 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Odin
Supreme Genius
Joined: Oct 13, 2006
Age: 22
Posts: 1885
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA
|
 Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 5:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ragtime wrote: | | Odin wrote: | | Orwell wrote: | My Biology teacher is a Christian, you dolt. You think he was "singling out Christians and making fun of their belief in God?" How many people mock their own religion? And no one is required to lie, and no one's grade is affected by saying they don't believe in evolution.
Get over your delusions of persecution, Ragtime. For the last time, NOT ALL EVOLUTIONIST ARE ATHEIST. |
Ragtime is sounding Schizotypal, methinks he needs anti-psychotics. |
Oh my, an ad hominem attack from a liberal! I'm shocked! 
 |
It isn't an ad-hom attack when it's obvious to everyone that your perception of reality is distorted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizotypal_personality_disorder
| Quote: | The American Psychiatric Association's DSM-IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders, defines Schizotypal personality disorder as "A pervasive pattern of social and interpersonal deficits marked by acute discomfort with, and reduced capacity for, close relationships as well as by cognitive or perceptual distortions and eccentricities of behavior, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
1. Ideas of reference (excluding delusions of reference)
2. Odd beliefs or magical thinking that influences behavior and is inconsistent with subcultural norms (e.g., superstitiousness, belief in clairvoyance, telepathy, or "sixth sense"; in children and adolescents, bizarre fantasies or preoccupations)
3. Unusual perceptual experiences, including bodily illusions
4. Odd thinking and speech (e.g., vague, circumstantial, metaphorical, overelaborate, or stereotyped)
5. Suspiciousness or paranoid ideation
6. Inappropriate or constricted affect
7. Behavior or appearance that is odd, eccentric, or peculiar
8. Lack of close friends or confidants other than first-degree relatives
9. Social anxiety that tends to be associated with paranoid fears rather than negative judgments about self |
_________________
My Blog: http://selzshaven.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sedaka
Searching For My Catcher in the Rye
Joined: Jul 17, 2006
Age: 26
Posts: 5127
Location: In the recesses of my mind
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
it teaches you to be able to spot the fakes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjcCafRmGm8
lol
_________________
and yet i'm
still roaming these
empty streets at night
alone again only to find
there are no shelters here;
i must simply resolve
to play in the rain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Quatermass
Yahtzee's Protege
Joined: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 16785
Location: Somewhere with a sweet hat and a chip on my shoulder
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have recently decided what Ragtime's species is. It is a small subspecies of man, Homo Sapiens Coprocephalus.
This subspecies is fast coming extinct, and unless action is taken now, we will lose biodiversity. While their exterior appearance is the same as Homo Sapiens Sapiens, their brains are susceptible more than usual to virulent memes, which cause extraordinary sclerosis of the prefrontal lobes and the amygdala, as well as perverting the function of the nucleus accumbens to unusual reward pathways.
We need to find a preserve, somewhere that these specimens can roam freely without harming anyone else....
I'd suggest the Australian Outback, but it may be too hot for them, even though their brains seem to be used mostly for cooling blood.
_________________
At moments when monsters spawn in by rising up from the ground, it turns the action into a gory, protracted session of Whack-A-Mole.
-Yahtzee on Clive Barker's Jericho |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 3611
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | | Orwell wrote: |
I've listened to people challenge my bio teacher on evolution multiple times. He patiently attempts to explain the evidence to them, but when it becomes obvious that they aren't interested in such a discussion, he shrugs it off and moves on. No one's grade has ever been adversely affected by these statements. If you can pass the tests, and you can do the lab work, you'll pass the class. That's how science classes work. It's only really in the humanities and liberal arts where you can get a lower grade for disagreeing with the teacher. |
Maybe that's how things work in your particular school, but I'm sure that somewhere along
the way of filling out the tests, you're going to have to say or directly imply that man came
from apes, or that biogenesis occurred -- two claims which NO ONE CAN POSSIBLY KNOW.
It's just its own little religion, plain and simple. Say the incantations even though you may not believe them,
or you're out. |
First, you can't even keep your terminology straight. Biogenesis, "life from life," is the normal mode of reproduction (indeed the only observed one) for all living things. If you don't know that biogenesis occurred, you must doubt your own birth. And my class didn't really delve much into human evolution, because that subject is harder to settle than other matters within evolutionary biology. Contrary to your paranoid ravings, we do NOT teach unconfirmed things as fact. There was a brief interlude into some of the current ideas about human origins, but even our textbook (which is standard all over the country) made clear that the specifics they mentioned about human evolution are tentative because there isn't as much fossil evidence for Homo Sapiens as they would like to base their ideas off of. I don't recall human evolution ever being on a test.
| Quote: | | You just won't admit this is what's going on in the classroom. |
Frankly, I think many of us here have been in the classroom more recently than yourself, so we can say with more certainty how the material is being presented.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
monty
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 05, 2007
Posts: 2226
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | | You just won't admit this is what's going on in the classroom. |
We biology initiates can be frank and open, but only after the secret handshakes are exchanged and the perimeter is secure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Speckles
Velociraptor
Joined: May 03, 2008
Posts: 441
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: |
Hmm, I'm more in favor of teachers being reprimanded for teaching students known falsehoods,
such as that "Man came from apes" is a fact, which hasn't been proven, or even roughly shown.
But hey, that's just me.
Whereas you're for "getting to know your enemy", rather than realizing that the enemy can be corrected and/or removed
to be replaced with a teacher who teaches facts as facts and opinions as opinions.
Where do you get the idea that numbskull teachers deserve to be tolerated,
while their students learn crap from them? |
You know Ragtime, I agree with you. Which is why I want to raise my own beef about one of the glaring lies being taught in the class rooms everywhere, a horrible consipricy against all right thinking humans.
There is no such thing as Australia.
Has anyone here ever been to Australia? Who here can prove it exists? I mean, if there really was an 'Australia', it would be exactly like the United States. After all, it was colonized by Britain, and later threw off the yoke of oppression. It's all a big hoax, to make us doubt in America. It is an evil falsehood, that should be removed from all classrooms immediately  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Quatermass
Yahtzee's Protege
Joined: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 16785
Location: Somewhere with a sweet hat and a chip on my shoulder
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I hope you're being satirical, because otherwise, I am living nowhere.
_________________
At moments when monsters spawn in by rising up from the ground, it turns the action into a gory, protracted session of Whack-A-Mole.
-Yahtzee on Clive Barker's Jericho |
|
| Back to top |
|
Gromit
Velociraptor
![]()
Joined: May 20, 2006
Posts: 489
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | | Gromit wrote: | | Ragtime wrote: | | And if people believe that God wasn't an active part of how we got here (whether or not He exists), then that breeds a strong sense of nihilism in them. And Nihilism indeed is no father of great moral virtues. |
I would like to know whether there is any empirical evidence for that claim, or whether it is one of those things that some people see as so obvious that they never bother to check. |
Actually, neither. I don't think how nihilism affects people can be tested in the lab |
You made a claim about empirical data. That can be checked. I didn't say it had to be in the lab.
| Ragtime wrote: | | Gromit wrote: | The claim conflicts with my experience, and with a secondary reference mentioning a paper reporting that how moral people are is independent of whether or not they are religious.
|
It doesn't at all conflict with my experience |
That is a claim about empirical data. If your own experience and its interpretation is all you've got, you can tell us what that experience is. And think about whether you want to modify your statement into a probabilistic one. As you have formulated it at the moment, the most natural interpretation is that you claim a strong sense of nihilism is inevitable. Right in this thread there are people who think there is no reason to believe God is a necessary part of the explanation for the origin of life on Earth. I am one of them. Where is my strong sense of nihilism?
Inevitabilities are rare in human behaviour, so shall we treat your claim as a probabilistic one? That is still testable, though you need better data.
| Ragtime wrote: | | But history, math, and physics have been tested and proven over and over again. |
These are fields of study. you can't prove a field of study. And mathematics is the only of the fields you mentioned where you can prove a theorem. In the natural sciences, and even more in history, the best you can do is to say that a theory or idea is consistent with the data, and those alternative ideas that have been considered so far are either inconsistent with the data, less consistent, or have less predictive power. If a theory has no remotely serious competitor, it may be treated as fact for practical purposes. That is when something is called a scientific fact. That's the closest you ever get to proof in the natural sciences or in history. If you want to apply the same standard of proof as in mathematics, then no theory in the natural sciences is proven. To call a theory unproven without making clear what standard of proof you mean is either ignorant or misleading enough to be dishonest. Make clear what you mean.
If you want to understand this better, have a look at a post where Escuerd discusses Lakatos, and follow that up. This is how science works in practice. If you don't want evolution taught in school, the way to prevent that is to come up with a better theory, or at least one that can compete. I had a thread on that topic, Orwell has one. In mine you said it would be absurd to say ID is science, so you don't seem to have any scientific theory to offer as an alternative to evolution. Of course, there is the problem that you use the term to cover topics which are not strictly part of evolutionary theory.
| Ragtime wrote: | | But that man evolved from lower lifeforms has neither been tested nor proven. |
If we ignore that the idea of "lower life forms" is part of the scala naturae, a pre-Darwinian concept coming out of theological ideas, your claim is only true in the same sense as relativity has been not been proven. But both relativity and the claim that humans had a common ancestor with other species have been tested. Look again how you test theories in natural science and prove or disprove theorems in mathematics.
| Ragtime wrote: | | See the difference? Can you see it? Can you? chin |
That is just what I want to ask you. And I did ask before. I don't remember getting an answer. If I missed it, please direct me to it.
We had the beginning of a real discussion. Now you are drifting back into the tactics of political campaigning. Can we get back to a real discussion? You've shown that you can do that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Odin
Supreme Genius
Joined: Oct 13, 2006
Age: 22
Posts: 1885
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Paleontology is like Archeology. If one thinks that evolution over geological time scales isn't science because it "can't be tested in the lab" one would have to logically say the same thing of historical facts of cultural change and migrations based on archeology. Studying the evolutionary relationships of life in earth using fossil evidence is little different epistemologically from studying the evolution of human societies using archaeological artifacts.
And Evolution does make predictions that can be tested. In the early 90s an increasing number of paleontologists hypothesized that bird-like theropod dinosaurs, such as dromeosaurs ("raptors") should have feathers. Sure enough, in the late 90s at a fossil site in China we started finding feathered dinosaurs. These fossils also shows how feathers evolved. "Raptors" and related groups have full-blown quill-type feathers while compsagnathids, basal tyrannosaurs, and other less bird-like dinosaurs had only downy protofeathers.
_________________
My Blog: http://selzshaven.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sedaka
Searching For My Catcher in the Rye
Joined: Jul 17, 2006
Age: 26
Posts: 5127
Location: In the recesses of my mind
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Odin wrote: | Paleontology is like Archeology. If one thinks that evolution over geological time scales isn't science because it "can't be tested in the lab" one would have to logically say the same thing of historical facts of cultural change and migrations based on archeology. Studying the evolutionary relationships of life in earth using fossil evidence is little different epistemologically from studying the evolution of human societies using archaeological artifacts.
And Evolution does make predictions that can be tested. In the early 90s an increasing number of paleontologists hypothesized that bird-like theropod dinosaurs, such as dromeosaurs ("raptors") should have feathers. Sure enough, in the late 90s at a fossil site in China we started finding feathered dinosaurs. These fossils also shows how feathers evolved. "Raptors" and related groups have full-blown quill-type feathers while compsagnathids, basal tyrannosaurs, and other less bird-like dinosaurs had only downy protofeathers. |
to be fair... several of these dino with feather fossils are fakes. i can't say all... but there are some.
_________________
and yet i'm
still roaming these
empty streets at night
alone again only to find
there are no shelters here;
i must simply resolve
to play in the rain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Obres
Toucan
Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 289
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Apparently none because even though it's been sufficiently scientifically proven for years we're still arguing it. Why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Gromit
Velociraptor
![]()
Joined: May 20, 2006
Posts: 489
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | | I'm sure that somewhere along the way of filling out the tests, you're going to have to say or directly imply that man came from apes, or that biogenesis occurred -- two claims which NO ONE CAN POSSIBLY KNOW. |
Let's say you meant abiogenesis. Why do you think it's impossible to know whether humans descended from an ancient (not modern) ape, why do you think it's impossible to know whether abiogenesis occurred? Remember that the evidence relevant to these two claims is very different before you declare it all irrelevant.
| Ragtime wrote: | | It's just its own little religion, plain and simple. |
Religions make statements about supernatural events, and make moral claims. Where is the supernatural in evolution, where are the moral claims? Try to avoid moral claims that depend on the naturalistic fallacy. That is not part of evolutionary theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7392
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Obres wrote: | | Apparently none because even though it's been sufficiently scientifically proven for years we're still arguing it. Why? |
And again, for those in this thread who still don't get it, my argument is not
that evolution didn't happen. Why would I care one way or the other?
God exists either way. My only contention is scientists and teachers who are
not being completely honest with students and the general public about their data.
But some people apparently are for dishonesty, as long as it advances "Science".
For, only honesty of one's findings can advance real science,
while "Science" as a proper noun and underground political movement
is always advanced through dishonesty.
Maybe I should make a poll asking WP members if they believe in practicing
1) Honesty
or
2) Dishonesty
Some people are clearly for dishonesty, and that's okay, so long as they are
at least honest enough to, just this once, say so.
_________________
Anyone who is interested in philosophy, the of meaning of life, and answers to our hardest questions, I suggest you check out the free, online mp3 archive of Ravi Zacharias at www.rzim.org. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7392
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gromit wrote: | | Ragtime wrote: | | I'm sure that somewhere along the way of filling out the tests, you're going to have to say or directly imply that man came from apes, or that biogenesis occurred -- two claims which NO ONE CAN POSSIBLY KNOW. |
Let's say you meant abiogenesis. Why do you think it's impossible to know whether humans descended from an ancient (not modern) ape, why do you think it's impossible to know whether abiogenesis occurred?
|
Firstly, yes, I meant a biogenesis, and have now corrected that post.
Secondly, let's cut the BS: Are you suggesting that those two claims have been proven?
Say yes or no.
| Gromit wrote: |
| Ragtime wrote: | | It's just its own little religion, plain and simple. |
Religions make statements about supernatural events, and make moral claims. Where is the supernatural in evolution, where are the moral claims? Try to avoid moral claims that depend on the naturalistic fallacy. That is not part of evolutionary theory.
|
Would you prefer the term cult? Both the true, all-encompassing definitions of cults and of religions are murky at best.
Therefore, I will call it either term you perfer: cult or religion.
_________________
Anyone who is interested in philosophy, the of meaning of life, and answers to our hardest questions, I suggest you check out the free, online mp3 archive of Ravi Zacharias at www.rzim.org. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Speckles
Velociraptor
Joined: May 03, 2008
Posts: 441
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quatermass wrote: | | I hope you're being satirical, because otherwise, I am living nowhere. |
Obviously you're in on it . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
