DJL Creationism taught in Schools
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2014, 06:55 PM
RE: DJL Creationism taught in Schools
however this is not the way schools work.. Theory and scientific absolutes are taught in the same class along side one another so as to give the theory the appearence of legitimacy as an absolute.

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
22-02-2014, 01:21 AM
RE: DJL Creationism taught in Schools
Thank you for your response.

(21-02-2014 06:55 PM)Drich Wrote:  ...
scientific absolutes
...

You keep using that term but I do not know what it means.

If I understand your position correctly, you are unhappy with 'theories' being taught in schools.

Does this mean that teachers should avoid teaching, for example:
The Theory of Gravity
The Standard Model
The Germ Theory of Disease
The Theory of General Relativity?

I find this hard to comprehend so I conclude that I must have misunderstood your terminology.

So, please could you help me by fulfilling my earlier request, below:

(21-02-2014 02:06 PM)DLJ Wrote:  ...
Perhaps you could clarify for me, the following by giving examples:
  1. A scientific absolute
  2. Faith
  3. Belief
  4. Theory

Thank you.
...

Furthermore, could you please elaborate on what distinguishes a Theory from an Absolute.

Thank you.

Find all posts by this user
[+] 5 users Like DLJ's post
22-02-2014, 09:53 AM
RE: DJL Creationism taught in Schools
(22-02-2014 01:21 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(21-02-2014 06:55 PM)Drich Wrote:  ...
scientific absolutes
...

You keep using that term but I do not know what it means.Wink
which kinda proves my point. The list that follows is a list of theories. Which are not absolute as they are subject to change.

Absolutes are like the atomic structure of the known elements. Or the principles behind the creation disbursal and transmission of energy. Pressures, forces, and the methods of calculation that we use to make modern life possible, and other things like how the body works, how life is created, the structures and principles in which we can observe record and definitively predict functionality based on past observations. We should teach these Constants apart from theoretical science/faith based beliefs.

Instead theoretical science is paired with absolute science and the two are now one. Why? To change the way we think and analyze. Gravity use to be a law, it's status has since been changed to a theory so as to give credibility to faith in what use to be known as fringe science. Again to control how the population thinks and perceives new information.


[*]A scientific absolute see above

[*]Faith is the confidence in what we hope for and assurance about we do not see or know to be absolute.

[*]Belief 1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
opinion, view, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, idea, impression, theory, conclusion, notion More
a religious conviction.
"Christian beliefs"
synonyms: ideology, principle, ethic, tenet, canon; More


[*]Theory
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.


Quote:Furthermore, could you please elaborate on what distinguishes a Theory from an Absolute.

Thank you.
See above.
[/quote]

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
22-02-2014, 09:58 AM
RE: DJL Creationism taught in Schools
The DSL debate on what should be taught in schools is comming to an end as I have little else to say. Once we are concluded there then I plan to return here after that its first come first served.

Dude, we've hardly started. I have been waiting patiently for your response.

Are you admitting defeat? If so, please say so publicly in that thread. Thanks.

I told you from the beginning this will be a short debate. I have very little to say on the matter and you said good, it will be in line with your attention span.

What more did you expect? I am giving you exactly what I said I would. You pick a subject that holds very little to no interest to me. And I told you of my intentions from the beginning.

Because in truth I don't care what they teach in schools, as my children will not be affected by it.

If you have a point to make, make it quickly.

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Drich's post
22-02-2014, 11:24 AM
RE: DJL Creationism taught in Schools
What is a DSL?

Find all posts by this user
22-02-2014, 11:46 AM
RE: DJL Creationism taught in Schools
(22-02-2014 11:24 AM)DLJ Wrote:  What is a DSL?

Digital subscriber line. It is a form of internet connection.

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
22-02-2014, 11:47 AM
RE: DJL Creationism taught in Schools
It's also how i misspelled your screen name... 2 out of 3 not bad.

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
22-02-2014, 12:30 PM (This post was last modified: 22-02-2014 12:39 PM by DLJ.)
RE: DJL Creationism taught in Schools
To summarise your position:

Only things that are not subject to change can be taught in schools.

