Faith freedom measure rapped

[Fraggle145]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080417_1_A9_spanc35155

Faith freedom measure rapped


By BARBARA HOBEROCK World Capitol Bureau
4/17/2008

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Education groups say a bill that's intended to allow students more freedom to express religious views could create huge liabilities for schools. The Senate passed the bill Wednesday.

The measure, House Bill 2633, includes the "Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act" by Sen. James A. Williamson, R-Tulsa. He got it attached to the bill as an amendment after a Senate committee refused to hear the proposal.

The amendment states: "Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Homework and classroom assignments shall be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school district. Students shall not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of their work."

Keith Ballard, executive director of the Oklahoma State School Boards Association, said the law is not necessary and would create legal liabilities for districts.

He said it is clearly established that students have individual
rights to religious freedom.

Ballard said he is not aware of any issues of this type in Oklahoma school districts.

"If we put this into law, we do open it up for some liability," he said. "We open ourselves up for bringing in other viewpoints that we might object to, such as pagan worship or things like that. I think we are opening up a can of worms."

Mark Bledsoe, executive director of the United Suburban Schools Association, said one section of Williamson's amendment could force schools to accept student papers and tests that are not responsive.

For example, he said, a student could be asked to explain Darwin's theory of evolution but respond that he or she believes that God created the universe.

"I can't grade your test under that legislation," Bledsoe said. "It creates, in my opinion, additional liability for schools to be sued. It creates a protection for your religious beliefs when they are not relevant."

Williamson disagreed, saying that under his interpretation, the student could be penalized for being unresponsive.

"Every word that we put into this statute is directly from the Supreme Court decisions they should be following now," he said. "The main purpose of the bill is to be sure everybody is operating off of the same page."

He questioned how a district could be liable if it were following Supreme Court decisions.

The measure now goes to the House.

:eek: Discuss...

[Fraggle145]

Bad news... yet another attempt to get God into schools, without thought or concern for other potential outcomes.

If this passes you will see me in court in a couple of years for refusing to accept "the bible said so" as an answer.

[Frozen Sooner]

I guess I'd have to see an interpretation.

Say, if the test question said "Explain the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection" and the student gave a cogent explanation of the theory with the caveat that they personally do not agree with the theory and that alternate explanations involving divine intervention have been forwarded that they personally find more convincing, I don't have any objection to saying that they shouldn't be penalized for that answer.

If the interpretation is that the student could absolutely refuse to answer the question based on religious grounds, I'd have a problem with that. Someone who can't explain the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection doesn't deserve a passing grade in Biology, whether they happen to personally agree with it or not-much like someone who can't identify the viscera of a frog doesn't deserve a passing grade whether their religion permits them to actually participate in a dissection or not.

[Fraggle145]

Say, if the test question said "Explain the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection" and the student gave a cogent explanation of the theory with the caveat that they personally do not agree with the theory and that alternate explanations involving divine intervention have been forwarded that they personally find more convincing, I don't have any objection to saying that they shouldn't be penalized for that answer.

I dont think they should be penalized, but honestly why do I have to be penalized as the teacher. Why do I have to read through all of that to get to the real answer? Grading takes long enough as it is without having to read through a bunch of religious stuff.

I dont care what you believe do you know the answer or not?! :D

[Frozen Sooner]

Well, yeah, but if a kid's conscience really won't let them explain TTENS without a caveat that they don't believe it to be true-that they don't even want there to be the possibility that people think they believe it-well, shucks, so long as they have the actual knowledge of what it is then they've achieved the objective of the course.

And hey, you don't have to read all the dreck about what they believe. Just look for the major points about conservation of adaptations and etc and ignore the rest.

[Mjcpr]

Faith freedom, yo!
No God in my skool
Faith freedom, yo!
I will cap a nigga fool

Word to ya motha!

[yermom]

the problem with this is when they atheist kids get ideas from it and start talking about how there is no god, or painting pictures of Satan for homework

or how Allah will have the blood of the infidels flowing in the streets

they really don't want this :)

it seems unnecessary. it's not like students can't talk about God or something in an essay can they?

and explaining Darwin's theory is a lot different than answering "where did life come from?"

[Mjcpr]

That doesn't even rhyme.

[yermom]

sorry, i didn't have time

[JohnnyMack]

I'm having a Corona, anyone got a lime?

[yermom]

it'll cost you a dime

[Mjcpr]

What good is a faith freedom measure rap if it doesn't rhyme?

[yermom]

did you just rhyme ryhme with rhyme?

[JohnnyMack]

Could've used parsley, sage, rosemary or thyme.

[soonerinabilene]

the problem with this is when they atheist kids get ideas from it and start talking about how there is no god, or painting pictures of Satan for homework

"

Or say that God is really Optimus Prime.

[Dio]

Jaux, that answer was so far off, you should be a mime.

[yermom]

if you shoot one, should that be a crime?

[soonermix]

I dont think they should be penalized, but honestly why do I have to be penalized as the teacher. Why do I have to read through all of that to get to the real answer? Grading takes long enough as it is without having to read through a bunch of religious stuff.

I dont care what you believe do you know the answer or not?! :D

i want to take Fraggle's class and answer every biology question with

"God did it this time"

[Widescreen]

It's meltdown time.



There have been some situations where a student received a zero on their paper because they chose a religious topic when there was no directive on the topics that could be chosen. I believe it got worked out through the threats of lawsuits but it should never come to that. If a student is asked to explain Darwinism, or creation or anything else they personally disagree with, they should write the paper on the topic and if they won't, they should get a bad grade. By the same token, students who are given an open-ended assignment should be able to write a paper about their religious beliefs and not be penalized. I really don't see why this bill is a bad thing. Unless the teacher is scared of having their delicate sensibilities violated.

[Fraggle145]

i want to take Fraggle's class and answer every biology question with

"God did it this time"

And every paper you got back would be covered in vomit and my enzymes :P

[XFollower]

I like it! Give the students freedom do write about what their passionate about.

[yermom]

is it really that common of an issue?

[Fraggle145]

No it isnt. I have rarely had to talk about god/religion in my intro zoology classes.

I think what these people are failing to realize is what is going to happen when people start citing god simply because they dont know the answer. And when atheists kids start organizing at schools etc... I dont think they are going to like the result too much.

BTW... The Flying Spaghetti Monster FTW!!

[Fraggle145]

I like it! Give the students freedom do write about what their passionate about.

Passion doesnt help them answer questions correctly... Studying helps them answer questions correctly.

[SCOUT]

"We open ourselves up for bringing in other viewpoints that we might object to, such as pagan worship or things like that. I think we are opening up a can of worms."
He makes an interesting point. It seems the last thing we want in schools is other viewpoints.

[Fraggle145]

He makes an interesting point. It seems the last thing we want in schools is other viewpoints.

I really dont care what viewpoint we open up so long as students can answer the questions without having to cite a god, or their religion or whatever...

[Frozen Sooner]

I'm of the viewpoint that pi is exactly equal to 3 and I plan to teach my kids in line with my doctrine. Therefore, any teacher who dares to bedowngrade my child for stating that the area of a circle of radius 2cm is obviously 12cm^2 in accordance with our faith is persecuting us.

Rabble.

[TUSooner]

"Whiny Christians Open School Doors for Radical Muslims"

[Jerk]

Wahh! What a bunch of whiny b****es.

Teach 1st graders about gay butt sex and how Heather has Two Mommies and the same people don't say a peep about 'agendas.'

[Ike]

Just my .02:

when I read:



The amendment states: "Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Homework and classroom assignments shall be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school district. Students shall not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of their work."

(emphasis mine)


followed by:


For example, he said, a student could be asked to explain Darwin's theory of evolution but respond that he or she believes that God created the universe.

"I can't grade your test under that legislation," Bledsoe said. "It creates, in my opinion, additional liability for schools to be sued. It creates a protection for your religious beliefs when they are not relevant."


My first thought is that the person speaking in the latter quote a) was either asked about something else, or b) is full of crap.

If a student is asked to explain Darwin's theory, and instead responds that they believe God created the universe, they get an F under the bolded part above for that question. Simply because they didn't answer the question.

If they can explain what the theory states, and then they further go on to explain that because they believe God created everything, they think Darwin was full of crap, then they get full credit for answering the question.

[Fraggle145]

Wahh! What a bunch of whiny b****es.

Teach 1st graders about gay butt sex and how Heather has Two Mommies and the same people don't say a peep about 'agendas.'

Actually the people with this agenda are opening the door for people to teach 1st graders about gay butt sex and how Heather has Two Mommies if you think about it.

If this law passes I cant wait till a Muslim claims something under this law and the religious right goes "Oh F**k."

In response to Ike, you and I agree... If they dont answer the question they get an F, but it is going to turn out more like Mike Rich's example where someone says there religions says pi = 3 or that god says that evolution doesnt happen and that is going to turn into the new "correct answer."

[Jerk]

If this law passes I cant wait till a Muslim claims something under this law and the religious right goes "Oh F**k."


This is already happening without a law. There's only one religion that doesn't pass the PC thought police.

[Fraggle145]

This is already happening without a law. There's only one religion that doesn't pass the PC thought police.

Oh please!? are you honestly saying christians are the ones being attacked!?

That is just funny right there. :D :D :D

[Chuck Bao]

I'm of the view that politicians shouldn't get involved in what teachers teach or grade.

This is just creating trouble.

I'm not saying that teachers are blameless and I have experienced many cases where grading was arbitrary.

But, really there is nothing wrong with that, as long as students are challenged to think for themselves. The key issue should be on gaining an education instead of gaining grades.

This is way, way off topic, but I'd like to admit to something that proves teachers can be sometimes off or not on firm ground. I was a new lecturer at Hong Kong Baptist University in 1985 and one of my final questions in my Business Principles course was the advantages of a capitalistic system.

The British had already agreed to giving back Hong Kong to mainland China in 1997 the year before. this was a tremendous politically charged final exam question. But, it was a Principles of business course. Business without capitalism is something I, as a lecturer, couldn't really teach or even imagine.

