Relativity & Einstein, tools of atheists and liberals

The more I hear about "conservative science", the more it intrigues me. On the one hand, yes, obviously it's wrong. But I think that educators might be able to turn it into a value teaching tool if they forced people to show why it was wrong. Of course, that would mean badmouthing the infallible Holy Bible, and we aren't allowed to do that in school are we?

When they grow up, young scientists will be expected to engage in debates, and those will require a working knowledge of the philosophy of science. What better way to prepare for actual fights that mean something than with creationist sparing partners?

God fearing american protectors can take what ever proposition for granted as if it were true without preponderance of the facts. (that all thx to freedom of expression) but it doesn't make it more true in relation to the scientific view. In many cases you just have to look a litlle further to find the explanation.

That's like suggesting that prize fighters get skinny nine-year-olds as sparring partners. Try reading Popper . . .

Some of the mathematical speculation would affect any worldview equally. The concept of "C" as the terminal velocity in our time/space is only a math concept and has never been broken except by one or two other mid experiments.

ANything that gives [pause to one worldview will give pause to all. There is no automatic default to a system based upon magic and myth..
If these guys would spend as much time in helping solve real riddles of science rather than poking at what we dont have the capacity to understand YET, wed be much better off.
Do I think COnservapedia is a big waste of capitol? Hell yes.

The link does not seem to work, but why even raise the matter ?

I would merely remark that as a Brit, such "heated discussion" about creationism seems to be an energy wasting curiosity confined to areas of the USA. In Europe it is a non-issue for most.

Someone on this forum tried to explain the unusual degree of religiosity amongst Americans by reference to the cultural history of of the USA as being a refuge for religious dissenters, but I am yet to be convinced that this is still valid.

youve got to go and just google conservipedia. Its the other way of looking at all things. Its the world turned upside down. Its a view down the rabbit hole and behind the looking glass. Its a view into King Arthurs Court via Connecticut turnpike. Its the cthulu mythos full around. Its alley oop and Ooma.
Somebody put up great gobs of cash to develop this pile of horseshit and noone of the right seems to want to own it.

Whereas , being a liberal in the US means that ones entre wordlview doesnt necessarily coincide with anothers. We liberals arent liberal about everything , we may be quite conservative in specific areas. We dont demand that we march goose step to all the liberal proposals. However, Conservatives seem to have a litmus test that requires their kind to buy in to a huge menu of crap. Buy it all or your a RINO or a liberal. Well, thats ok with me, I like to argue without accusing my opponent of being a traitor

It looks like someone cut/pasted all the Creationist propaganda from the last 50 years into Conservapedia. It's the same old BS. Apparently they think that by repeating it often enough it will become valid somehow.

This sort of text just impressed me no end (from the Dinosaur entry). I love the preconception that atheist=liberal, and that by calling something a bad name it makes it so, no evidence required (how often have I seen that tactic but certain posters on A2K?)

book mark

[/quote]

They seem rather preoccupied with pubises and where they point

The liberal atheists do indeed, conservapedia is only reporting their 'junk science' - rather accurately.

saurischian v ornithischian hips are very important as one of about 25 unique structures in fossils that define from where birds arose. Its actually kind of funny, birds did not necessarily arise from the "Bird hipped" dinosaurs but the "lizard hipped " ones.

I don't bother with Creationist arguments, and I have to wonder why you do?

At the same time, while you dismiss these "fools" out of hand, I suspect that in an actual debate they would reduce you to a sputtering fool.

While I believe they are wrong, my bet is that they know a hell of a lot more about scientific theory than do I.

Since their arguments are closely aligned with their philosophical views (in this case their religion ), you mock them, but I wonder if you are as assiduous in examining the philosophical or ideological prejudices of those scientists with whose conclusions you agree.

Scientific breakthroughs, whether theoretical or practical, always have deep influence on intellectuals who may have no clear understanding of the underlying scientific truths. Thus Einstein's Theory of Relativity led to post-modernist theories of moral relativism.

You can't honestly believe that this is true. These guys have a serious problem with Logic, not just with their beliefs or the facts. In an actual debate a skilled debater can reveal this during cross-examination with ease.



Can you expand more on this? I'd love to see a reference. I learned quite a bit about moral relativism in my philosophy course back in school and there was zero discussion of Einstein; mostly because the foundations which underlie the theories all predate him by thousands of years.

Cycloptichorn

good for you, but avoiding the argument is not exactly the same as joining it. There are enough of the Conservipedia folks who strongly believe their blather. Id love the opportunity to discuss the topic with em. I feel comfortable in this area of science and , although the winner of a creation/evolution debate isnt the best scientist but the best at debating in public. Theres two separate issues. Ive seen brilliant scientists get their asses handed to them by Creationist shills and the way the debates proceeded was the Creationist would never admit to any point of science that is known to be accurate and true. The premises that Creationsim begins with are usually ridiculous but the one skilled at verbal ledgerdemain will have the audience (assuming that they are not skilled in the natural sciences) buffaloed.

Ive debated several in my time and never do I allow the debatre to get beyond a point of an invalid premise.
"Weve never seen any transitional fossils" Im a;ways ready for that in a debate and have several graphics on the subject to be able to show and tell that the proposer is full of it.

Once you let the guys get beyond a false premise, youve lost the debate already.

When we educate kids we have the responsibility to provide the best science we can.

I suspect that, based on your background , you could hold your own, but hingehead and Cyclo? Never.

What a joke. I certainly would eat your lunch in a debate. Just as I actually did all the way through high school and college with people like you, who were big on fuzzy principles and small on the ability to make logical defense of their arguments under questioning.

Cycloptichorn