NUMBER THEORY IS JUST A THEORY

8/8/2005 3:22:27 AM

For a science teacher to go out of their way to say that they are teaching something as FACT, when it is a theory and a highly controversial one at that, is unacceptable.

You teach the damn thing, you cover all the angles, you move on, you don't go out of your way to say, "I am calling all the Christians in here wrong."

8/8/2005 3:22:41 AM

8/8/2005 3:22:45 AM

next thing you know, we'll have social studies teachers teaching middle school girls that its ok to have abortions...that they'll get further along in life by making stupid decisions

8/8/2005 3:23:26 AM

Quote :

"For a science teacher to go out of their way to say that they are teaching something as FACT, when it is a theory and a highly controversial one at that, is unacceptable."

everything controversial should be taught as theory? that would be insane. so in science, why dont we present the muslim view of creation? why not just cover every view for the first hour of every science class before we discuss what crazy ass shit those researchers have dug up

theories can be facts. relativity is fact.

8/8/2005 3:27:04 AM

Quote :

"For a science teacher to go out of their way to say that they are teaching something as FACT, when it is a theory and a highly controversial one at that, is unacceptable."

Haha.

Highly controversial?

Okay man.

8/8/2005 3:27:11 AM

there is no controversy among the experts.


there is controversy among the fanatics. the taliban wanted to impose their religion on schools. do you want to be like the taliban? didnt think so. we're more educated then that. we know that every religion disagrees with science somewhere.

[Edited on August 8, 2005 at 3:30 AM. Reason : 0]

8/8/2005 3:29:42 AM

Quote :

"relativity is fact."

the hell it is

I'll take my FTL travel with stupid time travel problems, thank you very much

8/8/2005 3:30:24 AM

Quote :

"Haha. Highly controversial? Okay man. "

Does the definition of "controversial" escape you?

Quote :

"everything controversial should be taught as theory?"

No. Everything that is a theory should be taught as theory, especially when it's controversial. I'm not saying you have to cover every alternative. If the teacher says, "Evolution is the prevailing scientific theory about the development of life on earth," and then proceeds to solely describe evolution, that's fine. They don't have to mention ID or any religious text or anything. They just have to describe the material accurately and move on.

8/8/2005 3:31:38 AM

Quote :

" "Evolution is the prevailing scientific theory about the development of life on earth," "

im fine with that

/thread

FREE AT LEAST

[Edited on August 8, 2005 at 3:33 AM. Reason : -]

8/8/2005 3:31:53 AM

Okay, seriously.

If long division were frowned upon

by some wacky religion




Okay, nevermind.

Fuck this thread.

8/8/2005 3:33:59 AM

Quote :

" If the teacher says, "Evolution is the prevailing scientific theory about the development of life on earth," and then proceeds to solely describe evolution, that's fine. "

isn't that how it normally goes?

8/8/2005 3:34:21 AM

^ thats what was in my textbook /thread.

[Edited on August 8, 2005 at 3:36 AM. Reason : -]

8/8/2005 3:35:43 AM

Quote :

"isn't that how it normally goes?"

Sigh...you haven't read this thread, have you?

Quote :

"Okay, seriously. If long division were frowned upon by some wacky religion"

Right, so the definition of "controversial" did escape you.

Something is controversial when there is a broad disagreement on it. For example, a very large part of this country's population thinks that evolution is not true, and creationism is. The rest thing the opposite. Ergo, it is controversial.

If some minor and obscure religion is the only group opposed to division, then division is not controversial.

8/8/2005 3:36:45 AM

^science doesnt work by popular vote. never has.

8/8/2005 3:38:04 AM

Quote :

"Sigh...you haven't read this thread, have you?"

mainly just what socksie wrote early on

but I didn't go to high school, so I wouldn't really know how evolution is taught

8/8/2005 3:40:40 AM

Quote :

"science doesnt work by popular vote. never has."

No, but public education does.

If the scientific community wants to ostracize all who disagree, that's their right. It is not the right of a taxpayer funded school to tell religious people that their religions are wrong.

8/8/2005 3:43:12 AM

it's hard to avoid stepping on everyone's toes

8/8/2005 3:51:42 AM

Not really. Just say, "Evolution is the prevailing scientific theory about the development of life on earth" and describe the bloody thing.

8/8/2005 3:52:44 AM

refresh my memory

what do teachers say currently?

I thought they were reasonably gentle even my Zo classes...

8/8/2005 3:54:22 AM

You ever notice how people who believe in Creationism usually look pretty unevolved. Eyes really close together, big furry hands and feet? "I believe God created me in one day." Yeah, looks like he rushed it.

---Bill Hicks

And uh Sorry Christians, if you dont like what I say then um Forgive me.

8/8/2005 6:54:17 AM

Quote :

"No, but public education does. If the scientific community wants to ostracize all who disagree, that's their right. It is not the right of a taxpayer funded school to tell religious people that their religions are wrong."

Public schools shouldnt be asked to reduce the plausibility of evolution for the sake of creationism, RELIGION. At the very least, its setting a horrible precedent. If you want a religion-friendly curriculum, send your kid to catholic school.

There is no ostracism in the science community over evolution. Its as commonly accepted as newton's laws. If there was another scientific theory that had enough credibility to warrant being considered alongside evolution then it would be taught.

8/8/2005 11:04:43 AM

Quote :

"No. Everything that is a theory should be taught as theory"

How about gravity?

Quote :

"especially when it's controversial"

If you look hard enough you can find a controversy about any subject. Just because a bunch of religious nutcases think it is wrong because it destroies your worldview, doesn't mean it is controversial in the world of sceince.

Quote :

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

What if historians found evidence that the world wasn't flooded for 40 days and 40 nights (which they probably have)?

Why do christians now think that evidence has to allow for their stupid religion? The world has never before shown the possiblity for someone to walk on water and you people still believe that. WHy do you people need to get in science's business all of the sudden?

8/8/2005 11:31:52 AM

Why interpret the bible literally? You dont need to believe in genesis to believe in Jesus.

8/8/2005 11:35:51 AM

^ Because you're an ignorant fuckwit. The Bible is one of the most obviously allegorical books on the planet.

Edit: Haha, might as well clarify ahead of time that I made use of the general you

[Edited on August 8, 2005 at 12:01 PM. Reason : .]

8/8/2005 12:00:17 PM

Quote :

"WHy do you people need to get in science's business all of the sudden?"

Actually, thats what you anti-religion nutcases can't get straight. Christians aren't wanting to get in science's business. They are wanting science CLASS to quit telling kids that religion is wrong.

Quote :

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

WRONG! reread what I said: IF ID could prove that only TWO possibilities existed... thats the whole god damned point of me writing that stupid thing...

Quote :

"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?"

No, I'm saying put in a one hour disclaimer to uphold the fucking Constitution. Thats it. You can 't explain to my why that is wrong except to tell me that science doesn't agree, which is irrelevent from the stand point of a science class being run by a gov't which is supposed to not endorse any religions.

Quote :

"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."

It is NOT the gov'ts job to force that philosophical question on anyone, nor to point out the ramifications of that question.

[Edited on August 8, 2005 at 7:53 PM. Reason : ]

8/8/2005 7:47:36 PM

^ a ha ha ha ha

Science class tells kids nothing of the sort.

8/8/2005 7:49:04 PM

^^ So public school curricula should be modified to conform to religious beliefs.

In order to protect the First Amendment.

8/8/2005 7:53:47 PM

^ if that is the crazy extreme that you want to use in order to mean "the gov't should not tell people in its schools that their religion is wrong," then sure.

Quote :

"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."

Thats funny, I never said that temperature was something that was in question. Keep arguing something other than my point.

Quote :

"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."

An analogy is lost on you, isn't it?

Quote :

"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."

So you deny that science says that the earth is more than 6000 years old?

Quote :

"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."

Science says if you measure something this way, you can tell its age. Happy now?

Quote :

"You can't do this without altering time."

Ohhhhhhh, yes I can. All I have to do is change the proportion of the isotopes and you'd never know the difference.

Quote :

"2+1 != 4. You are saying assume false to be true. You cannot logically do that.[quote] Wrong. I just "invented" a new number system. The point was to assume that we could not prove whether or not 2+1 = 4, but the rest of the assumptions could be proven. Once again, analogy is lost on you. [quote]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."

Really? When did we prove every last thing in science again? I don't remember that happening. And what matters then is that you are going against our Constitution. You've never addressed that point, and you never will, because you know I am right on that point. The Constitution is NOT multiple choice.

Quote :

"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."

Analogy is lost on you, isn't it? Show me one religion with a number base and you might have a point.

Quote :

"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."

If the initial condition were different, the rock might not fall to the ground every time. Of course, the only initial condition of consequence is the measurement of time. But you will of course ignore that fact and keep referencing irrelevent things.

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

8/8/2005 7:54:59 PM

SOMEBODY FUCKING KILL HIM.

HE'S GOING TO BREED SOONER OR LATER, THERE HAS TO BE AT LEAST 1 WHORE THAT'S STUPID AND DESPERATE ENOUGH TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

8/8/2005 8:15:05 PM

^^While it is crazy, it's not mischaracterizing your stance at all.


This whole "argument" is hilarious. I mean, at least you all are coming to terms with the fact that science does indeed disprove your interpretation of the Bible. But instead of saying "oh right, we have been acting like dipshits," you instead try to censor science.

8/8/2005 8:26:05 PM

it's nothing new. they maintained that the earth was the center of the solar system for hundreds of years after it had been proven otherwise.

8/8/2005 8:27:41 PM

Quote :

"you instead try to censor science."

So fuck the constitution, right?

8/8/2005 8:53:43 PM

just because you have a terribly skewed interpretation of the constitution doesn't mean anyone else does.

8/8/2005 8:56:41 PM

REALLY? How is it skewed to think that the Constitution prohibits a fucking gov't employee from saying "Your religion is wrong?" I mean, thats the fucking definition of the fucking 1st ammendment!

8/8/2005 9:01:40 PM

because no one is saying "your religion is wrong."

it is teaching science outside the goddamn realm of any religious dogma.

but you already know that and choose to espouse nonsense.

I did a story on a middle school science teacher who, while introducing some basic evolutionary concepts, was less than hostile toward christianity with comments like, "You can't believe everything in the Bible." But while it was obviously a true statement, she broke a major rule. She doesn't teach anymore.

8/8/2005 9:06:44 PM

wow, I can't believe you haven't quit yet; I should probably be flamed for responding...

burro, I see now that this controversy really is about the establishment clause, which is really the closest thing to a legitimate argument you have(I think it's pretty clear that ID isn't scientific);

if ID is put into place, that would go against the establishment clause, not the other way around. evolution says nothing about gods or the lack of gods. you are arguing that it implicitly disagrees with christianity. well, I think a theory that's entire focus is the presence of a supreme being is directly arguing that there is a god; isn't that much worse? science never intends to mess with anyone's beliefs and you won't see anything about religion or atheism in a science textbook. evolution is compatible with both religion and irreligion. however, ID is only compatible with religion.

For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, Justice David Souter concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_clause

I mean, what you're arguing is that if some religious text has some random fact that goes against any fact taught in our public schools, that we must teach both. Think about this: if there were no creation stories, but still plently of religions, there wouldn't be an issue at all. Let's say, just theoretically, that a religious text taught that pi=3. Would you want that shit to be taught in math classes also?

8/8/2005 9:07:00 PM

Well if you want to agrue the legality of it, you don't need to look further than the Lemon Test.

8/8/2005 9:10:29 PM

Quote :

"because no one is saying "your religion is wrong.""

so you deny that science teaches that the earth is older than 6000 years old?

Quote :

"well, I think a theory that's entire focus is the presence of a supreme being is directly arguing that there is a god; isn't that much worse?"

Nope. evolution presents what could be construed as an atheist's view. ID would present a potentially religious viewpoint. The two balance out.

atheism is a religion. and its put forth in the science classroom which is run by the gov't.

But hey, at least thank you for actually trying to address my point, which is far more than anyone else has done.

[Edited on August 8, 2005 at 9:20 PM. Reason : ]

8/8/2005 9:14:42 PM

Quote :

"Actually, thats what you anti-religion nutcases can't get straight. Christians aren't wanting to get in science's business. They are wanting science CLASS to quit telling kids that religion is wrong."

Science doesn't say religion is wrong. But it certainly doesn't say that men can walk on water either.

Quote :

"IF ID could prove that only TWO possibilities existed"

It can't do that. Go ahead, try it. Prove the non-existence of anything. If science could do that we wouldn't have to say that god might exist.

Quote :

"Thats funny, I never said that temperature was something that was in question."

Arguementitive example. In order to argue agianst it you have to explain how it doesn't apply.

Quote :

"An analogy is lost on you, isn't it?"

I understood your analogy, and I preceded to explain how it doesn't imply.

Quote :

"So you deny that science says that the earth is more than 6000 years old?"

Where does the bible say this? If it does, how do you know that this part of the bible should be taken literally?

Quote :

"Ohhhhhhh, yes I can. All I have to do is change the proportion of the isotopes and you'd never know the difference."

You can't artificially age carbon without changing time.

Quote :

"Wrong. I just "invented" a new number system."

That number system cannot possibly exist. I could prove that with REAL logic if you want me to. Additionally, you implied that you could prove 2+1=4 within the REAL number system, which you CAN'T DO. You can even manage to prove it under a made up number system. The point is that you don't know anything about logic, and it would be best if you stayed away from that subject completely.

Quote :

"The point was to assume that we could not prove whether or not 2+1 = 4, but the rest of the assumptions could be proven."

You could have just assumed 2+1=4 and got your problem done in one step of bad logic. YOu said you could prove it logically, OBVIOUSLY YOU CANT.

Quote :

"Really? When did we prove every last thing in science again?"

Laws of science are proven and can be observed. This is the only reason that evolution is considered a theory, because it can't be observed.

Quote :

"And what matters then is that you are going against our Constitution."

No it doesn't, science does not go agianst religion.

Quote :

" You've never addressed that point, and you never will, because you know I am right on that point."

I did address it, I explained that science doesn't say that religion is wrong. You've fallen into the logical fallacy of inverse implication. Just because religion implies that science is wrong, doesn't neccesarily mean that science implies that religion is wrong.

