Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Knight Templar on December 15, 2004, 02:15:41 am
-
So I'm in journalism class (which produces the school paper) and we're brainstorming article ideas for the next edition. We're going over ideas for the theme of the feature section ( two pages where we do a series of articles on one topic) and of course all of the normal teen dribble gets thrown out there... Drugs, Teen Depression, Teen Suicide, Homework... **** that nobody cares about and that we've covered in every issue previous since I can remember. So I suggest that we write about foreign countries / customs / culture and such, you know, to give a little flavor instead of beating several dead horses at once.
It's not so much that I expected the tards' to accept my idea as it was keeping it open. Yet, at the end of our brainstorming session, our teacher/advisor made her call to dismiss a few things and started with my idea. Again, it's not so much that I expected it to fly as much as I wanted people to think that it should and give it a second thought. So I verbally expressed my displeasure to which the response from our Copy Editor was "Oh shut up (KT), no one else really cares about history and countries. We're not a history magazine made to bore people to death."
The whole 'teenager means you're a dumbass drunk who's idea of 'news' is keeping up on the current rate of how many of your drunk ass friends kill theselves because their parents won't buy them their new muffler for their queer ass honda civic" is ****ing stupid as hell and I'm officially annoyed.
-
Welcome to America, Land of the Mindnumbed Pop-Culture Robots.
I saw a study a few weeks ago that concluded that the American attention span has decreased from almost an hour to about 55 seconds, thanks largely to the dren that the television networks have stuffed down our throats. We don't even watch TV anymore, with the widespread adoption of the Remote Control, TV has gone from classics like Bonanza and I Love Lucy with their long shots some as much as 2 minutes to shows like ER and CSI where the average shot lasts all of about 15 seconds. Pay attention next time you're watching TV, "watching" being a misnomer as you're actually going *clik* *clik* *clik* flashing by all of the 200+ stations you have to see if something better is on.
-
I'm rather annoyed though that my teacher (while being 26 herself, thus still rather young) agreed with it.
Just because stereotypes and media say that our audiences 'expecpts' and 'mainly cares' about contraception, teen suicide, teen depression, drugs and booze, doesn't mean we need to write six goddamn articles about it and make it the feature of every goddamn issue. Hell, I consider myself to be able to look at both sides of the card, and I don't see how any of that **** can appeal to anyone other than the person writing it, and that being only because it was their idea. I get bored reading one article about the pill™ and condoms. Just because we're a high school newspaper doesn't mean we have to emulate all the stupid **** that gets connated along with our environment. If anything, I'd think we'd be the ones to help define that environment, not conform to it's assumed form.
Eurgh.
As a consolation, however, Religon did get on the list of prospective feature topics, which I am going to push all the way. I'm a bit frightened to see what sorts of cookie-cutter articles come out of it though.
-
Do you have the option of sneaking in subversive messages into the paper on account of being the only one who knows jack all about computers?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Do you have the option of sneaking in subversive messages into the paper on account of being the only one who knows jack all about computers?
what he needs is to put fnords in the articles.
-
You have it good, KT. In my history class, I'm grouped with a couple of people who (Literally) can't point out Africa on the map. Or Europe :doubt:.
-
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
You have it good, KT. In my history class, I'm grouped with a couple of people who (Literally) can't point out Africa on the map. Or Europe :doubt:.
:eek2: jeebus... can they even point out their own damn country?
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
:eek2: jeebus... can they even point out their own damn country?
that's easy. it's the biggest country on the map.
-
I think so. I can't be too sure...
-
Originally posted by kode
that's easy. it's the biggest country on the map.
so they'd point to russia?
-
I read the topic title and thought: 'very'
that's about it....
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
so they'd point to russia?
rumor says most of them actually did in some study.
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
so they'd point to russia?
or china
-
This sounds like a problem that could be solved with hair dye, a trenchcoat and several thousands dollars worth of assault rifles and military-grade explosives.
Go on, KT, show 'em what a real stereotype can do.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
...The whole 'teenager means you're a dumbass drunk who's idea of 'news' is keeping up on the current rate of how many of your drunk ass friends kill theselves because their parents won't buy them their new muffler for their queer ass honda civic" is ****ing stupid as hell and I'm officially annoyed....
meh, this whole rant is pretty funny coming from someone who a few threads ago boasted about getting away with not reading the Republic..
-
yes the multiland cultures that go La la la la lal la la
-
Originally posted by Cabbie
or china
Or Canada
:D
-
yes, most American teenagers are very stupid. Thankfully, I'm one of the smart ones. The other day in history class we were reviewing for some super-easy test that you must pass to graduate. Our teacher asked a multiple choice question about what the two countries in the Cold War were. And NO ONE knew the answer. I just sat there dumfounded for a second and finally said "how can anyone not know this!" It was sad to say the least. :no:
-
Well ****.
And I was thinking we had a few dumb people around......
Mind, I'm doing the highest level of Dutch secondary education (I'm in 5 VWO right now), so I might not be getting an average population cross-section, but this really does take the cake.
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
so they'd point to russia?
Nah, since America is in the center of american maps, russia and china are cut in half, and it's not too hard for any dumbass to point to the center of a map. :doubt:
See? This is the general education level of most of the people I've gone to school with. And it's terribly depressing that these are the people who will be running the country in another 10-30 years. :doubt:
-
No, no... the next generation of Chinese are gonna whip their country into shape and be the next superpower. We won't be running the world in 10-30 years, they will.
edit: whoah, ph34r the 1111 posts
-
It never occured to me that other countries would produce maps with themselves in the centre.
Always assumed that the Grenwich Meridian would be the centre of all maps, as it would be the logical thing to do.
-
its ok, i had some people in my graduating class who still cant read, but football players get whatever they want in West Texas so....
-
Heh, how long do you think that 0GMT is going to stay in Grenwich? Didn't you know America invented Time, so it should be centred there!
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
IJust because stereotypes and media say that our audiences 'expecpts' and 'mainly cares' about contraception, teen suicide, teen depression, drugs and booze, doesn't mean we need to write six goddamn articles about it and make it the feature of every goddamn issue. Hell, I consider myself to be able to look at both sides of the card, and I don't see how any of that **** can appeal to anyone other than the person writing it, and that being only because it was their idea. I get bored reading one article about the pill™ and condoms. Just because we're a high school newspaper doesn't mean we have to emulate all the stupid **** that gets connated along with our environment. If anything, I'd think we'd be the ones to help define that environment, not conform to it's assumed form.
perhaps you should write about that, not like anyone in the school would give a **** anyway
-
Originally posted by redsniper
No, no... the next generation of Chinese are gonna whip their country into shape and be the next superpower. We won't be running the world in 10-30 years, they will.
edit: whoah, ph34r the 1111 posts
I said country. ;) We're already losing control of the world. Which is for the best, I guess, but no one ruler should rule the world alone.
-
Unfortunately, what should happen and what actually happens rarely coincide.
-
Teacher veto sucks. Though if you get to write about religion, you could definitely make up for the lack of other countryness through making fun of christians/ity.
Alternately, if they're really hung up on the whole teen thing, try for a "Teen stupidity" article. "Six ou of ten students at this school did not know where New Zealand was." Or whatever.
-
American pop culture sucks!
Wait, never mind.
I'm drinking Coke right now.
-
I did knew that some teens in usa was stupid but that is just insane
but some of that stupidity is US school system's fault
-
No HIG, a large portion is. The Teachers can't teach because they have to cater to political demagogues who haven't set foot in a classroom since they left college. They're too busy satisfying some inane political requirement that the actual lesson get's left behind.
-
My US History teacher is rather unhappy that the state requires him to teach Woodrow Wilsons '14 Rules' because they had no real lasting effect, with the possible exception of the 'League of Nations,' although even that didn't last too long. Says it's taking away valuable time to learn important things.
-
Originally posted by Holy Imperial Gloriano
I did knew that some teens in usa was stupid but that is just insane
but some of that stupidity is US school system's fault
do you have first hand experience? who knows, it might even teach people grammar.
-
I wish I was still in HighSchool - preferably 4th year when it just became legal for us all to shag folk... many things would be changed I say!
-
Let's face it, people are idiots, especially today's youth. I once asked a classmate in grade 7/8 how many provinces territories our country (Canada) had and to name him. He said something like 22 provinces and 7 territories and he started to name them, Ontario, London, after that came Africa and England and I told him to shut up before he embarasses himself.
Another time, in grade 10 academic science class, a couple weeks ago our teacher had to explain why heartburn was called heartburn when it was acid in the stomach. After explaining how medical terms are old and pre-date extensive study and researcg, someone actually asked how the people back then knew they had hearts/knew what a heart was.
And math continues to be a joke, thankfully I a 'gifted' and not an idiot. In fact a friend and I are the first students to ever 'curricular compact' in Canada, if we are successful it could become widespread.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
No HIG, a large portion is. The Teachers can't teach because they have to cater to political demagogues who haven't set foot in a classroom since they left college. They're too busy satisfying some inane political requirement that the actual lesson get's left behind.
Which shows how little you know about the education system. Teachers have to constantly take new classes related to their field to keep their job.
I'm assuming you were home schooled, or otherwise taught with the Texan textbooks that the midwest and south use.
Yes, that's right in the US there are two editions of textbooks. 'California' and 'Texas' editions. (Though both are really 'New York light' and 'New York heavy' editions more than California or Texas) The ones in the south censor quite a few things (I always assumed that it'd just have another stance on the causes of the Civil War, but with modern textbooks focusing more on economic and social causes for the war it seems that censoring certain segments of the pre-war, war, and reconstruction period has become the norm) and put interesting slants on science. Yes, I've read and looked at science, math, and history books from both. :p
Which I think is the root of the problem in the US. People creating division when there shouldn't be one. Folks being taught by sub-par textbooks won't be able to compete on the global market, etc.
On average the whole 'history makes whites look bad, so let's censor it!' is alive and well in a good chunk of the US. ...and sadly some folks want to sanitize it further.
Another major problem is that ciriculums aren't standardized other then some basic requirements. So if you're moving between school districts (or even worse, states) you'll have to play a lot of catch-up. This can be especially bad when moving between geographic regions of the country due to subtle and some not-so-subtle changes in textbooks and ciriculum.
Then home schooling really skews things because you have some very smart and very dumb people effectively outside of the system. Ever-increasing because people are pulling kids out of schools because it's obvious that public education is "evil and liberal." (Yet the areas with high homeschooling are ones using the conservativized Texas textbooks...) Now, there are legitimate reasons for homeschooling, especially in a very rural area or for children with learning disabilities. However, a good chunk of the people now doing it are bandwagoners whose protectionism only backfires when the kids enter college...
Anyway, the defense of any democracy is a well educated middle class. ...and right now we don't have one due to intentional misinformation and revision of history and science for the 'greater good' of certain citizens.
-
Originally posted by Raa
Nah, since America is in the center of american maps, russia and china are cut in half, and it's not too hard for any dumbass to point to the center of a map. :doubt:
:wtf: Are you serious? I've never seen a map like that over here in Oregon.
-
The problem with people, kids included, is not educational, its cultural. The education system plays a very small role in the general social upbringing of people,.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The problem with people, kids included, is not educational, its cultural. The education system plays a very small role in the general social upbringing of people,.
Agreed. In the US intelligence is frowned upon unlike in China.
Now if we had a group that believed in individual freedoms, individualism, as well as intelligence at the same time :p Oh well...
-
Liberator's right. States' public education curriculums are being decimated because of the ludicrous standards set by standardized tests, which are imposed by politicians who don't know jack **** about education. My school is neck deep in this ****, and Massachusetts boasts one of the best systems in the country. I've seen several different documentaries using Texas as a case study. Politics is screwing education hard. (Although I don't know if Liberator will agree with me that this disaster is partially attributable to No Child Left Behind.)