You list, as requested, some ideas and theories that you consider "Absolutes" and you have also referred to them as 'Constants'.

I also notice that you continue to make a connection (as though they are the same) between 'theoretical science' and 'faith'.

So, I need to help you out of your pickle by explaining a few things:

1. There are no absolutes.
2. All science is 'theoretical' and based on the ideas of empiricism, tentativism and falsifiability.
3. If only things that are not subject to change can be taught in schools, none of the 'absolutes' that you list would have made it into schools because none of them have always been known . Unfortunately, this means that nothing but raw data (with a time stamp) can be presented and also that you need to define some criteria for deciding when certain knowledge is allowed onto the curricular.

Perhaps instead of 'absolutes', a better word would be 'truth'.

Meaning that, in schools, we want our children to learn things that are accepted as truth.

Some definitions to help you:

Faith: A belief held without or in spite of the evidence.
Belief: A proposition that is accepted to be true, even though it may not actually be true.
Knowledge: Justified TRUE belief.
Certainty: Confidence in the truth of a proposition; probability.
Absolute: Universal; binding on all people across all time and space, including linguistic and cultural barriers.

Please note that by TRUE, I am not equating this to REALITY.
Reality: The sum of all 'real' things; the entirety of existence
Internal reality: Subjective perceptions (memory, vision, emotional states etc.)
External reality: Everything beyond my immediate sensory perceptions.
True: A label given to propositions in accordance with an epistemology.

Truth and reality are not the same. If truth was simply reality, then truth cannot be known as there is no way of knowing what is objectively true.

So, a question:
What is the method for determining what is true and therefore allowed into schools.

And, given that you "don't care what they teach in schools, as [your] children will not be affected by it" does it concern you that your children, when they leave the nest, will be participating in a world where everyone else holds a very different understanding of what is true and what is real?

Will they be paying for their own therapy sessions or will you cover those costs?

And do you really not care?
There are some schools not far from where I live where children are being taught that killing Murikans will bring them rewards from Allah.


(and you also misspelled my name in the thread title but dyslexia is the least of your problems, I feel).

Find all posts by this user
22-02-2014, 03:17 PM
RE: DJL Creationism taught in Schools
(22-02-2014 12:30 PM)DLJ Wrote:  To summarise your position:

Only things that are not subject to change can be taught in schools.

You list, as requested, some ideas and theories that you consider "Absolutes" and you have also referred to them as 'Constants'.

I also notice that you continue to make a connection (as though they are the same) between 'theoretical science' and 'faith'.
indeed. A faith in facts (or rather their explaination) is still faith.

Quote:So, I need to help you out of your pickle by explaining a few things:

1. There are no absolutes.
Not true. red blood cells carry oxygen in part through a protein called hemoglobin. Oxygen's atomic weight and structure is always the same. a volt is always the SI unit of electromotive force, the difference of potential that would drive one ampere of current against one ohm resistance.
these things do not change, therefore they and their related counter parts are scientific absolutes. It is to the unchanging aspects of science that give the fringe/theortical aspects crediablity. (it's What help you and people like you take the sting of faith out of your beloved science.)

Quote:2. All science is 'theoretical' and based on the ideas of empiricism, tentativism and falsifiability.
Ahh, no. this is the current philosophy of science. 20 years ago it was dedicated to identifying the universe's absolutes.

Quote:3. If only things that are not subject to change can be taught in schools, none of the 'absolutes' that you list would have made it into schools because none of them have always been known .
I have since amend my position to simply separate absolutes from faith based learning per your strong argument in your opening post subsection 3. (remember?)

Quote: Unfortunately, this means that nothing but raw data (with a time stamp) can be presented and also that you need to define some criteria for deciding when certain knowledge is allowed onto the curricular.
How can even this be true if science truly is what you believe it to be? (what I identified as the current philosophy of science?)

Quote:Perhaps instead of 'absolutes', a better word would be 'truth'.
Absolute:
a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things.

Truth:
Meaning the quality or state of being true.

Modern truth is always subject to what is currently popular or known. as such is subject to change. In short truth can be considered a variable in your context.

The atomic mass of Oxygen will NEVER change otherwise we would have a different element. Therefore your observation is invalid, and the term 'truth' as it is popularly used is not valid. However the word absolute still works.Thumbsup

Your Suggestion to change absolute to 'truth' is dismissed because your word does not accurately represent the thought being communicated here.

Quote:That, in schools, we want our children to learn things that are accepted as truth.
Who's truth?
I want my children to know the difference between Absolutes and society's truth.

Quote:Some definitions to help you:
Laugh out load I would love to simply accept your 'truth' here so I can end this discussion quickly, but their is a problem. In society more over in the English language we have a set of absolutes in which we determine and define words. this standard is placed in what we like to refer to as 'Dictionaries.'

It's quite appearent you seem to value yourself as a man of truth as you seem to be so familiar with it, you are not able to descern your truth to an absolute when you encounter it.. Like for instance the dictionary terms I used when you asked me to define this list of words originally, and your subsequent 'correction' Laughat of those words.

So since you were so gracious in sharing your version of truth with me allow me this wonderful and cherished opportunity to share some absolutes with you. these absolutes will be brought to you by the merrium-webster dictionary, and the number 2.
Quote:Faith: A belief held without or in spite of the evidence.
: strong belief or 2 trust in someone or something

: belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs

: a system of religious beliefs
My definition varied slightly as
I held to the Hebrews 1:1 defination but the general principle still holds true here.

You definition is not consistant with the absolute found in the dictionary. the difference? In all three definations we have a commonality linking the three. it centers around a belief or trust in something or God.

Your definition demands that a lack of evidence be present. or worse yet inspite of evidence. Meaning inorder for one 2 manifest faith their must be a complete lack of evidence or 2 believe even though the evidence points the other way.

Do you see how pop 'truth' or if I may borrow a term from Colbert; Do you see how your aversion 2 "truth-Ie-ness" has changed your understanding of the word when compared 2 the absolute 'Truth' of the word?

This is fun! what's next?

Quote:Belief: A proposition that is accepted to be true, even though it may not actually be true.
Ahh, belief what does merrium have to say about belief?

: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
Knowledge: Justified TRUE belief.

Do you see where your 'truth-ie-ness' has failed you here? In your truth-ie-ness it is your stated belief that 'Belief' has little 2 nothing 2 do with evidence or fact.. When in fact or rather in Absolute truth it does.

Strike 2!

Quote:Certainty: Confidence in the truth of a proposition; probability.
...Aaand the Dictionary says:

: not having any doubt about something : convinced or sure

—used with it 2 say that something is known 2 be true or correct

—used to refer 2 something or someone that is not named specifically

I'm a fair person, and I have no problem admitting when some one is right.. although I know what you were doing here, this is still close enough.

Quote:Absolute: Universal; binding on all people across all time and space, including linguistic and cultural barriers.
aaahh, no.
: complete and total
: not limited in any way
: having unlimited power

and you were doing so well..

Your definition isn't even close.. I don't even think we can consider your definition here 'truth-ie-ness.' this is just a falsehood fabricated to support your following points.

This is an example True intellectual dishonesty. (not just name calling. I have documented and supported this claim.)

Truth-ie-ness is also a form of intellectual dishonesty if one is simply ignorant 2 the absolute truth of the matter, then a case can be made against intentional dishonesty. From here on out know that You sir have now been made aware.

Dictionaries are considered to be primary source material and in of themselves represent absolutes in human knowledge concerning the subjects they cover. to argue your truth-ie-ness against a primary source reference.
http://www.lib.umd.edu/tl/guides/primary...es#primary

This teeth in kicking has been brought to you by the merrium-webster dictionary and the number 2SmartassLaugh out loadLaughat

Quote:Please note that by TRUE, I am not equating this to REALITY.
Reality: The sum of all 'real' things; the entirety of existence
Internal reality: Subjective perceptions (memory, vision, emotional states etc.)
External reality: Everything beyond my immediate sensory perceptions.
True: A label given to propositions in accordance with an epistemology.

