sorry if it offends you.
here, maybe this will help:
remember, these are people SPECIFICALLY educated on the topic.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110127141657.htm
For the alternative theorists:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
here, maybe this will help:
remember, these are people SPECIFICALLY educated on the topic.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110127141657.htm
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Leopold, can you explain what you meant by "contamination" in one of your four propositions.. It's bugged me since I read it.
It sounds as if you are implying that before the BB there was a state of "purity", which became contaminated and resulted in the eventual emergenge of "life", by several means. A I correct and if so, please explain, this is fascinating srtuff.
i don't have the mental prowess to explain it.
i was thinking about this at work the other day.
our universe isn't pure space because it has stuff in it.
it isn't pure time either because it too has "stuff" in it.
it's apparently some kind of contaminated aspect of both space and time.
this "contamination" pushed the universe into another dimension, reality.
that's as close as i can get.
did i somehow convince these biology teachers to jump on my bandwagon?
leopold
"They found only about 28 percent of those teachers consistently implement National Research Council recommendations calling for introduction of evidence that evolution occurred, and craft lesson plans with evolution as a unifying theme linking disparate topics in biology."
"In contrast, Berkman and Plutzer found that about 13 percent of biology teachers "explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light." Many of these teachers typically rejected the possibility that scientific methods can shed light on the origin of the species, and considered both evolution and creationism as belief systems that cannot be fully proven or discredited."
So, over twice as many teachers teach the subject correctly, compared to the minority of teachers who, frankly, should not be teaching anything but a Sunday School Class.
"Berkman and Plutzer dubbed the remaining teachers the "cautious 60 percent," who are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives. "Our data show that these teachers understandably want to avoid controversy," they said."
And fully 60% have been intimidated into staying away from the subject so those who are in and support the...intellectually challenged 13% won't raise a stink.
Kind of reminds you of the NRA, the majority disagree with their stances, but our elected officials have been cowed by constant threats and loud, obnoxious...er Ammosexuals and Hatriots.
All quotes above are from your own cite.
Grumpy
"They found only about 28 percent of those teachers consistently implement National Research Council recommendations calling for introduction of evidence that evolution occurred, and craft lesson plans with evolution as a unifying theme linking disparate topics in biology."
"In contrast, Berkman and Plutzer found that about 13 percent of biology teachers "explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light." Many of these teachers typically rejected the possibility that scientific methods can shed light on the origin of the species, and considered both evolution and creationism as belief systems that cannot be fully proven or discredited."
So, over twice as many teachers teach the subject correctly, compared to the minority of teachers who, frankly, should not be teaching anything but a Sunday School Class.
"Berkman and Plutzer dubbed the remaining teachers the "cautious 60 percent," who are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives. "Our data show that these teachers understandably want to avoid controversy," they said."
And fully 60% have been intimidated into staying away from the subject so those who are in and support the...intellectually challenged 13% won't raise a stink.
Kind of reminds you of the NRA, the majority disagree with their stances, but our elected officials have been cowed by constant threats and loud, obnoxious...er Ammosexuals and Hatriots.
All quotes above are from your own cite.
Grumpy
Like I said.
I tried to be nice. I answered your question honestly. And now all you want is to cram shit down my throat.
I know something far more wronger.
Those that use science forums to post unsupported unreviewed alternate rubbish just for the sake of some mythical belief pounded into them as a child, and something it seems they can never out grow.. what is so "controversial" about facts grumpy?
why wouldn't biology teachers be strong supporters of evolution?
really?
you mean to tell me that these teachers refuse to teach "the facts" because of 13% of the others?
you cannot possibly be serious.
and there is absolutely no danger in science becoming politicized, correct?
in regards to evolution:
you couldn't pay me enough to NOT teach the facts.
you don't have to read my posts.
and if i wanted to cram something somewhere, it sure as hell wouldn't be "shit down your throat".
do you value science?
peer review makes science what it is.
if this process ever becomes corrupt, or it's found that it can be manipulated, what does this mean for what you think you know?
don't ever think "it can't happen here".
following up on the link i gave in post 1181 i came across this:
These legal rulings and legislative victories are clearly necessary for evolution to maintain its proper place in the biology curriculum, but they are not sufficient.
www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060124
it sounds as if evolution must be "forced" on us for some reason.
if evolution was as sound as some people would have you to believe, then why is it "necessary" for legal rulings?
These legal rulings and legislative victories are clearly necessary for evolution to maintain its proper place in the biology curriculum, but they are not sufficient.
www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060124
it sounds as if evolution must be "forced" on us for some reason.
if evolution was as sound as some people would have you to believe, then why is it "necessary" for legal rulings?
Beer w/Straw, you are not stupid. Your Post #1170 is proof of that!
Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Calculus, Geometry...the basics of those disciplines are inherent.
So you will learn the actual true fundamentals of the "Hard Sciences", from even a fairly old textbook.
When and if you ever get into the Abstract and Theoretical Sciences, well to put it loosely or in "laypersons" terms, they should always be getting better, but probably never will be perfect.
At any rate, no matter how knowledgeable or intelligent or trustworthy the information from an internet Forum appears to be...well the younger generation these days have these two terms : Pwned! and Punk'd! (cannot guarantee the spelling!)
I have some very close friends and associates that are College Professors. Very decent people, but they all have had to put up with being "challenged" by something one of their students found on-line. I do not know how your College is set up, but the University that I am associated with has quite a bit of current "Science" available on the University Servers. All it takes is a student or Faculty I.D. to access the servers. Check with your Professor, he/she should be able to help you with that - if it is available.
Beer w/Straw, not sure if this will help, but one of the Methods I have utilized for years is this : No matter what textbook is required, I also got a different textbook - on the same discipline of course! By reading and studying both, I found that just the different ways that the same information was presented made it somewhat easier to comprehend that information.
Heres a little nugget of knowledge that my mother taught me before I even started 1st Grade :
Do Not Turn To The Next Page Of The Book Unless You Have Fully Read And Fully Understood The Page You Are On!!!
Years later, when I would see classmates reading and rereading a chapter over and over. I would tell them to take a break, relax for a few minutes, and then reread the last few pages of the previous chapter before trying it again.
Now, Beer w/Straw, all that may sound "stupid" - but it may just help!
To recap :
You are NOT stupid!
Stick to the Textbooks!
Make learning easier - focus on good habits!
Good Luck, Beer w/Straw!
maybe.
i now question everything in this area.
establishment clause?
you mean this:
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause
and?
why are these laws "necessary" for cold hard facts?
in other words, if evolution had this mountain of evidence then why are these laws NECESSARY.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
Leopold, can you explain what you meant by "contamination" in one of your four propositions.. It's bugged me since I read it.
It sounds as if you are implying that before the BB there was a state of "purity", which became contaminated and resulted in the eventual emergenge of "life", by several means. Am I correct and if so, please explain, this is fascinating srtuff.[/quote]
a)
b)
c)
d)
Leopold, as layman myself, i am really trying to give you the benefit of doubt, but I would suggest that you give this a little more thought than just at work. In that single proposition you have posed so many questions, my head is spinning. Is there a name for this "model" so I can familiarize with some of the fundamental premises on which this is founded.
Leopold, can you explain what you meant by "contamination" in one of your four propositions.. It's bugged me since I read it.
It sounds as if you are implying that before the BB there was a state of "purity", which became contaminated and resulted in the eventual emergenge of "life", by several means. Am I correct and if so, please explain, this is fascinating srtuff.[/quote]
a)
How do you know space is corrupted by stuff? Could it just have been "energy" or "potential" before it became stuff?
b)
How do you know time is corrupted by stuff? It loses track of events?
c)
If it is an aspect of spacetime why do you call it Contamination and not Potential? Do you mean to say, whatever it was it did not belong there and contaminated the purety of space. Does pure space have Time? If time is a result of stuff which is a contaminant, time is a result of pollution so it does not belong in "pure space", right? Question: Pure space has no time? Einstein was wrong? Think "geometrics".
d)
So we are actually in the wrong dimension, but the contamination (stuff) in space is causal to our reality? What are the odds of being pushed into another dimension due to stuff contamination of the pure space dimension?.
Leopold, as layman myself, i am really trying to give you the benefit of doubt, but I would suggest that you give this a little more thought than just at work. In that single proposition you have posed so many questions, my head is spinning. Is there a name for this "model" so I can familiarize with some of the fundamental premises on which this is founded.
there is about 5 or 6 trainloads of reading in the following link:
www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?84252-Project-Gutenberg
pure space, probably synonymous with perfect vacuum.
i don't.
you could call "it" anything i guess.
yes, space is not a perfect vacuum
in my opinion time is infinite.
you misunderstood.
the universe is the result of the "contaminated" aspect of space and time.
i don't know.
i'm not mentally equipped to tackle this stuff.
i haven't a clue what the name of the model is.
i know how to follow my nose and think outside the box though.
and you know, since . . . nevermind
His hypothesis in that post, still in fact show that life arose from non life at its most basic and fundamental level.
Something that he or no one else will ever get away from.
Ignoring the magical deity creationist myth.
The BB begat space and time.....hear after referred to as space-time, space-time-Superforce-energy begat matter/mass, space-time in the presence of matter-mass-energy begat gravity, gravity begat stars, stars begat heavy elements, elements-gravity begat planets, elements and chemical reactions begat life, life begat evolution, life begat mythical almighty deity, life-knowledge, begat science, science-knowledge-observations begat the BB, science-knowledge-the BB expelled the mythical deity, along with Unicorns, elves and fairies.
AMEN