Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Autonemesis · 09-25-2002, 03:20 PM

Quote:

This example of a bronze aurora is from the Astronomy Pic of the day from 4-10-2000, and was in the northern hemisphere.

Never mind that aurorae can also show green, blue, purple and white hues.

Quote:

Elihu describes the wonderful capability of Jesus to "engineer the Earth". I believe that Job lived very shortly after Noah's Flood and at that time it was commonly recalled from parental stories that, before the flood, the sky was a solid bronze in appearance during the daytime.

"Parental stories" are not the Bible. Selective citation of authority (and a dubious authority at that). Never heard of any aurorae that were visible in the daytime. One would think it'd be hard to sleep at night if aurorae were bright enough to be visible in daylight (hint: they don't turn off when the sun sets). Did those "parental stories" also mention how brilliantly lit the night sky was in those days? If not, how can you account for the omission? Surely if the people were hip to the bronze sky phenomenon, they must have noticed that the night sky was also ablaze with illumination, and thought this to be remarkable.

Quote:

After the flood, it gradually faded to blue over a period of many years, as the magnetic field wound down. Why would this be?

Why, I could never guess, Dr. Stupid. Why don't you tell us?

Quote:

Perhaps it was because the core of the Earth was a very strong and active atomic fission reactor, generating a huge magnetic field that enveloped the Earth's atmosphere.

Survey says:

ps418 · 09-25-2002, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:
patrick, mind if I use that material in replies to him?

You can use anything I post here however you see fit.

tgamble · 09-25-2002, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ps418:


You can use anything I post here however you see fit.

Thanks.

MOJO-JOJO · 09-26-2002, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peez:
I believe that he is a Yank, it is tgamble who is a Canuck. That being said, there are a few creationists up here (but much more rare than south of the border).

Peez

OOPS! Sorry......

RufusAtticus · 09-26-2002, 08:37 AM

More Entertainment:

I'm still trying to figure out how this person encountered me. Can an AOLer check her profile?

Quote:

From: Ustayago@aol.com
Subject: evolution "disclaimers"
How could any scientist, or any intellectual, in good conscience object to the exploration of theories or the presentation of a theory as a theory? Isn't the basic idea of scientific study to research and test all possible theories without prejudice in order to ensure that nothing is presented as fact unless it has been proven to be such?

My daughter had a middle school teacher who confused her in his presentation of the theory of evolution. So she raised her hand and asked him if what he was teaching them was fact or theory. He frowned at her and irritably and loudly said, "It's fact to me!" I was very upset that my daughter was being taught that science should be so subjective that personal opinion could be presented as fact.

I don't understand the problem with the so-called disclaimers.

Are you a scientist or is evolution your religion?

My responce

Quote:

Hello, Ustayago.

You seem to have me at a disadvantage. Would you mind introducing yourself?

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is that populations of organisms change over time. The theory of evolution explains this fact by identifying mechanisms that cause populations to change. Textbook disclaimers that state that "evolution is just a theory, not a fact" are in error. Evolution should not be discouraged in science classrooms because it is "just a theory," in fact that is why it should be taught over religious and political alternatives which are not even hypotheses.

In science, "theory" refers to a collection of well tested and well verified explanations and predictions about the natural world. Scientific theories are different than the popular notion of "theory" which is "hunch" or "guess." That is a problem with these textbook disclaimers. Students should be learning in science class the difference between scientific theories and popular one, yet boards of education don't even know the difference. Even members of Alabama's State Board of Education have admitted that when they enacted textbook disclaimers they didn't know what "theory" refered to in science. Please educate yourself on the topic by reading the National Academies of Science's "Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science." It is available at the following URL. <a href="http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/contents.html" target="_blank">http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/contents.html</a>

Creationists are the one who want to treat opinions as facts. Attempts to teach the controversy do nothing but confuse students. Should students be taught that holocaust denial is a valid alternative view of history? Should they be taught that geo-centrism is a valid alternative to helio-centrism? Should they be taught that storks are a valid alternative to pregnancy? If creationists don't want to treat opinions as facts, why else do they appeal to popular opinion polls to determine science curriculum? Why else do they continually trot out their "experts," who are undoubtedly people who haven't ever studied evolution to the same depth as evolutionary biologists? Find me a single modern population biologist who considers special creation to be an adequate explanation of the diversity of life.

This all reminds me of a Cornell study. People rarely know when they are incompetent because the same skills required for competence are the ones required for recognizing incompetence. That is why biologists get to determine what is fact and what is opinion in biology. If you don't teach religion in the classroom, I won't teach science in Sunday school.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.