Truth and reality are not the same. If truth was simply reality, then truth cannot be known as there is no way of knowing what is objectively true.
Laugh out load indeed/so?

Quote:So, a question:
What is the method for determining what is true and therefore allowed into schools.

And, given that you "don't care what they teach in schools, as [your] children will not be affected by it" does it concern you that your children, when they leave the nest, will be participating in a world where everyone else holds a very different understanding of what is true and what is real?
No. It does not concern me. why? Because we do not fear logical fallacies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

If they know the difference between truth-ie-ness and absolutes they will be able to dominate those who subject themselves and their children to Argumentum ad populum.

Now my turn.

Does it scare you that you are subjecting your children to popular beliefs rather than absolutes?
well at least if the wool has been pulled over their eyes and they 'think' they are smart their will be no need for therapy.
That is unless the find out the 'truth.'
Big Grin get it?

Quote:Will they be paying for their own therapy sessions or will you cover those costs?
I can see a need for therapy if they were programmed to be like everyone else. I don't raise sheeple. therefore they will have the tools needed to deal with and manage sheeple.

Quote:And do you really not care?
Nuupers.
It makes the world easier to navigate. There is a reason the masses are being taught how and what to think. they (people like you) are easier to control, and manage. If someone is smart enough to learn how to push the buttons and pull the strings your system of education sets up in the sheeple who value it's lessons in Argumentum ad populum. they will be able to do whatever they want to in life.

Quote:There are some schools not far from where I live where children are being taught that killing Murikans will bring them rewards from Allah.
which is fine unless you are a murikan.
even if you are at least you will know how they think and what to expect.. unless your value system demands you stand out front of that school and protest. which, if that is the case then at least you will be a valuable lesson for other murikans.
Smile
Quote:(and you also misspelled my name in the thread title but dyslexia is the least of your problems, I feel).
Maybe it was a freduian slip of sorts.. Maybe my self conscious was telling me I should refer to you as 'Don't Speak.. Listen.' Or maybe not, maybe as you say it was my dyslexia kicking in. who knows with stuff like that. Consider

how bout this... Before one of us get his feelings hurt I simply declare you the winner here after your rebuttal that way you get to tell me off and get the last word, and I can speak to someone who doesn't want to talk about creation being taught in schools, or whatever you think this is about now.

I had some fun you had some fun, but truly I think we are done. You have points.. I don't care, as none of this complies with the rules I set in place that you agreed to. the only thing left is to allow you your jab, so take it and maybe we can give it ago on a non-loaded topic some other time.

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
22-02-2014, 09:26 PM (This post was last modified: 22-02-2014 09:31 PM by DLJ.)
RE: DJL Creationism taught in Schools
I have a habit of reading the end of long posts before dipping in to the detail.

I think this goes back to an exam I did when I was 9 or 10.

The top of the paper stated:
"Read all questions before answering"
I did.
I think that everyone else in the room must have interpreted that as "Read each question before answering".
I got up and left while the others spent 2 hours working away.
After the last question, the paper stated:
"No questions need to be answered".

So, I have read only the last bit of the previous post and see that Drich has given up.

In a way, I am disappointed as I had only just started to roll up my sleeves.

I think this has been a good example of epistemological relativism and of the need to establish definitions nice and early. I think there was some syntactical relativism going on there too Big Grin

Once The Ref (Moms) opens this up, I would appreciate comments regarding the approach I have taken here:

My formal education ended 30 years ago and I never experienced anything like a university debate society so this is the first time I have tried this and wasn't sure how it would go.
I feel I have complied with the rules as stated by Drich.
I was open about my method by linking to it in my opening remarks:
Quote:How to compose a successful critical commentary:
1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

Feedback would be greatly appreciated.
And thanks to those who PM'd words of encouragement.

Cheers all.

Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: