wrong message to kids? Wow. What is this "wrong" message being sent? "DONT QUESTION SCIENCE!!! ITS ALWAYS RIGHT!!!" Thank you for PROVING my point about science being taught as fact.

Quote :

"i think the main problem is that those who believe ID should be taught dont know what the correct definition of a theory is or what the correct definition of science is"

How about you enlighten us, oh great one?

8/5/2005 10:52:52 PM

Quote :

"How about you enlighten us, oh great one?"

science and a scientific theory represent our current best understanding of the behavior of the universe based on observatiosn, experiments and conclusions.

we teach competing theories when the experts believe that more then one has merit--in the case of evolution, the scientific process has yielded only one theory; evolution.

reading the bible isnt part of the scientific process, by definition, which is why creationism, is not science.

[Edited on August 5, 2005 at 11:04 PM. Reason : 4]

8/5/2005 11:01:01 PM

Umm, I'm slightly new to this, so perhaps I missed it somewhere, but who fucking cares? We are all out of that educational system, so it will not affect us. And you know damn well that no child basis his or her beleifs off of what their teacher tells them, they get it from their parents. Then they hit college, and meet all sorts of people with different opinions and, God willing, learn to think for themselves and develop their own opinions. So what if George Bush wants to push for Creationism being taught in school, let him. If you don't want your children taught it, tell the school they can't teach it to them, my parents sure as hell did that on many things, including evolution and the DARE program. Eventually you have to think for yourself, eventually you will have to develop your own ideas, and I know when I got out from under my bible thumping parents, I did exactly that, and I didn't use anything I had been taught before, because its all bullshit anyway, all that really matters is what feels right to you. So let them teach creationism, won't change the fact that parents who are against it will jade their children to the point where they scoff at the subject anyway, as I did when i was young towards evoltion. Just MHO.

8/5/2005 11:01:02 PM

Quote :

"no way. I mean why dont they start teaching Magic instead of chemistry?"

i LOL'd just cuz it was funny, but i have nothing to contribute, carry on

8/5/2005 11:22:42 PM

^its funny becuase its a valid comparison

magic is based on the idea of deception, that there is some higher power calling the shots, while in reality, we know that things on earth are governed by physical laws

8/5/2005 11:25:00 PM

Evil Doers

8/5/2005 11:28:25 PM

Quote :

"Thank you so much for contributing to discussion instead of being an arrogant asshole and resorting to ad hominem (irony, I know)."

DUDE

I'VE BEEN CONTRIBUTING MORE INSIGHT TO THIS CONVERSATION THEN YOU HAVE TO ANY RECENT THREAD OF NOTE

HOW DO YOU EXPECT TO POSSIBLY CONDUCT AN EQUAL, AND FAIR DEBATE ON A TOPIC CONCERNING PHILOSOPHICAL AND SCIENTIFIC BELIEFS

WHEN YOU DIDN'T KNOW HOW THE TWO FIELDS WERE RELATED?

THIS ISN'T A "CONVERSATION" SO MUCH AS IT IS YOU TRYING POORLY TO PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE

AND ANNOYING THE LIVING HELL OUT OF MOST REASONABLE POSTERS IN HERE.

8/6/2005 1:22:57 AM

Quote :

"if you accept the basic premise of science, then it logically can prove stuff. But thats it."

Accepting the premise doesn't matter. You can think the world is a dream and you are a head in a jar, but that doesn't make water boil at room temperature, that doesn't make gravity disappear. Science proves itself in the physical world. No it doesn't prove this world exists, it doesn't try to and it doesn't need to. It only proves how the physical world works, the world's existence and creation are subjects for religion and philosophy, because they cannot be proven through experimentation, thus they do not apply to science.

Quote :

"and you have NEVER addressed that point(or my establishment point)"

And what is this point?

Quote :

"but you ignore the fact that nothing can be truly proven, except logically"

Things in this world can be proven through expierementation. If I drop a rock it will fall to the floor. I can prove this by experiementation. Now whether this rock is a figment of my imagination doesn't prevent it from falling to the floor. Only philisophical questions can be proven by logic, scientific questions can be proven by experiementation. You don't seem to understand this difference.

Quote :

"And I can logically prove that 2+2=5."

Really? I'd like to see it.

Quote :

"You're right, but it sure as fuck tries to."

No it doesn't. It just works backwards, what is beyond that point you can explain with religion or magic or unicorns or anything else. Before this universe (as science knows it) was created there very well could have been a garden of eden and an evil snake and everything else.

Quote :

"If thats the case, then why are you so adamant about keeping ID out of the classroom?"

Because ID doesn't prove anything through observations, THUS IT IS NOT SCIENCE. You want to create a class and call it Intellegent design and spew half brained logic and whatever else, be my guest, but don't try to disguise it as science, something that IS proven in the real world through observation.

Quote :

"If science can't prove a damned thing"

Science proves things. It doesn't prove things at the descartian level, it doesn't try to, but it most certainly does explain why paper catches fire and why we bleed.

8/6/2005 1:44:25 AM

no

it explains how

why is more of a descartian question at its root.


[Edited on August 6, 2005 at 1:45 AM. Reason : :]

8/6/2005 1:45:29 AM

Evil Doers

8/6/2005 1:52:00 AM

8/6/2005 9:26:27 AM

Really the only descartian question is "can I prove this exists?" Science never tries to answer that question. Science explains why water boils and why door slam. Descartes is philosophy.

8/6/2005 1:18:52 PM

Quote :

"Actually, I've addressed your pathetic argument in detail. You have just ignored my argument. Every last bit of it. In fact, I EVEN FUCKING ADDRESSED IT IN THIS GOD DAMNED POST! If you can't quote my fucking addressing of your bullshit "OMFG ID BASES ITSELF BY ATTACKING EVOLUTION" then don't bother posting again."

WHERE!?!?!?!?!??


Where... the fuck.... is this magical argument you've laid out for us? I at least have outlined my position, step by step, so you could understand the logic. THIS IS WHAT I WANT FROM YOU. Please outline your argument as I have, b/c I don't see your logic at at all.

If you ignore me again, it only proves you don't have an argument in the first place. And once again, you ignore me and respond to everyone else...

WHERE THE HELL IS TESTICULAR FORTITUDE??? GTFO OUT OF THE DAMN SHADOWS YOU TROLL AND DEBATE ME ASSHAT!!!!

.....

I need a drink....

8/6/2005 1:45:00 PM

Now that I've had my drink, I'll take your main point and rationally respond to it. I've said this all before, but I never bothered to go back and quote you. Here you go:

Quote :

"leaving the basics of ID out of the science classroom violates the establishment clause. AND, its bad fucking "science" to do so anyway, since science can't prove its most basic tenent: that everything we observe and measure actually is true. That doesn't mean that science is stupid or wrong; rather that, as socks is saying, science is, at best, unproven. So tell me, what is so fucking bad about what is effectively just a damned disclaimer being added to the science curriculum in order to actually uphold one of the most basic tenets of our gov't?"

My response:

1) ID uses a negative argumentation. A negative argument uses the absence of something to prove something else is true.

2) ID asserts that the absence of scientific explanatory evidence for certain phenomena is evidence that the phenomena was "designed," and not derived from natural processes.

3) No scientific theory on the planet operates like this. One theory cannot operate on the inadequacies of another.

4) Furthermore, ID assumes unexplained phenomena will stay unexplained. Science throughout history has continued to explain more and more complex phenomena, why should we assume it will fail now?


If you can one scientific theory uses a negative argument, then I might be inclined to agree with you. Until then, I reject ID theory as scientific on these grounds.

Your move.

8/6/2005 2:10:56 PM

I asked my friend’s dad what he thought and the conversation went like this:

Me: What do you think about Bush wanting Creationism taught in schools?
Friend’s Dad: That’s great, more young people will learn about the lord since it is manditory to go to school and not church.
Me: But what about all the evidence that supports evalution and no evidence that supports creationism?
Friend’s Dad: The bible is enough evidence and where is the evidence that supports evolution?
Me: Darwin’s work for example is a good place to start
Friend’s Dad: Who is Darwin?
Me: Are you kidding me?
Friend’s Dad: You are just trying to confuse me.
Me: No I’m trying to have an inteilgent conversation
Friend’s Dad: Next you are going to start talking about the Iraq war like it is bad for our country
Me: Yeah I believe it is
Friend’s Dad: Well we wouldn’t be in Iraq if those Iraqis didn’t bomb NYC.

Is there an intelligence gap aswell as a generation gap in this country?

8/6/2005 2:48:32 PM

^you should have stopped with:

Quote :

"Friend’s Dad: That’s great, more young people will learn about the lord since it is manditory to go to school and not church."

8/6/2005 2:53:48 PM

well he didnt take his eyes off nascar the whole conversation.

8/6/2005 3:45:50 PM

Sometimes I like to think about how threads might be different in soap box section if our usernames weren't included in the posts.

8/6/2005 3:58:36 PM

ok. If ID is the real deal then explain possums. What was the thinking behind that?

8/6/2005 5:46:17 PM

Quote :

"which is why creationism, is not science."

good. I never said teach creationism

Quote :

"So what if George Bush wants to push for Creationism being taught in school, let him."

I would raise hell if anyone tried to teach creationism as fact in public schools.

Quote :

"magic is based on the idea of deception, that there is some higher power calling the shots, while in reality, we know that things on earth are governed by physical laws"

Magic, as it is practiced, is based on deception. There's no appeal to a higher power. Its just pure and simple deception. The idea of "magic" is different.

Quote :

"DUDE I'VE BEEN CONTRIBUTING MORE INSIGHT TO THIS CONVERSATION THEN YOU HAVE TO ANY RECENT THREAD OF NOTE HOW DO YOU EXPECT TO POSSIBLY CONDUCT AN EQUAL, AND FAIR DEBATE ON A TOPIC CONCERNING PHILOSOPHICAL AND SCIENTIFIC BELIEFS WHEN YOU DIDN'T KNOW HOW THE TWO FIELDS WERE RELATED?"

THank you once again for explaining the relevence between the two. You have thoroughly enlightened me. We are all wiser for having listened to your ad hominem

Quote :

"Accepting the premise doesn't matter."

Actually, it matters a lot. If the premise is NOT true, then nothing based on that premise can be taken as fact. It doesn't make everything based on the premise wrong, it just calls into question its veracity. For instance, lets take a court case where the evidence is a witness's testimony. The testimony is DAMNING, so its looks like the guy is guilty. Then something comes in which questions the witness's motives or credibility. All of sudden we cannot take the witness's word totally. Thus, the evidence is still there, but we can no longer completely trust it, because the intial premise (the witness's truthfulness) is potentially not valid. So it is w/ science.

Quote :

"And what is this point?"

If you can't quote it, then you've seriously got a problem. But, in the interest of not being SandSanta, I'll reiterate: In the realm of a science classroom, where things are taught as fact, to teach evolution (effectively as a fact, since it is being taught in the science class) is to say that Christianity specifically is wrong when it asserts that God created man independently from other animals. When this is done in a public, gov't-run school, this violates the establishment clause, as it is a gov't endorsement of a religion other than Christianity. (I choose Christianity because it is the religion with which I and most others are most familiar. This argument applies to ANY religion with which evolution would conflict.)

Quote :

"Things in this world can be proven through expierementation."

They can only be proven if the observations can be trusted. I'm not really arguing that we are heads in jars. I'm not arguing that looking at a rock falling can be taken as evidence that a rock is falling. Yes, such a notion is the ultimate extension of what I am saying, but I don't mean it to be what I am saying. What I am actually saying is this: if there exists a set of observations or measurements of the natural world which cannot be intriniscly trusted, then that set of observations or measurements should be naturally questioned when doing an experiment involving those observations or measurements. Science says, more or less, that we can always trust all observations and measurements. I say otherwise.

The specific observation and measurement that I say we must question is time and age. My reasoning is straightforward: Science says that we can determine the age of a once-living being by carbon-dating. This is a wonderful idea, but only under one premise: that carbon-dating is always right about the actual age of an object. Now, note that I am not saying that carbon-dating is flawed. I'm not questioning the procedure or the methodology. I am questioning the interpretation of the result. At best, carbon-dating tells us how old the object appears to be. Suppose I take an apple that picked off a tree today and am somehow able to remove amounts of the carbon isotope sufficient to equal the levels one would expect to find in an apple that is a million years old. When you carbon date this apple, how old do you think it is? a million years. How old is it actually? One day. Granted, you look at this apple and say "man, its still red, it can't be a million years old!" Thus, one would not likely conclude that the apple is a million years old based on its appearance (assuming I could maintain its appearance through the carbon removal process).

Now, I'm not suggesting that someone came along and removed all the carbon from every last fossil to make it look older. That'd be ludicrous. Rather, I am suggesting that if the appearance of age is different from the actual age, whether it be through intentional tampering, processes we don't yet understand, or a creator being that created everything to appear older than the actual time it was created, then the measurement of the age of ANYTHING should be suspect. AKA, if one could ascertain FOR SURE that the universe were only 6000 years old, then even if you find a fossil which carbon-dates to be a million years old, that fossil is still 6000 years old.

Now, here's the fun part! Take another apple off the tree and leave it alone and let it "fossilize." Carbon date it in a million years. How old does it look? a million years. How old is it actually? a million years. Thus, I'm not saying that carbon dating itself is wrong. Rather, I'm saying the premise of carbon dating is wrong; and the premise is that carbon dating ALWAYS tells the true age of an organic object. It will, however, always tell us how old an object appears to be.

Quote :

"Really? I'd like to see it."

I did it in another thread, but I'll give you a synopsis. Assume 1+1 = 2. Assume that 2+1 = 4. Assume that 4+1 = 5. Thus, 2+2=5, based on the prior three assumptions. Clearly, 2+2 != 5 in decimal. However, I never stated that I was using decimal.

Quote :

"Because ID doesn't prove anything through observations, THUS IT IS NOT SCIENCE."

Irrelevent to the subject of establishment and a gov't-run school's classrooms.

Quote :

"You want to create a class and call it Intellegent design"

Actually, no I don't. I don't think ID deserves even half that much concern in the classroom. I think it deserves at most one lecture per class where it is warranted to prevent a violation of the establishment clause. Since it is involved with at most 6 classes in a child's entire public school career, that boils down to six hours over the span of 780 24-hour school days. not even a drop in the bucket.

Quote :

"but don't try to disguise it as science"

heh, I never would do so. I'd simply be pointing out the pitfall of science as I see it: our assumption that every measurement and observation is accurate, which I think is VERY important to point out in a science class. The reason is very straightforward. What we see (aka, percieve) is not always what is happening, even in the realm of science. When we can 100% rule out all other possibilities, then yes, what we see is what is actually happening. This is important to note because there usually comes a time when an scientist is doing an experiment and all of the data he collects seems to support his hypothesis. But, if he were to change one simple overlooked variable, everything would be different, and it would actually prove his hypothesis wrong. The example I like to point to is the spontaneous creation of life experiments, ie the carcass and maggots. The variable that was overlooked? A sterile lab condition. We take that for granted now, because we know such a thing is important. But what other factors in our experiments may we be overlooking that can affect our measurements and perceptions?

Now, I'd never say "we must approach every experiment with the expectation that God could affect the results." I see no reason to expect Him to do so, and I see no reason to believe He has ever done so. I even would never say that a scientist himself should apply any actual principles of ID to his studies, because, as you and others have pointed out, ID does not have a huge intrinsic value to the study of science. But that doesn't mean that science can't learn something from it (other than "those guys are crazy whackos!" ). And again, I'll say that what can be learned from ID is "don't always implicitly trust your observations and measurements, and make sure you account for EVERYTHING applicable to your experiment." That lesson is immensely important to science.

Quote :

"Science proves things."

It proves things only as long as the initial conditions are met.

8/6/2005 5:50:15 PM

Quote :

"WHERE!?!?!?!?!?? Where... the fuck.... is this magical argument you've laid out for us? I at least have outlined my position, step by step, so you could understand the logic. THIS IS WHAT I WANT FROM YOU. Please outline your argument as I have, b/c I don't see your logic at at all. If you ignore me again, it only proves you don't have an argument in the first place. And once again, you ignore me and respond to everyone else... WHERE THE HELL IS TESTICULAR FORTITUDE??? GTFO OUT OF THE DAMN SHADOWS YOU TROLL AND DEBATE ME ASSHAT!!!! ..... I need a drink...."

You do realize that you never quoted my actual argument, don't you?

Quote :

"1) ID uses a negative argumentation. A negative argument uses the absence of something to prove something else is true. 2) ID asserts that the absence of scientific explanatory evidence for certain phenomena is evidence that the phenomena was "designed," and not derived from natural processes. 3) No scientific theory on the planet operates like this. One theory cannot operate on the inadequacies of another. 4) Furthermore, ID assumes unexplained phenomena will stay unexplained. Science throughout history has continued to explain more and more complex phenomena, why should we assume it will fail now?"

My response: (numbers are provided for ease of reading and do not refer to your numbers)
1) Such an ID should never be taught, as you are right, it is a bit illogical to assume that unexplained things will stay unexplained. In addition, ID as you are referring to is clearly creationism repackaged. That, too, would border on a violation of the establishment clause.
2) I've detailed in other threads what I think ID taught in schools should consist of, and it is quite religiously neutral (excluding atheism, duh). Maybe I should find another term for "my" ID, but I'd thought I'd made it rather clear that "my" ID is different from the creationist ID that you so despise.
3) you have several times mentioned that proof by negation is not a valid scientific proof, but you couldn't be anymore wrong. Proof by negation is of extremely large value, as sometimes we cannot easily prove through assertion. If ID were able to first prove that evolution and ID were the only two plausible explanations for speciation and existence, then negating evolution would prove ID. The reason is, to quote a trite saying, that when trying to explain something, if you eliminate all but one thing from the realm of the possible, then whatever is left, no matter how crazy or unlikely, is the explanation. Thus, in your criticism of ID (really creationists, mind you) for using an attack on evolution as proof of ID, you are actually missing the creationist's flaw. The creationists assume that evolution is the only other possible explanation for speciation. That is the flaw in the argument, not their negation argument. Providing evidence of a creator being would undoubtedly be helpful for helping bolster their claims, as that is the root of ID / creationism, but it would not be necessary if they could negate every other possible explanation.

Quote :

"ok. If ID is the real deal then explain possums. What was the thinking behind that?"

the creator being must one hell of a sense of humor

[Edited on August 6, 2005 at 5:51 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2005 5:50:36 PM

it's like God on the seventh day looked down on his creation: "There it is, my creation, perfect and holy in all ways. Now, I can rest. Oh my me. I left fucking pot everywhere. I should never have smoked that joint on the third day ..shit. That was the day I created possums. Haha. Still gives me a chuckle. If I leave pot everywhere that's gonna to give humans the impression they're supposed to... 'use' it. (sigh) Now I have to create Republicans." And God wept.

RIP --- Bill Hicks

8/6/2005 6:06:00 PM

Quote :

"The specific observation and measurement that I say we must question is time and age. My reasoning is straightforward: Science says that we can determine the age of a once-living being by carbon-dating. This is a wonderful idea, but only under one premise: that carbon-dating is always right about the actual age of an object. Now, note that I am not saying that carbon-dating is flawed. I'm not questioning the procedure or the methodology. I am questioning the interpretation of the result. At best, carbon-dating tells us how old the object appears to be. "

hey einstein, we dont use carbon dating very much anymore. its called radiological dating -- and we know that certain isotopes decay at constant rates. no exceptions have ever been found.

8/6/2005 6:49:58 PM

Quote :

"I'll reiterate: In the realm of a science classroom, where things are taught as fact, to teach evolution (effectively as a fact, since it is being taught in the science class) is to say that Christianity specifically is wrong when it asserts that God created man independently from other animals."

1. our best undestanding is taught as fact. we teach relativity as fact. would have us not?

2. evolution says nothing about christianity no more than gravity does. im sorry you think that, but its your problem. BY THAT LOGIC, WE SHOULDNT TEACH THE EARTH IS ROUND. you are insane.

3. if science teaches us something that the bible disagrees with, it shouldnt be taught? are you out of your mind? youre claiming our eduction should be censored if scientists observe something that is in conflict with any religion?


you. are. insane.



[Edited on August 6, 2005 at 6:57 PM. Reason : -]

8/6/2005 6:56:17 PM

^(00)^

8/6/2005 7:16:35 PM

Quote :

"youre claiming our eduction should be censored if scientists observe something that is in conflict with any religion? "

yeah, fuck that galileo guy.

8/6/2005 7:21:15 PM

i think aaronburro would have us all locked in towers till we recant

8/6/2005 7:38:15 PM

Quote :

"hey einstein, we dont use carbon dating very much anymore. its called radiological dating -- and we know that certain isotopes decay at constant rates. no exceptions have ever been found."

I never claimed there was an exception. Go reread my post.

Quote :

" our best undestanding is taught as fact. we teach relativity as fact. would have us not?"

i would have you teach relativity as theory. All science should be taught as being logically consistent with its premise of the underlying truth of our observations and measurements, except where there is reason to suspect said measurements an observation. Thus, no, I would not teach anything as irrefutable fact unless it could be shown so. However, that would not keep me from applying such a rigorously tested and confirmed concept.

Quote :

"2. evolution says nothing about christianity no more than gravity does. im sorry you think that, but its your problem. BY THAT LOGIC, WE SHOULDNT TEACH THE EARTH IS ROUND. you are insane."

The Bible is quite clear that man did not come from apes, or ape-like beings. Thus, evolution runs counter to a literal interpretation of that passage. Furthermore, the Bible says that everything was created in 7 days. Evolutions purports to have occurred over millions of years. If thats not mutually fucking exclusive, then I don't know what is.
Oh, and the Bible says nothing about the Earth being flat. Washington Irving did, but the Bible didn't.

Quote :

"if science teaches us something that the bible disagrees with, it shouldnt be taught? are you out of your mind? youre claiming our eduction should be censored if scientists observe something that is in conflict with any religion?"

Actually, NO! I would NEVER say that, as that would be advancing a religion as well. Instead, I offer a religiously neutral form of ID be discussed for one hour in any class which would naturally conflict with or contradict a religion. And, the purpose of this is to uphold the Constitution, and to shut up those crazy literal creationists at the same time.

Quote :

"i think aaronburro would have us all locked in towers till we recant"

i think you are wrong. actually, I KNOW you are wrong. you've obviously read none of my posts...

8/6/2005 8:54:29 PM

you guys bicker too much, you arent even discussing anything...but, heres what I think. Evolution (as a series of chance variations) and intelligent design (religion/christianity) can't coexist. If the theory of evolution ever reaches the point where it cannot be denied, religion is gone or severely altered. If man is a product of chance then the christian god must have said to itself I like these things I think I'll make one of them to go tell these little guys about me. That situation sounds a little uninspiring... It is in the interest of any religion that holds man above any other animal in the eyes of god to deminish the merits of evolution. This is a battle they can't afford to lose.

8/6/2005 8:56:31 PM

Quote :

"THank you once again for explaining the relevence between the two. You have thoroughly enlightened me. We are all wiser for having listened to your ad hominem"

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE

LOOK SOMETHING UP ON YOUR OWN

RESEARCH SOMETHING APART FROM TDUB AND INTERNET PARAGRAPH POINTS

I MEAN SERIOUSLY

YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO HOLD YOUR OWN IN A CONVERSATION

INSTEAD OF YOU KNOW

HAVING EVERYONE TRY TO EXPLAIN TO YOU THE MOST FUNDAMENTALLY BASIC OF FUCKING CONCEPTS

AND THEN TRY HARD NOT TO BASH THEIR MONITORS AS YOU AS YOU PROCEDE TO REFUTE LONG ESTABLISHED AND VALIDATED IDEAS AND THEORIES

WITH YOUR HALF WITTED UNDERSTANDING AND ILLOGICAL POSTULATES

DO YOU WANT AN "AD HOMINEM"?

A PHRASE YOU UNDOUBTABLY GOT FROM Kris LONG AGO

I'll GIVE YOU ONE.

YOU SIR, ARE ENTIRELY IGNORANT OF A LOT OF THE HISTORY, LOGIC, AND BASIS CONTAINED IN THE MANY IDEAS YOU DISCUSS ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD.

8/6/2005 8:59:21 PM

Quote :

"FOR THE LOVE OF GOD FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE LOOK SOMETHING UP ON YOUR OWN RESEARCH SOMETHING APART FROM TDUB AND INTERNET PARAGRAPH POINTS I MEAN SERIOUSLY YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO HOLD YOUR OWN IN A CONVERSATION INSTEAD OF YOU KNOW HAVING EVERYONE TRY TO EXPLAIN TO YOU THE MOST FUNDAMENTALLY BASIC OF FUCKING CONCEPTS AND THEN TRY HARD NOT TO BASH THEIR MONITORS AS YOU AS YOU PROCEDE TO REFUTE LONG ESTABLISHED AND VALIDATED IDEAS AND THEORIES WITH YOUR HALF WITTED UNDERSTANDING AND ILLOGICAL POSTULATES DO YOU WANT AN "AD HOMINEM"? A PHRASE YOU UNDOUBTABLY GOT FROM Kris LONG AGO I'll GIVE YOU ONE. YOU SIR, ARE ENTIRELY IGNORANT OF A LOT OF THE HISTORY, LOGIC, AND BASIS CONTAINED IN THE MANY IDEAS YOU DISCUSS ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD."

My, you are so full of help and insight! You really addressed my points well! You sure showed me!

8/6/2005 9:04:33 PM

Quote :

"Thus, no, I would not teach anything as irrefutable fact"

you clearly dont know what science is. no scientific fact is taught as irrefutable.

Quote :

"Actually, NO! I would NEVER say that, as that would be advancing a religion as well. Instead, I offer a religiously neutral form of ID be discussed for one hour in any class which would naturally conflict with or contradict a religion."

we dont adapt our science when groups that have nothing to do with science dont like it. we make observations and conclusions, if we had to make sure every single conclusions was religously neutral we would still be in the stone age becuase i know someone thought fire was evil. teaching people how to make fire was down right satanic, that shit is a power to wielded by no man!

wouldnt you agree?

[Edited on August 6, 2005 at 9:13 PM. Reason : -]

8/6/2005 9:12:08 PM

i'm not saying change science. I'm saying change one fucking hour of a science CLASS! you can't read, can you?

8/6/2005 9:17:54 PM

your saying teach something in science class this isnt science?

thats rediculous

[Edited on August 6, 2005 at 9:18 PM. Reason : -]

8/6/2005 9:18:46 PM

How does anybody sift through this kid's crap in order to respond? I always stumble across some grievous error and scroll past the rest of his post in disgust.

Quote :

"I did it in another thread, but I'll give you a synopsis. Assume 1+1 = 2. Assume that 2+1 = 4. Assume that 4+1 = 5. Thus, 2+2=5, based on the prior three assumptions. Clearly, 2+2 != 5 in decimal. However, I never stated that I was using decimal."

Holy.

Shit.

I'll let that one respond to itself.

8/6/2005 9:23:21 PM

i know, its crazy to make an extreme example that actually works. wow!

and, Josh, if science is not fact, then what is wrong w/ adding something into a science class in order to actually uphold a Constitutional principle which also goes along to support the assertion that science is not fact?

8/6/2005 9:25:20 PM

Quote :

"i know, its crazy to make an extreme example that actually works. wow!"

It doesn't work.

You can't even see that.









Pwnt.

[Edited on August 6, 2005 at 9:30 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2005 9:28:30 PM

actually, PWNT on you for not understanding my point. That example is 100% logically consistent. AND you can't see it. We arbitrarilly set up that 2+1 = 3 via the decimal system. I argued that in a system other than the decimal system, 2+1 could = 4. Thats not in ANY way shape or form wrong.

8/6/2005 9:32:04 PM

^ You were fucking with semantics. What is that supposed to prove?

Your statement means nothing. What you're saying is, if you change the meaning of things you can ... prove things that the normal meanings don't normally allow for.

You're an intellectual light-weight. You need to do some reading before you attempt logic or philosophy.

8/6/2005 9:35:14 PM

Quote :

"Instead, I offer a religiously neutral form of ID be discussed for one hour in any class which would naturally conflict with or contradict a religion."

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RELIGIOUSLY NEUTRAL INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

I AM TYPING THIS IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE PERHAPS YOU HAVE PROBLEMS WITH YOUR LETTERS.

8/6/2005 9:40:20 PM

Quote :

"and, Josh, if science is not fact, then what is wrong w/ adding something into a science class in order to actually uphold a Constitutional principle which also goes along to support the assertion that science is not fact?"

1. science wiorks. thats a fact. science is our best understand of the natural world.

2. whats wrong? science belongs in science class. history belongs in history class. religion belongs in religion class.

if we taught religion in history class, then this would be a theocracy. thats whats wrong.


do you understand now?

[Edited on August 6, 2005 at 9:50 PM. Reason : -]

[Edited on August 6, 2005 at 9:51 PM. Reason : -]

8/6/2005 9:50:00 PM

^^oh really? how is that? excluding atheism, I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that assertion...

and, ^^^ I'm not arguing semantics. I'm pointing out that the underlying assumptions are important for science. If there is a valid reason to question the underlying assumption, then the point is valid. In my example of 2+2=5, its a bit ridiculous, I agree, but it is equally ridiculous to use circular logic to defend a timeline, whether its a 6000 year one or a billions of years one.

"THe universe is billions of years old."
"Why?"
"Well, radiological dating says so."
"How do we know that can be trusted and that things weren't made to appear that old?"
"Well, cause the universe is billions of years old."

[Edited on August 6, 2005 at 9:55 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2005 9:55:26 PM