Exactly! Anybody with modpoints mod this shit up. That's exactly what Jefferson and his crew were all about! They had seen what it meant to rule an empire from a central seat, and they knew it wouldn't work.
Exactly! This is the 10th Amendment exists. The Feds should only do what the Constitution says they can do. If we find that the Feds need to do more, amend the Constitution!
3G has come to mean "GSM network". Verizon is still CDMA. They're moving to LTE, which is basically the new version of GSM, and is what people are calling "4G".
Verizon DOES have, by far, the best coverage. No, you aren't going to get 5 megabit/sec downloads on your phone, but you don't NEED to. Nobody does. A phone doesn't do anything that needs that kind of bandwidth. 1 megabit/sec is PLENTY of bandwidth for a phone.
What if you are tethering wifi? The EVO that Sprint is releasing next week has two camera, one for HD video, the other rear facing for video conferencing, a 1Ghz processor, a higher definition screen, a GPS receiver....etc. Who knows what kind of bandwidth apps will require in the very near future.
Don't get me wrong, today, you are correct. No one needs more than 1Mb/s to a phone... right now. However, reading your statement reminded me of a famous quote concerning 640k.
If I've been exposed to an NBC agent, I want something that I know works.
You're missing the point. This is not a treatment for exposure, it's a cleaner for contaminated sites. The question is whether you want to use a cleaner that has known negative effects on the environment (especially when used in large quantities) or one that is less destructive. It doesn't make sense to use super bleach when the military has come up with an effective "green" cleaning agent.
If it works better than what we use today, then I'm OK with it. But until I know that for absolutely sure, I would feel better taking my family into a previously contaminated area if all the walls were bleached white than one where some EPA tree-hugger is on TV saying, "It's OK, we chose it because it's GREEN!"
For example, orange oil kills ants faster than poison
No it doesn't. I've used it straight and as I've used products based on orange oil. The ants flounder around for hours before they die. Spray Raid on them and they are dead within minutes.
Given your record with orange oil and ants, I'm sure as hell not going to test mint oil on yellow jackets.
Your argument can be summed up as thus: If I have already been shot with a large-caliber weapon, who cares if I must be shot with a small-caliber weapon during surgery? Thus it is just as stupid as everything else you said.
If that small caliber weapon will save my life, I'm all for it. Consider using lasers to stop bleeding.
I'm afraid I have to agree with the GP here. If I've been exposed to an NBC agent, I want something that I know works. I really don't care if it kills the grass I'm standing on.
The problem is that stuff that kills the grass you're standing on tends to get into the water table. Anyway, some of the decontamination products used today are probably not all that harmful, as you say; for example, if your humvee gets an agent sprayed on it, the official response is to wash it with a pressure washer and soap. Or, you know, so says the book.
It's bleach. It's just like your standard bottle of Clorox, only about 7x stronger. Bleach breaks down pretty quickly to relatively harmless chemicals except for AOX, which is harmful to invertebrates and fish. STB is not used in large enough quantities to do any real damage. If the decom site is next to a pond, expect all the fish to die. If it is next to a small lake, it won't be much of a problem.
So, the question to you is this: What is more important, the possible death of a pond full of fish or the certain death of large group of human soldiers and a victory to the types of assholes that would use chem/bio weapons?
Of course, if this "green" product works as well or better than the products we are using today, like STB, the great! I'm all for it. However, when it's my ass on the line, don't ask me to be the one to test it. When I've been "contaminated", I don't even want the NBC Decom specialist even taking the time to tell me how green the product is. Just get this human pesticide off of me!
If we suffer a WMD terrorist attack, I want the BEST products to be used to deal with it, who cares if it's "green"?
If the fastest decontamination agent creates dangerous byproducts to neutralize NBC agents, is it the best? I think it's hardly worth decontaminating a site if you contaminate the site with your cleaners. "Green" in this article means the site is actually clean when you're done.
I don't know if I'd consider STB (Super Tropical Bleach) as a product to create "dangerous byproducts". Especially when you consider that the agents it cleans will have you doing the kickin' chicken within minutes of exposure. I'm afraid I have to agree with the GP here. If I've been exposed to an NBC agent, I want something that I know works. I really don't care if it kills the grass I'm standing on.
STB is basically chlorine bleach and lime. Yes, it's not the kind of thing I would want on my skin or lungs, but there are many household and garden products that would fit into that category.
There's plenty of problems like this in hospitals. Doctors don't know what things cost, so they tick all the boxes without considering the cost-benefits.
Ok, fine, let's assume it's greater than zero. If that's your standard for accepting something as truthful enough to be taught or even believed, then you've set the bar so unimaginably low that we should believe in aliens, fairies, the loch ness monster, sasquatch, vampires, ghosts, etc. Because there are a hell of a lot more people who claim to have seen these things than any of the miracles in the Bible. My point is that your definition of evidence is utterly useless for any reason whatsoever.
Fair enough. However, I've never seen a teacher get fired for mentioning the possibility of extraterrestrial life, intelligent or otherwise.
Nice red herring. Who's advocating firing teachers for quoting Einstein? If that's the best you've got, you might as well give up.
When you start trying to use ancient hearsay about supernatural occurrences as evidence, you've gone off the deep end. We wouldn't accept evidence a lot stronger than that even today, so why would any sane person accept those texts as evidence of the supernatural? It makes no sense.
OK, I'm going to try this again. If you don't understand, please report to your local elementary school to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Here we go, are you ready. One more time for the slow kid:
I agree that it is the absolute weakest form of evidence that we could use other than "it came to me in a dream", although that is included in the Bible and other religious texts. But my point is that it is evidence. And no matter how weak it is, any non-negative, non-zero value is greater than zero. In other words, as I stated, there is more evidence for a Creator than there is for multiple universes.
Remember, that "ancient hearsay", no matter how close to zero you think it is, is still greater than zero. Again, I did not say the evidence was strong, but it is evidence, no matter low of a value you place on it, it is still more than nothing. If you think ancient evidence is completely worhtless, please review this slashdot story from earlier today. Understand now? If not, please ask someone who has passed the second grade with anything above a 'D' average. Oh, and brush up on your basic math while you are at it. I'm pretty sure that it was in preschool that I learned that something > nothing.
The idea of a creator is nothing more than pure speculation.
And this is different than the "theory" of multiverses, how?
There's nothing to teach there.
Again, go back and ask someone what I meant when I said:
Look, my point is not to say that teachers should starting teaching science class from the Bible... Teachers should not lose their jobs or spend time in jail because they quoted Einstein, "God does not play dice with the Universe."
No matter how weak you think it is, at least religion has some sort of evidence in the way of religious texts, and ancient eye witness accounts, but you mention it in a classroom and you are run out as someone who doesn't understand science.
I agree that it is the absolute weakest form of evidence that we could use other than "it came to me in a dream", although that is included in the Bible and other religious texts. But my point is that it is evidence. And no matter how weak it is, any non-negative, non-zero value is greater than zero. In other words, as I stated, there is more evidence for a Creator than there is for multiple universes. Yet, I hear people all the time dismiss Creation (Capital 'C') as there is no evidence, but have no issues with multiverses being discussed as science when it has even less evidence.
Look, my point is not to say that teachers should starting teaching science class from the Bible. Teachers have no business trying to convert their students either to or away form religion. I'm just saying that the idea is not so far out that those who choose to believe it, or even consider, are not stupid or not crazy. Teachers should not lose their jobs or spend time in jail because they quoted Einstein, "God does not play dice with the Universe."
The odds are so small that either would exist, the elements that form would have ever been created, or even that the universe would not have already run its course and ceased to exist that scientists are having to break out theories that are unbelievable in the worst sci-fi in order to try to explain it. Fact is that there is absolutely no evidence to support some of these theories like multiverses, yet no one has any problem with them being discussed in a classroom setting. No matter how weak you think it is, at least religion has some sort of evidence in the way of religious texts, and ancient eye witness accounts, but you mention it in a classroom and you are run out as someone who doesn't understand science.
You're putting the cart before the horse and trying to say that the universe was designed so that life would form on one little rock around one nondescript star.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that this little rock around this nondescript star shouldn't exist at all. The odds are so small that either would exist, the elements that form would have ever been created, or even that the universe would not have already run its course and ceased to exist that scientists are having to break out theories that are unbelievable in the worst sci-fi in order to try to explain it. Fact is that there is absolutely no evidence to support some of these theories like multiverses, yet no one has any problem with them being discussed in a classroom setting. No matter how weak you think it is, at least religion has some sort of evidence in the way of religious texts, and ancient eye witness accounts, but you mention it in a classroom and you are run out as someone who doesn't understand science.
You are wasting your time trying to finish my argument. If the universe can be created even remotely close to as we see it, there is no reason that life shouldn't be in it. The hard part was getting here. Adding the odds of life existing in a universe with stars and planets is like adding the odds that Tuesday would be called "Tuesday" and not "Bartlesday". There are literally an infinite number of methods used to describe the third day of the week, that means that the odds of it being called Tuesday are 1/infinity. However, any other method of describing that day face the exact same odds.
No, my argument is that the elements that make up the universe shouldn't exist because the odds of the processes being exactly how they are to create them is beyond astronomically small. And unlike Tuesday, which has to be called something, the universe does not have to exist. Yet, there it is, against exra-astronomical odds.
I hate it to see a comment that's only moderation is "overrated". Seriously, if you disagree, post a reply. Mod points are not intended as a weapon or for you to show your opinion.
As for your comment, it was insightful even though I disagree with the HS part. Consider this a virtual mod up. It's all I got for ya.
Should kids know that the specific details of evolution haven't been 100% sorted out yet? Yes. Should we go out of our way to spend time discussing these open questions? Sure. In an advanced setting. Not grade school. Not high school
Unfortunately, high school is the highest education the majority receive.
Frankly, we don't have a perfect understanding of how gravity works either. Yet somehow, I can't hear anyone screaming that our children must be educated on the "weaknesses" of that particular subject. I wonder why?
Right, but I don't hear anyone complaining when teachers say that we don't have a complete understanding of it either. Unfortunately, if a teacher were to say that there are things we don't understand about evolution, everyone gets in a tizzy and accuses the teacher of proselytizing impressionable young minds.
My point was not to have a quote pissing contest. I'm also aware that many of the quotes I posted dealt with biology. My point was twofold.
First was to show that it is not beyond the realm of scientific minds to consider that maybe there is a creator of the universe (lower case 'C' in creator). It doesn't make you less of a scientist to have an open mind to theology. Many minds greater than both of ours combined have whole heartedly believed that everything was created by a God (uppercase 'G')
My second point, and I wasn't clear on it, is to show that great scientists have placed theology into creation on their own. Should these quotes be banned from the science classroom?
Do you honestly believe that textbooks and discussions should be censored to remove any mention of creation having the possibility of a creator because it may have the possibility of leading someone to religion?
For the record, scientists don't do out of context quoting and biologists don't give a crap what Fred Hoyle thought about evolution.
You are correct. I got a bit off topic, or should I say, I expanded the topic to include cosmology. I personally have little interest in biology and have no problem with evolution. My passion is the universe itself and rules that govern it. IMHO, ID doesn't just include biology, the universe as a whole. There is just as much evidence for a creator as there is for multiverses, for example, yet no one has a problem with the theory of multiverses being taught in the classroom.
These seem to be using the anthropic principle, but that really doesn't make any sense. Yes, if the laws of physics were different, then life as we know it may not exist. So what? Maybe silicon-based life-forms would be debating this stuff. I don't see that as any sort of evidence for design. Seems practically tautological really.
Sort of. I stop at the point where the argument start talking about the odds for life forming. I believe that the fact that stars wouldn't form or the universe would collapse or expand too rapidly for matter to form if gravity were a touch stronger or weaker is enough to blow my mind. Multiply that by the narrow margin for the other weak and strong forces to be set in such a way that matter can even form, much less create all that we see around us, and you realize that we shouldn't be here at all. I read a quote that the odds are equivalent of winning the lottery a million times in a row. I figure that once you make it this far with billions galaxies, life, silicon based or otherwise, is a pretty much sure thing and there is not need to calculate further.
Quote mining and Hoyle. It gets better. Have you ever tried critiquing your own argument without fallacious, and in some cases outright dishonest appeals to authority?
So tell me, what is my argument? I don't think you understand. You certainly have not made any type of counter argument. Which part of my "argument" do you disagree with?
I can't believe it. Someone actually thinks the Cambrian explosion argument is a meaningful attack on evolution. Pal, grab a book. That hasn't been a useful attack on common descent for fifty years.
You creationists, you're stuck in a time warp somewhere around 1930-1940. I mean, where do you get this crap, from Answers in Genesis?
I've got to ask you, can you give me a bibliography of say, a dozen books written by biologists, that you've ever actually read?
Relax Sparky, it was an example.
As for my credentials? I won't even try to defend them. Instead, I'll find others that agree with my point. Go ahead and feel free to imply these guys are dumbasses.
Try these: "[There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all... it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe... The impression of design is overwhelming." Paul Davies, (The Cosmic Blueprint, p. 203)
“The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron . The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” Stephen Hawking
“On Earth, a long sequence of improbable events transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row. Contrary to the prevailing belief, maybe we are special . It seems prudent to conclude that we are alone in a vast cosmic ocean, that in one important sense, we ourselves are special in that we go against the Copernican grain.” Robert Naeye
"We can't understand the universe in any clear way without the supernatural." Allan R. Sandage
“The big bang theory requires a recent origin of the Universe that openly invites the concept of creation.” and "If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of..." and "The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Fred Hoyle
If you're in a science class, you ought to be teaching science. Since the number of biologists who reject evolution is exceedingly small, teaching criticisms of the validity of the theory is essentially taking up a Creationist line.
Unless the theory of evolution is 100% correct, inconclusive and conclusive, we SHOULD be teaching the criticisms of it. You can't ban teachings because of a group you don't like supports those teachings. That's how theories get better.
There are actual controversies (ie. the relative importance of genetic drift via mutation, theories of abiogenesis, punctuated equilibrium etc.), but none of these controversies deny evolution happened, they are debates over very technical aspects of the theory
Exactly. Should these points be banned from classroom discussion or curriculum?
This is the problem with guys like you. You conflate debates within the scientific community as far as aspects of biological evolution with the idea that the theory itself is being seriously debated.
And the problem with guys like you is that you are willing to stifle discussion based on your fear that someone may say "God" in a classroom, causing otherwise critically thinking students join a cult.
For the vast majority of the scientific community for the better part of a century, that debate has been closed. As much as any theory can be proven, evolution has been proven.
And every day, new data is added to the "closed" debate. The omission of any new data that may contradict what we thought we already knew is just as closed minded as those that would burn books they don't agree with.
Ideas should NEVER be off the discussion table when it comes to science. Nor should any theory or even law be above challenge. There is nothing wrong or religious with a teacher or textbook showing where the theory of evolution falls short. It has gotten to the point where even new discoveries that fall counter to Darwin's conclusion are being challenged because someone, somewhere might bring a Bible to class and say, "see, told ya so." Saying that Darwinian evolution can not fully explain the Cambrian explosion should not be a forbidden subject. We need to ask questions in order to get answers. If you ban the question, you are no better than the Catholic Priests that jailed scientists for saying that the sun was the center of our solar system.
we're talking about a concerted effort by a relatively small number of individuals to strip Creationism of any overt religious claims with the specific intention of getting Creationism past the Establishment Clause, as well as building the Big Tent of Creationists of various strains (YECs, OECs, Theistic Evolutionists).
OK, then what's the problem? If you strip all religious from ID, what's the problem with it? As long as the principals stand up, there is no reason that some form of ID should be banned from discussion or curriculum. It's not necessarily a religious thing. Cosmologists are beating their heads against their desks trying to figure out why our universe exists at all. The more they learn about the laws of physics and the constants that define them, they realize the fact that anything exists at all happened with such narrow odds that to assume it happened by pure chance unreasonable, at best. The odds are narrow enough that the probability of a universal designer are actually greater than the evidence supporting pure chance. It has even been dubbed "The Fine Tuned Universe". Saying that something is tuned implies a "tuner". I understand that your fear is that it will be used as a wedge to get religion taught in the classroom, but anything could be used as that wedge. The Big Bang could easily be used as for that purpose, yet no one is suggesting that the Big Bang should be banned from discussion. If your main problem with ID is that it may lead to a religious discussion, then simply ban the religious discussion. Problem solved.
I suspect that you're probably invoking some other definition of Intelligent Design, which shows that its creators have had some success in muddying the waters.
Yes, ID is much more than just evolution or "God did it". It is a thought that some things could not have happened purely by chance. And ID exists. My car is a product of ID. I speak of the purest, and broadest since of something, or anything being "designed" by "intelligence". Nothing more. Certainly I believe in a Creator (capital C) but like you, I don't want that taught in school. A school that can teach the Judeo/Christian explanation of creation can just as easily teach the Scientologist explanation. I don't believe that and don't want my kids forced to learn it, just as you don't want your kids learning my beliefs. However, I have no problem with a school acknowledging the facts that evolution does not explain everything concerning the origin of species and that some brilliant minds believe the universe was not created by pure chance based on the evidence. This can be done without religion.
I never understood why evolution is such a threat to religion. How does us evolving from apes say anything about the existence of God? What does it even have to do with it? Hell, if I was God, evolution and natural selection actually seems like a pretty damn good way to design an ecosystem! It's resilient and adaptive and I don't have to micromanage it. It's only a problem if you believe in an absolute literal interpretation of the Bible. You know, that book that was written down by men 2000 years ago and translated and re-transcribed God only knows how many times (pun intended).
It really has nothing to do with religion or belief in such, although many will believe otherwise. There are those that think the theory of evolution is proof of no God. I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about those that see no conflicts between their faith and science.
Scroll up and look at the way people who believe that "God created the universe" are described. I am relatively religious and see absolutely no conflict between anything I've learned in science class and personal research and what I've learned in church. God is a mathematician. The threat that some see is from those that use evolution as a club to bash anyone who believes in any form of creationism whatsoever, even if that person believes that God created my via evolution. Here are some examples:
Not really. There's no need to include more than one or two simple examples of a complete lack of critical thinking in such a course.
I don't really think anyone seriously believes in Intelligent Design.
ID isn't just a non-science, it is an anti-science.
One is that Behe is just a bad researcher (and there seems to be little evidence that he's that incompetent), or that Behe is a liar, and the latter seems to be the better explanation.
... and so on.
My main problem with the teaching of evolution is the attempt to actually ban the discussion of any criticism of the theory. Yes, I understand that such criticism could lead to the discussion of religion in the classroom*, but if you are going to ban discussion based on the possibility of that discussion moving to a discussion about religion, then all discussion should banned and anything can have a religion underpinning.
* There is nothing wrong or Unconstitutional about discussing or even teaching religious doctrine in a classroom. I learned about the Greek religions in History class years ago and never had the urge to bow to Zeus.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly! Anybody with modpoints mod this shit up. That's exactly what Jefferson and his crew were all about! They had seen what it meant to rule an empire from a central seat, and they knew it wouldn't work.
Exactly! This is the 10th Amendment exists. The Feds should only do what the Constitution says they can do. If we find that the Feds need to do more, amend the Constitution!
From summary:
— and caught on film —
This is the important part. Like the rest of us, astronomers follow the little known meme Pictures or it didn't happen!
3G has come to mean "GSM network". Verizon is still CDMA. They're moving to LTE, which is basically the new version of GSM, and is what people are calling "4G".
Verizon DOES have, by far, the best coverage. No, you aren't going to get 5 megabit/sec downloads on your phone, but you don't NEED to. Nobody does. A phone doesn't do anything that needs that kind of bandwidth. 1 megabit/sec is PLENTY of bandwidth for a phone.
What if you are tethering wifi? The EVO that Sprint is releasing next week has two camera, one for HD video, the other rear facing for video conferencing, a 1Ghz processor, a higher definition screen, a GPS receiver....etc. Who knows what kind of bandwidth apps will require in the very near future.
Don't get me wrong, today, you are correct. No one needs more than 1Mb/s to a phone... right now. However, reading your statement reminded me of a famous quote concerning 640k.
If I've been exposed to an NBC agent, I want something that I know works.
You're missing the point. This is not a treatment for exposure, it's a cleaner for contaminated sites. The question is whether you want to use a cleaner that has known negative effects on the environment (especially when used in large quantities) or one that is less destructive. It doesn't make sense to use super bleach when the military has come up with an effective "green" cleaning agent.
If it works better than what we use today, then I'm OK with it. But until I know that for absolutely sure, I would feel better taking my family into a previously contaminated area if all the walls were bleached white than one where some EPA tree-hugger is on TV saying, "It's OK, we chose it because it's GREEN!"
For example, orange oil kills ants faster than poison
No it doesn't. I've used it straight and as I've used products based on orange oil. The ants flounder around for hours before they die. Spray Raid on them and they are dead within minutes.
Given your record with orange oil and ants, I'm sure as hell not going to test mint oil on yellow jackets.
Your argument can be summed up as thus: If I have already been shot with a large-caliber weapon, who cares if I must be shot with a small-caliber weapon during surgery? Thus it is just as stupid as everything else you said.
If that small caliber weapon will save my life, I'm all for it. Consider using lasers to stop bleeding.
I'm afraid I have to agree with the GP here. If I've been exposed to an NBC agent, I want something that I know works. I really don't care if it kills the grass I'm standing on.
The problem is that stuff that kills the grass you're standing on tends to get into the water table. Anyway, some of the decontamination products used today are probably not all that harmful, as you say; for example, if your humvee gets an agent sprayed on it, the official response is to wash it with a pressure washer and soap. Or, you know, so says the book.
It's bleach. It's just like your standard bottle of Clorox, only about 7x stronger. Bleach breaks down pretty quickly to relatively harmless chemicals except for AOX, which is harmful to invertebrates and fish. STB is not used in large enough quantities to do any real damage. If the decom site is next to a pond, expect all the fish to die. If it is next to a small lake, it won't be much of a problem.
So, the question to you is this: What is more important, the possible death of a pond full of fish or the certain death of large group of human soldiers and a victory to the types of assholes that would use chem/bio weapons?
Of course, if this "green" product works as well or better than the products we are using today, like STB, the great! I'm all for it. However, when it's my ass on the line, don't ask me to be the one to test it. When I've been "contaminated", I don't even want the NBC Decom specialist even taking the time to tell me how green the product is. Just get this human pesticide off of me!
If we suffer a WMD terrorist attack, I want the BEST products to be used to deal with it, who cares if it's "green"?
If the fastest decontamination agent creates dangerous byproducts to neutralize NBC agents, is it the best? I think it's hardly worth decontaminating a site if you contaminate the site with your cleaners. "Green" in this article means the site is actually clean when you're done.
I don't know if I'd consider STB (Super Tropical Bleach) as a product to create "dangerous byproducts". Especially when you consider that the agents it cleans will have you doing the kickin' chicken within minutes of exposure. I'm afraid I have to agree with the GP here. If I've been exposed to an NBC agent, I want something that I know works. I really don't care if it kills the grass I'm standing on.
STB is basically chlorine bleach and lime. Yes, it's not the kind of thing I would want on my skin or lungs, but there are many household and garden products that would fit into that category.
There's plenty of problems like this in hospitals. Doctors don't know what things cost, so they tick all the boxes without considering the cost-benefits.
Wait 'till it's "free".
Ok, fine, let's assume it's greater than zero. If that's your standard for accepting something as truthful enough to be taught or even believed, then you've set the bar so unimaginably low that we should believe in aliens, fairies, the loch ness monster, sasquatch, vampires, ghosts, etc. Because there are a hell of a lot more people who claim to have seen these things than any of the miracles in the Bible. My point is that your definition of evidence is utterly useless for any reason whatsoever.
Fair enough. However, I've never seen a teacher get fired for mentioning the possibility of extraterrestrial life, intelligent or otherwise.
Nice red herring. Who's advocating firing teachers for quoting Einstein? If that's the best you've got, you might as well give up.
Here is one.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/03/the_classroom_wall_of_separation.html
And another
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23671
When you start trying to use ancient hearsay about supernatural occurrences as evidence, you've gone off the deep end. We wouldn't accept evidence a lot stronger than that even today, so why would any sane person accept those texts as evidence of the supernatural? It makes no sense.
OK, I'm going to try this again. If you don't understand, please report to your local elementary school to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Here we go, are you ready. One more time for the slow kid:
I agree that it is the absolute weakest form of evidence that we could use other than "it came to me in a dream", although that is included in the Bible and other religious texts. But my point is that it is evidence. And no matter how weak it is, any non-negative, non-zero value is greater than zero. In other words, as I stated, there is more evidence for a Creator than there is for multiple universes.
Remember, that "ancient hearsay", no matter how close to zero you think it is, is still greater than zero. Again, I did not say the evidence was strong, but it is evidence, no matter low of a value you place on it, it is still more than nothing. If you think ancient evidence is completely worhtless, please review this slashdot story from earlier today.
Understand now? If not, please ask someone who has passed the second grade with anything above a 'D' average.
Oh, and brush up on your basic math while you are at it. I'm pretty sure that it was in preschool that I learned that something > nothing.
The idea of a creator is nothing more than pure speculation.
And this is different than the "theory" of multiverses, how?
There's nothing to teach there.
Again, go back and ask someone what I meant when I said:
Look, my point is not to say that teachers should starting teaching science class from the Bible... Teachers should not lose their jobs or spend time in jail because they quoted Einstein, "God does not play dice with the Universe."
Really, it's not that hard to understand.
Gonna give this one a try on the ol Dell Mini 9. I wonder though...how will gamers respond?
Flash gamers will probably love it.
No matter how weak you think it is, at least religion has some sort of evidence in the way of religious texts, and ancient eye witness accounts, but you mention it in a classroom and you are run out as someone who doesn't understand science.
I agree that it is the absolute weakest form of evidence that we could use other than "it came to me in a dream", although that is included in the Bible and other religious texts. But my point is that it is evidence. And no matter how weak it is, any non-negative, non-zero value is greater than zero. In other words, as I stated, there is more evidence for a Creator than there is for multiple universes. Yet, I hear people all the time dismiss Creation (Capital 'C') as there is no evidence, but have no issues with multiverses being discussed as science when it has even less evidence.
Look, my point is not to say that teachers should starting teaching science class from the Bible. Teachers have no business trying to convert their students either to or away form religion. I'm just saying that the idea is not so far out that those who choose to believe it, or even consider, are not stupid or not crazy. Teachers should not lose their jobs or spend time in jail because they quoted Einstein, "God does not play dice with the Universe."
I think I did. Please allow me to quote myself:
The odds are so small that either would exist, the elements that form would have ever been created, or even that the universe would not have already run its course and ceased to exist that scientists are having to break out theories that are unbelievable in the worst sci-fi in order to try to explain it. Fact is that there is absolutely no evidence to support some of these theories like multiverses, yet no one has any problem with them being discussed in a classroom setting. No matter how weak you think it is, at least religion has some sort of evidence in the way of religious texts, and ancient eye witness accounts, but you mention it in a classroom and you are run out as someone who doesn't understand science.
You're putting the cart before the horse and trying to say that the universe was designed so that life would form on one little rock around one nondescript star.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that this little rock around this nondescript star shouldn't exist at all. The odds are so small that either would exist, the elements that form would have ever been created, or even that the universe would not have already run its course and ceased to exist that scientists are having to break out theories that are unbelievable in the worst sci-fi in order to try to explain it. Fact is that there is absolutely no evidence to support some of these theories like multiverses, yet no one has any problem with them being discussed in a classroom setting. No matter how weak you think it is, at least religion has some sort of evidence in the way of religious texts, and ancient eye witness accounts, but you mention it in a classroom and you are run out as someone who doesn't understand science.
You are wasting your time trying to finish my argument. If the universe can be created even remotely close to as we see it, there is no reason that life shouldn't be in it. The hard part was getting here. Adding the odds of life existing in a universe with stars and planets is like adding the odds that Tuesday would be called "Tuesday" and not "Bartlesday". There are literally an infinite number of methods used to describe the third day of the week, that means that the odds of it being called Tuesday are 1/infinity. However, any other method of describing that day face the exact same odds.
No, my argument is that the elements that make up the universe shouldn't exist because the odds of the processes being exactly how they are to create them is beyond astronomically small. And unlike Tuesday, which has to be called something, the universe does not have to exist. Yet, there it is, against exra-astronomical odds.
I hate it to see a comment that's only moderation is "overrated". Seriously, if you disagree, post a reply. Mod points are not intended as a weapon or for you to show your opinion.
As for your comment, it was insightful even though I disagree with the HS part. Consider this a virtual mod up. It's all I got for ya.
I agree completely, with a couple of exceptions:
Should kids know that the specific details of evolution haven't been 100% sorted out yet? Yes. Should we go out of our way to spend time discussing these open questions? Sure. In an advanced setting. Not grade school. Not high school
Unfortunately, high school is the highest education the majority receive.
Frankly, we don't have a perfect understanding of how gravity works either. Yet somehow, I can't hear anyone screaming that our children must be educated on the "weaknesses" of that particular subject. I wonder why?
Right, but I don't hear anyone complaining when teachers say that we don't have a complete understanding of it either. Unfortunately, if a teacher were to say that there are things we don't understand about evolution, everyone gets in a tizzy and accuses the teacher of proselytizing impressionable young minds.
I think this reply was meant for me.
My point was not to have a quote pissing contest. I'm also aware that many of the quotes I posted dealt with biology. My point was twofold.
First was to show that it is not beyond the realm of scientific minds to consider that maybe there is a creator of the universe (lower case 'C' in creator). It doesn't make you less of a scientist to have an open mind to theology. Many minds greater than both of ours combined have whole heartedly believed that everything was created by a God (uppercase 'G')
My second point, and I wasn't clear on it, is to show that great scientists have placed theology into creation on their own. Should these quotes be banned from the science classroom?
Do you honestly believe that textbooks and discussions should be censored to remove any mention of creation having the possibility of a creator because it may have the possibility of leading someone to religion?
For the record, scientists don't do out of context quoting and biologists don't give a crap what Fred Hoyle thought about evolution.
You are correct. I got a bit off topic, or should I say, I expanded the topic to include cosmology. I personally have little interest in biology and have no problem with evolution. My passion is the universe itself and rules that govern it. IMHO, ID doesn't just include biology, the universe as a whole. There is just as much evidence for a creator as there is for multiverses, for example, yet no one has a problem with the theory of multiverses being taught in the classroom.
These seem to be using the anthropic principle, but that really doesn't make any sense. Yes, if the laws of physics were different, then life as we know it may not exist. So what? Maybe silicon-based life-forms would be debating this stuff. I don't see that as any sort of evidence for design. Seems practically tautological really.
Sort of. I stop at the point where the argument start talking about the odds for life forming. I believe that the fact that stars wouldn't form or the universe would collapse or expand too rapidly for matter to form if gravity were a touch stronger or weaker is enough to blow my mind. Multiply that by the narrow margin for the other weak and strong forces to be set in such a way that matter can even form, much less create all that we see around us, and you realize that we shouldn't be here at all. I read a quote that the odds are equivalent of winning the lottery a million times in a row. I figure that once you make it this far with billions galaxies, life, silicon based or otherwise, is a pretty much sure thing and there is not need to calculate further.
Quote mining and Hoyle. It gets better. Have you ever tried critiquing your own argument without fallacious, and in some cases outright dishonest appeals to authority?
So tell me, what is my argument? I don't think you understand. You certainly have not made any type of counter argument. Which part of my "argument" do you disagree with?
I can't believe it. Someone actually thinks the Cambrian explosion argument is a meaningful attack on evolution. Pal, grab a book. That hasn't been a useful attack on common descent for fifty years.
You creationists, you're stuck in a time warp somewhere around 1930-1940. I mean, where do you get this crap, from Answers in Genesis?
I've got to ask you, can you give me a bibliography of say, a dozen books written by biologists, that you've ever actually read?
Relax Sparky, it was an example.
As for my credentials? I won't even try to defend them. Instead, I'll find others that agree with my point. Go ahead and feel free to imply these guys are dumbasses.
Try these: ... it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe ... The impression of design is overwhelming."
"[There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all
Paul Davies, (The Cosmic Blueprint, p. 203)
“The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron . The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”
Stephen Hawking
“On Earth, a long sequence of improbable events transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row. Contrary to the prevailing belief, maybe we are special . It seems prudent to conclude that we are alone in a vast cosmic ocean, that in one important sense, we ourselves are special in that we go against the Copernican grain.”
Robert Naeye
"We can't understand the universe in any clear way without the supernatural."
Allan R. Sandage
“The big bang theory requires a recent origin of the Universe that openly invites the concept of creation.”
and
"If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of..."
and
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."
Fred Hoyle
Sorry, that source was biased. Let's try another:
http://www.2001principle.net/2005.htm (yes, it's a site about 2001. The article was revised by a MIT scientist)
Wiki stand by:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
http://quake.stanford.edu/~bai/finetuning.pdf (pdf warning)
That should get you started. If nothing else, you can glean some search terms somewhere in there.
Umm... got any evidence to back up any of that?
This appears to be as good of source as any:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/universe2.htm
If you're in a science class, you ought to be teaching science. Since the number of biologists who reject evolution is exceedingly small, teaching criticisms of the validity of the theory is essentially taking up a Creationist line.
Unless the theory of evolution is 100% correct, inconclusive and conclusive, we SHOULD be teaching the criticisms of it. You can't ban teachings because of a group you don't like supports those teachings. That's how theories get better.
There are actual controversies (ie. the relative importance of genetic drift via mutation, theories of abiogenesis, punctuated equilibrium etc.), but none of these controversies deny evolution happened, they are debates over very technical aspects of the theory
Exactly. Should these points be banned from classroom discussion or curriculum?
This is the problem with guys like you. You conflate debates within the scientific community as far as aspects of biological evolution with the idea that the theory itself is being seriously debated.
And the problem with guys like you is that you are willing to stifle discussion based on your fear that someone may say "God" in a classroom, causing otherwise critically thinking students join a cult.
For the vast majority of the scientific community for the better part of a century, that debate has been closed. As much as any theory can be proven, evolution has been proven.
And every day, new data is added to the "closed" debate. The omission of any new data that may contradict what we thought we already knew is just as closed minded as those that would burn books they don't agree with.
Ideas should NEVER be off the discussion table when it comes to science. Nor should any theory or even law be above challenge. There is nothing wrong or religious with a teacher or textbook showing where the theory of evolution falls short. It has gotten to the point where even new discoveries that fall counter to Darwin's conclusion are being challenged because someone, somewhere might bring a Bible to class and say, "see, told ya so." Saying that Darwinian evolution can not fully explain the Cambrian explosion should not be a forbidden subject. We need to ask questions in order to get answers. If you ban the question, you are no better than the Catholic Priests that jailed scientists for saying that the sun was the center of our solar system.
we're talking about a concerted effort by a relatively small number of individuals to strip Creationism of any overt religious claims with the specific intention of getting Creationism past the Establishment Clause, as well as building the Big Tent of Creationists of various strains (YECs, OECs, Theistic Evolutionists).
OK, then what's the problem? If you strip all religious from ID, what's the problem with it? As long as the principals stand up, there is no reason that some form of ID should be banned from discussion or curriculum. It's not necessarily a religious thing. Cosmologists are beating their heads against their desks trying to figure out why our universe exists at all. The more they learn about the laws of physics and the constants that define them, they realize the fact that anything exists at all happened with such narrow odds that to assume it happened by pure chance unreasonable, at best. The odds are narrow enough that the probability of a universal designer are actually greater than the evidence supporting pure chance. It has even been dubbed "The Fine Tuned Universe". Saying that something is tuned implies a "tuner".
I understand that your fear is that it will be used as a wedge to get religion taught in the classroom, but anything could be used as that wedge. The Big Bang could easily be used as for that purpose, yet no one is suggesting that the Big Bang should be banned from discussion. If your main problem with ID is that it may lead to a religious discussion, then simply ban the religious discussion. Problem solved.
I suspect that you're probably invoking some other definition of Intelligent Design, which shows that its creators have had some success in muddying the waters.
Yes, ID is much more than just evolution or "God did it". It is a thought that some things could not have happened purely by chance. And ID exists. My car is a product of ID. I speak of the purest, and broadest since of something, or anything being "designed" by "intelligence". Nothing more. Certainly I believe in a Creator (capital C) but like you, I don't want that taught in school. A school that can teach the Judeo/Christian explanation of creation can just as easily teach the Scientologist explanation. I don't believe that and don't want my kids forced to learn it, just as you don't want your kids learning my beliefs. However, I have no problem with a school acknowledging the facts that evolution does not explain everything concerning the origin of species and that some brilliant minds believe the universe was not created by pure chance based on the evidence. This can be done without religion.
I never understood why evolution is such a threat to religion. How does us evolving from apes say anything about the existence of God? What does it even have to do with it? Hell, if I was God, evolution and natural selection actually seems like a pretty damn good way to design an ecosystem! It's resilient and adaptive and I don't have to micromanage it. It's only a problem if you believe in an absolute literal interpretation of the Bible. You know, that book that was written down by men 2000 years ago and translated and re-transcribed God only knows how many times (pun intended).
It really has nothing to do with religion or belief in such, although many will believe otherwise. There are those that think the theory of evolution is proof of no God. I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about those that see no conflicts between their faith and science.
Scroll up and look at the way people who believe that "God created the universe" are described. I am relatively religious and see absolutely no conflict between anything I've learned in science class and personal research and what I've learned in church. God is a mathematician. The threat that some see is from those that use evolution as a club to bash anyone who believes in any form of creationism whatsoever, even if that person believes that God created my via evolution. Here are some examples:
Not really. There's no need to include more than one or two simple examples of a complete lack of critical thinking in such a course.
I don't really think anyone seriously believes in Intelligent Design.
ID isn't just a non-science, it is an anti-science.
One is that Behe is just a bad researcher (and there seems to be little evidence that he's that incompetent), or that Behe is a liar, and the latter seems to be the better explanation.
... and so on.
My main problem with the teaching of evolution is the attempt to actually ban the discussion of any criticism of the theory. Yes, I understand that such criticism could lead to the discussion of religion in the classroom*, but if you are going to ban discussion based on the possibility of that discussion moving to a discussion about religion, then all discussion should banned and anything can have a religion underpinning.
* There is nothing wrong or Unconstitutional about discussing or even teaching religious doctrine in a classroom. I learned about the Greek religions in History class years ago and never had the urge to bow to Zeus.