|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: 2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
ah polls - that's torch of truth!
quote: http://www.ajr.org/article_printable.asp?id=2748 (This is an interesting subject so I've dropped the anti-randman shield around the USS Firefox for the moment).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
On a sidenote, this article sort of sums up part of the problem:
BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | The struggle over science
quote: I cannot think of the name but there is a sci-fi book where America ends up as a nation where only pre-newtonian physics is taught and allowed - that's where the country seems to going. This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 31-Aug-2005 06:14 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: I don't know about "several decades" but hasn't every survey about HE shown that the take-up of the "hard" sciences has declined year on year? It's certainly the case here in the UK.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
There has been a quite interesting debate in the media about the use of "balance" and how it should be applied. Many organizations have taken this to mean that all ideas should be presented as if they have equal validity regards of the actual merits of the idea.
So you get the nonsense where creationism is presented in the same manner as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. your touched by his noodly appendage Charles
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 31-Aug-2005 08:27 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: Wait.. before we go too far down this road let me just check something with you know that in science that Fact=Observation rather than "This is true*". * yes yes I know but let's keep it simple. This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Sep-2005 07:53 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
No I'm not disagreeing but I'm slightly unsure from your post of your stance so was asking to clarify your position and to ensure that we are talking about the same things using the same terminology.
it seems strange to ask but many creationists use their own versions of every scientific term in existance ("I don't see why I should use YOUR terms") and it can get very confusing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
We need to establish a bit of your terminology and then we can get into the rest - what do you think a "scientific proof is"?
When I use "fact" in the context of science, I use it to mean -
quote: Fact - Wikipedia You wish to read this as it's an overview of how fact,theory interconnect in regards to the TOE. Evolution is a Fact and a Theory This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Sep-2005 08:06 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.
Shortened link. Please use peek to see how you can shorten such links in the future. This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-01-2005 10:15 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Ah this is the matter that caused me to raise my anti-randman shields around the USS Firefox. The crux of it was this - The scientist that Randman mentions (Gerland Van Dyke)goes around christian groups giving talks on his evidence (Randman saw one in the 1980s). He has never (AFAIK) produced any peer-reviewed material on the matter at all.
Nothing, nada - this was established at the time, it is therefore ratherdisingenuous for Randman to be making statements like: quote: Because in regards to Van Dyke he already knows the answer... This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Sep-2005 02:38 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
You call that rag a "peer-reviewed" journal - Peer review refers to fellow experts in the field, not your chums who have all the conclusions already worked out.
And before you make the obvious response check out the "Statement of Belief":
quote: What a joke - how can that magazine be engaged in science, when you have to agree to the conclusions before you submit the research!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: em..with examples who didn't seem to be doing anything.. Behe is an interesting one and I'll search for the actual quote (or I'll retract this statement in the morning) - he says he doesn't even try to put stuff in peer-reviewed journals and one of the main reasons is that he can make more money the other way.
quote: Common creationist tactic, you are trying to argue the scientists not the science. This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Sep-2005 03:25 PM This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Sep-2005 03:26 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
That looks awfully like you are trying to have a debate about science and QM (which is odd because a) you are barred from the science forums and b) the last time you were discussing QM you were getting knocked out of the park by John but doing your usual "NANANANANANANANANAN".
If the discussion goes in that direction - what does it directly have to do with the OP?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
What about native indians and their spirit guides?
What so inherently easier to believe about a man who could walk on water and could raise from the dead. For the outsider your belief seems equally as valid/invalid as any other. This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 02-Sep-2005 09:43 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024