 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)big ...and 185 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613449 Today 2 Topics 127500 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
its basis is discussed in theology class. the biological part of the theory belongs in bio class. if your teacher is any good and you, as students, are halfway awake, you will be able to figure out on your own what theory is most correct, and if you've had it in bio class, those two requirements seem to have been fulfilled, as you don't seem to believe in the creationist theory. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, i think in america, it should be not be taught in public schools. religion should never be administered by the state. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
however, for reasons i've already said, it's not science. it should be treated like a religion and either taught in relegious ed. class, not biology. or taught in it's own class. that would be good. it would be like a comedy studies class. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
now imagine you have kids of your own and you want to send them to public school. they learn that the earth was populated by aliens one hundred years ago and sleep is a time when our brains are cleaned by eight-foot snakes (or something, i can't remember, dad, but i'm sure this is what they told us most people believe and now i believe it too). are you happy that your kids are idiots or do you take issue with state-sponsored religion? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
maybe not religion, but creationism is a scientific theory as any other. it has a different starting point, but that's not important, as most new theories have this. also, only teaching "right" to people leads to a.. well, read my "location." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
once again, NO NO NO it is NOT science |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i could've sword i'd said stuff in this thread |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm talking 100% on the spot. no calculation is 100%. that's just impossible. pi, for example.. they're never going to find the true value of pi. sure, they're getting closer and closer, but it's just impossible for them to reach 100% pi; maths can only do approximations of reality, and if the deviation in the original calculation is too large, it'd increase over time and eventually become a massive deviation. When you say massive, you have to keep it in perspective. Hundreds of thousands of years as a margin of error may sound like a lot, but not when you're dealing with millions of years. And it is rarely the calculations where error creeps in (that would be pure reckless sloppiness), but the measurements. Are you going to about the subject or would you like to continue pontificating in a state of abject stupidity? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you misunderstood what I said. both things should be presented. if the non-creationist theory (does it have a name?) is so superior to creationism, no normal person should have any difficulties figuring out which one to believe. Idiots are raised by just saying "this is correct, and we don't bother with the rest." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, I know that it isn't much in the big picture, but I also said something like "what if the deterioration isn't consistent?" like, if some factor makes it deteriorate at a different rate after a certain amount of time, say one million years.. up until then it deteriorates as we have predicted, but after a million years it deteriorates much much slower (or faster, that doesn't matter for the example). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
except that i disagree that both things should be presented because creationism is a religious subject and is therefore inappropriate material for public school. it is not scientific. it is not a legitimate field. it is a vehicle for religious institutionalization. if someone wants to learn about it, they should learn it somewhere else, but not from a public school. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you are then suggesting that people are taught ID in biology and those who can tell it's nonsense can just choose not to believe it? then what's the point in having it in that class? might as well have it in a more appropriate class and let the pupils learn things. you also face the prospect of brainwashing the very young with mad ideas that are so new that they haven't possibly had the time to become established; have their merits weighed up by academics, like evolution and natural selection have. oh why bother. i'm fucking talking to myself in here anyway |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so you'd rather have your kids growing up with no other reasons for believing in something than "teacher said so" ? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
isn't that what you're suggesting happens with intelligent design taught in schools? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, I know that it isn't much in the big picture, but I also said something like "what if the deterioration isn't consistent?" like, if some factor makes it deteriorate at a different rate after a certain amount of time, say one million years.. up until then it deteriorates as we have predicted, but after a million years it deteriorates much much slower (or faster, that doesn't matter for the example). Then your argument is already moot because creationism cannot account for millions of years. But anyhow let's say that the rate is not constant - we should be able to observe that in nature because some geological deposits have been aging (and hence their isotopes decaying) for millions of years, some for thousands of years, and some are forming right now through volcanic activity. Would you like to take samples and compare decay rates of various specimens for us? Make sure to account for deviations due to xenoliths if any are present. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
where are these schools where all the teachers present children with every aspect of reality and say, "now figure it out yourself"? be reasonable |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so learning things isn't about understanding them, it's just about memorizing them then? if you want to understand why the regular theory is better than the creationist one, you need to know what the creationist one is, and you should also have to figure out on your own what makes it superior.. don't you find that when you've figured something out on your own, the knowledge sticks better in your head? it's like those people using study techniques for exams (that memory stimulating thingie, for instance, where you connect a taste or a smell to a memory, and then you bring this taste or smell to the exam so that you remember when you taste or smell it.. that's memorizing. if you've understood it, you shouldn't need such things. that's one of the main faults of the school system as it is today.. it rewards memorizing.. at least up until university it did.. I only got middle grades until uni.. now I'm getting top grades all the way, and I feel that I actually understand what I'm studying as opposed to when some old hag was telling me "this is what ibsen meant when he wrote this story!") |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
are people reading what I'm writing? BOTH should be presented. I'm not talking EITHER THIS OR THAT, I'm talking BOTH. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
BOTH should be presented. I'm not talking EITHER THIS OR THAT, I'm talking BOTH. No. To draw a parallel, phrenology should not be presented in medical school except as a curiosity. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, everyone's read you say that. did you read what i said about having both? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and no-one is arguing against BOTH being taught. I'm saying that they should not both be taught in the same class as if they were two sides of the same argument. they are not. no-one would consider teaching christianity in biology. religion, ID and evolution are all theories about getting from the start of existence to now, evolution and other religions have a far larger credibility because they have been around, challenged, questioned, adapted and grown. ID hasn't had this. It's like wanting to teach David Icke's preachings in schools. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Then your argument is already moot because creationism cannot account for millions of years. did I argue on creationisms behalf? no. I argued AGAINST the other thing (does it have a name?). But anyhow let's say that the rate is not constant - we should be able to observe that in nature because some geological deposits have been aging (and hence their isotopes decaying) for millions of years, some for thousands of years, and some are forming right now through volcanic activity. Would you like to take samples and compare decay rates of various specimens for us? Make sure to account for deviations due to xenoliths if any are present. how do you know those numbers? you can't use results produced by the theory you're trying to prove to prove it, silly. that's begging the question, as the english translation goes. to positively figure out the rate of decay in a rock over 1000 years, you'd have to take those that are forming right now, and observe them for a thousand years. and to positively determine the rate of decay over a million years, you'd have to take those that are forming now and observe them for a million years. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, I was getting to you. that was for xceque. where are these schools where all the teachers present children with every aspect of reality and say, "now figure it out yourself"? be reasonable the current school system, as I said up there, is fucked up. the way it is now, you get good grades if you memorize what you're being "taught" (told). and to be reasonable, one wouldn't need EVERY theory.. that would take too much time, but there should not be just one either. that'd make kids stupid.. someone else had already done the thinking for them and they should just accept what they're being told. that's just silly. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
of course it should. and.. if it was presented as a curiousity.. have you ever noticed the difference between a (good) lecturer presenting a curiosity and a lecturer presenting a reigning theory? there is none. they are both presented the same way, but people percieve one as a curiosity and the other as a good theory.. why? because they are presented with both, and see the weakness of one and the strength of the other. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Not at all. We can compare strata in the geological column and establish relative dates (terminus post quem and terminus ante quem). We can use other comparative dating methods such as dendrochronology and varves. Granted this may not take us back millions of years, but it's enough to establish a firm basis for the consistency of decay rates. It's kind of like I have a room full of witnesses who all agree on what happened, and you want to say they're all wrong or lying, but you can produce no witnesses of your own. If you have some evidence of non-constant decay rates for a given isotope, by all means let us examine it. If you have no such evidence, then oh my, oh my. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the current school system, as I said up there, is fucked up. the way it is now, you get good grades if you memorize what you're being "taught" (told). hey, we actually agree for a change! yes, schools in america are terrible for many reasons. i agree that this way of learning is flawed, but what on earth does it have to do with the question of creationism? nothing! it's two separate issues. i think while you may have good intentions with your plan, it is misguided. the first step to better educating children would absolutely never have anything to do with teaching them religious concepts. at least not for public, state-funded schools. if you want to start a private school that teaches this, that's fine. i will not accept the local school teaching any religion in any form. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What you say about lecturers may well be true in subjects like philosophy but not in the sciences. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think you misunderstood what I said, or maybe I didn't say it too well what with all the wine this evening. I'm not against learning through understanding in school. I'm very much for it. Learning by memorising is useful but very very far from the ideal. What I meant was that if someone is intelligent enough to decide not to believe what's told to them about ID in a biology class, then they aren't going to be learning anything. Those who do learn it because they are not (yet) equipped with the intellectual ability to judge these things for themselves will come to believe it without any scientific basis or credibility and won't be taught to question the ID theory (as all good scientists should do to any scietific theory). So teaching ID in biology class as well or in place of evolution would be pointless. It would be learning by numbers or discarded as untrue. Teach ID by all means, but teach it where appropriate, and make sure it's taught as an idea, not a fact. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'll take this one first, as it has a short answer: I go to all kinds of lectures whenever I have some spare time. I've been to lots of natural science lectures, and they most certainly do that (except for pure maths, but that's not natural science, though, is it?). maybe there's a difference between norway and canada then, and I'd say the norwegian ones are much better. actually, the english word "science" is a bit flawed.. it's not the correct translation for "vitenskap" (which is the word I'm using.. the norwegian for science would be "naturvitenskap") but it's the only one you have... science is, like, just the natural sciences, while "vitenskap" also has things like philosophy and literature.. a silly translation that may be closer to the real meaning would be something like "knowingness" or "the art of knowing"). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, yes, the chances of them all being wrong are slim, as it stands today, but up through the ages, many things' chances of being wrong have been slim, and they have later been proved to actually be wrong though their chances of being wrong have been considered slim. you know the common examples, so I won't bother. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
In Norway astrology, phrenology, trepanation, geocentrism, creationism and so forth are presented as theories that are equally valid to mainstream science? Can you also get a Bachelor of Science degree in leprechaunology? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, now. this is probably the source of the misunderstanding! when I'm talking about science I mean biology, physics, chemistry and other more specialised branches (genetics, etc), and I suspect most folk for whom english is their first language do too. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, yes, the chances of them all being wrong are slim, as it stands today, but up through the ages, many things' chances of being wrong have been slim, and they have later been proved to actually be wrong though their chances of being wrong have been considered slim. you know the common examples, so I won't bother. If you could convincingly disprove both the age of the earth and the common understanding of biological evolution in a single blow I have no doubt you would be awarded great recognition and fame. But to simply say they might not be true because the mad ravings of bronze age desert peoples present a different account? That deserves nothing but ridicule and scorn from any thoughtful person. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hey, we actually agree for a change! yes, schools in america are terrible for many reasons. i agree that this way of learning is flawed, but what on earth does it have to do with the question of creationism? nothing! it's two separate issues. haha, I think we only disagree in how much faith we put in science (naturvitenskap). I haven't really been talking about creationism.. the name and content of the theories is irrelevant to the point I was making, and I've said that many times. Creationism is a random example among many (or.. well, not so random, as that was what ezkerraldean wanted to ban, but it can be substituted for any other theory and the main point would be the same, if you know what I mean...). i think while you may have good intentions with your plan, it is misguided. the first step to better educating children would absolutely never have anything to do with teaching them religious concepts. at least not for public, state-funded schools. if you want to start a private school that teaches this, that's fine. i will not accept the local school teaching any religion in any form. if I had a say in setting up a bio class, there'd be creationism, that regular theory, and quite possibly two or more other theories (which just as well could be normal scientific theories with little merit or maybe even outdated or disproven ones.. disproven ones) on the curriculum. then, in presenting them, pros and cons of all theories would be presented. this would naturally work out in a way that let the most potent theory seem the most reasonable one to any kid. the difference with only telling them about the reigning theory would be that they would actually see why the theory was better, not just that it was better.. to put it simply again: they'd understand, not memorize. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
In Norway astrology, phrenology, trepanation, geocentrism, creationism and so forth are presented as theories that are equally valid to mainstream science? yes.. at least the good lecturers do this.. the ones that have a few years of experience. I've been to a few lectures with "out of the box" lecturers, and they're incredibly boring and more similar to the old hag telling me what ibsen really meant than anything else.. and you'd apparently be surprised to find that people still figure out on their own which theory is best. you don't seem to put a lot of confidence in peoples capability to think for themselves... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
now to be on the same page with you... it has been my contention that: 1. "informing" children, in the way you describe, of any religious theory in a public classroom setting is unacceptable. 2. giving creationism as much validity as a science (science) is totally idiotic. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, there's a spot of trouble there... however, it doesn't mean the methods shouldn't work just as well... if you ever read german philosophers too, there's the word "wissenschaff" or something like that that is like "vitenskap" (you can see the similarity between the two quite easily) which has the same meaning, so when we get english translations of these books it always says "[...] all forms of science (wissenschaff)." It has the real word in parenthesis to avoid confusion. I'm sorry that I didn't mention this earlier, but I've still been talking about creationism and that other theory, and the discussion still kind of falls under the english definition of the word, though the method should apply to the teaching of all forms of science (vitenskap). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think you're confusing history of science courses with, for example, genetics or organic chemistry. Once you get out of the basic levels you don't refer back to alchemy or homonculi much. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If you could convincingly disprove both the age of the earth and the common understanding of biological evolution in a single blow I have no doubt you would be awarded great recognition and fame. well, didn't Darwin do that? And didn't someone disprove (at least parts of) his theory as well? And didn't Einstein do it to Newton(s theories)? But to simply say they might not be true because the mad ravings of bronze age desert peoples present a different account? That deserves nothing but ridicule and scorn from any thoughtful person. It doesn't matter who presents a different account. If it is an acclaimed scientist or a 78 year old man wearing nothing but diapers, they both present a theory and should be heard. Of course, the old man will have less of a rhetorical weight than the scientist, but that alone shouldn't determine the value of either theory.. it should be determined by how close it appears to be to describing reality, and if the scientist is nowhere near and the old man seems to be correct and better at explaining what is going on, his should be held as being better. who knows? the bronze age desert people may have been onto something... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
1. "informing" children, in the way you describe, of any religious theory in a public classroom setting is unacceptable. so children should never have to figure out stuff for themselves? how young kids are we talking about here, by the way? I'm not talking 6 year olds.. we don't have biology until we're a bit older over here.. maybe around ten or something we have first quick glances, and by then kids are able to think coherently and I believe they would be able to distinguish between the theories and see which one is the best if they were properly presented... it isn't, however, about presenting that particular theory. It is about presenting leading alternatives, and right now, that theory is one of the leading alternatives and.. well, it's like an opponent to the current theory, so it's perfect! 2. giving creationism as much validity as a science (science) is totally idiotic. why? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
...but that alone shouldn't determine the value of either theory.. it should be determined by how close it appears to be to describing reality... That's the most lucid thing you've ever said. I agree wholeheartedly. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
we're just going in circles because you either don't understand the things i've been saying or you've ignored them. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think you're confusing history of science courses with, for example, genetics or organic chemistry. Once you get out of the basic levels you don't refer back to alchemy or homonculi much. well, you can't have those classes without having had their history. you always get specific history-oriented classes before you have the others 'round here at least.. if you don't know the history you wouldn't really know why you were doing what you were doing and you'd also be in danger of re-inventing theories long since disproved because as you didn't know the strengths of the current theories, you wouldn't know the weaknesses of others and all that I've said before. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, you can't have those classes without having had their history. you always get specific history-oriented classes before you have the others 'round here at least.. That's some mighty fine weaseling, boy. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hahaha, yeah, you would, wouldn't you? r40f: maybe.. let's see: you don't want religion taught in school. I agree. but you have been answering to this claim: as things are right now, creationism would be a perfectly reasonable choice for presentation in a bio class. presented as any other theory with all its weaknesses and strengths, because it _is_ just another scientific theory. it may have more weaknesses than strengths, but that isn't important in any other way than that it would lead to students seeing why it isn't a good theory on their own. by saying you don't want religion taught in school. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
right, because creationism and intelligent design are not scientific. they are inherently religious concepts. you don't understand this? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You're intellectually dishonest. I don't respect that and I won't bother with you again. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a child's mind is a tabula rasa. ignorance and lack of rational thought is rife, even amongst adults. it's too much to put faith in your gamble that children will sum up the pros and cons of the arguments and make their own decision. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if I take out the word scientific from it, would you agree then? as things are right now, creationism would be a perfectly reasonable choice for presentation in a bio class. presented as any other theory with all its weaknesses and strengths, because it _is_ just another theory. it may have more weaknesses than strengths, but that isn't important in any other way than that it would lead to students seeing why it isn't a good theory on their own. ..you seem to put even less faith in science than I do, actually.. I believe that the current theories hold a much more potent "force of explanation" (or something like that), and that they are even so potent that if you present them together with creationism, any normal person would see why they are better... you seem to think people will be SO affected by these theories that they will immediately believe in them.. that is only what happens with a 100% one-sided education, not when several theories are presented. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
