If you want kids to learn creation science, show how you'd teach it.

AV1611VET · Sep 7, 2006

Tomk80 said:
So now you bring out things that scientists themselves never believed but rather were shoddy statements by ufologists, and pretend scientists denoted special attention to it in any way. Really AV, if you are going to discuss this in any way, could you at least discuss what actually happened?

Tom --- don't even get me started on SETI.

AV1611VET · Sep 7, 2006

Tomk80 said:
No, it is not. The publish or perish principle is a phenomenon where lines of research are abandoned if they don't give results soon enough. It is a problem recognized by scientists, but it's reasons are political, not scientific.

Don't blame that on politics, Tom. It's the love of money, the desire to get your name in the limelight, the quest to be first on the block to make a discovery that predicates the Publish or Perish Principle.

And incidentally, where are the scientists when the REVERSE is going on?

New Agers are selling Shark Cartilage, Amaranth Crackers, and Magnetic Bracelets --- all the while using science to support the validity of their products.

Have you ever browsed a copy of New Age magazine and seen the garbage that's offered us?

In the past 40 years, science has given accreditation to such things as Transcendental Meditation, Chiropractic, Iridology, and Touch Therapy --- not to mention Acupuncture and Acupressure, and it sickens me.

I can't remember when it was --- in the mid-80's I think --- Bill Bixby hosted a show called The NBC Million Dollar Challenge. (I think.)

In that special, NBC brought the world's greatest experts in 10 metaphysical fields to the studio, and challenged them to prove their craft was legitimate (and they would receive $1,000,000.00).

I remember the first person up was a lady that could read auras.

They put 12 (maybe it was 10) vertical panels up, "cleansed" the area with red light, then told her to tell us if anyone is standing behind any of the panels. She hesitated, then said there was someone behind every panel.

There were people behind, like, panels 1, 3, 4, and 11 - or something to that effect.

The last person was the world's greatest dowser. They put water in twelve 55-gallon drums, and had him stand over them with his divining rod and read the drums. Again failure.

Between these "stunts", they were showing clips from Penn and Teller doing junk, and Uri Geller bending spoons, etc.

The point I'm making here is simply this:

Why did it take an ACTOR, and not a SCIENTIST to prove these people wrong?

Where's the scientific outcry against Tony Robbins, and that guy that can get people in touch with their loved ones who have "passed on to the other side", and Deepak Chopra, and Shirley MacClain, etc?

I'll tell you where they're at --- they're at the bank.

eri · Sep 7, 2006

The vast majority of scientists don't fall for that crap. But why do we need a scientific outcry? There are other people doing that already.

Science has NOT proven any of those things you mentioned to be true. In fact, it took a 10 year old to prove touch therapy was a load of crap. Did you look into this at all?

As for the NBC program, it sounds like something James Randi (www.randi.org) would do. Check out his site for other stuff science hasn't endorsed.

AV1611VET · Sep 7, 2006

shenren said:
Calling Pluto a minor planet instead of a planet doesn't make it any less distant, cold, or old beyond YECist timeframes.

From PLUTO's frame of reference, no; but from the common peoples' perspective, who don't really care for Astronomy, they'll believe anything.

LightHorseman · Sep 7, 2006

Don't blame that on politics, Tom. It's the love of money, the desire to get your name in the limelight, the quest to be first on the block to make a discovery that predicates the Publish or Perish Principle.

Sounds like a pretty good definition of "political" to me.

but from the common peoples' perspective, who don't really care for Astronomy, they'll believe anything

So we should dumb science down to the level of the lowest common denominator? Sounds a wonderful basis in training for the aeronautic engineer who designs the plane you will travel in

New Agers are selling Shark Cartilage, Amaranth Crackers, and Magnetic Bracelets --- all the while using science to support the validity of their products.

No. They are making stuff up and CALLING it science. And there ARE lots of scientists debunking this stuff all the time. However, it is sad but true that "WONDER NEW CARTILEGE CANCER CURE" is going to get better ratings on the current affairs glurge shows out there as a headline than "spoilsport scientist proves healthy diet and exercise only sure way to live longer"

LightHorseman · Sep 7, 2006

And SETI rocks.

AV1611VET · Sep 7, 2006

Angrywomble said:
Also i think one of the things the OP was after was seeing some Lesson Plans and not just a syllabus, so AV....would you be able to knock together a Lesson Plan for us? And no, saying that you'll use visual aids doesn't cut it.

q.v. Post 6 on Page 1 --- Post 75 on Page 8 --- Post 233 on Page 24.

This not only gives the lesson plan, but the finals, as well.

AV1611VET · Sep 7, 2006

AngryWomble said:
I believe that there was some genuine concern by some industry bods about how some of the machines would cope with going to the year 2000.

Oh, just "some industry bods"? Not any scientists, right? Just those goofy industry bods?

AngryWomble said:
Now imagine if a bank had some servers that did that, lets say the ones that held your account details.....it's a little concerning isn't it?

No --- not hardly. People were more concerned with planes falling out of the sky, satellites going blind, heart monitors and pacers quitting, iron lungs stopping, being stranded on the highway, etc. to worry about their bank accounts.

AV1611VET · Sep 7, 2006

eri said:
The vast majority of scientists don't fall for that crap. But why do we need a scientific outcry? There are other people doing that already.

By "other people", I'm sure you meant "Christians", right? (Yup, we're the "other white meat".)

While we Christians were "outcrying" against this stuff, scientists were sending people into space with decks of cards, taping pencils moving across tables (telekenesis), and other metaphysical claims - (not to debunk it, but to try and lend accreditation to it). In the end, they couldn't do it, though; and ALL ALONG, Christians were saying it was either devilish, or a hoax.

eri said:
Science has NOT proven any of those things you mentioned to be true.

No kidding --- how did Christians "automatically know that" --- without all the research?

eri said:
In fact, it took a 10 year old to prove touch therapy was a load of crap. Did you look into this at all?

No, I didn't --- but before that 10 year old "proved" it --- Someone else proved it thousands of years ago.

eri said:
As for the NBC program, it sounds like something James Randi (www.randi.org) would do. Check out his site for other stuff science hasn't endorsed.

Yes, it does, and I'm very thankful for James Randi; but when I see stuff like that debunked, I just think: "yup --- we knew that all along".

AV1611VET · Sep 7, 2006

LightHorseman said:
Sounds like a pretty good definition of "political" to me.

Hmmm --- can't argue there.

LightHorseman said:
So we should dumb science down to the level of the lowest common denominator?

No --- you should keep your "scientific breakthroughs" to yourself until it's proven --- not let someone die of Vioxx, then say, "Oops, more research necessary; after all, change is our strongest attribute".

Don't call Pluto a planet until you know whether it is or not.

And, above all, don't say Jesus didn't walk on water, heal the sick, and raise the dead until you know for sure He didn't.

rmwilliamsll · Sep 7, 2006

until it's proven
until you know whether it is or not

science NEVER proves anything. only math and logic do.
science NEVER claims to know something absolutely or for certain. you are asking something that the system does not supply nor intends to.

it's major tool is induction and induction always talks in terms of probabilities or "beyond reasonable doubt"

science leaves absolute certainty to the theologicans, who you can see obviously agree among themselves about what is absolutely certain.

LightHorseman · Sep 7, 2006

Don't call Pluto a planet until you know whether it is or not.

Well there wasn't a firm definition of planet until a week back, so this is unfair

No --- you should keep your "scientific breakthroughs" to yourself until it's proven --- not let someone die of Vioxx, then say, "Oops, more research necessary; after all, change is our strongest attribute".

Difference between scientific breakthrough and misuse or misrepresentation of what the science says

And, above all, don't say Jesus didn't walk on water, heal the sick, and raise the dead until you know for sure He didn't.

I don't think science, as a collective noun, has an opinion on the matter.

Evolution and cosmology however, is a different matter.
As far as it is humanly possible to know ANYTHING, we know the world is older than 6000 years, and know that something pretty close to what we uderstand as evolution is responsible for modern biodiversity.

It is POSSIBLE that our understanding is completely wrong. But then it is POSSIBLE that you are just a brain in a jar, being fed electrical stimulus that you perceive as the universe around you. But, until such time as prove to the contrary comes up, we are better off going with what apears to be correct. And, so far, big bang cosmology and evolution appear correct.

AV1611VET · Sep 7, 2006

rmwilliamsll said:
science NEVER proves anything. only math and logic do.

So it's scientists now that claim no one can prove anything outside of math and logic?

No one is qualified to sit on a jury and "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" anything?

Doctors can't prove someone has cancer?

shernren · Sep 7, 2006

The more time I spend here, the more I think that the Wilcox-McCandlish laws of online discussion belong right up there with Newton's, Coulomb's, Biot-Savart, Ampere's, ... Laws.

McCandlish's Third Corollary

Any attempt at recourse to formal logic or identification of classic fallacies will simply increase the irrationality of the discussion.

The Sub-corollary to McCandlish's Third

It is likely that this is so because the use of formal logic immediately raises the quality of the discussion to unity, thus guaranteeing the next followup will be a non sequitur.

Proof of the Sub-corollary to McCandlish's Third

See above again if you missed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilcox-McCandlish_law

AV1611VET · Sep 7, 2006

LightHorseman said:
Well there wasn't a firm definition of planet until a week back, so this is unfair.

OIC --- no "firm" definition.

So we commoners need to learn the difference between firm definitions and loose definitions, right?

That way we can be fair?

Opcode42 · Sep 7, 2006

AV1611VET said:
OIC --- no "firm" definition.

So we commoners need to learn the difference between firm definitions and loose definitions, right?

That way we can be fair?

The average joe maybe not, but if you want to participate in debate, online or otherswise, the you definately should.

As well, you really should actually take the time to study subejcts before jumping to conclusions about them.

Why is Pluto no longer a planet? Because untill recently we had no reason to think of it any other way. Now however, as we expand our knowledge of planetary science to planets of other solar systems, and extend our knowledge of our own, we need a definition of exactly what a planet is, because all of a sudden, we are starting to find a whole lot more than 9 of them. Before, it just wans't something anyone thought about. Pluto was discovered, they called it a planet, and so it was untill now.

Seriously though, this is like a discussion on which is better Dick York or Dick Sargent. it is a pretty much meaningless topic in a purely scientific sense, bandied about by the press to cover a slow news week. And of course the uneducated masses believe anything in print, and turn it into a major debate.

Pluto being a planet is a semantics debate. it is a debate over a definition that means pretty much nothing today, but will have bearing when we begin to physically explore other solar systems, and begin colonizing our own. All it is is defining something that before was undefined. Eventually you have to do that with any subject.

Get over it.

eri · Sep 7, 2006

By "other people", I'm sure you meant "Christians", right? (Yup, we're the "other white meat".)

No, I meant there were other people complaining that this was all crap (skeptics), not that there were other people falling for it. Although there are lots of people falling for it, they don't have to be religious to do so - although it might help (a simple extension of a supernatural veiwpoint).

No kidding --- how did Christians "automatically know that" --- without all the research?

Pretty much anyone could have told you that stuff was crap by looking into it at all. You insinuated scientists fell for it, and I was defending science. If Christians don't fall for it, great (although I would contest that point, as I know many that have) although it wasn't the fact that they were Christian that helped. If they just said it was 'the work of the devil', as you implied, then that's not helping - sure, they didn't fall for it, but just attributed it to another supernatural cause - and that's not any better in the end. It's just crap - it doesn't work.

Abongil · Sep 7, 2006

AV1611VET said:
Hmmm --- can't argue there.

No --- you should keep your "scientific breakthroughs" to yourself until it's proven --- not let someone die of Vioxx, then say, "Oops, more research necessary; after all, change is our strongest attribute".

Don't call Pluto a planet until you know whether it is or not.

And, above all, don't say Jesus didn't walk on water, heal the sick, and raise the dead until you know for sure He didn't.

AV1611VET said:
Don't call Pluto a planet until you know whether it is or not.

Umm... at the time we thought it was a planet, we thought it was a lot bigger than it was. Now if we continue to call it a planet, we will also have to memorize Charon, Ceres, Xena and possibly hundreds more in elementary school.

As far as the "dont say anything about it until you have it right", they need to tell the public about it, where do you think they obtain most of their money from? Grants? HAHA

Abongil · Sep 7, 2006

AV1611VET said:
So it's scientists now that claim no one can prove anything outside of math and logic?

No one is qualified to sit on a jury and "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" anything?

Doctors can't prove someone has cancer?

No, Math has proofs, which prove the operations they are doing (often bizarrely), logic has proofs, but are vague at best and alcohol has proofs. Other than that, you cannot prove ANYTHING. You cannot prove your own existance.

If you want kids to learn creation science, show how you'd teach it.

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

avid reader

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

you are not reading this.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Active Member

Regular Member

Veteran

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency