Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is Not a Science Folks!!
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 27 (24116)
11-24-2002 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Matt
09-07-2002 2:48 AM


Evolution may be scientific but you were right in saying it goes on faith just as much as creation does. Alot of speculation and such, lot;s of pretty pictures though. Creation is science too though you're not allowed to say that on here partly because creation scientists have really burned bridges. The whole thing has become more about discrediting the other guy than finding the truth. I think with two different approaches going on between the two we are more likely to find the truth. If the two could ever help each other.
quote:
It disappoints me when people who send billions of dollars in tax money to the goverment so it can be lobbied towards public schools for the brainwashing of my kids. I am now sending them to a private school that teaches a well-rounded curriculum guiding them "how to think" and not "what to think". I can't contemplate this socialist style "ram it down your throat" type of education.
This i can agree with totally and completely, (other than your use of the word socialist). It's funny the school system is set up to get students to memorize facts and puke them back up when asked to. Hardly any teachers are saying lets look at these facts and think about them. Social studies is the best example of this. In high school i absolutely loved social studies, however to me social studies is in schools so we can see all the mistakes we as societies have made learn what was wrong and why and how we can avoid these same mistakes. What do you think most social studies tests consisted of. Names and Dates,. what does it matter if you can remember when it happened, who did it and when. It's more important that we see why it didn't work what caused this ect.
I had a great social teacher for that one year who encouraged debate and discussion allowing all views in his class room, we rarely took notes or had to remember dates or names. Interestingly enough the kids who were normally honor roll students barely scraped by where as those of us who normally were in the 50% range shot to 70-90% range and thoroughly enjoyed the class.
As for teaching evolution in schools it's wrong the way they teach it. It's taught as fact and shouldn't be, if taught at all should be taught as a theory and the holes should be shown. Parents need to discuss these things with their children before teachers teach them that this is truth.(the progressive monkey drawing is still used though there is no evidence to support this chain, exercising alot nerve there i think.)
Personally if i have kids my wife and I will homeshcool them, the school system is garbage it's destroyed more kids then it has helped.(the whole idea of a public school system when it was created was to entrench state ideals)(kind of like kings in england and france have used the church to brainwash people) And it is the parents responsibility to raise their kids, and if they spend 75% of the day in the care of others this gov't system is then raising your kids.
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Matt, posted 09-07-2002 2:48 AM Matt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by nator, posted 11-26-2002 1:55 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2249 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 17 of 27 (24437)
11-26-2002 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by funkmasterfreaky
11-24-2002 7:23 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
[B] Evolution may be scientific but you were right in saying it goes on faith just as much as creation does.[/QUOTE]
Really? Do you think physics or Geology or Astrophysics involves a lot of faith, too? Did we use a lot of faith to get humans to and from the moon?
quote:
Alot of speculation and such, lot;s of pretty pictures though.
Speculation is not supported by the evidence, but it is also the place where scientific discovery begins.
Scientific theories, however, are supported by evidence and observation.
quote:
Creation is science too though you're not allowed to say that on here partly because creation scientists have really burned bridges.
Creationism is science? How so? Is Creationism falsifiable? Are its tennets supported by positive evidence from nature, and have they been repeatedly tested and found to be reliable?
Has Creationism engendered breakthroughs in our understanding of how the natural world works? What academic, technological, or medical advances have come through Creationism?
quote:
The whole thing has become more about discrediting the other guy than finding the truth.
Believe it or not, the vast, vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world go to work and do their science without thinking once about Creationists. Scientific research and scientific discoveries continue to occur every day all over the world regardless of anything Creationists think or do. New drugs and therapies and medical procedures are being developed, new species are found in the rainforests, fossils are being uncovered, bacteria and virii are being observed and collected, rocks are being dated, and deeper and deeper space is being observed. All of this research and observation, so far, has pretty much corroborated, to an amazing degree, the Theory of Evolution.
Hey, if Creationists weren't trying to get their religious views taught in public schools, this would be a non-issue for most science-minded people.
I will agree, however, that Creationists spend an inordinate amount of time trying to tear down science in favor of their religiously-based beliefs instead of doing their own research.
quote:
I think with two different approaches going on between the two we are more likely to find the truth. If the two could ever help each other.
The problem is that Creationists are dressing up like scientists, but are not willing to play by the rules of science.
quote:
As for teaching evolution in schools it's wrong the way they teach it. It's taught as fact and shouldn't be, if taught at all should be taught as a theory and the holes should be shown.
That evolution happens is a fact.
We have observed evolution and we have copious evidence of it happening in the past.
The Theory of Evolution is a framework, or explanation, of the fact of evolution.
The theory explains the evidence and fits it into a larger picture of how life diversified on earth.
quote:
Parents need to discuss these things with their children before teachers teach them that this is truth.(the progressive monkey drawing is still used though there is no evidence to support this chain, exercising alot nerve there i think.)
How many parents do you think actually understand the Theory of Evolution and basic Biology? Hardly any, I would say.
I do agree that the science education in the US is pretty poor.
However, a big reason it is so poor is because there are so many right wing fundamentalists who will scream bloody murder if science teachers teach evolution in the way it really aught to be. So, many teachers just skirt around the issue, so the cycle of ignorance and religious control of ideas continues.
quote:
Personally if i have kids my wife and I will homeshcool them, the school system is garbage it's destroyed more kids then it has helped.
I hardly think that is the case.
quote:
(the whole idea of a public school system when it was created was to entrench state ideals)(kind of like kings in england and france have used the church to brainwash people)
Really? It was my understanding that the idea of free public schools was so that all people got a basic education, not just the people who could afford to pay for it.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-24-2002 7:23 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-26-2002 5:25 PM nator has replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 27 (24476)
11-26-2002 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by nator
11-26-2002 1:55 PM


