Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 1002
EvolutionPage 40 of 64    (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64)
Hey Krebby...metaphors are NOT petty details. The petty details go without saying...always. Yet, if you continued to write this way you may have more power than when you approach the truth with certainty and stubborn existence that petty details and the factual is what really matters. Constructive is better where children are concerned, constructive when you are an adult demands that you push the limits of anywhere and everywhere./ Not true. Oaks and reeds are your companions and teach many lessons.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 1003
view profile
History
Evolution
Posted: 4/16/2011 9:24:13 PM
If suggesting the possibility of an "intelligent designer" is not "promoting theism", who, or what, do the creationists allege is responsible for evolution?


Whatever does that have to do with the notion as presented? Are you suggesting that every teacher who presents a theory actually PROVE the theory they present? A teacher does not have to allege or prove anything, merely to provide food for thought; isn't that an integral part of education? I thought the job of teachers, science teachers in particular, was to to provoke thought & discuss relevant theories. We haven't proven any one theory as to how we came to exist, but I don't see anyone here arguing that we shouldn't present the discussion in the classroom. It seems that you are reluctant to have presented only those theories that aren't in agreement with your own. There is a significant percentage of those who fund public education who at least acknowledge the theory of a creator. You want reality? Those who make a career of evolutionary biology take great delight in the lack of explanation for their own theories (think job security). You are taking a leap to make your assertions, no less of a leap than those whom you seem to feel are lacking in reasoning skills.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 1004
Evolution
Posted: 4/16/2011 9:56:29 PM
Evolution is a very good word for explaining the wow factor in existence. Re: Science, Art and Writing and the final and most important muse: Music. All of these wonderful movements point to something more than human pride and effort. Apparently, surgeons have been taken to task for operating while listening to music. And the animal and plant world knows when to do it....just right. Why? Oh its just an evolutionary movement. Yawn. God forbid that you believe in something more.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 1005
view profile
History
Evolution
Posted: 4/16/2011 10:45:58 PM

Of course, other children, more exposed to proselytization, might see Peeps as evidence for the existence of a deity.


Truth be told, children aren't "exposed to proselytization", as there is nothing to convert them from, actually, but even if they were, they are likely to see Peeps as marshmallow candy. I have no problem with atheism; it is the utterance of such ridiculous statements, all pointing to the notion of the intellectual superiority of those who spout such nonsense that is offensive, immature, disrespectful & indicative of insecurity. Give it a rest, will ya?!
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 1006
Evolution
Posted: 4/16/2011 11:19:33 PM
No child I ever met did not disbelieve in God. Including myself. What cured me of belief was the human race. Plain and simple. Evolution is besides the point.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 1007
view profile
History
Evolution
Posted: 4/17/2011 4:36:43 AM

If suggesting the possibility of an "intelligent designer" is not "promoting theism", who, or what, do the creationists allege is responsible for evolution?

Whatever does that have to do with the notion as presented?

Seems pretty direct to me. You said that to present a 'theory' about an 'intelligent designer' is not the same as "promoting theism".

Here are your exact words -
There ARE scientists who accept the possibility of an intelligent designer. To present that theory in science class, speculating & suggesting is not the same as promoting theism, it is merely presenting speculative alternate explanation of the unknown.

Recall that you suggest teaching this in a science class. Suggesting, in a science class, that an unknown entity called 'intelligent designer' went poof! and created all the animals and people in one go is bound to lead to questions wouldn't you say?
And the obvious question is - who or what is this 'intelligent designer'.

A deity by any other name is still a complete myth.

Are you suggesting that every teacher who presents a theory actually PROVE the theory they present?

Not necessarily, but at least some evidence should be required else educators would be faced with having to include any insane fantasy put forward by any crackpot pressure group.

A teacher does not have to allege or prove anything, merely to provide food for thought; isn't that an integral part of education?

Yes, but it's also integral that the "food for thought" they provide should have a rational basis. One suspects that's probably what disqualifies creationism.

I thought the job of teachers, science teachers in particular, was to to provoke thought & discuss relevant theories.

Perhaps, but that would be why creationism is not discussed or given serious attention. Because it isn't a theory. It's a set of beliefs that have no rational foundation.

We haven't proven any one theory as to how we came to exist, but I don't see anyone here arguing that we shouldn't present the discussion in the classroom.

You're only saying that because you either don't understand what 'theory' (in the scientific sense) means, or you're pretending not to.

It seems that you are reluctant to have presented only those theories that aren't in agreement with your own.

Not at all, where there is uncertainty or genuine confusion then it's the job of responsible educators to present both sides.
But speaking of responsibility, educators also have an obligation to provide the most advanced knowledge available and to ensure as far as possible that what they teach is correct.
That's why creationism isn't taught in schools.

So whether or not I personally agree with a theory is not what guides modern education practice. But rather, is it rational? Is there evidence and broad scientific support? Does it dovetail with other known scientific truths?

Once again, the answers to those questions give you the reason creationism isn't taught in schools, whereas evolution is.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 1008
Evolution
Posted: 4/17/2011 5:11:43 AM

There ARE scientists who accept the possibility of an intelligent designer.

ID does not meet the criteria for a scientific theory, so the only way it could be presented in a science class is as an example of a theory which doesn't qualify as science.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 1009
view profile
History
Evolution
Posted: 4/17/2011 7:09:42 AM
Ohwhynot46:
"Are you suggesting that every teacher who presents a theory actually PROVE the theory they present? A teacher does not have to allege or prove anything, merely to provide food for thought; isn't that an integral part of education? I thought the job of teachers, science teachers in particular, was to to provoke thought & discuss relevant theories. We haven't proven any one theory as to how we came to exist... "

YES. If they are TEACHERS, and not PROSELYTIZERS , then they will provide proof, or documentation containing the proof, for all theories they present to students.

YES: teachers can "provoke thought and discuss RELEVANT theories." But I.D. is NOT relevant to science, nor is it a THEORY.

YES, we HAVE proven theories as to how we came to exist, but you haven't gotten the education needed to be aware of them, and/or to understand the proofs. Your ignorance is NOT proof of their failure.

Any teacher who worked to encourage their students to confuse science with belief would at best be a very poor teacher undeserving of the title, and at worst be someone actively engaged in an effort to DECREASE knowledge and understanding in the world.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 1010
Evolution
Posted: 4/17/2011 8:15:20 PM
Any teacher who confuses science with religion is indeed very wrong. But any teacher who ignores the whole question of faith doesn't stand a chance of balancing anything. Separation of state and religion ..etc. As it should be. But. How very sterile and numbing. Too bad you can not have open ended discourse. Conscious and and aware and not your typical bible belt one note song. Note the replies and view on this single thread. Tells you more than all the denials will ever hope to.
Krebby....I get around buddy. Lots. Oh at least one hundred concrete miles today and that doesn't include the mind trips...sir.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 1011
view profile
History
Evolution
Posted: 4/17/2011 9:03:55 PM
"any teacher who ignores the whole question of faith doesn't stand a chance of balancing anything."
Well, I disagree thoroughly, from direct experience, but I can see that you are arguing from inside of a set viewpoint, and not from logic. Peace be unto you.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 1012
Evolution
Posted: 4/17/2011 9:30:18 PM
I object to your high handed dismissal. Even from your direct experience. And I can see that you are arguing from inside of a set viewpoint, and not from logic. Peace also be unto you. But....any teacher who ignores the whole question of faith doesn't stand a chance of balancing anything." La de dah. And logic is also up for debate. Actually logic would inform you that there is more to logic than what you singularly believe. I start with this premise.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 1013
Evolution
Posted: 4/17/2011 10:28:07 PM
Logic is logic. A set of standards. quote and unquote. Faith is always cast upon rock solid and empirical standards. So? We are talking as adults and no adult I know believes in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Ever. Logic is also relative after the fact is proven. In a very subtle and significant way..logic applies only to a specific proven in the whole of existence. After this factor comes more relative logic, etc. etc.
You can start by "worshipping" logic but you will end by standing on the edge of whatever chasm of logic you are are standing near. Faith is blessed by broader standards. "In every season there is a time..."
La de dah. Indeed.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 1014
Evolution
Posted: 4/17/2011 11:02:00 PM
Logically...what does your poem about beer have to do with anything? Illogical. Period. Are you drinking?
In every season there is a Krebby who will take you down to some kind of twisted logic that touches on smearing people who live in trailer parks...god....run down houses...god and pretends that he is used to a wide level of discourse. Your examples only betray your prejudices and faint and weak LOGIC. Anybody with a good dose of logic could and would understand that luminous logic exists anywhere and everywhere and I would never defend myself against your individual and dumb logic. Actually, you also sound like somebody with a chip on your shoulder. My chip is more relevant and wise than yours. For flippin sure. I frankly do not believe your analogy. I believe mine. More mercy and less magnamonious arrogance.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 1015
view profile
History
Evolution
Posted: 4/18/2011 3:33:47 PM

