Slashdot Mirror
College Credits For Trolling the Web?
Jafafa Hots writes "Some undergraduate and masters level courses at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary require trolling as part of their requirements.
In William Dembski's classes on Intelligent Design and Christian Apologetics, 20% of the final grades come from having made 10 posts defending Intelligent Design Creationism on 'hostile' websites.
There seems to be no requirement that the posts contain original writing; apparently cut-and-paste jobs are sufficient. Is this the first case of trolling the net being part of course requirements?"
You're statement on dogma is ridiculous, (from wikipedia: "Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from")
Your state that science is never dogmatic; superlative usage most of the time indicates logical fallacy...because almost nothing is THAT concrete. Your statement that science is NEVER dogmatic would have to take into consideration the 1000s of years science has been practiced, and I'm reasonably sure I could find at least one example when a scientific organization taught something authoritative and that it wasn't to be disputed only to discovery the earth was round.
Peter Corcoran
So there isn't any shred of evidence for a universe that was created by an intelligent being? None?
A bit dogmatic don't you think?
Peter Corcoran
My point, obviously lost, is that science can be equally dogmatic as religion. In fact, show me any organization and I pretty sure I could reasonable show how they are dogmatic. To specifically say science is 100% free of dogma is ignorant.
Show me someone who loves Pepsi, Linux, Papa Johns Pizza, Alabama Football, etc. and I'll give you an organization is believes they are authoritative and not to be disputed.
Peter Corcoran
Thank you for your response.
Sign, before you assume I'm making a fool of myself, be sure you understand my point of view. Attempting to discredit someone by using a red herring fallacy, is easily caught by someone with even moderate intelligence.
True that scientist are dogmatic, as are creationists, intelligent design proponent, but the statement that science in of its is devoid of any dogma is still incorrect. Maybe in an IDEAL fashion science is devoid of fallacy, dogma, and is correct 100% of the time. By realistically, science is still governed by scientists, and therefore subject to fallacy, and dogma.
Before you infer stupidity, you should make sure it exists.
Peter Corcoran
If there was any such evidence you would have mentioned it.
Grow up, there is not god, no tooth fairy and no Santa Claus. When you die you do not go to the pearly gates you rot and the worms eat you.
This stuff is fine for little kids, but for an adult to have such magical beliefs is really just a mental illness.
People like you need to understand that there is no point refuting Evolution. Evolution is the glue that holds Biology together, and without it we wouldn't have: Paleontology, Micro-biology, Medicine, Genetics, among other fields.
Here's a simple thought experiment: If Evolution is false, what created swine flu? The only other possible explanation is that God is a dick, and I don't believe that.
I believe you're confusing Evolution with Natural Selection. Natural Selection makes absolute perfect sense, and a man would be a fool to not believe it (its like denying gravity's existence). On the other hand, the assumption that everything descended from a common ancestor, which the Theory of Evolution says, is still open to debate. Sure, there's "evidence" to support these claims, but has it been 100% proven? No! So I suggest shutting your mouth and getting your vocabulary straight before you criticize creationists. Thank you.
"Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
Germanic tribes values virginity so suddenly Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived and husband Joseph was tossed to the curb.
Suddenly?
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
And I was suggesting that the examples were nearly as ridiculous as ID, these ideas are sponsored by people with a particular agenda. They are a complete tangent to the topic at hand, which is why I assumed trolling. Why bring up an unrelated topic such as an attack on health care reform (I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest a government takeover of our corrupt and inefficient health care system) or mainstream economic policies supported by both parties (Bush pushed through the bailout, not Obama, and all economic data suggests that Obama's policies are working to reduce the depth and severity of this recession.)
Shakrai merely wanted to equate Daily Kos in particular, and Democrats in general, with the lunatic fringe of intelligent design. This is typical of the fact free, anger filled rants of the rapidly disappearing regional rump party known as Republicans. A better example might have been 'why not try to argue with the Republicans that Obama was born in the US, and is not planning on killing either your grandparents or Sarah Palin's children.'
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You got to hand it to these, um, people.
they hold on to their beliefs no matter what. And aren't above spamming/trolling their message.
No wonder the Roman's enjoyed feeding them to the lions.
Probably wasn't as much against what they believed, but trying to keep the gene pool a little cleaner.
Be seeing you...
Yea, I bet you can't see the ocean for the waves too.
Fuck dude, Did I say anything about that? Go on back and tell me what I said, I think you will be surprised that it isn't what you think I said.
I don't need to cite anything. If you had been paying attention instead of only caring about people believing that evolution as stated today is fact and will never change, you would have seen where this is happening and the reasons why religions are attempting to muck around the science classes.
This is being done by poorly trained science teachers who like you, need some help.
First of all, science never has disproved Genesis. It can't do that at all. Second, what science did was provide a concept that allows other aspects of theories fit into place. These theories are supported by evidence but are not fact and can change when a better explanation comes along, even if it is a magical man in the clouds waving his hands and the evidence shows it.
repeat after me. Evolution is not fact, evolution is not fact, evolution is just the best explaination we have come up with that seems to fit the evidence we have found. Evolution can also be split into two categories, macro and micro, with the difference being a real speciation. We have never observed speciation unless we butcher the definition of species and add artificial restrictions. Unfortunately, they restrictions do not hold true when generically applied. This is true despite your biased website pushing evolution over anything else or your clear misunderstanding of science.
Science isn't incompatible with religion, it is just one avenue of understanding that may or may not agree with religion. But science doesn't do religion except for people who seem to have made science their religion and believe everything to be more then what it is (hmm.. Like you). And no, I did not ever attempt to discredit scientific facts. I put them in their proper understanding and perspective which you are failing at.
I guess reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit is it? The article said the posts had to be on Hostile websites. While there are idiots and hostile people on slashdot (me probably being one of them), it is not hostile to religion and wouldn't qualify. But this is a good thing, now you know where your flaws are and can work on them to become a better person.