Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Blokus wrote:
Did you know that satan wants us to question science. He lives in the doubt we express. He lives within the smallest atoms of life. Our doubt empowers him.

Anybody can question science Jews, Muslims, Christians, atheists, agnostics, soccer moms, Buddhists, etc that's the beauty of it the tricky part is being able to disprove it (although it does happen from time to time).

see above my friend!

Relapse wrote:
No need to get testy.

Not being testy. Proving something is a cornerstone of science. Evolution only deals with what it is, it neither proves nor disproves the existence of god, or god's/gods' role in the creation of humanity or the universe. Evolution isn't the enemy of religion anymore than radio waves or cardiology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Anybody can question science

Science is the questioning of things, even itself.

Relapse, evolution is the enemy depending on which flavor of protestantism you subscribe too

 Ahtman wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Anybody can question science

Science is the questioning of things, even itself.

Agreed.

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
No need to get testy.

Not being testy. Proving something is a cornerstone of science. Evolution only deals with what it is, it neither proves nor disproves the existence of god, or god's/gods' role in the creation of humanity or the universe. Evolution isn't the enemy of religion anymore than radio waves or cardiology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Anybody can question science

Science is the questioning of things, even itself.

I accept that statement a lot better than the previous one that you started off with " obtuse". I don't say evolution is the enemy of religion. How is it that the anti biotics we use now have to be stronger than the ones we used a decade ago? I believe traits can be enhanced and passed on and a species benifits. I also believe God has a hand in that happening.

 Fafnir wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
What are the valid real practical reasons to put words like that on a test, and why are people upset that they can't be used in a test?

Dinosaurs might be important to biology, natural history, evolution, science, palaeontology, etc related courses.

In my own opinion, it's like holding schools to an 1800's standard of curriculum if subjects like Dinosoars and the theory of Evolution can't be discussed. I also think that Creationism should be discussed so kids get more than one angle of people's ideas.

But why should creationism be discussed in the classroom? Evolution is a proven scientific fact, while creationism has nothing behind it. It'd be the same as teaching about some people's ideas that the holocaust never happened. Sure, it's a different idea, but it's not one that holds any actual value or legitimacy.

There are many different views on creationism in itself. There are those who believe that a supreme being created all life as it currently is, with little to no evolution involved. Some believe that a supreme being "wrote the program" and executed it, and all evolution follows this program and pathway. And some more believe that a supreme being put the ingredients in place, and just sat back to watch what happens.

Personally, Evolution has only proved where many of the current animals came from. Not what started the whole process, and that's where we get the philosophical debates on whether there was a big bang, or a being that started everything on our little speck of dust.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Personally, Evolution has only proved where many of the current animals came from.

Not necessarily, scientists have built timelines that go all the way to the earliest form of life known. There's also such things as fossil records, carbon dating, taxonomy, microscopes, geological records, anatomical observations, potassium-argon dating, etc to prove the existence of extinct

species. Even one of the most well known books on evolutionary theory On the Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin deals with the idea that all living things descend from a common ancestor.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Personally, Evolution has only proved where many of the current animals came from.

Not necessarily, scientists have built timelines that go all the way to the earliest form of life known. There's also such things as fossil records, carbon dating, taxonomy, microscopes, geological records, anatomical observations, potassium-argon dating, etc to prove the existence of older

species. Even one of the most well known books on evolutionary theory On the Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin deals with the idea that all living things descend from a common ancestor.

Spoiler:

I think you two might be agreeing on the same point, but using different language.

Dinosaurs aren't current, though.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Dinosaurs aren't current, though.

It'd be. Interesting if they were!

I think what he means by the statement is the path the current life took to get here.

Now let us tie this in to what words and phrases are becoming extinct and others coming into use due to political correctness.

Relapse wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Dinosaurs aren't current, though.

It'd be. Interesting if they were!

I think what he means by the statement is the path the current life took to get here.

Now let us tie this in to what words and phrases are becoming extinct and others coming into use due to political correctness.

Yep, I am not denying evolution. What I am saying is that there are creationists out there who believe that a being started the chain reaction, or something like that.

Relapse wrote:
Now let us tie this in to what words and phrases are becoming extinct and others coming into use due to political correctness.

I'm not totally against political correctness like it being used as a way to set a standard for polite conversation or to bring awareness to words that can be genuinely offensive to certain groups like I don't think it's OK to be calling blacks [see forum posting rules], gays fags and the mentally disabled

retards (although I don't think you should disallowed to say them either it depends on the context more than anything). I mean I think it's had some positive effects like people generally aren't calling black people [see forum posting rules] or Negroes anymore (at least not to their face), that being said the

article in this thread is taking it way too far imo.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Dinosaurs aren't current, though.

It'd be. Interesting if they were!

I think what he means by the statement is the path the current life took to get here.

Now let us tie this in to what words and phrases are becoming extinct and others coming into use due to political correctness.

Yep, I am not denying evolution. What I am saying is that there are creationists out there who believe that a being started the chain reaction, or something like that.

I don't consider myself a "creationist", but mainly because that term seems to have become equal to "young earth creationist".

But my personal belief is pretty much "everything that science says through the processes that science has discovered" and then just add "and God started it and put these processes in place".

Evolution isn't about how life or the universe started. It only concerns the process of change.

 Fafnir wrote:
Evolution isn't about how life or the universe started. It only concerns the process of change.

Not true, there's been many significant texts or people in evolutionary theory who have attempted to map out the origin of life even in the second paragraph on Wikipedia's article on "Evolution" it brings up the idea that all life shares a common ancestor.

The idea of a universal ancestor does not specifically concern itself with the actual creation of life. Evolution is a process that only begins once life is actually there.

Abiogenesis and evolution are two very different things.

You poor blind fools. Human evolution was guided by the Anunnaki from the rogue planet Nibiru.




Educate yourselves for Pete's sake!

 Fafnir wrote:
The idea of a universal ancestor does not specifically concern itself with the actual creation of life. Evolution is a process that only begins once life is actually there.

Abiogenesis and evolution are two very different things.

Well, you're right that evolution isn't defined by specie origins (evolution is the transmutation of species via natural or sexual selection) it is still an important concept that has been brought up in evolutionary theory and even the idea of evolution itself can make one wonder about the

ancestors of certain species.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relevant.

Once again, that's not what I'm talking about. The point is evolution has nothing to do with the actual origin of life.

 Fafnir wrote:
Once again, that's not what I'm talking about. The point is evolution has nothing to do with the actual origin of life.

You're right that evolution isn't about the origins of life per say, it can still be relevant if you want to examine the oldest lifeforms and see how they changed over time into newer species.

 Cheesecat wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Now let us tie this in to what words and phrases are becoming extinct and others coming into use due to political correctness.

I'm not totally against political correctness like it being used as a way to set a standard for polite conversation or to bring awareness to words that can be genuinely offensive to certain groups like I don't think it's OK to be calling blacks [see forum posting rules], gays fags and the mentally disabled

retards (although I don't think you should disallowed to say them either it depends on the context more than anything). I mean I think it's had some positive effects like people generally aren't calling black people [see forum posting rules] or Negroes anymore (at least not to their face), that being said the

article in this thread is taking it way too far imo.

I agree with your sentiment on this. I kind of like what Lenny Bruce had to say on all of this.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Once again, that's not what I'm talking about. The point is evolution has nothing to do with the actual origin of life.

You're right that evolution isn't about the origins of life per say, it can still be relevant if you want to examine the oldest lifeforms and see how they changed over time into newer species.

But once again, that's not the point of the discussion. The point is that most creationists don't even know a thing about the point they're supposedly arguing about.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Once again, that's not what I'm talking about. The point is evolution has nothing to do with the actual origin of life.

You're right that evolution isn't about the origins of life per say, it can still be relevant if you want to examine the oldest lifeforms and see how they changed over time into newer species.

But once again, that's not the point of the discussion. The point is that most creationists don't even know a thing about the point they're supposedly arguing about.

Alright, you win.

 KingCracker wrote:
Dinosaurs.... Fracking dinosaurs? Holy son of a bitch really? I don't really get the others either but.... dinosaurs are real fracking things, they existed once, no one can argue against that fact. I need a face palm picture with a nuke going off to show how thismakes me feel

Birthdays existed at one time too. Before the bad times. Before the coming of the political correctness.



Anyhow, this is all just stupid. Just fething stupid. The story in Seattle is about official government documents - in which case using residents instead of citizens is perfectly sensible. A little minor, but whatever. And the idea of dinosaurs and birthdays being 'banned' in New York is just about standardised testing. It doesn't mean they won't teach about dinosaurs, it just means they won't be mentioned in standardised tests that are about maths and language and don't actually need to mention dinosaurs at all.

But whatever. Rail against the great PC insanity that doesn't actually exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
It was pretty simple to understand, actually: "these words are being excluded from tests because they can potentially upset some students due to..." And they list the examples. Believe me, I got the scope of it. What I didn't get is how they figured DINOSAURS to have the potential to offend children. Children love dinosaurs. It's a prerequisite to being a child. I understand Halloween and birthdays being removed. I have friends who couldn't be involved in those in school. It's the removal of teaching an extinct animal that is proven to exist that becomes daft.

Yeah, it's daft. It's daft that for a small number of people something as just plain cool as dinosaurs have become just another political football in their quest to reject anything that challenges their selectively literal and particularly daft interpretation of the bible, so that their kid might freak out a little just by seeing them mentioned in a standardised test.

But that's the world the that the Department of Education has to deal with. And there's no need to mention dinosaurs on standardised testing, and so maybe it is for the best if they don't.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's far less to avoid "upsetting the students", and far more to avoid "upsetting the parents of said students" when little Stevie comes home and tells mommy and daddy who teach their child the Creationist method about the question which talks about "_____lived 65 million years ago and roamed the Earth as giant animals of dooooooooooom".

No. Dinosaurs still get taught in class. This isn't about parent's reactions at all.

It's about the idea that for some kids dinosaurs might be a trigger for emotional distress during a standardised test, which might lead to a poor performance and end up producing bad information about how good this kid is at maths, english etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
In my own opinion, it's like holding schools to an 1800's standard of curriculum if subjects like Dinosoars and the theory of Evolution can't be discussed. I also think that Creationism should be discussed so kids get more than one angle of people's ideas.

They can be discussed. They can even be taught. They are taught.

They just aren't mentioned in standardised testing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
Simply, as I said, so children can understand that there are other points of view. It might lead to more respect of each other without all the hot arguments and insults that go on. As you well know, there are sizable portions of the population that don't agree with the eviidence put forward for evolution and say they have equaly valid evidence for creation. I myself believe in creation, though I couldn't say how it was accomplished.

Science isn't about being nice to people's feelings, and sure as hell doesn't use the opinions of the general population to decide anything.

Science means if you've got a solid theory that explains the evidence and demonstrates predictive power, then it should be taught.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
No need to get testy. We have decades and millenia of other scientific beliefs that were eventually proven wrong.

Not really. Thing is, science as it exists today is actually a massive institution, producing an immense amount of research daily. But it has evolved only relatively recently, and before that you could probably best describe it as a fairly small number of enthusiastic amateurs working in an ad-hoc manner, with very limited techniques and resources.

As such, theories could exist and even be broadly accepted for a long time just because new evidence developed very slowly. But now there are millions of people working in scientific research across the globe, and in areas as broad as evolution the amount of study is truly immense.

That isn't to say that we know everything about it (if that were true we'd stop studying it) but it does mean when a major theory like evolution develops it is challenged by new developments almost daily - and if it lasts a generation or two without any of that new evidence overturning it, then the likelihood of something new popping up to question it is basically zero.

But wouldn't dinosaurs be relevant to standardized tests in science courses? I don't think math and English are the only courses that have standardized tests.

 Cheesecat wrote:
But wouldn't dinosaurs be relevant to standardized tests in science courses? I don't think math and English are the only courses that have standardized tests.

Is the field of science so narrow they can't come up with a test that doesn't include dinosaurs? In this case they are only talking about Math and English tests, and specific state-wide ones, I believe.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
But wouldn't dinosaurs be relevant to standardized tests in science courses? I don't think math and English are the only courses that have standardized tests.

Is the field of science so narrow they can't come up with a test that doesn't include dinosaurs? In this case they are only talking about Math and English tests, and specific state-wide ones, I believe.

Well yeah there is more to science than dinosaurs, but it's quite likely that evolution will get mentioned in science tests (as it's one of the most well known scientific theories) so I assume that most young earth creationists would be offended by that as well (I'm guessing that is the main

demographic offended by the word dinosaur).

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
But wouldn't dinosaurs be relevant to standardized tests in science courses? I don't think math and English are the only courses that have standardized tests.

Is the field of science so narrow they can't come up with a test that doesn't include dinosaurs? In this case they are only talking about Math and English tests, and specific state-wide ones, I believe.

Well yeah there is more to science than dinosaurs, but it's quite likely that evolution will get mentioned in science tests (as it's one of the most well known scientific theories) so I assume that most young earth creationists would be offended by that as well (I'm guessing that is the main

demographic offended by the word dinosaur).

Bow bow, wrongo cheesecat, it's really old people who are kicking up the fuss this time.