How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Morons   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Morons

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


25 posted 08-15-2012 04:24 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Brad, I thought of you when I saw this story.  Glad you browsed in!
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


26 posted 08-15-2012 06:44 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Nonsensical, the world is only 6000 years old!


Iíve never met anyone in the UK who actually believes that the earth is that young, I guess there could be some but there canít be more than six of them, the same goes for the Ďcreated in six daysí stuff too. Hang on.. 6 thousand years, 6 days, 6 people who believe it..

666

Thatís freaky Ė and the evidence mounts - NESSIE has 6 letters, Loch Ness is an average of 600 foot deep and Iíve been there 6 times!

Doesnít the bible talk about a beast whose number is 666 Ė could that ancient text be a reference to the mysterious Ďbeastí of Scotland? If it mentions it in the bible it must be true.

Iím starting to believe, I mean you canít ignore the evidence when itís right in front of your eyes.

Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


27 posted 08-31-2012 11:01 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

"But then, if I am right, certain professors of education must be wrong when they say they can put knowledge into the soul which was not there before, like sight into blind eyes."

Random thoughts here- Are we dealing with morons because the school is in the deep south run by "white trash"?  Does it make a difference the school is ran by a black female pastor? Is it easier to call poor white folks morons rather than poor black people?
We have a lot of Amish around here.  I know quite a few.  Are they morons?  They have some pretty radical religious views.
Not many orthodox Jews around these parts, are they morons also?
Just thoughts.
I can't say that public education in many communities in the US, including the deep south, is something to write home about.
Why is it a problem in a number of Catholic schools that some Catholics believe there are too many non-Catholic students?  Is it safe to assume non-Catholic students are not being sent there to be converted to Catholicism.
Why are so many highly educated professional people home schooling their children?
Is it wrong for a parent to not want his or her children indoctrinated by a educational system viewed as failing its basic mission, i.e. education.
That being said, one of my children is a public school teacher and all four went to public schools, I just question the use of the term moron being utilized.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


28 posted 09-02-2012 02:56 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:


moron †(ˈmɔːrɒn)

ó n
1. a foolish or stupid person
2. a person having an intelligence quotient of between 50 and 70, able to work under supervision


Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


29 posted 09-02-2012 03:30 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Ever since Earth put her profile on spacebook all kinds of oddities have been seeking her out, and unfortunately, sometimes finding her.  They can't resist such a young, flat, supermodel-shaped planet, especially those extraterresterial plesiosaurs and morons (a race of rons from the planet Mo)
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


30 posted 09-02-2012 08:04 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


31 posted 09-03-2012 12:49 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

I still don't think many make a distinction between a "Young Earth Creation" position, and an "Old Earth Creation" position, which is still critical of Darwinian Evolution.  I don't think the former is tenable, but I happen to think the latter is usually denied expression based (not upon lack of peer-reviewed articles, since virtually nothing about Darwinian Evolution beyond small scale variation among species, which ID proponents already agree with, is in the Peer Reviewed articles either) the upsetting of a kind of orthodoxy.


Still, I don't want the state telling me what I have to teach my kids (within reason- anti-semitism would be worthy of some kind of intervention, I think, though I'm not sure how).  Nor do I really want to tell others what to teach their kids (within reason).  I guess the questions surrounding evolution aren't as important to me as they once were, though I'm still critical of it.  The creation premise certainly isn't invalidated were Evolution to be a true description of things.  It only answers a subset of questions, leaving others quite untouched.      
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


32 posted 09-03-2012 06:52 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Stephen,

In this case:

1. Nessie exists.

2. Nessie is a plesiosaur.

3. Plesiosaurs are dinosaurs.

_____________

4. Therefore, evolution is debunked.

Does the conclusion follow from the premises?  

Are the premises true?

Does a sonar reading constitute reasonable evidence?

"3" is untrue by definition.  Plesiosaurs are not dinosaurs.

Is the logic sound?  I'd love to see someone work that one out.  It is only possible if one starts with untrue premises.

I suppose we'll eventually have to get back to the who as in "Who decides?" (wow, we're all postmodernists now) but is this argument, is this example, really one you want to defend. Does it buttress your own position?

How's it going?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


33 posted 09-06-2012 03:46 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Brad, of course I'd rather not defend those particular views.  My only point is that there's a wide spectrum of views diverging from the main-stream, and not all of them are bereft of reason and evidential support ... but yeah, who gets to decide for me and my family, or you and yours?  If you take Darwin to an extreme (and many do), then it's the stronger who get to decide, and truth of theory becomes peripheral.  That's why the mainstream view, that all of life arose through an impersonal process, is just another narrative that is too large to be troubled with a lot of verification.  In that sense, Darwinism, reminds me somewhat of String Theory.  There's some valid ideas there, but ...


Doing well, Brad.  How have you been?  

Stephen  
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


34 posted 09-07-2012 11:28 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

The problem Stephen, is that you're conflating the words theory, and theory

String theory isn't a theory.  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


35 posted 09-07-2012 10:51 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

LR, long time no see!  

having read over your wiki, I noted statements about the different kinds of theories, and of the varying strengths of respective theories ... So I can't mine your exact point from the link.  I imagine it has something to do with the varying strengths of the Theories we've mentioned, and how the stronger is more justification for being called a "theory".  I could be way off here ...  you should elaborate.  

Stephen

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-08-2012 12:00 AM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


36 posted 09-10-2012 12:43 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Both scientific laws and scientific theories are produced from the scientific method through the formation and testing of hypotheses, and can predict the behavior of the natural world. Both are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence.[23] However, scientific laws are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[24] Scientific theories are broader in scope, and give overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. Theories are supported by evidence from many different sources, and may contain one or several laws.[25]
A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law.[23][26]
Theories and laws are also distinct from hypotheses. Unlike hypotheses, theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact.[27][28]




This is the relevant passage to the discussion Stephen.  The "Theory of Evolution" is a falsifiable, tested, scientific theory like, electromagnetic theory, for example.  Most people are confused by the word theory in this context though and think it means that it is an unproven hypothesis.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


37 posted 09-12-2012 03:39 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant


"Well, evolution is a theory.  It is also a fact.  And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.   Facts are the world's data.   Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. "

Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


38 posted 09-12-2012 03:58 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Yep!

And we don't call it music theory because we're not sure whether or not pentatonic scales exist.  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


39 posted 09-13-2012 12:13 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

LR, sure small scale change within species is falsifiable and conversely proveable, but the wholesale origin of organ systems and common descent really isn't.  Ancient origins as such, spanned across billions of years is anything but problem free, and anything but demonstrable.  Though Gould is among the faithful, I can quote him as well.  There is simply honest disagreement about what is doubtful and what constitutes fact.  I personally feel that String Theory and Neo-Darwinism are similar in one sense ... In being a malleable narrative that no perplexing data can thoroughly disrupt,  Punctuated Equilibrium, since Gould was mentioned, being a prime example.  I find the comparison of Evolution with Electromagnetic Theory to be incredible.  One has certainly lacked, even if by an imposed necessity of conditions, the rigor of the other.

And the obvious difference between Music Theory and Darwinism is that an E blues scale can be demonstrated, not in theory but in fact, by any second year guitar student.   ;-)

Stephen
TreasureFort
Junior Member
since 08-30-2012
Posts 15


40 posted 09-13-2012 09:31 AM       View Profile for TreasureFort   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TreasureFort

maybe tangential but

Is school/schooling needed in the first place?

Animals (except humans) don't go to school and they seem to be doing fine in animal kingdom. They radiate intelligence and also flash happiness (that is how it seems on Discovery and National Geographic anyway). They fight and get over it. They look for and find the things they need to survive and in the end they die. Somewhere between life and death they pass on life to the next generation. No difference there with educated humans.

Agreed they don't build iPhones, Dreamliners and central heating systems, but their aim is well and truly met.

ponder on or dismiss this thought... a choice exists therein!
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Morons   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors