kelel01 1 #76 January 29, 2004 Ok, I don't know how to define "fact" in a scientific sense, but to be fair, I never said that Creationism was a "theory" either. Neither one fits into the respective categories. And I'm fine with teaching evolution in schools, but understand that it does step on some toes. When science and religion can find a common ground, then it won't be a problem anymore. (i.e. It will always be a problem.) But everyone needs to open their minds just a bit . . . Kelly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #77 January 29, 2004 A virus is not a living thing. Why not? Becuase it has no metabolism. It does not respirate or expiration. It has no independent means of reproduction. It has no movement. It has all the life of a skeleton. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #78 January 29, 2004 Cool! Kelly Aquinas! My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #79 January 30, 2004 Quote When science and religion can find a common ground, then it won't be a problem anymore. (i.e. It will always be a problem.) This is unfortunate. I think it has a lot to do with education. I am a Christian, but I'm also an engineer with a strong scientific background. I don't find the two to be at odds at all, but that's because I was taught from an early age to make my own interpretations of things, such as christian theology. I struggled with it for a while, but I've come to the belief that science is mankind's way of discovering (and uncovering) the mysteries of God. But I won't say that's a theory...it's my faith. And I'm glad to say that my family placed a strong enough emphasis on education that I am able to know the difference. Back to the education thing...nothing's going to change until we change the "anti-smart" culture in this country. Yeesh, our president even perpetuates this...the whole "I made it through with a c-average, and look at me now" attitude. Doesn't give me much faith in our leaders. I don't WANT a regular average joe as President. I want someone who I can say without a doubt is smarter than me!! Parents have to start caring about their kids' education, they have to want their kids to be intelligent. Nerds have to become cool. I don't see it happening anytime soon.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #80 January 30, 2004 I haven't read all the posts on this one, but couldn't wait to jump in. I'm no longer a teacher, and I'm truly thankful because I doubt if I could put up with all the horse pucky involved with the No Child Left Behind Act. Bush should really keep his nose out of this one, because it's obvious he knows very little about education. Our school was recently placed on the list of schools not meeting federal goals prescribed by this act. Why, you ask. It must be the damn teachers and administrators right?? Not so....We have about a 1,000 kids in our school and a huge number are scoring below the national average. How come?...About 80% are growing up in an alcoholic home is the main reason. A vast number are also suffering from FAS. Yes, they were born with a brain probably half the size of a normal baby because their mother was bombed out of her mind during pregnantcy. According to Bush's plan all this doesn't matter. Supposedly they can perform as well as any other child.... if only the damn teachers would just get their act together. You see I work on an Indian Reservation here in Montana, and most of these kids come from deprived homes. But all that doesn't matter... the teachers just need to work harder. So now the teachers spend almost three hours a day teaching reading. Usually there's no time for things like Science and Social Studies. There is a huge amount of stress placed on the teachers to measure up, and this stress trickles right on down to the kids. There usually isn't time to do anything fun today kids, because we have to all study hard for the damn test. In the SFA program (No child left behind) It is mandantory that the teachers follow a script and be on the prescribed page when evaluators come around on a weekly basis. On one page you are told to be theatrical and lead the kids in some type of goofy cheer. On another page you might be told to go around and shake everyone's hand. If you don't do this just right you are in deep do do if an evaluator is watching. If the kids are behind or having difficulty, you don't dare take an extra day to review...because you have to keep up with the script you are given. If you are not a theatrical person or uncomfortable with your script or have your own style of teaching, it doesn't matter you have to follow the script. If you have a great activity that would benefit the kids, you can't use it because it's not in the script. As far as testing is concerned...have you ever heard of cheating. You wouldn't believe how this is actively encouraged by the administration in many school districts. I mean you have got to compete with the rest of the nation and test scores could mean money for the school, and after all it doesn't matter if the kids are suffering we must look good on paper. I could give details on this, but I guess my main concern is that The No Child Left Behind Act is probably doing more harm than good. Supposedly this idea has been so successful that the government is now trying to demand something similiar for the other subject areas. I'd also like to know where all the time is supposed to come from for an already over-worked teacher to do even half of what these plans demand. So what's the answer? Why not ask the teachers...they are the one's who are in the trenches day after day working with kids. I honestly think a lot of administrators and politicians are way out of touch with reality. Teachers usually have little imput on this. I'm glad I'm now a counselor, and don't have to deal with this. My daughter was valedictorian of her senior class, and her goal in life was to be a teacher. I'm happy to say that I've talked her out of it. I don't want her put through all the grief that teachers deal with daily. Is No Child Left Behind really something new? I think it's been the goal of teachers for a long time now...Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #81 January 30, 2004 Quote A virus is not a living thing. Why not? Becuase it has no metabolism. It does not respirate or expiration. It has no independent means of reproduction. It has no movement. Is fire alive? It consumes oxygen, gives off carbon dioxide, reproduces and moves. I'm not sure that is the perfect definition of something being "alive".quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #82 January 30, 2004 Metabolism, my friend quade. Then again, ask a few firefighters who say it is a living, breathing thing. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vonSanta 0 #83 January 30, 2004 Quote This is unfortunate. I think it has a lot to do with education. I am a Christian, but I'm also an engineer with a strong scientific background. I don't find the two to be at odds at all, but that's because I was taught from an early age to make my own interpretations of things, such as christian theology. I struggled with it for a while, but I've come to the belief that science is mankind's way of discovering (and uncovering) the mysteries of God. But I won't say that's a theory...it's my faith. And I'm glad to say that my family placed a strong enough emphasis on education that I am able to know the difference. It's sort of amusing in a way how science is seen as an adversary of established religions. It doesn't have to be and it certainly wasn't created for that purpose. I think your approach is quite sensible and takes this into account. If a religious person is violently opposed to a new scientific discovery, perhaps that person is a) wrong, and refusing to consider alternatives b) reading his or her religious text too literally c) generally opposed to science since it removes the mysticism of the world d) sees it as a threat to his/her faith or e) any other whacko theory I can come up with. Take the theory of evolution for instance. One who reads the Bible quite literally would be appalled by it, since it contradicts "the words of God". If, however, said person accepted what's in the bible as more of an analogy or "mind picture", it would not be hard for the theory of evolution to coexist with a strong faith. One could easily say "ah yes, true enough, I can see that. God sure was smart when he created evolution, huh?" Of course I, as a non Christian in the biblical sense, would go on and on about how the bible is more and more being interpreted figuratively instead of literally as science progresses. And I'd add "funny, huh". But I won't, coz there's no need to . Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #84 January 30, 2004 Define metabolism . . . fire fits quite well.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vonSanta 0 #85 January 30, 2004 Nice perspective there, good post. Just goes to show that the problem is complicated and the easy-to-digest solution politicians love to give us aren't really that good. That's one thing I hate about politics. It's the lowest common denominator thingy. Basically, everything they do has to be put in so simple terms even the dumbest voter gets it. It's a wonder democracy still is viable. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveNFlorida 0 #86 January 30, 2004 Quote "The illiteracy level of our children are appalling" -- HA! The illiteracy of our President ARE also appalling! LMFAO! Angela. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #87 January 30, 2004 Hmm. Medical: The total of all chemical changes that take place in a cell or an organism. These changes produce energy and basic materials needed for important life processes. Biology: enzyme-catalyzed reactions in living cells that transform organic molecules Hmm. Sounds like fire, all right. Cells are typically found in fire, I guess. p.s. You're just mad because I solved your problem with a novel solution that you didn't think of. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #88 January 30, 2004 Quote Medical: The total of all chemical changes that take place in a cell or an organism. If I call fire an organism . . . where's the conflict of definition? No, I'm not mad at anyone. I just think the definition of "life" is so vague that it could also be applied to things that we traditionally do not believe are alive. Fire would be one of them.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #89 January 30, 2004 I was referring to your navigation thread about the novel solution! My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #90 January 30, 2004 I know which thread you were talking about. It's actually Kallend that came up with a solution that I really hadn't thought of before. I had thought of yours, but I assumed you couldn't put a secret base at the south pole without people knowing about it, thereby making it not a secret.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #91 January 30, 2004 Interestign idea about fire. I hadn't thought of that before. But you are correct. I think it fits the medical definition of life better than a virus. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #92 January 30, 2004 As far as the creation of life is concerned - lets say the definition includes metabolism as LR describes, and self awareness as well. Describe to me, if you please, the point in which life becomes self aware, and what energy transference, or evolutionary process is involved at that moment. I'm not of the mind that is so closed as to not accept what is scientifically obvious. I am open to the idea that perhaps creation was purely biomechanical. I am also open to the idea that possibly we are an experiment dropped off on this planet after it was made safer by the destruction of its larger inhabitants, that were perhaps an experiment themselves. I mean, why not, we invent and improve on computer technology, and after all we are just a biomechanical computer, aren't we? But then again, perhaps there IS an omnipotent force that is as it is described in the Bible. I heard it this way . . .God created man, and then man created God. Fun argument though.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydivexxl 0 #93 January 30, 2004 I don't know, but I'm getting on an ark with 2 of each of 31,000,000 species... that's in the bible, right? Blog Clicky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pds 0 #94 January 30, 2004 Quote I am also open to the idea that possibly we are an experiment dropped off on this planet after it was made safer by the destruction of its larger inhabitants, that were perhaps an experiment themselves. theres a bunch of dentally challenged folk with sore asses in the ozarks that will back you up there.namaste, motherfucker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pds 0 #95 January 30, 2004 Quote I don't know, but I'm getting on an ark with 2 of each of 31,000,000 species... that's in the bible, right? you get on that ark, i'll take the comet.namaste, motherfucker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydivexxl 0 #96 January 30, 2004 Quote Quote I don't know, but I'm getting on an ark with 2 of each of 31,000,000 species... that's in the bible, right? you get on that ark, i'll take the comet. Actually, I'll go for a UFO... At least they give you an anal probe!!! On what day did god create aliens, anyway? Blog Clicky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #97 January 30, 2004 Quote Describe to me, if you please, the point in which life becomes self aware, and what energy transference, or evolutionary process is involved at that moment. This is related to the "When does a tadpole become a frog?" problem. At the time it hatches from its egg, clearly it's a tadpole. By the time it is biologically capable of reproduction, it's a frog. At what day, hour and minute does the tadpole become a frog? As for being self aware, that's certainly not a requirement for life. There are plenty of one celled creatures that probably all scientist and even most non-scientists would consider to be "alive" and there is no possible way for them to have any self-awareness. But I think I know where you might be going with this tortured line of logic . . . are you going to start on an abortion argument or possibly stem cell research? Because, if so, you have to apply the tadpole/frog question to it. There are billions of cells in my body that are "alive" and capable of creating "life" each with its own copy of my DNA. Right now, there is only one human represented by that DNA. I could easily detach and grow several cells from a number of parts of my body, but still, that wouldn't be a human, only tissue -- every cell of which has the potential to become an entire human. Would it be immoral to destroy the tissue? Tricky question really. When does cell tissue become a human? See tadpole/frog conundrum.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #98 January 30, 2004 Quote Quote Medical: The total of all chemical changes that take place in a cell or an organism. If I call fire an organism . . . where's the conflict of definition? No, I'm not mad at anyone. I just think the definition of "life" is so vague that it could also be applied to things that we traditionally do not believe are alive. Fire would be one of them. I think the point is being missed. Just a few years back creation of a virus would have been considered the province of "God". Now we can do it. How long before a simple bacterium? 10 years, maybe. And as for self awareness, is a bacterium self-aware?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #99 January 30, 2004 Quote A virus is not a living thing. Why not? Becuase it has no metabolism. It does not respirate or expiration. It has no independent means of reproduction. It has no movement. It has all the life of a skeleton. Hmmm didn't Salk use "killed" polio viruses for his vaccine? Hard to kill something that's not alive.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #100 January 30, 2004 Quote Quote Describe to me, if you please, the point in which life becomes self aware, and what energy transference, or evolutionary process is involved at that moment. Quote The first part of my post: As far as the creation of life is concerned - lets say the definition includes metabolism as LR describes, and self awareness as well.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
