 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)big ...and 145 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613449 Today 2 Topics 127500 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a childs mind is far from a tabula rasa. we all seem to have inherent logical capabilities (even a child, when made aware about the fact that holding either of two of its opinions as true would negate the other, will decide on one of them and discard the other, and the one that wins will be the one with the most overwhelming evidence). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm really sick of this. how many times do i have to explain to you - intelligent design has no scientific basis. it is a religious idea. kids should not be presented with religious theories in public school. kids can't even understand abstractions until about age nine. it is not a viable alternative to the accepted theory. it doesn't hold water. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So wrong. Bio class is a Science class wherein science should be taught. Yes Creationism is a theory but it is not a scientific theory any more than The Silmarillion is a scientific theory for the creation of Middle Earth. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok, let me put it like this: even if I agreed that it was only a religious idea, I'd still present it in the bio class. I believe the kids would have no problems with figuring out on their own what was correct. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
bingo, ever heard of the scientific method, drunken mastah? it's pretty much covered in the first chapter in any high-school biology book in america. it wouldn't really make sense to teach the scientific method in the first chapter and then have chapter 37 devoted to zombies. similarly, it's quite silly the way many abstinence only sex-ed programs in the usa teach only that life begins at fertilization when, in this country, it legally doesn't even begin until implantation. (the legal definition of the beginning of life, by the way, is being challenged in michigan's state constitution currently -- kind of scary to say the least.) anyways, here is a cute monkey-thing i saw at the zoo last summer. |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what particular scientific method are you refering to? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
04:00 --good night. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The scientific method states that even though we may not have all of the answers, the answers are attainable within the realm of certain natural, observable principals. And that it is possible to prove those thories false by experiements. From what I understand, ID puts something supernatural outside the realm of physical phenomina. Can't be falsified or proven, it must be accepted on faith. That is by it's very nature opposing the definition of science, it is not science and should absolutely not be taught in the classroom as science. That doesn't make it necessarilly wrong, it just makes it not science. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"That doesn't make it necessarilly wrong, it just makes it not science. " What I should've said here is that the fact that ID isn't science doesn't necessarilly disprove the underlying assumptions of Intelligent design, it just means that it shouldn't be taught as science in a classroom. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oh man, I'm sorry, my bad - I thought you were responding to a different post and more or less giving me the old "I know you are but what am I". As you were, gentlemen. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but see, i think this is where you are wrong. it is the assumption in science that the "theory" of the big bang could be disproven through enough experimentation. that's what makes it a theory. i believe, from my addmitedly limited knowledge of ID, that no amount of experimentation could disprove the existance of a creator. a creator exists outside the realm of experimentation. therefore, presenting it as a "theory" is misguided and wrong. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You mean God / creation isn't . |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's philosophy not science... so if they want to teach it in school, they should make elementary kids take philosophy. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't think Intelligent Design and religion necessarily need to be catagorized together anymore than evolution and atheism do. Granted often they are, but think about it. All that a particular scientific model is, is looking at a group of evidence and projecting theories and conclusions based upon what the observer believes that evidence to say. If one were to be completely objective they would forget about seperation of church and state, that there even are any religions at all and completely start from scratch just looking at evidence. Now as it stands there are serious problems with the evolution if taken in a completely atheistic sense, which means that the devices involved are operating completely independantly of any outside cause or operator. That doesn't just mean God that means any sort of fate, destiny, or any other metaphysical device that would exist outside of known reality. These serious problems should be addressed if one is to take science objectively, and they should be addressed in the classroom while the subject is being taught. It is a serious wrong that we teach evolution almost as fact when it is still a theory. more next... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design. Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him. |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i dunno, maybe i'm missing something here, but isn't any sort of evolutionary process going to seem "intelligent" not in so far as it marks a subjective hand in the creative process, but rather insofar as anything that exists would necessarily be an integral part of the whole system (seemingly ingenius due to the apparently insane complexities of that system... the manner in which so many constituent parts enter into the equation and interact with one another)? when might design be "stupid" exactly? and furthermore, how does a small creature forged in that system ever transcend it and get a sense of these things? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a lot of what you said there is sheer nonsense |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Now something like ID looks at what we can observe, and tries to make conclusions about it, even if they lead to something that cannot be observed. Evolution actually does this in it's own way to, as we cannot actually observe what has happened in the past since there is no concrete evidence of transitional forms. So we look at something that exists in nature that has the same function as a clock, for instance a woman's menstrual cycle or the tides in the ocean, and we can guess based on probability and occams razor that a complex device that resembles a clock was most likely created by a clockmaker, rather coming into existance on it's own. Of course then we realize that while we cannot observe a clockmaker, we can observe and be affected by the clock, much in the same way a microscopic organism cannot observe us, but it can be affected by what we do for instance an antibiotic will fight off bacteria regardless of whether the bacteria is aware of us or not. Ultimately we are forced to use ourselves and our own experience to form analogies in an attempt to fill in the gaps between the observable and the unobservable. To deny this as an active form of any science, even evolution, is absurd. Also it is absurd and illogical to assume that the senses we observe the universe with are seeing, hearing etc. everything that is there to observe especially if one subscribes to athiestic evolution because then they are operating with an arbitrary set of input/output devices that just happen to be able to interact with matter/energy events, rather than input/output devices that were designed by something outside to have the best possible and most efficient relationship to those matter/energy events that are most important to everyday human life. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I happen to think your objection is based on bias but please feel free to reply to my post and, line for line, dispute what I said with your own point of view. Simply asserting that it is nonsense isn't good enough. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Now as it stands there are serious problems with the evolution if taken in a completely atheistic sense, which means that the devices involved are operating completely independantly of any outside cause or operator. That doesn't just mean God that means any sort of fate, destiny, or any other metaphysical device that would exist outside of known reality. These serious problems should be addressed if one is to take science objectively, and they should be addressed in the classroom while the subject is being taught. It is a serious wrong that we teach evolution almost as fact when it is still a theory. What you have written is such utter crap that I shan't even dignify it by putting on my hip-waders and searching through your pool of misbegotten rhetoric for the sewage-plug. If you have any arguments based on fact or reason, go ahead and speak your piece, but you're coming across like a teenager who smoked up after attending a church basement creationism lecture by Kent Hovind. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm not into Kent Hovind, and I am not even talking about Creationsim or Christianity. I am talking about observing the world around us as objectivly as possible. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Rather than actually addressing what I have said you have instead chosen the cheap cop out of painting a characature of me to make me look silly and therby weaken the credibility of what I have to say. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You have no idea of how to frame, let alone support, a compelling argument. Go learn to use paragraphs, and while you're at it learn what a transitional form is, and what occam's razor actually implies. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Rather than actually addressing what I have said you have instead chosen the cheap cop out of painting a characature of me to make me look silly and therby weaken the credibility of what I have to say. Are you wearing pants? Are you even allowed to wear pants? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Look, I am of course just a layman and I'll assume you are to unless you can produce real credentials like a degree in some related field to this discussion. So I don't think it is necessary to be some great orator, or to have extensive knowledge or experience in formal debate, proper grammatical structure, related sciences etc in order to engage in a discussion like this on an electronic music messageboard. I think if we all accept that we are going to be somewhat amateurs when it comes to this everything will go a lot smoother. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
right, i am biased, but you are not. you are totally objective and i am not. If one were to be completely objective they would forget about seperation of church and state, that there even are any religions at all and completely start from scratch just looking at evidence. from any sort of practical standpoint, it would be sheer folly to disregard the motives of highly-biased creationists. but sure, let's ignore the obvious agenda that they are clearly trying to push and just look at their "facts", which are all conveniently related to christianity, even though this issue transends religion as you say. this is a good start to the debate. Now as it stands there are serious problems with the evolution if taken in a completely atheistic sense, which means that the devices involved are operating completely independantly of any outside cause or operator. what are the serious problems? the mountains of observable emperical evidence and scientific studies that are repeated successfully over and over, or that you don't understand them to your own satisfaction? there was a great link earlier in the thread. maybe read it and it will help you better understand this swiss-cheese-holed theory of evolution. These serious problems should be addressed if one is to take science objectively, and they should be addressed in the classroom while the subject is being taught. i can't take you seriously because you seem to think that religious vibes are somehow related to science and science doesn't work without a magic trick happening. just because you don't understand how something works does not mean that a magic pelican is waving its wing and making the earth spin. this is the problem that YOU have and other ID advocates have. you have to accept there are things we don't know. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm not saying I'm not biased of course I am. But I think at least attempting toward an ideal of being objective is one big step toward people not talking past each other when they are trying to dialog. The actual scientific problems with evolution are immaterial, as I don't have an issue specifically with the idea of life, matter, energy, etc. "evolving." My problem is with it doing so on its own without outside influence. Evolution and Intelligent Design are not opposed to each other by default, and there are many people who believe that some outside supernatural force set evolution in place in much the same way that they would see fate as being a seemingly arbitrary chain of events strung together in such a way as to bring about a predetermined outcome. All my point is that from my view evolution could be a) correct, b) incorrect, c) partially correct but cannot be d) telling the whole story. I believe this because I believe there is additional evidence that points to an outside cause regardless of whether or not evolution is true or not. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm familiar with this viewpoint and you are certainly entitled to it. it isn't scientific or logical, but it is fine that you believe it. I believe this because I believe there is additional evidence that points to an outside cause regardless of whether or not evolution is true or not. i would love to see this evidence. where is it? what is it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I believe this because I believe there is additional evidence that points to an outside cause regardless of whether or not evolution is true or not. I agree with arf, show us the money. No one's expecting you to post a PhD dissertation but come on. What you've done so far is drooling plus buzzwords. If you want to talk about transitional forms, for example, take the time to construct an argument with specific examples. Don't just give us a cut and paste or linky dinky job either - show us your understanding of the subject in a way that demonstrates how we should understand. We're not going to do your work for you - build your buzzwords into an argument for you that we can then critique. Do it yourself, lazybones! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's a shame middle americas ideology has such a profound impact on us( through the moron leaders ideology) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So I don't think it is necessary to be some great orator, or to have extensive knowledge or experience in formal debate, proper grammatical structure, related sciences etc in order to engage in a discussion like this on an electronic music messageboard. Oh I see, you thought we'd be a soft target because we're a bunch of dumb music fans. Well, surprise! I've been reading and debating about this subject for years, and I'm not going to lower my standards for you. If you have neither the time nor the expertise to put together a substantial response, I sympathize, but if you go ahead and post anyways, expect to have your ass handed to you on a plate. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hay guys im awake again lets party! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'd imagine half of the americans to be in deep depression right now, some seriously sad things we hear from you here in europe. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Are all these potshots really needed? Whatever happened to a gentlemans debate? Is it really necessary to condensend to each other? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
europe sux lol |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
LOL These threads and the politics threads bring out the overall shittyness of people. But whatever *shrugs* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, thats complete true. but i dont! But australia have the most horrible accent.. i cant get over how much i hate the way you speak. Die Steve Irvin! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hopefully the impact is just on messageboards like this one, and not taking seriously in actual reality, that would be sad, i would sad, i live in america and i believe this issue to be a sad one, imaging the amount of time and money that is being spent on it, sad |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hopefully the impact is just on messageboards like this one, and not taking seriously in actual reality, that would be sad, i would sad, i live in america and i believe this issue to be a sad one, imaging the amount of time and money that is being spent on it, sad |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
YES, twas a grave post |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
heh heh :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You almost had a hat trick there! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I made post #01826834 for the block! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
stick save |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
this thread has failed to evolve, the prophecy is fulfilled. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
at the end of the day, i regret being so harsh with drunken mastah, but i think he understands that i still have the same respect for him and like him the same as always. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
N-no...! I see lobed fins - it's trying to crawl out onto dry land. Come on thread! Come on thready, you can do it! (put away that tartar sauce you bastard) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I am a sensitive pussy sometimes :p I didnt mean to offend anyone i just thought it was a bummer. I think the same in real life. People cling to their ideas no matter what they are and the same things results. I guess thats why i rarely talk about these things. Technically i should have shut up. If i didnt like it i could have just stayed out of this thread. I usually do. Carry on gents! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
