U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-13-2009, 11:09 AM
 
3,283 posts, read 4,563,552 times
Reputation: 748

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by flik_becky View Post
HUH?! I'm confused. Ok, did you watch those shows about Ardi on Discovery?? All I'm saying is that theories can and should be analyzed by students but they should be taught as theories that are waiting for the next new theory to come along and prove or challenge it. I also agree that when we teach the history of science, we need to be more indepth about what happened and how it impacted other bits of history and/or science. But to discount teaching anyone to understand a theory we may not all agree with is saying that only one or two views must be taught as gold. The problem with that is the same problem we had when the Roman Catholic Church wiped through Europe, killing, burning, and outlawing anything that they did not have printed in a book that they put together of careful choosing of certain chapters ( I recall learning in church as a child that the King James version was the only version to believe). When people learned the earth was round, it took a lot longer to get people to come around to that idea because they went after anyone with that idea and said it was wrong because there was no proof. As long as someone kept passing that idea on, eventually technology was available to prove or disprove that theory, and in this case, proved it. By teaching everyone that evolution is a theory and allowing them to explore it, as technology advances, they will be able to expand on that theory when we no longer exsist, one way or the other, in ways we can not imagine.
thank you becky
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-13-2009, 11:12 AM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 22,476,185 times
Reputation: 3869
Quote:
Originally Posted by flik_becky View Post
HUH?! I'm confused. Ok, did you watch those shows about Ardi on Discovery?? All I'm saying is that theories can and should be analyzed by students but they should be taught as theories that are waiting for the next new theory to come along and prove or challenge it. I also agree that when we teach the history of science, we need to be more indepth about what happened and how it impacted other bits of history and/or science. But to discount teaching anyone to understand a theory we may not all agree with is saying that only one or two views must be taught as gold. The problem with that is the same problem we had when the Roman Catholic Church wiped through Europe, killing, burning, and outlawing anything that they did not have printed in a book that they put together of careful choosing of certain chapters ( I recall learning in church as a child that the King James version was the only version to believe). When people learned the earth was round, it took a lot longer to get people to come around to that idea because they went after anyone with that idea and said it was wrong because there was no proof. As long as someone kept passing that idea on, eventually technology was available to prove or disprove that theory, and in this case, proved it. By teaching everyone that evolution is a theory and allowing them to explore it, as technology advances, they will be able to expand on that theory when we no longer exsist, one way or the other, in ways we can not imagine.
Ummmm... Somewhere along the line you were either taught wrongly, or remember wrongly.

The King James Version of the Bible wasn't around until 1612 - and that's long after the period of history you're talking about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2009, 11:13 AM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 22,476,185 times
Reputation: 3869
Quote:
Originally Posted by 58robbo View Post
let me guess, the thought police? thanks jturd88 for putting thoughts and words in my mouth!
You'll get used to it. It's one of his specialties. You'll learn the others soon enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2009, 11:31 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn, NY
136 posts, read 202,180 times
Reputation: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by 58robbo View Post
let me guess, the thought police? thanks jturd88 for putting thoughts and words in my mouth! i'd kinda prefer it if this thread could stay open for those who understand the underlying issue ie challenging conventional wisdom, to comment. evidently you have nothing to add so perhaps you should go play in traffic

So, the underlying issue is "Challenging conventional wisdom". Okay.

Now, are you suggesting we challenge conventional wisdom by NOT researching things? Do you think we should abandon logic and just go with our "gut feelings"?

Are you a crusader for ignorance? You cannot legitimately challenge something if you have nothing to challenge it with. Skepticism is healthy. But using ignorance as an argument against something purely because it is 'conventional wisdom' is one of the most illogical things I have ever read.

What was the point of this thread? And why did you single out evolution? It seems that you are just trying to say: "Hey guys, I DO NOT know things!" Well, that is terrific.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2009, 11:33 AM
 
3,283 posts, read 4,563,552 times
Reputation: 748
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-Ray-X View Post
Why start a thread about it then?




Have you gotten around to believing that Saturn exists or are you going to suspend judgement until you have time to peruse the research on the subject?

was bored and watched a rerun of the primary debates where gop candidates were asked whether they believe in evolution. this topic comes up regularly in this type of debate and i find it absurd that people make their decisions based on the answer. the left will dismiss creationists or those unwilling to answer as archaic and ignorant whilst the supposed conservatives generally dismiss the left as the antichrist for discounting creationism.

all this on a topic which as far as i know does not have any irrefutable evidence in its favor. if i were forced to choose which was more plausible or had a greater evidence obviously i'd have to go with darwin on that but it annoys me to think that conventional wisdom does not consider that there might be a third, as yet unproposed, way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2009, 11:47 AM
 
3,283 posts, read 4,563,552 times
Reputation: 748
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyBurgBK View Post
So, the underlying issue is "Challenging conventional wisdom". Okay.

Now, are you suggesting we challenge conventional wisdom by NOT researching things? Do you think we should abandon logic and just go with our "gut feelings"?

Are you a crusader for ignorance? You cannot legitimately challenge something if you have nothing to challenge it with. Skepticism is healthy. But using ignorance as an argument against something purely because it is 'conventional wisdom' is one of the most illogical things I have ever read.

What was the point of this thread? And why did you single out evolution? It seems that you are just trying to say: "Hey guys, I DO NOT know things!" Well, that is terrific.
i agree with you, skepticism is healthy. no i'm not a crusader for ignorance. i just cannot stand it when people are heavily criticised for beliefs outside of the mainstream when the majority of those doing the criticising are quoting from a 5th grade textbook.

why evolution? i guess the theory of plate tectonics doesn't quite rile peoples emotions. the key difference for me is that when i covered these subjects at school the one was presented as fact and the other as theory
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2009, 11:48 AM
 
2,005 posts, read 5,125,446 times
Reputation: 1447
what a weird thread! When someone says something as ludicrous as "I don't believe in evolution", then well, everything they say after that becomes irrelevant to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2009, 11:53 AM
 
13 posts, read 7,817 times
Reputation: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by 58robbo View Post
was bored and watched a rerun of the primary debates where gop candidates were asked whether they believe in evolution. this topic comes up regularly in this type of debate and i find it absurd that people make their decisions based on the answer. the left will dismiss creationists or those unwilling to answer as archaic and ignorant whilst the supposed conservatives generally dismiss the left as the antichrist for discounting creationism.

all this on a topic which as far as i know does not have any irrefutable evidence in its favor. if i were forced to choose which was more plausible or had a greater evidence obviously i'd have to go with darwin on that but it annoys me to think that conventional wisdom does not consider that there might be a third, as yet unproposed, way.
How do you know that these people you are talking about are basing their beliefs on what a politician says? How do you know that they have not researched it themselves?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2009, 11:56 AM
 
6,039 posts, read 9,217,515 times
Reputation: 3933
Quote:
Originally Posted by 58robbo View Post
i make a call depending on the issue. what i wouldn't do is criticise or argue with someone using conventional wisdom as the basis for my argument.
You hardly exhibit 'conventional' wisdom. If you only make the call depending on the issue, then you're not using wisdom, you're being a knee-jerk reactionary, petrified that what you might learn will smash your narrow-minded little worldview into many tiny, irrelevant pieces.

Please stay out of the gene pool.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2009, 11:56 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn, NY
136 posts, read 202,180 times
Reputation: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by 58robbo View Post
i agree with you, skepticism is healthy. no i'm not a crusader for ignorance. i just cannot stand it when people are heavily criticised for beliefs outside of the mainstream when the majority of those doing the criticising are quoting from a 5th grade textbook.

why evolution? i guess the theory of plate tectonics doesn't quite rile peoples emotions. the key difference for me is that when i covered these subjects at school the one was presented as fact and the other as theory
Yes, but what are you basing your beliefs on?

How can you believe Evolution is false if you have admittedly not researched it?

How can you even honestly argue something that you are knowingly ignorant on?

It's terrific that you are willing to challenge mainstream thought. Let that fuel your quest for knowledge. But do not come to illogical conclusions about things as false just because they are mainstream. Ignorance is not power my friend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top