I was going to hold my tongue, but… this is the pit…
You seem to be confused about the definition of “fighting ignorance” in regards to your role as a member of the SDSAB. You’ve got pedantry down pat, but there’s no hint of helpfulness in your post, other than “perhaps you meant ‘newly discovers’”, and personally I can’t figure out what you meant by that in the first place. While I’m sure it’s fun talking down to people, I think we all got enough of that crap in grade school.
Whew! Glad I’m down to only one sentence on Loopydude’s** shit-list.
You misconstrued my statement, which is understandabvle enough after the fact (even though it made perfect sense to me when I posted it :rolleyes: )
Let me rehash it to make (what I hope) is better sense to you (new words in bold):
They may very well do so, and I wouldn’t disagree with them, or their right to do so. “As good as it gets” is still not absolute truth, even if it is the best, current explanation, and that fundamental Creationists who disregard that evidence may as well be “tilting at windmills” or living in a fantasy world of I.P.U.'s.
And Abiogenesis is, as you have pretty much said, the cutting edge and practical explanation for origins of life here on Earth; it is by no means the final word. At one point in our history, Geocentric and Heliocentric models of existence were all the rage, as well and the Flat-Earth Theory. Advancements (Science rarely stands still for very long, nowadays) may render much of what we perceive to be “the most very likely explanation” a relic of scientific history.
I revel in the advancement of human understanding by science, even if much of it is beyond me; I’m just flat-out suspicious of anyone saying, “That’s What It Is, That’s All That It Is, That’s That, Close The Discussion!”
Yes, you are; you’re just not receiving too well.
Not for me, but if it makes you happy to think such of me, enjoy.
Nope; I hope you’re enjoying yourself.
I never advocated giving Creationism equal time; that’s a complete strawman of your own Creation. I simply advocated a mention in passing, so as to not rule out it’s inclusion in the thought processes of our young’uns, because once you tell them that something is impossible, you’ve closed of an entire generation to an entire line of thinking, however meritless it may seem compared to other modes of thought.
To my way of thinking, it is the processof thinking which is so much more important than any fact you can teach kids; and by presenting alternate (even differing) viewpoints, theories, and modes of thought, you encourage the process of thinking, of evaluating, of comparing and analyzing.
Unlike you, I have full faith that our science students (that is, the one’s who haven’t already been completely indoctrinated by a religious institution) can read about Evolution, and then about Creationism (a short read), and arrive at the conclusion that scientifically speaking, Evolution comes out way ahead of Creationism, and maybe learn a thing or two about the Scientific Process and Scientific Principles in action along the way.
But I would prefer to allow them to discover that, to reason that, for themselves, rather than have it crammed down their throats exclusive to anything else in some form of Scientific Dogma Indoctrination.
It’s not a matter of what, but one of how.
-
Abiogenesis is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. It only explains what happened after life began on earth. There is no need to even discuss how life originated in order to teach evolutionary theory.
-
Evolution is a proven fact as much as the atom or the germ theory of disease. Your objections about “absolute truth” only demonstrate your ignorance as to what those kind of qualifications mean in science. They do not demonstrate actual doubt or realistic possibility that the theory is erroneous they are only highly theoretical, philospophical qualifications which do not translate into any practical reality.
-
Even if we were to accept your objection, then we could teach absolutely nothing as fact in schools. We could not teach atomic theory, we could not teach any sort of history, we could not even teach math. Your objections are simply not valid.
-
Nobody is saying “That’s what there is, that’s all there is.” Evolution does not concern itself with those questions and does not contradict theistic faith. I will repeat: Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. It is not a theory about the origin of the universe. It is not a theory about the existence of God. The theory addresses none of those things any more than the germ theory of disease.
-
Evolution is a proven fact.
And yet what is most religion (especially the blindly followed, dogmatic types) but willful delusion in the face of facts?
Does the set that contains all entities that have mothers itself have a mother?
As long as–
A) The U.S.A. believe they can and should make decisions for the entire world,
B) The U.S.A. are predominantly controlled by a majority of people that use utterly irrelevant, superstitious fairy-tale nonsense as a basis for their worldview and for all of their crucial decisions,
–then it is not just “ok”, but indeed imperative that persons from any country and all walks of life continue to call us out on our collective, willful ignorance and our voluntary mass-delusion.
We need more citizens of the world reminding this country (USA) of its dangerous defects–not less.
Nothing I have written here is illogical. It is perfectly logical not to toss out the idea of an intelligent creator when there has yet to be a single bit of evidence to the contrary. Just because people ILLOGICALLY put creation and evolution as being diametrically opposed does not mean that they actually are, nor does it tell you anything about whether or not there was intelligent design involved.
Now I don’t know the first thing about “Intelligent Design” as a political agenda. I have been using “Intelligent Design” by what it appears to mean. I’ve been taking the words at face value. So don’t hold me to what your bias is based upon other people from the “Intelligent Design” movement. I am not part of some group, I merely believe in a creator and am not going to buy into any attempt to disprove the creator’s existence hidden in some dogmatic atheistic agenda.
It is illogical in the first place to try to prove/disprove God at all. Any scientific theory is measured by things that exist within ‘creation’ so expecting to be able to measure the entirety of the infinite macrocosm by it’s constituent parts is…illogical.
You keep throwing around all this stuff about being “in a science class” but can I even find a religion class in school? There certainly wasn’t any religion class in MY school. There is an overall dismissal of religion in these debates that are ignorant and bigotted. It requires a denial of the history of religious thought that led to the vaunted “SCIENCE!!!” that people are genuflecting to. Throughout history much of scientific discovery has been brought about through study by religious people in the pursuit of Alchemy, Astrology, and Metaphysics.
The arrogant dismissal of the schools of thought that led to your precious “SCIENCE!!!” is what I have a problem with. How much chemistry was learned in the pursuit of alchemy? How about the mapping of the stars and advances in our ability to view the night sky? How much of that came from Astrology? The idea that celestial bodies exert influence upon us was brought about by astrology, before there was such a theory as Gravity. Newton himself was an alchemist and a metaphysician. Metaphysics continues to be dismissed as a pseudo-science, with much scoffing while really all that has happened is that we rename metaphysical ideas, and call them new areas of “physics” as we begin to understand the full meaning of what we only partially understood before.
I don’t think that creation needs to be adressed only to debunk it, there is no way to debunk it. Proving evolution does not debunk creation, they are not opposed in any way. I think that it is arrogant bigotry parading as open mindedness that asks us to address creation, if only to debunk it.
There is such a wealth of literature on the subject of creation. Someone made some offhanded comment about there being a short amount of reading on creationism. Actually there is probably more to be read about creationism than evolution, because the tradition is much longer and more venerable. There is the Sefer Yetzirah (Qabbalah), Genesis(Bible), The Popol Vuh(Mayan) and many other creation myths, and they don’t all say the same thing, and if you would drop the arrogance for a minute you might find that they are actually saying a lot of things that can contribute to the scientific inquiry people are making into the origin of the universe.
Just because something is written in an allegorical language doesn’t mean it’s worthless. Do you honestly think that people ONLY believe in these things because they are in a hurry to be duped by something? Sure there are a lot of idiot bigots trying to excise evolution from education, and that’s wrong-headed as well. However, some people are willing to give it credit because they think that it can’t be possible that so many of our ancestors would have spent SO MUCH of their time thinking, discussing and writing about these things, and have absolutely nothing to offer us.
Whenever I read these debates I see a lot of people hiding behind the idea of “SCIENCE!!!” while being anti-scientific themselves. There is nothing that proves that aliens don’t exist. There is no conclusive proof as to our origins as a species. It is no more plausible that monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor than to think that aliens came down and genetically engineered a monkey. I’m not saying that’s the way it happened, only that I’m not going to discount it, because I don’t know for sure either way.
THAT is logical.
guinnog: UFOs absolutely exist. Every aircraft is unidentified by someone. And I am certain that there are objects that have flown through the air that were identified by no one. However, I don’t know about every object that’s flown through the air, and I don’t know what everyone has ever known, so I can’t prove it. :wally
More or less, if you’re going to talk down to me about logic, at least apply your ‘rigorous’ standards to yourself, and don’t make absolute statements about shit you have no idea about, no matter HOW socially acceptable it might be.
That motherfucker is his own mother.
Did you go to public school? That is more than likely why there was no Religion class, if you’re talking about a Bible class or something specifically designed to be for the promotion of Judeo-Christian beliefs.
My school was a public one, and while I would’ve welcomed a class on World Religions, there simply was not enough money in the school system to fund it. And while I think learning about religions from Zoroastrianism to Shinto is important, I think learning the fundamentals of science is much more important. But then, I may be biased…my PUBLIC school refused to teach evolution at all. I did not learn anything about it until I was 19 years old.
Furthermore, I’ve had the chance to explore plenty of world religions on my own. No one is stopping a Kansas high school student from attending a synagogue or reading the Elder Edda. But however much you’d like to defend it, the scientific likelihood of YHWH stopping the sun so Joshua could win a battle is pretty much nil.
When most people in the US say that “creationism should get equal time,” they are not talking about teaching Sumerian creation stories, or Native American creation stories. They want to teach Genesis–that’s it. That’s the only creation story with any validity for them. I don’t think you’re trying to do that, mswas, but what they’re doing smacks of “I don’t want your (tested and proven) science in my (indefensible) belief system.” Like Jesus is going to get mad at them if they just consider, for a moment, that they might share an ancestor with an ape. It is nothing but laziness.
You call us narrow-minded? Please. I am all for people taking religion classes if they want them, or attending whatever church or temple or mosque they’d like, but watering down science just to fit in with their own belief systems seems pretty fucking narrow-minded to me. If we go with the Biblical literalists, we might as well stop teaching that the earth revolves around the sun–SOMETHING PRETTY FUCKING EASILY OBSERVABLE, BY THE WAY–because of the aforementioned example of YHWH making the sun stop for Joshua.
:dubious:
A lot, but the main point of alchemy is dismissed so it is no longer thought in schools.
A lot came from Astrology yes, but the main point is dismissed and now Astronomy is the one that is thought in school. (There is a pattern here if you are so dense to miss it)
Here I am going to cut to the end your rant:
Because, going back to the middle, you then dumped this:
Here you show that you really don’t know shit about Gravity and human behavior.
In reality it is just simple progress, better ideas survive and they are the ones that get taught.
Of course not, now how many angels are in the head of a pin? To me creation is not the problem, their followers trying by force to dismiss the better ideas from being taught is what the problem is.
Tradicional creation was taught as the one and only answer, (and by force in some occations) you are ignoring history here. Once again, a better explanation of our origins has been found, and it took hundreds of years to get evidence to support it.
Here is where you are being silly, if astrology gave way to astronomy, and alchemy gave way to chemistry there is in history a tradition all right, and the tradition is to dismiss (but not forget) the inadequate theories and replace it with the ones that fit the evidence better.
And you should drop your ignorance, many great minds did get already the message from the old books, and now, new interpretations or ideas are affecting our view of the same books. It is just that new things and facts do appear that where never mentioned in the good books (what would a Felis catus researcher get from the bible really?) and eventualy, thousands of years from now; our descendants, both biological and electronic, will have to use new creation myths. What makes us think so small that we conclude so easily that we are the end result of creation?
I’d put it beyond gravity, actually. I’ll believe there is a huge invisible gazillion-tentacled spirit who’s been faking gravity for billions of years before I believe evolution is false.
The food I eat was grown from dirt.
Should I not scoff at eating the dirt?
Making mental note… whenever you see the name PhDMetalhead, always stop to read.
No, you’re right, it’s absolutely not a testable hypothesis. That’s why it’s not called the Weak Anthropic Hypothesis or the Weak Anthropic Theory. It’s a Principle, a philosphical idea, like the Copernican Principle (if your hypothesis requires that humans, the Earth, our Solar System, our Galaxy, etc. be special in some way, and different from all the others, then you should be very very careful.) or . . . like Occam’s Razor. 
But’s not a violation of Occam’s Razor to postulate an intelligent designer? Aren’t intelligent creatures kind of complicated? Isn’t it a little hard to explain where such an Entity would have come from, and where It got the power to arrange the laws of physics according to Its desires?
The point of the weak anthropic principle is the dart has to land somewhere. Just like one lottery number has to be chosen every week. If it happens to be your lottery number, despite the odds being a million-to-one against, despite the fact that your number has never come up in the past, do you assume divine intervention? Is your number special somehow? Is it the “bullseye”? Does the machine chosing the numbers care whether it picks your number, or a number on somebody else’s ticket, or a number that doesn’t appear on anyone’s ticket?
I’m not sure why you’re saying that the dart has to have hit every other point in the universe. An infinite number of universes are not required for the weak anthropic principle, though it is helpful to postulate that just to visualize the idea.
Of course, this is the bottom of it all - the root of all creation myths: Humankind’s deeply-ingrained, desperate, recalcitrant psychological insistence that its own existence was not some cosmic accident. As if life would somehow lose meaning if that were the case.
It’s a bad metaphor, as has been pointed out. If the dart missed the bullseye, then there wouldn’t be anyone around to note it.
It’s a case of drawing the bullseye after the dart has already been thrown and then exclaiming about how amazing the aim was.
My (public) high school had a class called ‘The Bible As Literature’. I did not attend that class, but at the time I suspected it was a Bible-study class masquerading as an English class.
Happily. & I shall do it with exactly zero of the disingenuous jackassing around you seem to love to do on these boards.
Your little stunt of saying a scientific theory is “just a theory” proves that you don’t understand the meaning of the term as it is used in the scientific realm. A theory in science is a blame lot more than just a guess. It’s something that’s rigorously examined. What you seem to be calling a theory is a guess.
So you’re quite a religious person, aren’t you? That asinine comment of yours again shows that you know little, if anything, about the realm, breadth, or variety of the human religious experience. For one thing, not all religions are of the sort that stop people from thinking. For another, not all religions are akin to “viral meme.”
And certain religions (but evidently not the one to which you seem to subscribe) demand that their adherents think for themselves.