tmontana 0 #51 August 5, 2005 You've quoted from walt brown's book "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" You can find most of the answers to the questions posed here http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/27/03541/2520 and if you search around here http://www.ncseweb.org/default.asp___________________________________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #52 August 5, 2005 Here's a few questions you could ask yourself if you believe the evolutionary theory. I use to waste a lot of breath on these arguments because it's a area of high interest and I've studied it much.Quote You will find the answer to many of these questions in a college level General Biology class. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #53 August 5, 2005 What scares me is that as a low number jumper my attempts at authoratatively talking about skydiving would be met with scepticism, if not outright ridicule. Yet Im going to listen to people with college level biology try to defend creationism and evolutionary theory? I recall the Kuro5hin article dealing rationally with both sides of the argument from people who have a solid background in the subject. The ability to Google does not make one an expert in a subject. The article cited in favor of ID is one that can be found as the primary defence of ID across the internet, it has also been thoroughly debunked across the web. I'll be giving sitfly classes under 'Safety and Training' if anyone wants me. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #54 August 5, 2005 I think if you took a look at the educational backgrounds of some of the people participating in this thread, you'd see that there's a lot broader knowledge base than you're giving people credit for. Now if you're looking for people whose PhD's are in evolutionary theory, then you're probably going to come up short....but then I don't think you're in that circle either. I wouldn't so arrogantly dismiss these folks.... But then again, it's just another silly topic being discussed in our little corner. No need to take it all so seriously, huh? Peace~ linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #55 August 5, 2005 Quote But then again, it's just another silly topic being discussed in our little corner. No need to take it all so seriously, huh? Peace~ linz I didnt think I was taking it seriously. I forget that unless I go: people think I'm being serious. And yeah, i'll pay attention when the PhDs are on the thread because evolutionary theory and creationism are best discussed by people who have a background in it, as evidenced by the amount of disinformation already in the thread. But now I'm heading into a serious conversation again, which I've successfully avoided all day. I'll be posting my seminar on swooping if anyone needs me. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #56 August 5, 2005 BWAhaha! It was ME who was taking it too seriously....I wasn't talking about you, silly.... Peace~ linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #57 August 5, 2005 QuoteBWAhaha! It was ME who was taking it too seriously....I wasn't talking about you, silly.... Peace~ linz Im sorry, this heroin is making me wicked paranoid ;) TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #58 August 5, 2005 QuoteQuoteBWAhaha! It was ME who was taking it too seriously....I wasn't talking about you, silly.... Peace~ linz Im sorry, this heroin is making me wicked paranoid ;)[/reply Sorry typo. This heron is making me wicked paranoid, he keeps looking at me and never blinks. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #59 August 5, 2005 Quote And yeah, i'll pay attention when the PhDs are on the thread because evolutionary theory and creationism are best discussed by people who have a background in it, as evidenced by the amount of disinformation already in the thread. But now I'm heading into a serious conversation again, which I've successfully avoided all day. High schoolers have the tools to debate this topic. The definition of science is easy to understand, as is the separation clause. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AlexCrowley 0 #60 August 5, 2005 I disagree, a high schooler can parrot what he has been taught. That's no different than Googling something and quoting it without comprehending context (there are a fair share of those on any forum). People with a real understanding of the field can argue intelligently and use knowledge rather than facts learnt by rote - personally I find that sort of conversation more interesting. Most of the discussions in SC tend towards philosophical debates, I dont feel that this one is and, personally, that means it has a different requirement with regards to information. No matter how much people will want to make it about ideology its about hard data. Yes, there are some people on both sides in this thread that obviously have a solid understanding, but they are in a minority. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #61 August 5, 2005 Quoteevolutionary theories for the moon’s origin [cough] the moon doesn't have anything to do with evolutionary theory... Can't help but laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ScottishJohn 25 #62 August 5, 2005 QuoteThe ability to Google does not make one an expert in a subject. Possibly the most intelligent thing I have ever heard in SC ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you think my attitude stinks you should smell my fingers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tso-d_chris 0 #63 August 5, 2005 QuoteI disagree, a high schooler can parrot what he has been taught. That's no different than Googling something and quoting it without comprehending context (there are a fair share of those on any forum). Some high school students are capable of critical, independent thought. Others are not. The same goes for advanced degree holders. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #64 August 5, 2005 and skydivers and forum posters Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #65 August 5, 2005 bla bla bla bla bla. I'm on Speakers Corner!! bla bla bla bla bla bla bla I'm right! You're wrong! bla bla bla bla bla (sorry. something left over from last night's liquid indulgences.) Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AlexCrowley 0 #66 August 5, 2005 QuoteQuoteI disagree, a high schooler can parrot what he has been taught. That's no different than Googling something and quoting it without comprehending context (there are a fair share of those on any forum). Some high school students are capable of critical, independent thought. Others are not. The same goes for advanced degree holders. Of course, but I should have been more clear: I feel that discussing a topic that requires a deep knowledge of - and deep understanding of - a scientific topic requires a solid background in said topic. Quoting Google is great, but without context to back it up it is still simply parroting someone elses thoughts and not being able to defend that position. I think that was my original point, my apologies for not making it clearer. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tso-d_chris 0 #67 August 5, 2005 While I agree that in and of itself using Google does not make one an expert, You will be hard pressed to find a superior research tool. Sure, it requires some critical thought to be able to filter out the BS, but I know of no other tool that allows such quick access to as much relevant information. (Actually, my favorite is http://scholar.google.com, which searches peer reviewed journals.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Channman 2 #68 August 5, 2005 You had me at number 1...Ok 2-18 as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AlexCrowley 0 #69 August 5, 2005 QuoteWhile I agree that in and of itself using Google does not make one an expert, You will be hard pressed to find a superior research tool. Sure, it requires some critical thought to be able to filter out the BS, but I know of no other tool that allows such quick access to as much relevant information. (Actually, my favorite is http://scholar.google.com, which searches peer reviewed journals.) We're in total agreement: "The ability to Google does not make one an expert in a subject.". considering my job involves a very large percentage of research, I use Google every day. But the dark side of Google is that its only as good as the info its indexing, and it ranks that by a number of things - including how important other people think the resource is. Do a search on things like aspartame, ritalin or even this subject: Evolution, and you'll find that the information out there at the top of the Google results are mostly uninformed bullshit quoted by people with no understanding of the topic at hand. Aspartame is a great example because there is so much bullshit out there which has been debunked time and time again yet has an unending shelf life. Snopes is not the answer, because that site is also riddled with errors because..............ta da.....they use Google to 'research' their answers. Three years ago a post cited Snopes and in 30 minutes I'd found 5 articles that were factually inaccurate and 4 that were outright incorrect. Thats why I dont mind the whole BS philosophy stuff we generally talk about but get all 'snippy' about discussing things like Evolution. It's too easy for those with a moderate level of education to read articles that seem solid but are debunked elsewhere, if you're not an expert how do you discern between fact and bullshit? That's the danger, and thats how we end up with mutant memes creating false realities, and then Kansas passes a law to put it into the education system or some other state puts warning stickers on science books. So, to summarize that blathering: Google is like any decent tool, excellent in the right hands but still useless in the wrong ones. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tso-d_chris 0 #70 August 5, 2005 QuoteTo, to summarize that blathering: Google is like any decent tool, excellent in the right hands but still useless in the wrong ones. I agree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EricTheRed 0 #71 August 5, 2005 QuoteSo, to summarize that blathering: Google is like any decent tool, excellent in the right hands but still useless in the wrong ones ...and downright dangerous in the hands of others!illegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AlexCrowley 0 #72 August 5, 2005 QuoteQuoteSo, to summarize that blathering: Google is like any decent tool, excellent in the right hands but still useless in the wrong ones ...and downright dangerous in the hands of others! Yeah, absolutely. Personally I try to steer away from topics I know nothing about, but if its something I only know a little about I'll use Google for information, get a double source and then search for info debunking that. Which is why I generally try to avoid commenting on them as it's incredibly time consuming and most people dont appreciate it anyway :) Hence my desire to remain uncertain on nearly everything, except my uncertainty, of which I am certain. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EricTheRed 0 #73 August 5, 2005 Not from a google... Quote ...we should not close off the dialogue and darken the already murky waters by fearing that God will be abandoned if we embrace the best of modern science... George Coyne, Vatican’s chief astronomer Speaking of the compatibility of evolution and belief in god in the publication UK Catholic weeklyillegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #74 August 5, 2005 It doesnt take a PhD in biology or science to be able to intelligently discuss the relative merits of Evolution and ID.. it takes a basic understanding of the Scientific Method, a clear reading of the scientific definition of 'theory' and some base critical thinking skills.. all of which USED to be taught in a 9th grade science class... but are definitely covered by the time you are up to College level Biology... of course if you get your Scientific opinions and education from a Church, your not very well prepared to participate....and of course as soon as you bring 'God' as a valid explanation to any scientific theory you've lost your way....(and are probably in the wrong building on campus )____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AlexCrowley 0 #75 August 5, 2005 QuoteIt doesnt take a PhD in biology or science to be able to intelligently discuss the relative merits of Evolution and ID.. it takes a basic understanding of the Scientific Method, a clear reading of the scientific definition of 'theory' and some base critical thinking skills.. of course if you get your Scientific opinions and education from a Church, your not very well prepared to participate....and of course as soon as you bring 'God' as a valid explanation to any scientific theory you've lost your way....(and are probably in the wrong building on campus ) I have to disagree here. But then we're going into the realm of 'what is knowledge'. I personally do not consider a collection of facts learned without understanding or context to be knowledge. It's just data. It becomes knowledge when we can integrate it into our personal body of understanding and use it as a tool. A hammer is just something to hit things unless you are a carpenter or someone with a modicum of carpentry skill. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I've read a lot of books on skydiving, several written for experienced skydivers. Would you trust me to teach someone how to pilot a canopy (with my 16 jumps)? I can quote passage and verse 3 or 4 of them without having to think hard about it. Does it make me an expert on skydiving? the skills involved are rudimentary, yes? Yes, ID sounds crazy to the non-believer, evolution sounds just as crazy to someone who believes in creationism and ID. Belief here is the key. Why do we accept Evolutionary theory as correct? Because our text books told us? Well they also told us a lot about history that proved to be wrong later in life too. I believe in evolution because the information I've read leads me to believe that it's true. I'm not so bad at science. I certainly dont feel that I can argue with someone moderately educated on the subject, or even hold my own talking to a bunch of natural scientists because I am merely a guy with a basic education in biology. In middle school I learnt Newtonian physics, only to be told that it was all wrong. I learnt modern physics at high school, and was told I was wrong, and then after everything I learn about quantum physics and EVERYTHING I thought I knew is wrong. What is knowledge? To me there is no difference between someone quoting Darwin 101 chapter and verse to someone quoting Genesis creation myths if the person has no great understanding than the words he cut and paste into a post. True knowledge should be something that you can use to extend learning, not a means to an end. That way only leads to formless data. As we've moved towards the information age we seem to have forgotten that. Which brings us back to the Google argument. Just because 100 Google-monkey's say it's right does not make it so. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 3 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kelpdiver 2 #59 August 5, 2005 Quote And yeah, i'll pay attention when the PhDs are on the thread because evolutionary theory and creationism are best discussed by people who have a background in it, as evidenced by the amount of disinformation already in the thread. But now I'm heading into a serious conversation again, which I've successfully avoided all day. High schoolers have the tools to debate this topic. The definition of science is easy to understand, as is the separation clause. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #60 August 5, 2005 I disagree, a high schooler can parrot what he has been taught. That's no different than Googling something and quoting it without comprehending context (there are a fair share of those on any forum). People with a real understanding of the field can argue intelligently and use knowledge rather than facts learnt by rote - personally I find that sort of conversation more interesting. Most of the discussions in SC tend towards philosophical debates, I dont feel that this one is and, personally, that means it has a different requirement with regards to information. No matter how much people will want to make it about ideology its about hard data. Yes, there are some people on both sides in this thread that obviously have a solid understanding, but they are in a minority. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #61 August 5, 2005 Quoteevolutionary theories for the moon’s origin [cough] the moon doesn't have anything to do with evolutionary theory... Can't help but laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ScottishJohn 25 #62 August 5, 2005 QuoteThe ability to Google does not make one an expert in a subject. Possibly the most intelligent thing I have ever heard in SC ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you think my attitude stinks you should smell my fingers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #63 August 5, 2005 QuoteI disagree, a high schooler can parrot what he has been taught. That's no different than Googling something and quoting it without comprehending context (there are a fair share of those on any forum). Some high school students are capable of critical, independent thought. Others are not. The same goes for advanced degree holders. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #64 August 5, 2005 and skydivers and forum posters Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #65 August 5, 2005 bla bla bla bla bla. I'm on Speakers Corner!! bla bla bla bla bla bla bla I'm right! You're wrong! bla bla bla bla bla (sorry. something left over from last night's liquid indulgences.) Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #66 August 5, 2005 QuoteQuoteI disagree, a high schooler can parrot what he has been taught. That's no different than Googling something and quoting it without comprehending context (there are a fair share of those on any forum). Some high school students are capable of critical, independent thought. Others are not. The same goes for advanced degree holders. Of course, but I should have been more clear: I feel that discussing a topic that requires a deep knowledge of - and deep understanding of - a scientific topic requires a solid background in said topic. Quoting Google is great, but without context to back it up it is still simply parroting someone elses thoughts and not being able to defend that position. I think that was my original point, my apologies for not making it clearer. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #67 August 5, 2005 While I agree that in and of itself using Google does not make one an expert, You will be hard pressed to find a superior research tool. Sure, it requires some critical thought to be able to filter out the BS, but I know of no other tool that allows such quick access to as much relevant information. (Actually, my favorite is http://scholar.google.com, which searches peer reviewed journals.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #68 August 5, 2005 You had me at number 1...Ok 2-18 as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #69 August 5, 2005 QuoteWhile I agree that in and of itself using Google does not make one an expert, You will be hard pressed to find a superior research tool. Sure, it requires some critical thought to be able to filter out the BS, but I know of no other tool that allows such quick access to as much relevant information. (Actually, my favorite is http://scholar.google.com, which searches peer reviewed journals.) We're in total agreement: "The ability to Google does not make one an expert in a subject.". considering my job involves a very large percentage of research, I use Google every day. But the dark side of Google is that its only as good as the info its indexing, and it ranks that by a number of things - including how important other people think the resource is. Do a search on things like aspartame, ritalin or even this subject: Evolution, and you'll find that the information out there at the top of the Google results are mostly uninformed bullshit quoted by people with no understanding of the topic at hand. Aspartame is a great example because there is so much bullshit out there which has been debunked time and time again yet has an unending shelf life. Snopes is not the answer, because that site is also riddled with errors because..............ta da.....they use Google to 'research' their answers. Three years ago a post cited Snopes and in 30 minutes I'd found 5 articles that were factually inaccurate and 4 that were outright incorrect. Thats why I dont mind the whole BS philosophy stuff we generally talk about but get all 'snippy' about discussing things like Evolution. It's too easy for those with a moderate level of education to read articles that seem solid but are debunked elsewhere, if you're not an expert how do you discern between fact and bullshit? That's the danger, and thats how we end up with mutant memes creating false realities, and then Kansas passes a law to put it into the education system or some other state puts warning stickers on science books. So, to summarize that blathering: Google is like any decent tool, excellent in the right hands but still useless in the wrong ones. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #70 August 5, 2005 QuoteTo, to summarize that blathering: Google is like any decent tool, excellent in the right hands but still useless in the wrong ones. I agree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricTheRed 0 #71 August 5, 2005 QuoteSo, to summarize that blathering: Google is like any decent tool, excellent in the right hands but still useless in the wrong ones ...and downright dangerous in the hands of others!illegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #72 August 5, 2005 QuoteQuoteSo, to summarize that blathering: Google is like any decent tool, excellent in the right hands but still useless in the wrong ones ...and downright dangerous in the hands of others! Yeah, absolutely. Personally I try to steer away from topics I know nothing about, but if its something I only know a little about I'll use Google for information, get a double source and then search for info debunking that. Which is why I generally try to avoid commenting on them as it's incredibly time consuming and most people dont appreciate it anyway :) Hence my desire to remain uncertain on nearly everything, except my uncertainty, of which I am certain. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricTheRed 0 #73 August 5, 2005 Not from a google... Quote ...we should not close off the dialogue and darken the already murky waters by fearing that God will be abandoned if we embrace the best of modern science... George Coyne, Vatican’s chief astronomer Speaking of the compatibility of evolution and belief in god in the publication UK Catholic weeklyillegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #74 August 5, 2005 It doesnt take a PhD in biology or science to be able to intelligently discuss the relative merits of Evolution and ID.. it takes a basic understanding of the Scientific Method, a clear reading of the scientific definition of 'theory' and some base critical thinking skills.. all of which USED to be taught in a 9th grade science class... but are definitely covered by the time you are up to College level Biology... of course if you get your Scientific opinions and education from a Church, your not very well prepared to participate....and of course as soon as you bring 'God' as a valid explanation to any scientific theory you've lost your way....(and are probably in the wrong building on campus )____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #75 August 5, 2005 QuoteIt doesnt take a PhD in biology or science to be able to intelligently discuss the relative merits of Evolution and ID.. it takes a basic understanding of the Scientific Method, a clear reading of the scientific definition of 'theory' and some base critical thinking skills.. of course if you get your Scientific opinions and education from a Church, your not very well prepared to participate....and of course as soon as you bring 'God' as a valid explanation to any scientific theory you've lost your way....(and are probably in the wrong building on campus ) I have to disagree here. But then we're going into the realm of 'what is knowledge'. I personally do not consider a collection of facts learned without understanding or context to be knowledge. It's just data. It becomes knowledge when we can integrate it into our personal body of understanding and use it as a tool. A hammer is just something to hit things unless you are a carpenter or someone with a modicum of carpentry skill. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I've read a lot of books on skydiving, several written for experienced skydivers. Would you trust me to teach someone how to pilot a canopy (with my 16 jumps)? I can quote passage and verse 3 or 4 of them without having to think hard about it. Does it make me an expert on skydiving? the skills involved are rudimentary, yes? Yes, ID sounds crazy to the non-believer, evolution sounds just as crazy to someone who believes in creationism and ID. Belief here is the key. Why do we accept Evolutionary theory as correct? Because our text books told us? Well they also told us a lot about history that proved to be wrong later in life too. I believe in evolution because the information I've read leads me to believe that it's true. I'm not so bad at science. I certainly dont feel that I can argue with someone moderately educated on the subject, or even hold my own talking to a bunch of natural scientists because I am merely a guy with a basic education in biology. In middle school I learnt Newtonian physics, only to be told that it was all wrong. I learnt modern physics at high school, and was told I was wrong, and then after everything I learn about quantum physics and EVERYTHING I thought I knew is wrong. What is knowledge? To me there is no difference between someone quoting Darwin 101 chapter and verse to someone quoting Genesis creation myths if the person has no great understanding than the words he cut and paste into a post. True knowledge should be something that you can use to extend learning, not a means to an end. That way only leads to formless data. As we've moved towards the information age we seem to have forgotten that. Which brings us back to the Google argument. Just because 100 Google-monkey's say it's right does not make it so. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
