Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Education
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 271 of 304 (271390)
12-21-2005 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Philip
12-21-2005 11:22 AM


Re: The How?
NosyNed writes:
I have emphasized the 'how' as that is what is then discussed from then on.
I've heard the 'how' and 'why' (inadvertently, methinks) interchanged by one undergrad chemistry professor (1983). She stated science gives the 'how', only; later she stated science gives the 'why', only.
To me there seems some profane confusion of terms:
'How' = *mechanistically caused by* (an event or something)
'Why' = *mechanistically driven by* (an event or something)
(...Or something like that)
Perhaps an honest disclaimer like: "Evo-Science knows neither the 'how' nor the 'why' with regard to its 'black-box' hypotheses, Evo-Science hypothesizing life's origins is severely flawed, etc.”)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Philip, posted 12-21-2005 11:22 AM Philip has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by NosyNed, posted 12-21-2005 1:20 PM Philip has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 272 of 304 (271396)
12-21-2005 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Philip
12-21-2005 11:45 AM


Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
Philip writes:
Not unless we debate more 'politely'.
And how am I being impolite? By asking you to support what you say? By asking you to explain concepts that make so sense to me?
Your response to my original post was a seven word sentence that made no sense. I asked what the "no" was all about and asked you address three simple points I made. That's not rude or impolite. Your responses, on the other hand...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Philip, posted 12-21-2005 11:45 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Philip, posted 12-21-2005 12:08 PM FliesOnly has replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 273 of 304 (271402)
12-21-2005 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by FliesOnly
12-21-2005 11:58 AM


Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
I'll gladly debate/discuss with you if you quit the cursing and bashing me like I'm garbage or something. (I clam up, thus)
Peradventure, start over or refute just one of my statements that seem most obnoxious to you. ... And we'll take it from there.
OK?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by FliesOnly, posted 12-21-2005 11:58 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by FliesOnly, posted 12-21-2005 12:44 PM Philip has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 274 of 304 (271428)
12-21-2005 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Philip
12-21-2005 12:08 PM


Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
Philip writes:
I'll gladly debate/discuss with you if you quit the cursing and bashing me like I'm garbage or something. (I clam up, thus)
I'm still not sure how I have been cursing and bashing you. Admittedly, I did say "WTF", so I guess that constitutes "cursing"...sorry.
Philip writes:
Peradventure, start over or refute just one of my statements that seem most obnoxious to you. ... And we'll take it from there.
The point I have been trying to make is that I cannot really refute what you're saying because I have no idea what it is that you're saying.
Let's go back to some earlier posts.
In massage 251 you made the following comments:
Philip writes:
At least it seems to me there's a limited evolutionary knowledge (if any) of:
Quark etiology, light, inflationary-big-bang etiology(s), space-time continuum(s), gene-pool etiology(s), universal equilibration for life on earth, punctuated chromosomal mutations during the *Cambrian*, persons, spirituality, etc.
I responded by asking you to explain how these relate to the ToE. I'll repeat my request now:
1. How do space-time continuums, light, and inflationary-big-bang etiology(s) in any way relate to the ToE. Additionally, what exactly are "inflationary-big-bang continuums?
You went on to state the following (I have not copied it all, only that portions that I would most like to see a response for):
Philip writes:
3) Fundamental Evo-science needs recalibration, redefinition of materials and techniques, and a publicized DISCLAIMER OF ITS LIMITATIONS with regard to evo-disputes and the cosmos. (Heck, Alabama physicians and lawyers are required to publish similar disclaimers on ALL their Ads.
I asked you a variety of questions, which you ignored, so I'll repeat them again, in a toned down version so perhaps you will supply me with some answers.
A publicized disclaimer? Anyone that works in science KNOWS the limitations of science. We don't really need a disclaimer, we already know that science will never know anything with absolute certainty. And why are you again only requesting this nonsense for "evo-disputes"? Could it be because you gladly accept medical science, scientists, and the brilliant work they have done in the past (and are continuing in the present), but yet you get upset when the same standards are applied to evolutionary theory?
You continue with:
Philip writes:
4) Special creation hypotheses ”fit’ to salvage the currently perverted ToE paradigms of the N.A.S.
What, exactly, are these "special creation hypotheses"? Come on Philip...be the first person to EVER put forth a single testable creation hypothesis! Please give us this hypothesis! This is a big one Philip. The other stuff you wrote is mostly meaningless(IMHO) . but this is a big one. I eagerly await this TESTABLE hypothesis!!! Are you going to post it soon?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Philip, posted 12-21-2005 12:08 PM Philip has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 275 of 304 (271435)
12-21-2005 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by jar
12-21-2005 11:07 AM


Re: A Creation-Event Invalidating Applied Science?
Jar writes:
Allowing even one super-natural event as scientific means that all of our scientific knowledge must be thrown out. We can no longer rely on medicine or any other field of knowledge.
(You understand my dilemma)
IF I were a 9th grade biology student, peradventure ... your 'valid' conclusion seems *strong* for me, connoting: *science-is-the-absolute*, *science-for-science-sake*, *science-reigns*, etc.
Again, if I were a theistic 9th grader, I might I seriously entertain atheism, *a-god-of-forces*, lawlessness, or such ... unless there be a public disclaimer as to the extent science authority may be allowed venture?
I agree biases must be kept in check, religious fanatics don't exploit, etc. But 9th grade students need protection from science fanatics and religious fanatics. Sincere science-educators might admit "fatal flaws", "black-box limitations", historical ToE fallacies, etc.
Well do you view that your making private your personal theistic notion(s) is 'good' science?
Currently (by your logic), I construe your 'guarded' theistic notions perhaps as:
(1) Tentative hypotheses/conjectures that help 'explain'
(2) Another *scientific* evidence of *some* metaphysical reality (though personal)
(3) A possible serious evasion of metaphysical reality 'fitting' in
(I may be wrong)
This message has been edited by Philip, 12-21-2005 01:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by jar, posted 12-21-2005 11:07 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by jar, posted 12-21-2005 1:59 PM Philip has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 276 of 304 (271439)
12-21-2005 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Philip
12-21-2005 11:50 AM


Re: The How?
'Why' = *mechanistically driven by* (an event or something)
The nature of "why" can get off into a lot of philosophical discussion. I think in this context it should be considered to be associated with a "reason" for something.
I think, myself, that in a science classroom the "how" should be stuck to though "how" might be used but mean the same as "why" when someone is being careful.
Perhaps an honest disclaimer like: "Evo-Science knows neither the 'how' nor the 'why' with regard to its 'black-box' hypotheses, Evo-Science hypothesizing life's origins is severely flawed, etc.”)
This wouldn't make any sense. Evolutionary science couldn't possibly be talking about life's origins since it is, by definition, about living things.
Chemistry is, however, starting to open up the black box of life's origins and we can start to make some tentative suggestions about it.
However, if when you say "evo-science" you do mean biology then we do indeed know a great deal about how life changes over time. If you think otherwise it is a simple matter of deep ignorance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Philip, posted 12-21-2005 11:50 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Philip, posted 12-21-2005 1:46 PM NosyNed has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 277 of 304 (271448)
12-21-2005 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by NosyNed
12-21-2005 1:20 PM


Re: Evo-Science and Life's Origins?
Evolutionary science couldn't possibly be talking about life's origins since it is, by definition, about living things.
I'm not a good linguist, just hyper-concerned and accountable.
What publishable disclaimer(s), might you propose to keep the N.A.S. and/or 9th grade biology-educators in check. Perhaps, elaborate more on your daughter's. Or, what about your statement:
"Evolutionary science couldn't possibly be talking about life's origins since it is, by definition, about living things."
...seems like an excellent disclaimer to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by NosyNed, posted 12-21-2005 1:20 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by jar, posted 12-21-2005 2:01 PM Philip has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 278 of 304 (271453)
12-21-2005 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Philip
12-21-2005 1:06 PM


Re: A Creation-Event Invalidating Applied Science?
I don't understand your post at all. It seems simply a compendium of irrational suppositions.
(You understand my dilemma)
No, not at all.
Sincere science-educators might admit "fatal flaws", "black-box limitations", historical ToE fallacies, etc.
What fatal flaws? What TOE fallacies? What black-box limitations?
Sorry, but unless you can provide some examples I can't have a clue what you are talking about.
Currently (by your logic), I construe your 'guarded' theistic notions perhaps as:
(1) Tentative hypotheses/conjectures that help 'explain'
(2) Another *scientific* evidence of *some* metaphysical reality (though personal)
(3) A possible serious evasion of metaphysical reality 'fitting' in
I don't see how you can possible get any of those concepts from anything I've said.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Philip, posted 12-21-2005 1:06 PM Philip has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 279 of 304 (271455)
12-21-2005 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Philip
12-21-2005 1:46 PM


Re: Evo-Science and Life's Origins?
What publishable disclaimer(s), might you propose to keep the N.A.S. and/or 9th grade biology-educators in check. Perhaps, elaborate more on your daughter's. Or, what about your statement:
What makes you think they need to be kept in check. ID and Classic Biblical Creationism are neither science or good theology. They need to be relegated to the area of philosophy and supposition and kept out of ANY science class.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Philip, posted 12-21-2005 1:46 PM Philip has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 280 of 304 (271464)
12-21-2005 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by FliesOnly
12-19-2005 2:17 PM


Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
FliesOnly writes:
. It's nonsensical bull shit rambling like this
... oh fucking PLEASE give us this hypothesis!
... The other stuff you wrote is mostly meaningless garbage
This clams me up FO; now I request a minor apology.
Note: you don't have to concede on anything I say; and I recant in hypocritically *backing you into a corner* out-of-the-blue.
But, your (toned down) persistence is appreciated, in a probationary manner for now, in the hopes of promoting ”good will’, ”truth’, and/or 'appropriate feedback'.
Philip writes:
4) Special creation hypotheses ”fit’ to salvage the currently perverted ToE paradigms of the N.A.S.
FliesOnly writes:
What, exactly, are these "special creation hypotheses"?
Here’s 3 (personally) necessary hypothetical conjectures that seem to me to salvage the currently 'flawed and perverted' ToE paradigms of the N.A.S. ... seeing it already delved too wrecklessly into its preposterous 'origins' propaganda (http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/):
1) God (specially) created Heaven and Earth
2) God (specially) created living entities
3) God (specially) created "psyches"
I'm not advocating to write these hypotheses verbatum in 'an N.A.S. disclaimer'. A collection of judges (without my flawed-linguistic skills) may come up with something.
The point being, I feel dreadfully accountable for 9th graders abused by biologists delving beyond their scope. How far into 'life's origins' do you want them to teach my 9th graders? Really?
Also, consider commenting on NosyNed's controversal suggestions to this problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by FliesOnly, posted 12-19-2005 2:17 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by jar, posted 12-21-2005 2:53 PM Philip has replied
 Message 282 by nwr, posted 12-21-2005 2:55 PM Philip has not replied
 Message 283 by FliesOnly, posted 12-21-2005 3:12 PM Philip has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 281 of 304 (271466)
12-21-2005 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Philip
12-21-2005 2:31 PM


Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
1) God (specially) created Heaven and Earth
2) God (specially) created living entities
3) God (specially) created "psyches"
Any such statements would be, thank GOD, unconstitutional as well as really really bad science.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Philip, posted 12-21-2005 2:31 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Philip, posted 12-22-2005 3:24 PM jar has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 282 of 304 (271467)
12-21-2005 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Philip
12-21-2005 2:31 PM


Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
Philip writes:
1) God (specially) created Heaven and Earth
2) God (specially) created living entities
3) God (specially) created "psyches"
None of those is a scientific thesis. None of those belongs in a science class. None of those is appropriate as a statement of the National Academy of Science.

Impeach Bush.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Philip, posted 12-21-2005 2:31 PM Philip has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 283 of 304 (271470)
12-21-2005 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Philip
12-21-2005 2:31 PM


Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
Philip writes:
Here’s 3 (personally) necessary hypothetical conjectures that seem to me to salvage the currently 'flawed and perverted' ToE paradigms of the N.A.S. ... seeing it already delved too wrecklessly into its preposterous 'origins' propaganda (http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/):
I will address these conjectures shortly. But first let's look at this portion of your response.
I asked for an explanation as to what you consider to be the "flawed and perverted" ToE paradigms of the N.A.S. I'm still waiting. It's difficult to debate if I do not know your position.
You do provide these however:
Philip writes:
1) God (specially) created Heaven and Earth
2) God (specially) created living entities
3) God (specially) created "psyches"
and I hope you do understand that none of these are hypotheses...correct? None of these are testable, you do realize that...correct?
The N.A.S. is a scientific organization (which I would have thought was plainly obvious from their name), and as such, adheres to the scientific method.
Philip writes:
I'm not advocating to write these hypotheses verbatum in 'an N.A.S. disclaimer'. A collection of judges (without my flawed-linguistic skills) may come up with something.
So you are proposing that the N.A.S. write a disclaimer stating that evolutionary theory could be wrong cuz...well...cuz maybe God did it?
Also, a judge in Dover PA recently did write somewhat of a disclaimer on the idea of the ToE and Intelligent Design. Maybe you should go read his decision. Here's a link:MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
Philip writes:
The point being, I feel dreadfully accountable for 9th graders abused by biologists delving beyond their scope.
Such as? I certainly cannot speak for any 9th grade biology teachers, but in what way have they delved beyond their scope?
Philip writes:
How far into 'life's origins' do you want them to teach my 9th graders? Really?
As far as the science can take them. Seems like the prudent thing to do, wouldn't you agree.
Philip writes:
Also, consider commenting on NosyNed's controversal suggestions to this problem.
No thanks, I'll let good ole NosyNed speak for himself...but admittedly, I know of no controversal suggestions he has put forth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Philip, posted 12-21-2005 2:31 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Philip, posted 12-22-2005 1:13 PM FliesOnly has replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 284 of 304 (271728)
12-22-2005 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by FliesOnly
12-21-2005 3:12 PM


Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
FliesOnly writes:
Philip writes:
How far into 'life's origins' do you want them to teach my 9th graders? Really?
As far as the science can take them. Seems like the prudent thing to do, wouldn't you agree.
Pray tell, how far might that be (no more circling discussion please)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by FliesOnly, posted 12-21-2005 3:12 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by FliesOnly, posted 12-22-2005 2:47 PM Philip has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 285 of 304 (271756)
12-22-2005 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Philip
12-22-2005 1:13 PM


Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
Philip writes:
Pray tell, how far might that be (no more circling discussion please)?
As far as the science can take them. Honestly, how is this circling the discussion? The ToE explains the diveristy of life on this planet. It does it via hypothesis formation, experimentation, and statistical analyses. What are your fears? What are these 9th grade biology teachers telling the children that has no scientific merit. I really don't know, that's why I'm asking you.
NOT something you simply disagree with. I want you to attempt to explain to me how, whatever it is they are teaching, is not scientific. I may very well agree with your position...but you never seem to actually state your position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Philip, posted 12-22-2005 1:13 PM Philip 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