Political Crossfire Forums

[lovebush]

mr.snruB wrote: lovebush wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: ID is creationism on crack. It can't be scientifically proven, therefore it shouldn't be taught in school. Evolution can be scientifically proven, and therefore should be taught.

Afraid your beliefs wont hold up in comparison, hmm how little faith you have in your religion. :roll: Would you mind telling me who you heard the ID argument from. by your statements you seem to be rather ignorant of the theory.

The most convincing arguements I've heard were from Michael Behe (whom I've mentioned before) and William Demski with their Irreducible Complexity thing, but that's been debunked

Have you read there entire explanations or clips from those trying to "debunk" it?

[Revenant]

mr.snruB wrote: Ameriman wrote: What are you afraid of? That some of these children could possibly subscribe to creationism as a valid theory?

Yes. The children are the future, and if they're a bunch of brainwashed dumbasses then we'll be in trouble

:lol:

Not tactful but...direct.

:lol:

[Ameriman]

mr.snruB wrote:
Is that what I said? No. I said that if one is proven (as in, with evidence), and the other is not proven, we shouldn't teach the unproven one if at the same time we have to tell them "there is a debate as to which one is correct", misleading them. If you teach both but aknowledge that, at the time being, one has far more basis in fact than the other, then fine. But it's a bit of a waste of resources to waste time on an unproven theory for political reasons.

The theory of evolution is just that....in addition, the existance of evolution does not discount creationism.

Who said anything about political reasons? School is about the gaining of knowledge is it not?

Quote:
Theories as in "Scientific Theory" (like Evolution), or as in the colloquial use of the term "theory"

Mathmatical theories.

Algebraic K-theory
Approximation theory
Automata theory
Braid theory
Brill-Noether theory
Catastrophe theory
Category theory
Character theory
Choquet theory
Class field theory
Coding theory
Cohomology theory
Computation theory
Deformation theory
Dimension theory
Distribution theory
Field theory
Elimination theory
Extremal graph theory
Galois theory
Game theory
Graph theory
Grothendieck's Galois theory
Group theory
Hodge theory
Homology theory
Homotopy theory
Information theory
Invariant theory
K-theory
Knot theory
L-theory
Local class field theory
M-theory
Matrix theory
Measure theory
Model theory
Morse theory
Module theory
Network theory
Nevanlinna theory
Number theory
Obstruction theory
Operator theory
Percolation theory
Perturbation theory
Probability theory
Proof theory
Quantum theory
Queue theory
Recursion theory
Representation theory
Ring theory
Scheme theory
Set theory
Sheaf theory
Singularity theory
Spectral theory
String theory
Surgery theory
Theory of equations
Topos theory
Transcendence theory
Twistor theory
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_theories"


Quote:
I know that. That's precisely why I used that example

Unfortunately for your example...the theory of creationism hasn't been proved false...

[Ameriman]

mr.snruB wrote: Ameriman wrote: What are you afraid of? That some of these children could possibly subscribe to creationism as a valid theory?

Yes. The children are the future, and if they're a bunch of brainwashed dumbasses then we'll be in trouble

So as long as they subscribe to the theory you happen to subscribe to everything will be ok?

Right....talk about brainwashing....

[mr.snruB]

lovebush wrote: mr.snruB wrote: lovebush wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: ID is creationism on crack. It can't be scientifically proven, therefore it shouldn't be taught in school. Evolution can be scientifically proven, and therefore should be taught.

Afraid your beliefs wont hold up in comparison, hmm how little faith you have in your religion. :roll: Would you mind telling me who you heard the ID argument from. by your statements you seem to be rather ignorant of the theory.

The most convincing arguements I've heard were from Michael Behe (whom I've mentioned before) and William Demski with their Irreducible Complexity thing, but that's been debunked

Have you read there entire explanations or clips from those trying to "debunk" it?

Entire Explanations. I've heard about the flagellum. The blood clots. etc, etc, etc. Watch that "Ken Miller on Intelligent Design" vid on YouTube. He's a very smart man who also believes in God, but accepts Evolution

[Ameriman]

Revenant wrote: mr.snruB wrote: Ameriman wrote: What are you afraid of? That some of these children could possibly subscribe to creationism as a valid theory?

Yes. The children are the future, and if they're a bunch of brainwashed dumbasses then we'll be in trouble

:lol:

Not tactful but...direct.

:lol:

And quite scary...

[Ek0nomik]

Revenant wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: Ameriman wrote: How about this one?

The science of evolution is the language of God?

It has no scientific merit.

End of Story.

Sheesh...

It's an attempt to get creationism into schools through the backdoor. It isn't scientific in the least. Teach it in a voluntary philosophy/religion class, where it belongs.