So, I was fretting about it and later realized as I was grading the papers is that these Hong Kong people know more about business and free capitalism than a farm boy from Oklahoma.

I think what I'm saying is give the students a break. Let them be challenged and let them deal with it. The Oklahoma Legislature may be surprised how well they can handle diversity and be challenged with a difference of opinion.

[Ike]

Actually the people with this agenda are opening the door for people to teach 1st graders about gay butt sex and how Heather has Two Mommies if you think about it.

If this law passes I cant wait till a Muslim claims something under this law and the religious right goes "Oh F**k."

In response to Ike, you and I agree... If they dont answer the question they get an F, but it is going to turn out more like Mike Rich's example where someone says there religions says pi = 3 or that god says that evolution doesnt happen and that is going to turn into the new "correct answer."
If a student can provide a mathematical derivation that shows pi=3, he could certainly say so in my class. (oh, and in some geometries, pi really does equal 3).

I don't care if they say that evolution doesn't happen...they still should know that the scientific consensus of the day is that it does, and they still should know exactly what that means, and not simply the straw man description of evolution that they hear in church.

[Harry Beanbag]

Organized religion will be the downfall of mankind.

[GottaHavePride]

Have I mentioned that I'm exceedingly glad to be out of the educational system before they can **** it up any further?

[Ike]

Have I mentioned that I'm exceedingly glad to be out of the educational system before they can **** it up any further?
ditto

[Fraggle145]

Have I mentioned that I'm exceedingly glad to be out of the educational system before they can **** it up any further?

Unfortunately I am still in it, and now I am getting it at both ends (teaching and learning)...

[Widescreen]

If this law passes I cant wait till a Muslim claims something under this law and the religious right goes "Oh F**k."

It's anti-Christian bias like this that justifies our homeschooling.

<cue the irrational attack on homeschooling>

[yermom]

are you going to home college them too?

[Widescreen]

Wow, that took 17 minutes. A lot longer than I suspected. Kudos on your restraint.

[yermom]

no restraint here, i just read it.

and that was a dig at your reasoning for homeschooling, not homeschooling per se

i don't know how it is now, but i only heard the "straw man" versions of evolution from people at church, until i went to college basically. at my high school they basically avoided discussions on the origin of life. in Owasso if someone mentioned the "e" word i'm thinking there would be parents with torches and pitchforks coming after them

i guess you could always send your kids to ORU or Liberty or something and they could avoid hearing anything that might try to invalidate the indoctrination you are planting until they are in their twenties. maybe by then they can resist the evils of science and homos once they are exposed to them in the real world

[Widescreen]

no restraint here, i just read it.

and that was a dig at your reasoning for homeschooling, not homeschooling per se

i don't know how it is now, but i only heard the "straw man" versions of evolution from people at church, until i went to college basically. at my high school they basically avoided discussions on the origin of life. in Owasso if someone mentioned the "e" word i'm thinking there would be parents with torches and pitchforks coming after them

i guess you could always send your kids to ORU or Liberty or something and they could avoid hearing anything that might try to invalidate the indoctrination you are planting until they are in their twenties. maybe by then they can resist the evils of science and homos once they are exposed to them in the real world
Yeah, because you have such tremendous insight into what we as a family do or what our plans for our kids are.

[Frozen Sooner]

It's anti-Christian bias like this that justifies our homeschooling.

<cue the irrational attack on homeschooling>

Calling what you quoted evidence of anti-Christian bias is, in and of itself, an irrational attack. No matter how often they tell you they do, the religious right does not speak for all Christians.

[Widescreen]

Calling what you quoted evidence of anti-Christian bias is, in and of itself, an irrational attack.

Sorry, roll all the comments he made in this thread together and it isn't.

[Frozen Sooner]

Fraggle only specifically mentioned Christianity once. In that comment, he did not attack Christianity, only expressed his doubt that Christianity is under attack.

[Widescreen]

He mentioned "religion" multiple times which, in the context of his comments, I believe he meant Christianity. When he said how the religious right would become unglued if Muslims used this bill, who do you think he was referencing? The Jews?

[tommieharris91]

i guess you could always send your kids to ORU or Liberty or something and they could avoid hearing anything that might try to invalidate the indoctrination you are planting until they are in their twenties. maybe by then they can resist the evils of science and homos once they are exposed to them in the real world

Heh, at that point they might not have heard of deities such as Flying Spaghetti Monster or Ceiling Cat.

[Frozen Sooner]

The religious right does not equate to Christianity. Having a bias against the religious right does not mean that you are biased against Christianity or Christians.

[Widescreen]

The religious right does not equate to Christianity. Having a bias against the religious right does not mean that you are biased against Christianity or Christians.

If you say so. I'm waiting to see the throngs of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and agnostics identifying themselves as a part of the religious right.

[Frozen Sooner]

That probably wasn't the clearest way I could put that:

The religious right is a subset of Christianity. It is not all of Christianity. Bias against the religious right is not a bias against Christianity, it is a bias against a subset of Christianity-a particular subset of Christianity that tends to be rather vocal about their religion with regards to education.

I know many Christians who would object rather strongly to being called part of the religious right.

[Jerk]

Oh please!? are you honestly saying christians are the ones being attacked!?

That is just funny right there. :D :D :D

By academia and popular culture? Yes

Anyone who criticized a muslim is a 'bigot' in their eyes.

[TUSooner]

OK, rant time, and it doesn't matter whether I read the whole thread or not; it's a RANT dadgummit!

I'm fed up with hearing my fellow Christians whine about how "persecuted" we are by society. Horse apples ! If the gub'ment is stopping you from being a good Christian, then you just aren't trying very hard. "Christian" is not a politcal party, btw.

And whatever made any Christian think that the government - any government - was supposed to coddle us and our religious beliefs? Was it the way the Romans "coddled" Jesus on the cross? I've read the New Testament quite a lot, thank you, and I don't remember seeing anything about the "world" being our friend and benefactor.

You want a public school education? You play the public school game. You want school to do your parenting for you? You can't protect your own kids from **** they hear in a public school? Then bruvvah, you're no better than those liberal "it takes a village" folks, depending on society & stuff. Send your children to a Christian school instead of buying a 50-inch TV or a new car.
JUST QUIT BAWLING !

[OUDoc]

"Whiny Christians Open School Doors for Radical Muslims"

I stopped right here in this thread. To me, THIS is the core issue, and when it comes to a head, we're all going to be unhappy with the outcome.

[JohnnyMack]

I know this chick who was home schooled. She's really, really weird.

[Fraggle145]

That probably wasn't the clearest way I could put that:

The religious right is a subset of Christianity. It is not all of Christianity. Bias against the religious right is not a bias against Christianity, it is a bias against a subset of Christianity-a particular subset of Christianity that tends to be rather vocal about their religion with regards to education.

I know many Christians who would object rather strongly to being called part of the religious right.

Thank you.

[Fraggle145]

By academia and popular culture? Yes

Anyone who criticized a muslim is a 'bigot' in their eyes.

by popular culture!? you cant be serious. There are more movies about god, jesus and bible than I can count, the bible is the top selling book of all time, and it is on TV and radio 24/7.

Academia isnt biased against christians. Many people in Academia are christians or are religous. Many just disagree with the viewpoint that "hmmm this is really hard to figure out... a God did it." Instead we try to logically find solutions.

Anyone who criticizes a muslim for being a muslim is a bigot.

Anyone who criticizes muslims that have taken the train to crazy town to be a radical muslim for being radical muslims is justified.

There is a difference there. You cant lump all muslims together just like you cant lump all christians together. There are the crazies and the ones that are rational.

[Fraggle145]

It's anti-Christian bias like this that justifies our homeschooling.

<cue the irrational attack on homeschooling>

And I am assuming that you have been trained in all facets of education and thus can provide a more adequate education than those that have trained for years to do the job...

And that is a rational attack on homeschooling.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

And I am assuming that you have been trained in all facets of education and thus can provide a more adequate education than those that have trained for years to do the job...

Yes.

My daughter is in 2nd grade. They've been studying the earth, weather, and different means to measure atmospheric conditions. Really interesting stuff that can go as deep as you want it to go. In the extended discussion of temperature and what a thermometer actually does, I made the comment that there is actually no such thing as 'cold'. Cold is a perception, and is actually a relative lack of heat. My daughter tucked this one away and we went on, talking about how heat is transferred, how pressure works similarly, and how these two concepts relate to how weather often changes here at home.

My daughter promptly took that back to school with her and mentioned that her daddy told her there was no such thing as cold, that the only difference is the presence and amount of heat. She was promptly shut down by her teacher who stated with apparent pride that there WAS such thing as cold, it's measurable with a thermometer, and your father is just mistaken. We've had this lil' go-round a few times with the sciences, one in regards to precession of the earth, once in regards to how the respiratory system works, and another one that escapes me at the moment.

In other words, teachers aren't some educated, inviolate being that knows all, sees all. In fact, education STARTS at home as far as I'm concerned. What's wrong with that?

Nothing. Good on you for homeschooling your kids, Widescreen.

[yermom]

not all teachers are Fraggle's mom ;)

[Fraggle145]

In other words, teachers aren't some educated, inviolate being that knows all, sees all. In fact, education STARTS at home as far as I'm concerned. What's wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with that. In fact I am in full agreement that education starts at home. However, I doubt that there are many people out there trained to give a complete education via homeschooling. Especially once a student hits junior high/high school. And to pretend someone could provide a college education via homeschool would be ridiculous.

I am not saying teachers are infallible either. We are people and make mistakes. Just because you can point out 4-5 mistakes doesnt mean that the teacher is always wrong and doesnt know what they are talking about. they could very well know more than you about a different subject.

And what about the education one gets from their peers? Interaction with a peer group has to happen someday and IMO depriving a student of that early in life makes it that much more difficult to interact later on.

[Fraggle145]

not all teachers are Fraggle's mom ;)

Goddam right. ;)

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I am not saying teachers are infallible either. We are people and make mistakes. Just because you cant point out 4-5 mistakes doesnt mean that the teacher is always wrong and doesnt know what they are talking about. they could very well know more than you about a different subject.

Then where do you, as a parent, draw the line and accept the fact that the teacher doesn't know their butt from a hole in the ground?

6 times? 10 times? 47 times?

Especially at my daughter's grade level, there's zero subjectivity in the material she's being taught. Eight times three is twenty-four. Dog is a noun, run is a verb. Earth is the third planet from the sun in our solar system. Dinosaurs are dead and evidence of them can be found in fossils. As an instructor myself, I know full well when to call calfrope and admit that I either don't know, or that I've been mistaken on a piece of information I'm teaching. That has everything to do with pride, and while that teacher may be better educated in a different sphere of material, at this lower grade level, guess what? That ain't much.

I agree with you that there's more to learn from the experience than gizintas and words. But when the system is failing even the most basic premises of scientific discovery, or its equivalent, teaching 8 x 3 = 26, or dog is a preposition, something's wrong. Enter homeschooling for those with the ability and/or the desire to make it right with both guns blazing. After all, it ain't a ****ing match about who knows more in what subject, it's about teaching our children to the limits of their ability.

In that, there's no place for pride.

[Fugue]

Goddam right. ;)

There you go, bringing religion into this classroom discussion. http://talkwichita.com/thunder/style_emoticons/default/nonono.gif

[imjebus]

Yes.

My daughter is in 2nd grade. They've been studying the earth, weather, and different means to measure atmospheric conditions. Really interesting stuff that can go as deep as you want it to go. In the extended discussion of temperature and what a thermometer actually does, I made the comment that there is actually no such thing as 'cold'. Cold is a perception, and is actually a relative lack of heat. My daughter tucked this one away and we went on, talking about how heat is transferred, how pressure works similarly, and how these two concepts relate to how weather often changes here at home.

My daughter promptly took that back to school with her and mentioned that her daddy told her there was no such thing as cold, that the only difference is the presence and amount of heat. She was promptly shut down by her teacher who stated with apparent pride that there WAS such thing as cold, it's measurable with a thermometer, and your father is just mistaken. We've had this lil' go-round a few times with the sciences, one in regards to precession of the earth, once in regards to how the respiratory system works, and another one that escapes me at the moment.

In other words, teachers aren't some educated, inviolate being that knows all, sees all. In fact, education STARTS at home as far as I'm concerned. What's wrong with that?

Nothing. Good on you for homeschooling your kids, Widescreen.

I would argue that heat is just a perception also. To understand heat and cold requires two concepts: energy, temperature. Molecules vibrate
around in all things. Increasing the temperature of an object is making the molecules vibrate more quickly. This vibration is a way to store energy for later use. Heat is the transfer of energy that results from these vibrations. If an object with very fast vibrations touches an object with very slow vibrations, the quickly vibrating molecules will bang against the slow molecules, making them vibrate faster. This is what happens when your finger touches something warm. It is also what happens when your finger touches something cool, but in reverse. The energy travels from your finger to the cool object. Something feels hot if it has a great deal of energy stored in vibrating molecules, ready to pass into other things. Something feels cold if it does not have much of this stored energy and is ready to take in energy from things around it.

At least thats the way I learnt it....:D

[SoonerBorn68]

And I am assuming that you have been trained in all facets of education and thus can provide a more adequate education than those that have trained for years to do the job...

And that is a rational attack on homeschooling.

Are you a parent? From your posts I've gathered you are not the kind of person I want teaching MY children--and if you were, you'd have a belly full of me every time I disagreed with what and how you teach MY children...ask the Norman school system, they know my name well.

[Fraggle145]

Are you a parent? From your posts I've gathered you are not the kind of person I want teaching MY children--and if you were, you'd have a belly full of me every time I disagreed with what and how you teach MY children...ask the Norman school system, they know my name well.

Why am i not the kind of person you want teaching your children?

I teach at OU. Just because you disagree with what someone teaches doesnt mean that they arent correct.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Something feels hot if it has a great deal of energy stored in vibrating molecules, ready to pass into other things. Something feels cold if it does not have much of this stored energy and is ready to take in energy from things around it.

Right.

But the measurement of isn't how LITTLE vibration is present. Cold is a perception. Even something that is perceptively cold has heat energy present. Therefore when you measure the heat (not the cold) of even the perceptively coldest of objects, let's say -458 degrees Fahrenheit, there is still heat energy present and therefore when measured, you are still measuring the heat energy. Not "cold" or some other subjective observation.

Hence why the way I understand it, there is no such thing as "cold" other than one's own perception of a lack of heat energy relative to experience or the surrounding environment.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Why am i not the kind of person you want teaching your children?

I teach at OU. Just because you disagree with what someone teaches doesnt mean that they arent correct.

Doesn't mean you, or they, ARE correct either. It's an issue of having the cojones to admit it either way, and a lack thereof that I'm seeing firsthand as a growing trend in teaching.

[SoonerBorn68]

Why am i not the kind of person you want teaching your children?

I teach at OU. Just because you disagree with what someone teaches doesnt mean that they arent correct.

I've read your posts since you started here. I'm not impressed. I don't have to agree with what the teachers teach, but I don't want them to feel they have to "follow" teachings as fact. I had professors like yourself in college & I got in trouble for calling them out & not following in submission. I just get the feeling you are that kind of teacher & my children are being rasied as independent thinkers, not sheep.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurn.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

Please keep it civil.

There was some good discussion going on here and it'd be a shame to lock this down.

[Fraggle145]

I've read your posts since you started here. I'm not impressed. I don't have to agree with what the teachers teach, but I don't want them to feel they have to "follow" teachings as fact. I had professors like yourself in college & I got in trouble for calling them out & not following in submission. I just get the feeling you are that kind of teacher & my children are being rasied as independent thinkers, not sheep.

I really dont care if you are impressed with me. Am I supposed to be impressed with you because the Norman Public School system knows your name? How do you know you had professors like me? Have you taken my class? You dont even know me.

You dont have to agree with what teachers teach. And you dont have to follow teachings as fact. I encourage independent thinking. I encourage students to challenge what I say. Just make sure you can back it up. You should be able to justify why you think something is true.

And if you dont know anything about what you are talking about and are just trying to be disruptive or prove you know more than me when often times you dont, then you should shut your mouth.

Now if you are trying to learn something I will sit down with you all day until you and I both understand it better.

I get paid to provide the current state of the field. If you can provide me with some new information that is great. I need to keep ahead of the field as best as i can and if I dont its a failing on my part and I will admit it when I am wrong, as I have done publicly in front of the whole class every time. I dont mind being wrong, oftentimes it helps people learn.

However, I think a lot of people think they are being forced to "follow" when in fact they dont know what the hell they are talking about and refuse to listen to reason out of their own ignorance or selfish pride.

[Fraggle145]

Doesn't mean you, or they, ARE correct either. It's an issue of having the cojones to admit it either way, and a lack thereof that I'm seeing firsthand as a growing trend in teaching.

Absolutely. And that is unfortunate.

[JohnnyMack]

I've read your posts since you started here. I'm not impressed. I don't have to agree with what the teachers teach, but I don't want them to feel they have to "follow" teachings as fact. I had professors like yourself in college & I got in trouble for calling them out & not following in submission. I just get the feeling you are that kind of teacher & my children are being rasied as independent thinkers, not sheep.

What church do you go to?

[SoonerBorn68]

What church do you go to?

Church of the Oil Patch and you?


I really dont care if you are impressed with me. Am I supposed to be impressed with you because the Norman Public School system knows your name? How do you know you had professors like me? Have you taken my class? You dont even know me.

I think I hit a nerve. You teachers sure are thin skinned when it comes to home schooling. Do you know Widescreen? Have you ever taken one of his classes? How do you know he can't do a better job than a government school?

[Fraggle145]

I think I hit a nerve. You teachers sure are thin skinned when it comes to home schooling. Do you know Widescreen? Have you ever taken one of his classes? How do you know he can't do a better job than a government school?

No I dont know Widescreen. All I asked was if he had the appropriate qualifications to provide a complete education. If he does then good for him. I would be willing to wager that the majority of people that homeschool their children do not. The only other thing I said about homeschooling was that there is no replacement for the education one gets from ones own peer group.

You might think of it as being thin skinned, but its not about homeschooling. 1st, I didnt appreciate being called one of "those" teachers when you knew nothing about me. 2nd, You arent being told that you have to accept something that isnt correct based on a "god said so" answer. And you arent then being asked why education sucks after telling us what we needed to teach even after we say its wrong. You dont have to hear it all day from kids who refuse to listen and then have to turn around and listen to parents who think they are more qualified than you, when, like I said in my 2nd post to you, they often dont know what the hell they are talking about and refuse to listen to reason out of ignorance or their selfish pride.

Do you appreciate it when people (many that dont have a clue) try to tell you how to do your job?

The whole point of this thread was about 2 things: 1) placing god in schools, 2) Telling teachers how to do their job based on placing god in schools.

[SoonerBorn68]

I think you're afraid of bringing ideas of faith into the classroom.

And yeah, I'm told how to do my job all the time--sometimes by idiots, sometimes those who have more experience than me & some who just pay my salary. ;)

[Fraggle145]

I think you're afraid of bringing ideas of faith into the classroom.

Yep. Because I think there is no room for faith in the classroom as faith is not based in logic. You can teach faith at home ;).

[yermom]

faith has no business in the public classroom, as far as teaching goes

although, it could get odd if every time Johnny has to present something to the class it was about Jesus, etc...

i mean i hope the idea on this law is about creative writing, or essays, research topics, and not science, or something. if it's about open ended assignments, it kinda makes sense. but the other side of it could get ugly

[SoonerBorn68]

Yep. Because I think there is no room for faith in the classroom as faith is not based in logic. You can teach faith at home ;).

