Texas Board Passes Social Studies Curriculum

Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem with Intelligent Design theory is that... It doesn't answer what came before the Intelligent Design.

So, I disagree with the "seems like a mechanic designed it" stance.
 
Seriously, I dont think anyone knows how it all started.
 
souggy said:
The problem with Intelligent Design theory is that... It doesn't answer what came before the Intelligent Design.

So, I disagree with the "seems like a mechanic designed it" stance.
Click to expand...

What inductive reasoning did you do to arrive at that conclusion? What was your scientific process that gave you that conclusion? What about the laws of physics? How come and why it must be extremely precise for everything to work? If any one of the laws of physics was to be off ever so slightly which may not seem significant it would throw the rest of the laws of physics completely out of whack. You wouldn't have the sun. Laws of gravity wouldn't exist. Nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics,and so on wouldn't be possible. How was it designed to be so precise for laws of physics to work? And why?
 
kokonut said:
You get what you can around here. I'm asking you to look at what we have available from the subatomic/quantum scale to the macro, the physics behind them, the math, the statistics and such. From the depths of our ocean, to the surface, our atmosphere, to our moon, the solar system, our galaxy and the universe. Look at the precision required for everything to work properly. Why is that? How was that designed? You can based your concluson on those things that we already know for sure without question. Use the process of inductive reasoning to come up with a possible answer. Scientists do this all the time by using facts and observations to come to a general conclusion.
Click to expand...

So in other words, you're saying you have the ability to deduce.. scratch that - are able, with inductive reasoning to correlate an answer to the creation of the universe just from simply sitting in your armchair, folding your hands and staring at photos, text, and video on the net?

Truly a master of deep thought, if you are one.
 
naisho said:
So in other words, you're saying you have the ability to deduce.. scratch that - are able, with inductive reasoning to correlate an answer to the creation of the universe just from simply sitting in your armchair, folding your hands and staring at photos, text, and video on the net?

Truly a master of deep thought, if you are one.
Click to expand...

Touche...:P
 
The problem is that scientists try to come up with hypothesis that can be tested. We need to prove more of the untested hypotheses before going deeper in the rabbit hole.

Otherwise... if it's untestable, it might as well be philosophy instead.
 
I believe that evolution is more fact when come with secularism, only applies that considered as fact, not Al Gore.

Creationism is more faith, religious beliefs.

The earth is around 4.5 billion years old.
 
You can be secular and believe in creationism. Problem is... can you prove it?

Problem with creationism is that people can inject their philosophical/religious interpretation into it-- and that is an unstable ground to walk on if someone is not capable of being neutral.
 
naisho said:
So in other words, you're saying you have the ability to deduce.. scratch that - are able, with inductive reasoning to correlate an answer to the creation of the universe just from simply sitting in your armchair, folding your hands and staring at photos, text, and video on the net?

Truly a master of deep thought, if you are one.
Click to expand...

No. Reread what I wrote earlier. Since you're supposed to be a "man of science" look at it from a scientific method point of view. It's the conclusion you'd be arriving at. Any of us can do this. Your conclusion using inductive reasoning based on current scientific knowledge on what we already know. Your conclusion would be an answer to your question about the design. It's an answer of yours, and not THE answer.

Tell me, how is the laws of physics possible? Scientists believe they're all connected on how things work around us, in us, above us, and below us. If you change anything in the laws of physics, even if it seems inconsequential, what do you think the consequences will be?
 
I don't like making world creation claims based on factual reasoning. That's not me. I'd rather focus on other things instead of dwelling on the past.

Maybe it rocks your boat, I know you can do it.
 
so kokonut - do enlighten us with your conclusion. we are interested.
 
souggy said:
You can be secular and believe in creationism. Problem is... can you prove it?

Problem with creationism is that people can inject their philosophical/religious interpretation into it-- and that is an unstable ground to walk on if someone is not capable of being neutral.
Click to expand...

Even a Nobel Prize winner in Physics arrived at his own conclusion about the design around us based on current scientific understanding and laws of physics. We should question everything, and leave no stones unturned, even if may seem outlandish to some. Look at numbers in math. When working on a problem it produces beautiful results and oftentimes it uncovers new insights. And on occassion uncovers new scientific laws. How is that possible on just numbers alone that helped uncover many of the secrets of science?
 
naisho said:
I don't like making world creation claims based on factual reasoning. That's not me. I'd rather focus on other things instead of dwelling on the past.

Maybe it rocks your boat, I know you can do it.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the past. I know it may be uncomfortable for some people to really think and delve into these things but don't let that stop you.
 
kokonut said:
Even a Nobel Prize winner in Physics arrived at his own conclusion about the design around us based on current scientific understanding and laws of physics. We should question everything, and leave no stones unturned, even if may seem outlandish to some. Look at numbers in math. When working on a problem it produces beautiful results and oftentimes it uncovers new insights. And on occassion uncovers new scientific laws. How is that possible on just numbers alone that helped uncover many of the secrets of science?
Click to expand...

the time will tell. maybe next year. maybe 10 years. maybe 50 years.
 
according to mathematic formula..... we get an "Einstein" every 100-150+ years so that means we'll have an Einstein in around 2050's :aw:
 
kokonut said:
It has nothing to do with the past. I know it may be uncomfortable for some people to really think and delve into these things but don't let that stop you.
Click to expand...

You're one to say. I don't see you offering anything except "I don't know", "GUYS, Look at these nano-engines!", and "THIS IS so crazy that everything is connected to each other."

I don't offer any opinion aside from a formulated theory previously mentioned because I don't believe I am accredited to making assumptions, even my own, which you keep implying that everyone is entitled to share. To say that it is "uncomfortable for some people to really think and delve" shows a lot of your personal reflection on it, did you think about that? What've you offered to the table?

You're taking it way too personal here, take a chill-pill and eat some ice cream, you can have a free corner time-out if you don't want to offer your own theories. All I have done so far in this thread is explain that your thoughts about what you call "nano-engines" have a more generic term which you kept refusing to acknowledge.

Not everyone has something to share with you, bud.
 
Fact: Nobody knows how it all started. This is a fact. Deal with it.
 
still waiting for one's "conclusion"......
 
What a thread....we have discussed...social studies---abortion---Creationism vs evolution---nano engines---. Where to next?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top