Absolutely un-***** believable!

Mott the Hoople said:
They do, do they? Can you cite me one instance where a climate scientist has committed an act of violence related to opposition to climate change research?
Click to expand...

He didn't say "'climate scientist", he said liberal fanatics....probably meaning the environmentalist wackos...
 
Grecian said:
Science should be used to discover the truth, not to pass human speculation off as fact. Evolution is speculative. There is no harm in introducing the Divine into this subject.
Click to expand...
What a crock of total bullshit. Science serves one purpose and one purpose only. To model natural phenomena. Revealing and discovering truth is the work of philosophers and theologians and IT IS NOT WHAT SCIENTIST DO and if you were educated in science you would know that.

As for introducing the devine.....the fact that you don't understand how science works is a pretty strong indicator of why you wouldn't understand why "the devine" is problemantic in science. Science is not revealed knowledge from some authority. Your ignorance of science is astounding and you want to preach to those of us who spent many years studying and working in science how to teach our profession? You're either nuts or stupid or both.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
There is a consensus of scientist that human activity is impacting climate. How is that a scientific theory? Which is my point. Look I'm not going to be dragged into a climate change debate. The point I'm making is that the idea that someone who doesn't even have a comprehension of what a scientific theory is, like 007, Dixie and PiMP, can be permitted to undermine sound science education in our public schools is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...


Are you actually claiming that consensus = fact.....?

Can't "scientific theory" be the product of a single scientist ?

Just asking.
 
Grecian said:
Science should be used to discover the truth, not to pass human speculation off as fact. Evolution is speculative. There is no harm in introducing the Divine into this subject.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is, you have no proof of the Divine, talk bout speculation!
 
NOVA said:
Are you actually claiming that consensus = fact.....?

Can't "scientific theory" be the product of a single scientist ?

Just asking.
Click to expand...

Those are good questions.

First Question: No. Consensus does not equal fact. It means that there is a general agreement about the facts.

Second Question: No, a valid scientific theory cannot be the product of a single scientist. That doesn't mean that the single scientist is wrong or that the scientific insight is not the product of a single scientist mind but that the scientific method requires that any hypothesis proposed by a single scientist be independently tested, the results verified and the results published and peer reviewed before it could be considered a valid scientific theory.
 
Last edited:
NOVA said:
I've read and re-read the op and can't separate LoIQ's opinions from what these 4 states are in fact proposing.....he extrapolates
to conclusions that are far from what I see is proposed.
Backdoor way, potentially creationist, creationist-linked, another attempt to bring creationism in through the back door ?.....What does all this conjecture mean in reality ?

A bill has been introduced in the state house of representatives that would require teachers to "respectfully explore scientific questions and learn about scientific evidence related to biological and chemical evolution".
So is there something dangerous about "respectfully exploring scientific questions and learning about scientific evidence related to biological and chemical evolution ?
Seems to me that is the purpose of academics......

No one I know is in favor of teaching "religious dogma" as science in a public school unless the purpose of the class IS to examine religious beliefs as a separate subject....no different than
a class on classical music or modern poetry.
If the purpose of a class is "The Origin of Man"....then all theories need to be examined.....from evolution to space invaders...

Maybe LoIQ is just shouting fire and spreading fear to further some agenda of his.....I think a lot more detailed information is needed before we start a panic.
Click to expand...
No it's not. The Bill is about providing relgious groups the legal right to teach their religious dogma in a publicly funded institution. Competent science teachers all ready thoughtfully and respectfully teach the evidence for biological evolution (there is no such thing as chemical evolution. Chemicals react. Living systems evolve.). The problem with permiting the teaching of psuedoscientific and/or religious beliefs in the science class room is that it undermines the validity of real science. It confuses the students that psuedoscience, like Intelligent Design Creationism, is on equal footing with valid scientific theories, such as, biological evolution. It's not only poor science it's poor pedagoguery. That's the problem with these bills.
 
Grecian said:
Science should be used to discover the truth, not to pass human speculation off as fact. Evolution is speculative. There is no harm in introducing the Divine into this subject.
Click to expand...

Actually there is harm. When you introduce the divine youget people inventing "could be"s. Look at our discussion on the story of Noah's Ark or of the sun standing still in the sky. There is no evidence, but the response given was that a divine being could do it and not leave evidence.

There is no way to scientifically quantify the divine.
 
007 said:
How is the philosophy of questioning everything undermining science?

Emperical observations can only explain a small amount of what impacts our daily lives and existence in general.
An open mind is now considered to be undermining education?
Click to expand...
How does it undermine science? Well hell that's obvious. Because when the questions you pose are not based on natural phenomena your not discussing science. Even then it's perfectly fine to ask those questions. They're just irrelevent in a science class and wasting time answering those questions, in a science class, undermines teaching real science based on emperical observations of natural phenomena. As soon as your question brings God or some supernatural phenomena into play you have stopped teaching science and are teaching something other than science. That's a problem in a science class to state the obvious.
 
WinterBorn said:
Actually there is harm. When you introduce the divine youget people inventing "could be"s. Look at our discussion on the story of Noah's Ark or of the sun standing still in the sky. There is no evidence, but the response given was that a divine being could do it and not leave evidence.

There is no way to scientifically quantify the divine.
Click to expand...
It's not so much that there isn't a way to quantify the devine as that either quantifying or qualifying the divine is complelty outside the scope of science. Science has nothing to say about the nature of the divine.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
How does it undermine science? Well hell that's obvious. Because when the questions you pose are not based on natural phenomena your not discussing science. Even then it's perfectly fine to ask those questions. They're just irrelevent in a science class and wasting time answering those questions, in a science class, undermines teaching real science based on emperical observations of natural phenomena. As soon as your question brings God or some supernatural phenomena into play you have stopped teaching science and are teaching something other than science. That's a problem in a science class to state the obvious.
Click to expand...
Natural phenomena are not science?
Photosynthesis is a natural phenomenon, discovered by science, but is not science?

Gravity a natural phenomenon was not discovered by a scientist?

You will note that by implying that I ever once mentioned god you have just proved something.

Your dishonesty and possibly ignorance, perhaps retardation!

I'm an atheist.
Not an intolerant prosetlysing atheist like you who wishes to force his beliefs on others, but a live and let live atheist.

Live and let live, you liberals hate that sentiment, don't you!
 
007 said:
Natural phenomena are not science?
Photosynthesis is a natural phenomenon, discovered by science, but is not science?

Gravity a natural phenomenon was not discovered by a scientist?

You will note that by implying that I ever once mentioned god you have just proved something.

Your dishonesty and possibly ignorance, perhaps retardation!

I'm an atheist.
Not an intolerant prosetlysing atheist like you who wishes to force his beliefs on others, but a live and let live atheist.

Live and let live, you liberals hate that sentiment, don't you!
Click to expand...

But it is pretty much inevitable that there will at least be a mention of a divine spirit or of an intelligence outside of our knowledge. Look at this thread. It has already happened.

Also, Mott stated "Because when the questions you pose are not based on natural phenomena your not discussing science". Which means he is only talking about natural phenomena. Science is only interested in natural phenomena.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Those are good questions.

First Question: No. Consensus does not equal fact. It means that there is a general agreement about the facts.

Second Question: No, a valid scientific theory cannot be the product of a single scientist. That doesn't mean that the single scientist is wrong or that the scientific insight is not the product of a single scientist mind but that the scientific method requires that any hypothesis proposed by a single scientist be independently tested, the results verified and the results published and peer reviewed before it could be considered a valid scientific theory.
Click to expand...


FACTS don't require a consensus....facts are facts.....
Consensus is a general agreement about a hypothesis or opinion ..

So....Einstein's theory of relativity was the product of 'several scientists'.....can you tell me who they were ?
And of course Einstein's Special Theory of relativity, must have been the product of several too.....which you will supply for the readers.....

No need to clutter up the debate with scientific method or hypothesis.....they're not relevant to my questions......
now lets see you wiggle and spin, and bluster and blow smoke.
 
NOVA said:
FACTS don't require a consensus....facts are facts.....
Consensus is a general agreement about a hypothesis or opinion ..

So....Einstein's theory of relativity was the product of 'several scientists'.....can you tell me who they were ?
And of course Einstein's Special Theory of relativity, must have been the product of several too.....which you will supply for the readers.....

No need to clutter up the debate with scientific method or hypothesis.....they're not relevant to my questions......
now lets see you wiggle and spin, and bluster and blow smoke.
Click to expand...

First of all, I doubt you have anything but the vaguest idea of what Einstein's theories are about.

Second of all, do you think Einstein worked in a vacuum and started from scratch on all of his theories?
 
NOVA said:
I've read and re-read the op and can't separate LoIQ's opinions from what these 4 states are in fact proposing.....he extrapolates
to conclusions that are far from what I see is proposed.
Backdoor way, potentially creationist, creationist-linked, another attempt to bring creationism in through the back door ?.....What does all this conjecture mean in reality ?

A bill has been introduced in the state house of representatives that would require teachers to "respectfully explore scientific questions and learn about scientific evidence related to biological and chemical evolution".
So is there something dangerous about "respectfully exploring scientific questions and learning about scientific evidence related to biological and chemical evolution ?
Seems to me that is the purpose of academics......

No one I know is in favor of teaching "religious dogma" as science in a public school unless the purpose of the class IS to examine religious beliefs as a separate subject....no different than
a class on classical music or modern poetry.
If the purpose of a class is "The Origin of Man"....then all theories need to be examined.....from evolution to space invaders...

Maybe LoIQ is just shouting fire and spreading fear to further some agenda of his.....I think a lot more detailed information is needed before we start a panic.
Click to expand...

Simply a cut and paste from the Guardian. Take it up with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top