IrishEyes Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 I've been waiting for this to happen since it was moved here from the watercooler, where I created it ask a joke.I don't know how things are in Antarctica, Rocky, but this is not something that very many people tend to joke about, as evidenced by the ridiculous amount of posts to the thread. Shame on you :doh: for joking in such a thought-provoking manner!And shame on us :) for taking it so seriously. (until Tormod cracks the whip at alex and killean to come up with something akin to tone-of-voice descriptive software, you'll have to believe me that i'm just sitting here wagging my tongue from my cheek at you. :D ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 Biochemist, you said: '' However, proponents of the ID camp have (so far) been less than prolific at identifying predictions based on their point of view, or falsifiable test cases. In that sense, the ID camp has been weak at advancing a scientific thesis. There actually might be falsifiable examples, but I have not seen any in peer reviewed studies.'' i agree that more time should not be spent on a subject that can neither be proved nor disproved. it is just odd to me that scientists would attack those who have a different viewwhen there are no legs for either side to stand on. as far as teaching ID in school, the fact of the existence of evolution as it is understood does not in any way dismiss the possibility of a creator, because only a small issue is at stake, and that is how life on earth has evolved. this does not speak to the greater vacuumn of knowledge concerning the physical working of the total universe. i think the least that could be done is tell students the truth--we have no idea how the universe was created, and if the being known as God did not create Man, that does not mean the universe did not have a creator. lastly, i have always had a problem with making assumptions based upon the presence or absence of ''peer reviewed studies''. this presupposes that all things have been subject to peer reviewed studies and this is not the case. there are many things that are new under the Sun and have not undergone per reviewed studies or else nothing new would be discovered and our data would never change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 Turtle, are we to assume you are also against the teaching of evolution since that theory does not boast answers to all its questions? and perhaps literature since it is more about feelings and opinions.? ___Well...since you put it that way, yes. I am against teaching any topic that skips ahead without substantive background. Stellar mechanics belongs in a collegiate venue because the math required is based on years of developing mathematical concepts at the lower levels. ___I taught swimming & water safety for decades & you don't teach the butterfly to someone who can't even float. If I had, people would be dead. I see it as a logically dangerous propositon. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 Turtle, i know you are not thinking of abolishing all liberal arts classes because they don't have a mathmatical background. some people ( the right brainers) do not function on mathmatical wiring but they do produce works of art and philosophy. don't we need a mix? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrogenBond Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 What ID brings to the table is order instead of random. The laws of physics are based on cause and effect, which is orderred. Evolution is based too much on random, which allows science to skip over events. Random is based on scientific faith. ID has faith in Divine order, while evolution has faith in random. Maybe the solution is in the middle , orderring principles of nature driving what appears to be random events. For example, most rivers meander (order), each with a slightly different profile (random). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 Turtle, i know you are not thinking of abolishing all liberal arts classes because they don't have a mathmatical background. some people ( the right brainers) do not function on mathmatical wiring but they do produce works of art and philosophy. don't we need a mix? ___I don't intend to abolish no, but rather put things in their logical sequence. If you haven't noticed a theme in my musings, let me clarify. No study, no investigation, no human pursuit , advances or even exists without invoking mathematics. A primary principle of math is ordination & without that principle there is no first anything. Whether a person understands a math principle or not is moot to its existence. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 i think you are correct. there is mathmatical ordination at the bottom of everything. how then do you think a random series of events caused the big bang, or gravity. or orbits, or life, or thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 I am closing this thread due to length and lack of focus. If the anyone wants to start a more focused thread (per my earlier post) please feel free. Bio Tormod 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts