Page 3 of 3 [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

11 Jan 2008, 6:40 pm

monty wrote:
I remember setting up a large table filled with soil for a physical geography lab - the table was tilted, and on one side, there was a pipe that could release water in various patterns and intensities. This apparatus was for modelling erosion.

A grad student from India wandered by and looked in to see what was going on - he had an engineering bachelors degree. I explained that this was to model erosion. He said he didn't believe in erosion. I looked at him in an incredulous way, and asked him how the Earth's landscapes got the way they are today. He said "The Gods" and walked off. That's why I said faith is the biggest opposition to science, not education.

That raises another question: Should we teach all theories of evolution in the classroom? Hindu creationism, Native American Creation beliefs, West African/Voudou ideas on the origins of the Earth? Or just stick to the science??

In science classes, just science.
In other kind of classes, creationism would fit better, i.e. philosophy, history, sociology, etc, not science.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Xfractor Card #351

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

11 Jan 2008, 6:40 pm

this is hilarious, so did man walk with dinosaurs?

does the bible talk about dinosaurs? i dont think so, but apparently man walked with them

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

and dont tell me the leviathin in the book of job is a dinosuar. thats BS


_________________
Winds of clarity. a universal understanding come and go, I've seen though the Darkness to understand the bounty of Light


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

11 Jan 2008, 6:44 pm

richardbenson wrote:
this is hilarious, so did man walk with dinosaurs?

does the bible talk about dinosaurs? i dont think so, but apparently man walked with them

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

and dont tell me the leviathin in the book of job is a dinosuar. thats BS

It is curious to see that, apparently, most don't deny the existence of dinosaurs now, instead, they give explanations that won't contradict the Bible, so there is the question of why no longer stating that dinasours didn't exist?


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

11 Jan 2008, 6:46 pm

monty wrote:
He said "The Gods" and walked off. That's why I said faith is the biggest opposition to science, not education.


Sheesh. And this guy was a graduate student?

The data suggest that both biblical (and qur'ánic) literalism and education are involved. For instance, evangelical/fundamentalist Christians and religious Muslims with college degrees are more likely to reject creationism than those who only graduated high school (or didn't graduate high school).

Quote:
That raises another question: Should we teach all theories of evolution in the classroom? Hindu creationism, Native American Creation beliefs, West African/Voudou ideas on the origins of the Earth? Or just stick to the science??


There would not be enough time. You simply named a few of them. There are many, many more.

Personally, I have no problem with presenting views on origins in a comparative religions class or in a social problems class. As a college professor, I myself sometimes raise the issue in my social problems classes. I do, however, take issue with teaching religious views on human origins in biology or natural science classes.

High school or middle school students taking a biology class in the U.S. should, IMO, only be given information which is substantiated by mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific research. It is not the job of students to decided [edit:decide) between different models, especially when only one of them is scientific.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


Last edited by nominalist on 11 Jan 2008, 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

11 Jan 2008, 6:49 pm

greenblue wrote:
In science classes, just science.
In other kind of classes, creationism would fit better, i.e. philosophy, history, sociology, etc, not science.

Although that applies to secular education, now christian-religious schools are a different thing I guess, I suppose they could teach both, evolution, because it would be really necessary to study it in some cases I suppose.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Xfractor Card #351

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

11 Jan 2008, 6:55 pm

greenblue wrote:
It is curious to see that, apparently, most don't deny the existence of dinosaurs now, instead, they give explanations that won't contradict the Bible, so there is the question of why no longer stating that dinasours didn't exist?
im guessing that after a long hard look at the facts, i mean theres flipping fossils everywhere, it was in thier best intrest to not make themselfs appear anymore foolish than they already are


_________________
Winds of clarity. a universal understanding come and go, I've seen though the Darkness to understand the bounty of Light


nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

11 Jan 2008, 7:56 pm

richardbenson wrote:
greenblue wrote:
It is curious to see that, apparently, most don't deny the existence of dinosaurs now, instead, they give explanations that won't contradict the Bible, so there is the question of why no longer stating that dinasours didn't exist?
im guessing that after a long hard look at the facts, i mean theres flipping fossils everywhere, it was in thier best intrest to not make themselfs appear anymore foolish than they already are


The Christian creationists do not agree among themselves on creationism. There are numerous versions. There are young-earth, old-earth, gap, intelligent design, progressive, and day-age creationists. There are even creationists who believe that the earth is flat (seriously) and creationists who believe in geocentrism (in this case, that the earth is the center of the entire universe).

With respect to that last version, there was a guy on Paltalk who used to post this website all the time which tried to scientifically demonstrate that the earth was the center of the universe. It was quite entertaining. Here it is:

http://www.geocentricity.com/

And this one is also weird:

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/geocentr.htm


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


Anubis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 135
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911
Location: Mount Herculaneum/England

11 Jan 2008, 8:02 pm

Fundiepaedia.

Delusional, truly delusional.


_________________
Lalalalai.... I'll cut you up!


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

11 Jan 2008, 8:26 pm

nominalist wrote:
With respect to that last version, there was a guy on Paltalk who used to post this website all the time which tried to scientifically demonstrate that the earth was the center of the universe. It was quite entertaining. Here it is:

http://www.geocentricity.com/
galileowaswrong.com from geocentricity.com wrote:
Galileo Was Wrong:
The Church Was Right


Quote:
There are even creationists who believe that the earth is flat (seriously)

http://theflatearthsociety.org/

Its very surprising what you can find on the internet.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

11 Jan 2008, 10:07 pm

greenblue wrote:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/

Its very surprising what you can find on the internet.


There is more than one such society on the Internet. That one is more free-form. However, there are some "flat earth societies" which are explicitly Christian fundamentalist.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

12 Jan 2008, 3:57 am

With ref to "galileowaswrong.com";

The popular french science magazine "Science et Avenir", carried an article about a year ago exploring just such an issue,( tho' not the religious version, :lol:) of recent scientific doubts being cast on galileos theories, specifically that element which states all laws stay same in all directions everywhere.

A couple of, maybe a few, ( vaguely remember 3 or 4 names) scientists , aswell as a research team somewhere ( i can't remember names, and don't have the copy cos was from library), have developed a new theory that as move away from earth , in any direction, some laws of physics do change, ever so slightly.
Apparently it was supposed to be a not impossible new theory which would make redundant the complex and completely unproven string theory, ( conceived as solution to the conflict between "big" and "little" science ), and the magazine cover had huge headlines about it.

It was kind of weird, because did suddenly "feel" the world shift on its axis in imagining this, that from our own measuring point, by using our own measurement system, we ARE the centre of the universe. That using our own, and only, systems of observation ( in other words our "experience" )we "are" at the centre, and that the conflicts/contradictions between close up/sub-atomic etc and very big can only be resolved if include this "warp" in our calculations. Try saying "we are the centre of the universe" a few times. It feels strange, but exciting.

I don't know how much evidence they had nor how much support in general there is for this, but the article treated it as a potentially important change in scientific understanding. :)

I don't know what has happened to the idea since.

8)



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

12 Jan 2008, 8:58 am

I think it may have been connected to this,

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=000 ... 000&page=1

it sounds familiar, but i read about it in french, and with an even more popularist treatment, which extrapolated to the idea of "us" being at centre of universe because the further away from us in time and space go the more the constants are different, and for us to exist we needed these particular ones, or something like that.

8)



jfrmeister
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 447
Location: #2309 WP'er

12 Jan 2008, 10:04 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:


I read somewhere in 2005 that around 30%-40% of practicing scientists held a Biblical view of Creation,


G.I.G.O. You have bad sources of information.


_________________
"The christian god is a being of terrific character; cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust" - Thomas Jefferson


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

13 Jan 2008, 4:10 pm

30%-40% is a big number, they wouldn't be real scientists though, if they are limited to what religion says, they certainly would not follow the parameters of the scientific method in their work, because of that.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

13 Jan 2008, 4:29 pm

greenblue wrote:
30%-40% is a big number, they wouldn't be real scientists though, if they are limited to what religion says, they certainly would not follow the parameters of the scientific method in their work, because of that.


It is also, as a few of us have pointed out, an inaccurate number. That percentage range refers to the entire American public, not to scientists in particular. Fortunately, most scientists can see right through the biblicism of the creationist/intelligent design movement.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Xfractor Card #351

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

13 Jan 2008, 4:50 pm

how in the world can anyone on earth still think the planet is flat and the center of the universe? :?:

i think i need to register on that board with my signature :lol:


_________________
Winds of clarity. a universal understanding come and go, I've seen though the Darkness to understand the bounty of Light