quote:
Believe it or not, the vast, vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world go to work and do their science without thinking once about Creationists. Scientific research and scientific discoveries continue to occur every day all over the world regardless of anything Creationists think or do. New drugs and therapies and medical procedures are being developed, new species are found in the rainforests, fossils are being uncovered, bacteria and virii are being observed and collected, rocks are being dated, and deeper and deeper space is being observed. All of this research and observation, so far, has pretty much corroborated, to an amazing degree, the Theory of Evolution
Believe it or not science is not the pure virgin knowledge seeker it claims to be, or was meant to be to begin with. Most of the best minds in the scientific world are on the reigns of economics, and therefore is more a political thing than this pure innocent knowledge seeker. Most minds are involved in industry of some sort or another. From drug companies-oilfield-weapons production, ect. Now how many discoveries are kicked under the table stomped on and kept low profile because they would cause some political or economic damage. Is this is the pure pusrsuit of knowledge. Hardly an unbridled free search for the truth anymore is it? Note i did not say all science is based around economics/politics but to be sure the best minds and the larger mass of research that goes on is thus based. Do not parade a whore around as a virgin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by nator, posted 11-26-2002 1:55 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Coragyps, posted 11-26-2002 5:48 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied
 Message 21 by nator, posted 11-27-2002 10:08 AM funkmasterfreaky has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 814 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 19 of 27 (24481)
11-26-2002 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by funkmasterfreaky
11-26-2002 5:25 PM


quote:
Now how many discoveries are kicked under the table stomped on and kept low profile because they would cause some political or economic damage.
Examples, please? The car engine that runs on water and gets 300 miles to the gallon doesn't count.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-26-2002 5:25 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-26-2002 6:39 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 27 (24492)
11-26-2002 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Coragyps
11-26-2002 5:48 PM


I guess i will have to go and buy that book to finish this, but I would think that the ability to reason and the track record of the deciet of politics and economics and the impact they have on anything they touch should make this a reasonable conclusion. I did not say the concept of science is wrong but like anything else money gets anywhere near it is corrupted and tied up and raped. I will see what I can do about specifics, thought this is difficult in the very fact that these things are under a table somewhere nicely kicked and smashed. Things that are hidden become difficult to find. Just ask the corpses of all those to stand against a president of the United States, exposing or legitimately contradicting him. Just trying to point out that this pure pursuit of knowledge is not our best minds are up too. Will look for these stomped and smashed discoveries though i imagine you'd be better off talking to oil companies and to nasa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Coragyps, posted 11-26-2002 5:48 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2249 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 21 of 27 (24584)
11-27-2002 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by funkmasterfreaky
11-26-2002 5:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Believe it or not science is not the pure virgin knowledge seeker it claims to be, or was meant to be to begin with. Most of the best minds in the scientific world are on the reigns of economics, and therefore is more a political thing than this pure innocent knowledge seeker. Most minds are involved in industry of some sort or another.
Care to support this assertion?
Actually, the large majority of really famous scientists, the people who make the big discoveries and are the best and brightest, are in academia. People doing genetic or medical research might be the exception.
They understand by the time they get into graduate school that if they go into industry, they will be told what to research but will make better money than if they were to stay in academia, where they will get much more academic freedom, but not make very much by comparison.
quote:
From drug companies-oilfield-weapons production, ect. Now how many discoveries are kicked under the table stomped on and kept low profile because they would cause some political or economic damage.
I don't know. Do you? How do you know this? What evidence do you have?
quote:
Is this is the pure pusrsuit of knowledge. Hardly an unbridled free search for the truth anymore is it? Note i did not say all science is based around economics/politics but to be sure the best minds and the larger mass of research that goes on is thus based. Do not parade a whore around as a virgin.
Since you have only asserted, not demonstrated, that science is a whore for money, I don't have to take this claim seriously.
I can't help but notice that you pretty much ignore the rest of my previous message. Do you now concede that Creationism isn't science?
Do you now concede that religious-type faith doesn't have much presence in science?
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-27-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-26-2002 5:25 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-27-2002 12:18 PM nator has replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 27 (24616)
11-27-2002 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by nator
11-27-2002 10:08 AM


No i just haven't gotten to it yet. Not igoring you. Just busy researching an learning a million things at once here. See I try to come your way to discuss. I am the Christian so I have to learn about science. The scientist can just say that what i believe is false because it's been "proven" wrong without even knowing what i believe. don't fly your victory flag too high. I do intend to give examples of how science is limited in it's function by economics, though i don't see how you can even deny this one. Who do think designs all these wonderful weapons of destruction. Probably our best minds. So i had already addressed the fact that i had to go and buy a couple books i saw, hold your horses there schraf. I'm not making a blind accusation here.
------------------
saved by grace
[This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 11-27-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by nator, posted 11-27-2002 10:08 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by nator, posted 11-30-2002 11:59 AM funkmasterfreaky has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2249 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 23 of 27 (25042)
11-30-2002 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by funkmasterfreaky
11-27-2002 12:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
No i just haven't gotten to it yet. Not igoring you. Just busy researching an learning a million things at once here. See I try to come your way to discuss. I am the Christian so I have to learn about science.
Glad to hear that you are learning about science, but sad that you don't know because of basic education.
quote:
The scientist can just say that what i believe is false because it's been "proven" wrong without even knowing what i believe.
Not true.
I don't know if what you believe is false or not, unless you bring it forth.
quote:
don't fly your victory flag too high. I do intend to give examples of how science is limited in it's function by economics, though i don't see how you can even deny this one.
Whoa, I never said that science isn't limited by economics. Everything is limited by economics, really. What you claimed is that a great deal of scientific discovery is squelched or covered up because of money and polotics. This is a different, more specific claim than the softer one you have now made.
quote:
Who do think designs all these wonderful weapons of destruction. Probably our best minds.
Ballistics experts and physicists. Why do you assume our best minds do this?
quote:
So i had already addressed the fact that i had to go and buy a couple books i saw, hold your horses there schraf. I'm not making a blind accusation here.
Glad of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-27-2002 12:18 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-06-2002 4:38 PM nator has not replied

  
jcgirl92
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 27 (25199)
12-01-2002 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Matt
09-07-2002 2:48 AM


Too right my friend! Evolution is just as unprovable as Creation - they're both theories! Most scientists are unbiased - they use their preconceived standpoints to interpret the evidence that is available.
You said, "There is so much time left in the future for other theories and yet "evolution" is just but one. Time is the great equalizer."
Probably quite right too!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Matt, posted 09-07-2002 2:48 AM Matt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Quetzal, posted 12-02-2002 1:49 AM jcgirl92 has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5951 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 25 of 27 (25208)
12-02-2002 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by jcgirl92
12-01-2002 11:15 PM


Hi jcgirl,
Out of curiosity, what part of evolution do you consider the least likely - to the point that you equate creationism equal to evolution in the "theory" department?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by jcgirl92, posted 12-01-2002 11:15 PM jcgirl92 has not replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 27 (25770)
12-06-2002 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by nator
11-30-2002 11:59 AM


quote:
Glad to hear that you are learning about science, but sad that you don't know because of basic education.
Okay Schraf don't get mad at me for only responding to one part of the post. Just wanted to point something out about this. When I was a kid I absolutely loved science class, my interest in the universe was unquenchable. Then in this wonderful school system we have I ran into a new teacher fresh out of university teaching jr. high. Her idiocy and pathetic attempts at teaching the age group she had been assigned to, put me behind in sciences and my science marks went out the bottom. The very same year I had the same sort of useless math teacher. (both teachers were fired at the end of the year, for all the good that does me). Anyways so my science and math knowledge fell way behind where it should be. I had wonderful english and social teachers and these areas where I had done terribly before became my new strengths.
Then already behind in my science and math going into highschool I had the misfortune of more terrible teachers in these areas. In grade 10 we had a general science and I drew a teacher who was meant to be a university prof. not a highschool science teacher. Needless to say as a young man who was already ridiculously behind scraped through this class with exactly a passing mark. Of course the physics and chemistry nearly killed me due to the fact that I had drawn another incompetent math teacher. My mothers tutoring is the only reason I passed either math or science my first year in highschool.
So with limited math skills I figured now in my second year having to choose a science that I would take biology in order to avoid extra math. Wow guess what I drew the same teacher I had the year before. Only now she hated me and I her, needless to say I failed her class. Eventually I got a good math teacher who corrected my math skills easily, seems he just knew the approach to take with me. Suddenly math was simple. I never had a teacher in science classes who corrected the damage in that area.
This is not an excuse for my ignorance, more an example of how there are too many teachers in the school systems that are there only to collect a paycheque. Very few are there because they love to teach. In my entire schooling I had 8 good teachers. Out of who knows how many. Up until this point I have had a hatred of science and scientists not because of religous backround (at the time I wanted nothing to do with God) but because of poor teaching. Now thanx to this site, I have a renewed interest and a somewhat larger understanding of science. Mainly geology but of course that runs into all the other sciences.
I guess it doesn't matter what you teach in the public school system, might as well be evolution no-one will understand the teachers anyway due to their own inability to teach. Those students who play the regurgitate game well may pass the course but I doubt they understood anything. Note apology to any teachers on this forum I didn't say they are all bad teachers just that the majority are useless, there only to collect a paycheque not for the love of teaching young minds.
So this is why I have a limited understanding of science. Though I'm trying not to leave it that way.
Oh Schraff I still do intend to start a thread on the limitations of science I haven't forgoten. Just don't want to start blabbing without making sure I've done my homework first (i think my idiocy is proven already by opening my mouth when I don't know what I'm talking about). One other thing you still never told me what a religious experience was.
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by nator, posted 11-30-2002 11:59 AM nator has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 27 (25934)
12-08-2002 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Mister Pamboli
09-08-2002 1:25 PM


hello mr. p
quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
How are we to distinguish irrational from rational thought?
it can't be done... in a strictly materialistic worldview, rationality is mere preference with a pinch of "majority rules" tossed in
quote:
How are we to distinguish rational thought building on true premises from rational thought building from false premises?
either a) empirically or b) intuitively or c) some mixture of a and b... or as the bible says, "test all things, hold on to that which is true"... the problem comes about when choosing the tools used for testing and in determining if such tools actually exist in nature...
quote:
How are we to establish any coincidence between ideology and rationality?
if idealogues are irrational by definition, all rational thoughts held by such a person are coincidental... or as my grandma might have said, "even a blind hog finds an acorn occasionally"... however, if rationality itself is mere preference, all instances of rational thought are coincidences... if "material" is all that exists, my reason is as "true" as anyone else's whether or not i am an idealogue
quote:
How are we to determine whether our belief in that coincidence is rational or irrational, ideological or nonideological without recourse to questioning the rationality of our belief?
doesn't matter... if reason is a transcendental entity, there is truth... if it's material, there is no truth... all is reduced to molecular accidents imposing the results of their accident on the wills of other accidents by fiat...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Mister Pamboli, posted 09-08-2002 1:25 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024