Quote :

" Show me one religion with a number base and you might have a point."

Do you read the quotes I reference to? That statement was regarding the accuracy of measurements and observations. I explained that it doesn't matter if these meausurements and observations are correct or not, because they prove themselves within the physical world.

Quote :

"If the initial condition were different, the rock might not fall to the ground every time."

When would it not?

Quote :

"HE'S GOING TO BREED SOONER OR LATER"

I don't see it happening. My money is on him dying a virgin.

8/8/2005 9:15:09 PM

^^^thanks man; never heard of it

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

hmm.... yea, I'm pretty fucking sure evolution qualifies

let me also add, I don't think ID would pass any of these requirements...

[Edited on August 8, 2005 at 9:19 PM. Reason : ...]

8/8/2005 9:15:26 PM

Quote :

"so you deny that science teaches that the earth is older than 6000 years old?"

If you can look up at the night sky, and think otherwise, you would have to be mentally retarded.

What do you expect them to say? "Despite everything we can measure, the universe and the earth might not be billions of years old because the Bible says so, with practically no evidence." Is that reasonable?

8/8/2005 9:19:40 PM

Quote :

"Science doesn't say religion is wrong. But it certainly doesn't say that men can walk on water either."

So you deny that science says the earth is not 6000 years old?

Quote :

"It can't do that. Go ahead, try it."

Thats why I said "if."

Quote :

"Arguementitive example. In order to argue agianst it you have to explain how it doesn't apply."

And yet temperature is not comparable to time in this case, because the Bible says little about the temperature of anything.

Quote :

"Where does the bible say this? If it does, how do you know that this part of the bible should be taken literally?"

The accepted timeline of the Bible does not lend anyone to think it is saying the earth is billions of years old. Furthermore, it is rational to think that this passage could be taken literally by "rationally thinking religious people."

Quote :

"That number system cannot possibly exist."

Yes it could. Its a number system with no three. thats not that hard to comprehend.

Quote :

"This is the only reason that evolution is considered a theory, because it can't be observed."

Well, evolution is in science. thus, not everything in science is a proven fact.

Quote :

"When would it not?"

I dunno. I don't know what other initial conditions would cause such a thing.

Quote :

"If you can look up at the night sky, and think otherwise, you would have to be mentally retarded."

I know, its pretty fucking crazy to think that a super intelligent being could have done that...

8/8/2005 9:29:04 PM

Quote :

"atheism is a religion. and its put forth in the science classroom which is run by the gov't."

secularism != atheism != a religion

8/8/2005 9:38:05 PM

Quote :

"Ohhhhhhh, yes I can. All I have to do is change the proportion of the isotopes and you'd never know the difference. "

Ugh do you even know what you are suggesting?

Ugh.

Ugh.

Please take more chemistry classes.

8/8/2005 9:39:55 PM

Quote :

"I know, its pretty fucking crazy to think that a super intelligent being could have done that..."

Did you really miss the point, or are you truly that ignorant?

You seem to be claiming that religion says the Earth is not more than 6000 years old (which it doesn't explicitly say, btw, at least not according to all denominations of Christianity), but we know stars to be thousands, millions, and billions of light years away. Considering this, and knowing the same logic that YECs use to determine the earth to only be a few thousand years old, it's impossible for both to be right. Either the earth is old, and the Bible isn't literal on the issue, or the earth is young, and most of our fields of sciences are just completely wrong.

So, science classes teach what we know, is not going against Christianity, it's just that Christianity is just plain wrong on some things (at least, fundamental Christianity). Teachers and text books don't explicitly say this (I actually had one teacher in HS say this, but he knew he would get away with it), but that doesn't mean it's necessarily against religion. The religion (again, of the few fundamentalist) is against reality, and it's not the school's job to compensate for that.

[Edited on August 8, 2005 at 9:54 PM. Reason : 2]

8/8/2005 9:44:02 PM

If REALITY isnt going to stop saying your religion is wrong, why should public education?

8/8/2005 9:45:06 PM

Now its getting sad.

I mean I've never seen a kid get so thoroughly destroyed in a debate yet still try and hold a pseudo-skeptical defense.

Even Salisburyboy has done better against worst odds.

8/8/2005 9:54:10 PM

Quote :

"atheism is a religion. and its put forth in the science classroom which is run by the gov't."

ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED?

HAVE YOU FUCKING LOST ALL CAPACITY FOR INTELLIGENT THOUGHT?

8/8/2005 10:00:11 PM

"Not teaching my religion in gov't schools is infringing my religous liberties."

similarly,

"Not letting me force my religion on homosexuals is infringing my religous liberties."


You people embarass me as a Christian and a human. For once would you look beyond your own noses?

8/8/2005 10:08:48 PM