Creationist shenanigans part 439

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: purplehippo
You are incorrect in your assessment of the scientific community. There is a huge split (greater than you would admit) as to the origins of life. More and more scientists are coming over to the veiw of creation. But you can choose to not believe it and that is OK with me. I tend to lead with the facts I know and can understand and although I am not a scientist - I do my best to find the truth. To dismiss creation just because you can't bring yourself to believe there is something greater than you is simple ignorance. True scientific analysis wieghs all the evidence. You are still looking 1950's scientific evidence. Recent advances in research come to some really compelling evidence. You can label that anyway you want. It's only words to me.

Nope. As a matter of fact the NAS just posted a report firmly reinforcing the stance of the entire scientific community on this issue.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876#toc

I dismiss creationism because it's quackery. I don't "dismiss creation", i.e. the possibility that a god created the universe-- at least I don't attack it. Your religious beliefs are your religious beliefs. They're just not science.

 

[purplehippo]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: purplehippo

As well as dozens of websites to refute your claims. I am content to let the scientific community come to the logical conclusion in the end.

There are not dozens of reputable websites to refute my claims. In fact, there aren't any. Most of the things you said sound like you got them from that answers in genesis website which is a laughingstock and an embarassment to anyone who actually considers themselves interested in science. If you believe any of the things you mentioned to be true, please present peer reviewed articles that support your position. I can supply thousands to support mine.

EDIT: fixed quotes.

I wasn't posting to here to present peer reviewed articles to support my beliefs. I was posting to show there are other thoughts about the subject. I am not a scentist but I am educated and can decipher some of what scentists purport. Just because you say a site is a laughingstock and embarrassment does not mean it is. It's your opinion and one you will have to live with not me. As science advances more and more all will see the facts. But I won't resort to demeaning others to prove a point. Why does this make so many people angry? I think it's because we all know the truth because it is ingrained in our spirits. Denying it only makes us angry.

 

[techs]

It's real simple. People pretend not to believe in evolution right up til the time the doctor prescribes an antibiotic. A drug which relies on the "theory" of natural selection.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: purplehippo
I wasn't posting to here to present peer reviewed articles to support my beliefs.

Tell us something we don't know already.

Originally posted by: purplehippo
Just because you say a site is a laughingstock and embarrassment does not mean it is.

When the entire scientific community agrees, it is.

Originally posted by: purplehippo
As science advances more and more all will see the facts.

I wish that were guaranteed. But religious indoctrination and dogma are hard for people to resist when they've been trained from birth.

Originally posted by: purplehippo
Why does this make so many people angry?

Creationism doesn't make people angry. Creationists tend to. The more stubborn creationists are in denying the truth, the worse it tends to be.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: purplehippo

I wasn't posting to here to present peer reviewed articles to support my beliefs. I was posting to show there are other thoughts about the subject. I am not a scentist but I am educated and can decipher some of what scentists purport. Just because you say a site is a laughingstock and embarrassment does not mean it is. It's your opinion and one you will have to live with not me. As science advances more and more all will see the facts. But I won't resort to demeaning others to prove a point. Why does this make so many people angry? I think it's because we all know the truth because it is ingrained in our spirits. Denying it only makes us angry.

Yes there are other thoughts on the subject... it's just that these thoughts you are putting forth are almost certainly wrong. There is a constant appeal of creationists that try to place belief in evolution and creationism as two different sides to a spirited debate. This is not true. Simply put, the world that you put forth in your first posting that I replied to does not exist.

There are some things that people can have differences in opinion on in an intellectually honest manner. There are some things that are right or wrong. In this case, many of the things you wrote (flood explaining fossil records, genetic advances disproving evolution, etc.) are simply factually incorrect. No one should have to stand by and let someone do that just to preserve the civility of a difference of opinion.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: purplehippo

Believing in evolution, like believing in creation, requires acceptance of a certain presuppositional dogma and requires placing one?s faith in a story about the unrepeatable past.

First, I object to your use of the word, presuppositional, which relates to a specific piece of christian dogma. But getting beyond that, evolution is anything but dogma. Between evolution and creationism, only evolution meets the criteria of a scientific theory, which I posted, earlier:

the·o·ry

n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
   .
   .
   (see my earlier post or follow the link for further definitions)

It takes only ONE inconsistancy between a scientific theory and observable facts to disprove it so I'll ask you the same question I asked blackangst1...

Got even one? I didn't think so. :roll:

An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before establishing the logic that allows arguments ?for? or ?against? Him.

< sarcasm >

Your use of the word, "Him" is presumtuous. She disagrees with you, and she prefers to spell her pronoun with a lower case letter. :laugh:

< /sarcasm >

Also, the term ?religion? must be defined clearly. While beliefs and worship practices, procedures, and conduct are involved in religion, any belief system that purports to be a total explanation of reality is more-or-less religion. Thus, insofar as it is an attempt to explain why the world is the way it is, held to with ardor and faith, Darwinian evolution can thus be considered religion.

Wrong again. The definition of "religion" includes a supernatural component.

re·li·gion

n.

• 1.
  • a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
    
    b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
  2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
  
  3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
  
  4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Nothing in the theory of evolution presupposes or presumes the existence of any supernatural power or powers, let alone any that could be regarded as creator and governor of the universe.[/quote]

Genesis 1-2 provides an accurate eyewitness account of the beginning of all things, according to God. In fact, the Bible is by far the most accurate historical record known to man.

According to you and those of your faith. I don't buy it. But More importantly, I won't allow your religious beliefs to be taught to my kids in public science classes, and I won't allow those who believe in the dogma of your faith to exclude real science from real science classes.

There is far more evidence today of a young earth (10,000 or so years) and the flood described in the Bible than there is of the "big bang theory". The Biblical Flood explains the sedementary and fossil records that have been researched thus far. Recent advances in genetics prove that evolution of animal and man is impossible hence a dog will always be a dog and not a bird.
.
.
But I for one will choose to believe in creation and a loving God whom gives us the ability to come to Him in the end.

I believe your entire spiel is consumate bullshit. You're entitled to believe whatever you want, and you're entitled to burden your kids with those beliefs. However, you are NOT entitled to abuse the public school system to enforce your ooga booga Kool Aid on others or their kids.

 

[purplehippo]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: purplehippo

I wasn't posting to here to present peer reviewed articles to support my beliefs. I was posting to show there are other thoughts about the subject. I am not a scentist but I am educated and can decipher some of what scentists purport. Just because you say a site is a laughingstock and embarrassment does not mean it is. It's your opinion and one you will have to live with not me. As science advances more and more all will see the facts. But I won't resort to demeaning others to prove a point. Why does this make so many people angry? I think it's because we all know the truth because it is ingrained in our spirits. Denying it only makes us angry.

Yes there are other thoughts on the subject... it's just that these thoughts you are putting forth are almost certainly wrong. There is a constant appeal of creationists that try to place belief in evolution and creationism as two different sides to a spirited debate. This is not true. Simply put, the world that you put forth in your first posting that I replied to does not exist.

There are some things that people can have differences in opinion on in an intellectually honest manner. There are some things that are right or wrong. In this case, many of the things you wrote (flood explaining fossil records, genetic advances disproving evolution, etc.) are simply factually incorrect. No one should have to stand by and let someone do that just to preserve the civility of a difference of opinion.

The same can be said of your position. I just wanted to let others know there are opinions and other facts. True scientific study weighs all the evidence. As science advances and idea's are debunked more will be known. Theory is nothing more than a guess.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: purplehippo

The same can be said of your position. I just wanted to let others know there are opinions and other facts. True scientific study weighs all the evidence. As science advances and idea's are debunked more will be known. Theory is nothing more than a guess.

No, you're still wrong. Theories are not guesses and the same can not be said of my opinion. One side is logical conjecture based upon overwhelming observable evidence, and one is not. There are not "other" facts, there are merely the facts.

 

[purplehippo]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: purplehippo

Believing in evolution, like believing in creation, requires acceptance of a certain presuppositional dogma and requires placing one?s faith in a story about the unrepeatable past.

First, I object to your use of the word, presuppositional, which relates to a specific piece of christian dogma. But getting beyond that, evolution is anything but dogma. Between evolution and creationism, only evolution meets the criteria of a scientific theory, which I posted, earlier:

It takes only ONE inconsistancy between a scientific theory and observable facts to disprove it so I'll ask you the same question I asked blackangst1...

Got even one? I didn't think so. :roll:

An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before establishing the logic that allows arguments ?for? or ?against? Him.

< sarcasm >

Your use of the word, "Him" is presumtuous. She disagrees with you, and she prefers to spell her pronoun with a lower case letter. :laugh:

< /sarcasm >

Also, the term ?religion? must be defined clearly. While beliefs and worship practices, procedures, and conduct are involved in religion, any belief system that purports to be a total explanation of reality is more-or-less religion. Thus, insofar as it is an attempt to explain why the world is the way it is, held to with ardor and faith, Darwinian evolution can thus be considered religion.

Wrong again. The definition of "religion" includes a supernatural component.

re·li·gion

n.

• 1.
  • a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
    
    b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
  2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
  
  3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
  
  4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Nothing in the theory of evolution presupposes or presumes the existence of any supernatural power or powers, let alone any that could be regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

Genesis 1-2 provides an accurate eyewitness account of the beginning of all things, according to God. In fact, the Bible is by far the most accurate historical record known to man.

According to you and those of your faith. I don't buy it. But More importantly, I won't allow your religious beliefs to be taught to my kids in public science classes, and I won't allow those who believe in the dogma of your faith to exclude real science from real science classes.

There is far more evidence today of a young earth (10,000 or so years) and the flood described in the Bible than there is of the "big bang theory". The Biblical Flood explains the sedementary and fossil records that have been researched thus far. Recent advances in genetics prove that evolution of animal and man is impossible hence a dog will always be a dog and not a bird.
.
.
But I for one will choose to believe in creation and a loving God whom gives us the ability to come to Him in the end.

I believe your entire spiel is consumate bullshit. You're entitled to believe whatever you want, and you're entitled to burden your kids with those beliefs. However, you are NOT entitled to abuse the public school system to enforce your ooga booga Kool Aid on others or their kids.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

That is incorrect. There is not freedom FROM religion, rather freedom OF religion.

No, you are the one who is incorrect. Freedom OF religion includes the right NOT to believe in any religion or deity. It also includes the right to being free NOT to have government shoving someone else's ooga booga Kool Aid down our throats or the throats of our kids.

You people who wish to take anything religious out of the public sphere need to learn about why the establishment clause was written. It wasn't to exclude religion from the gov't or public sphere. Sheesh.

Another child left behind. :roll: Go home and practice reading. This thread is about a Florida school board barring teaching the only currently scientifically accepted explanation for the origins of biological diversity that doesn't fail the criteria of a valid theory.

This thread is about that school board abusing their authority to impose their religious bullshit on the science curriculum of a secular educational system.

January 13, 2008
Taylor County, Florida School Board Creationist Mark Southerland Speaks!

As mentioned on January 10, the school board of Taylor County, Florida passed a resolution opposing new science education standards that include the explicit teaching of evolutionary biology.

These people are welcome to wallow in their own ignorance, they have the right to infect their kids with it, and you have the right to wallow with them. Their rights stop when they want to impose their mystery oil on other people's kids through the public education system.

Ooops, seems I was correct with your reading issues. Here is a copy/paste of what you still fail to read/ acknowledge.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Harvey


Why are you trying to make excuses for them using their authority to impose their religious bullshit on the curriculum of a secular educational system? :roll:

I am not making excuses(and you'd know that if you could read). Once again(for the people like harvey that are s l o w . I don't want them to do it, but the OP is incorrect in his argument against it and could be considered a facist for suggesting that people who believe in creationism shouldn't be on school boards.

 

[1prophet]

Topic summary

gotta love American education, where savages sit on school boards

So where are all these nonsavages and why are they not on the school boards?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: purplehippo

Theory is nothing more than a guess.

Only in your own mind. I've only posted the definition of a scientific theory twice before in this thread, including just above your last post. You can't redefine the word to suit your beliefs. Language doesn't work that way. :roll:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
As an agent of the government I must absolutely keep my own personal beliefs and my job separate.

Do you think this attitude should be equally applied? Meaning to things other than the evolution/creation issue? What about MMGW? What about XXX? What about YYY?


You see, I think none of it should be in the schools( except for open debate but not part of the curriculumn perse). The public school system is so full of this other BS that they are forgetting the basics. Maybe if we concentrated on the basics instead of agendas, we wouldn't have as many kids falling behind or struggling to keep up.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
As an agent of the government I must absolutely keep my own personal beliefs and my job separate.

Do you think this attitude should be equally applied? Meaning to things other than the evolution/creation issue? What about MMGW? What about XXX? What about YYY?


You see, I think none of it should be in the schools( except for open debate but not part of the curriculumn perse). The public school system is so full of this other BS that they are forgetting the basics. Maybe if we concentrated on the basics instead of agendas, we wouldn't have as many kids falling behind or struggling to keep up.

Not sure I follow entirely. Religious issues are a special case, covered by the constitution and a whole grunch of case law. Not to mention just being downright obvious.

What else should be axed from curriculum in your opinion? And why?

There are many outlooks on what public education is. A few of them are:

1. It's a tool of socialization - preparing people to become productive workers and members of society.
2. It's a tool to teach people how to think (not what) - logic and reason are at a premium.
3. It provides a common set of information from which a common culture is formed.
4. It imparts our current level of knowledge as a platform upon which to build us into the future.

Obviously you can hold to a combination of those. I'm strongly a mixture of 2 and 4. That's the path to progress in my opinion. As such, while we need a strong basis in logic, critical thinking, etc we also need to provide where that has led us thus far.

There is a lot to be said for splitting academics from socialization, especially in the area of trades/jobs. One of the reasons so many people fall behind is that we're trying to teach monkeys to be monet. Not everyone can master engineering, nor can everyone be an eloquent speaker. People aren't the same, they aren't an 'average', they have strengths and weaknesses. While everyone deserves a shot we have to abandon this idea that an 80iq would be mechanic should get a BS in EE and an MBA. Not only would this stop pressuring those who can't, it would allow us to foucs on those that can and help them excel rather than holding them back with all the retards.

No, it's not politically correct, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. A good academic curriculum is for those with some future in academics and advanced thought. There's no reason to train those people to be clock-punchers...that hurts the entire world. Likewise we could do a lot to help the world by providing good socialization options and workforce training for those who are likely going to be well suited to that. Of course you should keep options open for everyone to cross around as they are able, but that's the exception and not the rule. Maybe this idea would fit with your wanting to thin out the curriculum by focusing the training on the people receiving it.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: purplehippo

The same can be said of your position. I just wanted to let others know there are opinions and other facts. True scientific study weighs all the evidence. As science advances and idea's are debunked more will be known. Theory is nothing more than a guess.

No, you're still wrong. Theories are not guesses and the same can not be said of my opinion. One side is logical conjecture based upon overwhelming observable evidence, and one is not. There are not "other" facts, there are merely the facts.

Well, there is this from dictionary.com:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.


Just thought I'd share.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: purplehippo

The same can be said of your position. I just wanted to let others know there are opinions and other facts. True scientific study weighs all the evidence. As science advances and idea's are debunked more will be known. Theory is nothing more than a guess.

No, you're still wrong. Theories are not guesses and the same can not be said of my opinion. One side is logical conjecture based upon overwhelming observable evidence, and one is not. There are not "other" facts, there are merely the facts.

Well, there is this from dictionary.com:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.


Just thought I'd share.

Don't forget this part, which is pretty crucial to the definition as a whole:

?Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

Or this part:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: purplehippo

The same can be said of your position. I just wanted to let others know there are opinions and other facts. True scientific study weighs all the evidence. As science advances and idea's are debunked more will be known. Theory is nothing more than a guess.

No, you're still wrong. Theories are not guesses and the same can not be said of my opinion. One side is logical conjecture based upon overwhelming observable evidence, and one is not. There are not "other" facts, there are merely the facts.

Well, there is this from dictionary.com:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.


Just thought I'd share.

Don't forget this part, which is pretty crucial to the definition as a whole:

?Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

Or this part:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

You know someone has lost when their last possible argument is based on the dictionary, and they fail to even quote that properly.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Well, there is this from dictionary.com:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

Thanks for sharing your emphasis on definition #7, the one that is least accurate and least related to the most common, most accepted first definition of a scientific theory. Or did you forget, we are talking about what should be taught in science classes? :roll:

Just thought I'd share.

That wasn't a thought. It was more like a brain fart. :laugh:

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: purplehippo

The same can be said of your position. I just wanted to let others know there are opinions and other facts. True scientific study weighs all the evidence. As science advances and idea's are debunked more will be known. Theory is nothing more than a guess.

No, you're still wrong. Theories are not guesses and the same can not be said of my opinion. One side is logical conjecture based upon overwhelming observable evidence, and one is not. There are not "other" facts, there are merely the facts.

Well, there is this from dictionary.com:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.


Just thought I'd share.

Don't forget this part, which is pretty crucial to the definition as a whole:

?Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

Or this part:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Almost contradictory isnt it? Kind of like this whole thread

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Well, there is this from dictionary.com:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

Thanks for sharing your emphasis on definition #7, the one that is least accurate and least related to the most common, most accepted first definition of a scientific theory. Or did you forget, we are talking about what should be taught in science classes? :roll:

Just thought I'd share.

That wasn't a thought. It was more like a brain fart. :laugh:

uh...I emphasized every definition except those that contained examples other than whats applicable here. Thanks for your selective reading though!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

uh...I emphasized every definition except those that contained examples other than whats applicable here. Thanks for your selective reading though!

No selective reading involved. Go back a few pages where I posted the complete list of definitions from another source.

To repeat, all you emphasized was the least relevant, least accurate, least accepted last definition that has nothing to do with the definition of a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, the ONLY defintion that means anything when discussing what should be included in the SCIENCE curriculum in public schools

And to continue the repetition, the Kool Aid sippers on the Florida school board were specifically dictating that SCIENTIFIC THEORY of evolution should NOT be included in their public SCIENCE classes.

I don't give a rat's ass what you want to believe, but keep your ooga booga mystery oil out of everyone else's public schools.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: purplehippo

The same can be said of your position. I just wanted to let others know there are opinions and other facts. True scientific study weighs all the evidence. As science advances and idea's are debunked more will be known. Theory is nothing more than a guess.

No, you're still wrong. Theories are not guesses and the same can not be said of my opinion. One side is logical conjecture based upon overwhelming observable evidence, and one is not. There are not "other" facts, there are merely the facts.

Well, there is this from dictionary.com:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

Just thought I'd share.

As others have mentioned, scientific theories the like of which we're talking about here (ie. evolution) are not guesses. A scientific theory has undergone rigorous testing and is based on a body of evidence.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1

uh...I emphasized every definition except those that contained examples other than whats applicable here. Thanks for your selective reading though!

No selective reading involved. Go back a few pages where I posted the complete list of definitions from another source.

To repeat, all you emphasized was the least relevant, least accurate, least accepted last definition that has nothing to do with the definition of a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, the ONLY defintion that means anything when discussing what should be included in the SCIENCE curriculum in public schools

And to continue the repetition, the Kool Aid sippers on the Florida school board were specifically dictating that SCIENTIFIC THEORY of evolution should NOT be included in their public SCIENCE classes.

I don't give a rat's ass what you want to believe, but keep your ooga booga mystery oil out of everyone else's public schools.

Thats fine too Harvey. On this issue, you can keep your arrogant, ever changing opinion-based "facts", and altogether confusing mystery oil outta MY schools. Deal?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
As an agent of the government I must absolutely keep my own personal beliefs and my job separate.

Do you think this attitude should be equally applied? Meaning to things other than the evolution/creation issue? What about MMGW? What about XXX? What about YYY?


You see, I think none of it should be in the schools( except for open debate but not part of the curriculumn perse). The public school system is so full of this other BS that they are forgetting the basics. Maybe if we concentrated on the basics instead of agendas, we wouldn't have as many kids falling behind or struggling to keep up.

Not sure I follow entirely. Religious issues are a special case, covered by the constitution and a whole grunch of case law. Not to mention just being downright obvious.

What else should be axed from curriculum in your opinion? And why?

There are many outlooks on what public education is. A few of them are:

1. It's a tool of socialization - preparing people to become productive workers and members of society.
2. It's a tool to teach people how to think (not what) - logic and reason are at a premium.
3. It provides a common set of information from which a common culture is formed.
4. It imparts our current level of knowledge as a platform upon which to build us into the future.

Obviously you can hold to a combination of those. I'm strongly a mixture of 2 and 4. That's the path to progress in my opinion. As such, while we need a strong basis in logic, critical thinking, etc we also need to provide where that has led us thus far.

There is a lot to be said for splitting academics from socialization, especially in the area of trades/jobs. One of the reasons so many people fall behind is that we're trying to teach monkeys to be monet. Not everyone can master engineering, nor can everyone be an eloquent speaker. People aren't the same, they aren't an 'average', they have strengths and weaknesses. While everyone deserves a shot we have to abandon this idea that an 80iq would be mechanic should get a BS in EE and an MBA. Not only would this stop pressuring those who can't, it would allow us to foucs on those that can and help them excel rather than holding them back with all the retards.

No, it's not politically correct, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. A good academic curriculum is for those with some future in academics and advanced thought. There's no reason to train those people to be clock-punchers...that hurts the entire world. Likewise we could do a lot to help the world by providing good socialization options and workforce training for those who are likely going to be well suited to that. Of course you should keep options open for everyone to cross around as they are able, but that's the exception and not the rule. Maybe this idea would fit with your wanting to thin out the curriculum by focusing the training on the people receiving it.

I was asking you how far your statement goes. I have already stated that I don't believe creationism should be "taught" nor do I believe a great many things should be "taught" in our schools because many of them fall into the area of personal opinion.

As to your 1-4. That's great you see yourself as a 2&4. However, I had teachers/professors who claimed to be #2 but were caught time after time allowing opinion to manifest itself in their curriculum/teaching.

I agree with much or your further comments but we are straying a bit far from the thread purpose. I've posted quite a bit on my education stance over the years here but maybe it's time for a new public education thread since this one is about the OP's problem with those who don't think like him.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: purplehippo

The same can be said of your position. I just wanted to let others know there are opinions and other facts. True scientific study weighs all the evidence. As science advances and idea's are debunked more will be known. Theory is nothing more than a guess.

No, you're still wrong. Theories are not guesses and the same can not be said of my opinion. One side is logical conjecture based upon overwhelming observable evidence, and one is not. There are not "other" facts, there are merely the facts.

Well, there is this from dictionary.com:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Just thought I'd share.

This is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

One of the focuses of this thread is "theory" as used in a scientific context, which falls under definitions 1 and 2 in your post.

Definitions 6 and 7 apply to "theory" as used in everyday life. For example, "I have a theory about Mary and Paul."

Evolution is a scientific theory, not an informal guess. For you to pretend that the latter applies to the former is disgusting.