mutex
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +1/-1
Posts: 622
|
 |
« on: October 27, 2005, 08:00:53 pm » |
|
This is quite a hot topic here - whether to teach anything about creationism in public schools. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jenn-x
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 83
|
|
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2005, 09:04:10 pm » |
|
I really don't see what's so wrong about teaching it? Evolution just someone's idea... At least the creationism has something to back it up!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mutex
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +1/-1
Posts: 622
|
|
« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2005, 09:07:42 pm » |
|
What does creationism have to back it up?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2005, 11:55:20 pm » |
|
Well when I was in Primary school. I don't know what you call it over there. But you go to it when you 5-12 or something. ANyway, when I was at primary school (public school), we got taught Evolution in Science and creationism was taught as well, but it was opinional to parents if they wanted it.
My secondary school (High School) was a private school, so we were force fed Christian Education for the first 3 years and then it was opinional after that, but also taught Evolution in Science.
I think, from a scientific point of view evolution should be taught to gain an understanding of biological species. Creationism, i find is more of a view point and it should be your choice to study it or not.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 28, 2005, 06:19:45 am by Leritzi »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mutex
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +1/-1
Posts: 622
|
|
« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2005, 06:52:22 am » |
|
We call it primary school, elementary school or grade school, depending on where you're from. Where I grew up it was elementary school.
Here, unless you go to a private Christian school, your education is quite liberally slanted. They focus a lot deference to other countries, big environmental focus, some horribly inaccurate history (but, it makes the founding of the USA seem more "diverse"), etc. Very very secular.
Well, several states are pushing hard to get creation or "intelligent design" taught alongside evolution in science classes. Personally, I think creation or intelligent design has no place anywhere near a science class.
When I moved to Georgia, I found out that where I live, Cobb County, had put stickers inside all science text books at the start of the chapter about evolution that said something to the effect of "Evolution is just a theory. There are many unanswered questions about evolution and there are many alternate theories about the creation of live. If you have specific questions about those alternate theories, please consult with your religous leader". About a year ago, there was a very high profile case were someone challenged the stickers and the county lost and had to go through all of their textbooks and remove the stickers.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Scolls
Jr. Member
Karma: +1/-0
Posts: 99
|
|
« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2005, 03:31:20 pm » |
|
Yeah, but they won't teach creationism as a theory - that's the problem. Evolution will be taught as a theory, and creationism will be taught as fact.
Can anybody give an example of anywhere where there exists a state of "nothingness"? Any example of "nothing"? Any proof that such a concept has ever existed in reality?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mutex
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +1/-1
Posts: 622
|
|
« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2005, 03:41:25 pm » |
|
Nothingness can only be found in the infinite space beyond the edge of the expanding universe. Strangely, the entire outer edge of the expanding universe is most likely the same actual point, relative to 5 dimensions. But, the universe is expanding, so we know that there is "nothingness" to expand into....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Scolls
Jr. Member
Karma: +1/-0
Posts: 99
|
|
« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2005, 04:15:50 pm » |
|
That's assuming the theory of an expanding universe holds true. The thing is, there's time involved before we notice influences of "new" objects, so once we first feel its influence, we can assume that it must be an expansion... the universe is more probably a lot larger than imagined, because of this.
This does lead to asking whether it's the universe itself that's expanding or only our perception of it.
Nothingness is an empty set, isn't it? So is a set of non-existent objects. So possibly the reason the universe's "perimeter" could be thought of as one and the same point could be because it's an empty set?
Also, if it's the same actual point then, then one could argue that the universe be actually converging on that point (makes sense to me), rather than expanding into it... so a theory of an expanding universe might then contradict itself by implying its convergence.
One set we can be sure of, however, is the set of all things that exist. The empty sets wouldn't even represent a point, but would rather be non-existent - or, more precicely, only conceptual.
I'd put my money on there only being one big set, in reality, of all the things that do exist. After all, drawing a boundary around a set is insufficient evidence of the existence of other sets.
What are your thoughts on this? Could empty sets be only conceptual? Or is the universe converging to a point?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mutex
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +1/-1
Posts: 622
|
|
« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2005, 06:42:53 pm » |
|
I'll agree with you that an empty set doesn't define a point. It doesn't define anything. I have 0 gold bars, 0 Maseratis, 0 mistresses  , etc. BUT, I do believe we are quite certain, given our understanding of basic physics, that the edge of the universe a) appears to be the point of origin for the universe (big bang) and that the edge is receding away from us in all directions - IE the universe is expanding out in all directions from our frame of reference. Given that, it does appear somewhat logical that the universe is expanding in a manner that is really hard to conceptualize in a 4d world, where the edge is actually the center and it's actually the interior that is expanding. But, the question is - what is it expanding into? That's a big question now. What happens if you were able to get a space ship that could get you near the "edge of the universe", negatiing relativistic implications of such a journey. What does the edge look like? My guess is that it's actually just an area that's the remnants of the big bang that didn't end up going anywhere, meaning that you could traverse through it, but you would still be inside the universe. So, what do I think this means? The big bang was potentially like a bubble that formed in the ether (the apparent nothingness). The interior of the bubble is the universe. The skin of the bubble, is actually the same point that the bubble was blown from. It doesn't make any sense in 3 or 4 dimensions, but it's possible in higher order dimension. The one hesitation I have to all of this is the Occham's razor. Any time you have to start talking about extra dimensions or complex explainations, I start sensing BS. Occham's razor states that, in nature, given two explainations for an event or situation, the answer is the simpler of the possibilies. I do believe there probably are several really basic principles that we have yet to understand about macro physics. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Scolls
Jr. Member
Karma: +1/-0
Posts: 99
|
|
« Reply #9 on: November 03, 2005, 03:50:40 pm » |
|
So how's Occham's Razor here: The universe is an infinite continuum of energy. There is no such thing as nothing. Without our incessant desire to have the existence of nothing, the universe can merrily continue being all that there is - everything!
That way, the universe does not need to have a beginning, nor an end. It only needs to exist, and its existence needs no proof - that the universe exists is axiomatic.
I personally wouldn't lose any sleep if it turned out that there was no such thing in reality as "nothing". Would you?
What is the definition of Universe anyway? Doesn't it imply the sum total of everything that exists?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mutex
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +1/-1
Posts: 622
|
|
« Reply #10 on: November 14, 2005, 09:15:12 pm » |
|
What is the definition of Universe anyway? Doesn't it imply the sum total of everything that exists?
Not necessarily. I don't personally buy it, but there could exist other universes. Somewhere. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2005, 02:51:00 am » |
|
What is the definition of Universe anyway? Doesn't it imply the sum total of everything that exists?
Under String Theory, it is possible to have multi-universes, though totally unprovable and untestable. The theory remains that a higher level "megaverse" exists to contain multiple universes. In the 11-demension String Theory called M-Theory, our universe and others are created by collisions between membranes in an 11-dimensional space. Other theories represent the probablity of multiple universes: Open multiverse (identical copy), bubble theory (from flutuations in inflation), Many world interpretation (multiple histories) See "Parallel Universes" in the May 2003 issue of Scientific American for more information on these other theories. But my point is theories on multiple universes show that it could be thought of as the universe does not imply the sum total of everything that exists. As if these were true there would be multiple universe, so our universe does not equal everything. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Scolls
Jr. Member
Karma: +1/-0
Posts: 99
|
|
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2005, 02:26:28 pm » |
|
Ah, I see science has taken to making use of poetic licence then? Or some such anyways... so it's then to be the case that something that is universal is no longer universal? So what word are we now to use to describe the sum total of everything that exists? Perhaps the "unimooniverse"?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mutex
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +1/-1
Posts: 622
|
|
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2005, 07:22:37 am » |
|
I have to say, the multiple universe theories are interesting, but they're far to complicated to be real. Unless there is some ultra simple explanation for their existance and behavior, I'm not buying it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2005, 10:36:34 pm » |
|
"The Universe is the Great All, and offers a paradox too great for the finite mind to grasp. As the living brain cannot conceive of a nonliving brain - although it may think it can - the finite mind cannot grasp the infinite."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
