We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Ben Stein interviewed on BNN (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..10~11~12~13~14~15~16 [Next]
abc
View Profile
Inner circle
South African in Taiwan
1081 Posts

Profile of abc
We are reasoning in circles.
I don't recall anyone saying we should teach creationism or ID in science class. I question the logic of saying that ID or creationism is nonsense based on the little science we know.
I don't question the fact that humans are closely related to other primate species, I question that this is absolute proof of evolution.
spatlind
View Profile
Special user
still moving
863 Posts

Profile of spatlind
I imagine that for something other than evolution to be taught in science class, there would need to be an accepted "idea" to be taught. Surely should proponents of another "idea" want such "idea" to be taught, they need to put forward a proposed syllabus to be taught. Does one exist? What exactly is it that they desired to be taught, or put forward?
Actions lie louder than words - Carolyn Wells

I believe in God, only I spell it Nature - Frank Lloyd Wright.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27166 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On 2008-09-29 21:56, abc wrote:
...
I don't recall anyone saying we should teach creationism or ID in science class...


I wish I had such a perfect memory.

Now is it "two legs good - four legs bad" today or are we into "feathers fine - fur warmer" ... being that it's Tuesday and the moon is full.

Stories are about "how you feel". Science is about what you can measure regardless of what you feel or want to believe. Kindly respect that distinction.

Again as things stand one cannot know the intent of even one "creator" (unless you really have that much hubris or want to be called out as a false prophet) and when more than one is acting - say many - one could not tell their actions apart from random chance - and so for all practical purposes in science it seems simpler to use "random" till someone clever invents a way to reliably communicate with the creator(s) who are present at the moment and give sufficient reason to expect some constancy in their findings.

Pax
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27166 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On 2008-09-29 22:20, spatlind wrote:
I imagine that for something other than evolution to be taught in science class, there would need to be an accepted "idea" to be taught. Surely should proponents of another "idea" want such "idea" to be taught, they need to put forward a proposed syllabus to be taught. Does one exist? What exactly is it that they desired to be taught, or put forward?


As I recall back in 74, the BSCS book had mention of several explanations for the origin of life from panspermia to divine creation to random chance acting upon the local raw material under the conditions present. The first merely moves the questions. The second begs other questions. The third suggests a possibility of experimental verification and so is used as a starting point for purely utilitarian purposes. Now if someone gets a radio signal from elsewhere asking how their DNA test program worked out, or a working ark of the covenant that gets in touch with a god willing to answer questions... it still seems sensible to expect the most useful data from exploring option three.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
magicman226
View Profile
Loyal user
San Antonio, Texas
234 Posts

Profile of magicman226
Quote:
On 2008-09-29 21:46, Tom Bartlett wrote:
Magicman226 qoute:
What about all the other creation myths man has thought to be true in history? Do we want to spend time presenting Greek, Norse, Mayan, Aztec, etc. mythology during science class instead of presenting to the youth such as myself the current scientific understanding of the natural world? Had I gotten to my AP biology class this year to find I was learning about Gaea instead of learning how cells work and how they came to be, I would be utterly infuriated. There is barely enough time to learn science itself in science class. There is no time to waste on the mythologies of cultures. Save that for a classical literature class.




I have no problem if evolution is taught a scientific theory, but many, if not the greater majority of teachers, teach it as an absolute, without any other possibility. They still display the poster of the ape evolving many till it is a man. That is what I have a problem with. What they should be teaching is science, instead of focusing on evolution.

Many of you that have posted have been openly passionate about what you believe. It is one thing to passionate about science but it is not scientific passionately against what other believe, when it does not harm you and is not detrimental.
[/quote]

Given the theory is evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology, I don't see why it is seen as such a problem that it is taught assertively. They are teaching biology, and evolution is extremely crucial in biology. Is that such a hard concept? I find it strange that you would ask them to teach not as an absolute. I don't recall anyone really doing that. You don't know what tomorrow's evidence will bring. However, from all the knowledge we have gathered thus far, evolution is the most prominent and most well-proven theory for how life came to its current state. THAT is why it is taught in science class. Heck, two years ago I was taught a totally different system of taxonomy than I did this year. It went from 5 kingdoms to focusing on 3 domains that include the 5 kingdoms. Science is always changing. It is not as close-minded as you like to believe. Close-mindedness is poison to the scientific process. Every time a new fossil comes in or something new is learned about genetics, evolution is put up to the test. So far, it has not failed in a way that would deem the theory false. It is science. That is why that's what is taught in science class. Plus, there are in fact gaps to the theory. Not gaps that question whether it is true or not, but gaps that have holes in our knowledge on how evolution works. The theory is always changing, filling in holes and finding new holes that lead to more scientific endeavor.

Sorry the paragraph doesn't have much structure.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20662 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2008-09-29 21:20, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2008-09-29 17:20, Dannydoyle wrote:


This is exactly why Stephen Jay Gould refered to the absence of transitional species in the fossil record as the "trade secret of paleontology".


Have you read the source of the Gould quotation? Here it is in context:

""In short, Darwin argued that the geological record was exceedingly imperfect—a book with few remaining pages, few lines on each page, and few words on each line. We do not see slow evolutionary change in the fossil record because we study only one step in thousands. Change seems to be abrupt because the intermediate steps are missing.
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...

[Three paragraphs about Darwin’s argument of gradualism]

...For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution of this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution—little more than a contemporary restatement of basic Darwinism—does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record.
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’.
Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. If all evolutionary change occurred in this mode, life would not persist long. Phyletic evolution yields no increase in diversity, only a transformation of one thing into another. Since extinction (by extirpation, not by evolution into something else) is so common, a biota with no mechanism for increasing diversity would soon be wiped out. The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from the persisting parental stock." [Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Erratic Pace", Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, 1977, p. 14]

Of course I have read it in context. I particularly enjoy the word "infrence". Oddly enough the word "reasonable" is hardly scientific now is it?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2008-09-30 00:04, Dannydoyle wrote:

Of course I have read it in context. I particularly enjoy the word "infrence". Oddly enough the word "reasonable" is hardly scientific now is it?


Are you serious? Both "inference" and "reasonable" are key words in any scientific enterprise. How could you do any serious inquiry without making inferences from observation and theory? How could you distinguish electromagnetic theory from random quessing without appeals to reasonableness?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20662 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Each word is subjective is it not?

I mean that what is "reasonable" to the creationists is God created the world period as is. What is reasonable to the Darwiniacs is Darwin no matter what. I think the word reasonable and infer, are the two main problems LOL.

I get that they are a part of all scientific inquiry, but you have to admit they are less than definate words. I simply find it ironic that very non spacific words are used for any scientific enterprise don't you?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
abc
View Profile
Inner circle
South African in Taiwan
1081 Posts

Profile of abc
Quote:
On 2008-09-29 22:24, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Quote:
On 2008-09-29 21:56, abc wrote:
...
I don't recall anyone saying we should teach creationism or ID in science class...


I wish I had such a perfect memory.


On this thread. That was only half of what I said in any case.

As for the rest of it, what is the point of discussing why there is a possibility of incorrect inferences if the prophets of evolution and there folowers fail to consider any of our doubts and purely make it of as stupid babble.
Who cares?
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2008-09-30 13:10, Dannydoyle wrote:
Each word is subjective is it not?

I mean that what is "reasonable" to the creationists is God created the world period as is. What is reasonable to the Darwiniacs is Darwin no matter what. I think the word reasonable and infer, are the two main problems LOL.

I get that they are a part of all scientific inquiry, but you have to admit they are less than definate words. I simply find it ironic that very non spacific words are used for any scientific enterprise don't you?


This is a crucial matter, exploited by many. In science the words have quite precise meanings; in common discourse they do not. Snake-oil salesmen count on the public not knowing the difference.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Tom Bartlett
View Profile
Special user
Our southern border could use
763 Posts

Profile of Tom Bartlett
Come on, every one here that agrees that man evolved from ape trough random selection and was not deliberately created, thinks anyone who believes in a god is just suppositious and lacks the intelligent of the ape in question and our opinions should be silenced.
Our friends don't have to agree with me about everything and some that I hold very dear don't have to agree about anything, except where we are going to meet them for dinner.
abc
View Profile
Inner circle
South African in Taiwan
1081 Posts

Profile of abc
Quote:
On 2008-09-30 15:16, Tom Bartlett wrote:
Come on, every one here that agrees that man evolved from ape trough random selection and was not deliberately created, thinks anyone who believes in a god is just suppositious and lacks the intelligent of the ape in question and our opinions should be silenced.

Thank you!! and that is what annoys me. Especially since the proof seeems pretty vague.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2008-09-30 15:16, Tom Bartlett wrote:

Come on, every one here that agrees that man evolved from ape trough random selection and was not deliberately created, thinks anyone who believes in a god is just suppositious and lacks the intelligent of the ape in question and our opinions should be silenced.

I don't really believe that to be the case but I guess there is no way to prove it to you.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27166 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
English is a very precise language filled with words taken from all over the planet over a long time. Someone at work asked me today about the words dumb and stupid. I suggested they find a dictionary which explains the distinctions between right, correct, appropriate, true and valid.

Now about this very sad attempt to argue for storytime in science... it's quite ironic to find this happening among magicians who are supposed to know that people believe whatever stories that are reinforced and constantly treated as utilitarian. This is quite the opposite of what science is supposed to be about - ... yet still folks want to argue. No idea why - and I promise this is not being set up as a psychology experiment even when I wonder if the expressed vehemence might correlate to other external social factors such as doubts about other aspects of our shared social reality.

Okay - now back to bickering - and somehow staying out of the fun of having more than one intelligent designer or finding an experiment which would put us in touch with one (or more) intelligent designers so we can ask questions. Smile

We're all right.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Tom Bartlett
View Profile
Special user
Our southern border could use
763 Posts

Profile of Tom Bartlett
Quote:
On 2008-09-30 21:40, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2008-09-30 15:16, Tom Bartlett wrote:

Come on, every one here that agrees that man evolved from ape trough random selection and was not deliberately created, thinks anyone who believes in a god is just suppositious and lacks the intelligent of the ape in question and our opinions should be silenced.

I don't really believe that to be the case but I guess there is no way to prove it to you.


Are you speaking for everyone or just your self?
Our friends don't have to agree with me about everything and some that I hold very dear don't have to agree about anything, except where we are going to meet them for dinner.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2008-09-30 21:49, Tom Bartlett wrote:

Are you speaking for everyone or just your self?

Naturally, I can't speak for everyone. Just saying what I think.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Josh Riel
View Profile
Inner circle
of hell
1999 Posts

Profile of Josh Riel
Quote:
On 2008-09-29 01:03, MR2Guy wrote:
Quote:
On 2008-09-29 00:05, Josh Riel wrote:
I think religion, and atheism, are just the same old methods of making life make sense that mankind have been using since the beginning of history.


What same old mathods does religion and atheism have in common to make life make sense?

Quote:
Some rulers would kill their families and servants to give their own life's/deaths meaning. Some people have to believe in god, some simply cannot... for the same reason.


What same reason are you referring to?


I must apologize. I did not point out where the point was made. I will do so now with bbcode

On 2008-09-29 00:05, Josh Riel wrote:
I think religion, and atheism, are just the same old methods of making life make sense that mankind have been using since the beginning of history. Some rulers would kill their families and servants to give their own life's/deaths meaning. Some people have to believe in god, some simply cannot... for the same reason... the reason as stated much earlier in my treatise; "making life make sense".

The point is: You're worried about the afterlife because you don't understand it. You must make that discovery eventually, but the process is final. So what do you have but rumor? Nothing.

How humanity has compensated is to make facts out of rumor... by inventing belief systems. We believe the ones that make us feel better.
If you want to feel like there will be an afterlife of perfection and happiness, you will believe whoever makes you feels the best. If you don't like the idea of a singular consciousness making decisions based on some 2-6000 year old morality that is based on questionable literature, you won't. If you want to scare people into tithing, you come up with penalties visa-a-vis hell.

If you want to make your life, in your death to have a greater meaning, you might have wanted to kill friends and family when you die. I don't see much intelligence in any one of those options.

Anyway, I've never been much for gambling, and since there are thousands of religions, insisting that without their particular religious beliefs (Which are many times mutually exclusive with other religions), adding on the belief that there is nothing, and a big bang did it all... I'm sure I'd pick the wrong one.

Since so many of you are choosing to do the god gamble, I'd like to point out that the odds are not on your side. So more than likely I will see you in wherever I end up after I die.

However, if you want me to to clarify, I must apologize. These conversations give me gas, too much ridiculous all gathered into one thread hurts my head. I'll leave this to all you who really think you know.
Magic is doing improbable things with odd items that, under normal circumstances, would be unnessecary and quite often undesirable.
Tom Bartlett
View Profile
Special user
Our southern border could use
763 Posts

Profile of Tom Bartlett
Quote:
On 2008-09-30 23:47, Josh Riel wrote:
Quote:
On 2008-09-29 01:03, MR2Guy wrote:
Quote:
On 2008-09-29 00:05, Josh Riel wrote:
I think religion, and atheism, are just the same old methods of making life make sense that mankind have been using since the beginning of history.


