Evolutionry/religious nonsense

To me it suggests not tue usu 'cretion' but a kind of inevitability to the way things wind up. 'Fcourse that's just me

It's a good q, Ros. Multiple universes can be imagined but history shows, the simpler expl is usu the right one

Cis well put We don't manage well what nature has provided

The more I think about it Ros, the more cogent ur q. Certainly it's conceivable that in another Universe things might be different, yet all the constants agreeable with one another. My feeling, however, and it's only a feeling as it's purely intuitive, is that there aren't any; as the more complicated a theory, the less likely it's true

For instance there's a theory of an infinite number of Universes, each different from the next closest by that single iota....

If more complex the less likely, especially with no supporting evidence≤ the greater certainty it's false. This is one of the reasons I so respect the intuition, however wrong sometimes


Incidentally Ros, as I like to refresh my vocab every day if not learn a new word, what's that tiniest difference that physics allows

I've tried Googlin' but with no luck whatever

The most important thing in education of children is Family involvement in the education both at home and at school. Comparing the United States as a whole to another country is quite arbitrary. The population of most Countries in this world are smaller than a lot of states in the US. If you picked out our top 10 states they'd probably be number one in the world.

Thats a nice belief you have. There are more students in what wed call AP status in China than we have in our entire ed system.
Lets just measure by percentiles rather than pure numbers.

Median s well as mean numbers are saad.

First of all I will guarantee Chyna isn't testing all their children in every little village in the country. Secondly not everybody needs an advanced education in every field. A person needs to function at a high-level at what you do For a living. And you have to have a good enough education in history and social studies math and science to participate in a representative form of government. We are the most successful country in the world with the longest living constitution because we have done that very well in the past through local control of schools and we don't need the federal government messing up a good system.

We probably have a similar thing going on, however these are numbers drawn from those already inschools. Of those being schooled, their AP and "honor" student cadres are higher than ours.

"Longest living Constitution" ? How long did it take before it was inclusive . Why are we still interpreting the Bill of Rights and adding Amendments? As far as:
If the Federal Govt didnt "get involved" , much science would still be Genesis Based and there wouldnt even be any public schools, you do know that dont you? I have a copy of "Ciivic Biology" taught as science in the 1920's. It states as fact tht Black people are not of the same level in intelligence as white and oriental. Then the same guy wrote "Flood Geology", agin, tught as science in the 1930's and kids were reciting FLOOD SEQUENCES of earths stratigraphy nd "factoids" like the earth is but few million years old (even that took hrd wrangling among the Fundamental Sects).

I sorta know where you come from and you understand my leanings. I dont think youll get any agreement from me re the components of your worldview.

Family involvement in education is not the most important thing. I'm not sure what is the most important thing, but it might be part culture and what the parents have accomplished. Middle class families have more opportunity to have access to the right kind of environment and education.

I speak from personal experience as a Japanese American. Our father worked on farms as a laborer, and our mother worked as a waitress. We were very poor, and lived on welfare. We grew up in Sacramento amongst other minorities, and we worked on farms during the summer months to earn money. Our parents didn't have higher education, but I think that was common in our generation. All my siblings were above average in school, but I almost flunked high school. I played hooky from high school, and watched tv most days. They had goals for their future, and I had none. My older brother became an attorney, my younger brother a doctor, and my sister a RN. Long story short, I enrolled into college on probation, and majored in Accounting. I worked in management positions and consulting for over 80% of my working career, and retired early. I'm now 82 years old. It's my opinion that anybody can be middle class successful if they had the motivation to do it. I gained my motivation from the USAF, because they assigned me to work with conventional and nuclear weapons in the 1950s, and I gained in rank pretty quickly. Normal time to earn Senior Airman is 36 months. I earned it in about half that time. **Senior Airman (E-4) - 36 months TIS with 20 months TIG, or 28 months TIG, whichever occurs first.
That was a great boost to my ego. LOL

Your parents are the main reason you are successful. If you would’ve been an orphan in India sniffing glue in the alleys you probably would not be very successful today. The percentage of people that can Become Aeronautical engineers is not a good measure of how successful the society is. What is a good measure of how successful a society is how good it is at producing good productive citizens Generation after generation whether they are janitors or engineers.

The purpose of a family is to promote good and defend your family against evil. A good family does that by being involved in your child’s education which includes the home life, Being involved in school and supporting a good and civil government.