...and Geometry, and English, and History. ;)

Good for you--you are the perfect example of why I don't like sending my kids to public school. Your arrogance runneth over.

[Fraggle145]

...and Geometry, and English, and History. ;)

Good for you--you are the perfect example of why I don't like sending my kids to public school. Your arrogance runneth over.

How is that arrogance? :confused:

[SoonerBorn68]

i mean i hope the idea on this law is about creative writing, or essays, research topics, and not science, or something. if it's about open ended assignments, it kinda makes sense.

I thought that's what I read too, but some people are close minded.

[Fraggle145]

I thought that's what I read too, but some people are close minded.

Hi Kettle, this is Pot calling...

[SoonerBorn68]

How is that arrogance? :confused:

Go back and re read some of your posts. If you don't see anything wrong with some of them the label applies.

[SoonerBorn68]

Hi Kettle, this is Pot calling...


You're the one saying faith has no place in public schools. Sounds like a shut door to me.

[Fraggle145]

Go back and re read some of your posts. If you don't see anything wrong with some of them the label applies.

Whatever... :cool:

[SoonerBorn68]

Hey, now that's logical. :)

[Fraggle145]

You're the one saying faith has no place in public schools. Sounds like a shut door to me.

It doesnt. It is a shut door. I dont care what faith it is. It has no bearing on anything that is taught in school. It isnt necessary to answer questions.

[Fraggle145]

i mean i hope the idea on this law is about creative writing, or essays, research topics, and not science, or something. if it's about open ended assignments, it kinda makes sense. but the other side of it could get ugly

Its the science, or should I say the lack thereof, that concerns me.

[SoonerBorn68]

YAY! You win...and thank GOD you won't be teaching my children. :)

[Fraggle145]

Hey, now that's logical. :)

Well since you cant seem to use logic to justify how I am arrogant, I just had to move on.

[Fraggle145]

YAY! You win...and thank GOD you won't be teaching my children. :)

And that is the problem right there, you cant get past the whole GOD thing to listen to what I am talking about. Do you want me to teach about every other faith while im teaching too?

[yermom]

only the right one ;)

[SoonerBorn68]

Dude look, if somebody wants to do a creative writing paper on Jesus, Allah, or a cow who is going to hurt? If somebody wants to paint a picture of Noah's Ark or John Smith what's it going to hurt? I'm not saying base science on faith or teach Creation--I'm just wondering why you're so against independent creativity? If it's an open ended assignment--it should be just that.

[JohnnyMack]

Church of the Oil Patch and you?


http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/blogs/static/gaetano/satan.jpg

[yermom]

Dude look, if somebody wants to do a creative writing paper on Jesus, Allah, or a cow who is going to hurt? If somebody wants to paint a picture of Noah's Ark or John Smith what's it going to hurt? I'm not saying base science on faith or teach Creation--I'm just wondering why you're so against independent creativity? If it's an open ended assignment--it should be just that.


i don't think that was much of a point of contention.

how often are assignments not accepted for such content? i've never seen it...

[Fraggle145]

Dude look, if somebody wants to do a creative writing paper on Jesus, Allah, or a cow who is going to hurt? If somebody wants to paint a picture of Noah's Ark or John Smith what's it going to hurt? I'm not saying base science on faith or teach Creation--I'm just wondering why you're so against independent creativity? If it's an open ended assignment--it should be just that.

Well then we have been talking about two separate things. If you look at my reply to yermom, its the science I am worried about.

My problem/worry is that this isnt just going to apply to creative assignments. I dont care what someone does in an open creative assignment. So long as it follows the terms of the assignment then whatever.

I am not in a field that has many of those.

I am mainly focused on using inductive and deductive reasoning to experimentally and observationally understand how the world (particularly freshwater environments, in my case) works.

[soonermix]

one of the biggest problems with schools is the lack of creative thinking.
from my school days it was pretty much a bunch of memorization of facts and regurgate on the test to get a good grade.

[Fraggle145]

one of the biggest problems with schools is the lack of creative thinking.
from my school days it was pretty much a bunch of memorization of facts and regurgate on the test to get a good grade.

Which is worse now with "No child left behind." It is basically teaching kids how to take tests. :(

[Blue]

"hmmm this is really hard to figure out... a God did it." Instead we try to logically find solutions.

.

= Arrogance.

I believe God did what he said because he told me. In the Bible. His words. Not because it was the easiest answer.

You don't believe that and that's your opinion.

It doesn't get any more logical for me than to give thanks to my God.

I'd appreciate it also if you could refrain from the GD-ing.

[OklahomaRed]

Yep. Because I think there is no room for faith in the classroom as faith is not based in logic. You can teach faith at home ;).

There is a lot of "faith" in the classroom. As an educator, I don't see how you can make that statement? How long have you been teaching? I ask that question to get some perspective. For example, in just the last 10 years the understanding of the human body has taken huge jumps in thinking. What I was asked to believe in good faith 15 years ago has been turned upside down. What was once believed to be good for medical outcomes in several instances has been proven later to be false or off base. The very faith it takes to believe in evolution is the same. Evolution can not be proven. There are pieces here and there that are taken as fact and then theory is pushed forward to come together with some sort or reasonable hypothesis; however, to say that it's not taken by faith is proving 68's point about not keeping an open mind and encouraging forward thinking.

I'm okay with keeping religion out of school, but if we begin making exceptions for whatever faith or religion, then we have to make exceptions for them all. Also, students should not be punished for open ended assignments where they choose to express themselves. Agnostics, or liberal "christians" (which is basically saying they want to believe bits and pieces of the Bible, just not all of it) should not be allowed to give lower grades to children who come from Christian households who choose to express their faith.

I agree with one of the other posters here that faith is from the home, and I made it through all my post doctorate and doctorate college classes in chemistry, biology, anatomy, zoology, genetics, etc. by being able to memorize and regurgitate what the professor wanted me to memorize and regurgitate; however, I did this in full knowledge if I did make a stand on an issue that he/she was the ruler of their domain and I was taking a chance on getting a lower grade. I chose to ignore some of their rants; however, it doesn't mean they were right.

We will all know the truth some day, or if you are agnostic, it won't matter. :D

Not my job to convince you. After all, you are a college professor. :D

[Fraggle145]

= Arrogance.

I believe God did what he said because he told me. In the Bible. His words. Not because it was the easiest answer.

You don't believe that and that's your opinion.

It doesn't get any more logical for me than to give thanks to my God.

I'd appreciate it also if you could refrain from the GD-ing.

My problem with this, and a whole different can of worms is that the bible is written by men. It has then been retranslated thousands of times. Not to mention that many books are left out.

But beyond that it is not logical because it cant be tested scientifically and therefore is not suitable as an answer to questions about science. I dont see how that is arrogance, it may be an oversimplification in my previous quote, but not arrogance.

[JohnnyMack]

This thread is about to implode.

We need more devil worshipping in it. Quick.

http://dcymbal.metabarn.com/images/deathtongue.jpg

[SoonerBorn68]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1f/Iron_Maiden_-_The_Number_Of_The_Beast.jpg/200px-Iron_Maiden_-_The_Number_Of_The_Beast.jpg

[Blue]

My problem with this, and a whole different can of worms is that the bible is written by men. It has then been retranslated thousands of times. Not to mention that many books are left out.

But beyond that it is not logical because it cant be tested scientifically and therefore is not suitable as an answer to questions about science. I dont see how that is arrogance, it may be an oversimplification in my previous quote, but not arrogance.

The Bible is just where it needs to be. It seems to make sense to me. Does that prove it's true? No. Got to take it by faith. And I think this law is dumb and opens up a can of worms.

As far as tested by science, aren't archeologists findind things all the time that verify truth in scripture? The more scientists break down laws of the universe, aren't they finding order instead of chaos? Just asking.

[SoonerBorn68]

I dont see how that is arrogance, it may be an oversimplification in my previous quote, but not arrogance.

They never do. ;)

[JohnnyMack]

Oh we are about to derail.

May as well post whatever you've got before this one gets the axe.

http://onemansblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/CharlesManson.jpg

[Fugue]

http://media.scout.com/media/image/27/273123.gif

[soonermix]

so this one time at band camp...

[JohnnyMack]

http://www.b-movies.gr/UserFiles/Image/Ready%20pics/killer%20klowns%20from%20outer%20space/killer%20klowns%201.jpg

[Fraggle145]

There is a lot of "faith" in the classroom. As an educator, I don't see how you can make that statement? How long have you been teaching? I ask that question to get some perspective. For example, in just the last 10 years the understanding of the human body has taken huge jumps in thinking. What I was asked to believe in good faith 15 years ago has been turned upside down. What was once believed to be good for medical outcomes in several instances has been proven later to be false or off base. The very faith it takes to believe in evolution is the same. Evolution can not be proven. There are pieces here and there that are taken as fact and then theory is pushed forward to come together with some sort or reasonable hypothesis; however, to say that it's not taken by faith is proving 68's point about not keeping an open mind and encouraging forward thinking.

That is just not correct. Evolution has been tested. Over and over and over and over. The entire current literature is based on tests of the hypotheses derived from Darwins original hypothesis. It isnt faith. It is not something that I believe in. It is a rigorously tested theory that could still be proven wrong. And I will accept it until it is disproven. The entire thing could be washed up upon finding the "wrong" fossils in the "wrong" layers of rocks for example.

What you were asked to accept 15 years ago was the current state of the field. Fields progress, hypotheses get proven and disproven. Nothing in science is set in stone. And the field only moves forward by disproving hypotheses as it is the only thing that can be known for sure. Technically you cant prove anything. I mean even Einstein disproved the "law" of gravity.


I'm okay with keeping religion out of school, but if we begin making exceptions for whatever faith or religion, then we have to make exceptions for them all. Also, students should not be punished for open ended assignments where they choose to express themselves. Agnostics, or liberal "christians" (which is basically saying they want to believe bits and pieces of the Bible, just not all of it) should not be allowed to give lower grades to children who come from Christian households who choose to express their faith.

And I have already said that I agree with that. I would rather not have to make exceptions when it comes to subjects like math and science. Creative projects do whatever you want.


I agree with one of the other posters here that faith is from the home, and I made it through all my post doctorate and doctorate college classes in chemistry, biology, anatomy, zoology, genetics, etc. by being able to memorize and regurgitate what the professor wanted me to memorize and regurgitate; however, I did this in full knowledge if I did make a stand on an issue that he/she was the ruler of their domain and I was taking a chance on getting a lower grade. I chose to ignore some of their rants; however, it doesn't mean they were right.

We will all know the truth some day, or if you are agnostic, it won't matter. :D

Not my job to convince you. After all, you are a college professor. :D

I said faith was for the home. At least in my case, my graduate education is more than just regurgitation its being able to assimilate information and then integrate it into ones understanding of science. I have made stands as well on things that I disagree on in the sciences with my advisors and my colleagues. that is how science progresses! To me my graduate education is about my career, not about a grade, because as many of us know grades and GPAs dont mean much in the real world. Understanding the material does.

Eventually we will know the truth and that will be great.

And I never said I was a professor, I said I teach at OU. I am still a graduate student going for my PhD. So you can quit saying that I am acting smug, when I am not I am just defending my position.

[Fugue]

http://www.rudrinking.com/sitebuilder/images/Gene_Stephenson_in_OU_jersey-253x175.jpg

[Fraggle145]

The Bible is just where it needs to be. It seems to make sense to me. Does that prove it's true? No. Got to take it by faith. And I think this law is dumb and opens up a can of worms.

As far as tested by science, aren't archeologists findind things all the time that verify truth in scripture? The more scientists break down laws of the universe, aren't they finding order instead of chaos? Just asking.

And to me that is religion should be something that makes sense to you as an individual.

yes they are finding phenomenon that naturally correlate to what happened. Like the potential for icesheets where Jesus walked on water.

And I dont know as much about the entire universe or chaos theory. If I understand it right Chaos is basically an appearance of something being random with a predetermined (although we may not know it) outcome.

[yermom]

Chaos is sensitivity to initial conditions in non-linear systems ;)

[Fraggle145]

Chaos is sensitivity to initial conditions in non-linear systems ;)

dont they eventually converge? or no?

Either way like I said I have no idea... :D

[yermom]

the idea is that minute changes in the input can have drastic, unpredictable changes on the output

i believe one of the first places this was noticed was weather simulations

[Fraggle145]

Ah ok gotcha... So really chaos is difficult to test when comparing the history of the universe unless you compare it to other planets and their divergence from one another?

[tommieharris91]

Why do I see lots of this coming from this thread?

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Forum/images/smilies/banned.gif

[OklahomaRed]

Okay, for the sake of debate I am going to post some of the following information. I'm not posting to start an arguement about the origins of the universe; however, I am posting to show that there are scientists that are very learned that believe in the Bible, not saying that you as a PhD candidate are not very intelligent. I applaud you, and also your willingness to listen to our "rants". :D

Scientific problems with the big bang
The big bang also has a number of scientific problems. Big bang supporters are forced to accept on “blind faith” a number of notions that are completely inconsistent with real observational science. Let’s explore some of the inconsistencies between the big bang story and the real universe.

Missing monopoles
Most people know something about magnets—like the kind found in a compass or the kind that sticks to a refrigerator. We often say that magnets have two “poles”—a north pole and a south pole. Poles that are alike will repel each other, while opposites attract. A “monopole” is a hypothetical massive particle that is just like a magnet but has only one pole. So a monopole would have either a north pole or a south pole, but not both.

Particle physicists claim that many magnetic monopoles should have been created in the high temperature conditions of the big bang. Since monopoles are stable, they should have lasted to this day. Yet, despite considerable search efforts, monopoles have not been found. Where are the monopoles? The fact that we don’t find any monopoles suggests that the universe never was that hot. This indicates that there never was a big bang, but it is perfectly consistent with the Bible’s account of creation, since the universe did not start infinitely hot.

The flatness problem
Another serious challenge to the big bang model is called the “flatness problem.” The expansion rate of the universe appears to be very finely balanced with the force of gravity; this condition is called “flat.” If the universe were the accidental byproduct of a big bang, it is difficult to imagine how such a fantastic coincidence could occur. Big bang cosmology cannot explain why the matter density in the universe isn’t greater, causing it to collapse upon itself (closed universe), or less, causing the universe to rapidly fly apart (open universe).

The problem is even more severe when we extrapolate into the past. Since any deviation from perfect flatness tends to increase as time moves forward, it logically follows that the universe must have been even more precisely balanced in the past than it is today. Thus, at the moment of the big bang, the universe would have been virtually flat to an extremely high precision. This must have been the case (assuming the big bang), despite the fact that the laws of physics allow for an infinite range of values. This is a coincidence that stretches credulity to the breaking point. Of course, in the creation model, “balance” is expected since the Lord has fine-tuned the universe for life.

Inflating the complexities
Many secular astronomers have come up with an idea called “inflation” in an attempt to address the flatness and monopole problems (as well as other problems not addressed in detail here, such as the horizon problem). Inflation proposes that the universe temporarily went through a period of accelerated expansion. Amazingly, there is no real supporting evidence for inflation; it appears to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated conjecture—much like the big bang itself. Moreover, the inflation idea has difficulties of its own, such as what would start it and how it would stop smoothly. In addition, other problems with the big bang are not solved, even if inflation were true. These are examined below.

Where is the antimatter?
Consider the “baryon number problem.” Recall that the big bang supposes that matter (hydrogen and helium gas) was created from energy as the universe expanded. However, experimental physics tells us that whenever matter is created from energy, such a reaction also produces antimatter. Antimatter has similar properties to matter, except the charges of the particles are reversed. (So whereas a proton has a positive charge, an antiproton has a negative charge.) Any reaction where energy is transformed into matter produces an exactly equal amount of antimatter; there are no known exceptions.

The big bang (which has no matter to begin with—only energy) should have produced exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and that should be what we see today. But we do not. The visible universe is comprised almost entirely of matter—with only trace amounts of antimatter anywhere.

This devastating problem for the big bang is actually consistent with biblical creation; it is a design feature. God created the universe to be essentially matter only—and it’s a good thing He did. When matter and antimatter come together, they violently destroy each other. If the universe had equal amounts of matter and antimatter (as the big bang requires), life would not be possible.

Missing Population III stars
The big bang model by itself can only account for the existence of the three lightest elements (hydrogen, helium and trace amounts of lithium). This leaves about 90 or so of the other naturally occurring elements to be explained. Since the conditions in the big bang are not right to form these heavier elements (as big bang supporters readily concede), secular astronomers believe that stars have produced the remaining elements by nuclear fusion in the core. This is thought to occur in the final stages of a massive star as it explodes (a supernova). The explosion then distributes the heavier elements into space. Second and third generation stars are thus “contaminated” with small amounts of these heavier elements.

If this story were true, then the first stars would have been comprised of only the three lightest elements (since these would have been the only elements in existence initially). Some such stars3 should still be around today since their potential lifespan is calculated to exceed the (big bang) age of the universe. Such stars would be called “Population III” stars.4 Amazingly (to those who believe in the big bang), Population III stars have not been found anywhere. All known stars have at least trace amounts of heavy elements in them. It is amazing to think that our galaxy alone is estimated to have over 100 billion stars in it. Yet not one star has been discovered that is comprised of only the three lightest elements.

The collapse of the big bang
With all the problems listed above, as well as many others too numerous to include, it is not surprising that quite a few secular astronomers are beginning to abandon the big bang. Although it is still the dominant model at present, increasing numbers of physicists and astronomers are realizing that the big bang simply is not a good explanation of how the universe began. In the May 22, 2004 issue of New Scientist, there appeared an open letter to the scientific community written primarily by secular scientists5 who challenge the big bang. These scientists pointed out that the copious arbitrary assumptions and the lack of successful big bang predictions challenge the legitimacy of the model. Among other things, they state:

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.6
This statement has since been signed by hundreds of other scientists and professors at various institutions. The big bang seems to be losing considerable popularity. Secular scientists are increasingly rejecting the big bang in favor of other models. If the big bang is abandoned, what will happen to all the Christians who compromised and claimed that the Bible is compatible with the big bang? What will they say? Will they claim that the Bible actually does not teach the big bang, but instead that it teaches the latest secular model? Secular models come and go, but God’s Word does not need to be changed because God got it exactly right the first time.

Conclusion
The big bang has many scientific problems. These problems are symptomatic of the underlying incorrect worldview. The big bang erroneously assumes that the universe was not supernaturally created, but that it came about by natural processes billions of years ago. However, reality does not line up with this notion. Biblical creation explains the evidence in a more straightforward way without the ubiquitous speculations prevalent in secular models. But ultimately, the best reason to reject the big bang is that it goes against what the Creator of the universe Himself has taught: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

[yermom]

Ah ok gotcha... So really chaos is difficult to test when comparing the history of the universe unless you compare it to other planets and their divergence from one another?

i guess?

this is what i was talking about:

http://home.earthlink.net/~srrobin/chaos.html


In the early sixties, Ed Lorenz, a meteorolgist who had studied mathematics at Harvard, was trying out the new computer that had recently been delivered to his office at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology when he stumbled upon an oddity in the weather model he was testing on the computer. The model consisted of a typically deterministic system of differential equations, inherently no more complicated than Newton's laws of motion. Lorenz wanted to take a second look at several months of simulated weather generated by the computer. So he stopped the simulation, reentered the initial values for his variables and started the simulation over from the beginning. Of course, since this was a completely deterministic model, he expected to see a pattern of values identical to the previous simulation. He was puzzled and somewhat irritated to find that after a month or two of simulated weather the values being plotted on the screen were completely different from those of the first simulation. After testing for computer malfunction and rerunning the program several times, he finally discovered the problem. In entering the initial values, he had used three decimal places of accuracy, while the computer was internally working with six places. Lorenz had rediscovered Poincar&#233;'s "sensitivity to initial conditions." Lorenz called it "the Butterfly Effect", because it implied that if a butterfly in Brazil flapped its wings it could set off a chain reaction in weather patterns that might lead to a tornado in Texas a few weeks later. In his 1963 paper for a meterological journal, he called this behavior "deterministic non-periodic flow." Some thirteen years later, Maryland physicist James Yorke would give such phenomena the name that, for better or worse, would stick: "chaos."

[Frozen Sooner]

Hypothetical (and admittedly extreme) scenario:

Little Johnny is a member of a pretty strict sect of some religion-not necessarily Christian. Part of the teachings of that faith is the tenet that anyone who is not a practicioner of said faith will be punished in the afterlife and should be punished in this life.

Should Johnny's teacher be allowed to give a failing grade if Johnny writes a paper detailing that particular tenet of his faith and arguing for the punishment of those who don't practice his faith?

[JohnnyMack]

Why would he be failed for that?

[OklahomaRed]

No, he should not get a failing grade. A lot would deppend on what class it was, but if it were English class (for example) then the teacher should grade on spelling, sentence structure, ability to organize his thoughts in concise fashion, and the ability to use footnotes, etc. as she/he had taught that week and then requested a writing assignment so they could grade.

Now, if it were geography and little Johnny went on a rant completely off subject, then yes, they should fail them for failing to follow the specifics of the assignment.

When I first saw you were posting, I "assumed" I was going to get a lesson on astronomy. I remember from a previous thread that you are fairly well versed in this subject? :D

[TUSooner]

Some people used to complain that school has gotten too far from the 3 Rs. Now some of y'all want schools to cover all the various views on the ****ing origin of the ****ing universe and all of reality! GAHHH!!!! :eek: :eek:

Half* the students in public schools can't write a compete sentence, but we have to squeeze in a lesson from Genesis so Christian sensibilities won't get all "offended."

If schools would stick to the most basic tools needed to make one's way out of the outhouse or the poorhouse, we wouldn't have half of these idiotic cosmic "issues" being kicked around and beathen to death in the medial by armies of hyperemotional nitwits. AND we'd could probably stop public school at 10th grade, with better results. :rolleyes:

And you know what else? Parents have more power than schools. My daughters went to Catholic schools and they didn't turn out to be Papist slaves. Why? Because we talked about that stuff at HOME, and they learned to respectfully disagree while respectfully stating their opinions and remaining true to their own beliefs.

BUgghhhhhhhh!!!1


*That's hyperbole, not an actual statistic.

OK, that's my last rant that's not relevant any particular post.

[JohnnyMack]

http://www.zilla774.com/Coppermine/albums/userpics/normal_Lucifer_by_zilla774.jpg

[SoonerBorn68]

If it fits within the parameters of the assignment, no.

[Frozen Sooner]

No, he should not get a failing grade. A lot would deppend on what class it was, but if it were English class (for example) then the teacher should grade on spelling, sentence structure, ability to organize his thoughts in concise fashion, and the ability to use footnotes, etc. as she/he had taught that week and then requested a writing assignment so they could grade.

Now, if it were geography and little Johnny went on a rant completely off subject, then yes, they should fail them for failing to follow the specifics of the assignment.

OK.

So what if Johnny's particular sect was white (or black, or purple) supremacist and his paper argued for the imprisonment of all races?

We're still cool on this?

[yermom]

Okay, for the sake of debate I am going to post some of the following information. I'm not posting to start an arguement about the origins of the universe; however, I am posting to show that there are scientists that are very learned that believe in the Bible, not saying that you as a PhD candidate are not very intelligent. I applaud you, and also your willingness to listen to our "rants". :D

Scientific problems with the big bang
The big bang also has a number of scientific problems. Big bang supporters are forced to accept on “blind faith” a number of notions that are completely inconsistent with real observational science. Let’s explore some of the inconsistencies between the big bang story and the real universe.

Missing monopoles
Most people know something about magnets—like the kind found in a compass or the kind that sticks to a refrigerator. We often say that magnets have two “poles”—a north pole and a south pole. Poles that are alike will repel each other, while opposites attract. A “monopole” is a hypothetical massive particle that is just like a magnet but has only one pole. So a monopole would have either a north pole or a south pole, but not both.

Particle physicists claim that many magnetic monopoles should have been created in the high temperature conditions of the big bang. Since monopoles are stable, they should have lasted to this day. Yet, despite considerable search efforts, monopoles have not been found. Where are the monopoles? The fact that we don’t find any monopoles suggests that the universe never was that hot. This indicates that there never was a big bang, but it is perfectly consistent with the Bible’s account of creation, since the universe did not start infinitely hot.

The flatness problem
Another serious challenge to the big bang model is called the “flatness problem.” The expansion rate of the universe appears to be very finely balanced with the force of gravity; this condition is called “flat.” If the universe were the accidental byproduct of a big bang, it is difficult to imagine how such a fantastic coincidence could occur. Big bang cosmology cannot explain why the matter density in the universe isn’t greater, causing it to collapse upon itself (closed universe), or less, causing the universe to rapidly fly apart (open universe).

The problem is even more severe when we extrapolate into the past. Since any deviation from perfect flatness tends to increase as time moves forward, it logically follows that the universe must have been even more precisely balanced in the past than it is today. Thus, at the moment of the big bang, the universe would have been virtually flat to an extremely high precision. This must have been the case (assuming the big bang), despite the fact that the laws of physics allow for an infinite range of values. This is a coincidence that stretches credulity to the breaking point. Of course, in the creation model, “balance” is expected since the Lord has fine-tuned the universe for life.

Inflating the complexities
Many secular astronomers have come up with an idea called “inflation” in an attempt to address the flatness and monopole problems (as well as other problems not addressed in detail here, such as the horizon problem). Inflation proposes that the universe temporarily went through a period of accelerated expansion. Amazingly, there is no real supporting evidence for inflation; it appears to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated conjecture—much like the big bang itself. Moreover, the inflation idea has difficulties of its own, such as what would start it and how it would stop smoothly. In addition, other problems with the big bang are not solved, even if inflation were true. These are examined below.

Where is the antimatter?
Consider the “baryon number problem.” Recall that the big bang supposes that matter (hydrogen and helium gas) was created from energy as the universe expanded. However, experimental physics tells us that whenever matter is created from energy, such a reaction also produces antimatter. Antimatter has similar properties to matter, except the charges of the particles are reversed. (So whereas a proton has a positive charge, an antiproton has a negative charge.) Any reaction where energy is transformed into matter produces an exactly equal amount of antimatter; there are no known exceptions.

The big bang (which has no matter to begin with—only energy) should have produced exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and that should be what we see today. But we do not. The visible universe is comprised almost entirely of matter—with only trace amounts of antimatter anywhere.

This devastating problem for the big bang is actually consistent with biblical creation; it is a design feature. God created the universe to be essentially matter only—and it’s a good thing He did. When matter and antimatter come together, they violently destroy each other. If the universe had equal amounts of matter and antimatter (as the big bang requires), life would not be possible.

Missing Population III stars
The big bang model by itself can only account for the existence of the three lightest elements (hydrogen, helium and trace amounts of lithium). This leaves about 90 or so of the other naturally occurring elements to be explained. Since the conditions in the big bang are not right to form these heavier elements (as big bang supporters readily concede), secular astronomers believe that stars have produced the remaining elements by nuclear fusion in the core. This is thought to occur in the final stages of a massive star as it explodes (a supernova). The explosion then distributes the heavier elements into space. Second and third generation stars are thus “contaminated” with small amounts of these heavier elements.

If this story were true, then the first stars would have been comprised of only the three lightest elements (since these would have been the only elements in existence initially). Some such stars3 should still be around today since their potential lifespan is calculated to exceed the (big bang) age of the universe. Such stars would be called “Population III” stars.4 Amazingly (to those who believe in the big bang), Population III stars have not been found anywhere. All known stars have at least trace amounts of heavy elements in them. It is amazing to think that our galaxy alone is estimated to have over 100 billion stars in it. Yet not one star has been discovered that is comprised of only the three lightest elements.

The collapse of the big bang
With all the problems listed above, as well as many others too numerous to include, it is not surprising that quite a few secular astronomers are beginning to abandon the big bang. Although it is still the dominant model at present, increasing numbers of physicists and astronomers are realizing that the big bang simply is not a good explanation of how the universe began. In the May 22, 2004 issue of New Scientist, there appeared an open letter to the scientific community written primarily by secular scientists5 who challenge the big bang. These scientists pointed out that the copious arbitrary assumptions and the lack of successful big bang predictions challenge the legitimacy of the model. Among other things, they state:

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.6
This statement has since been signed by hundreds of other scientists and professors at various institutions. The big bang seems to be losing considerable popularity. Secular scientists are increasingly rejecting the big bang in favor of other models. If the big bang is abandoned, what will happen to all the Christians who compromised and claimed that the Bible is compatible with the big bang? What will they say? Will they claim that the Bible actually does not teach the big bang, but instead that it teaches the latest secular model? Secular models come and go, but God’s Word does not need to be changed because God got it exactly right the first time.

Conclusion
The big bang has many scientific problems. These problems are symptomatic of the underlying incorrect worldview. The big bang erroneously assumes that the universe was not supernaturally created, but that it came about by natural processes billions of years ago. However, reality does not line up with this notion. Biblical creation explains the evidence in a more straightforward way without the ubiquitous speculations prevalent in secular models. But ultimately, the best reason to reject the big bang is that it goes against what the Creator of the universe Himself has taught: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

Cliff's Notes? :)

the thing is that the Big Bang is still the best explanation based on the data we have. i don't always follow all of the conjecture of the theoretical cosmologists, but if something comes along that disproves it, it's not like people would be burned at the stake, they would be racing to look at the science and how it changes everything. theories are fallible. just look at the descriptions of atoms over the years.

i still don't think the Big Bang and creation are that mutually exclusive. if there is a god that created the universe out of nothing, then there are likely going to be effects on the universe that are observable. going by the laws that we have observed in the world around us, it looks like galaxies came from a singularity and expanded, it's not really that weird.

sure there are things that aren't explained, or whatever, but we think with research we can decrease those things.

[OklahomaRed]

I believe the author of the article is saying that intelligent design is a better explanation that the big bang.

To Mr. Rich's question. Yeh, we're still cool. Writing is one thing. Now, if little Johnny starts ordering ammonium nitrate and being a little more specific in his writing as far as taking out little Suzy, or Mrs. Smith, then we have an entirely different scenario. The point being that collective thought and the ability to express one's opinion should not be crushed; however, the ability to live in a society free from personal harm have to be weighed against each other for the common good.

[soonermix]

OK.

So what if Johnny's particular sect was white (or black, or purple) supremacist and his paper argued for the imprisonment of all races?

We're still cool on this?

as a person that is desperately trying to increase his post count...

in a creative writing assignment as long as the correct grammer is used ect ect yes that is ok and we should not have to pass legislation to make it that way.

[Frozen Sooner]

Here's what I'm getting at, by the way:

Some topics are patently offensive and inappropriate for a composition topic, no matter how technically well-written they are.

This bill allows a child to cloak any topic under the rubric of religious faith and make it an OK topic for a composition topic. Now, I'm cool with that for a collegiate-level class, but for elementary school? Or middle school?

There's some religions out there with some texts that most of us in the Western world would consider downright scatological and/or pornographic. Heck, I imagine that any Language Arts teacher who attempted to teach unexpurgated versions of Greek myth to small children would be (rightly) run out of town on a rail.

[yermom]

I believe the author of the article is saying that intelligent design is a better explanation that the big bang.

well, the problem with intelligent design is that is just assumes that someone did what no one can explain. that's not science. they are trying to poke holes in the theory, but that doesn't really do anything. it's currently the best model we have. there are lots of scientists with competing theories on the nature of the universe when you get to String Theory and Quantum Mechanics, etc...

[JohnnyMack]

http://souldevouration.ytmnd.com/

[yermom]

http://souldevouration.ytmnd.com/

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/0/4/3/04338a91e6df54b1c78ae157eac03f07.jpg

:D

[OklahomaRed]

Mike,

I agree. You might phrase it this way if you are attempting to appeal to the far right. What if little Johnny wrote a very good essay on the joys of homosexual love? To that point, yes, there has to be limits on what is considered appropriate topics. I think that is part of what has gotten our society into such extremes. In an attempt to not "offend" anyone, we allow things that are not appropriate for the environment or the conditions.

[Fraggle145]

well, the problem with intelligent design is that is just assumes that someone did what no one can explain. that's not science. they are trying to poke holes in the theory, but that doesn't really do anything. it's currently the best model we have. there are lots of scientists with competing theories on the nature of the universe when you get to String Theory and Quantum Mechanics, etc...

agreed.

[Frozen Sooner]

Mike,

I agree. You might phrase it this way if you are attempting to appeal to the far right. What if little Johnny wrote a very good essay on the joys of homosexual love? To that point, yes, there has to be limits on what is considered appropriate topics. I think that is part of what has gotten our society into such extremes. In an attempt to not "offend" anyone, we allow things that are not appropriate for the environment or the conditions.

See, we've got some movement here. :D

I agree-a paper talking about the joys of sex (ANY sex, not just homosexual) is completely inappropriate for a middle-school class. But as I understand the bill, if the child made the statement that sex is a sacrament of their religion, then they could not receive a failing grade so long as the paper was well-written.

[Fraggle145]

Conclusion
The big bang has many scientific problems. These problems are symptomatic of the underlying incorrect worldview. The big bang erroneously assumes that the universe was not supernaturally created, but that it came about by natural processes billions of years ago. However, reality does not line up with this notion. Biblical creation explains the evidence in a more straightforward way without the ubiquitous speculations prevalent in secular models. But ultimately, the best reason to reject the big bang is that it goes against what the Creator of the universe Himself has taught: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

Really I will say I dont know enough about physics to address most if not all of the other parts of this...

the only part I can address is whats in bold. It may or may not erroneously assume this. Unfortunately we cant test the existence of a supernatural creator. You have to assume there is a creator to accept this point of view and they base their rejection of the big bang on Gods teachings rather than on hard evidence.

[Stoop Dawg]

There have been some situations where a student received a zero on their paper because they chose a religious topic when there was no directive on the topics that could be chosen. I believe it got worked out through the threats of lawsuits but it should never come to that.

I have a hard time believing that it true, but if it is, it sounds like our current laws handled it just fine.


I really don't see why this bill is a bad thing.

Why pass a new bill when the current laws are already sufficient?

[Stoop Dawg]

Hypothetical (and admittedly extreme) scenario:

Little Johnny is a member of a pretty strict sect of some religion-not necessarily Christian. Part of the teachings of that faith is the tenet that anyone who is not a practicioner of said faith will be punished in the afterlife and should be punished in this life.

Should Johnny's teacher be allowed to give a failing grade if Johnny writes a paper detailing that particular tenet of his faith and arguing for the punishment of those who don't practice his faith?

Only if he buys some fertilizer on ebay.

[soonerscuba]

I'm sure I will get lit for this, and I should preface that I have no problem with Christianity for the most part, but if you believe that all of human society is the result of a talking snake in a tree, you have no business teaching science.

[Chuck Bao]

I'm sure I will get lit for this, and I should preface that I have no problem with Christianity for the most part, but if you believe that all of human society is the result of a talking snake in a tree, you have no business teaching science.

I agree, but it’s a pretty good allegory on man’s evolutionary rise to consciousness of good and evil for the sake of a new social living arrangement.

What interests me, and I’m pretty sure this ranks right up there on church heresy, is that our forefathers and foremothers, upon reaching that brink of knowing right from wrong, probably launched an all out war and exterminated all those that didn’t quite make that make that evolutionary jump.

Okay, they may not have exterminated all of them.

[Ike]

Okay, for the sake of debate I am going to post some of the following information. I'm not posting to start an arguement about the origins of the universe; however, I am posting to show that there are scientists that are very learned that believe in the Bible, not saying that you as a PhD candidate are not very intelligent. I applaud you, and also your willingness to listen to our "rants". :D

Scientific problems with the big bang
The big bang also has a number of scientific problems. Big bang supporters are forced to accept on “blind faith” a number of notions that are completely inconsistent with real observational science. Let’s explore some of the inconsistencies between the big bang story and the real universe.

Missing monopoles
Most people know something about magnets—like the kind found in a compass or the kind that sticks to a refrigerator. We often say that magnets have two “poles”—a north pole and a south pole. Poles that are alike will repel each other, while opposites attract. A “monopole” is a hypothetical massive particle that is just like a magnet but has only one pole. So a monopole would have either a north pole or a south pole, but not both.

Particle physicists claim that many magnetic monopoles should have been created in the high temperature conditions of the big bang. Since monopoles are stable, they should have lasted to this day. Yet, despite considerable search efforts, monopoles have not been found. Where are the monopoles? The fact that we don’t find any monopoles suggests that the universe never was that hot. This indicates that there never was a big bang, but it is perfectly consistent with the Bible’s account of creation, since the universe did not start infinitely hot.

The flatness problem
Another serious challenge to the big bang model is called the “flatness problem.” The expansion rate of the universe appears to be very finely balanced with the force of gravity; this condition is called “flat.” If the universe were the accidental byproduct of a big bang, it is difficult to imagine how such a fantastic coincidence could occur. Big bang cosmology cannot explain why the matter density in the universe isn’t greater, causing it to collapse upon itself (closed universe), or less, causing the universe to rapidly fly apart (open universe).

The problem is even more severe when we extrapolate into the past. Since any deviation from perfect flatness tends to increase as time moves forward, it logically follows that the universe must have been even more precisely balanced in the past than it is today. Thus, at the moment of the big bang, the universe would have been virtually flat to an extremely high precision. This must have been the case (assuming the big bang), despite the fact that the laws of physics allow for an infinite range of values. This is a coincidence that stretches credulity to the breaking point. Of course, in the creation model, “balance” is expected since the Lord has fine-tuned the universe for life.

Inflating the complexities
Many secular astronomers have come up with an idea called “inflation” in an attempt to address the flatness and monopole problems (as well as other problems not addressed in detail here, such as the horizon problem). Inflation proposes that the universe temporarily went through a period of accelerated expansion. Amazingly, there is no real supporting evidence for inflation; it appears to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated conjecture—much like the big bang itself. Moreover, the inflation idea has difficulties of its own, such as what would start it and how it would stop smoothly. In addition, other problems with the big bang are not solved, even if inflation were true. These are examined below.

Where is the antimatter?
Consider the “baryon number problem.” Recall that the big bang supposes that matter (hydrogen and helium gas) was created from energy as the universe expanded. However, experimental physics tells us that whenever matter is created from energy, such a reaction also produces antimatter. Antimatter has similar properties to matter, except the charges of the particles are reversed. (So whereas a proton has a positive charge, an antiproton has a negative charge.) Any reaction where energy is transformed into matter produces an exactly equal amount of antimatter; there are no known exceptions.

The big bang (which has no matter to begin with—only energy) should have produced exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and that should be what we see today. But we do not. The visible universe is comprised almost entirely of matter—with only trace amounts of antimatter anywhere.

This devastating problem for the big bang is actually consistent with biblical creation; it is a design feature. God created the universe to be essentially matter only—and it’s a good thing He did. When matter and antimatter come together, they violently destroy each other. If the universe had equal amounts of matter and antimatter (as the big bang requires), life would not be possible.

Missing Population III stars
The big bang model by itself can only account for the existence of the three lightest elements (hydrogen, helium and trace amounts of lithium). This leaves about 90 or so of the other naturally occurring elements to be explained. Since the conditions in the big bang are not right to form these heavier elements (as big bang supporters readily concede), secular astronomers believe that stars have produced the remaining elements by nuclear fusion in the core. This is thought to occur in the final stages of a massive star as it explodes (a supernova). The explosion then distributes the heavier elements into space. Second and third generation stars are thus “contaminated” with small amounts of these heavier elements.

If this story were true, then the first stars would have been comprised of only the three lightest elements (since these would have been the only elements in existence initially). Some such stars3 should still be around today since their potential lifespan is calculated to exceed the (big bang) age of the universe. Such stars would be called “Population III” stars.4 Amazingly (to those who believe in the big bang), Population III stars have not been found anywhere. All known stars have at least trace amounts of heavy elements in them. It is amazing to think that our galaxy alone is estimated to have over 100 billion stars in it. Yet not one star has been discovered that is comprised of only the three lightest elements.

The collapse of the big bang
With all the problems listed above, as well as many others too numerous to include, it is not surprising that quite a few secular astronomers are beginning to abandon the big bang. Although it is still the dominant model at present, increasing numbers of physicists and astronomers are realizing that the big bang simply is not a good explanation of how the universe began. In the May 22, 2004 issue of New Scientist, there appeared an open letter to the scientific community written primarily by secular scientists5 who challenge the big bang. These scientists pointed out that the copious arbitrary assumptions and the lack of successful big bang predictions challenge the legitimacy of the model. Among other things, they state:

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.6
This statement has since been signed by hundreds of other scientists and professors at various institutions. The big bang seems to be losing considerable popularity. Secular scientists are increasingly rejecting the big bang in favor of other models. If the big bang is abandoned, what will happen to all the Christians who compromised and claimed that the Bible is compatible with the big bang? What will they say? Will they claim that the Bible actually does not teach the big bang, but instead that it teaches the latest secular model? Secular models come and go, but God’s Word does not need to be changed because God got it exactly right the first time.

Conclusion
The big bang has many scientific problems. These problems are symptomatic of the underlying incorrect worldview. The big bang erroneously assumes that the universe was not supernaturally created, but that it came about by natural processes billions of years ago. However, reality does not line up with this notion. Biblical creation explains the evidence in a more straightforward way without the ubiquitous speculations prevalent in secular models. But ultimately, the best reason to reject the big bang is that it goes against what the Creator of the universe Himself has taught: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

Wow...I'm rather appalled that we can use the non-observation of things that are really difficult to see in the first place as some sort of proof that the Big bang must be wrong. Interesting.

You've got to realize. The big bang is no longer one theory. There are many big-bang-ish models, all with varying tweaks and predictions. The big bang model itself does not assume anything about the natural or supernatural beginning of the big bang. It only assumes that such a bang happened. Many of the issues raised here are still under investigation (for instance, I've worked on one monopole search, and now the guy that sits next to me is working on another...they could still exist!). The book is far from being closed on them.

There is just so much we don't know about physics at energy scales near what was seen at the time of the big bang that it's completely retarted to expect that every little prediction made by the current big bang theories are going to hold. There are a lot of assumptions (which as far as we know now are reasonable) that underly many of these predictions. With further understanding of high energy particle physics, some of these assumptions may be turned on their heads, making the predictions of big bang models completely different from what they are now. But the successes of the big bang have been enough that it is still scientifically reasonable to think that such a thing did actually happen, but it's possible that it may have been slightly different than we think it was now.

[Jerk]

Hey Ike, I'm sorry to switch subjects, but do you think M theory or string theory is real or just a bunch of gobdidleegook?

I watched a whole series on it and it fascinated me. In fact, I think it was posted here on SO several years ago. To be honest, the only way I can begin to understand such things is if I smoked a lot of dope. As a sober person, I don't have a clue. But the stuff was pretty wild.

About that collider thingy that they're building in Switzerland: If two atoms smash into each other and particles disappear, would it prove that there are other dimensions?

Now I don't know anything about this stuff, mind you. But it seems more like philosophy than science. Please bear in mind I'm also, uh, very drunk.

[Blue]

I'm sure I will get lit for this, and I should preface that I have no problem with Christianity for the most part, but if you believe that all of human society is the result of a talking snake in a tree, you have no business teaching science.

Dude, the talking snakes got nothing on Revelation. :D

If you believe in the supernatural spirit world of heaven and hell. What's the big deal about a talking snake, a talking donkey, a talking bush, staffs turning to snakes, rivers turning to blood, Jesus returning in the sky, etc,etc....:D

Quit watching Bill Maher. ;)

[Ike]

Hey Ike, I'm sorry to switch subjects, but do you think M theory or string theory is real or just a bunch of gobdidleegook?

I watched a whole series on it and it fascinated me. In fact, I think it was posted here on SO several years ago. To be honest, the only way I can begin to understand such things is if I smoked a lot of dope. As a sober person, I don't have a clue. But the stuff was pretty wild.

About that collider thingy that they're building in Switzerland: If two atoms smash into each other and particles disappear, would it prove that there are other dimensions?

Now I don't know anything about this stuff, mind you. But it seems more like philosophy than science. Please bear in mind I'm also, uh, very drunk.

As an experimentalist, I really have zero opinion so far on string theory. At this point, it's pretty math. There are no predictions that we can test experimentally yet. We just don't have the capability to reach the realm where string theory would differ significantly from the standard model with modern accelerators.

As for extra dimensions, it's a little more complicated than just the particles disappearing. But you are partially right. We have had at least one study here looking at Extra dimensions and trying to determine if they are there. Even though the effects haven't been seen yet, limits on the size of extra dimensions can be set from the non-observations.

[Vaevictis]

With respect to OklahomaRed's quote:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/science.jpg

With respect to Jerk's inquiry about string theory:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/string_theory.png

Once again, xkcd to the rescue.

[Vaevictis]

Many of the issues raised here are still under investigation (for instance, I've worked on one monopole search, and now the guy that sits next to me is working on another...they could still exist!). The book is far from being closed on them.

Heh, considering that one of the claims from OklahomaRed's passage is that we should be able to detect monopoles left over from the Big Bang, allow me to ask the following question:

Is it even reasonable to expect that we would find leftover monopoles?

Looking at it from my non-physicist point of view:
* Magnetic field strength being an inverse polynomial.
* Some 13 billion odd years for one monopole to find one with the opposite field and hence cancel each other's field out from any normal distance away.
* Usually, when you've got something with one "charge", you've got something nearby with the opposite charge, yes? This makes the second point even more likely, yes?

I don't find it odd at all.

[Chuck Bao]

I'm also very drunk.

Jerk brought up the subject of extra dimensions. I just want to say that I'd be totally disappointed if there turns out to be extra dimensions and they are all just too small or folded in on themselves for us ever to observe. I mean what would be the point of that?

[Jerk]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/string_theory.png

That's no joke. When I saw the pbs series on it I was mesmorised. But I don't understand, nor can I explain any of it.

[Stoop Dawg]

Wow...I'm rather appalled that we can use the non-observation of things that are really difficult to see in the first place as some sort of proof that the Big bang must be wrong. Interesting.

What's even more interesting (to me, anyway) is that he appears to use the lack of a proven scientific explanation as validation for a supernatural one. Talk about rationalization.....

[Ash]

Wow...I'm rather appalled that we can use the non-observation of things that are really difficult to see in the first place as some sort of proof that the Big bang must be wrong. Interesting.

You've got to realize. The big bang is no longer one theory. There are many big-bang-ish models, all with varying tweaks and predictions. The big bang model itself does not assume anything about the natural or supernatural beginning of the big bang. It only assumes that such a bang happened. Many of the issues raised here are still under investigation (for instance, I've worked on one monopole search, and now the guy that sits next to me is working on another...they could still exist!). The book is far from being closed on them.

There is just so much we don't know about physics at energy scales near what was seen at the time of the big bang that it's completely retarted to expect that every little prediction made by the current big bang theories are going to hold. There are a lot of assumptions (which as far as we know now are reasonable) that underly many of these predictions. With further understanding of high energy particle physics, some of these assumptions may be turned on their heads, making the predictions of big bang models completely different from what they are now. But the successes of the big bang have been enough that it is still scientifically reasonable to think that such a thing did actually happen, but it's possible that it may have been slightly different than we think it was now.

I'm suspect of anyone claiming to practice science that doesn't understand (or chooses to ignore) the very simple yet fundamental aspects of active scientific research to further their own agenda.

It's always frustrating to see the lack of an understanding of how models are constructed and the practice of testing those models cited as "evidence" to discount scientific findings and practice.

[Ash]

I also agree with fraggle's original concerns. I don't think this necessarily protects anybody I think it opens the door for helicopters to come at you with lawyers and threats rather than having to listen to why their kids got a bad grade.

[Fraggle145]

I also agree with fraggle's original concerns. I don't think this necessarily protects anybody I think it opens the door for helicopters to come at you with lawyers and threats rather than having to listen to why their kids got a bad grade.

Bingo. This is exactly what I am worried about. I dont make enough money to take on a lawsuit. ;)

[SoonerTerry]

God told me 2+2=5...
And he wants a new porche, and he wants me to drive it.

[yermom]

that was Radiohead, dude

[King Crimson]

that was Radiohead, dude

George Orwell.

[Sooner_Bob]

My problem with this, and a whole different can of worms is that the bible is written by men. It has then been retranslated thousands of times.


Written by man, but inspired by God.


Not to mention that many books are left out.


Those books were not just left out. They were put up against a strict criteria and failed.

[Fraggle145]

Written by man, but inspired by God.




Those books were not just left out. They were put up against a strict criteria and failed.

Not to be a pest, but both of those positions are debatable. 1) you have to assume there is a god to be inspired by, and that he guides every retranslation to be a perfect one and 2) who's strict criteria is it? even different christians include different books just look at the differences between the Catholic and King James bibles to see that.