Dinosaurs: Genesis and the Gospel

[StormanNorman]

Um ... okay ... like the elevator really cares, eh?

Of course not

Commander and co-pilot of what? a scenic elevator!? what's Split Rock, then? the navigator?

I don't know....probably not the navigator (if they had one) as they would again mostly likely be a military officer.

Ya -- dumb and dumber.

Which of the two groups are the dumber ones? the group that said get on the elevator, or the group that got on the elevator?

In your opinion, of course.

Well, you need to take the crew out of it because they perform no decision-making process (smart or dumb). If they are told to go, then they go. There's no decision on their part. As for the remaining parties....who was the "dumber" or who was most responsible for the mishap? Well, that's been beaten to death around here (mainly from your continuous poking). Everyone has an opinion. I haven't studied it in great detail.

My bottom line: things like this happen. You could get in a plane tomorrow and it could crash. Again, it happens. And, it could be due to bad science... or direct human error....or administrative nonsense ....or a combination ....or none of these things (just bad luck). But, the good news is, even with these events, our life expectancy is much, much longer today than it was 100 years ago, 500 years ago, etc. And, that's because of science ... so, it's not all bad, my friend.

 

[AV1611VET]

But, the good news is, even with these events, our life expectancy is much, much longer today than it was 100 years ago, 500 years ago, etc.

Our life expectancy is 48 years.

QV please: 34

 

[StormanNorman]

ETA: Let's say the elevator goes all the way to the top and back without a problem. Does that make the group that got on it any less dumber?

In your opinion, of course.

You added this last part after my response.

If you don't mind, let's replace your antagonizing term "dumber" with "courageous." Then the answer is no.

 

[StormanNorman]

Our life expectancy is 48 years.

QV please: 34

Ok, so for those of us who are actually born (including you, me, and those who take rides on space shuttles), the life expectancy is much longer today than it was 100 years ago, 500 years ago, etc. Again, thanks to science.

Mapping History

 

[AV1611VET]

You added this last part after my response.

If you don't mind, let's replace your antagonizing term "dumber" with "courageous." Then the answer is no.

Okay, Norman, thank you.

(This conversation is going nowhere fast.)

 

[StormanNorman]

Okay, Norman, thank you.

(This conversation is going nowhere fast.)

I take that as a compliment.

 

[juvenissun]

Explain to me which of the "correct" answers is based on scientific investigation.

There is no scientific investigation in the test. It is a pre-science education.

 

[Split Rock]

There is no scientific investigation in the test. It is a pre-science education.

One more time. Please explain which of the "correct" answers were derived from scientific investigation. These answers were taught to the students, they were not derived by the students. It is also not "pre-science" education. It is a "science quiz." What is "pre-science" anyway??

 

[rikerjoe]

What's wrong with it?

Everything is wrong with it.

 

[rikerjoe]

The students' personal beliefs is a tough one. I'm of the opinion that students (and parents) should be given the option to opt out of certain scientific topics like evolution if it is contrary to their religious beliefs.

Which would be a very bad idea and is why the US has such problems right now.

however, I'd would be more favorable if it would mean that those that opted out would not be able to graduate.

 

[rikerjoe]

Our life expectancy is 48 years.

QV please: 34

No it isn't. Life expectancy is measured from birth. Your linked article is not relevant.

 

[StormanNorman]

Which would be a very bad idea and is why the US has such problems right now.

however, I'd would be more favorable if it would mean that those that opted out would not be able to graduate.

I'm as pro-science as they come, but I disagree with you. And, the reason is that by law kids have to go to school whether it is public, private, or homeschool. And, for some, homeschooling and private school are not options; they don't have a choice, they have to go to public school. And, we have a very, very strong tradition in this country of protecting religious freedom. It's one of our most important tenants.

So, no, I don't think we should force kids to learn things against their religious beliefs. Now, of course, we have to be careful here and not let this run amuck. And, yes, they can graduate ... and even go to college; but, they probably won't be scientists.

 

[Tomk80]

Everything is wrong with it.

It is the one thing that strikes me about Juvy. Anytime he says something dumb, I think he must have reached the bottom. Up to the time he says something dumber.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no scientific investigation in the test. It is a pre-science education.

IOW, they need to indoctrinate students into creationism before they are allowed to see the science.

 

[AV1611VET]

No it isn't. Life expectancy is measured from birth.

No kidding!?

The article acknowledges that here:

But the biggest flaw in this method— and one that Catholics can easily spot—is that by definition it excludes infants that die before birth. For it asks the question “How long can a child being born today expect to live?” instead of the real question which is “How long can a child being conceived today expect to live?”

Notice it is referred to as a "flaw"?

 

[rikerjoe]

I'm as pro-science as they come, but I disagree with you. And, the reason is that by law kids have to go to school whether it is public, private, or homeschool. And, for some, homeschooling and private school are not options; they don't have a choice, they have to go to public school. And, we have a very, very strong tradition in this country of protecting religious freedom. It's one of our most important tenants.

So, no, I don't think we should force kids to learn things against their religious beliefs. Now, of course, we have to be careful here and not let this run amuck. And, yes, they can graduate ... and even go to college; but, they probably won't be scientists.

As I said, that is why you have the issues you have.... not only in science, but education in general.

 

[rikerjoe]

No kidding!?

The article acknowledges that here: <snip>

Notice it is referred to as a "flaw"?

Yes, but it is not a flaw, it is the definition. If he wants to redefine it, at least he can be honest enough to do so properly, right? The article goes on to only include ONE event that can happen before birth and the smallest one on top of that. Why is that?

Since he didn't do it properly, the old definition and statistics stands.

 

[StormanNorman]

As I said, that is why you have the issues you have.... not only in science, but education in general.

It may be a contributing factor, but not the only one; US education is a multi-headed monster. Come to think of it... it may not even be a contributing factor. We have always had strong fundamental/evangelical influences in this country (too much for my taste)...even when our education system was considered among the strongest.

So, I don't know. Either way, maybe it's the price we pay for religious freedom. We still have some of the very best universities and research institutions which I think is very important.

 

[Split Rock]

No kidding!?

The article acknowledges that here:


Notice it is referred to as a "flaw"?

So then we would have to factor in natural abortions and miscarriages and still births, which were much higher in the past. .... right...?

 

[AV1611VET]

So then we would have to factor in natural abortions and miscarriages and still births, which were much higher in the past. .... right...?

Be my guest ... but I have a feeling they won't.

As I have said before, in my opinion scientists calibrate their own machines and program their own software to get the results they need to keep science operating in a positive light.

If they have to filter out undesirable statistics, or pass the buck, or whatever, they can do so.

Science runs on the No True Scotsman Principle.