Maybe we are just misinterpreting Genesis. I believe there is a lot of truth in Genesis and I don’t agree with anything that was being taught in the past about the intelligence of other races being lower compared with whites. I don’t believe That is a correct interpretation of genesis nor is it Christian. I believe in science. I believe Science and the Bible need to be interpreted correctly and, all interpretations need to be discussed (even ones that want to use a more biblical Christian worldview to interpretate science Than your personal world view, farmer).

Atheists don’t have a corner on the market when it comes to intelligence or interpretation of scientific data nor do they have the right to keep anybody else out of the discussion.

Racism existed long before Christianity, But Christians were very instrumental in bringing it to the forefront as a problem by helping end slavery and causing a civil rights movement in the 60s led by Christians like Martin Luther King Junior, Bobby Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.

Not true. Many kids we grew up with did not go to college. Many ended up working for state government, because Sacramento is the state capital, and there were many job openings for high school grads. That’s what happened to my older brother’s children. Most worked for the state.

So the kid you grew up with are the ones responsible for lowering our scores on our tests.? Thank goodness cording to farmer it was those Christians that were trying to teach genesis in science in school. Though I think it’s those parents getting involved in their kids education that might’ve actually been improving Test scores and the number of college grads.

Thres probably a bit af FACT in Genesis (especially where some natural occurrences or catastrophies were bundled into tales of causation that involved an imminent god). but most is fact-free.

As far as interpretations of science, e differ on just about everypoint, AND, as far as Christians having a major hand at ending racism, while theres a lot of truth there, you have to accept that lots of Christians were actually behind racism and even the KLAN was considered to be a quasi religious group.

Much of the "bandwagonning" by Fundamental Christians came well AFTER the fact that we discovered that human rights involves all of humanity. AS far as "We must interpret science along with the Bible" I find kind of pointless and empty. What can some religious worldview provide ?
What I predict i that religions (all religions) will sooner or later stipulate to the Laws and Theories of science and will join in to the facts and evidence. For example , the mere acceptqnce of an OLD EARTH is a rather new stipulation to a scientific fact.

I suggest you still do further reading about the history of the Fundamental Christian movements in tn US at the end of the 19th century.
For example WHY did the SCopes Trial even have to go on? because the "Butler Acts" made it a CRIME to teach science without defaulting to some wacky story about a non-xistent worldide FLOOD or an order of Creation that was so dead wrong that the Bible needed two different ones.
Nowaday, I see more of the Baptists beginning to slip back into saying that "Of course we know these stories are all allegorical and not fully factuaal"

WOW, thats really a big time admission.
catholics and many Protestant denominations came to terms with science back in the 1950's and 60's. Yet we still hve a very small (but well funded and highly vocal) minority of Funamental Christians who ould rather defy the Constitution to teach their worldview in public schools. And they do this with impunity in some states.

Spending time to conform science to the Bible is a huge waste of precious time and money. What the hell are you going to propose it accomplishes?? Its jut to make the Fundamentalists "feel good" about themselves, its not to advance any education because, as Popper stated, IT is unavailable to falsifiability and its myths chasing after facts.

When the guys at CSI bgan trying to assert the "Creationist base" of genetics (when all the evidence supports that derivative (daughter) species of organisms show definite informational chains of evidence about their origins through geologic time . So, in order to accomodate your worldview, you hqve to lie and deny that things like "fossil genes" even exist.

As I said many times, I care not what you wish to believe on your own. JUST dont be trying to slam this beliefsystem down the throats of our school systems (even the charter schools where Ms Devos thinks she can play trickyness). I, and many many like me will be there to take you on at every turn an trust me, science is only growing its data base while the Fundamentalists are rapidly losing credibility.

The last time the Creationists could make an argument that even holds water was back in the 1940's weve got over 75 yrs of hqrd worked reserch that is slowly sinking your canoe brian

"Interpretation" of Genesis has always been a subject of interest for me. As an example, the W Va boys that dance around with Rattlesnakes can claim thir beliefs as being interpreted from the Bible. Catholics take their entire worldview from a coupla lines in Timothy that shows everyone that qe hadda have a POPE .

Just FYI, I attended Catholic school in the seventies and early eighties and I was taught Creationism. It was only after many many questions that were dismissed out of hand and some one on one conversations with priests did one of them reveal (admit) to me that the stories were not literally true. I think they were (and are) just hoping nobody asks!

hmm. I suppose there are "holdout" in any religion. I recall the last time I went inside a Catholic Church, a person I was talking with decried the "modern liturgy" and longed for the Old Latin Mass. The dumping teaching "Special Creation" (meaning that everything was Created and evolved as science said EXCEPT FOR HUMANS) along about Vatican II with John Paul

The pope doesn’t give Catholics their worldview, Jesus Christ gave it to the apostles and when he explain to them how he fulfilled the promises of the Old Testament by giving his life to restore Man’s communion with God.

The pope and the bishops are given authority with that line in Timothy to maintain some order when passing this plan of salvation on to the future generations to come. There is only one true story about the originals of the universe and man and the purpose behind it. The main thing is that we can freely discuss and argue all points. If you don’t believe the pope but you believe in Jesus don’t be a Catholic. If you don’t believe in God be an Atheist. Just don’t tell everybody else what they have to believe and teach their children and leave the discussion open to everyone.

It’s too bad that a bunch of fundamentalist Christians have come up with some hair brain ideas trying to tie the Bible to science. But at least they’re making the attempt I think it could be tied in a lot more clearly to science than they did

See, theres where I fell off the melon truck. I dont buy that stuff without mere empirical evidence. Everything in the Catholic Church is"he said and then he said and HE said back atcha"

If you note, I dont ever tell others what or not to believe. I dicuss wht I cant believe qnd how I know what I know. None of it (to my knowledge) requires me to "believe". Belief i derivative by being evidenced. I can see how spreads of genes exit in clades of organisms and I can see connected chains of fossils occur in time

As far as Interpritating science the only place we differ on evolution is that you think this all happened by chance from an unguided Source driven at least initially on random processes. Well I believe it was intelligently guided. The rest of the stuff about biological evolution I think we pretty much agree.

As far as physics nobody’s come up with the process to explain how Atoms came into existence or gravity or the nuclear forces so there’s not much to interpret when it comes to the origins of space time and matter. Nobody can explain what gravity is even excep, that it accelerates masses towards each other. I agree with all the interpretations from the Copenhagen interpretation many worlds interpretation and all the others are right from the point of view that they’re looking at. I believe all we need is an all encompassing interpretation that combines all of them into one complete theory That gives us a picture of how space and matter interact to give us gravity and the nuclear forces. Wouldn’t you agree with that.?

If our informational foundations derive from different poles of "reality", we cant really claim similarities on window dressings.
If you actually believe something is "designed" as a deliberate act by some cosmic intelligence, you should more busy yourself with rounding up evidence to present as a concept paper. All I hear from your many cohorts is how you cannot support naturalism, and you do that without presenting any evidence at all.
ince, evidence supports that life had tried to establish itself three or four times before it "took" waay back in the Eoarchean (Of this I can minimally accept a concept of panspermia as lucky hits by biologically loaded bolides.(That I can buy, but science hs been working on that for as long as weve been working on "creating life" in sterile sediments and noxious gas atmospheres).


The modern Intelligent Design Community (from which I find that many IDers have slowly been trying to remove their allegiances), has been trying to develop convincing data about the possibility of ID. So far theyve got nothing in their notebooks except empty claims about the "Mathematical Impossibility" of the origin of life by my above referenced recipe. Calling out the shortcomings of others hypotheses falls short of becoming evidence supportive of yours.

Get cracking and dig up something that , at least, gives us all pause to think about and weigh in on .
I still have no argument AGAINST the possibility of panspermia, but because of the periodic episodes of mass extinctions our planet can dish out and how life always seems to take some major right turns as a result of them , I dont see anything convincing that says there was some big time intelligence who was fuckin around with the switches and knobs.

By claiming the "mathematical Improbability gambit" as some kind of evidence, you just think that we "naturalism favoring " scientists are uneducated fools . You come off sounding rther smug and certain .

As an honst to goodness working earth scientist, I live for what I dont know and I admit that I just wander around trying to make my contributions while limiting my biases.

My last U teaching post haad a bunch of beginning grad students start an interdsciplanary ID v non ID discussion group. It died after one semester because the promised correspondents from several big ID "think tanks" just dropped away and got tired of answering requests for any supportive evidence