Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Blobsculptor tools and objects download here
by NeoDumont. 03/28/24 03:01
Issue with Multi-Core WFO Training
by aliswee. 03/24/24 20:20
Why Zorro supports up to 72 cores?
by Edgar_Herrera. 03/23/24 21:41
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 03/06/24 09:27
VSCode instead of SED
by 3run. 03/01/24 19:06
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
The Bible Game
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Who's Online Now
5 registered members (TipmyPip, AndrewAMD, Quad, aliswee, degenerate_762), 970 guests, and 4 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
sakolin, rajesh7827, juergen_wue, NITRO_FOREVER, jack0roses
19043 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rating: 2
Page 5 of 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 66 67
Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES! [Re: AlbertoT] #231114
10/12/08 01:41
10/12/08 01:41
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Quote:
Creationism must not be taught at school being refuted by the vast majority of scientists
Fundamentalists may be disappointed but they must accept the rule of democracy same as anybody else
I cannot speak for other countries, but in the US it has nothing at all to do with democracy, it was the ruling of the Supreme court. So the idea of 'rule of democracy' is a joke.

And of course the Supreme Court is very knowlegeable about how matter came into existence. I guess the supreme court also knows how the first life evolved?

It is ridiculously stupid to leave the questions of the universe in the hands of scientists, but it is exponentially a billion times infinitely stupid to leave questions of the universe in the hands of some partisan politician rigged supreme court judges.


Democracy does not exist in the US, it was originally designed to be a self-leveling republic system with 'checks and balances', each governmental branch was supposed to be held in check by the other. the original framers of the constitution and government of the United States intended that no single branch of government should get total power, yet the Supreme Court makes these decisions irrespective of the will of the people.

Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES! [Re: PHeMoX] #231121
10/12/08 03:47
10/12/08 03:47
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,185
mpdeveloper_B Offline
Expert
mpdeveloper_B  Offline
Expert

Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,185
Originally Posted By: PHeMoX
Excellent point, but it's all about what offends people when it comes to this. I don't think Christians would like it when we would treat their religion as a mythology just like all the others. Basically this is what you're asking for, if you'd want it to be taught in the same manner.

Evolution is treated as theory, not as law. But it currently still is the 'best there is', so yeah I can see why you think it's considered 'law'. There's plenty of evidence to prove most aspects of evolution, but not all. There are definitely things that aren't known yet. We should be glad that science in general admits this and treats evolution as theory based on facts.. but not as flawless law. Many critics of evolution seem to totally discard this uhm paradigm as if it doesn't exist and as if scientists pretend to know everything.

Many of this is questionable at best, it's pretty unlikely that the Bible has any true historic value. There's actually more evidence for the contrary. Sure, some texts are old, but that doesn't mean that the stories told are really historic. Apart from that, the first texts that do seem to be authentic are at least 150 years after Jesus written down and some of the stories predate the Bible itself by a long long time... so, how can a story happen twice? Or even more often as many other cultures seem to have a similar story, predating the Bible by many years. Or was the Bible inspired by for example Sumerian mythology? I think the answer is dead obvious.

While I'm not sure about what exactly you are hinting on here, it still doesn't mean it has anything to do with divine creation as mentioned in the Bible. It basically means we still have plenty to discover. Don't forget that from a logic point of view, there has to have been a moment in time where there was nothing before something. At least.. I think so. Perhaps it's too difficult to grasp a scenario in which there has always been something, but still.

Complexity of a system is no proof for divine creation or intervention. In fact, there's no proof for design here, it just turned out to work as it is. In hindsight it doesn't say anything about whether it's coincidental or designed.

There are as many theories as there are different ideas on the subject to be honest.

In our schools a lot of theories are actually being taught during religion classes. Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Christianity and so on. I'm sure the Spaghetti Monster got left out on purpose because it's mocking the whole thing (it did get mentioned during classes about 'agnoticism' I think, not sure), but we've even been taught about the Intelligent Design theory. I think this is great, but we've never been taught 'creationism' as a serious alternative to evolution for good reasons!!

Cheers


First off, I'd like to say that I like debating with you PHeMoX, you do consider facts well.

Responses are in order from paragraph:

It is true that we would not like our religion taught as mythology laugh but that's not what I meant, I was just comparing our religion with some other religions. Of course I say this dismissing the fact that Buddhism DID go through quite some problems in China.

That depends on who is speaking the evidence. There are times when questions are asked in science and select people say "Well Jimmy, it must have been evolution. Ha ha ha." *sarcasm abounds* and these are the "closed minded views" I refer to, but I guess basing the majority on a few idiots is like basing the whole Christian belief system on the idiots who continually persecute things every year. (simple fact: spore was one such criticized game, which I think is ridiculous :P )

One problem with this though, if you count most of the old texts as "questionable at best" you could say the same of these old bones found in rock, or any of our old history that has been recorded. I also don't agree that there is more evidence to the contrary, because they were stolen from the Jews doesn't mean that it is questionable. In fact, books from the bible make up the Torah, and it is over 3000 years old, that actually means that such books that are in the Torah, have been proven that they were written at their supposed time. I think it's also safe to assume that if the books we grabbed at first are legit, that the Catholics did not "make up" other texts, on the contrary, they refused to put certain books in like "the forgotten books of eden" because they considered them to be fiction (I don't agree with the assumption, but anyway). That sounds like more Evidence to support the bible.

I never said that everything was here to begin with, the bible says that God came from another place, meaning that God was not in the physical domain, when God decided to come over He began creation.

Mere coincidence is not what I would call scientific, also I would fear if it was coincidence, simply because coincidence could lead to destruction. The evidence I refer to is more than just Jupiter, I think it would have taken more than just coincidence for our solar system to be "designed" for us.

It's great to hear that they have religion as a subject, and they give you freedom of choice. The fact is when it does come down to it, we don't fully KNOW, I believe what I do because of personal experience as well as evidence that has been in the bible. It just comes down to one thing, there is only one absolute truth, let us just hope that you can accept it in the end. Just remember what I have said when the news reports that thousands upon millions of people disappeared in an instant.


- aka Manslayer101
Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES! [Re: NITRO777] #231132
10/12/08 08:33
10/12/08 08:33
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
A
AlbertoT Offline
Serious User
AlbertoT  Offline
Serious User
A

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
Quote:


It is ridiculously stupid to leave the questions of the universe in the hands of scientists



We are not talking about the universe

The original question is :

Should creationism be taught in schools ?

In other words :

Is a biology teacher allowed to claim that evolutionism is nothing else than a theory while creationism might be a possible alternative ?

The answer is : no

The scholastic programms must be decided by a scientific commitee and they must be the same for all the students, all over the country
Fundamentalists may be disppointed but the plain truth is that 99.999 % of the experts believe in the evolutionism thus evolutionims only must be taught in schools

Nobody prevent religious people from claiming that universe has been created by God in seven days provide they made well clear that it is just a matter of faith without any scientific evidence

This must be valid for government owned school but also for private schools, run by religious people

One again

Education is not a right
Education is a duty



Last edited by AlbertoT; 10/12/08 08:37.
Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES! [Re: AlbertoT] #231159
10/12/08 14:29
10/12/08 14:29
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,205
Greece
LarryLaffer Offline
Serious User
LarryLaffer  Offline
Serious User

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,205
Greece
Hi again,

Just popping in to correct a wide misconception about what the word theory means in the scientific world. When people say The theory of evolution it's not something that someone came up with and put it out there.. In contrast of how people casually use the word theory, in science it has a bigger substance than the word law or the word fact. So the word theory is pretty much up high in the chain, like this:

Theory
Law
Hypothesis
Fact


The way the rest of us use the word theory is like scientists use the word hypothesis, but to them a theory is something that complies with all known facts and observations of the universe, something that has withstood a lot of testing and debate and the test of time and also something that is able to make correct predictions that may be testable through experimentation. The theory of evolution holds no less validity than the theory of gravity and the theory of electromagnetism.

Laws are only a subpart of the theory it belongs in. If sometime in the future the theory of thermodynamics collapses then the laws of thermodynamics will collapse as well.

Facts on the other hand are a dime a dozen and they're not as important in the scientific community. They refer to simple things like, water always flows downstream in rivers. They're just observations that withstood the test of time and are now a fact, but they don't explain anything. A theory in science is much much bigger and important than a fact.


Just clearing this out.. Of course this doesn't mean that a theory is automatically correct. No amount of experimentation can ever prove a theory right but a single experiment can prove it wrong. But in terms of how far our understanding of the universe goes, theories is pretty much the best thing we have.


As for the topic question I'll have to say I couldn't care less. In my country we get taught about the bible in schools and in turn we were never taught about evolution but yet we have nearly 0% of creationists in Greece (the right winged Christians as Jimmy Carr calls them..). Christians here just don't take the bible teachings all too literal, so i think there's more than the education system to attribute to what the kids will end up believing in. In usa on the other hand, the theory of evolution is actually being taught in schools but Intelligent Design only became a subject in a few schools just recently, yet that's the country where most right winged Christians live in..


INTENSE AI: Use the Best AI around for your games!
Join our Forums now! | Get Intense Pathfinding 3 Free!
Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES! [Re: LarryLaffer] #231231
10/13/08 00:11
10/13/08 00:11
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538
WA, Australia
J
JibbSmart Offline
Expert
JibbSmart  Offline
Expert
J

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538
WA, Australia
putting hypothesis above fact was a typo, right? or did i misunderstand the arrangement of your chain?

julz


Formerly known as JulzMighty.
I made KarBOOM!
Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES! [Re: AlbertoT] #231245
10/13/08 04:11
10/13/08 04:11
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,185
mpdeveloper_B Offline
Expert
mpdeveloper_B  Offline
Expert

Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,185
Originally Posted By: AlbertoT
Quote:


It is ridiculously stupid to leave the questions of the universe in the hands of scientists



We are not talking about the universe

The original question is :

Should creationism be taught in schools ?

In other words :

Is a biology teacher allowed to claim that evolutionism is nothing else than a theory while creationism might be a possible alternative ?

The answer is : no

The scholastic programms must be decided by a scientific commitee and they must be the same for all the students, all over the country
Fundamentalists may be disppointed but the plain truth is that 99.999 % of the experts believe in the evolutionism thus evolutionims only must be taught in schools

Nobody prevent religious people from claiming that universe has been created by God in seven days provide they made well clear that it is just a matter of faith without any scientific evidence

This must be valid for government owned school but also for private schools, run by religious people

One again

Education is not a right
Education is a duty



You're saying that the reason evolution should be taught in school because the majority of experts believe in evolution? And I suppose if these "experts" believed the earth is flat or that the solar system revolves around the earth you'd have all the books change theories?

You cannot base what should be taught on democracy, if an unproven theory has right to be in books and taught that way, so does our belief. It has just as much right to be there as you do to post in this forum. Besides, your estimation is wrong, it is not %99.999. See this page here, pay close attention to Darwin's statement. You seem to forget that Darwin wished to retract his theory before he died, but it had already gotten out into scientists hands. Darwin's original theory on Adaptation can be proven, I fail to see any evidence that can be counted "applicable" in evolution's stance. As I said before, give me links, if you think I won't read them and at least consider them, you are wrong.

As for the seven days, I said, according to a book I read on that, the original text states that God BEGAN FORMING the earth in seven days, it does not say he just up and CREATED the earth in seven days. Too many people get this mixed up, the word says that the earth was void and without shape, meaning no life, and he BEGAN to FORM the earth and create life, the earth was already in place at this time, there was already a moon rotating, and nine planets in the solar system.


- aka Manslayer101
Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES! [Re: mpdeveloper_B] #231261
10/13/08 09:08
10/13/08 09:08
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 658
germany
Tiles Offline
User
Tiles  Offline
User

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 658
germany
Quote:
You're saying that the reason evolution should be taught in school because the majority of experts believe in evolution?


The academic experts have tested this concept of evolution again and again. With scientic methods. Using facts and knowledge. What speaks for it, what against it. And then they counted the things together. Very often one and one is two.

That the concept itself gets proven again and again is the normal science way, and doesn't mean the concept is generally wrong. There is always the chance that a concept fails, even when it is a very small one. And even the maker of a concept has the right to proof it from time to time. Disprove it by an experiment or new facts may change a concept completely. Proove it by facts and experiments steel it. That's how science works. Always check again. That's also a kind of evolution by the way. In the end, when an apple always falls down then there is a very high chance that there is gravity.

Or with other words: when so many species acts by evolutionary rules then there is a very high chance that there is evolution.

You don't like this theory? Then disprove it! Bring me the facts. Do so and you will even be a famous person. Err, no, "God is almighty" is not a fact to disprove the evolution theory. "The bible says" neither.

There is a difference between knowledge and faith. Knowledge can be proven. By experiments. Trial and error. You can calculate it. Faith can not be proven. You have to believe. There are no facts, no knowledge, no checking the concept, just faith and dogma. Thinking not allowed.

There are countless examples where the faith collides with provable facts. I just remind at the flat earth concept here. May everybody by its own decide how to handle that.

But i would say keep the teaching in the hands of people that teaches current proven and repeatable knowledge, not faith. This knowledge may even be wrong. But when it is, it will sooner or later corrected by somebody. That's science. Facts is what counts.

For me creationists are medieval fossils that tries to turn the wheel back to keep their power. Faith was and is a way to control people. And that is why it shouldn't be teached in school. We've seen a countless times where it leads to. Rejection, crusade, witch tracing, war. In the name of god.

Last edited by Tiles; 10/13/08 09:33.

trueSpace 7.6, A7 commercial
Free gamegraphics, freewaregames http://www.reinerstilesets.de
Die Community rund um Spiele-Toolkits http://www.clickzone.de
Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES! [Re: Tiles] #231276
10/13/08 11:46
10/13/08 11:46
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,205
Greece
LarryLaffer Offline
Serious User
LarryLaffer  Offline
Serious User

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,205
Greece
Julz: It's not a typo, it's just how scientists use the words in contrast with how the rest of the world uses them. To me it's fine that when common folk say "I have a theory" they only mean "an educated guess", but when we pick up that word from a scientific context like in "The theory of evolution", then this is where all the confusion begins. Check out this video for more.


Quote:
if an unproven theory has right to be in books and taught that way, so does our belief.


Again, natural selection is unproven in the same way that gravity is unproven. Both theories have gone through much testing before they could be called theories, and they both came out successful.
If anyone manages to disprove natural selection even in theory or through experimentation, this person will probably be awarded with the nobel prize, but so far (for 150 years) this hasn't been done, thus the theory of evolution stands. On the other hand, there's no nobel prizes waiting for the person that disproves the literal meanings of the bible because even a 9 year old can do that. And that's the reason why evolution deserves a place in schools more than creationism does.


It's actually a bit ironic when people will automatically assume that we have perfectly explained stuff like gravity, while with natural selection we're just making wild guesses ; whereas in fact the opposite is true. Particle physicists have absolutely no idea how gravity works and our standard model of physics does not even mention gravity. We have some speculation about a particle called graviton which enforces gravity but this is as certain as when we thought there was something called ether that carried out light. And with the LHC experiment almost ready to begin, there's a bigger chance that the theory of gravity will need serious changes, than the theory of evolution.




That site is propaganda at its greatest. Here's what they have quoted out of Darwin's book, On the Origin Of Species:

Quote:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.


I traced down that quote in my book, and here's the full passage:

Quote:
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.



Don't blindly buy into everything you read on the internet.


Quote:
You seem to forget that Darwin wished to retract his theory before he died, but it had already gotten out into scientists hands.


This is yet another propaganda started by a christian called "Lady Hope" who wrote an article on a newspaper claiming she had visited Darwin on his deathbed and he had converted to Christianity. In reality, no one from Darwin's circle know who this Lady Hope is, no one saw her ever come in the house and Darwin's children strongly refute the whole story. Charles Darwin was self-proclaimed as an agnostic and there's no evidence of ever changing his mind until he died.


INTENSE AI: Use the Best AI around for your games!
Join our Forums now! | Get Intense Pathfinding 3 Free!
Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES! [Re: LarryLaffer] #231287
10/13/08 14:28
10/13/08 14:28
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,439
Red Dwarf
Michael_Schwarz Offline
Senior Expert
Michael_Schwarz  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,439
Red Dwarf
Quote:
You're saying that the reason evolution should be taught in school because the majority of experts believe in evolution? And I suppose if these "experts" believed the earth is flat or that the solar system revolves around the earth you'd have all the books change theories?


no, because scientists don't "believe" that something "is". Scientists base their knowledge on proven things. Facts. Not just some pipe dream.


"Sometimes JCL reminds me of Notch, but more competent" ~ Kiyaku
Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES! [Re: mpdeveloper_B] #231310
10/13/08 17:32
10/13/08 17:32
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Originally Posted By: mpdeveloper_B
First off, I'd like to say that I like debating with you PHeMoX, you do consider facts well.


Same here and thanks. I definitely like a good open minded discussion instead of aggressive mud fighting as if we're still chimps. wink

Quote:
Of course I say this dismissing the fact that Buddhism DID go through quite some problems in China.


The Chinese government has banned a lot of religions, that's sort of unrelated to how people look at that particular religion there. China basically has no freedom of religion, so it's difficult to say what the average Chinese thinks of Buddhism or any religion for that matter.


Quote:
One problem with this though, if you count most of the old texts as "questionable at best" you could say the same of these old bones found in rock, or any of our old history that has been recorded.


Not really as history has shown time and time again that historic documents are often quite unreliable. Mainly because the one who lives is obviously the one able to write history. Many kings in the past have bragged so incredibly much that it's difficult to take them serious when it comes to counting taxes (something that's difficult to brag about when it's simple documentation for government purposes).

When it comes to these stories (or myths if you will), it's incredibly difficult to even start sorting out truth from exaggeration, facts from fiction. What I said was that archaeological research does not support many of the stories. If you find only one chariot in the Dead Sea, where hundreds or perhaps even thousands should have been... something tells me the story is wrong. smile

Quote:
I also don't agree that there is more evidence to the contrary, because they were stolen from the Jews doesn't mean that it is questionable.


And the Jews stole it from the Egyptians who stole it from the Sumerians. There's a whole line of religions using the same old stories. Christ-like main characters included!

Quote:
In fact, books from the bible make up the Torah, and it is over 3000 years old, that actually means that such books that are in the Torah, have been proven that they were written at their supposed time.


Yes, the Torah is older, but again it was based on the ancient Egyptian religion(s) and other religions. The fact that the books are old doesn't really mean a thing to be honest with you. Also, apparently it doesn't make your eyebrows frown knowing that Christianity copied so incredibly much from the Torah?

[ quote] I never said that everything was here to begin with, the bible says that God came from another place, meaning that God was not in the physical domain, when God decided to come over He began creation. [/quote]

I know you never said that, but in my opinion simple logic demands an answer to this paradox. I'm very open minded about this though, as the universe doesn't have to make sense according to logic or be still tangible when going down the rabbit hole deep enough so to speak. There are several points from which we have to admit that 'we just don't know yet'.


Quote:
Mere coincidence is not what I would call scientific, also I would fear if it was coincidence, simply because coincidence could lead to destruction. The evidence I refer to is more than just Jupiter, I think it would have taken more than just coincidence for our solar system to be "designed" for us.


The coming into existence of our universe wasn't a coincidence. Forget about people that talk about 'chance' and 'chance of life to come into existence'. It's pretty much valueless crap as long as we do not have more answers. Like for example is our planet the only one with life? And so on and so forth.

Quote:
It's great to hear that they have religion as a subject, and they give you freedom of choice. The fact is when it does come down to it, we don't fully KNOW, I believe what I do because of personal experience as well as evidence that has been in the bible. It just comes down to one thing, there is only one absolute truth


I respect that, but I use a different definition for 'evidence'. It's not an attack to you or anyone else, but as said before I don't think the Bible is that much of a 'valid source' for itself to be counted as true evidence. I think you have to look into the research that has been done to try and find cities or prove events from biblical times... you'll be surprised how incredibly little has been found to be even remotely (read: can't rule out whether or not it happened or not) accurate,

Cheers


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Page 5 of 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 66 67

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1