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?"
Unfortunately a lot of science is dogmatic as well. If I were to claim that I invented a machine that produced more energy than I put in, would I get a fair hearing?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Can someone explain what is dogmatic about hypothesizing & testing theories, that there was an intelligent force that initiated the universe, rather than a set of random events?
While we are at it can someone go into the dogma of darwinism?
Peter Corcoran
Not really. Science can suggest alternatives but it cannot prove it. The age of the world is only longer then 6000 years because we want to understand it that way, not because any proof that exists. Now there is evidence that fits into place with out current understanding but then again, there is evidence that can suggest a much shorter time too.
Proof as in this is a fact. Sure there is all kinds of evidence support the idea but the evidence is not proof- it is just evidence to support an idea.
Such as what? You mean the ancient cultures like the Aztecs who have dinosaurs on their garments and pottery and jewelry despite being thousands of years older then our current understanding of dinosaurs or what they look like. I suppose that is just coincidence. Anyways, we have seen with flash flooding and dam bursting that much of the geological formations like the Grand Cannon, the dead sea, and the badlands can be caused over extremely short periods of time in like days and weeks. That's just one, Fossil collections at some sites are another, sedimentary rings and rock formation in various parts of the world are others.
You should really look into it. It's not exactly going to say the earth is 6000 years old, but it will force you to keep an open mind on the millions being claimed.
There are no fossils that are proven to be older then 6000 years without making assumptions about them which could be incorrect. Even radio carbon dating which is only accurate to about 26,000 before present relies on assumptions about perfect environment and no contamination. It's possible to say it's likely this is older then a certain age, but it's not a fact that it is. And no, just because we treat our assumed age and a fact in factoring other things, it does not make it a fact.