zeph`: I feel as if I recently read something very similar to this. Oh, that's right - I didn't read it, I posted it myself!
Kubo: /Believes in God, believes in evolution//wheeee free thinking
Kubo: 0Icky0: Kubo: Maybe it'll be a form of current evolutionary theory, maybe not.
zeph`: Falsificationism is easily taught, especially in the context of the problems with something like Ayer's verificationism. I could do it in an hour.
Kubo: Damned if I know. I'm just applying things I've learned in philosophy and epistemology to this arena. Just seems to me that both sides get butthurt when their stance is challeneged at any level.
Vangor: Your royalty check is in the mail (I don't read every post, or I probably would've just copied yours with proper attribution).
Vangor: No, I only agreed with your using this only under a certain circumstance. Entering into a conversation regarding belief in a deity and scientific theory, even if on a site with a section of tit links, wouldn't fall under that circumstance. Tell your devout, Catholic grandmother that you're agnostic, but when you're in a discussion about the proper terminology I think colloquial usage is gone; as with the term theory.
ninjakirby: I think basic rhetoric/logic should be introduced in junior high, or at least Highschool. There is no reason people should only be introduced to this stuff so late in their education. It would make almost all education sooooo much simpler, once they have those tools.
0Icky0: Kubo: Damned if I know. I'm just applying things I've learned in philosophy and epistemology to this arena. Just seems to me that both sides get butthurt when their stance is challeneged at any level.Like my math teacher used to get butthurt when I challenged his 3+3=6 theory. Why not 33? Teach both sides.
zeph`: mistakefark me - mistaken.
HellHammerX: The Reptilians will destroy you
zeph`: zeph`: mistakefark me - mistaken.
zeph`: ninjakirby: I think basic rhetoric/logic should be introduced in junior high, or at least Highschool. There is no reason people should only be introduced to this stuff so late in their education. It would make almost all education sooooo much simpler, once they have those tools.I'm going to send you my MA thesis if/once it's finished. Our current (mistake) conception of the function of education wouldn't either allow or encourage something like that - my conception of the function of education (the one I plan on writing about) actively entails that (among other things).
ninjakirby: He says there used to be 700 but now 1000 scientists who signed the DI Darwinism statement that say there are problems, weaknesses, and controversies.
0Icky0: Like my math teacher used to get butthurt when I challenged his 3+3=6 theory. Why not 33? Teach both sides.
bartink: What level of usage do you really think is appropriate here?
Ambrotos: This headline has Bevets written all over it? How is he not in here by now?
bartink: sophistication or brains to get.
tinyarena: Sadly this little twit is probably not a troll.Yeah let's teach the Nazi's side of The Holocaust,The Slave owner's side of Human Slavery,The Flat-Earther's side of the Earth's shape.Also, did we land on the moon? Are women reallyas intelligent as men. Are black people really people at all?This is fun.Let's unwind it all the way back to Aristotle. Couldn't the Earthreally be in the center of the universe?You decide.
zeph`: What's the royalty for fark.com post use, anyways?
bartink: My response was, "What if their agnostic and don't really have a position?"
Murkanen: That is determined by the participants, and the participants in the politics tab generally use the technical terminology in place of common usage. This prevents confusion of the issue amongst the knowledgable and serves as a means of correcting false impressions/information, such as your view on agnosticism, that exists amongst the layman.
Vangor: Well, firstly I am bored and waiting for my dinner to finish cooking so don't take me too seriously, however, you do realize my argument has been that your position is, regardless of the appearance of neutrality, congruent with atheism, right?
ninjakirby: I think basic rhetoric/logic should be introduced in junior high, or at least Highschool.
Kali-Yuga: Bloody William:1: Complex things are intelligently designed.2: We can prove things are intelligently designed by looking at how complex they are.3: Things are complex.4: Things are intelligently designed.5: God is complex.6: Who/What Designed God?
Kubo: If evolutionary theories qualify as scientific, then their tenets should be regularly evaluated.
foxy_canuck: Science is about acknowledging what the evidence points to, and being willing to let go, or modify when new evidence is found. If we accept one method or theory about things, we'd never have progressed from Newtonian, to relativistic, to standard model gravity.
bartink: You are assuming that it would be worth to teach something to students that don't have the sophistication or brains to get.
zeph`: ninjakirby: reasonSpeaking of reason - the buses in my cities have started bearing the atheist ads. I proudly rode a bus this afternoon that said "God probably doesn't exist, so get on with living your lives".
CDP: Sod A Dog: You're either the best troll I've ever seen, or the worst analyst in the (~1.5 million year long) history of mankind.Creationists are often asked, "How is it possible for the earth's population to reach 6.5 billion people if the world is only about 6,000 years old and if there were just two humans in the beginning?" Here is what a little bit of simple arithmetic shows us.One Plus One Equals BillionsLet us start in the beginning with one male and one female. Now let us assume that they marry and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on. And let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years. Therefore, after 150 years there will be four people, after another 150 years there will be eight people, after another 150 years there will be sixteen people, and so on. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative. In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so.1After 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion. That's 2 billion more than the current population of 6.5 billion people, which was recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau on March 1, 2006.2 This simple calculation shows that starting with Adam and Eve and assuming the conservative growth rate previously mentioned, the current population can be reached well within 6,000 years.Impact of the FloodWe know from the Bible, however, that around 2500 BC (4,500 years ago) the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to eight people.3 But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see, again, that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is more than enough time for the present population to reach 6.5 billion.From two people, created about 6,000 years ago, and then the eight people, preserved on the Ark about 4,500 years ago, the world's population could easily have grown to the extent we now see it-over 6.5 billion.Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world's population would be a staggering figure-a one followed by 100 zeros; that is10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.This figure is truly unimaginable, for it is billons of times greater than the number of atoms that are in the entire universe! Such a calculation makes nonsense of the claim that humans have been on earth for tens of thousands of years.Simple, conservative arithmetic reveals clear mathematical logic for a young age of the earth. From two people, created around 6,000 years ago, and then the eight people, preserved on the Ark about 4,500 years ago, the world's population could have grown to the extent we now see it-over 6.5 billion.With such a population clearly possible (and probable) in just a few thousand years, we could actually ask the question, "If humans were around millions of years ago, why is the population so small?" This is a question that evolution supporters must answer.Link (new window)
bartink: He knew exactly what I meant. So did the guy that is nitpicking. So do you.
Murkanen: It's amazing how many people think "Well you knew what I meant" justifies improper usage of terminology in any technical thread.
zeph`: That's a product of our flawed system. There's nothing physiologically preventing a student of high school age from being able to apprehend fairly advanced concepts. A better education from the ground up would produce students better able to cope with more advanced concepts on average and earlier.
Murkanen: "Well you knew what I meant"
zeph`: Fo sho. I doubt anybody in here disagrees with you, it's just that they're used to "weaknesses" being used by people unconcerned about the pragmatic benefit of exploring weaknesses.
ninjakirby: Yeah, screw teaching things to the uneducated, that's totally pointless.
zeph`: You know what I mean?"
"So I implore you, I entreat you and I challenge youto speak with convictionto say what you believe in a manner that bespeaks the determination with which you believe itbecause contrary to the wisdom of the bumper-stickerit is not enough these daysto simply question authorityYou gotta speak with ittoo."
0Icky0: Er..yeah. Like they are every single day by thousands of scientists.But what is it exactly that you want school kids to do?
Murkanen: Couldn't agree more. It's amazing how many people think "Well you knew what I meant" justifies improper usage of terminology in any technical thread.
bartink: Its the genetics and the reality of what kids bring to the table.
bartink: Even in good schools with good parents and smart kids, that stuff is over their head to teach it to them all.
bartink: Half of everyone is too stupid to be considered average.
bartink: parents genetics.
ninjakirby: There's a reason I keep this in my profile:
zeph`: Research says otherwise.
zeph`: Wrong. It's a problem with value and belief sets, not quality of parenting/schooling/innate intelligence.
zeph`: On an IQ basis. We could train the large majority of our population to do extremely well on IQ tests.
zeph`: No, it's self-limiting belief systems and the wrong value sets. Again, the research on the topic (if you were at all interested) might teach you a thing or two.
Sod A Dog: CDP: Well, you sold me. Those crazy evolutionists have been wrong the whole time!Does this mean that I have to start going to church now? GODDAMMIT!
bartink: Its not about the history of use of atheist and agnostic.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Aug 23 2017 14:00:39
Runtime: 0.367 sec (367 ms)