I'm trying to get that across Revenant, but it isn't working.

Ameriman wrote: If you were to ask your friends if it is true that God exists...what do you think they would say?

Uhm, they would say they believe in God?

Ameriman wrote: There is no truth in theories by the way.

Yes, thank you Mr. Science & Philosophy. However, there is statistical evidence that something will be right %99.999999999999 of the time. You can have a very small, practically zero margin of error.

[lovebush]

Ek0nomik wrote: Ameriman wrote: So the idea of creationism...being that the origin of the material that makes up the universe is completely unknown...isn't necessarily that far out there of a theory now is it? Shouldn't we at least tell our children that there are alternative beliefs out there? Isn't that what education is?

I love that argument. Some people believe fairies are living underneath their garden. Should we teach that for a day?

that would depend, are you telling them that fairies live under gardens or that some people believe that fairies live under gardens. the latter, is fine.

[Ameriman]

Revenant wrote: Ameriman wrote: Revenant wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: Ameriman wrote: How about this one?

The science of evolution is the language of God?

It has no scientific merit.

End of Story.

Sheesh...

It's an attempt to get creationism into schools through the backdoor. It isn't scientific in the least. Teach it in a voluntary philosophy/religion class, where it belongs.

Ahh the crux!!! Look at the contradiction of your statements.

You want it in or out?

Having fun twisting my words to fit your alternate reality?

Out of science classes. Keep it in philosopy/religion classes which are not MANDATORY. Those who want to be exposed to theory which has no basis in science can be if they so choose. Everyone else can study real scientific theory in a science class, and leave the gobblety-**** in the religion classes, where it belongs.

I see...so make those theories that are scientific in nature mandatory and keep those that we haven't figured out yet as electives.

I think your bias is blinding you to what learning is all about.

By the way...I'm not sure how I would be twisting your words if I specifically asked for your clarification...

[mr.snruB]

Ameriman wrote: mr.snruB wrote: Ameriman wrote: What are you afraid of? That some of these children could possibly subscribe to creationism as a valid theory?

Yes. The children are the future, and if they're a bunch of brainwashed dumbasses then we'll be in trouble

So as long as they subscribe to the theory you happen to subscribe to everything will be ok?

Right....talk about brainwashing....

Ummm...I'd have no problem believing in another theory, even ID. However, said theory would need to have more evidence behind it then evolution to get my support. This isn't about what I hope is real. It's what has more to back it up

[lovebush]

Ek0nomik wrote: [

ID is party of the Creationism series, that's all someone needs to know. I do know more, but that single piece of information is enough.


Can someone translate for us please?

[mr.snruB]

Ameriman wrote: Revenant wrote: Ameriman wrote: Revenant wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: Ameriman wrote: How about this one?

The science of evolution is the language of God?

It has no scientific merit.

End of Story.

Sheesh...

It's an attempt to get creationism into schools through the backdoor. It isn't scientific in the least. Teach it in a voluntary philosophy/religion class, where it belongs.

Ahh the crux!!! Look at the contradiction of your statements.

You want it in or out?

Having fun twisting my words to fit your alternate reality?

Out of science classes. Keep it in philosopy/religion classes which are not MANDATORY. Those who want to be exposed to theory which has no basis in science can be if they so choose. Everyone else can study real scientific theory in a science class, and leave the gobblety-**** in the religion classes, where it belongs.

I see...so make those theories that are scientific in nature mandatory and keep those that we haven't figured out yet as electives.

I think your bias is blinding you to what learning is all about.

Hahaaha, I'm sorry we have a bias for reality. :lol:

[Ameriman]

Ek0nomik wrote:

I'm trying to get that across Revenant, but it isn't working.

I don't subscribe to his opinions about where school topics "belong".

Quote:

Uhm, they would say they believe in God?

Is it true to them or not?

Quote:
Yes, thank you Mr. Science & Philosophy. However, there is statistical evidence that something will be right %99.999999999999 of the time. You can have a very small, practically zero margin of error.

Scientifically...it isn't truth.

Do you want our kids to learn or not?

[Ameriman]

mr.snruB wrote: Ameriman wrote: Revenant wrote: Ameriman wrote: Revenant wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: Ameriman wrote: How about this one?

The science of evolution is the language of God?

It has no scientific merit.

End of Story.

Sheesh...

It's an attempt to get creationism into schools through the backdoor. It isn't scientific in the least. Teach it in a voluntary philosophy/religion class, where it belongs.

Ahh the crux!!! Look at the contradiction of your statements.

You want it in or out?

Having fun twisting my words to fit your alternate reality?

Out of science classes. Keep it in philosopy/religion classes which are not MANDATORY. Those who want to be exposed to theory which has no basis in science can be if they so choose. Everyone else can study real scientific theory in a science class, and leave the gobblety-**** in the religion classes, where it belongs.

I see...so make those theories that are scientific in nature mandatory and keep those that we haven't figured out yet as electives.

I think your bias is blinding you to what learning is all about.

Hahaaha, bias towards reality. :lol:

If his reality is to be anti-religion than yes...

[Ameriman]

mr.snruB wrote: Ameriman wrote: mr.snruB wrote: Ameriman wrote: What are you afraid of? That some of these children could possibly subscribe to creationism as a valid theory?

Yes. The children are the future, and if they're a bunch of brainwashed dumbasses then we'll be in trouble

So as long as they subscribe to the theory you happen to subscribe to everything will be ok?

Right....talk about brainwashing....

Ummm...I'd have no problem believing in another theory, even ID. However, said theory would need to have more evidence behind it then evolution to get my support. This isn't about what I hope is real. It's what has more to back it up

What you are now talking about is making a choice with the information that you have had presented.

What you and others on this thread were talking about before is removing the information from our children and thus directing them to the choice you've made.

Quite a difference.

[Random Evil Guy]

Ameriman wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: ID is creationism on crack. It can't be scientifically proven, therefore it shouldn't be taught in school. Evolution can be scientifically proven, and therefore should be taught.

There are tons of mathmatical theories that can't be proven....should they not be taught in school?

first of all, there aren't 'theories' in math. there are theorems, corrolaries, axioms (postulates) and conjectures(hypothesis). secondly, math has nothing to do with the real world. it is an abstract, logically structured system based on a number of axioms. math is a tool used in other sciences through mathematical models and approximations. thirdly, which conjectures are being taught in school today?

[mr.snruB]

Ameriman wrote: mr.snruB wrote: Ameriman wrote: Revenant wrote: Ameriman wrote: Revenant wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: Ameriman wrote: How about this one?

The science of evolution is the language of God?

It has no scientific merit.

End of Story.

Sheesh...

It's an attempt to get creationism into schools through the backdoor. It isn't scientific in the least. Teach it in a voluntary philosophy/religion class, where it belongs.

Ahh the crux!!! Look at the contradiction of your statements.

You want it in or out?

Having fun twisting my words to fit your alternate reality?

Out of science classes. Keep it in philosopy/religion classes which are not MANDATORY. Those who want to be exposed to theory which has no basis in science can be if they so choose. Everyone else can study real scientific theory in a science class, and leave the gobblety-**** in the religion classes, where it belongs.

I see...so make those theories that are scientific in nature mandatory and keep those that we haven't figured out yet as electives.

I think your bias is blinding you to what learning is all about.

Hahaaha, bias towards reality. :lol:

If his reality is to be anti-religion than yes...

Sorry, but Science isn't a politically correct democracy. If it proves religion wrong, than too bad

[Revenant]

Ameriman wrote: Revenant wrote: Ameriman wrote: Revenant wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: Ameriman wrote: How about this one?

The science of evolution is the language of God?

It has no scientific merit.

End of Story.

Sheesh...

It's an attempt to get creationism into schools through the backdoor. It isn't scientific in the least. Teach it in a voluntary philosophy/religion class, where it belongs.

Ahh the crux!!! Look at the contradiction of your statements.

You want it in or out?

Having fun twisting my words to fit your alternate reality?

Out of science classes. Keep it in philosopy/religion classes which are not MANDATORY. Those who want to be exposed to theory which has no basis in science can be if they so choose. Everyone else can study real scientific theory in a science class, and leave the gobblety-**** in the religion classes, where it belongs.

I see...so make those theories that are scientific in nature mandatory and keep those that we haven't figured out yet as electives.

I think your bias is blinding you to what learning is all about.

Yes, me being raised Catholic and still subscribing to Christianity gives me a real anti-Christian bias. Give me a break. I believe the "gobblety-****", but kids shouldn't be taught it in a science class. Scientific theories have real, measurable backing. Religious theories do not.

[Random Evil Guy]

Ameriman wrote: Shouldn't we at least tell our children that there are alternative beliefs out there?


not in science class anyway...

[lovebush]

Kumar wrote: Ameriman wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: ID is creationism on crack. It can't be scientifically proven, therefore it shouldn't be taught in school. Evolution can be scientifically proven, and therefore should be taught.

There are tons of mathmatical theories that can't be proven....should they not be taught in school?
It's not about proof. It's about falsifiability and evidence. There is no testable hypothesis provided by creationism and it has no credibility as a scientific theory.

evolution is falsifiable? how is evolution tested?