“Science is one avenue for searching for one kind of truth. It is not a search for all truth or all turths.

This cracks me up the more I think of it. You do realize don't you that if you don't want to use science search for the "truth" of creation then that elliminates Big Bang theory as science, don't you?”

“The whole point of science is to discover the facts. By proving facts is the method by which that is done.

That cracked me up, thanks.”

“You're welcome. I didn't think he had to be said, but apparently some people don't know that.”

“I barely read this thread, let alone post on it. But hey, I'm going to be a science educator in the near term and thought I'd throw out some things for you all to chew on.

First, science is not "gravity" or "evolution" or "big bang" or "biology" or "astronomy". Science is doing, observing, hypothesizing, testing, analyzing, etc. Science is not the facts or theories we discuss, its what we do with them. Science is hands-on and its all about thinking.

Second, the purpose of education is to teach kids to think. There are other important skills and knowledge that is passed through the education process, but in my opinion, my greatest task is to teach kids to think on their own. If I don't do that, then I've failed as a teacher. Thinking is one of the most, if not the most, important skill a person needs to posess. If you can't think about how a decision may affect your wallet, or your kids, or your spouse, etc., then you're surely a sad story.

I don't care to argue evolution in the context of science vs. religion, but I hope it'll direct students to do what's being done here. Think. Argue. Listen to what someone else has to say. Critically question one's own beliefs. Debate.

And that's not limited to just evolution. Let's talk politics. Voters need to figure out how to get information on the candidates, and analyze each platform critically. They've got to think in order to make a decision on a candidate. Criminey, the TTers must have had some great teachers, because there are certainly more than enough debates around here.

My job as an educator, whether I teach evolution or not (I'll likely teach middle school and won't get into this subject, but my fiance teaches biology and is in the heart of this debate) is to teach kids how to think and critically look at all the facts and fiction put in front of them. I see the argument over whether evolution should be taught as a wonderful example of how we all should be using our brains in this society to make informed decisions. Your opinion is yours, but if teaching the theory of evolution in a classroom helps kids learn to question scientific data and observations and their own beliefs, then I'm all for it.”

“Science is a structured body of knowledge gained through the methodical study of nature. The Scientific Method is one way of methodically evaluating knowledge prior to its introduction into that body of knowledge.”

“Sarge: You look for points of attack and never seem to listen. My point, including with Hume, is that there are many kinds of questions science can't answer. Moral truths, values and meaning are examples of that.

This was in the context of your claim rhetorical question "isn't science the search for the truth?"

There are many different kinds forms of intellectual inquiry and many different domains of inquiry. Science is one domain and the scientific method is one method. Just bcause a theory or a notion is unscientific does not mean it is false or valueless. There are many areas of inquiry beyond the realm of science.

If God just thought it and it happened instananeously, then stating that God did so would be true, but it would be outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

The point of the David Hume quote was simply to address the limits of a scientific inquiry, not to discuss the limits of religion. That would be another topic.

If God did do it, then the truth would be just that.”

“pedxing - Ok, I'll just sit here and listen. You can debate yourself since I don't listen.

You don't know if it's outside of the realm of scientific inquiry. With that logic, many new fields of science would have never began in the first place.

PS - You're a blind fool.”

“I want to hear about how evoloution allegedly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”

“Why don't you ask somebody who thinks that pitts? Maybe they'll tell you.”

“Perhaps they will.”

“I believe Bison argued the 2nd law fallacy.”

“The faulty argument goes something like this:

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy (disorder/randomness) of a closed system cannot decrease over time. Evolution describes a process through which an organic system becomes increasing complex over time. Hence the amount of entropy decreases as life evolves to form more complex organisms from simpler ones. This represents a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics since it reflects a process where the total entropy is decreasing.

Which is silly since the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics must be applied to a closed system (just like the 1st Law of Thermodynamics). The Earth is NOT a closed system since the Sun is constantly pumping energy onto its surface. So you can’t apply the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to it.

Using the same argument one could also claim that organizing your sock drawer is a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The socks are in a state of disorder and when you are finished they are less disordered. Of course the problem here is that your sock drawer is not a closed system in this context. You represent an external energy source providing energy into the system to pay the price for the decrease in entropy.

Other examples of less complex systems becoming more complex would include snowflakes, tornadoes, crystals, and lightning. They aren’t violations of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and neither is Evolution.
last edited: 10/18/05 8:41:15 AM”

“As long as the universe exhibits a net increase in entropy, localized entropy reductions aren't a violation.”

“"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero." - Fight Club (1999)”

“if you don't want to use science search for the "truth" of creation then that elliminates Big Bang theory as science

The Big Bang theory doesn't say anything about the creation of the Universe. It's a theory of it's expansion from the beginning of time. So the point you are making here is wrong.”

“Uh oh, here we go again...”

“Everyone who gives a shlt raise your hand...














[cricket, cricket]”

“The Big Bang theory doesn't say anything about the creation of the Universe. It's a theory of it's expansion from the beginning of time. So the point you are making here is wrong.

LMAO!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22big+bang%22&btnG=Search”

“here is a great wonder of science:

http://www.citationmachine.net/index.php”

“PS - You're a blind fool.”
SARGEantSlaughter
7:35:02 PM
10/17/05

Substituting name calling for analysis. At least you are consistent.”

“Yeah, I decided to do that after you said I never seem to listen, the obnoxious passive aggressive way of saying "You're a blind fool."

Ewww ... that's gotta be an eye opener for you.

Unless, of course, you're just don't listen.”

“nuh uh

uh huh”

“LMAO!

I haven’t the faintest idea what you are trying to prove with your Google search. If you want to understand the Big Bang theory then read about it from a reliable source. I have more than once quoted good books on the topic. I won’t resort to Google. I just read the Wikipedia article on the Big Bang theory and it’s quite accurate and well worded. Here is the link and some key sections. The bit on the expansion is very well done.

The theory says nothing about how the initial dense and hot state came into existence or how the singularity that general relativity predicts would be the initial state came into existence. It only explains how the Universe formed from this initial state… the expansion of the Universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from an enormously dense and hot state nearly 14 billion years ago. The Big Bang is a consequence of the observed Hubble's law velocities of distant galaxies that when taken together with the cosmological principle implies that space is expanding according to the Friedmann model of general relativity. Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a primeval state, in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity.

...the Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe; what is expanding is spacetime itself. It is this expansion that causes the physical distance between any two fixed points in our universe to increase. Objects that are bound together (for example, by gravity) do not expand with spacetime's expansion because the physical laws that govern them are assumed to be uniform and independent of the metric expansion. Moreover, the expansion of the universe on today's local scales is so small that any dependence of physical laws on the expansion is unmeasurable by current techniques.
last edited: 10/18/05 10:41:45 PM”

“LMAO! x Infinity!

The Big Bang theory doesn't say anything about the creation of the Universe. - pitts 3:38:12 PM 10/18/05

-----

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from an enormously dense and hot state nearly 14 billion years ago. - pitts 11:40:07 PM 10/18/05”

“youre a big poo-poo head

no, you are

nuh uh

uh huh”

“He doesn't know what he is talking about... a real mental midget.”

“Well we are a bit off topic. Arent we :)”

“Whatever happened to ol' bearmagnet?”

“I thought sarge and pitts were one and the same...”

“Mutt, shouldn't you be trolling or something? LOL”

“Trolling? Okay, how about this: backpackers tend to be fashion conscious north-face buying poseurs who only go on the trail to laugh at those who are too smart to buy all the geek gear that supposed real backpackers lust after.

Bah”

“The debates about the issue of creationism vs. evolution
keep popping up, often in local public school board meetings.
Some Christians want to force public schools to teach
creationism, even though their children can already learn it
in Sunday school, church, and parochial schools, as well as
in their homes. I wonder how they would like being forced to
teach EVOLUTION in their Sunday school, church, and parochial
schools.

Creationism and evolution are actually both partly
right, BUT BOTH MOSTLY WRONG ! There is a 3RD ALTERNATIVE
that is being systematically ignored and suppressed: SEEDING
BY SPACE ALIENS ! The TRUE ORIGIN for humans is the six-
planet solar system that we call Vega, which is now the main
headquarters for the REAL Galactic Federation that will soon
be formally greeting us with a First Contact mass UFO
landing. (See the web sites http://www.paoweb.com and
http://www.paoweb.com/snarch.htm .)

Another most important fact of life that is being
systematically ignored and suppressed by both the Christian
churches and the public schools is that people REINCARNATE as
many times as they need to. Several kinds of supporting
evidence for it can be found in books at public libraries and
book stores. It was the Nicene Council of the early Catholic
Church that REMOVED REincarnation from the Christian
teachings. The churches want us all to believe that we have
only one chance to make it, so that they can have more
control over their members and extract more money out of
them.”

“Okay, pitts=sarge=marvin_gardens=cousin of stomper.”

““He doesn't know what he is talking about... a real mental midget.” - pitts

I quoted you and your source directly without comment.

LMAO @ pitts!”

“06 October 2005

"Devastating" early drafts of a controversial book recommended as reading at a US high school reveal how the word “creationism” had been later swapped for “intelligent design”, a landmark US trial scrutinising the teaching of ID heard on Wednesday.

The early drafts of the book Of Pandas and People, were used as evidence to link the book to creationism, which it is illegal to teach in government-funded US schools.

“ID proponents have said for years that they are not creationists,” says Nick Matzke of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which is advising 11 parents who are suing the school board of Dover High School in Pennsylvania for incorporating ID into the science curriculum. “This proves beyond a doubt that this is simply a new name for creationism.”
[...]
The early versions of the book were displayed to the court by expert witness for the plaintiffs and creationist historian Barbara Forrest of the Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond. She suggested that they were strong proof that ID is indeed creationism by another name.

Forrest compared early drafts of Of Pandas and People to a later 1987 copy, and showed how in several instances the word “creationism” had been replaced by “intelligent design”, and “creationist” simply replaced by “intelligent design proponent”.

“Forrest’s testimony showed that ID is not a scientific theory, but a Trojan horse for creationism,” said Eric Rothshild of Pepper Hamilton in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, an attorney for the plaintiffs.
[...]
Matzke, who was at the trial, points out that the “switching” of the words is also suspicious because of its timing, which came just after the US Supreme Court’s decision on 19 June 1987 that it was unconstitutional to teach creationism in schools.

The names of the drafts alone are incriminating, he says. The first draft, in 1983, was called Creation Biology, the next is Biology and Creation, dated 1986, and is followed by Biology and Origin in 1987. It is not until later in 1987 that Of Pandas and People emerges.
[...]

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8061”

“The only people that never acknowledged a link were the ones who believed in creation/id. Now their agenda is impossible to hide from.”

“But worthy of another thousand posts or so.”

““The only people that never acknowledged a link were the ones who believed in creation/id. Now their agenda is impossible to hide from.” - Mutt

Mutt has discovered that 55% of America has a hidden agenda.”

“No, just their brainwashers and fellow collaborators.”

“who's theory of creationism?????

whose maker is the real maker????”

“WOW Marvin gardins kinda made sense to me...

Perhaps I should be worried?

Oddly enough DNA seeding earth from Space Is semi-provable and plausible but that leaves us with where the heck did the DNA come from in the first place....

If we allow ID then can we not also allow Gaia theory too?.....”

“Actually, the Earth is a giant earthen ball perched on the back of a giant elephant who stands on the back of a giant turtle.

Science should focus on who made the ball and put it on the elephants back - and how the turtle can bear up to the elephants weight.”

“Creationism is myth and should be taught in a course about creation myths. The Christian myth should be compared to the creation myths of other world religions.

Evolution is science and should be taught in science courses. It should be criticised and tested using the tools of science.

Confusing the secular and the religious was a key impulse in the downfall of the Islamic world.”

“What annoys me is that IDers propagate a false dichotomy: that if a system is too complex to be explained by natural phenomena, then an intelligence must be behind it. They rest their entire argument on this fallacious presupposition.

It just plays in so well to the black-and-white mindset of typical religionist sheeple.”

“OK Heres one for the evolutionist crowd to choke on.... how does one go from simple cellular division to egg laying? I know, it was just a wild freak chance Mutation....

I wouldnt get too defensive about evolution as it is shot full of holes when it is over extended beyond its original intent. The simple fact is we DONT know for sure exactly what are origins are.”

“I wouldnt get too defensive about evolution as it is shot full of holes when it is over extended beyond its original intent.

Interesting. In what way do you see it being extended beyond its original intent? For that matter, what do you see as its original intent?

The simple fact is we DONT know for sure exactly what our origins are

ambiogenesis and evolution are two different theories. ambiogenesis doesn't need to be true in order to establish evolution's validity.”

“http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/12951350.htm

Fearing that the Dover board is on thin ice legally, the leading backers of intelligent design have been trying to distance themselves from the case, while maintaining that their idea is sound. And this week, the Discovery Institute, the Seattle think tank that promotes intelligent design, asked the federal judge in the case to save it even if he rules against Dover.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, the Discovery Institute argued the concept could pass constitutional muster even if the school board's action doesn't.

"We're afraid a judge could say, 'Well, this policy is unconstitutional,' and the conclusion people would draw is that it's unconstitutional to teach anything about intelligent design," said David DeWolf, a law professor who filed the Discovery Institute brief on Monday.

Just so, said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

"Discovery Institute invented this snake oil called intelligent design, and now they've found that Dover is really a bad salesman," Lynn said. He predicted that a ruling against Dover "will be viewed, when history looks back at it, as the death knell of intelligent design." ”

“Darwin himself said he never intended his theory to be misused the way it has. Evolution was never intended to be used to cover from simple cells all the way to man. It is only a valid theory in a limited way.

ambiogenesis and evolution are two different theories. ambiogenesis doesn't need to be true in order to establish evolution's validity

NO kidding , the origins of the first life form is still a long way off.”

“"I did not see intelligent design as creationism. I saw them totally separate," Dover Area Superintendent Richard Nilsen said. "Creationism references Genesis. ... Intelligent design does not reference a biblical context at all."

The Dover Area School Board approved the curriculum change a year ago, requiring students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to a textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information.

.
.
.
But when teachers started asking how to implement it, the district developed the statement to be read in class.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/12962413.htm

This book was not only a Creationist book prior to being edited and renamed, but it is full of significant errors and omissions. You can find numerous references on the web related to the problems with this book (Amazon.com has the best but this is a good web site as well):

http://www.kcfs.org/pandas.html

I could go on to document further misrepresentations of scientific fact and theory in Of Pandas and People. However, my criticisms of this text are not unique. In fact, the many errors and misleading statements in this text were immediately recognized almost from its first publication by a variety of scientists and educators. Reviews describing the errors and misrepresentations in Pandas have appeared in many publications, including Scientific American (July 1995, Science and the Citizen, "Darwin Denied").

These people in Dover really screwed the pooch. It's no wonder everyone is backing away from them as fast as they can before they implode.”

““Darwin himself said he never intended his theory to be misused the way it has. Lumberjack
4:12:22 PM
10/20/05

Where did he say that and what exactly did he say?”