HEY ITS NOT YOU

ITS US

WE'RE ALL OBVIOUSLY TOO DUMB TO GET YOUR YOUR INSIGHT.

8/6/2005 9:58:26 PM

Quote :

"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."

1. I'm not disagreeing that science helps us understand the natural world. Thus, scientists can use whatever the fuck they want.
2. And its in the science class. But, when science is taught as fact in a gov't run school, as you want it to be, and science teaches that religion is wrong, then in our country that is illegal. How do you not grasp this concept?

History class has a different set of assumptions to it. I've actually already addressed the history class argument. Go read it. In fact, I've addressed your entire fucking point before. go read it.

8/6/2005 9:58:53 PM

Quote :

"HEY ITS NOT YOU ITS US WE'RE ALL OBVIOUSLY TOO DUMB TO GET YOUR YOUR INSIGHT."

actually, thats not it. I'd never be so conceited as to think that someone else was truly stupid for holding a different belief. You are just to ignorant and close minded to accept that our gov't's Constitution should actually be followed in this instance because you don't agree with those who want their religion protected.

8/6/2005 10:00:27 PM

YEA

YOU'RE IN A GOOD POSITION TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION

ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE DEPTH OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE ON A VARIETY OF SUBJECTS

8/6/2005 10:04:22 PM

ad hominem much? actually discuss the issue much? or do you just resort to personal attacks?

8/6/2005 10:07:44 PM

Quote :

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

Okay, if, for some reason, we decided that atheistic religions just didn't fucking matter, we'd still be left with religions that have a god or gods who do nothing in the physical realm.

8/6/2005 10:11:00 PM

CONTRIBUTE TO THE ISSUE?

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

BITCH PLEASE

I'VE COVERED EVERYTHING FROM THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND ID TO WHERE YOU GOT THE PHRASE "AD HOMINEM"

WHICH BY THE WAY

IS YOUR ONLY REPLY TO ANYONE CHALLENGING YOUR COMMAND OF A SUBJECT.

SOMEONE -

"HEY AARONBORRO, WHAT YOU JUST SAID MAKES NO SENSE, WHY DON'T YOU ACTUALLY READ MORE ABOUT THIS TOPIC AND LEARN SOMETHING?"

YOU-

"AD HOMINEM !!#!111!!11"

8/6/2005 10:11:23 PM

maybe i say "ad hominem" because thats exactly what it is. you have NEVER addressed my establishment point. I've actually re-covered your "OMFG ITS NOT SCIENCE" argument, and EVEN given a damned good reason how it could even be beneficial to a fucking science class. but you instead want to call me stupid, which shows the real depth of your argument and thinking ability. If I assrape your argument once, I don't need to revisit it every time you feel like making the same argument and then call me a moron

8/6/2005 10:16:01 PM

you're establishment point had no point. not presenting any religious ideas is exactly the establishment point, yet you both want to present one, AND you want to argue the establishment cause.

you're a fucking walking oxymoron. no wait, just moron.

8/6/2005 10:19:08 PM

Quote :

"1. I'm not disagreeing that science helps us understand the natural world. Thus, scientists can use whatever the fuck they want. 2. And its in the science class. But, when science is taught as fact in a gov't run school, as you want it to be, and science teaches that religion is wrong, then in our country that is illegal. How do you not grasp this concept? History class has a different set of assumptions to it. I've actually already addressed the history class argument. Go read it. In fact, I've addressed your entire fucking point before. go read it."

1. "when science is taught as fact" you say it like its something strange. again, science represents our best understanding of nature, we know evolution happened and say that just like know gravity happens, even though we dont know every little detail about gravity.

2. "science teaches that religion is wrong" no, science cannot do that. science is just observe and conclude. if some religous nut has a problem, he can take it up in religion class.

again, we dont alter science because of opinions of non-experts or religous fanatics. if we did, we would never have taught anyone how to make fire.


should we present differing views in sunday school? churches get federal funds just like schools.

how about a mandate to teach less religously contentous ideas about creationism in sunday school?

sounds rediculous becuase it is

[Edited on August 6, 2005 at 10:22 PM. Reason : -]

8/6/2005 10:20:01 PM

30thAnnZ

Sums it up perfectly.

Why don't you go ahead and give 5 good reasons, one sentance only, why ID should be included in science.

Hell, forget that, give 2 good reasons, one sentance only.

8/6/2005 10:30:10 PM

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."

Classic

8/6/2005 10:33:31 PM

It is classic because the motherfucker changed the context of 2+2 in order to make his definition work.

Which is pretty fucking ironic considering everything he's argued.

Since we'd have to change the definition of Science to make ID work.

8/6/2005 10:36:10 PM

Quote :

"Since we'd have to change the definition of Science to make ID work."

bingo

8/6/2005 10:47:47 PM

Quote :

" If the premise is NOT true, then nothing based on that premise can be taken as fact."

Science is a fact. It proves itself. If water is at 100c, under normal pressure, it will boil, that is a fact. Now you can argue that our observations aren't real or anything else, but that doesn't change the fact that water will always boil at 100c.

Quote :

"For instance, lets take a court case where the evidence is a witness's testimony."

Let's not, because that has absolutely nothing to do with this. Science bases itself on observations that ANYONE can make, you don't have to take anyones word for anything, you can try it yourself and test it's validity. You cannot do this with witness testimony, so it is irrlevant.

Quote :

"Christianity specifically is wrong when it asserts that God created man independently from other animals."

Science never says christianity is wrong. I'm not god, I don't know how he made shit, and I can't observe it myself to question it's validity. I can however test and find evolution to be true. Science never says christianity is wrong.

Quote :

"Science says, more or less, that we can always trust all observations and measurements. I say otherwise."

Science says nothing of the sort. Science says if you do 'A' you can observe 'B'. Now whether the observations and measurements are true doesn't matter, because the statement 'A' will result in 'B' is true.

Quote :

"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."

You can't do this without altering time.

Quote :

"Assume that 2+1 = 4."

2+1 != 4. You are saying assume false to be true. You cannot logically do that.
QED

Quote :

"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."

It doesn't matter how long it is, what matters is that you are teaching our children something that CANNOT be proven (as science can) and trying to imply that it can be scientifically proven.

Quote :

" our assumption that every measurement and observation is accurate"

We never said that. I forget where I discussed this, but let's say they have their own numeric system that is different from ours. It's not really possible to convert between the number system because numbers have theoretic bases and values. Is our number system right and theirs wrong? Or vice versa? The answer is that it doesn't matter, our system being wrong doesn't make 2+1=5, our system still proves itself within our physical world, thus the measurement being "true" or not doesn't change the fact that it still applies.

Quote :

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

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE INTIAL CONDITIONS ARE MET OR NOT. That doesn't change the fact that every time I drop a rock it will fall to the ground. The intial conditions are irrelevant.

8/6/2005 11:16:03 PM

Quote :

"Science says, more or less, that we can always trust all observations and measurements. I say otherwise.""

im sick of non-scientists saying they know what science is. that would be like me leading sunday mass.


science says that observations and measurements are a way to lead to an understanding of our universe

8/6/2005 11:21:14 PM

8/6/2005 11:26:24 PM

^since we dont know the full value if pi, pi shouldnt be taught as fact

8/6/2005 11:27:19 PM

I can turn poo into gold watch:

Assume poo = gold

SEE POO IS NOW GOLD

8/6/2005 11:32:32 PM

I JUST DROPPED A NUTTY FORTUNE!

8/6/2005 11:50:50 PM

^no...remember sperm are only half people

you serve half-time for killing them

8/7/2005 12:06:34 AM

^Wrong thread

8/7/2005 12:37:36 AM

Quote :

" 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." "

Ummm... what exactly are you trying to say here? That even if all measurable evidence points to things being a certain way, but due to supernatural forces may not be that way, that we shouldn't teach the overwhelming mountain of evidence that says things are the other way? Or that when we teach it, we should have a disclaimer saying that even though everything says things are a certain way, they may not be? Do you really think that's a rational action for a science lesson?

Also, you seem to be implying that it's a reasonable belief to think that the universe is only a few thousand years old, but things don't seem that way, because god made them that way. However, such a belief is not compatible with any religion, considering what we know about the universe. Other than to discuss philosophy, there would be no reason to bring this up in a geology class.

8/7/2005 12:47:15 AM

Quote :

"But, when science is taught as fact in a gov't run school, as you want it to be, and science teaches that religion is wrong, then in our country that is illegal."

Let me just say that I love this reasoning.

REALITY DISPROVES MY IDEOLOGY. CLEARLY IT'S REALITY THAT NEEDS MODIFICATION.

8/7/2005 12:58:42 AM

Quote :

"Assume that 2+1 = 4"

8/7/2005 1:03:53 AM

I dont think children should be taught to question reality.

8/7/2005 1:22:19 AM

Quote :

""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?""

its true that science cannot know what god was thinking when he created the universe god IF he purposely made the universe APPEAR to look old, but actualy be young.



AGAIN:


science assumes truth based on observations. if the universe was created to decieve us about its origin, we would never know. thats not a scientific argument, its a philosophical one. you could never if god was trying to decieve you, becuase welll...i think thats obvious


AGAIN; ANOTHER REASON WHY CREATIONISM OR ID ISNT SCIENCE

to claim god created the universe and put a lot of elaborate evidence about its true origon is like believing in magic

8/7/2005 1:58:27 AM

GG all around guys.

This was a pretty thorough pwnting.

8/7/2005 2:42:44 AM

i don't think science ever tries to prove that it is TRUE. i don't think that we know anything to be absolute fact. science is just trying to get CLOSE to that truth through observation, logic, and experimentation. even if our understanding of evolution or gravity or cheeseburgers is totally wrong, science is still basing their findings on physical evidence and our best understanding right now. ID does not do these things.

8/7/2005 3:16:18 AM

speaking of fairytales... i base my personal religion and take my explainations for everything from humpty dumpty. Now i dont know if you guys have read the scriptures of humpty dumpty but theres a lot in there that you can use to explain your questions about life.

8/7/2005 10:22:53 AM

Quote :

"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."

I asked for examples. If it is of large value in science, where is it being used?

Quote :

"but I'd thought I'd made it rather clear that "my" ID is different from the creationist ID that you so despise."

I never once made reference to creationism, and I resent the implication I did. ID is a viable theory from a philosophical or religious perspective. It is not viable as a scientific theory

Quote :

"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."

Yes, except you can't. Various theories have been put forward about the origin on the earth and life itself, all based on evidence specific to that theory. ID on the other hand has to rely on other theories' shortcomings. It has no evidence of its own. That's why it may belong in school, but not in a science classroom

8/7/2005 1:24:52 PM

Quote :

"Assume that 2+1 = 4"

hahaha

makes me laugh everytime I read it

8/7/2005 1:53:31 PM

Quote :

"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."

no, it would just prove that evolution is not correct. However, ID has yet to prove it's plausibility beyond philosophical discussion.

8/7/2005 1:58:28 PM

It always sort of irked me that whenver we got to evolution in one of my science classes, the teacher went out of her way to say, "We're going to teach evolution as fact." I'd settle quite happily for omitting that little gem and possibly mentioning some shortcomings or gaps in the theory.

8/7/2005 4:11:26 PM

http://www.historychannel.com/apetoman/

8/7/2005 4:21:32 PM

those holes and shortcomings are minimal and in the details.

I always hated when they would say, "Now, we're going to teach evolution. I'm not saying creation doesn't exist."

8/7/2005 4:49:07 PM

I am irked as well that this had become such an issue. If I taught a science class my disclaimer would be "I'm going to be teaching about evolution, if you believe in creationism, then you either dropped out of school in the fourth grade or in the wrong classroom, GED is down the hall."

8/7/2005 5:43:49 PM

Quote :

"2+1 != 4. You are saying assume false to be true. You cannot logically do that. QED "

Thanks Kris. I wasn't going to stoop that low, but I admire your willingness to crawl to the depths of this guy's idiocy and your attempt to pull him back up.

Edit:

Quote :

"REALITY DISPROVES MY IDEOLOGY. CLEARLY IT'S REALITY THAT NEEDS MODIFICATION. "

Ahh, the fatal flaw in southern baptist "thinking".

[Edited on August 7, 2005 at 6:29 PM. Reason : .]

8/7/2005 6:17:33 PM

Quote :

"those holes and shortcomings are minimal and in the details. I always hated when they would say, "Now, we're going to teach evolution. I'm not saying creation doesn't exist.""

My guys will stop saying what pisses you off when your guys stop saying what pisses me off. Deal?

The shortcomings of evolution are not so major as to overwhelm the thing but they need mentioning if we're going to give a balanced view of the world to kids, as opposed to one that's inherently lopsided in favor of atheism.

8/8/2005 3:01:06 AM

It is logically flawed to say that evolution favors atheism.

8/8/2005 3:03:35 AM

Teaching evolution as immutable fact favors atheism, or, at the very least, religions that do not incorporate it entirely into their belief system.

8/8/2005 3:06:27 AM

there are no immutable facts

8/8/2005 3:08:50 AM

Remove immutable and the points stands.

8/8/2005 3:11:24 AM

The theory of evolution does run contrary to the literal interpretation of the bible.

So do other wacky theories, like history, geology, biology, and motherfucking astronomy.

Oh, and by the way, the dial doesn't only stop on "atheist" and "literal interpretation of a particular Christian bible".

8/8/2005 3:12:28 AM

what do you think it mean to teach something as fact?

8/8/2005 3:12:58 AM

I don't know, but if my math teacher tries that shit on me again I'm not gonna have it.

8/8/2005 3:13:36 AM

Quote :

"So do other wacky theories, like history, geology, biology, and motherfucking astronomy. "

They're all just theories though, right? And it should always be mentioned that the Bible might be right...

8/8/2005 3:13:50 AM

That's all fine. I never heard any of my other teachers go out of their way to say, "I am teaching this history as FACT." I also heard them put forward any flaws in what they were espousing.

8/8/2005 3:13:52 AM

what does it mean to teach something in science as "not a fact" ?



[Edited on August 8, 2005 at 3:21 AM. Reason : -]

8/8/2005 3:21:01 AM

Start putting stickers on math books and see if those teachers get defensive, too.

8/8/2005 3:21:17 AM