-
I'll get flamed for saying this, but why do you want to meet Europeans, Ace ? :p
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Liberator's right. States' public education curriculums are being decimated because of the ludicrous standards set by standardized tests, which are imposed by politicians who don't know jack **** about education. My school is neck deep in this ****, and Massachusetts boasts one of the best systems in the country. I've seen several different documentaries using Texas as a case study. Politics is screwing education hard. (Although I don't know if Liberator will agree with me that this disaster is partially attributable to No Child Left Behind.)
The problem is more deep-rooted then just the politicians.
Often we hear children in education referred to as a 'product.' Companies want to have quantifiable results to judge whether an entry level employee is capable of doing their job or not based on their education.
Generally we don't hear about problems with acredited schools and companies accepting employees from them as the students have to meet standards to graduate.
The problem is, as opposing to adopting the college system and installing it in the public schools as a method of gaining credits for a diploma or degree standardized testing is being done. The main reason is because the tests are cheap to do and don't require a lot of changes.
The problem is though that the very intelligent and disabled folks are the ones who suffer in a scenario where people are forced to 'teach to a test.'
What could work is rethinking the testing standards, having one universal cirriculum and textbook style. (i.e. multiple potential books and publishers, but all must cover the same material in a similar way) Then special needs students get tutoring.
That is, as opposed to homeschooling you have teachers who actually have the education to do the teaching for the otherwise homeschooled students. (Also keeping a low teacher to student ratio of say between 1:1-1:4)
-
Fear of intellect seems to be common in the Western World in general. Oriental and Middle Eastern countries prize it, but, as Ace has already said, in the UK, America and large areas of Europe. intelligence is not rated as a quality.
If a child in a class out-argues his teacher in the UK or America, is he gifted or merely cheeky? The opinions differ from West to East. Yes, there are abherrations in that system, some Middle Eastern countries discourage education to too high a level, some Western countries encourage it, but this seems to be a general trend.
In the UK, they coped with their dropping grades by making the exams easier. Suddenly we have an influx of highly qualified people who can't find a job to suit their qualifications.
-
Originally posted by Ace
The problem is more deep-rooted then just the politicians.
Often we hear children in education referred to as a 'product.' Companies want to have quantifiable results to judge whether an entry level employee is capable of doing their job or not based on their education.
Generally we don't hear about problems with acredited schools and companies accepting employees from them as the students have to meet standards to graduate.
The problem is, as opposing to adopting the college system and installing it in the public schools as a method of gaining credits for a diploma or degree standardized testing is being done. The main reason is because the tests are cheap to do and don't require a lot of changes.
The problem is though that the very intelligent and disabled folks are the ones who suffer in a scenario where people are forced to 'teach to a test.'
What could work is rethinking the testing standards, having one universal cirriculum and textbook style. (i.e. multiple potential books and publishers, but all must cover the same material in a similar way) Then special needs students get tutoring.
That is, as opposed to homeschooling you have teachers who actually have the education to do the teaching for the otherwise homeschooled students. (Also keeping a low teacher to student ratio of say between 1:1-1:4)
That's right, but I think it's quite evident that this is the result of politicians either thinking concretely or catering to people who do. They treat education like a business so that they can say they're demanding "results." I mean, I know it's true here. Governor Romney is running everything like a corporation.
-
Originally posted by PeachE
meh, this whole rant is pretty funny coming from someone who a few threads ago boasted about getting away with not reading the Republic..
Well, you obviously missed the entire point of both threads. I chose to read The Republic and do a report on it. The point of the other thread was not to say that I don't have to read any literature at all, but that I can get away from asignments when I don't feel like doing them and how much of a problem that is / creates in my life. It's not like I won't be reading that and the four other half finished books I have lying around, over christmas break.
On a side note: We did get Religon cleared, so I'm probably going to overload myself on fun articles to do. I'm already planning on writing an article on our current Jihad, and another mostly concerning our own government or the Middle East put of d00m. I'm also going to get a few more articles about Iraq and foreign policy in which makes me happy.
Just to let you guys know, I really don't think the tardation on some of the students at my school is due to teachers. On the whole, all the teachers I've had there, including my Journalism Advisor, are hard-working, dedicated folks. It's not their fault really that most kids just can't be assed, or don't want to care. If anything, that's more related to the entire educational curriculum system and how it's administered, not their faults. And yeah, vetoing sucks, but Religon was my second choice, so I can't complain so much anymore.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
That's right, but I think it's quite evident that this is the result of politicians either thinking concretely or catering to people who do. They treat education like a business so that they can say they're demanding "results." I mean, I know it's true here. Governor Romney is running everything like a corporation.
No, it's about the politicians actively working to keep the status quo unchanged so that they can use as an issue in the next election.
-
The whole education thing pisses me off.
I live in colorado, home of the CSAP (Colorado student assesment program). The CSAP was spawned as the result of a tax increase bill for education. That's right. We had some hundreds of millions of dollar tax increase go to making up some stupid ****ing test. That's just the beginning. This test was designed to "reward the good scoring schools". So we take money away from the schools that aren't doing very well and give it to the schools who are doing well. All the teachers told all the kids to get good scores. And we did. Then our brilliant state government realized that one reason that some of those schools did bad on the tests was because of lack of funding. Now, one other factor. Teachers were in danger of losing their jobs if the kids didn't do well on these tests as a way to "cut off the dead weight" (never mind that we have a teacher shortage...). Enter previous factor. Now they give money to the schools that didn't do so well. So that gives the teachers two choices. One: Encourage students to do well, face budget cuts, keep job Two: Encurage students to do poorly, get higher budget, face potential to lose job. We're currently in the middle of this. Also, for grades 1->about 10, 90% of the curriculum is geared towards learning what is on these tests (which most of the time was taught the first time a few years back...), so most of the year is just review of previously taught stuff, and about a month before the CSAP itself, the teachers go into "completely off the wall please don't take my job mode" where they start doing overhead presentations on such things as "guessing strategies", and "the traffic light method of writing paragraphs". Thankfully I am in 12th grade with higher level classes, so 1) I don't have to take it 2) teachers can focus on actually teaching us something.
Oh, yeah, and sometime between the cold war and now, it seems that apathy has become 'cool'.
[/rant]
-
No, it's about the politicians actively working to keep the status quo unchanged so that they can use as an issue in the next election.
But everywhere you look the politicians are ranting about "upping standards" and spitting out more standardized testing. Instead of just establishing standards, they're looking for growth, like it's some kind of market. So even though my school is 5th in the god damned state, if we don't show improvement, we're an "underperforming" school.
-
That's true Ford, I do agree that standardized tests prove nothing and don't actually do anything other than cause immense and crippling anxiety.
The politicians should butt the hell out and leave educating to the educators. Just sign the check and keep you're noses out of something you don't understand. This also extends to other 3rd parties. School is a place of learning, not social indoctrination/experimentation.
-
Well then Lib, you you actually believe that education belongs to the educators and not social engineers, then you'd agree with a biology class not having a segment on creationism as that is a religious matter that should be in a religious studies class, not a biology one.
-
No, Ace, I think that biology classes should have a section called "Theories on the Origin of Life on Earth" that presents all credible theories on the subject, be it creation, evolution, intelligent design, ect. I don't think that any of them should be presented as "The Explanation", it should be left to the students to decide which they will accept.
-
Heh heh. Well, our agreement was nice while it lasted. :)
-
oooh! I want to play on the teaching evolution/creation in schools game!
Science classes should teach things that have been if not proven, but supported by scientific methods. Evolution and perhaps ID.
Church should teach things laid down by the bible, like Creationism.
Given the (theoretical) multi-religious background of all the students in any given class, this will avoid having to teach other creation myths, such as those in eastern religions, and getting nothing done but telling stories in a bioligy class.
-
That's a good point. If they teach Biblical creationism, do they have to teach Shiva's cycle of destruction and redemption or the Aboriginal Dreamtime?
-
I would prefer that neither be taught except to mention in passing and for biology classes to worry less about origin and more about workings like they're supposed to.
Evolution theory(and it is a theory only) is being used by Atheists who want to push their agenda and indoctrinate students against their faith.
-
yeah its a scientific theory, just like relitivity and gravity
-
Perhaps, but I can prove gravity exists by dropping an anvil on you're head and relativity by showing film of an atomic bomb. Evolution hasn't, as yet, provided enough evidence in such a way that it can be accepted by the general populace without making a larger leap of faith than most religions require. Hellfire, it has only slightly more evidence than Intelligent Design.
-
take just enough antibiotics to make you feel good next time you get an infection.
-
Originally posted by Anaz
[/rant]
Same thing more or less here, although it's more due to No-Child-Left-Behind.
Originally posted by Lib
Perhaps, but I can prove gravity exists by dropping an anvil on you're head and relativity by showing film of an atomic bomb. Evolution hasn't, as yet, provided enough evidence in such a way that it can be accepted by the general populace without making a larger leap of faith than most religions require. Hellfire, it has only slightly more evidence than Intelligent Design.
The world around you is proof enough that it's true. Plus, it's been written in books and supported by at least a dozen people throughout history.
... oh wait... that's your faiths' proof. My bad.
Originally posted by Liberator
No, Ace, I think that biology classes should have a section called "Theories on the Origin of Life on Earth" that presents all credible theories on the subject, be it creation, evolution, intelligent design, ect. I don't think that any of them should be presented as "The Explanation", it should be left to the students to decide which they will accept.
I like the nobility of a balanced breakfast and all, but not for dinner. Biology is a science, and thus, gives the scientific explaination for how life is created and advanced. It's not a class of religon or faith. That's called Theology. I mean, you don't expect your church to include evolution as a possibility in a sermon, do you? Just so that it won't offend anyone or try to pressure a beleif on them? Of course not. Those people would be in the wrong place, as would people in a science class offended by evolution. That's why they're allowed to leave at those times.
I have a good friend who is a Jehova's Witness. When evolution time came around in Biology, he didn't whine, he didn't complain, he didn't protest, and he didn't refute anything. He explained to the teacher that the lesson plan conflicted with his beleifs and he'd like to be excused from it. So he got a seperate assignment and did that. No fuss, no muss, no worries, no problems.
-
you know what might be fun haveing a segment were you just have an evolutionist and a creationist argue with each other for a page or two, have it pickup right were it left off last week
and you just know he's gona come back with 'Creation Science'™
-
Originally posted by Liberator
No, Ace, I think that biology classes should have a section called "Theories on the Origin of Life on Earth" that presents all credible theories on the subject, be it creation, evolution, intelligent design, ect. I don't think that any of them should be presented as "The Explanation", it should be left to the students to decide which they will accept.
Creationism belongs in a religions class, not a science class. That is like trying to have a Home Ec. instructor teach woodworking.
Evolution theory(and it is a theory only) is being used by Atheists who want to push their agenda and indoctrinate students against their faith
Creation theory (and it is a theory only) is being used by right wing nutcases who want to push their agenda and indoctrinate students against their faith.
-
That'd have potential, save that nobody would really care.
I'm actually not sure if that's a good or bad thing.
-
Just keep apples with apples and oranges with oranges in this case and you will be much happier.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I would prefer that neither be taught except to mention in passing and for biology classes to worry less about origin and more about workings like they're supposed to.
Evolution theory(and it is a theory only) is being used by Atheists who want to push their agenda and indoctrinate students against their faith.
You cannot understand the future, if you do not understand the past.
Creationist propaganda should not be taught in school, as geological evidence of the Earth's actual age counters it. *cough* 6k yr old earth*cough-hack*
-
Some clarification because some people don't understand what a theory is.
A theory is an explanation of why things are the way they are. An example of this is theory concerning the electromagnetic force. It explains why electric fields do what they do.
Meanwhile, the actual effects of electric fields are described by laws (Coulomb's law in this case: (k(Q_1)(Q_2)) / (r^2) ), which are rules to describe what things actually do. This is derived from empirical findings.
A theory, if accepted by scientists, is a fairly solid thing that isn't "theoretical" and in science limbo land like some people claim. Although some solid, long-lasting theories do eventually get replaced (Newton's theories by Einstein's for example).
Singling out evolution because it's a "theory" just shows that you don't understand science.
-
Had a change of heart, eh?
I was wonderring who you were referring to, anyways.
-
yeah, what non-americans have shown there stupidity?
(I just love undoing someone's edit)
-
Originally posted by Raa
Had a change of heart, eh?
I was wonderring who you were referring to, anyways.
Didn't want to contribute to the upcoming creation vs. evolution flame war any more than I have to. :p
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Evolution theory(and it is a theory only) is being used by Atheists who want to push their agenda and indoctrinate students against their faith.
yes, it is just a theory. but so is ALL science taught in any school. just theories backed up by lots of data. but i'm sure you're not ready to cut the science programs just yet.
Creationism.. on the other hand.. isn't even theory. it's a theological hypothesis based on nothing more than faith. which is precisely why it should not be taught in schools, particularly not in science classes, not even in passing. because there is no scientific basis for it whatsoever.
and btw, the agenda isn't about pushing athiesm or getting students to give up their faith (believe it or not, most athiests really don't give a rats ass what you believe). it's about putting an end to faith-based education and initiatives of any faith. there is a significant difference between a secular agenda and and what you call an athiest agenda.
-
Personally I do think creationism should be taught. In a religion class. A world religion class should cover all forms of creationism. One dealing with Jeudaism or Christianity should then just cover their form of creationism.
A science class however is no place for creationism, it is not a scientific theory. It'd be like discussing astrology in an astronomy class.
-
Something you'll notice if you read the chapters of Genesis dealing with the Creation:
Man was created after the "six days and on the seventh He rested" section, and unlike so many other things, such as the lineage from Adam to Noah, there isn't a length of time given, so the Earth is likely many millions of years old.
There is no conflict as to the age of the Earth as far as I am concerned.
We really should start a new thread though if you want to discuss...discuss creation, evolution and the Bible. This thread is about the horrid state of the American Educational system.
-
Which resulted in stating that political agendas are leading to the problems.
Which led to my stating one such agenda and your proving exactly why its an issue.
You won't let a science class discuss pure science. If that can't happen, let's imagine what happens to other subjects?
-
Pure science is fine, I like pure science. Pure Science doesn't really ever conflict with Faith. Evolution steps above pure science as an issue however, because it conflicts directly with Faith. Darwin never claimed that the Creation didn't happen, unlike the people that hijacked his theory, he only theorized that certain...certain disparate, but similar species appeared to have developed where there was once only one. You cretins have perverted that so that now(according to you) every living creature from the soaring eagle to lowly earthworm sprang from a bloody aeomeba.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Pure science is fine, I like pure science. Pure Science doesn't really ever conflict with Faith.
Right...
Geology doesn't conflict with Faith. Paleantology doesn't conflict with Faith. Archaeology doesn't conflict with Faith.
... :doubt:
-
Pure science is fine, I like pure science. Pure Science doesn't really ever conflict with Faith. Evolution steps above pure science as an issue however, because it conflicts directly with Faith.
So a science isn't pure as soon as it conflicts with your particular faith eh?
-
I've become convinced that the American K-12 school system is meant to produce docile, efficient little workers. Day after day of grudge work, obedience to authority, typically involving tests which have little bearing on a student's academic performance.
I've been lucky, I suppose, in that a lot of the people in High School seem pretty smart people compared to the horror stories I hear on the internet. Or maybe that's just the crowd I've ended up with?
Anyway, re the science debate, evolution (to some degree) has been proven to exist. The 'theory of evolution' is an explanation, backed by scientific findings, that explains how life developed. Thus it is in scientific terms a theory, with the same validity of relativity or gravity. (If you don't believe me, go look up genetics, perform some experiments. At the very least it will help youintelligently debate the subject.)
However, I have no problem with Creationism being taught in schools as an explanation for Where Life Came From - mostly as a compromise to people who can't stand evolution because it goes against the bible. If there are any other ideas floating around (intelligent design) they could be covered as well; it might increase curriculum time but it would let students examine the evidence for themselves.
Unfortunately, I suspect many parents would still be afraid of their children making their own decision on the subject.
Edit: A science class however is no place for creationism, it is not a scientific theory. It'd be like discussing astrology in an astronomy class.
Why not? If you're studying constellations at all it doesn't seem unreasonable to toss that in. It could even help make them memorable.
-
Pure science doesn't conflict with faith because it has nothing to do with faith. Just observation and logical extrapolation.
Theories are based on logical extrapolation of how things behave with the evidence we have.
Evolution and relativity are theories.
Theories are taught in science classes.
Creationism, Triclavianism, etc. are all subjects of theology. Which should be taught in a religious studies class or even in sociology when dealing with religion as an element of societies.
Also, faith and doctrine are two different things.
Anyway, this is supposed to be about the education system. Not an example of on-line tutoring :p
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Pure science is fine, I like pure science. Pure Science doesn't really ever conflict with Faith. Evolution steps above pure science as an issue however, because it conflicts directly with Faith. Darwin never claimed that the Creation didn't happen, unlike the people that hijacked his theory, he only theorized that certain...certain disparate, but similar species appeared to have developed where there was once only one. You cretins have perverted that so that now(according to you) every living creature from the soaring eagle to lowly earthworm sprang from a bloody aeomeba.
Actually, an amoeba is a relatively advanced single celled organism. The most common current contention, AFAIK, is that life began as self replicaing unenclosed RNA or possibly PNA (to eliminate the stability problems of having a moecular backbone of sugar groups).
Originally posted by Anaz
Science classes should teach things that have been if not proven, but supported by scientific methods. Evolution and perhaps ID.
Gotta dump ID as well I'm afraid. As much as I tend to dislike Occams Razor, the application here is pretty straightforward. ID contends that evolution occurs, but is being guided and triggered by an all seeing, all knowing, physics defying deity. But when we have acceptable theories of chemical initiation and natural selection to begin and guide life, there's no need to continue to complicate the issue with ID.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Why not? If you're studying constellations at all it doesn't seem unreasonable to toss that in. It could even help make them memorable.
actually my astronomy class did go over astrology somewhat. basically the professor said "astrology is bull****". he also showed a video of carl sagan saying "astrology is bull****".
on another note: astrology is bull**** (http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=astrology)
-
Originally posted by Ace
...Triclavianism...
But how many nails were used to crucify Christ hasn't got anything to do with science.:confused:
Ace, I don't really care if they teach evolution or not.
My objection comes when students are ridiculed and marginalized as idiots by their instructors if they don't accept it as Truth.
-
Religion is hereditary, you get it from your parents, or, on most occasions this is true. In most cases, religion can influence a child much earlier in their life than science can, however, to a certain degree, I am inclined to agree with you, if you have reached maturity, and you have heard both sides of the argument, and you have reached your own decision, it should be respected.
-
I am not too concerned about them teaching Creation in science class, as long as it is high school, by which time kids will probably not blindly believe whatever they're taugh before thinking it over.
..although, with the dumb classmates you guys are describing I'm not so sure that can be relied upon.
I'm interested, does anyone know of any piece of evidence that supports creation theory?
Evolution has not been proven by any measure, but it does have some evidence that supports it, like mutations that a virus undergoes that allow it to survive in different forms for example?
Here are some arguments that I know of:
-The second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy) states that the level of order in a system will decrease with time if the system is closed from outside sources of enery. Therefore, since the presence of life is a higher order state of the world than the absence of life, something/someone must have come in and created life, an outside influence to the system.
The rebuttal here would be that the Earth is not a closed system and it receives energy from the sun. (However, if creation claims that God created the sun as well this gets deeper into the start of the universe)
-Another argument says that there have not been found many definite fossils that belong to a definite intermediate species between two others.
But I think that lack of evidence for evolution does not make creation true.
-And one more is the obvious complexity of living creatures and the absurdity that something like that could have happened all by itself.
To this evolutionist can only say that there is a tiny chance of a start of life from molecules, and over a billion years it had time to take place.
I am not saying that the creationism's arguments are bogus. They are not always easily dismissed.
But does anyone know of any other arguments for Creationism. (Besides 'It's in the Bible!'). I'm just wondering how a Creationism class would go, what would the teacher say to the class?
-
Start here. (http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/evidencefor/evidencefor.html) I can't vouch for the other content, but this list is a good start, as far as actual evidence goes and the sources are posted below the list.
Here (http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/se_evidn4.html) is a slightly more in-depth version of the same list.
-
That's interesting, thanks.
I actually read a few books on Creationism for a project, they're very entertaining.
-
:lol: Lib, you cannot be serious... search for those "evidences" in any search engine and see what you will find...
Does anyone else wonder why only in the US do people contest that creationism should be taught in school, even though they have far less percentage of christian population than say... almost every country in europe?
Anyway, off to packing again... hope to be back soon after the holidays :)
Porcaria do calor, espero não morrer á sede na Tanzania :shaking:
-
Ghost, the only reason you won't find that kind of information on "legitimate" science site is because they are on the opposite side of the issue 10 out of 10 times.
-
Have you considered that most, if not all the "evidence" brought up by these so called creationist is flawed?
For example, an easy one, the number two on both sites (same site, whatever), the decay of the earth's magnetic field... the author of that theory extrapolated data regarding the field for 150 years to WAY BACK into the past amongst other things (like not checking other data), but this is the easiest one to explain. This simply cannot be done in science, and such a thing cannot even be called research let alone a work in ANY field.
-
The problem is that America takes religion too seriously. My impression is that in Europe, religion has become more of a benign cultural tradition, a case in point being Italy, where many schools actually have crucifixes on the walls, but at the same time, they have no problem with birth control or scientific biology. Americans just don't seem to take anything lightly.
-
Well, I'll be honest, I don't mind discussing allowing the freedom of believing in either creation or evolution in schools, but let's not get into another evolution vs creationism debate? Please?
I suppose the best way to look at it is that it doesn't actually matter what you believe, you are here now. It only effects us because we make it matter. And nowadays, it becomes more and more a matter of politics, which is what is making it so important.
I would say that creationism is more a matter of RE than Science, in my opinion. Creationism trying to create it's own science is a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face, either the world is 4000 years old or it isn't, what scientists believe shouldn't affect you. But practical science can be taught, basic and organic chemistry etc without referring to 'creation' or 'evolution' at all. (Though a creationist may argue on the point of, for example the age of the bacteria in oil)
As I would say if the opposite were the case, freedom is freedom, that includes the right to believe in creation if you so choose. Personally, I would disagree, but that is what I so choose, theres no point hammering it any more than that.
-
We don't have crucifixes on the wall, or at least we didn't until the teocons came to govern...
If there's a god i just pray him to get rid of our actual prime minister...
-
But practical science can be taught, basic and organic chemistry etc without referring to 'creation' or 'evolution' at all.
Chemistry can, but biology can't.
I accept people's right to believe whatever they wish, but that doesn't mean that society can afford to consider all points of view equally valid. What if I believe that Saturn is made of goat cheese? Does that mean that schools have to acknowledge the validity of my belief?
Zarax: I'm just going by an editorial I read in the New York Times.
-
No, a school chooses what is most commonly accepted as knowledge, which is science, even in America that is still mostly the case.
I'm not saying that schools should bend backwards to accomodate everything everyone believes, what I am saying is that if Lib wans to believe in creationism, then what is the problem, he's old enough to make up his own mind, do you see yourself losing that many minds from the world of science because of it?
As long as the person is aware of both options, if they've already chosen creationism by Libs age, for better or for worse, they aren't going to want a career in science anyway.
-
[rant]
Here's my stance on the issue (as a Christian). Evolution happens. Period. I'll give you one example: If you want to argue that fact, go to a Russian prison and look at bacterial infections that are immune to ALL KNOWN ANTIBIOTICS. Nothing like that existed 30 years ago; it had never been encountered. That bacteria didn't come in from outside; it's only been documented there. And it certainly hadn't been in the prision since the dawn of time. Evolution happens folks, there's no contradicting it. Why it happens (and maybe, maybe how) could be the subject of an interesting debate. But to say that it doesn't (Creationism) flies in the face of not only good sense, it's strictly in opposition to reality. Believe whatever you want, but don't try to argue it in my (or eventually my child's) science class. If for no other reason than it's time taken away from actual learning, at an age where learning basic science is paramount to higher education.
[/rant]
The US education system is beaten up over a lot of things that are not actually the fault of the education system per-say. There are isolated incidents of bad teaching, but that's not really a good reason to condemn the system as a whole. The problem is that everyone - by that I mean teachers, administrators, etc. - are afraid to "step on toes" so to speak, of offending someone, because that can be a legal liability on the schools themselves. Add to the fact that teachers can't effectively discipline a student who doesn't care (again, liability) and a rising number of parents who themselves don't care or refuse to discipline their children, and you wind up with the present disaster. So I guess my point is it is societal. I am a proud graduate of a completely backwater school, but I'm happy to say that I'm doing very well at a prestegious university with what I learned. It's all in how much the student wants to learn, not in what his teachers want to teach him.
-
It's all in how much the student wants to learn, not in what his teachers want to teach him.
All anyone will learn is what they choose to learn. Regardless of if it flies in the face of facts. The harder you push them that they are wrong and you are right, the harder their heels will dig in, because they want to believe in that something different.
Where the 'blame' lay in that, I cannot say, but who was it who, quite rightly said, 'I may not agree with your point of view, but I'd die for your right to have it?'
I hope it never comes to anything as extreme as that, but, the actual belief itself harms no-one, it is the knock on of government attempting to affect the single most important establishment that should remain neutral. Teach facts. The kids can choose to believe them or not.
Even if they don't believe, they can consider Science their own version of RE, learning about how the 'other half' live ;)
-
Ultimately ignorance is what allows us to choose what to believe.
Originally posted by StratComm
The problem is that everyone - by that I mean teachers, administrators, etc. - are afraid to "step on toes" so to speak, of offending someone, because that can be a legal liability on the schools themselves. Add to the fact that teachers can't effectively discipline a student who doesn't care (again, liability) and a rising number of parents who themselves don't care or refuse to discipline their children, and you wind up with the present disaster. So I guess my point is it is societal. I am a proud graduate of a completely backwater school, but I'm happy to say that I'm doing very well at a prestegious university with what I learned. It's all in how much the student wants to learn, not in what his teachers want to teach him.
With this I completely agree. I graduated from an American highschool after completing 10th, 11th, and 12th grades there. Before that I studied in Russian schools.
It was shocking to see how teachers will take special care not to let anyone see a student's grade but the student himself. How long has this practice of 'we don't want the other kids to know how dumb you are so you don't feel bad' been going on? What caused the introduction of this policy?
I was even more amazed how most teachers, when asking the class a question and getting a completely wrong answer could not say 'No, that's wrong.', but alway's replied with something like 'Well, not exactly' or 'Hmm, I hadn't thought of that'.
The whole system tries to upkeep the student's self esteem. You can be as dumb as a rock, but at least you feel good about yourself.
Another thing that I suppose is a result of this policy is that students are rarely called upon, someone must volunteer to answer. And it it extremely rare that a teacher calls someone to the board and has them solve something or answer questions.
Teachers are almost afraid of what the students may complain about or say about them. Sometimes it looks like a sheep teaching young wolves.
I apologise for a long post.
-
Originally posted by Deen
Here are some arguments that I know of:
-The second law of thermodynamics too bad that were not talking about thermodynamics (law of entropy) states that the level of order entropy != disorder, if it was disorder it would be called so and we wouldn't have had to come up with a diferent word for it, what the word means is the number of posable configurations, not disorder in a system will decrease with time if the system is closed from outside sources of enery wich the earth is not. Therefore, since the presence of life is a higher order depends on how you define order state of the world than the absence of life, something/someone must have come in and created life, an outside influence to the system.
The rebuttal here would be that the Earth is not a closed system and it receives energy from the sun. (However, if creation claims that God created the sun as well this gets deeper into the start of the universe)
-Another argument says that there have not been found many definite fossils that belong to a definite intermediate species between two others.
But I think that lack of evidence for evolution does not make creation true. and that's bull, we find ****loads of intermediarys
-And one more is the obvious complexity of living creatures and the absurdity that something like that could have happened all by itself. it didn't
To this evolutionist can only say that there is a tiny chance of a start of life from molecules, and over a billion years it had time to take place. no, we say there's a prety good chance that some sort of simple self replicateing molicule could come about via non-biological proceseis
I am not saying that the creationism's arguments are bogus. They are not always easily dismissed.
actualy that was prety easy
But does anyone know of any other arguments for Creationism. (Besides 'It's in the Bible!'). I'm just wondering how a Creationism class would go, what would the teacher say to the class?
-
*applauds StratComm*
See, being Christian doesn't automatically make you a fundamental, creationist wacko.
-
and the selfesteem thing was brought in by our left/liberals, the idea is exactly as you said it's important to make sure you don't harm a child's selfesteem even if the have the IQ of a door knob.
it's stupid and breeds further stupidity.
-
What takes more faith:
Example A: A contractor built the house.
Example B: Through millions and billions of years, trees falling in the right ways, metal and ground erosion, extreme heat and pressure, lime, water, gravel, and even the weather conditions throughout millenia caused a structure to slowly form itself.
And this is just a simple house. Cell structure, molecular interaction, and even the human body are so much more complex. And what about the biggest question of all: How does intelligent and self-aware life come from proteins? We all know that something doesnt come out of nothing; common sense really, but how do you explain that the human race is the only being capable of conscious thought? Animals have been chewing grass and grazing the same way for as long as we can record, yet man has gone from nomads to putting a man on the moon.
Im just proving an absurdity that you defend evolution as a scientific theory, already proven and stamped fact but not allowing the idea of ID or creationism to even be mentioned. At least be consistent with wanting your theories preached.
-
and it's totaly diferent from life. for example a you have to expaine were the contractor came from as well.
example a is basicly normal reproduction. further your explaination for example b is totaly and absolutely unrelated to evolution and abiogenisis.
are you realy saying that an invisable magical man in the sky made the earth in 6 days 6000 years ago useing majic is somehow rational!?
-
damnit, evolution is not random chance, were the **** do you people keep hearing this from!? I realy want to know. if it was random chance we'd call it random chance, not evolution.
-
Bobboau, thank's for your detailed reply.
However, I think you misunderstood my post. I was not advocating creationism. I do not believe in it. I often find it funny.
I know what entropy is, that earth is not a closed system, there are a log of intermediate fossils, and all of that. But that is how I've read creationists present it, and I reproduced their words.
I was merely writing some examples of claims made by scientific creationism, and the general responses to them.
-
Typical you attack irrelevant factors of the example instead of understanding the analogy.
Yes! It IS different from life! Its sooo much simpler than life! And you think that a big bang somehow caused life to form from protiens is makes more sense?
Another thing, can you explain where life comes from? Can scientists explain what gives something life, and why it disappears when something dies? The physical form of the being is still there, why isnt it animate? Life comes from somewhere, and it is something not physical, ie. a spirit of some sort that is part of the being and separates itself from the physical when the being is no longer capable of fuctioning.
-
yeah, I kind of figured that after reading some of you orther posts
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
damnit, evolution is not random chance, were the **** do you people keep hearing this from!? I realy want to know. if it was random chance we'd call it random chance, not evolution.
wait, I always thought that it went something like:
random mutations produce slightly different variations of the same species, and those individuals with beneficial mutations survive more thus carrying their mutations to the next generation. The majority with negative or irrelevant mutations have less effect on the next generation.
right?
In fact, if it is not random, then something or someone must be deciding what changes should take place and which should not, and you come to creationism yourself.
Or maybe you meant that the resulting surviving changes are not random, but are determined by the enviroment in which the organism lives, in which case I agree.
-
Of course evolution is random chance. Evolution is like every other process in this universe-- it is a sequence of cause and effect. Unless you factor in divine will, there's no guiding force behind it. Population A evolves into a subspecies because a flood cuts it off from the rest of its species. The cause is the flood. Why did the flood happen? Random chance.
-
yesterday I drove my car to work, when I got tiered I clocked out and went home.
so there you see creationism has been proven wrong!
that is the level of haveing-nothing-to-do-with-the-subject your analogy had
big bang? that is ****ing astro-physics it's like talking about electronics to make a point about petrochemistry.
"can you explain where life comes from?"
YES!
"Can scientists explain what gives something life, and why it disappears when something dies?"
YES!
"The physical form of the being is still there, why isnt it animate?"
becase it's dead, it's metabolism has suffered such a catistofic amout of damage that it isn't capable of sustaining it'self anymore.
"Life comes from somewhere, and it is something not physical, ie. a spirit of some sort that is part of the being and separates itself from the physical when the being is no longer capable of fuctioning."
realy? show me, give me some way of testing this.
-
(random chance) ?= (random mutations produce slightly different variations of the same species, and those individuals with beneficial mutations survive more thus carrying their mutations to the next generation. The majority with negative or irrelevant mutations have less effect on the next generation.)
no
(random chance) ?= (a sequence of cause and effect)
no
-
"Why did the flood happen? Random chance."
more likely lots of rain.
-
How is that not random chance? I don't understand your reasoning. Either something is by chance or it is intentional. If you're arguing that evolution is not random chance, then you're arguing that there is some intelligent force guiding the process.
The conditions that determine which mutations are advantageous are random chance, the mutations are random chance, even simply the fact that life exists is random chance. Either it's divine will, or it's a mess of blind causality.
more likely lots of rain.
But the rain is chance! Everything is based on chance because the universe itself is governed by probability! It's all an endless, branching sequence of one chance occurrence leading to another!
-
Originally posted by Thrilla
What takes more faith...
so.. the contractor.. built the house a thousand years ago, poured gas on it, set it on fire, drowned it, allowed infestations of every vermon known to man.. and then left it alone, so badly torn up that it's hardly recognizable as a house, never to be heard from again...
or...
there never was a contractor.. and there never was a house.. but a few thousand years later, someone found a few scorched logs in a somewhat curious arrangement and declared that at one point there must have been a house on that spot.
-
ford, if you drop a heavy object it falls, does this happen due to random chance, no it hapens becose of gravity.
random chance is walking out and a metior hitting you in the head, actualy random chance is only us not knowing enough to predict everything, nothing is truly random chance, it's all caused by something, we're just to stupid to know all the variables.
evolution is a system, not a bunch of unrelated coincedental events
-
"trees falling in the right ways, metal and ground erosion, extreme heat and pressure, lime, water, gravel, and even the weather conditions throughout millenia caused a structure to slowly form itself"
that is basicly what I would call random chance
-
Hmm... now you say evolution is a system. How did that system get put in place, who designed it, and what is its ultimate end?
I know gravity pulls objects toward a larger mass, and it is proven (see liberators anvil) but evolution of life from a big bang, proteins and the like has not been because A) no substantial proof has been found to say its scientific fact, B) not enough scientists are willing to make this huge act of faith to believe in it.
...and if evolution is this magnificent system that advances life then why the hell is the universe in a constant decay? I understand that certain things "evolve" if you will, develop, such as intellect, civilization, etc. Diseases mutate to overcome antidotes as they become used to them, hence the human body becoming used to diseases and is how antibodies work, but the human is still human and the bacteria is still bacteria and wont ever become a whale.
-
'now' when did I call it anything else? this is the first time I've done anything other than tell you what it wasn't.
look it's like the water cycle, you have water and heat and cold in diferent places and the water cycle system just happens (yeah I hate the phrease 'just happens' but you'll agnoledge that if you have something hot something cold and water you'll get something like the water cycle without you planning it out or wanting it), it isn't designed, it's a product of the environment.
ok if you don't like system how about process
evolution doesn't come from a big bang.
"...constant decay"
is it?
define decay in how you mean it here.
a bacteria wont ever become a whale, but it's offspring might become something totaly diferent than it is, maybe even something whalelike
oh and A) yes there has, and B) yes there is
-
This is my point. It's not a system because it was not "put together." Evolution as we know it is one possible course of events in a universe governed by probability. It is random chance because it could very easily have happened entirely differently. One mutation is not guaranteed to yield a certain result; there is a certain probability for each one of numerous results. It might rain, it might not. If it does, there might be flood, there might not. If there is a flood, then a certain series of mutations might result, and it might not. In this universe we can never "know," we can only predict with varying degrees of certainty. Our minds create the idea of a system because the notion of intent is the only way we can understand a universe that seems to operate in such harmony.
-
yeah, and?
mutation is basicly caused by random chance, random chance is not evolution in the same way that a brake pedle is not a car.
haven't I argued this with you before?
-
" If there is a flood, then a certain series of mutations might result"
depends on the time scale, if your talking right after than those mutations would have happened weather it rained or not, weather the animal with them survived probly would have been effected
-
That's exactly it! It depends! Evolution is nothing but stuff happening the way stuff happens in every other context. My alarm clock dies, I'm late for school, which puts me in a bad mood, which causes me to forget that I had a test to make up that day, which causes me to drop a letter grade in that class. That is all evolution is!
-
it's the proses by wich more adequately adapted oganisms perpetuate themselves more sucesfuly than those wich are less well endowed.
not a perfict defenition but about right.
-
You stop buying that clock and then the company that sells that clock goes bye bye due to bad sales (yeah right...), and then all other clock companies get better business and other clocks (which supposedly don't die) become more numerous. So.... yeah... sort of...
-
You're missing the point of the analogy. Organisms better-suited to their environment are better-suited because of just such an unpredictable sequence of events. There's no rhyme or reason to it. What happens just happens.
-
But the process by which they become more numerous HAS a reason.
The process by which their enviroments or habitat (whatever you want to call the things they interact with) changes is not part of evolution but a mix of several other fields.
-
yeah but wich ones survive are not random, it's the ones best suited to survival.
that isn't random, it's selective.
-
I think we have different interpretations of cause and effect.
An organism is well-suited to its environment, so it survives. That's a given. But the reason it is well-suited to its environment is the result of a culmination of variables that could easily have been different.
Perhaps what I'm not getting across is that the act of survival is only half of evolution; the other half is the events that cause an organism to be able to survive. You can't just isolate evolution from everything else that's going on around it. There's interplay between all processes.
-
yeah, but it isn't just simple random chance.
and my statment was evolution != random chance
if it were then it would have no way of, well evolving, if it was just toal dumb luck random chance then no mater what you'r genetics you would have just as good odds as anyone else, wich you don't.
there is random chance involved, but it is a subset.
-
I'll use your meteor analogy:
A meteor hits me in the head. By your logic, because the only probable outcome of this event is my death, my death was not random chance.
But although the meteor killing me is not exactly a coin-toss, the fact that it hit me in the first place certainly was.
The same goes for evolution. If a mutation is advantageous, it's not a tough prediction that it's going to change the course of the species. But the fact that the mutation took place to begin with is random chance. Therefore, evolution, like everything else in existence, is driven by random chance.
-
Not if you know the velocity and position of every particle in the universe... :nervous:
-
Which Heisenberg showed is not possible. :)
-
"the meteor killing me is not exactly a coin-toss"
right there, not random chance, therefore there is more involved than random chance, so saying it is all random chance is incorect.
cars are driven by people, cars are not people.
though I'll take issue with your statment, evolution is driven by reaction, it's the acting on the random mutation that is the more important part of evolution. what is more important random chance causeing a mutation, or that mutation alowing you to take advantage of some new food source? yes the second is dependent on the first, but the second is were the important part is.
-
Well that's just arbitrary. I would argue that the first is more important precisely because the second is dependent on it.
In the context of a religious debate, it is highly significant that evolution is fundamentally driven by chance.
-
Originally posted by Thrilla
What takes more faith:
Example A: A contractor built the house.
Example B: Through millions and billions of years, trees falling in the right ways, metal and ground erosion, extreme heat and pressure, lime, water, gravel, and even the weather conditions throughout millenia caused a structure to slowly form itself.
And this is just a simple house. Cell structure, molecular interaction, and even the human body are so much more complex. And what about the biggest question of all: How does intelligent and self-aware life come from proteins? We all know that something doesnt come out of nothing; common sense really, but how do you explain that the human race is the only being capable of conscious thought? Animals have been chewing grass and grazing the same way for as long as we can record, yet man has gone from nomads to putting a man on the moon.
Im just proving an absurdity that you defend evolution as a scientific theory, already proven and stamped fact but not allowing the idea of ID or creationism to even be mentioned. At least be consistent with wanting your theories preached.
There's one fact that most people fail to recognize: you are only here to say how absurd the chances of life existing by "random" are because of the extremely long sequence of "lucky" events that led to it existing here. There may be billions of planets on our galaxy, and life may have evolved only on this planet, and this will be the only place where there's some intelligence saying how absurd the chances are.
Yes, the chances are absurd. But you only exist because this planet hit the jackpot. If even a single one of all the factors required for the evolution of life - and better yet, intelligent life - had gone wrong, you wouldn't be here to see that it hadn't happened. That's why your argument is bogus.
As for why other animals aren't sentient - who knows? Wait a few million years and some other sentient life form may pop up. Higher intelligence and sentience (through increased proportional brain size, mostly) happened to be mutations that provided humanity's ancestors an immense survival advantage. As far as we know (the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy may still be right), no other species has reached the "critical mass" of sentience, but it may still happen.
-
adaptations that improve survivability perpetuate themselves,
this is not random chance.
ok, you, define random chance.
-
if evolution is nothing but random chance than this argument
"What takes more faith:
Example A: A contractor built the house.
Example B: Through millions and billions of years, trees falling in the right ways, metal and ground erosion, extreme heat and pressure, lime, water, gravel, and even the weather conditions throughout millenia caused a structure to slowly form itself."
is valid
-
Part of evolution is what, from our current point of view, can only be called random chance. We cannot determine all the factors that lead to a specific mutation - can be flawed cellular reproduction, a chemical defect on a DNA or RNA chain or any other number of factors, but for our practical purposes it is random.
The fact that some of these mutations are beneficial to the organism inside its specific environment, and that improves the organism's survivability and perpetuates the mutation is not random, though. It is a simple logical exension: if an organism has greater chance to survive and reproduce than others on the same environment, it will, with greater probability, perpetuate itself and the long string of mutations that led to it.
-
Styxx: That's exactly what I'm getting at.
Bobboau: I have just acknowledged that the only reason we're having this debate is because we're debating in different contexts. We're not even arguing the same point. You're saying the fact that a mutation causes a change is not chance. Technically, I agree. I'm saying that what causes the mutations is random chance. Which one you think is more important depends on what the argument is.
With that said, however, we could also get into the debate over the nature of chance itself. Quantum physics has told us that the best we can do in any situation is predict the probability of an outcome, so you can argue that literally everything is chance.
-
The correct comparison is the following:
A chemical chain forms where there was none before since time immemorial, said chain joins with another exactly as required to form an ammino acid, that amino acid joins with other, different amino acids to form the basics of life, a burst of enegy at just the right moment in time initiates the life process of the earliest life form(singular)
That lifeform somehow lives long enough to procreate, it's spawn live and spread, some mutate in a way that allows them to survive longer and spawn twice, it's spawn live and spread. Somehow, we don't know, they make the jump from single celled very simple lifeforms to a dual-celled form, eventually over the untold millions of years the mutations have added up and now we have jellyfish(the simplest multi-celluar lifeform on Earth). The jellyfish(which is carniverous) is king and eats quite literally every thing, eventually it makes the jump from what is basically a stomach with tentacles to insects and fish, eventually devloping into reptiles and mammals. By this time we're up to about 65 million years ago and we're talking about quadrillions(at least) of beneficial mutations have added up and everythings fine. Somehow some amazing sequence of mutations occur in rapid succession and put a single species on the road to intelligence which leads to us.
[size=10]OR[/size]
The all-powerful being who rules the universe and everything in it, whose full nature and motivation is beyond our ken, chooses to expend a infinitesimal fraction of his immeasurable might and create Everything. Setting into place all the rules and laws that bind and govern it.
-
Well, I think we were working on the assumption of the absence of divine will. (That being a slightly different debate.)
-
Why, Divine Will is the very center of Creationism.
-
Oh. I was assuming that you were referring to our debate over the role of chance in evolution.
-
Lib: Again, you fail to explain the existence of the all powerful being, so at the moment your "theory" is far more fantastic than evolution. You're just compressing a 20 paragraph explanation into the words "divine will". Just because a process can be complicated does not make it untrue, you're going to need a better arguement than that.
Ford: Yes, mutations are random. But you make the mistake of thinking that nonrandom results can only come from intelligence. When one organism has traits that will cause it to be able to reproduce more than the other, then the limited amount of available rescources means that organism will force the others into extinction. The thing that "selects" a particular organism is just a hostile environment - it creates difficulties for a living thing attempting to survive and reproduce, so the ones with traits better suited to the environment survive more often than the ones that do not.
-
Originally posted by Thrilla
I know gravity pulls objects toward a larger mass, and it is proven (see liberators anvil) but evolution of life from a big bang, proteins and the like has not been because A) no substantial proof has been found to say its scientific fact, B) not enough scientists are willing to make this huge act of faith to believe in it.
Well, you already put an awful lot of faith in science. Why single out evolution?
While gravity obviously exists in some fashion and we can predict its effects even it's far from being explained perfectly. Scientists are still trying to figure out how the heck it fits into the quantum mechanical model of the world with the other 3 "fundamental forces" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interactions) that govern the world. There're theories and stuff about gravitons (particles that create gravity).
Even the concept of mass is not concrete. You think all particles have "inherent" mass that isn't caused by anything? Scientists theorize mass is actually caused by a field generated by a higgs-boson particle "pulling" on other particles (http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs1.htm).
So you're simplifying matters and trivializing science so you can conveniently ignore bits of it for your religion. You convince yourself that you're a sceptic, but you're not doing a good job of being one.
-
Mr. Vega: All I'm saying is that the cause is random. Because this was a religious discussion, I assumed this to be the relevant part.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
A chemical chain forms where there was none before since time immemorial, said chain joins with another exactly as required to form an ammino acid, that amino acid joins with other, different amino acids to form the basics of life, a burst of enegy at just the right moment in time initiates the life process of the earliest life form(singular)
That lifeform somehow lives long enough to procreate, it's spawn live and spread, some mutate in a way that allows them to survive longer and spawn twice, it's spawn live and spread. Somehow, we don't know, they make the jump from single celled very simple lifeforms to a dual-celled form, eventually over the untold millions of years the mutations have added up and now we have jellyfish(the simplest multi-celluar lifeform on Earth). The jellyfish(which is carniverous) is king and eats quite literally every thing, eventually it makes the jump from what is basically a stomach with tentacles to insects and fish, eventually devloping into reptiles and mammals. By this time we're up to about 65 million years ago and we're talking about quadrillions(at least) of beneficial mutations have added up and everythings fine. Somehow some amazing sequence of mutations occur in rapid succession and put a single species on the road to intelligence which leads to us. ...
well, i'm doubtful that evolution in and of itself began with the birth of the amino acid, but other than that.. yeah, that's just about right.
-
Lib: the way I see it, its very simple.
That which is fittest always survives, by definition. Whatever survives, that is obviously what was the strongest/fastest/smartest or whatever. So believing in evolution is no more than believing that the fastest runner wins the race.
Its a natural process, so yes, over millions of years you are going to see drastic changes. You have to account for the cumulative effect here, becuase if you just put a fish and a human next to each other, you're going to say "no way, they're not related" . But if you factor in millions of years, gradual changes stack up. Sort of like if you see a person all the time, you don't notice ther slight ageing, but if you see them once, and then again 15 years later, you're going to notice a big difference.,
-
Originally posted by Thrilla
Typical you attack irrelevant factors of the example instead of understanding the analogy.
Yes! It IS different from life! Its sooo much simpler than life! And you think that a big bang somehow caused life to form from protiens is makes more sense?
Another thing, can you explain where life comes from? Can scientists explain what gives something life, and why it disappears when something dies? The physical form of the being is still there, why isnt it animate? Life comes from somewhere, and it is something not physical, ie. a spirit of some sort that is part of the being and separates itself from the physical when the being is no longer capable of fuctioning.
To make this easy to understand, i shall write in a numbered point response
1. You are stupid
2. You are made of proteins, tiny molecules of mater, that link together, to form larger molecules that work together. Like a pentium made of transistors. And science has proven that, without a doubt.
3. Scientists do explain what gives things life, see there are these things called cells, each one is like a tiny machine, of which your body is composed of billions. All these cells work together to create, you. Now there are these special cells which you unfortunately are lacking in, called brain cells, which connect together to form the "processor" of your body. Whenever you think, move a arm, breathe, heart beats, etc... your brain ("processor") fires off comands to the other parts of your body and tells them what to do. But all your thoughts and sense of life is contained within those cells.
4. Now one someone dies, their cells detoriate and break apart, actualy its more their cells detoriate causing them to die. now this is why when you die, thus your brain cells cease to exist, ytou are no longer alive. To go back to the computer refrence, this is the equivalent of driving a nail through the processor.
OmG!1 WtF!1 Whi wontzz my computah turnz on?!?!111
Because the little bits and parts that make it think are broken.
Hopefuly this answers youre incredibly ignorant questions.
-
All questions are either ignorant or rhetorical.
-
Please don't tell me this thread has degraded from insulting the intelligence of my peers to "Yet Another Evolution vs. Creationism Thread™".....
-
How did this topic change? The first page was a pack of newspaper idiots disagreeing on Cultural and Political ideas, and now I see stuff about organisms and evolutionary stuff...
What did I miss?
-
The principle of evolution applies to conversations as well as to life. :)
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Please don't tell me this thread has degraded from insulting the intelligence of my peers to "Yet Another Evolution vs. Creationism Thread™".....
You read my mind.
-
That lifeform somehow lives long enough to procreate, it's spawn live and spread, some mutate in a way that allows them to survive longer and spawn twice, it's spawn live and spread. Somehow, we don't know, they make the jump from single celled very simple lifeforms to a dual-celled form, eventually over the untold millions of years the mutations have added up and now we have jellyfish(the simplest multi-celluar lifeform on Earth). The jellyfish(which is carniverous) is king and eats quite literally every thing, eventually it makes the jump from what is basically a stomach with tentacles to insects and fish, eventually devloping into reptiles and mammals. By this time we're up to about 65 million years ago and we're talking about quadrillions(at least) of beneficial mutations have added up and everythings fine. Somehow some amazing sequence of mutations occur in rapid succession and put a single species on the road to intelligence which leads to us. ...
Since when have you ever heard of a beneficial mutation, or one that somehow seemed not a typical mutation. When people are born with mutations, they are usually an extra finger, no ears, no arms, a messed up face, no legs, extra toes, but not wings or anything that would even resemble it. Mutations are also rare and never have mutations led one species into another. The lines separating the species are very thick. Even if scientists were able to make a hybrid animal, it would be sterile.
The natural way of the universe is deterioration, like the earth eventually slowing down its orbit, the sun in a few billion theoretical years going out, magnetic fields detereorating.
-
or they are less likely to develop heart deises or cancer, just becase you have it fixed in your head that mutation meas arm-growing-out-of-ass doesn't mean thats what happens. you've surely known of some kid that turned out smarter than there parents, at least to some degree, that could have been due to a mutation.
the reason why we haven't been able to produce a new species is becase it takes about 500,000 generations. it would take about a thousand years with the source animal totaly seperated.
-
Originally posted by Thrilla
Since when have you ever heard of a beneficial mutation, or one that somehow seemed not a typical mutation. When people are born with mutations
As pointed out earlier bacteria have evolved to resist various drugs. For example, many things are resistant to penicilin now. That's a very, very beneficial mutation.
The lines separating the species are very thick.
Which is why someone pointed out earlier that evolution works over a very long time.
-
Originally posted by Thrilla
Since when have you ever heard of a beneficial mutation, or one that somehow seemed not a typical mutation. When people are born with mutations, they are usually an extra finger, no ears, no arms, a messed up face, no legs, extra toes, but not wings or anything that would even resemble it. Mutations are also rare and never have mutations led one species into another. The lines separating the species are very thick. Even if scientists were able to make a hybrid animal, it would be sterile.
The natural way of the universe is deterioration, like the earth eventually slowing down its orbit, the sun in a few billion theoretical years going out, magnetic fields detereorating.
BULL****.
Mutations are copying errors in DNA or RNA. Their severeness varies, from a single amino acid pair being replaced with another to entire sequence being disrupted, and badly. It does not result in extra fingers and legs, unless huge amounts of genome are interrupted. Mutations are really common, you know why stuff like DNA analyzation works in crime investigations? Yeah. Read stuff about mutations before shouting off such uninformed BS.
And the lines separating the species are not thick. I don't know where you have learned your cladistics, systematics and taxonomy. Marsh Reed Warbler and Blyth's Reed Warbler hybridize and their offspring is often fertile. So do Greater and Lesser Spotted Eagle. There is the entire ring species thing, which defies your "SPECIES ARE CLEAR AS DAY" -opinion.
-
Put simply: Anything resembling creationism (or any other whacked-out, fundie ideals that are generally opposed to what I know for a goddamn fact is right) is complete bull**** and you're an evil and spiteful person for not accepting that.
-
Why the hell are we talking about evolution and creationism in this thread?
-
education system, that's actualy the reason why we can't just agree to disagree, one of us has to be presented as fact in public schools.
-
The factual one would be the obvious choice....
-
you'd think that, wouldn't you...
-
Originally posted by Liberator
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/evidencefor/evidencefor.html
These are laughable - I can personally answer 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 (which is nothing more than a paragraph on the complexity of the human mind) off the top of my head without any reference material whatsoever, 5 I've never heard of before, but is a young earth argument rather than an anti evolution argument which I'm sure a bit of research could explain. Number 8 isn't my field, and TBH I don't entirely understand what they're saying, but overall the list is very, very weak.
-
Krackers - attack the argument, not the person. Don't do that again.
-
God smites you all with his mad pwnage skills...
Oops! Did I say the "G" word?
The ACLU will come for us at dawn...
-
Gee all you people seem to say is: "Bull****!!!, BS!! And you a ****ed up bastard for not accepting this stuff that some scientists say is true! You are an idiotic moron who doesnt know where his ass is because you lack brain cells!!"
You people take this way way too seriously. I dont have a problem with accepting evolution as a theory, because like it or not, it is a theory because it cannot be proven because there is not enough evidence to prove it the way you speak of it. And no, i wasnt talking of teaching creationism in schools, because different religions have different beliefs and it just would raise controversy. What i think would be appropriate would be to point out that evolution is a theory and not teach it as you would laws of thermodynamics.
-
Good to see someone still understands that this topic was turning to the dark side...
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
God smites you all with his mad pwnage skills...
I didn't know that Styxx was god.:eek2: news for me atleast
:lol: :p
-
Originally posted by Thrilla
Gee all you people seem to say is: "Bull****!!!, BS!! And you a ****ed up bastard for not accepting this stuff that some scientists say is true! You are an idiotic moron who doesnt know where his ass is because you lack brain cells!!"
You people take this way way too seriously. I dont have a problem with accepting evolution as a theory, because like it or not, it is a theory because it cannot be proven because there is not enough evidence to prove it the way you speak of it. And no, i wasnt talking of teaching creationism in schools, because different religions have different beliefs and it just would raise controversy. What i think would be appropriate would be to point out that evolution is a theory and not teach it as you would laws of thermodynamics.
Do you know what a scientific theory is?
-
For the last time...
Theory != Hypothesis!
Gravity is a theory, Relativity is a theory, all phisics laws are theories, evolution is a theory.
Do you see the pattern?
-
It seems a tad odd all this, you see we (Homo Sapiens) are now actually beyond the control of evolution. We can now control our own enviroment. This is why the creation argument has appeared, because of thier ability to manipulate thier sorrundings and superseed evolution. This however does not mean that evolution does not exist, indeed it can even be argued that it can be proven. The universe is infinite, something like us was bound to happen eventually, so although we were 'random' in a sense, we were just the lucky ones (or not so lucky, depending where you are now). Hard to get a definitive answer for either argument, but I would just like to add one final thing. Arguments of this nature are recent in thier creation (argh, bad pun), it is only with the the arrival of modern science and its technology that we can answer some of these big questions, and I have no doubt what-so-ever that in time (if we don't get destroyed by something-or the Neo-cons win) we will have the answers to all of your questions. Just give us a few more hundred years. You've given creation at least 2000, now its our turn.
-
Actually we aren't beyond evolution's control...
You want an example?
The human race is slowly getting from having 32 theets to 28, there are increasing reports of people that don't get the last 4 when it grows...
-
Originally posted by Fergus
It seems a tad odd all this, you see we (Homo Sapiens) are now actually beyond the control of evolution. We can now control our own enviroment. This is why the creation argument has appeared, because of thier ability to manipulate thier sorrundings and superseed evolution. This however does not mean that evolution does not exist, indeed it can even be argued that it can be proven. The universe is infinite, something like us was bound to happen eventually, so although we were 'random' in a sense, we were just the lucky ones (or not so lucky, depending where you are now). Hard to get a definitive answer for either argument, but I would just like to add one final thing. Arguments of this nature are recent in thier creation (argh, bad pun), it is only with the the arrival of modern science and its technology that we can answer some of these big questions, and I have no doubt what-so-ever that in time (if we don't get destroyed by something-or the Neo-cons win) we will have the answers to all of your questions. Just give us a few more hundred years. You've given creation at least 2000, now its our turn.
no no no
Evolution is just different "genes" "trying" to survive. A horribly inaccurate statement, I know, but the pressure is still on, even though it is a bit different from what we traditionally think of as evolution.
Even though humans are no longer that directly affected by things like weather and so on (at least not in the modern Western countries) for prolonged periods, the enviroment issues (such as hunting) have become less important "for species". They have kinda lost their relevance, for now. However, things like fitness, sex appeal and stuff like that - it continues all the time and we cannot get rid of it. Males and females compete of partners, all the time. They pick up the "best", all the time. Having sex is the second most important goal for a generic being (the ultimate being passing your genes onwards, same thing basically), so mating rituals and looks/adaptability/whatever the passive partner finds important play a really significant role.
This happens quite fast, in less than dozens of generations. Of course, humans are quite long-lived animals and adaptations take much longer time than in bacteria, insects, mice or even birds*.
*Offtopic, but even in such advanced animals as birds decreasing aspects of evolution may kick in in less than 20 generations - 20 years! Many birds, when trapped in isolated islands, lose their flight in really short amount of time.
-
At the end of the day though, this isn't a discussion about whether those beliefs are right or wrong, it's a discussion about whether someones belief of the truth is more important than what 'current thinking' is?
That's a lot harder question, since some of our greatest scientists have suggested things that went vastly against current thinking, even after that thinking had changed from religious to scientific.
What happens if someone thinks the structure of the atom is completely different, or that Quantum mechanics has forgotten one major fact?
Whether he is right or completely insane, he is still allowed to have his own opinion.
Admittedly science teaches self-correction, scientists look for fault in their own work, religion teaches faith, which is the belief in the untouchable, however, the right to not believe in 'current thinking' is as vital for us to advance as it is a threat for us to backslide, but it's a risk we MUST take.
-
I don't think anyone's advocaing a dogmatic approach towards the current view of things like the structure of the atom, nor are we trying to prevent kids hearing about the latest theories and ideas. It's just that people, especially school students, tend to accept what their teacher, someone whom they see as far more knowledgable than they, tells them. Using that position to advocate science as the changing, dynmic field it is is good. Using it to placate a bunch of young earth fundies by teaching a hypothesis that is unsupported by evidence is wrong, and most definitely not what science should be about.
-
But you have to teach what is accepted truth, for if you teach nothing you simply widen the gulf between the experts and the average man, and you make it harder for someone to advance into an expert if you don't present him with at least the basic knowledge of his age. It makes us much more prepared to accept a change in the theory if we know what the theory is.
-
I agree, if atheists have to study religion, then creationists have to study science, all I'm saying is that, after they have studied and learned science, they still choose to believe in creationism, I guess it's their choice to make. I'm an evolution man myself, though I note even scientifically inclined people sometimes blur the lines between Evolution and Natural Selection.
I'm not suggesting we tell people that 'both' things are the truth, by the way, that would just confuse them ;) And most creationist arguments that try to use science are usually more holey than holy anyway.
But no matter how hard you bash him or attack his beliefs, you won't change what a creationist thinks, no offence to anyone, but religion is good at being persecuted.
-
This is probably a bit late on in the thread, but re. the 'mutations' thing, well as someone said they are just copying errors of our code, and can be caused by loads of stuff from random chance to radiation exposure.
We can cope with a certain level of radiation screwing up our code (corrupt cells usually get destroyed) but sometimes they don't and the mutation is perpetuated to further generations.
Generally any changes are so small that they are practically unnoticable anyway, but if it aids you some how, e.g. you're slightly more immune to disease, then you are more likely to survive and thus this mutation will be passed on.
Now, the effect will be small, and that carrier might get killed by some other means (e.g. crushed by a falling Sathanas) and all that combined means you won't see any results for thousands of generations.
The most obvious 'benficial' mutation that comes to mind is the one that has allowed groups of people in Africa to become highly resistant to maleria - It is just one gene that is slightly altered, but it was enough to grant this resistance and has perpetuated itself slowly over time.
Of course, there is a bad side to this: If a child is born with one copy of the gene it will be normal, but if the child doesn't have the gene it will be vulnerable to maleria. However, if it gets 2 of these genes it will likely develop sickle-cell anemia.
Humans as a species are AFAIK unique in one thing however: Unlike the rest of nature's children we have access to drugs and med-tech. Because of this, someone with really ****ty code won't necessarily die - We can cure what ails them so to speak, but the problem there is that any faults in there genes will be passed on to offspring.
I reckon this is a lot like why Asian countries have such a greater number of short-sighted people than Western countries - They had access to corrective lenses a lot earlier than the West; Being able to see clearly is a very important trait for a species which relies on sight as it's primary sense, so whereas an English guy might have got crushed by a elephant 'cause he didn't see it, his Chinese counterpart would have seen it thanks to his glasses and lived to pass on his code to the next generation.
Track this down a thousand or so generations and we have the state where we are now.
An interesting thing I have been noticing is that increasing numbers of people need glasses/lenses to see clearly in this age too...
-
This place has a big problem, Lets agree on one thing, let everyone belive what they want, and don't flame e'm for it. This is the worst place I have seen, not even the Ubi forums that has thousands of members do this. I mean its not that hard to not flame someone. Maybe someone should rename the place Flame-Lit Productions.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
This place has a big problem, Lets agree on one thing, let everyone belive what they want, and don't flame e'm for it. This is the worst place I have seen, not even the Ubi forums that has thousands of members do this. I mean its not that hard to not flame someone. Maybe someone should rename the place Flame-Lit Productions.
[SIZE=9]F I R E [/SIZE]
And if you want to see flaming go to half life planet and start picking at mild descrepencies with hl2, or even try to mention its not the best game in the world.
-
Originally posted by Thrilla
I dont have a problem with accepting evolution as a theory, because like it or not, it is a theory because it cannot be proven because there is not enough evidence to prove it the way you speak of it.
The reason we call BS is because you're trying to discuss science but you actually don't understand some very basic concepts of science.
Here's an explanation I posted earlier:
A theory is an explanation of why things are the way they are. An example of this is theory concerning the electromagnetic force. It explains why electric fields do what they do.
Meanwhile, the actual effects of electric fields are described by laws (Coulomb's law in this case: (k(Q_1)(Q_2)) / (r^2) ), which are rules to describe what things actually do. This is derived from empirical findings.
A theory, if accepted by scientists, is a fairly solid thing that isn't "theoretical" and in science limbo land like some people claim. Although some solid, long-lasting theories do eventually get replaced (Newton's theories by Einstein's for example).
Originally posted by Thrilla
evolution is a theory and not teach it as you would laws of thermodynamics.
Again, you don't understand what the words you're using mean. A theory is an explanation backed up by mathematical justification and experimentation. Laws are rules derived from our observations.
A law doesn't explain anything, it just tells you *what* happens. Laws of thermodynamics don't tell you why things work and your claim that the theory of evolution is more tenous than thermodynamics is absurd. If you only had the *laws* of thermodynamics you would have less "proof" for thermodynamics than evolution.
-
Everything is just a theory until enough weight of proof is put behind it...
Evolution exists, full stop.
-
Originally posted by Clave
Everything is just a theory until enough weight of proof is put behind it...
Evolution exists, full stop.
No, everything is just a hypothesis until enough weight of proof is put behind it. If the hypothesis can explain why and how some things happen, and can accurately predict forcoming events, it will become a theory (under the rules of scientific method, of course).
-
I don't get why the creationists can't just accept they were/are wrong.....Oh, wait. I get it.
If they were prone to admitting their mistakes, they'd be scientists. But they're not, so they don't.
-
Cause everywere I look I see God. In the Stars, Trees, Oceans, Mountains. I see a Creator. I don't see everything happening by chance. I don't see Humans comming from Primates. You can flame us all you want, but like Flip said, you can't change our minds. Is it so important to you to bash other peoples religons? Does it give more pride in evolution or something?
-
If you believe in religion, you're wrong. If you disbelieve evolution, you're wrong.
To sit here and not try to badger you into giving up your dellusions of a higher power would be akin to:
Teacher: 3 + 3 = 6
Kid: No, it isn't.
Teacher: Yes, it is.
Kid: No, it's 27 because I believe it's 27.
Teacher: Okay, good for you!
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Cause everywere I look I see God. In the Stars, Trees, Oceans, Mountains. I see a Creator. I don't see everything happening by chance. I don't see Humans comming from Primates. You can flame us all you want, but like Flip said, you can't change our minds. Is it so important to you to bash other peoples religons? Does it give more pride in evolution or something?
:rolleyes:
Can't take a little criticism of your fragile worldview eh? It's not like you try to discredit evolution and science (while not understanding the definition of a theory, nevermind anything more complicated) constantly right?
If you're too sensitive for this stuff, stop reading and don't post.
-
Who said I was sensitive to what yaw are posting. But, I would like to know why you keep on about. Does it make you feel good? And well Evolution is a religon, wheather you belive it or not.
-
Uh, no. A religion requires belief. That's the difference between science and religion.
Science is demonstratable fact. Religion is "they tell me there's a God, so I think there's a God".
-
Ok, prove to me that evolution is happening today, no fossils. I want to see a form that showed some evolution in the past 100 years?
-
Does it make you feel good?
:wtf:
No, that's what sex and morphine is for.
And well Evolution is a religon, wheather you belive it or not.
I've been supplying reasons for everything I've said that were grounded in scientific definition and theory. Care to actually explain/support your argument for once (no, some dogmatic babble about "It's too amazing to be chance" does not constitute an explanation)?
-
I don't have to prove nothing. Ether you belive or you don't. And you said theory. That is about the same thing as a opinion. Whitch is what you think. The reason I don't flame you is because I don't have a problem with what you are saying, I don't care. Why are you guys trying to flame me?
Here is the definion for Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge.
So its is basicly a belief.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Ok, prove to me that evolution is happening today, no fossils. I want to see a form that showed some evolution in the past 100 years?
Sickle cell anemia in Africa.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
I don't have to prove nothing. Ether you belive or you don't. And you said theory. That is about the same thing as a opinion.
No it's not (how many times do I have to post this?). In science theories are not defined as an "opinion".
Explanation of a theory in science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
EDIT: I hate it when people I quote edit. The definition you edited into your post is wrong. The word means something different in science.
[programmer]Think of it like function overloading in programming languages.[/programmer] :p
-
Sicle cell anemia is best evolution proof you can come up with? What about AIDS is it Evolution too?
*Edit: you are calling the dictionary wrong, on the verge of laughing.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Sicle cell anemia is best evolution proof you can come up with? What about AIDS is it Evolution too?
Do you know the difference between a mutation and a virus? :)
*Edit: you are calling the dictionary wrong, on the verge of laughing.
You're the one that can't cope with multiple definitions of a word. :)
-
Ok, sickle cell is a mutation, but without doctors they would'nt survive. Now what about people with no hands or feet is that evolution? Are we gonna evolove where we have no hands or feet?
-
sickle cell: a condition in wich a recesive gene causes a malformation of the cell walls, an interesting thing about that is when you only have one of the two genes that causes it you are immune to malaria, a lethal paracite that will kill you otherwise, developing a gene that gives you a 50% chance of survival from this while haveing the downside of a 25% chance of a lethal combineation I'd say is better than a nearly 100% chance of dieing from a local pathagen, it is an example of evolution throughing you something unexpected.
"Now what about people with no hands or feet is that evolution?"
no, it _might_ be mutation (more likely some sort of calamity hapens to the mother while pregnent), and therefore posably an example of a disadventagus mutation, as people with these conitions are far less likely to reproduce as there 'normal' counterparts.
so
"we gonna evolove where we have no hands or feet?"
no
and
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Theory
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.
-
Uhh, Bob do you know what a prediction is. It is when you take what you see and say this is, has, or will happen. Otherwise it is about the same as your opinion. Weather forcasters make lots of predictions.
-
yeah.... and?
forcasters are right more oftine than wrong (within the margin of error they give you)
was there a point to this?
anyway
evolution is a slow proces, your not going to see it in 100 years in a speciese that takes ~20 years to reach sexual maturity especaly while that speciese is in the middle of a population explosion were there is virtualy no hardship placed on it.
of course we have repetadly mentioned the effects of antibiodics on bacteria, you will of course not accept this becase the earth is flat and the center of the universe
Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
Isaiah 11:12: "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."
-
*jumps into thread*
oh wait, i should've guessed... a topic that is almost 200 replies long would evolve into either a politics or a religion thread, or possibly both. *shakes head*
-
Uhh, no, weather forcasters or wrong something like 80-9% if over 2 or 3 days.
And it says in the Bible of the Earth being round, and something about how many planets there are in the SOL system. And nowhere I know does it say the Earth is the center of the Universe, And I am not a Bilble graduate, but I promise you it ain't saying the Earth is unmovable, because it says in the Bible of Earthquakes and the Bible don't contradict itself.
But, if nothin is evoloving then you have NO proof, cause if I don't see it I don't belive it, that is the stance you guys are taking. Lets again leave it at this, you can belive what you want, But don't flame people who don't see things like you do. OK:yes:
-
I gave the book and verse, check it
stuf is evolving, very slowly
-
fosil evedence is the best, but for some reason you don't want to accept that, ok, fine,
there is genetic evidence, closly related speciese have very similar DNA you can figure out what the relationships are a lot more acuratly useing DNA than fosils even (unfortunatly most speciese are dead).
there are a number of subspeciese wich are in the process of divergeing but are still the same speciese.
-
I belive you, but it probly means the Earth won't go floating off in space or that it won't fall apart. But, the thing is that I don't see anything evoloving so I don't belive it , I belive nothing evoloves because God said he created man in his image, But like I said that is the stance you guys are taking on God, he don't exist cause I can't see him. And like I said if your belief is that man evoloved that is your choice, And I leave this thread at that.:nod:
-
My copy of the bible says similar stuff...
Psalm 93:1 "The world is firmly established; it cannot be shaken."
Psalm 104:5 "You placed the world on its foundation so it would never be moved."
EDIT:
Wait, why do you not believe evolution but believe in God? How can you determine the truth of things if you don't even have a consistent method of evaluating truth?
-
You know, we really should have a list of banned topics. I suggest the first one be "Evolution vs. Creation", as this is about the 50th thread on this subject...
-
have you seen God create anything before you?
or we could just have a forum dedicated soly to the battle anytime a thread deteriorates into such a topic *POOF* off it goes
-
Gray: Why not just avoid the thread? It's not like you have to read it. Anyway, this thread seems to be far more civil than the others (could be related to the lack of Kazan and Tiara. ;)).
-
You know what could be fun? If anyone who tried posting in that forum got an instant 1 day ban...
-
not like your going to belive this or anything (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html)
or this (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html)
-
because it says in the Bible of Earthquakes and the Bible don't contradict itself.
Yes it does. Repeatedly. Across multiple issues.
Hell, the entire New Testament is a contradiction of the Old Testament.
-
see.. here's the biggest problem with the religious debates. invariably, someone will come along who equates unfalsifiability with "true" and falsifiability with "false".
Originally posted by WeatherOp
I don't have to prove nothing. Ether you belive or you don't. And you said theory. That is about the same thing as a opinion. Whitch is what you think...
okay, kids, one more time for those of you playing the home game. in the scientific world, the order is *drumroll*
opinion -> conjecture -> hypothesis -> notion -> theory
there is NOTHING higher than theory. that's the best you can do. it's the top of the chain. there are no facts. because the only proof method we have is observation, there is no such thing as a fact.
Evolution is a theory. it has been backed up by reams of scientific data and experiments - it's the best explanation we have. hell, the lifespan of fruitflies is so short, you can make them evolve at will (i've SEEN it).
now then.. can you possibly guess where your "everywhere i look i see god" argument falls in the above chain.. i bet you can.
-
And as another clarification for the mentally retarded / religious amongst you:
Evolution is not an event, it is a process.
Like how kicking a ball does not constitute an FA-sanctioned game of football.
It goes like this: Thing -> Change in habitat starts killing off Thing -> Mutation happens (or becomes apparent) which counteracts effects of change -> Thing 2 multiplies -> Thing 1 dies off -> Thing 2 prevails.
That's evolution.
The weak are ****ed, the better suited prevail.
As for the no-hand analogy, by having a no-hands mutation, they are less suited to their environment and thus are less likely to breed. Thus serving evolution.
-
Ohh, so now I'm mentally retarded. Than I count it as a good thing.:nod:
Well I am a Teen and I belive in God, How much more mentally retarded can I get.:nod:
-
only if An0n's explaination made it clearer than it was before, hopefuly you already understud what he was saying.
-
I might start subscribing to Lamarckism just so I can sit back and annoy both sides in these little melees.
-
you know there is a degree of validity do that phelosiphy in humans given that we teach our childeren what we learn in life.
-
You know what guys, we could keep on going with this and go on until the Adm. closes this thread. But, do you know what, since I strongly belive in God, and you guys strongly belive in evolusion, we couldn't change each others beliefs until we die. But if , we keep going, Kazan will find it and POW huge flame war.
-
so, I can live with that, but what are we going to do about the schools?
I sudgest evolution being in science classes in public schools, if you don't like that you can pull your kid out and get a voucher to take them to a school that teaches whatever you want.
can we all live with that araingement?
-
For me, it don't matter if they teach Evoloution in schools as long as they say that you don't have to belive it, and don't force it on kids who don't want to do the projects that goes against there religon.
-
So what if Math is against my religion?
-
My teachers got around that by saying " I don't know what you believe, it doesn't matter. If it'll help you learn, you can think that Evolution is God's plan, but for my tests, you will be required to know the process of Evolution, and to understand it."
-
Well, you can ether take it, or fail and not go to college and become dumb.:D And English is against southern religon, but got to have it.
-
1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
ten cubits from the one brim to the other
a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about
PI = 3 :D
-
Indeed.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
... And English is against southern religon, but got to have it.
as you so eloquently and consistently demonstrate ;)
-
Wuz that a insalt to us souuthern folks?
-
I am doing my best to restrain my forked Northeastern toungue.
-
MWAHAHAHAHA
I know what will at least double this thread.
"Fire in the hole" (chucks in political grenade and jumps out of thread)
The majority of the Neo-Con's are creationists, who are the current legislative government in America, if they get thier way the view to hold a free view will be lost in America.
(Fergus laughs manically as he runs away, brandashing more political, Religous-Evolutionist and American grenades, towards the next dangerous thread)
-
Nah. We'll just ignore you and talk about something else :)
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Ok, prove to me that evolution is happening today, no fossils. I want to see a form that showed some evolution in the past 100 years?
This was posted earlier. Snakes evolving smaller heads in order to prevent poisoning by cane toads.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4073359.stm
-
Originally posted by an0n
And as another clarification for the mentally retarded / religious amongst you:
Evolution is not an event, it is a process.
Like how kicking a ball does not constitute an FA-sanctioned game of football.
It goes like this: Thing -> Change in habitat starts killing off Thing -> Mutation happens (or becomes apparent) which counteracts effects of change -> Thing 2 multiplies -> Thing 1 dies off -> Thing 2 prevails.
That's evolution.
The weak are ****ed, the better suited prevail.
As for the no-hand analogy, by having a no-hands mutation, they are less suited to their environment and thus are less likely to breed. Thus serving evolution.
Well that's actually inaccurate; evolution is simply a process, in which organism/whatever changes over time, unless you used the "weak will perish" as a metaphore.
-
Fergus, you aint' a Kazan :D
And to address an earlier point: The New Testemant was ordered by the catholic church (or it's then incarnation). The end result was... interesting, they dismissed almost 100 possible candidates to write it on the grounds they refused to lie about Magdalene (sp?).
-
(Cries) noooooo!
(crawls into corner-dies-fails to finish mission)
(Brimstone and echoing laugher are all that remain)
-
Originally posted by karajorma
This was posted earlier. Snakes evolving smaller heads in order to prevent poisoning by cane toads.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4073359.stm
I thought darwin's finches were a pretty good case too. The way their beaks evolved over each generation was one of the key corner stones for his theory in the first place.
-
on the original topic itself:
as a foreigner, id have to agree with KT 'westernization' appears to reduce the mental capacity for most teenagers. Hell, im only 19 years ago, yet I seem to feel like 90 compared to the maturity of some of the younger folks that come into service these days.
Why, oh why can teenagers not learn that if they DO something, it was THEIR choice, and THEY are responsible for it, not anyone or anything else. If it sucks, suck it up and live with it. I managed to learn it when I was 14, why cant they??
-
Because Budweiser, straight ballin' and keepin' it crunk wit yo shorty are a lot funner apparently.
-
My suggestion: Perhaps most teens have always been retarded, and no one noticed until now....
-
The majority of the Neo-Con's are creationists
Wouldn't bet on that. The political neoconservatives are quite a pragmatic bunch. They deal in reality; they have no time for fringe superstition.
-
John Ashcroft, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and a whole bunch of Straussian's who are highly evangelical are in the current U.S. government, and it is the fact that these are not fringe beliefs is what frightens many.
-
I don't think Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are Evangelicals. If they are, it hardly matters, since their agenda is a political one. They're equally frightening in my opinion, but there is a distinction to be made between the religious idealogues like Ashcroft, (who resigned anyway), and the Machiavellian conquerors.
-
Their adgenda is partly political, partly religous. They are only pragmatic about how they do their plotting, rigging, and schemeing, but their eventual goals are quite religous.
The US invaded Iraq again because the president thinks he's on some mission from god or some other hare-brained idea. Don't forget about that.
-
Yes, I probably did over exagerate with the
"majority of the Neo-Con's are creationists"
but it must be said that some of the important ones are. Regardless none of em are a nice bunch.
I would also stray away from the idea that Bush is a religous nut, he certainly does hold particuarly religous views, but don't think it stops him from dealing with particuarly unscroupulous characters.
-
I would also stray away from the idea that Bush is a religous nut
Fergus, he invaded a country BECAUSE of his religous beliefs. I think that gives us more than enough justification to identify him as a religous nut.
-
:lol:
now this thread is a bush bashing thread
:lol:
-
MWAHAHAHA
I WON
I TOLD YOU THEY WOULD WORK
(Kicks grenades for thier silly time delay, one starts ticking)
ahhh.
-
I far prefer the Bush-bashing threads to the Evolution threads.
Let's make it a bit more interesting though, shall we? Specifically, I'd like to advance the fact that both Republicans and Democrats are too much alike, caring more about power than their consituents.
-
Anyone seen the Manchurian Candidate? (The new version I mean).
The acting sucks for the most part, but the plot is great. :)
-
That was a good film. I liked the humor they inserted; Al Franken as a news reporter and such. And I didn't think the acting was bad. It was actually quite a talented cast, especially Denzel Washington.
-
Republicans and Democrats are too much alike, caring more about power than their consituents.
At least the democrats don't rig elections. :p
-
Now that's crap. Everyone rigs elections if they think they can get away with it. The Democrats don't think they can get away with it. Or maybe they are getting away with it...we wouldn't know if they were...
-
Now that's crap
Prove it.
EDIT: With CREADIBLE evidence and/or CREDIBLE sources.
-
I direct you to human nature for your proof. If they thought they could do it, they would. I'm not silly enough to believe any politician actually holds the morals they espouse.
-
But you still haven't proved me wrong......
"If they could get away with it, they would" doesn't hold any ground.
"They might be getting away with it right now" is also BS because if they were, then they would not have lost the white house and congress to the republicans.
-
yeah, democrats are somehow so superior to republicans that they would never ever resort to cheating
...you can tell I'm being sarcastic right?
-
I'm not saying that at all Bob. I'm just saying that they haven't.
-
Democrats don't rig elections eh?
(Looks at JFK election result)
Hmm, my my, nothing fishy there.
-
Name me a political party that doesn't, guys.
-
Monster Raving Loonies.
-
Hence their name ;)
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Prove it.
EDIT: With CREADIBLE evidence and/or CREDIBLE sources.
what, you mean besides the dead people that voted for Kennedy?
or are we looking for something more recent, because in this election, voter registration fraud was at record highs on both sides.
-
Back to evolution:
On Hawaii (yeah, the US state in front of the west coast of the USA) there were studies on insects. One type of insect (I think some kind of fly) showed high speed of evolution (due to their short lifecycles). when a Lava stream from the Mauna Kea isolated a small piece of jungle it became most obvious; When scientists returned to the place after one year, there were two sub species there (one living in the isolated part, the other in the rest of the area). One year before, they were all the same.
-
Umm...sorry to interrupt, but I just thought I'd say this has to be the most interesting thing I've ever read...
Ur...cheers!
-
Hmmmmmmmm.... The thing is, it's got back to the 'What Auntie Mable did 15 years ago' kind of argument. It's that kind of assumption that 'They did it, so can we' that allows the system to be abused so utterly in the first place.
-
what, you mean besides the dead people that voted for Kennedy?
Dead people get elected to congress. :p Seriously though, I have never heard about that. Looks like I was wrong.