If you accept the permise that it would be a good thing to have this "open ended discourse " allowing for religious creation ( or ID or whatever the current fad name for it is) to be discussed in science classes; it would follow that if "open ended discourse" IS such a good thing & is something to be desired then "open ended discourse" should be allowed in churches/temple/etc so the congregation would be exposed to the creation stories of other religious faiths.


The open eneded discourse on ID/creationism would fit in nicely in Mythology curriculum in context with the other thousands of creation myths. It does not belong in a science class. There are plenty of bible school classes and religious colleges where kids can be indoctrinated to think of ID/creationism as a science, but that sort of indoctrination is not acceptable in a public science curriculum.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 1016
view profile
History
Evolution
Posted: 4/19/2011 2:26:39 AM
Krebby...ID/creationizm is not all that complicated. Should only take 5 minutes max to read and discuss, then move on to Turtle Island,Ravens, Slartibartfast, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 1017
view profile
History
Evolution
Posted: 4/19/2011 3:13:42 PM
Alan...I was just saying that in the Mythology curriculum, ID/christian mythology should be granted equal weight, not more, with the myriad of known creation myths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

As it stands, the ID/creationism crowd holds itself above all other mythologies, and equal or superior to science. Critical thinking if fully engaged, would consider all the mythologies and the commonalities of needs to create mythology, what common threads there might be, and the persistence of those mythologies over time, to name a few concepts. The current ID mythology is only 150 years old or so, and xian creationism is only a few thousand years old.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 1018
Evolution
Posted: 4/19/2011 9:55:26 PM
All well and good. There aren't many that believe we are brought into existence by storks and it is easy to dismiss bible thumpers. Easy. Whats hard to take is the so called rationalists gathering up evolution into a tight scientific bundle and daring anybody to disagee. No way. Same dynamic as the bible thumpers. Same. What matters is when you consciously understand that you stand on this earth supported by more than your so called evolved mind can grasp.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 1019
Evolution
Posted: 4/19/2011 11:52:09 PM
Wellllll...alan...they the rationalists or whatever you choose to call them should really take a break from Science and consider that what can be proven isn't what you deem it to be. What makes the difference is what really matters and what really counts. Big difference.
Oh yes, same dynamic. No opposing viewpoints allowed in your belief system.!!Creationism is easily discounted but what created the whole shebang is up for debate. Let it in. Relax. Science is not discounted but reinforced in a refreshing debate.
And if these so called Scientific specialists don't care....their loss. They should be way the heck more humble. Kripes. Same pride, same fall because of the pride as those who believe in a vengeful, ugly god.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 1020
Evolution
Posted: 4/20/2011 1:00:04 AM
I do not absolve you from reading me wrong. And I do not absolve myself from doing the same to you. But my faraway contact...you are wrong in your highhandness. I am not an anti-intellectual. At all. If you need to sip Glenndining or whatever... that is your choice. My choice is ....lively debate. I think..that ...that is your choice also. Relax. I am easy.. bedtime. goodnite.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 1021
Evolution
Posted: 4/20/2011 10:33:59 AM

Wellllll...alan...they the rationalists or whatever you choose to call them should really take a break from Science and consider that what can be proven isn't what you deem it to be.

Apparently, you don't understand the basic concept of science. Scientific theories can never be proven true. It's logically impossible to prove a theory true. It's only possible to falsify a theory which is wrong by finding evidence tyhat contradicts the theory. That, if nothing else, makes creationist theories laughable. The only way a creationist theory could become science is by making predictions that if contradicted by anything dicovered in the future, would falsify the existence of a creator.

Let it in.

Provide a scientific theory and that won't be a problem. Science isn't obigated to debate the merits of that which falls outside the scope of science.

And if these so called Scientific specialists don't care....their loss.

Science is what it is. If you don't like what it is, that's not science's problem.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 1022
view profile
History
Evolution
Posted: 4/20/2011 2:06:27 PM
The Science of why some don't believe in Science...aka why forums are useless for changing minds.

http://motherjones.com/print/106166
""A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." So wrote the celebrated Stanford University psychologist Leon Festinger" in 1950...
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 1023
Evolution
Posted: 4/20/2011 2:09:03 PM
Then matter existing eternally or coming from nothing in a naturalistic manner both of which cannot be proved true or false by scientific test, fall outside the domain of science.

That isn't correct. Everything has consequences, even if the consequences aren't obvious, so a theory which predicts that matter comes out of nothing will make predictions that are testable. Just because the tests aren't obvious, doesn't mean it can't be tested. It would be straighht forward to test a person's concept of god, too, but few people are willing to put their concept of god to a test or even admit their concept of god is scientifically testable.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 1024
Evolution
Posted: 4/20/2011 2:43:50 PM

I think that you are missing one aspect of "God", and that is no matter what humans may believe, if you are really testing for existence of God, wouldn't God have to be amenable to the process? I mean, how would you get God to acquiese to such a test?

If you believe that god actually does something, then I assume you could say what you think it is he does. If you can do that much, you can use to statistics to distinguish what you think god does from random chance. If god doesn't do better than random chance, your god isn't very good at what he does.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 1025
view profile
History
Evolution
Posted: 4/20/2011 6:11:13 PM
We are most likely not the first, nor the last sentient species on this blue ball with an onion skin of an atmosphere. Douglas Adams addressed this nicely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojydNb3Lrrs

Just because we crawled out for a bit and became dominant arses, does not mean the rest of the planet does not harbor a superior intellect in many places. We are afterall, the ones who created wars, nuclear weapons, biological weaponry, tainted every living thing with carcinogens, unleashed a pandora's box of genetically modified frankenfoods, nanotech, and oils spills for all god's critters, unleashed the power of the atom, use it widely in DU weaponry, devour soils and forest faster than they can grow. Little evidence of sentience there. Not a hard act to follow, but a hard one to survive with 25% of species condemned to extinction because of our silly human tricks. Perhaps the saving grace for life in this small outpost in the expanding universe is that the majority of sentient species do not rely on a made-up god to justify such criminal behavior.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 1026
Evolution
Posted: 4/20/2011 10:24:16 PM
A very general and actually good definition of why God...ooops this is the evolution site. We have evolved past a need for God...and all is allrite. Think so?
In very silent ways... a way of accepting, a way of knowing and a way to still the anxiousness presents freely...no dollar amount attached. Open to viewing. Parallel to the strict, scientific universe where all wonder is kicked out for being beside the point. Because every scientific discovery and implementation is what really matters. Progress. Yawn. What matters is why you can step up and be comforted in such a silent and poignant way. Its free of charge. All the rest is just busy work that pans out to a whole lot of promise followed by the eventual fallout. Who can afford the scientific marvels achieved in the medical system in the U.S.A.???? Yawn.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >