Science does classify animate and inanimate objects differently even if you do not. Life is not sacrosanct, even along the living in many regards, but that does not mean that animate and inanimate are the same.
They might not be the same, but both are equally likely to occur in the universe.
I just fail to see with those two bulleted standards how any "analysis" occurs. From what I recall, most schools do just what is presented there.
What age group is this from? I think I'd have to agree that science through a certain age is generic, maybe too generic. But almost all studies at whatever age group this example is from are generic. History, science, art, everything except math (but in my opinion math doesn't lend itself to generic teachings.)
Like science, the history we're taught at a young age is more a precursor to the truth, and even that truth is only admittedly correct to a certain degree. A genericized version of that truth is bland at best.
They might not be the same, but both are equally likely to occur in the universe.
I disagree. I am sure that if you broke down the universe by percentage animate and inanimate that the overwhelming majority of material would be classified inanimate, not 50-50 which would be equal.
What age group is this from? I think I'd have to agree that science through a certain age is generic, maybe too generic. But almost all studies at whatever age group this example is from are generic. History, science, art, everything except math (but in my opinion math doesn't lend itself to generic teachings.)
Like science, the history we're taught at a young age is more a precursor to the truth, and even that truth is only admittedly correct to a certain degree. A genericized version of that truth is bland at best.
That was 12th grade, I would guess that since most states require 2 years of science (far too little in my opinion) that the second year could be taken sometime before they graduate.
I disagree. I am sure that if you broke down the universe by percentage animate and inanimate that the overwhelming majority of material would be classified inanimate, not 50-50 which would be equal.
I probably lean more in the lonely camp of all atoms are equal, animate or not. I don't really consider mass a qualifier in the equasion.
That was 12th grade, I would guess that since most states require 2 years of science (far too little in my opinion) that the second year could be taken sometime before they graduate.
Isn't 12th grade 'senior' year of high school? Either way I think we're probably just going to figure out that science is underdeveloped in the school system. I think what and how they're teaching is probably fine, but could start earlier.
Perhaps the time is ripe for the creationists to finally bring out the "scientific theory of creation" that we have all been hearing about.
Perhaps fellowship would be a good lad and post it. He forgot to in the last anti-evolution thread. An honest mistake, I'm sure.
Evolution can certainly be criticised. It's a scientific theory, after all. It's actually such a good scientific theory, that it has outlasted its opponents.
It should be possible to discuss the work of, say, Gould versus Dawkins in a high school science class.
It should also be possible to explain why creationists are incapable of putting forward their own scientific theory.
That is, explain how evolution very successfully explains the observable evidence - as a scientific theory - and that creationists cannot.
Explain how scientific theories live and die by their ability to explain the evidence. Explain how evolution has lived for over 150 years, and the creationism has been discredited time and time again.
This should all be possible in a school science class.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA!
I wipe my eye. To work:
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
Evolution is a total failure as a theory
Not 'a partial success', not 'leaves important questions unanswered', but 'a total failure'. A total failure. I ask you. You aren't, by any chance, a fundamentalist Christian, are you, Ena?
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
It simply doesn't address the many obvious questions of mechanics
Yes it does.
Quote:
symbiosis
Yes it does.
Quote:
ecology
Yes it does.
Quote:
There is no roadmap that explicitly tells anyone how rocks turned into human beings. You just have to accept the theory in blind faith.
In the absence of a better theory, I'll take the one that one that seems the most likely given what we know about the laws of physics, anatomy, the fossil record, mitochondrial DNA decay rates, everything that lives on the planet, and etc.
Quote:
You just have to accept the theory in blind faith. It needs critisism in a big hurry.
Unlike, say, er, what it says in Genesis which tells us that the Hindus, the Zoarastrians, the Muslims, the followers of Ife, animists, Jains, the Native Americans and the Inuit are all absolutely misguided. A god who climbed down a white sheet on the first morning of the world, indeed! Obviously preposterous. Compared to the whole world being made in seven days, I mean, really. What a joke!
Perhaps the time is ripe for the creationists to finally bring out the "scientific theory of creation" that we have all been hearing about.
After 10+ years of being on the Internet (including USENET), I don't think I've seen this happen. I'm sure it's probably happened, but I've never experienced it. Here's to AppleOutsider being the first!
critical analysis of evolution is definitely needed. but to improve the theory. never has critical analysis of any scientific theory resulted in tossing the idea out for an even more outdated one. it is ridiculous that at the same time trumptman claims that it isnt just religious fanatics who want to recast evolution most of the people demanding such a relook/dismantling have that famous religious agenda. no, all scientists (and indeed most laypersons) understand the need for a theory to be put to its test, what they also understand is that claims that some oral tradtion suggests the world began by a god descending down a white sheet (or a god descending from a particular tree, which houses heaven in its leaves -- ala mayans), has very little scientific merit. we all understand that the raelians are out of their minds, and without scientific evidence of their cloning sucess their claims remain that of a fanatical religion. just as does any creation theory that has no scientific support.
critical analysis has helped to shape evolution, and just because it doesnt answer all the questions, doesnt mean it doesnt have more supporting evidence than all of the alternatives. there is no need for a theory of everything, and that is what those religious fanatics find most harrowing about evolution, that since everything from day one isnt acconted for in the theory it has to be wrong. that, scientifically, is rediculous. just because general relativity hasnt been connected to quantum mechanics doesnt mean that the theories dont hold water. it is exactly because evolution challenges traditional/religious beliefs that it is attacked more often than is GR or QM. it is because of the religious debate that this topic of discussion didnt die on page one with Powerdoc's statement that of course the criticism should be discussed at the appropriate time.
this discussion in my mind is based on the false premise that " More and more this discussion, finally, seems to be centering on the real issue and that is that not believing in evolution does not mean you are a religious freak or desire religion be taught in science class ", no the link trumptman gave was precisely a religious site, no rightminded scientist has ever argued that critical analysis of scientific theory is not essential to understanding that theory. what we have here is a bait and switch. critisims that are of scientific merit should of course be included, religious convictions should of course not be ala trumptman's first premise.
this thread should be closed because the answer, the most rational answer, is i believed agreed on by everyone (i have a feeling) -- that scientific criticisms of the same level as the theory is presented should be included.
kill this elephant, it hasnt evolved and the climate is changing
You have excepted what you cannot understand and what no scientists alive understands.
Care to give me a detailed, molecule-by-molecule biomechanical model of how DNA formed in the wild? --and not some hallucination wrapped in wishful thinking?
You can't.
NO ONE CAN.
It's a superstition.
Evolution has NO answers---all the passive/aggressive posts in the world won't change that fact.
You have excepted what you cannot understand and what no scientists alive understands.
Care to give me a detailed, molecule-by-molecule biomechanical model of how DNA formed in the wild? --and not some hallucination wrapped in wishful thinking?
You can't.
NO ONE CAN.
It's a superstition.
Evolution has NO answers---all the passive/aggressive posts in the world won't change that fact.
all i have to do is show that it can happen.... i need no model. i look up into the sky and what do i see, i see the absorption bands of amino acids and nucleotides in space. oh dear, they must have formed somewhere... i put a mix of elements into extreme conditions, heat, current, cold, and what do i get after just years, a blink of the eye of the cosmos, nucleic acids and amino acids. it happens on its own. that has been known since the 1950s. where have you been?
Evolution has NO answers---all the passive/aggressive posts in the world won't change that fact.
I object to this.
There was nothing 'passive' about my post. I am taking the piss out of you.
When it comes to Creationism I'm sort of an... evangelist, so to speak. There's no man-made story of origins that can possibly compare to the awesome age, beauty and size of the universe or the extraordinary processes that made it. It would be lovely to make you see how the truths we're prety sure of are so much more wonderful than anything in Genesis: things with no proof or evidence and with no more claim to the 'truth' than anything the Mayans, Yoruba, Inuit, Muslims or Hindus believe (for all that all creation myths are gorgeous in their way.)
So I'm taking the piss. You're foolish and you look it.
all i have to do is show that it can happen.... i need no model. i look up into the sky and what do i see, i see the absorption bands of amino acids and nucleotides in space. oh dear, they must have formed somewhere... i put a mix of elements into extreme conditions, heat, current, cold, and what do i get after just years, a blink of the eye of the cosmos, nucleic acids and amino acids. it happens on its own. that has been known since the 1950s. where have you been?
CLOSE THIS THREAD
Oh dear, back to the nucleic acids---life is much more complicated than that.
Give me a detailed, molecule-by-molecule biomechanical model of how DNA-based organisms formed in the wild.
You can't.
You believe in something that you do not understand.
There was nothing 'passive' about my post. I am taking the piss out of you.
When it comes to Creationism I'm sort of an... evangelist, so to speak. There's no man-made story of origins that can possibly compare to the awesome age, beauty and size of the universe or the extraordinary processes that made it. It would be lovely to make you see how the truths we're prety sure of are so much more wonderful than anything in Genesis: things with no proof or evidence and with no more claim to the 'truth' than anything the Mayans, Yoruba, Inuit, Muslims or Hindus believe (for all that all creation myths are gorgeous in their way.)
So I'm taking the piss. You're foolish and you look it.
I haven't revealed my position on my "religion"---but nice try.
Maybe you should come back to the thread when you have some answers to my questions.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Science does classify animate and inanimate objects differently even if you do not. Life is not sacrosanct, even along the living in many regards, but that does not mean that animate and inanimate are the same.
They might not be the same, but both are equally likely to occur in the universe.
Originally posted by trumptman
I just fail to see with those two bulleted standards how any "analysis" occurs. From what I recall, most schools do just what is presented there.
What age group is this from? I think I'd have to agree that science through a certain age is generic, maybe too generic. But almost all studies at whatever age group this example is from are generic. History, science, art, everything except math (but in my opinion math doesn't lend itself to generic teachings.)
Like science, the history we're taught at a young age is more a precursor to the truth, and even that truth is only admittedly correct to a certain degree. A genericized version of that truth is bland at best.
Originally posted by bunge
They might not be the same, but both are equally likely to occur in the universe.
I disagree. I am sure that if you broke down the universe by percentage animate and inanimate that the overwhelming majority of material would be classified inanimate, not 50-50 which would be equal.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
What age group is this from? I think I'd have to agree that science through a certain age is generic, maybe too generic. But almost all studies at whatever age group this example is from are generic. History, science, art, everything except math (but in my opinion math doesn't lend itself to generic teachings.)
Like science, the history we're taught at a young age is more a precursor to the truth, and even that truth is only admittedly correct to a certain degree. A genericized version of that truth is bland at best.
That was 12th grade, I would guess that since most states require 2 years of science (far too little in my opinion) that the second year could be taken sometime before they graduate.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I disagree. I am sure that if you broke down the universe by percentage animate and inanimate that the overwhelming majority of material would be classified inanimate, not 50-50 which would be equal.
I probably lean more in the lonely camp of all atoms are equal, animate or not. I don't really consider mass a qualifier in the equasion.
Originally posted by trumptman
That was 12th grade, I would guess that since most states require 2 years of science (far too little in my opinion) that the second year could be taken sometime before they graduate.
Isn't 12th grade 'senior' year of high school? Either way I think we're probably just going to figure out that science is underdeveloped in the school system. I think what and how they're teaching is probably fine, but could start earlier.
Originally posted by bunge
I probably lean more in the lonely camp of all atoms are equal, animate or not. I don't really consider mass a qualifier in the equasion.
Oh no no no. Some atoms are more equal than others....
Ah, this brings back memories.
Perhaps the time is ripe for the creationists to finally bring out the "scientific theory of creation" that we have all been hearing about.
Perhaps fellowship would be a good lad and post it. He forgot to in the last anti-evolution thread. An honest mistake, I'm sure.
Evolution can certainly be criticised. It's a scientific theory, after all. It's actually such a good scientific theory, that it has outlasted its opponents.
It should be possible to discuss the work of, say, Gould versus Dawkins in a high school science class.
It should also be possible to explain why creationists are incapable of putting forward their own scientific theory.
That is, explain how evolution very successfully explains the observable evidence - as a scientific theory - and that creationists cannot.
Explain how scientific theories live and die by their ability to explain the evidence. Explain how evolution has lived for over 150 years, and the creationism has been discredited time and time again.
This should all be possible in a school science class.
I agree with Hassan in the observation that the anti - evolutiopn stance is very much an American fundamentalist thing.
As a Christian, I have absolutely no trouble finding a space into which theology & science can co-operate in exploring the truth....
Literalism in all is forms is closely allied to dogma & fundamentalism..no matter where it comes from...
I wipe my eye. To work:
Originally posted by ena
Evolution is a total failure as a theory
Not 'a partial success', not 'leaves important questions unanswered', but 'a total failure'. A total failure. I ask you. You aren't, by any chance, a fundamentalist Christian, are you, Ena?
Originally posted by ena
It simply doesn't address the many obvious questions of mechanics
Yes it does.
symbiosis
Yes it does.
ecology
Yes it does.
There is no roadmap that explicitly tells anyone how rocks turned into human beings. You just have to accept the theory in blind faith.
In the absence of a better theory, I'll take the one that one that seems the most likely given what we know about the laws of physics, anatomy, the fossil record, mitochondrial DNA decay rates, everything that lives on the planet, and etc.
You just have to accept the theory in blind faith. It needs critisism in a big hurry.
Unlike, say, er, what it says in Genesis which tells us that the Hindus, the Zoarastrians, the Muslims, the followers of Ife, animists, Jains, the Native Americans and the Inuit are all absolutely misguided. A god who climbed down a white sheet on the first morning of the world, indeed! Obviously preposterous. Compared to the whole world being made in seven days, I mean, really. What a joke!
Originally posted by xenu
Perhaps the time is ripe for the creationists to finally bring out the "scientific theory of creation" that we have all been hearing about.
After 10+ years of being on the Internet (including USENET), I don't think I've seen this happen. I'm sure it's probably happened, but I've never experienced it. Here's to AppleOutsider being the first!
critical analysis has helped to shape evolution, and just because it doesnt answer all the questions, doesnt mean it doesnt have more supporting evidence than all of the alternatives. there is no need for a theory of everything, and that is what those religious fanatics find most harrowing about evolution, that since everything from day one isnt acconted for in the theory it has to be wrong. that, scientifically, is rediculous. just because general relativity hasnt been connected to quantum mechanics doesnt mean that the theories dont hold water. it is exactly because evolution challenges traditional/religious beliefs that it is attacked more often than is GR or QM. it is because of the religious debate that this topic of discussion didnt die on page one with Powerdoc's statement that of course the criticism should be discussed at the appropriate time.
this discussion in my mind is based on the false premise that " More and more this discussion, finally, seems to be centering on the real issue and that is that not believing in evolution does not mean you are a religious freak or desire religion be taught in science class ", no the link trumptman gave was precisely a religious site, no rightminded scientist has ever argued that critical analysis of scientific theory is not essential to understanding that theory. what we have here is a bait and switch. critisims that are of scientific merit should of course be included, religious convictions should of course not be ala trumptman's first premise.
this thread should be closed because the answer, the most rational answer, is i believed agreed on by everyone (i have a feeling) -- that scientific criticisms of the same level as the theory is presented should be included.
kill this elephant, it hasnt evolved and the climate is changing
Originally posted by billybobsky
critical analysis of evolution is definitely needed. but to improve the theory.
There is no theory---it comes across as "I wish this changed to that..." etc., etc.
Evolution is a joke.
Originally posted by al-Dajjal
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
You have excepted what you cannot understand and what no scientists alive understands.
Care to give me a detailed, molecule-by-molecule biomechanical model of how DNA formed in the wild? --and not some hallucination wrapped in wishful thinking?
You can't.
NO ONE CAN.
It's a superstition.
Evolution has NO answers---all the passive/aggressive posts in the world won't change that fact.
Originally posted by ena
You have excepted what you cannot understand and what no scientists alive understands.
Care to give me a detailed, molecule-by-molecule biomechanical model of how DNA formed in the wild? --and not some hallucination wrapped in wishful thinking?
You can't.
NO ONE CAN.
It's a superstition.
Evolution has NO answers---all the passive/aggressive posts in the world won't change that fact.
all i have to do is show that it can happen.... i need no model. i look up into the sky and what do i see, i see the absorption bands of amino acids and nucleotides in space. oh dear, they must have formed somewhere... i put a mix of elements into extreme conditions, heat, current, cold, and what do i get after just years, a blink of the eye of the cosmos, nucleic acids and amino acids. it happens on its own. that has been known since the 1950s. where have you been?
CLOSE THIS THREAD
Evolution has NO answers---all the passive/aggressive posts in the world won't change that fact.
I object to this.
There was nothing 'passive' about my post. I am taking the piss out of you.
When it comes to Creationism I'm sort of an... evangelist, so to speak. There's no man-made story of origins that can possibly compare to the awesome age, beauty and size of the universe or the extraordinary processes that made it. It would be lovely to make you see how the truths we're prety sure of are so much more wonderful than anything in Genesis: things with no proof or evidence and with no more claim to the 'truth' than anything the Mayans, Yoruba, Inuit, Muslims or Hindus believe (for all that all creation myths are gorgeous in their way.)
So I'm taking the piss. You're foolish and you look it.
Originally posted by billybobsky
all i have to do is show that it can happen.... i need no model. i look up into the sky and what do i see, i see the absorption bands of amino acids and nucleotides in space. oh dear, they must have formed somewhere... i put a mix of elements into extreme conditions, heat, current, cold, and what do i get after just years, a blink of the eye of the cosmos, nucleic acids and amino acids. it happens on its own. that has been known since the 1950s. where have you been?
CLOSE THIS THREAD
Oh dear, back to the nucleic acids---life is much more complicated than that.
Give me a detailed, molecule-by-molecule biomechanical model of how DNA-based organisms formed in the wild.
You can't.
You believe in something that you do not understand.
Originally posted by al-Dajjal
I object to this.
There was nothing 'passive' about my post. I am taking the piss out of you.
When it comes to Creationism I'm sort of an... evangelist, so to speak. There's no man-made story of origins that can possibly compare to the awesome age, beauty and size of the universe or the extraordinary processes that made it. It would be lovely to make you see how the truths we're prety sure of are so much more wonderful than anything in Genesis: things with no proof or evidence and with no more claim to the 'truth' than anything the Mayans, Yoruba, Inuit, Muslims or Hindus believe (for all that all creation myths are gorgeous in their way.)
So I'm taking the piss. You're foolish and you look it.
I haven't revealed my position on my "religion"---but nice try.
Maybe you should come back to the thread when you have some answers to my questions.