Texas Board Approves New Standards Requiring Critique of Evolution

agentorangex »

Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:19 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Some may have noticed I haven't been posting on the education/evolution CP threads recently. Not to worry, just work priorities on getting certified (MCITP) take precedence. Cheers

Texas Board Approves New Standards Requiring Critique of Evolution

agentorangex »

Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Parrot,

"Where's the proof? "

Right der....

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w&feature=channel_page

Survey: Most Britons Reject Creationism, Intelligent Design

agentorangex »

Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

where does it say that Seed?

On Darwin's 200th, a Theory Still in Controversy

agentorangex »

Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"And you think that my belief in an eternal God who has no beginning absurd."

How can we demonstrate this? Any objective test? the whole 'eternal thing' isn't what I find in itself absurd, rather it's the overwhelming collective of that, and all the other things which is absurd.

"It always existed..." hmmm...interesting. Can that be proven?"

Did you bother to read it, or do you prefer rhetoric questions?

Like I said, all tests to create or destroy matter or energy have failed, thus they exist despite no causation. There is no 'something for nothing' when it comes to energy or matter, the 2 can be transformed from one state to another, but they can't be created ex nihilo.

contrary evolutionary evidence...?

Evolution and Christianity Impossible to Reconcile, Says Evangelical Theologian

agentorangex »

Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

"pronouncing judgment on scientists with PhDs + years of experience."

Ahhh, way to dodge the supposed theory Math, I thought you had spunk. Where is that evidence for it anyhow, honestly? It, like how AIG Rtards suggest the speed of light isn't a constant is why they get laughed at. Them scientists? Nope, they're appologetics.

If the 'theory' was so well supported you would've fared better off just thrashing it back at me, rather you opted for the 'don't critique the creation 'scientist' ideas, it's not fair!'

Math, science is all about critiquing ideas & testing them, so ol AIG boy would get judged a lot harsher than by just me. Besides, what articles in the scientific peer review has this guy or anyone from AIG published? Anything tested to demonstrate repeatable results?

"you are still insisting God play by your rules of logic. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way."

Insisting? Not quite, I am questioning why you think it's all sensible for any story to incorporate nonsense ideas which aren't logical & can't be demonstrated & then why it's then reasonable to accept them.

By this judgment you're implying that so long as we disregard the idea of what physics says about sleighs, flying reindeer & a single fat man visiting all the worlds children in a single night, that then this idea of santa is also to be believed. I only make the comparison as all know how readily fake & illogical the notions behind santa are. You use logic & reason there, but don't in regards to 'god' as it's frankly hard if not impossible for such ideas within it to be considered let alone believed otherwise. IE, you use logic & reason only when it suits you.

As far as it making logical sense, well of course not, why should it. It doesn't have to, it doesn't require evidence, only faith, so it's more like the more illogical it sounds the better. I mean look how illogical some of the nonsense is from the Mormons. 'Magic underwear'? Sure, this to you sounds illogical, but many millions believe it for the same reason you believe yours, they use faith & have an affinity for it.

After all it's to your advantage to make *no rules apply* when it comes to explaining entirely conflicting or wrong data. Why bother having ideas which conform to logic & reason, the very principles we use daily, when one can write it up & modify the texts or interpretations over the years as it goes along, & when all else fails just say 'it's not suppose to make sense'.

Evolution and Christianity Impossible to Reconcile, Says Evangelical Theologian

agentorangex »

Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:39 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

"is any part of that unclear?"

Crystal clear, especially given your choice words of 'probably' & 'a guess'.

"You cannot understand a position of faith + I don't exect you to."

Math, you're offering up a position of faith & not reason or logic, that is first where the issue is. Only by appealing to faith can the impossible be even remotely contemplated. Thankfully, science doesn't appeal to faith, it can't, it's methodology doesn't allow it.

Perhaps the faith goggles you always wear should be removed & instead attempt to make sense of it using logic or reason? Ya know, try to really think about the evidence at hand for a change.

In this instance, your appeal to faith over reason & logic is like offering up a bike with no tires, it's symbolically a bridge to no where. Asking one to believe, especially in light of how illogical it is, & how you mention it doesn't have to make logical sense demonstrates you don't honor logic or reason, but they can't be simply abandoned in a whim so as one can still believe in santa or other nonsensical things.

"I start with God's Word,"

And this is objectively verifiable how?

"shown itself true repeatedly in my experience",

Math, your experience is a subjective one, why not offer up an objective & well supported one in which evidence is involved?

"then I look at the evidence."

Ah, there is your issue. You start with the premise already, & then move forward, & then you attempt to make the evidence fit, & when it doesn't fit (like the age) you rationalize it so as to make believe if really doesn't matter that it's not that young. I guess this makes sense too if one thinks things don't have to be logical to be comprehensible either.

"Others begin with naturalistic assumptions (which bias the researcher from the get-go) + then look at the evidence. "

And assuming a supernatural entity from the get go as the first premise as you do isn't a bias? Honestly now. The difference is science uses that naturalistic approach, as it's the only one that is logical falsifiable and testable, while the supernatural isn't.

"Science works most of the time when examining the present, but it has not fared as well in examining the past."

Give an example math. By your logic, we can use evidence to infer the present, but not the past. So, according to you we can't determine if geological plates really do over the course of millions of years move. By your logic we can't infer who the murder was in a crime no matter how many independent lines of evidence incriminate them.

To any reasonable person when tons of evidence consistently & collectively support one model, criminal, or age, over all others it's a logical deduction that it's the most reasonable answer. But according to you, it's not good enough.

On Darwin's 200th, a Theory Still in Controversy

agentorangex »

Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"What I want to know is where all the matter for our universe came from."

Go read a science book, turn the the section on 'thermodynamics' and review the 1st Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

It implies that matter & energy as states simply exist & flow from one state to another, they exist outside the need for creation or causation.

There's not been any tests demonstrating that matter or energy can be created out of nothing, they can only be transferred from one state to another, there is always an equal balance. As such there is nothing implying the matter from the universe requires existence in the first place, it's eternal.

On Darwin's 200th, a Theory Still in Controversy

agentorangex »

Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"The Bible doesn't support evolution. "

Woopie-doo, it also doesn't support other sciences. But that's not the question, the question to you was what are your evidence based arguments as to why a population of organisms can't overtime change. Like the movie, still waiting...

Evolution and Christianity Impossible to Reconcile, Says Evangelical Theologian

agentorangex »

Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

"About 40 or different methods that all agree on the approximate age of the Earth?"

No, not quite right. For the lower limit age of the earth, there are 6 radiometric methods used, all coming back with the same approximate age (4.56 B) all within a margin of less than 2 %. That's actually pretty good when you consider they're all independently measuring the same material (but different isotopes) all revealing the same relative age. In time some techniques have further reduced their margin of error.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

There are about 4 dozen or so total techniques for dating material, some like radio metric dating use the isotope decay rates, others like dendrochronology measure annual fluctuations to determine age, and not a single one shows 6000 years. It would be one thing if a few dating techniques did, or a fair % did, but they don't.

What's also important is the relative ages of material, like the moon & how they too match in terms of age, and how the sun is a bit older & other stars & galaxies in the universe are older still. We see many lines of independent dating all conforming on an old age, not 6000 years. If we saw conflicting data from different methods on the same material, or confliction in order say the moon was 10,000 years old while the earth billions, we'd know there was something wrong, but we don't. We find uniformity, & logically it's reasonable to understand why.

On Darwin's 200th, a Theory Still in Controversy

agentorangex »

Tue Feb 24, 2009 8:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Prophet, good. anyhow, I'll wait for you to (finally) mention your evidence based objections to evolution. As in, what processes can't or don't work for the model to be accepted, so far I haven't heard you list any.

Okla. Bill Promoting Discussion of 'Alternative Theories' to Evolution Fails

agentorangex »

Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:32 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx

1 in 3 Americans Unfamiliar with Darwin's Tie to Evolution

agentorangex »

Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"Actually, the hi level engineering isn't going on in the coding."

Oh really? I'm sorry DP, but you've overstretched.

I'd sure like to ask then what understanding is required to say, create Microsoft or Google applications, & why this is high level why any comparable application platform (farm app you mentioned) which also requires coding then isn't high level? I'm sure you're familar with VB or C ++ right? Perl?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_language

"Any code monkey can create the software with little to know understanding of what the program is actually producing."

Erm, sorry, but major fail again. DP, software engineers build code for application platforms, but to do so they must comprehend many different computer languages (VB, C ++, Perl, PHP, & tons of others.)

And these languages, like real languages use arguement statements in order to build Object Oriented apps (like a Internet Explorer window, or that Google toolbar) In order for them to work they must have understanding of what the statements do in relation to others & how they interact, & like a real sentence they must conform to an order to be comprehensible by the IO interface. That is, they must adhere to strict syntax & structure for anything to be produced, it's not mindless jamming at keys.

That operating system you're using? Yep, it's built on a language too, & no, it's not something 'any monkey' can do as evident by the level of education required & the compensation involved for just entry level software engineers.

"Creating a program simply is telling the computer how to handle the data."

Not quite, this is overly simplistic. In a nutshell, it's right, but you make it out to sound as if it requires no training or education. It's also building the apps so they can function in unison with ALL the other apps.

"It has no understanding of the data and,"

Sure it does DP, the arguments the coding performs have to filter the data, it has no choice but to to be relevant to what is being performed.

"neither does the programmer."

The programmers have to account for the required variables so that when it's calculated & filtered the data at the presentation layer (the app) is comprehensible by the laymen in front of the screen.

"The basis for the program is created with great input from farmers and AG manufacturing experts."

Yeah, like how? All the farmers need to do is explain the annual variables, & the programmers do the input of the arguments of them so the output can be meaningful. some of it, like annual precipitation & weather patterns are entirely out of their control.

1 in 3 Americans Unfamiliar with Darwin's Tie to Evolution

agentorangex »

Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"Having been raised around educated folks (many of them over-educated!) I can say there are plenty of folks with college degrees that ain't so bright themselves."

Over educated, how does work? How does one become 'over educated'? life is an ever changing process in which new knowledge is continually growing, it's hard to suggest being knowledgeable, or even more so than the average would be of little utility.

"Do you know what a college degree will get you now-a-days?"

It will give on the opportunity to not have to work at a hole in the wall, like mcdonalds. Studies have also shown those who have degrees make more over their lives, quite a bit more too.

"He said 80% of college grads never go into the field they studied."

I don't know about that, some of the courses won't be used, I for instance don't use Linux at all, BUT some of those who graduated do, so the overall knowledge will be used but some more so than others. The emphasis is on becoming more educated, specialized & able to demonstrate ones work in the field prior to graduation to demonstrate that a candidate has applied skills which businesses need.

"A degree shows that you can stick with something for 2,4 or 6 years and that you knew which answers went with which questions."

I think you're talking of the old days, now many classes have lab scenarios where you have to actually use the knowledge in a demonstrated fashion. For instance, computer engineering schools require a person to use the coding to build robots which can perform in certain conditional scenarios, it's not simply a multiple choice thing.

"Too many people with diploma's and degree's are no more smart than a USB thumb drive."

And that's why those with the degrees generally are more successful in creating wealth for companies?

"All the data is there and they can access it upon request but that's about it. They lack understanding."

All what data is there? WHERE? Sure, the Internet is a great resource for finding it like a library, but having a formal education on the basics is required to perform most high level involvement in projects. One can't just 'wing it'.

"Our educational system has said understanding is relative."

... where?

"What you understand may not be what someone else understands."

Not quite, there are things in which objective agreement is refereed to, but this in itself is not a philosophical truism, at least not always. It only means there is a consensus on a process or method.

"Truth is relative...there are no absolutes". This concept has crippled our educational system."

like how? I think you're referring more to humanities or social sciences, as opposed to math or science.

1 in 3 Americans Unfamiliar with Darwin's Tie to Evolution

agentorangex »

Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

DP,

"Appearing less intelegent has it's advatages for them."

Uh, how? sorry, but this just sounds like a cop out so you can attempt to rationalize their stupidity. 'they like to be dumb!' Seriously now, if they could demonstrate a higher aptitude they would get rewarded, usually with more pay, something anyone would take actions to ensure.

"Most of them understand English better than many Americans."

Erm, no. Sorry, you can't BS me on this, I'm from the SF bay area, & I knew plenty of them who couldn't speak a lick of English & were gardeners who got paid under the table.

"As long as the boss feels superior to them they can make their money in peace."

All they have to do is follow orders from perhaps one illegal who can quasi understand. It's not rocket science, simply gesturing with a motion of 'pick up bags of concrete' is fairly enough to get them into the motion.

"It has been my experience most of the Mexican population is far smarter than people give them credit for."

I'm not saying mexican, I'm saying illegal, and by far most in both categories aren't exactly represented in institutions of higher learning (colleges) to match their national demographics. IE, they in general don't overly value higher education.

"I'm down here in the south. We have a large segment of Mexican population here."

Sure, sure, just like California huh? Not.

1 in 3 Americans Unfamiliar with Darwin's Tie to Evolution

agentorangex »

Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"It doesn't take much to have that anymore."

I agree, a HS diploma is effectively worthless in demonstrating any real level of aptitude or expertise required of most possible positions.

"Many of our students really don't know much. Here in SC our HS dropout rate is 40-50%."

Sure, but this figure varies by states & region, & no doubt the circumstances in which the youth grew up in factor in.

"Many construction companies require a level of knowledget to do anything besides pick up trash."

But it doesn't take much formal knowledge to help carry cement bags or nail plywood like most illegal uneducated laborers do.

"Even McDonald's requires being in school, a HS diploma or GED to work there."

yeah, and? Like who doesn't have at least that in today's society? More over those that lack such credentials missed out on the concept of education loooong ago.

"if you've been into a McDonald's lately you can see the state of our educational system."

Actually I haven't in some years, BUT, such places (like Walmart & the like) are generally not 'careers' they are more supposed to be an 'in between job' for college or highschool kids.

"Yep, them adults has a HS deeeploma!"

then mcdonalds is all they get. if they put more emphasis on education it wouldn't be an issue.

On Darwin's 200th, a Theory Still in Controversy

agentorangex »

Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:51 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Unless he created the life to evolve. Dee, dee, dee.

Evolution and Christianity Impossible to Reconcile, Says Evangelical Theologian

agentorangex »

Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

star, the geologies leading to Jesus don't match. This is odd since only male lines of hereditary were kept in by Jews as means to transfers assets. So, why do the genealogies differ?

Evolution and Christianity Impossible to Reconcile, Says Evangelical Theologian

agentorangex »

Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

4.thank you star.

Evolution and Christianity Impossible to Reconcile, Says Evangelical Theologian

agentorangex »

Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"As far as Church is concerned I don't voice my views there. I am silent in the Church."

So, what do you think about that, is it right or wrong? Logical or not, why or why not. Why shouldn't you be able to speak openly in church about god?

"Medical science has validated that the eating laws given in the Word of God is the healthiest way to eat."

C'mon, any food which isn't prepared properly isn't a good idea to consume. It has less to do with the type of food & more with how it's cooked or prepared.

"God declared all animal foods clean in the New Testament."

Really, where?

"They are sanctified through prayer and thanksgiving."

If they're sanctified through prayer, then why don't people who don't pray prior or aren't christian don't suffer any issues from consuming food in general? You'd think we'd see a big correlation between those who do & don't pray before eating, but where are the studies backing evidence for that?

Evolution and Christianity Impossible to Reconcile, Says Evangelical Theologian

agentorangex »

Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

"How foolish you are agentorange. Do you think that Adam and Eve only had sons? No, they had daughters too."

Oh I am sorry, the bible states adam & eve had daughters too might you be so kind to cite the passage?

"Cain married a sister that was born after him."

Which passage is this in?

10 The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.
11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth."13 Cain said to the LORD , "My punishment is more than I can bear.14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so [5] ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.
16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, [6] east of Eden.

Why he is afraid to meet people who may kill him? There were only Adam+Eve+Abel(died)+Cain, why is he worried to meet people? Where came the people ?

And, Cain married who? It never specified.

"Abel, scripture does not indicate that he was married."

It never indicated a women either.