Louisiana rolls back The Enlightenment.

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
281
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
It's hard to believe, but maybe it'll pass. Still, Louisiana is one of the BIG THREE States where stupidity has traditionally been part of public school curriculum; the other two States being Mississippi and Ewetaw.

I hope this bill becomes a "trend" with all the States in the USA. Otherwise, why bother sending your kids to school at all? Keep 'em home and teach them the world is flat.

who has run the state of Louisana recently?
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
JA,

By your logic even if you knew someone who was in the Civil War it would still be a theory.

Regardless, I don't see the "Theory of the Civil War." It is simply fact. We either know it because it is recorded or it is forgotten and is as if it never happened.

The perception of reality of the Civil War can have theory at this point. Why was there a Civil War? But so is why did we invade Iraq?

Peace.
 
Last edited:

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
JA,

By your logic even if you knew someone who was in the Civil War it would still be a theory.

Regardless, I don't see the "Theory of the Civil War." It is simply fact. We either know it because it is recorded or it is forgotten and is as if it never happened.

The perception of reality of the Civil War can have theory at this point. Why was there a Civil War? But so is why did we invade Iraq?

Peace.

Spiker,
Excellent. Thanks for engaging with this. I agree with the second thing you said, which is that there are subjective things about the CW that are debatable such as the motives for starting it to begin with.

But to your first point of there possibly being a living eyewitness to the CW, I maintain that it still doesn't solve the problem. The testimony of a single person doesn't hold up in a court of law, and it is far less important in the pursuit of science. Suppose the person who claims to be an eyewitness to the CW is deluded, crazy, or deliberately lying in order to profit somehow (like writing a book)?

In a court of law, the opposing council would seek to discredit the witness by impuning that the eyewitness is not credible for some reason or another. In science, the pesonal testimony alone would have no standing at all. It would be rejected as an 'appeal to authority'. This would be true even if the person making the claim is a Nobel Prize winner. In fact, Nobel Prize winners say all kinds of wacky stuff when talking outside their field.

The question is, what is missing from the personal eyewitness testimony that would give it creedence in a court of law or in scientific inquiry? What would turn the eyewitness testimony into something of value in supporting the theory of CW?

Keep going with this, spiker. I am trying to show the similarity between how well we know things through fact vs how well we know things through theory.
 
Last edited:

dude252007

1st Like
Joined
Oct 31, 2007
Posts
60
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
93
But Louisiana can't be wrong. Obama is the first black president and so he can do nothing wrong and everything he says he perfect. Louisiana has the first Indian gov. and since he is the first one of that race he can do nothing wrong, right? That's how it goes for Obama.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
But Louisiana can't be wrong. Obama is the first black president and so he can do nothing wrong and everything he says he perfect. Louisiana has the first Indian gov. and since he is the first one of that race he can do nothing wrong, right? That's how it goes for Obama.
You seem to have pretty high expectations for Obama and Jindal. Why is that?

The rest of the country has plenty of concerns about the challenges Obama faces, regardless of their support and confidence. A recent NBC/WSJ poll shows this pretty well, according to MSNBC.

For example, the article says,

NBC/MSJ Poll said:
“He has gotten his honeymoon before he has taken his vows of office,” says Hart, the Democratic pollster.

Yet Hart also points to a few issues where Obama seems to have “narrow running room.” For example, 52 percent say they’re concerned that Obama will go too far in providing financial aid and loans to corporations that are facing bankruptcy; 49 percent are concerned that he will make the health-care system large and too bureaucratic; and another 49 percent are concerned that he will raise taxes.

I think the world of Obama, but I am realistic about the tough challenges he is facing.
 
Last edited:

BIGBULL29

Worshipped Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Posts
7,603
Media
52
Likes
14,202
Points
343
Location
State College (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
Pansexual
Gender
Male
bull,
I think you are onto something there. You are a crafty character. But what is it that you would teach? The Christian creation story minus the Christian God, or the Hindu creation story, minus its God, or the Navaho story? I think you see my point. And finally, why would you teach any of the creation myths at all in science class? Isn't that the exact opposite of science? It's kind of like telling kids that some 'unspecified highly talented life form' comes down the chimney on Christmas Eve and leaves them presents.

Actually, the idea of Intelligent Design was made up to accomplish what you are proposing with the same lack of intellectual honesty that you are also proposing. Although the mission statement of the organization that is proposing ID talks about putting the Christian God into the practice of all disciplines, their claim is that life on the planet shows signs of being designed by an some unspecified intelligent and purposeful agent, rather than having evolved through a natural process.

Their claim is that the identity of the intelligent agent cannot yet be determined and it could easily be an intelligent life form from somewhere else. By avoiding the claim that the agent is supernatural, they think they can introduce ID into the public school curriculum and avoid a Constitutional challenge.

But once again, I ask, why make something up that has no evidence to it and teach it as an alternative scientific theory? That makes as much sense as teaching medical students that babies are flown in by 'unspecified flying creatures' so as to avoid mentioning storks.

And finally, the con game didn't work anyway. The school board in Dover, PA tried to introduce ID into the science curriculum and ended up losing in Federal Court because the judge saw through the ruse. The school board ended up losing the case and owing a million dollars in court fees.

The reason why they lost is that the judge saw through the scam and easily recognized ID as simply warmed over Creationism with God taken out so as to avoid a Constitutional challenge. In his landmark 138 page decision, he called the attempt 'stunningly innane'. And this is a conservative, Bush appointed, Lutheran church going Christian judge who believes as I do that God created the universe.

Creationism should be briefly discussed in science class for the mere reason that all civilizations throughout history have believed that humanity was the product of the wishes of a higher being or beings. Never has there been an atheistic society. Even in today's world, the vast majority people claim to believe in at a least one god. And so, to eliminate that theory from the different theories on life's origins discussed in science class would be to ignore humanity's resonating voice throughout history to explain that which cannot be explained by science.

Yes, atheism should be discussed, but Satanism wouldn't be put in a separate category because Satanists are Creationists (They just side with the devil, who was created by God).:biggrin1:
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Creationism should be briefly discussed in science class for the mere reason that all civilizations throughout history have believed that humanity was the product of the wishes of a higher being or beings. Never has there been an atheistic society. Even in today's world, the vast majority people claim to believe in at a least one god. And so, to eliminate that theory from the different theories on life's origins discussed in science class would be to ignore humanity's resonating voice throughout history to explain that which cannot be explained by science.

Yes, atheism should be discussed, but Satanism wouldn't be put in a separate category because Satanists are Creationists (They just side with the devil, who was created by God).:biggrin1:

bull,
I think that is a good idea. But I do have a problem with interjecting God wherever we don't yet have an natrual explanation. They call that the God of the Gaps, where God lives only in our areas of ignorance about the universe. The problem with that is that God gets smaller every day, because the gaps in our understanding gets smaller every day.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Spiker,
Excellent. Thanks for engaging with this. I agree with the second thing you said, which is that there are subjective things about the CW that are debatable such as the motives for starting it to begin with.

But to your first point of there possibly being a living eyewitness to the CW, I maintain that it still doesn't solve the problem. The testimony of a single person doesn't hold up in a court of law, and it is far less important in the pursuit of science. Suppose the person who claims to be an eyewitness to the CW is deluded, crazy, or deliberately lying in order to profit somehow (like writing a book)?....

I must have read your post late at night and skimmed it, my bad. Where I read "someone" (or one) you actually wrote 'people'. And most of your arguments were points I would have made.

Tell me though.

1) When life began was it a single cell in Africa that "begat" all life or did it spontaneously occur at several different spots all over the world and many different cells begat all of life? Can the theory of evolution ever tell us that or is that lost forever (Philosphical answer(s) will do)?

2) Are there evolutionary molecules (I've read one paragraph on this so far)? Because if you follow the Second Law of Thermo (i.e. entropy) you would guess this NOT to be possible. I reconcile this by saying that man is not in a highly ordered state, man is in the lowest state of energy possible(j/k).

3) And finally, when was the last major catastrophic event (i.e. super-volcano, killer asteroid, ice age) that "killed off virtually all life on earth" (Nova/Carl Sagan supplied hyperbole) ? Was that 100,000 years ago or 80,000? Yet we have all these different life forms today. I'll have to look into it. Is 100,000 years enough to created all this biodiversity or is the hyperbole scientifically supplied exaggeration?

I believe evolution is the most probable mechanism by which God created life here on earth. I think a grander god would have done it so. Billions or years scales more to a god like number than the 5,000 and chump some believers insist on.

I think the philosophy of science should be taught in H.S. and that in that context questions should be raised about creation and how it relates to science and how science does not preclude creation at all. After all why let people use science as a crutch against creation, as an excuse NOT to believe when The Theory of Evolution is so evidently not able to definitively do that no matter how much Dawkins squacks about it?

In other words start looking for legitimate compromise. You wouldn't be against that, would you?
 
Last edited:

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
But not murder and stealing. Those views are are innate to the human mind.

I guess that explains the Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, Viking raiders, head hunters or other pagans that practiced human sacrifice. It explains also the mongol hordes? Or the Roman practice of crucifixion? Or does NOT murdering and NOT stealing need NOT apply across tribal lines.

No, I'm sorry dude it is not innate to the human mind. It takes a God to make 'inalienable rights'. If they were innate there would be no murder or stealing.
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,027
Media
29
Likes
7,873
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I guess that explains the Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, Viking raiders, head hunters or other pagans that practiced human sacrifice. It explains also the mongol hordes? Or the Roman practice of crucifixion? Or does NOT murdering and NOT stealing need NOT apply across tribal lines.

No, I'm sorry dude it is not innate to the human mind. It takes a God to make 'inalienable rights'. If they were innate there would be no murder or stealing.
I can't follow your historical argument. You cite several instances of people with theistic beliefs who condoned killing human beings in certain instances, such as ritual sacrifice, warfare, and punishment for a crime. How is this supposed to support any claim that belief in God is either necessary for or conducive to not killing or stealing? Perhaps you mean to make the claim that monotheistic beliefs are different in this respect from polytheistic ones. But the only point of difference that monotheism has made on these points is that it does not license ritual sacrifice of human beings (though it does that of animals, as in ancient Judaism).
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
I can't follow your historical argument. You cite several instances of people with theistic beliefs who condoned killing human beings in certain instances, such as ritual sacrifice, warfare, and punishment for a crime. How is this supposed to support any claim that belief in God is either necessary for or conducive to not killing or stealing? Perhaps you mean to make the claim that monotheistic beliefs are different in this respect from polytheistic ones. But the only point of difference that monotheism has made on these points is that it does not license ritual sacrifice of human beings (though it does that of animals, as in ancient Judaism).

If it was innate it would have to be universal and true throughout history. It hasn't been and so it must be codified. The argument does follows.

Many of those men who killed and stole, though in a theistic culture, did those things while atheists.

Have you ever thought of killing someone? Have you ever stolen anything? Well, there you go killing is innate as is stealing (I simply wouldn't believe you if you said no to either of these question). I'd also bet you didn't feel guilty in either case.
 

D_Kissimmee Coldsore

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Posts
526
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
103
1) When life began was it a single cell in Africa that "begat" all life or did it spontaneously occur at several different spots all over the world and many different cells begat all of life? Can the theory of evolution ever tell us that or is that lost forever (Philosphical answer(s) will do)?
Well hundreds of millions of years ago there was no Africa, never mind the billions involved in the evolution of life. And common belief nowadays is that there was probably no single common ancestor or ancestral life-form for all living things, some different processes are seen in DNA and RNA transfer in the different domains of life. Also there was very likely lateral transfer of genetic code in basic life-forms so it does get messy from the point of view of trying to classify everything on a linear branching "tree of life".

2) Are there evolutionary molecules (I've read one paragraph on this so far)? Because if you follow the Second Law of Thermo (i.e. entropy) you would guess this NOT to be possible. I reconcile this by saying that man is not in a highly ordered state, man is in the lowest state of energy possible(j/k).
I remember reading some articles on this topic, I think the jist of it can be seen Entropy and life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As far as evolutionary molecules go, do you mean like DNA? Because when you get down to the basic replication of proteins and acids required it becomes hazy when exactly you have biology and not chemistry.

3) And finally, when was the last major catastrophic event (i.e. super-volcano, killer asteroid, ice age) that "killed off virtually all life on earth" (Nova/Carl Sagan supplied hyperbole) ? Was that 100,000 years ago or 80,000? Yet we have all these different life forms today. I'll have to look into it. Is 100,000 years enough to created all this biodiversity or is the hyperbole scientifically supplied exaggeration?
100,000 years is maybe only enough time to explain the genetic diversity in humans. The Homo and Pan (chimps and bonobos) branches are probably seperated by somewhere in the order of 5 million years.
The last big one was the famed end-of-dinosaur K-T boundary event 65mya. Then it's thought maybe 3/4 or so of all species died out in one relatively swift go. Species go extinct all the time but big extinction events open up evolutionary niches that accelerate the evolution of new distinct species and dominant classes or orders (the dinosaurs after the Permian-Triassic, mammals and birds after the K-T).

After all why let people use science as a crutch against creation, as an excuse NOT to believe when The Theory of Evolution is so evidently not able to definitively do that no matter how much Dawkins squacks about it?
I've personally never had an excuse TO believe in a God. There is a whole body of evidence that make evolution the most plausible way life appeared on Earth. I have never seen any evidence that backed up creationism for me. That is the crux of the matter as far as I'm concerned.
And nothing at all could ever definitively disprove creation by a higher being if that being is supposedly beyond our conceptual ability altogether. That's again not a reason to then just believe what others say, I might as well make up my own transcient being.

Many of those men who killed and stole, though in a theistic culture, did those things while atheists.
Could you give an example of this please? How can you know the personal beliefs of a Viking Lord or Aztec High Priest?
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,027
Media
29
Likes
7,873
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
If it was innate it would have to be universal and true throughout history. It hasn't been and so it must be codified. The argument does follows.
If what were innate? I can't tell what point you are trying to establish.
Many of those men who killed and stole, though in a theistic culture, did those things while atheists.
Interesting that you are able to know this. Care to explain how?
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
NOT, my problem you haven't been following the thread. But someone else brought up my point in response to MarkLondon:

Originally Posted by MarkLondon

But not murder and stealing. Those views are are innate to the human mind.

If what were innate? I can't tell what point you are trying to establish.

Interesting that you are able to know this. Care to explain how?




 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,027
Media
29
Likes
7,873
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
NOT, my problem you haven't been following the thread. But someone else brought up my point in response to MarkLondon:

Originally Posted by MarkLondon http://www.lpsg.org/118442-louisiana-rolls-back-the-enlightenment-post1945638.html#post1945638http://www.lpsg.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
But not murder and stealing. Those views are are innate to the human mind.

I have been following the thread. You have made no clear statement of a thesis. I thought that by pressing you with further questions, I could get a clearer statement out of you. But that appears to be something that does not interest you.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I must have read your post late at night and skimmed it, my bad. Where I read "someone" (or one) you actually wrote 'people'. And most of your arguments were points I would have made.

Tell me though.

1) When life began was it a single cell in Africa that "begat" all life or did it spontaneously occur at several different spots all over the world and many different cells begat all of life? Can the theory of evolution ever tell us that or is that lost forever (Philosphical answer(s) will do)?

I don't think anyone has suggested that the first cell started in Africa. It is possible that life began in more than one instance. But it would only be speculation to make that claim. There is too much similarity in DNA across the species to make a strong case for multiple origins.

We share 50% of our DNA with banannas, 40-50% with cabbage, and 60% with a fruit fly, for example. It is unlikely that life originating in two independent locations would take exactly the same path to producing DNA this similar.

2) Are there evolutionary molecules (I've read one paragraph on this so far)? Because if you follow the Second Law of Thermo (i.e. entropy) you would guess this NOT to be possible. I reconcile this by saying that man is not in a highly ordered state, man is in the lowest state of energy possible(j/k).

DNA is a self-replicating molecule. It is capable of making copies of itself, however, it usually makes imperfect copies. This is how it evolves.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to a closed system. When a system is not closed and energy is pumped into it, there is plenty of opportunity for entropy to be reduced. The entire earth is an open system and the energy pouring into it from the sun fuels localized decreases in entropy in all kinds of forms, from living organisms to hurricanes. If you doubt that entropy can be reduced by external energy coming into a system, I dare you to stand in the path of a tornado.

3) And finally, when was the last major catastrophic event (i.e. super-volcano, killer asteroid, ice age) that "killed off virtually all life on earth" (Nova/Carl Sagan supplied hyperbole) ? Was that 100,000 years ago or 80,000? Yet we have all these different life forms today. I'll have to look into it. Is 100,000 years enough to created all this biodiversity or is the hyperbole scientifically supplied exaggeration?

The most recent major extinction event is called the Cretacous-Tertiary extinction which took place about 65 million years ago. Probably a huge asteroid impact. Extinction: 16% of marine familes and 18% land vertebrate familes including dinosaurs.

The most recent minor extinction event is the Pleistocene or Ice Age event which took place 40,000 - 50,000 years ago in which mostly the very large mammals of over 45kg were affected. In North America that would be such things as the Mammoths, Mastodons, Saber Tooth Tiger, and stuff like that.

I believe evolution is the most probable mechanism by which God created life here on earth. I think a grander god would have done it so. Billions or years scales more to a god like number than the 5,000 and chump some believers insist on.

Actually, the ToE makes no claims about the origins of life. It is a theory that explains the diversity of life on the planet. There is speculation about the origins of life and the first self-replicating molecules, but there is not much to go on yet.

But as for life's diversity I believe as you do in theistic evolution, as do some 80% of the world's Christians who belong to denominations whose doctrines embrace science and specifically recognize the ToE as the best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet.


I think the philosophy of science should be taught in H.S. and in that context questions should be raised about creation and how it relates to science and how science does not preclude creation at all. After all why let people use science as a crutch against creation, as an excuse NOT to believe when The Theory of Evolution is so evidently not able to definitively do that no matter how much Dawkins squacks about it?

I also think PoS should be taught in HS. And I think I agree with the rest of your paragraph if what you are saying is that science is not dealing with anything except natural processes. It is incapable of working with anything that cannot be measured repeatedly by more than one person. As such, it can make no claims about anything outside the world of natural processes.

Therefore it can make no claim about Creation. All it can do is ask for verifiable evidence for it.

Within that definition, there is no scientific evidence for or against the existence of God. I agree with you that Dawkin's arguments against the existence of God are not very impressive. But for that matter, there is also no evidence for the existence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I am a big fan of Dawkins as a professional scientist and a great popularizer of science. I am not impressed with his writings on God and religion. I read the The God Delusion and was greatly disappointed. I wanted him to challenge my faith with something new and provocative, but I found nothing new in his book.

In other words start looking for legitimate compromise. You wouldn't be against that, would you?

Now you lost me. Are you suggesting that we teach our children in science class how science only deals with independently verifiable and repeatable observations of natural processes except in the case of the Biblical story of creation?

Wouldn't you have to extend the Creation lesson to the creation myths of all the world's religions? How would you handle the lab section on the Great Turtle in the Navajo story?

Finally, would you include the Flying Spaghetti Monster or not? If not, then by what criteria would you exclude it? The point here is that at the moment there are no scientific theories that challenge ToE. Creationism is a religious belief. It doesn't belong in science class.


Oh, yes, I wonder if you could read my post about the Civil War theory and comment on that. I am trying to say something about the nature of fact and theory.
 
Last edited:

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
JA,

What are your thoughts about the anthropogenic nature of global warming? Still the same or do you believe like me that Obama only has four more years to save Hansen's reputation.

You did hear how Hansen said Obama only had four more years to save our asses right?

President Obama 'has four years to save Earth' | Environment | The Observer

spiker,
I am not sure what you meant by 'still the same'. I am not sure how to answer a question about believing or not believing in a mainstream scientific theory. The scientific community of professional climatologists have concluded that AGW is the best explanation for the data before them. I think that neither you nor I are qualified to refute those findings.

As for Hansen's article, I have to say that an article like that in the popular press has very little scientific value. What has value is what he has submitted to professional peer reviewed climatology journals and how well it withstands the test of professional scrutiny.

I hope he is wrong about how fast the sea levels will rise, though. That is pretty scary. Fortunately, I live at 1300 ft or so in Ohio.