What same old mathods does religion and atheism have in common to make life make sense?

Quote:
Some rulers would kill their families and servants to give their own life's/deaths meaning. Some people have to believe in god, some simply cannot... for the same reason.


What same reason are you referring to?


I must apologize. I did not point out where the point was made. I will do so now with bbcode

On 2008-09-29 00:05, Josh Riel wrote:
I think religion, and atheism, are just the same old methods of making life make sense that mankind have been using since the beginning of history. Some rulers would kill their families and servants to give their own life's/deaths meaning. Some people have to believe in god, some simply cannot... for the same reason... the reason as stated much earlier in my treatise; "making life make sense".

The point is: You're worried about the afterlife because you don't understand it. You must make that discovery eventually, but the process is final. So what do you have but rumor? Nothing.

How humanity has compensated is to make facts out of rumor... by inventing belief systems. We believe the ones that make us feel better.
If you want to feel like there will be an afterlife of perfection and happiness, you will believe whoever makes you feels the best. If you don't like the idea of a singular consciousness making decisions based on some 2-6000 year old morality that is based on questionable literature, you won't. If you want to scare people into tithing, you come up with penalties visa-a-vis hell.

If you want to make your life, in your death to have a greater meaning, you might have wanted to kill friends and family when you die. I don't see much intelligence in any one of those options.

Anyway, I've never been much for gambling, and since there are thousands of religions, insisting that without their particular religious beliefs (Which are many times mutually exclusive with other religions), adding on the belief that there is nothing, and a big bang did it all... I'm sure I'd pick the wrong one.

Since so many of you are choosing to do the god gamble, I'd like to point out that the odds are not on your side. So more than likely I will see you in wherever I end up after I die.

However, if you want me to to clarify, I must apologize. These conversations give me gas, too much ridiculous all gathered into one thread hurts my head. I'll leave this to all you who really think you know.


Josh,

This is just some information to dissolve the uninformed perspective some may have. In Christianity tithing is not necessary and does not get anyone to heaven, the thither is rewarded here on earth. Also in Christianity there is afterlife or afterdeath that last for all eternity no mater what anyone believes in.

If you’re not much of a gambler then Christianity is for you! If the Christians are right they will have heaven and all its glory for all eternity. If all the other religions are right, they will most certainly fell short of keeping their law and will not get to heaven. If the scientists are right and life ends when you die and that is it, you have lost nothing except living a good life without doing a lot of damage.

I know you will now bring up that religion has been the root of all wars and I will just say Christianity and other religion have been used, by man for personal gain the same way politics and science have been throughout history.

Again, this post is only to clarify some misconceptions people may have.
Our friends don't have to agree with me about everything and some that I hold very dear don't have to agree about anything, except where we are going to meet them for dinner.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2008-10-01 12:29, Tom Bartlett wrote:

This is just some information to dissolve the uninformed perspective some may have. In Christianity tithing is not necessary and does not get anyone to heaven, the thither is rewarded here on earth. Also in Christianity there is afterlife or afterdeath that last for all eternity no mater what anyone believes in.

A little off topic perhaps, but I would just like to note that some Christians consider tithing to be very necessary ... some are willing to lose their homes over it:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/20......ng_N.htm
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Tom Bartlett
View Profile
Special user
Our southern border could use
763 Posts

Profile of Tom Bartlett
Quote:
On 2008-10-01 12:36, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2008-10-01 12:29, Tom Bartlett wrote:

This is just some information to dissolve the uninformed perspective some may have. In Christianity tithing is not necessary and does not get anyone to heaven, the thither is rewarded here on earth. Also in Christianity there is afterlife or afterdeath that last for all eternity no mater what anyone believes in.

A little off topic perhaps, but I would just like to note that some Christians consider tithing to be very necessary ... some are willing to lose their homes over it:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/20......ng_N.htm


Yes this thread has been highjacked, I should not have responded to Josh's post.

These people made a personal choice in accordance with their faith, but to say “necessary” would be the wrong choice of words and tithing is absolutely not mandatory.

There are people that chose to lose there home so they can keep their car, they paid little or no down payment on their home and will just move to an apartment.

Which of the two reasons are nobler?
Our friends don't have to agree with me about everything and some that I hold very dear don't have to agree about anything, except where we are going to meet them for dinner.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Ben Stein interviewed on BNN (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..10~11~12~13~14~15~16 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.26 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL