Page 2 of 2 [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Should we give equal time to the flat earth theory in geography classrooms?
Poll ended at 27 Jun 2011, 2:03 am
absolutely! present both sides and let the students decide! 7%  7%  [ 2 ]
No, let the side that has actual evidence supporting it be taught. No need to confuse children with blatant lies proven false long ago.. 89%  89%  [ 24 ]
I don't know or don't care. 4%  4%  [ 1 ]
Total votes : 27

ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

22 Jun 2011, 1:34 pm

Lets park a "hypothesis generating machine" in every classroom, so that kiddys have to hear every possible take on a subject, regardless of whether any of the hypothesises are scientific, substantiated with evidence, logically consistent, or totted by slack-jaws who manage to crowbar s**t in into education via linguistic trickery.


_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

22 Jun 2011, 2:16 pm

DeaconBlues wrote:
Actually, ruveyn, the Flat Earth Hypothesis was pretty thoroughly disproved by the Greek philosopher Eratosthenes, around 250 BCE. Using the difference in angle in sunlight observed in wells in Syene and Alexandria (about seven degrees), he was able to calculate that Earth was round, and that its diameter was about 252,000 stadia, a pretty darn close approximation. (The popular story of Columbus not getting his voyages funded because "everyone thought the world was flat" is nonsense; he didn't get funding because it was pretty obvious by 1492 that sailing west to get to Cathay was the long way around. Columbus made an error in his calculations, thinking the planet's diameter was only 5000 miles, not 25,000. Fortunately for him, there was a previously-unknown continent in the way, else his entire expedition would have been lost at sea...)


Eratosthenes assumed the sphericity of the Earth because it was a philosophical principle inherited from Plato and Aristotle that the sphere was the most perfect shape. Given that the Earth is a sphere (and not a cylinder or a torus or an egg) he applied proportions brilliantly to deduce the circumference of the spherical earth.

We have better proof that the earth is a oblate spheroid based on a verified principle of gravitation as well as circumnavigation of the earth, views of the earth from well above the earth etc. etc. We know the earth is a spheroid by direct observation as well as inference.

The flat earth hokum was a story cooked up by Washington Irving who write a non-factual biography of Columbus. It may very well be that peasants and beduins did not know the Earth was spherical, but anyone who had an education going back to Alexandrian material would have known or supposed the Earth was spherical. By the way Columbus fudged the data to make a voyage westward look a great deal shorter than it actually would have been. Columbus submitted figures implying the circumference of the earth was 15,000 miles, not 25,000. Even with this cheating it is a damned lucky thing Columbus made landfall in under 3000 miles or his voyage would have failed.

ruveyn



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,358
Location: temperate zone

23 Jun 2011, 2:27 pm

Nonsense.

The round earthers have comandeered the great halls of learning over the last few hundred years.

So now that science is ruled by the conspiracy of round earthers no scientist can get funding nor tenure nor get ahead in anyway if he/she admits to the truth that there is vast evidence for a flat earth.

The vast evidence for a flat earth is surpressed by the round earth power structure, and they indoctrinate our youth in schools. Every classroom has a globe!

So I say "teach the contraversy".

Place a globe next to a deep dish pizza with sausages aranged in the shape of the continents and oceans. I guarantee most school kids will go for the pizza!

But the powerstructure knows this and will never allow it nor any other free discussion of the two theories side by side!

And while we are at : Lunar composition- stop suppressing the Green Cheese Theory.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

23 Jun 2011, 5:30 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

So I say "teach the contraversy".



What controversy. It is a fact that the earth is on oblate spheroid.

ruveyn



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,602

24 Jun 2011, 5:58 am

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
@MCalavera: No offense meant, but saying someone "believes" in evolution is a poor way to phrase it and plays into the creationists' game. It is as silly as asking if someone "believes" in gravity or electricity. It makes more sense to ask someone whether or not they accept the fact evolution happens, and if not, why not? I agree it is difficult if not impossible to hold a YEC interpretation and accept evolution, but many people have found spiritual guidance through the Bible without having to deny reality. It's all in how well one can handle metaphors. Some people get so hung up on the details of a story used to communicate a message that they miss the whole point of the message the story was trying to convey.


Yeah, but the theory of evolution was discovered quite recently. I doubt whoever wrote Genesis had evolution in mind.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,985

24 Jun 2011, 8:18 am

ruveyn wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:

So I say "teach the contraversy".



What controversy. It is a fact that the earth is on oblate spheroid.

ruveyn


You forgot lumpy, fuzzy and infested



aelf
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 56

24 Jun 2011, 8:29 am

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
saying someone "believes" in evolution is a poor way to phrase it and plays into the creationists' game. It is as silly as asking if someone "believes" in gravity or electricity. It makes more sense to ask someone whether or not they accept the fact evolution happens, and if not, why not?


While that might be a good way to reframe the issue and counter some creationist rhetoric, I find it kind of misleading. Gravity or its effects can be felt, bodily, every day, and electricity can sometimes be seen, felt, or heard. But even these things have aspects which are not obvious and apparent, such as gravity being a universal property of all matter including the molecules of one's body, or electricity being used in cellphones. Neither of these are apparent sensationally, and are accepted as intellectual models based on scientific evidence. Which is to say, they are believed. Evolution is similar; it's something that happens out of view, in the spaces between the things we can see. And in many cases, over such long timespans that we can't see the differences at all.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,358
Location: temperate zone

24 Jun 2011, 9:49 am

Philologos wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:

So I say "teach the contraversy".



What controversy. It is a fact that the earth is on oblate spheroid.

ruveyn


You forgot lumpy, fuzzy and infested


and Dopey, Sleepy, and Sneezy!



BurntOutMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 502
Location: Oregon, USA

24 Jun 2011, 2:41 pm

DeaconBlues wrote:
For myself, I have to believe that the Lord gave us these brains for a reason, and that a failure to use them to think with is a slap in His face, repudiating His gift of intellect. If all He wanted were organic robots incapable of deciding things for themselves, He most certainly would have made us exactly that way, yes?


"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." ~Galileo Galilei

I believe in god, albeit not the Christian God, and I feel evolution makes perfect sense (and doesn't even 100% rule out the Biblical story of Creation)..... I have no problem with my child being taught religious ideas, in a WORLD RELIGIONS CLASS. I have no problem with my child being taught "Flat Earth" theories, in a Stupid, Archaic Myths that-don't-qualify-as Theories class. I was once taught that the Universe was born from Chaos.... in a mythology class and it was actually treated as mythology.

I have no problem with ideas I don't agree with being taught, in context. I think to teach history without the religious element leaves a serious gaping hole in the lesson. Our world was shaped by religion... However, ideologies should only be taught as pertinent to the history lesson. Same with science. I think it's pertinent to know how the Holy Roman Church tried to cockblock science over the centuries. It's fine to discuss outdated ideas, how they've been replaced, and even that a certain element of people actually still believe in it. To teach it as a valid scientific theory is absolutely not okay.

I think schools teach enough half-truths and fallacies without involving religion. Next they'll want children taught that earthquakes are caused by women showing too much cleavage. If you want your child taught mythology and absurdities, send them to a private religious school.