Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Teach both Theories


Celsus

Recommended Posts

In my defense, I intentionally avoided making any mention of the law of gravity for precisely that reason. I was referring only to the phenomenon of gravity itself, though I should have been more specific and listed it in the proper context.

 

Might I suggest that you may be confusing facts with scientific laws? I remember learning about the subject of your post above in my 9th grade biology class--i.e. no law can ever be 100% absolute. As I recall, however, that principle applies to laws, not facts.

 

To use your example above; the law of gravity and our understanding thereof may change, but the world's gravitational force is constant. Even if you were to escape the Earth's immediate gravitational field, that force would not change. Your perception of it would, but the planet's gravitational pull would remain the same.

 

A change in our understanding of a fact does not equate to a change in the nature of the fact itself. Gravity is. Evolution is. All the changes in our understanding of how these forces work will never alter the simple fact of their existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goodbye Jesus
  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • a midnight star

    35

  • Asimov

    27

  • Amethyst

    12

  • Dianka

    10

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

To use your example above; the law of gravity and our understanding thereof may change, but the world's gravitational force is constant.

 

Unless you happen to be Q from ST: TNG. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something I just thought of while reading about the bird flu...

 

If there was no evolution, then logically, viruses could not mutate or change. They would remain the same and there would be no risk of any virus mutating into something more deadly. We would then logically have no reason to fear the bird flu at all, or any other virus of any kind. That proves the IDers wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there was no evolution, then logically, viruses could not mutate or change.  They would remain the same and there would be no risk of any virus mutating into something more deadly.  We would then logically have no reason to fear the bird flu at all, or any other virus of any kind.  That proves the IDers wrong.
That's kind a point I've tried to bring up a couple of times, especially as it relates to creating vaccines, because what they do for vaccines is they infect another species with a human virus until it adapts to that species. By adapting to a different species, it becomes significantly less adaptive to humans. Thus, when you administer this mutated virus back to humans, after having gone through host after host of a different species, the body is then able to produce a resistance to it without becoming terribly sick.

 

I don't know if they do this for every virus, but in the case of the flu, they weaken it by exposing it to unhatched chicken eggs. So next time you get a flu shot, what they're actually giving you is sort of a chicken flu.

 

So, basically what this means is that there really is real world applications for the theory of evolution, and the creationist arguments against the theory are not only poor and maladaptive to reality, but they're also grossly irresponsible.

 

This is why I've become rather unsympathetic about trampling people's beliefs. I don't care if people want to think that man and beast were created separately in their own little fantasy worlds, but the gloves are off when it becomes a political front to spread bad thinking and teach bad ideas in the classroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my defense, I intentionally avoided making any mention of the law of gravity for precisely that reason. I was referring only to the phenomenon of gravity itself, though I should have been more specific and listed it in the proper context.

 

Might I suggest that you may be confusing facts with scientific laws? I remember learning about the subject of your post above in my 9th grade biology class--i.e. no law can ever be 100% absolute. As I recall, however, that principle applies to laws, not facts.

 

To use your example above; the law of gravity and our understanding thereof may change, but the world's gravitational force is constant. Even if you were to escape the Earth's immediate gravitational field, that force would not change. Your perception of it would, but the planet's gravitational pull would remain the same.

 

A change in our understanding of a fact does not equate to a change in the nature of the fact itself. Gravity is. Evolution is. All the changes in our understanding of how these forces work will never alter the simple fact of their existence.

 

Ok then, in order for something to be considered a law it must first be considered fact. And the discussion about gravity and the fact of it keeps changing.

 

Now I may be totally off here and we may be talking about two different things. This opening post in this thread was talking about ID, correct? Now tell me if I am wrong, ID and creationism concerns the beginnings of the world (galaxys etc....), if that is so, then it still stands to reason that my statement still stands. We do not know how life begun, they can only guess, which means that it is only a theory not a fact because we do not know, nor will we probaly ever know.

 

So again I will state that it is only a theory and not fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK on to reality,

 

what is reality? Is it what we see? A human body in the mirror? Or is reality the FACT that we are nothing more than a bunch of cells clustered together? IF the former then wouldn't we be no different that this desk or keyboard that I am working on? Or even what is beyond what we know already?

 

My point is, we can claim that we know the answers, but the reality is that we do not. What we see is not always what is true. What we believe to be truth now, may not what they find to be true in say 100 years. Our perception of reality keeps changing. What would have happened if there wasn't anybody brave enough to question the shape of the earth? Would we still be stuck believing that the world is flat? How would that have hampered or changed our world today?

 

I am one of those who will question everything. If we do not take the time to ask "is this really truth" then we may miss out on some wonders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Soulfire
Something I just thought of while reading about the bird flu...

 

If there was no evolution, then logically, viruses could not mutate or change.  They would remain the same and there would be no risk of any virus mutating into something more deadly.  We would then logically have no reason to fear the bird flu at all, or any other virus of any kind.  That proves the IDers wrong.

 

Maybe god is a bioterrorist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe god is a bioterrorist?

 

Well, he causes earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, you name it. And he tortures people for all of eternity simply for being imperfect humans, so bioterrorism is just one more item on his resume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Soulfire
Well, he causes earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, you name it.  And  he tortures people for all of eternity simply for being imperfect humans, so bioterrorism is just one more item on his resume.

 

Werd. The big man's got himself quite the resume going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe god is a bioterrorist?

 

I am not suggesting that there is some "god" who is master of all. But I do not close my mind off and say that evolution is correct either. I am simply honest enough to admit that I simply do not know and I am keeping my mind open towards other options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Example of another theory, one that I do laugh at, but it is still there.

 

My husband believes that there is a master race and they put us here. Why? Who knows. Yes I am talking about aliens.

 

Silly, I know, but I am trying to make the point that there are other theories to explain the beginnings of the earth other than evolution (the big band theory) or creationism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So since gravity is a fact.... Which is correct and can you honestly tell me that it won't change again? If it will change, then what will stop the scientist from frinding other varibles and change the THEORY of evolution again?

Actually I think that question has been raised, because the galaxies are not moving or pulling according to the expected calculations. That's why they "invented" dark matter and dark energy, to explain away the non consistent observations, in favor of keeping the law of gravity unchanged.

 

But if dark energy or dark matter can't explain the observations, then the law of gravity might have to be changed again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok then, in order for something to be considered a law it must first be considered fact. And the discussion about gravity and the fact of it keeps changing.

 

Exactly. The discussion keeps changing. The force being discussed does not.

 

Once again, laws and facts are not the same thing. No more than knowledge and understanding are the same thing. They are related in that the latter is invariably built around the former, but to know a fact is not to understand it. That is the key difference.

 

Speaking as one with loads of experience in doing so, you may want to avoid sticking your foot in your mouth in the future. I'm here to tell you, it doesn't taste very good.

 

Now I may be totally off here and we may be talking about two different things. This opening post in this thread was talking about ID, correct? Now tell me if I am wrong, ID and creationism concerns the beginnings of the world (galaxys etc....), if that is so, then it still stands to reason that my statement still stands. We do not know how life begun, they can only guess, which means that it is only a theory not a fact because we do not know, nor will we probaly ever know.

 

So again I will state that it is only a theory and not fact.

 

I'm not sure exactly what your meaning is in this paragraph. If you're criticizing ID as being bereft of logic and making faith-based claims concerning things we can't possibly know the answer to, I completely agree with you.

 

If, on the other hand, you're criticizing evolution, your argument is flawed. The theory of evolution makes no attempt to explain where we came from or how life began. Its primary (and possibly only) focus is to explain how evolution works.

 

OK on to reality,

 

what is reality? Is it what we see? A human body in the mirror? Or is reality the FACT that we are nothing more than a bunch of cells clustered together? IF the former then wouldn't we be no different that this desk or keyboard that I am working on? Or even what is beyond what we know already?

 

Reality is all of those things. Just like morality, it's subjective. Maybe we are all fooling ourselves as to the nature of existence, but this is the only one we know. Practically speaking, it would be impossible to prove an alternate or extra reality outside the scope of our senses and understanding, because we're simply not "wired" for it. That doesn't necessarily mean there's nothing there, but being as that's the case, it would be a waste of time and effort to try given our current state and perceptions of existence.

 

My point is, we can claim that we know the answers, but the reality is that we do not. What we see is not always what is true. What we believe to be truth now, may not what they find to be true in say 100 years. Our perception of reality keeps changing.

 

That's all well and good, and to a certain extent I agree, but with the addendum that we can't let that uncertainty bring us up short in the search for truth. Questioning is good, but at some point there needs to be something to build off of. You can't expect to build a quality structure if you have no foundation to build upon.

 

I am not suggesting that there is some "god" who is master of all. But I do not close my mind off and say that evolution is correct either. I am simply honest enough to admit that I simply do not know and I am keeping my mind open towards other options.

 

How does accepting the proven existence of evolution and studying and endorsing the solid theory related to it equate to closing one's mind? No one here has all the answers or has even claimed as much, but there's no reason that should stop us from studying the available evidence and trying to come to a logical conclusion.

 

An open mind is a double-edged blade. Without the filter of skepticism, it can cause nearly as much (if not more) damage than one locked up tight as a bank vault.

 

Example of another theory, one that I do laugh at, but it is still there.

 

My husband believes that there is a master race and they put us here. Why? Who knows. Yes I am talking about aliens.

 

Silly, I know, but I am trying to make the point that there are other theories to explain the beginnings of the earth other than evolution (the big band theory) or creationism.

 

This is not a theory, it's a baseless superstition. There is no known evidence to support such a claim, it cannot be tested for falsifiability, it has no basis in any kind of logical thought process and it involves taking a huge and unnecessary leap of faith. Much like ID. That being said, I approve of your skepticism of such a claim.

 

Once again, however, you show your ignorance of evolutionary theory, as well as scientific "origin theories" as a whole. The Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are two completely seperate scientific theories which share absolutely no connection and have nothing in common. The Big Bang Theory is an attempt to explain how the universe began. As I stated above, the Theory of Evolution makes no attempt to explain how life originated or where it came from, merely how evolution works.

 

You should really go do some actual study of these scientific theories you're so fond of trashing before criticising them. About the only thing you're accomplishing right now is doing an exceptional job of displaying your own ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to break in, but I read this post on another board I frequent and had to copy it here:

I may be being a little nieve here but i have been wondering why they don't just let them teach it in the schools, i'm am no lover of the christian fundies, but how long would it take to teach ID. Its all based on faith so basically the teacher could spend 99.9% of the time teaching evolution which despite being a theory has plenty of evidence and could then spend the rest of the time 0.1% (about 10 seconds) teaching ID.

 

I mean, what more can you teach about ID other than some people believe God created the world, there is no facts or formulas or evidence to back it up so therefore no length of time to teach it. According to the fundies we cannot know the mind of God so therefore we can't know or guess how he created the world so what is there to teach??

 

Brilliant!

 

Ok, make with the science again! :woohoo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, I used to think the same way. Approaching it from a purely scientific viewpoint, one could sum up the entire argument for ID in a single sentence.

 

Then I learned about the actual content proponents of ID want to be taught and realized that wouldn't work. They want teachers not only to explicitly state that evolution is not the only theory to explain the origins of life (a flawed argument, since evolution makes no attempt to do so), but then to direct students to sources of "ID literature" for further study and explanation of the "theory."

 

That's when it hit me that the folks who have been decrying ID as Creationism dressed up in pseudo-scientific trappings are absolutely right. ID proponents have no interest in real discussion or "fair presentation." For all they claim as much on T.V., they don't want folks to consider the Theory of Evolution and ID as equals. This is nothing more than the latest ploy by religious fundamentalists attempting to assert their power over government and the nation's populace.

 

That is why we can't let this go through. It is absurd, but it's also a foot in the door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand, and can't for the life of me even begin to comprehend, is how "science" is being turned into some evil conspiracy theory. Science, of course, isn't an organized ANYTHING -- rather, it's a process of observation to discover the nature of life and the material world.

 

Everything we enjoy in our modern, techological lives has been enabled by scientific pursuits, and yet, since FOX "News" is on a tear about ID, "science" is just another opinion, and hasn't proved anything (disregarding everything science has ever done for our evolved civilization). It's just as viable, they say, as creationism, or the belief that earth could simply be a turnip on the salad plate of Glugar, the inter-galactic belching robot.

 

What's even more amazing is that someone who claims to be non-Christian could even believe that garbage -- well, it makes about as much since as someone claiming that the majority of Republicans are atheists . . . but, I know that no one here would make such a bizarre claim.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...indpost&p=78404

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand, and can't for the life of me even begin to comprehend, is how "science" is being turned into some evil conspiracy theory. Science, of course, isn't an organized ANYTHING -- rather, it's a process of observation to discover the nature of life and the material world.

 

To Christians, logic and rationality is the enemy, and scientists represent that. I'm sure most fanatics would love for the Inquisition to rear its ugly head again, just so they can torture a few scientists. If ID gets a foothold in schools, I'm afraid it will be the start of a new dark age, one where America becomes the dumbest country on earth because science will be considered "TeH Ev1L!!!!1!!!" here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand, and can't for the life of me even begin to comprehend, is how "science" is being turned into some evil conspiracy theory.  Science, of course, isn't an organized ANYTHING -- rather, it's a process of observation to discover the nature of life and the material world.

 

Everything we enjoy in our modern, techological lives has been enabled by scientific pursuits, and yet, since FOX "News" is on a tear about ID, "science" is just another opinion, and hasn't proved anything (disregarding everything science has ever done for our evolved civilization).  It's just as viable, they say, as creationism, or the belief that earth could simply be a turnip on the salad plate of Glugar, the inter-galactic belching robot. 

 

What's even more amazing is that someone who claims to be non-Christian could even believe that garbage -- well, it makes about as much since as someone claiming that the majority of Republicans are atheists . . . but, I know that no one here would make such a bizarre claim.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...indpost&p=78404

 

 

Your such an idiot. I swear it. You are the only one sho keeps meantioning FOX news. And you think that this is from Fox news? Of course you don't. You just like low blows because you can't come up with an intellegent argument.

 

Oh yeah, idiot! I stated that I didn't believe in ID or creationism. Did you not read that?

 

Nobody said that there was a conspiracy conserning the scientist. Where in the hell did you get that idea. I simply stated that science is ever changing and what they believe to be true today might not hold up in a few years. Never did I say that the scientist are lying to us. You are so stupid! Since science is ever changing, what they believe to be true and factual now may not be true in years to come. I simply said that "I don't know". Is there something to wrong with disagreing with you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never did I say that the scientist are lying to us. You are so stupid! Since science is ever changing, what they believe to be true and factual now may not be true in years to come. I simply said that "I don't know". Is there something to wrong with disagreing with you?

 

I'm not entirely aware of any scientists (although individual scientists might state this) who espouse anything in regards to theory as True™ or as fact. That is really the whole point with science is garnering new knowledge from studying the universe and seeing how we can improve the current theories.

 

I don't think it's conducive or epistemic to reject theories based on the possibility that they "might" not be 100% true. This isn't a jab at you, midnight, it's just a statement that we should accept science but accept it conditionally. Science isn't monolithic, and accepting things 100% is actually counterproductive to how science works.

 

and as far as gravity goes, it too keeps changing. If it is a fact and law, why does it keep changing?

 

This has probably been addressed already but we know that gravity exists and we know what it does, but the theoretical part is explaining how it works or why it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-- well, it makes about as much since as someone claiming that the majority of Republicans are atheists . . . but, I know that no one here would make such a bizarre claim.

 

Yep, if such a claim was made, which it was not. I said that most rebuplicans were christian. or do you not know that there is a lot more inbetween atheist and christian? It wouldn't surprise me. You are the same one who claims that anything that is "morally" not right by christians is because they are scared of such.

 

Who do you classify as christian? Everyone who makes the claim but hasn't been to church EVER? Because their parents were christian they use the label the same way I would say I was white. It is just a label not real life.

 

There were so many different reasons to vote that had nothing to do with religion. You just can't accept that there are those of us who believe in such things. Or that if we don't vote your way or think your way then we must be stupid.

 

You are a fascist!! You believe that you are always right and everybody MUST agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your such an idiot. I swear it. You are the only one sho keeps meantioning FOX news. And you think that this is from Fox news? Of course you don't. You just like low blows because you can't come up with an intellegent argument.

 

So, because something happens to come up somewhere and someone mentions it, that makes them an idiot? That's an odd way of looking at things.

 

Oh yeah, idiot! I stated that I didn't believe in ID or creationism. Did you not read that?

 

Which begs the question, "Why allow ID to be taught if you don't believe in it?"

 

Nobody said that there was a conspiracy conserning the scientist. Where in the hell did you get that idea.

 

Open yer damn eyes. Everywhere you look, especially on this site, you'll see Christians with agendas screaming about TEH EBIL SECULAR GAWDLESS HEATHEN SCIENTISTS. It doesn't change, and it certainly doesn't hide in some obscure corner of the news, so why aren't you seeing it?

 

I simply stated that science is ever changing and what they believe to be true today might not hold up in a few years. Never did I say that the scientist are lying to us. You are so stupid!

 

God, get over yourself, you mouthy little bitch. By your "logic", nothing we know matters since it could all change tomorrow. By that "reasoning", we may as well just give up on science, education, medicine, law... hell, everything short of Wheel of Fortune (since Wheel of Fortune doesn't require any real knowledge).

 

There's a reason we have science - to find out what we can know in the here and now. It might change later, but hopefully we'll get some answers anyhow.

 

Since science is ever changing, what they believe to be true and factual now may not be true in years to come. I simply said that "I don't know". Is there something to wrong with disagreing with you?

 

potkettle.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not entirely aware of any scientists (although individual scientists might state this) who espouse anything in regards to theory as True or as fact.  That is really the whole point with science is garnering new knowledge from studying the universe and seeing how we can improve the current theories. 

 

I don't think it's conducive or epistemic to reject theories based on the possibility that they "might" not be 100% true.  This isn't a jab at you, midnight, it's just a statement that we should accept science but accept it conditionally.  Science isn't monolithic, and accepting things 100% is actually counterproductive to how science works.

This has probably been addressed already but we know that gravity exists and we know what it does, but the theoretical part is explaining how it works or why it works.

 

I agree with you 100%. I am simply in a personal state where I am taking my time figuring out what is what. That is where my "I don't know" comes in. I simply do not know. But I am not going to make up my decisions based on someone trying to bully me into a position that I am not comfortable about. (no not you).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The shit has just hit the fan.... :eek:

 

 

 

 

 

:lmao:

 

 

....*hopes they start fighting and rip each others clothes off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you 100%. I am simply in a personal state where I am taking my time figuring out what is what.  That is where my "I don't know" comes in. I simply do not know. But I am not going to make up my decisions based on someone trying to bully me into a position that I am not comfortable about. (no not you).

 

There are a lot of people here who are sensitive to the whole ID thing. ID is religion in disguise (except it's a sheep in wolves clothing) and regardless of whether you don't know, what you should know is that ID is not science. It doesn't matter if it should be taught or not...it's not a subject of scientific thought, therefore it shouldn't be equated as a science.

 

It's always best to say "I don't know", it's better than saying "Evolution is wrong because science always changes".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.