Proper Education Standards Prevail - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-03-2006, 03:24 PM   #76
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 01:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by silja
I get what you mean but although Shakespeare surely was among the greatest writers that mankind has produced he wasn't a profet.


actually, the English Major in me would argue that one can learn much, much more from Shakespeare (or even just Hamlet) than one could ever learn from The Bible.

__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 03:29 PM   #77
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 220
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




actually, the English Major in me would argue that one can learn much, much more from Shakespeare (or even just Hamlet) than one could ever learn from The Bible.

Indeed, I agree. Hamlet is more or less permanently parked by my bed (the book that is... not the dead prince).
__________________

__________________
silja is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 03:30 PM   #78
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 01:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




actually, the English Major in me would argue that one can learn much, much more from Shakespeare (or even just Hamlet) than one could ever learn from The Bible.

But the English Major in other English Majors might majorly disagree...
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 03:35 PM   #79
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 01:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




the question is backwards.

the burden of proof is on you to prove that there is an intelligent designer behind the Big Bang.
But I'm not trying to prove either one. Someone said that ID shouldn't be taught in school because there is no empirical evidence for it, so I am saying the following:

"If empirical evidence is the standard by which educators decide which origins theory is taught in school, please tell me what empirical evidence is there that supports the theory that there is no intelligent designer? If there is none, then based on the empirical evidence standard, evolution without intelligent deisgner should not be taught."
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 03:37 PM   #80
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 01:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


But the English Major in other English Majors might majorly disagree...


it could be a major discussion ...
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 03:40 PM   #81
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 01:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


But I'm not trying to prove either one. Someone said that ID shouldn't be taught in school because there is no empirical evidence for it, so I am saying the following:

"If empirical evidence is the standard by which educators decide which origins theory is taught in school, please tell me what empirical evidence is there that supports the theory that there is no intelligent designer? If there is none, then based on the empirical evidence standard, evolution without intelligent deisgner should not be taught."

the thinking is still mixed up. you don't say, "i believe this, show me the proof that i am wrong."

at present, there is no empirical evidence FOR an intelligent designer, therefore, it's all hocus-pocus speculation and thus not science.

show me the empirical evidence that supports the theory that the world wasn't created by a ham sandwich.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 03:52 PM   #82
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 220
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


But I'm not trying to prove either one. Someone said that ID shouldn't be taught in school because there is no empirical evidence for it, so I am saying the following:

"If empirical evidence is the standard by which educators decide which origins theory is taught in school, please tell me what empirical evidence is there that supports the theory that there is no intelligent designer? If there is none, then based on the empirical evidence standard, evolution without intelligent deisgner should not be taught."
That’s not the way the ‘empirical evidence standard’ that you refer to works. No self-respecting scientist would even consider publishing on such a ridiculous basis.

Also:

Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
But the English Major in other English Majors might majorly disagree...
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
it could be a major discussion ...


You both need a major pun-generatorectomy.
__________________
silja is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 04:28 PM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 02:46 AM
From another English major :
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 08-04-2006, 01:34 AM   #84
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


What "empirical evidence" is there that supports the idea that there is no intelligent designer behind the Big Bang?
What makes your assertion remotely falsifiable? One cannot prove a negative.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-04-2006, 01:40 AM   #85
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:46 PM
Quote:
"If empirical evidence is the standard by which educators decide which origins theory is taught in school, please tell me what empirical evidence is there that supports the theory that there is no intelligent designer? If there is none, then based on the empirical evidence standard, evolution without intelligent deisgner should not be taught."
Simply the naturalistic evidence that surrounds us, the gene theory of biological information, the encoded genetic information being transcripted during the formation of proteins, the effects of artificial selection that are quantifiable in the lab, the identification of Hox genes and how they relate to building bodies in the metazoans etc.

All purely naturalistic theories and facts that exist in the universe that don't neccessitate any designer, to posit the existence of such a being in the absence of good cause (namely that we have discovered explanations for things once thought divine that have turned out to be rooted in the real world) is unscientific, the evidence does not support a designer, the naturalistic explanation is the most plausible and reductionary point of view ~ if we introduce a designer you are not being reductionary, you are introducing an incomprehensable element to explain something that at a glance seems incomprehensable.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of empiricism and falsifiability in scientific investigation; not only must a good theory or hypothesis be able to explain the facts, it must also be disprovable; the hypothesis that a designer certainly does exist is not falsifiable, you framing the question and justification in terms of proving a negative is no more scientific than me claiming that the flying spaghetti monster created the universe and made the evidence look like this wasn't the case.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-04-2006, 05:55 PM   #86
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 12:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


You made a flippant and condescending remark and now you're turning it around and getting upset with me for actually asking you to back up your flippant remark?
That flippant remark is very true, I'm sorry if you don't believe that.

Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

Have you read and studied the original source, the Hebrew Bible, and found a second meaning for "creation" that is akin to letting nature take over and complete the creation process?

If not, you have no business making fun of others for not "going to the source". That has been my point during my entire line of questioning.
I told you the other word used, there's plenty of information out there on this issue.

You suggested twice, I backed it up the first time, the second time was uncalled for.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-05-2006, 03:54 AM   #87
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 05:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


The Biblical account of Adam, the first man is that God created Adam in his own image from the clay of the earth. How do you reconcile the Biblical story of Adam with evolution?
How do you reconcile biblical stories such as this with reality?
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 08-05-2006, 04:24 AM   #88
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


The Biblical account of Adam, the first man is that God created Adam in his own image from the clay of the earth. How do you reconcile the Biblical story of Adam with evolution?
Again with the reality thing, clay is basically an aluminosilicate composition so it has Aluminium, Silica and Oxygen in abundance with lower quantities of other elements, why would this deity waste it's time making carbon based life forms from silica?

If we want to talk about improbabilities then the creation of man from elements that are not readily present in organic chemistry (such as Silicon for instance) is a pretty damn big one, apart from the entire formation of a human being with all of the flaws that they have (obviously this deity didn't think to give women even wider hips to make birthing these insanely large headed offspring a bit easier).

This myth simply cannot be reconciled with the evidence around us, it is much more plausible that the oral tradition of these semitic tribes was recorded and passed down and their creation myths amalgamated. Of course if we don't believe in a real Adam then the notion of Original Sin is fucked up and the theology will become unwound.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-05-2006, 06:41 AM   #89
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 05:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep



yes they can

but often, religion contradicts science

and here, in a nutshell, is the biggest question mark, in my view. science tells us a man cannot be made in the manner adam was. science tells us a man cannot walk on water. faith cannot get a crippled man to walk, nor let a blind man see. it cannot feed hundreds or more with a few fish and a couple of loaves of bread with baskets of food to spare. some say the bible is precisely the word of god. if so, then god loves a tall story. otherwise, it's a load of hogwash, isn't it? it is absolutely impossible. and yet men and women of all walks of life and of all intelligence follow this as divine truth. it astounds me. a billion people in this world buy it. why?
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 08-05-2006, 07:31 AM   #90
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:46 PM
The most intelligent person can convince themselves any reasoning and justification for faith that was imprinted when they were children.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com