School board approves measure allowing teachers to challenge

Page 3 of 9 [ 129 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Sep 2009, 1:02 am

skafather84 wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

You know, I've always hated the parental cop out phrase of "they aren't laughing at you, they're laughing with you." To which the response is "I'm not laughing."

So then start laughing.

Why so serious?

IDK, I have two papers to write before 11:55 pm Friday, plus I need to encourage my girlfriend to catch up on her homework but I don't want to pester her.

It's currently 12:30am Friday here, but I can't seem to go to sleep. Also the weather is really wacko this year. And penguins fly underwater.

Same time here. I wish you the best on your papers. QUIT GOOFING AROUND AND GET TO WORK!!

Seriously, though...papers and sleep are both important, this board isn't. Most of us will be here...unless I drop off the board for a while again.

Since it is 9.15 am here in Helsinki I don't have that problem. Most of what we talk about here is amusing blather and I agree you should devote yourself to more important and pressing things.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Sep 2009, 3:44 am

Still can't go to sleep. I wish that I didn't feel hyper some nights like this.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 Sep 2009, 3:44 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Well, you probably don't believe in a 6000 year old earth. If you assume that, then the exclusivity becomes quite clear.

The Creationist view is not limited to a literal interpretation of Genesis. One could believe that some creative entity made the Big Bang happen fourteen billion years ago. One could even believe that the evolutionary process by which life on this planet is the Method of the Designer.

The literal interpretation of Genesis is balderdash and hokum. No one who is acquainted with the scientific facts could reasonably believe the universe is 6000 years old and that the sun was created four days later than the Earth. Or that a Great Flood wiped out most life about 5000 years ago.

So there is a clear distinction between Creationism and a literal interpretation of Scripture.

ruveyn

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Sep 2009, 3:56 am

ruveyn wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Well, you probably don't believe in a 6000 year old earth. If you assume that, then the exclusivity becomes quite clear.

There's also those who were Intelligent Design proponents without belief in the Bible, particularly Stoics like Cicero.

Here is one thing he had said in relation to Epicurius' atomic theory of evolution:

Quote:

if chance collisions of particles could make a world, why then cannot they build much less difficult objects, like a colonnade, a temple, a house, or a city?

And that is from De Natura Deorum, Book 2, section 94.

"quod si mundum efficere potest concursus atomorum, cur porticum cur templum cur domum cur urbem non potest, quae sunt minus operosa et multo quidem faciliora?"

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/nd2.shtml#94

BTW, by world it is not just meaning the planet, but the life on it.

Also, I differ from Cicero a great deal on views concerning the Bible. However, if he were to have met Paul of Tarsus...

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Sep 2009, 4:33 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Well, you probably don't believe in a 6000 year old earth. If you assume that, then the exclusivity becomes quite clear.

Quote:

if chance collisions of particles could make a world, why then cannot they build much less difficult objects, like a colonnade, a temple, a house, or a city?

Which, of course, ignores the obvious that chance did work its way to create life, humans and therefore the architecture that resulted.

Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

18 Sep 2009, 4:39 am

Sand wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Well, the issue I see is that generally teachers will be under-educated for the purposes of challenging theories. I mean, could your physics teacher overturn relativity or quantum mechanics? Probably not. And the theories taught at the level of a high school are going to be less controversial academically, if only because high school is a basic foundation of knowledge rather than a bunch of speculative knowledge.

So, really, this is just a maneuver to attack evolutionary theory.

Jacoby wrote:

Personally I don't find creationism and evolution mutually exclusive anyways.

Well, you probably don't believe in a 6000 year old earth. If you assume that, then the exclusivity becomes quite clear.

There's nothing wrong with challenging Evolutionary Theory as long as the challenge is demonstrated to fail. If a teacher challenges the theory of gravity and then jumps out of a fifth storey window as a belief in the challenge that would be a dramatic demonstration of the facts in the matter and much approved.

Intelligent Falling. God guides our ascendence to the earth, not gravity. Yes, it does look suspiciously like it was all according to natural laws, but how can 'gravity' explain it's complexity?

Incidentally, the theory of Evolution has far more evidence than the theory of Gravity.

_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Sep 2009, 4:49 am

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Well, you probably don't believe in a 6000 year old earth. If you assume that, then the exclusivity becomes quite clear.

Quote:

if chance collisions of particles could make a world, why then cannot they build much less difficult objects, like a colonnade, a temple, a house, or a city?

Which, of course, ignores the obvious that chance did work its way to create life, humans and therefore the architecture that resulted.

I don't even think that is obvious now, but it certainly wasn't back then.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Sep 2009, 4:52 am

Henriksson wrote:

Incidentally, the theory of Evolution has far more evidence than the theory of Gravity.

Playing off the fact that gravity is an artifact of space-time curvature and not a force in its own right.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Sep 2009, 4:59 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Henriksson wrote:

Incidentally, the theory of Evolution has far more evidence than the theory of Gravity.

Playing off the fact that gravity is an artifact of space-time curvature and not a force in its own right.

Is gravity an artifact of space-time curvature or is space-time curvature an artifact of gravity?

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Sep 2009, 5:12 am

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Henriksson wrote:

Incidentally, the theory of Evolution has far more evidence than the theory of Gravity.

Playing off the fact that gravity is an artifact of space-time curvature and not a force in its own right.

Is gravity an artifact of space-time curvature or is space-time curvature an artifact of gravity?

The force that we experience and call gravity is caused by the curvature of space-time and space-time is curved by mass or energy.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Sep 2009, 5:22 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Henriksson wrote:

Incidentally, the theory of Evolution has far more evidence than the theory of Gravity.

Playing off the fact that gravity is an artifact of space-time curvature and not a force in its own right.

Is gravity an artifact of space-time curvature or is space-time curvature an artifact of gravity?

The force that we experience and call gravity is caused by the curvature of space-time and space-time is curved by mass or energy.

So can it be analyzed as a cause-effect phenomenon or merely a characteristic of mass which is lately attributed to the Higgs boson?

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Sep 2009, 7:33 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Well, you probably don't believe in a 6000 year old earth. If you assume that, then the exclusivity becomes quite clear.

Quote:

if chance collisions of particles could make a world, why then cannot they build much less difficult objects, like a colonnade, a temple, a house, or a city?

Which, of course, ignores the obvious that chance did work its way to create life, humans and therefore the architecture that resulted.

I don't even think that is obvious now, but it certainly wasn't back then.

One of the totally cockeyed assumptions of religions is that if there was no God everything that occurred in the universe is a purely chance happening. This inspite of the recognition that there are physical laws which control almost all happenings and permit one to assume a regularity in cosmic occurrences so that spacecraft can be plotted to arrive at a certain spot for years ahead. Closer to home we can pretty well assume that the Earth will continue spinning throughout our lifetimes and if it is interrupted there will be a predictable discernible reason why. No doubt, at the atomic level some individual happenings are unpredictable but they smooth out statistically at our observation level. The universe is not a factory of random occurrences and our lives would not be possible if it were.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

18 Sep 2009, 10:07 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Ok, so would it be equally valid to have Creationist teachers or professors teach evolutionism from their viewpoint in a satirical manner?

Could Michael Behe teach a class on evolutionary theory? Yes, I would imagine that he is capable of doing so.

Do I think that it is good in his case? Not really, and mostly because I don't see creationism as being a valid theory.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

18 Sep 2009, 10:09 am

ruveyn wrote:

No, but a lot of people who are creationists are young earth creationists. There are old earth creationists too, but they generally care a lot less about any conflict with science, thus these debates usually aren't about their beliefs.

I mean, it is not as if I don't understand that creation technically has no conflict, it is just that we're talking about a specific notion of creationism.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

18 Sep 2009, 10:13 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Quote:

if chance collisions of particles could make a world, why then cannot they build much less difficult objects, like a colonnade, a temple, a house, or a city?

Well, the quote doesn't really prove anything by this point. We have our speculations on the mechanisms involving the creation of a world, and there is little reason to think that these would ever promote creating houses or cities as we know them.

Additionally, I would imagine that old thinkers would be somewhat irrelevant at this point on this subject anyway, as the debate is about specific scientific processes that for the most part, one has to be relatively open-minded and scientifically literate to understand.

Quote:

Also, I differ from Cicero a great deal on views concerning the Bible. However, if he were to have met Paul of Tarsus...

Then we have a fan fic involving a lot of steamy passion?

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Sep 2009, 10:26 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Quote:

if chance collisions of particles could make a world, why then cannot they build much less difficult objects, like a colonnade, a temple, a house, or a city?

Well, the quote doesn't really prove anything by this point. We have our speculations on the mechanisms involving the creation of a world, and there is little reason to think that these would ever promote creating houses or cities as we know them.

Additionally, I would imagine that old thinkers would be somewhat irrelevant at this point on this subject anyway, as the debate is about specific scientific processes that for the most part, one has to be relatively open-minded and scientifically literate to understand.

Quote:

Also, I differ from Cicero a great deal on views concerning the Bible. However, if he were to have met Paul of Tarsus...

Then we have a fan fic involving a lot of steamy passion?

And would it have predicted ants' nests or bee hives or beaver dams or birds' nests? Or are they the logical result of whatever species came about?

Page 3 of 9 [ 129 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9 Next

Jump to:

School board approves measure allowing teachers to challenge Post Reply New Topic

School board approves measure allowing teachers to challenge