>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Non mobile discussion
> Debating
Bookmark topic
_________________
Happy 5th Birthday Esato!
[ This Message was edited by: carkitter on 2006-08-23 14:28 ]
[ This Message was edited by: carkitter on 2006-08-24 19:09 ]
--
Posted: 2006-08-23 12:55:12
Edit :
Quote
haha i liked the bold headings there
--
Posted: 2006-08-23 13:30:44
Edit :
Quote
A debate on TV licensing, eh? Scotsboy, are you seriously suggesting that the argument I put across in
this post doesn't resolve the situation once and for all
--
Posted: 2006-08-23 23:23:49
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2006-08-23 12:55:12, carkitter wrote:
Topic 2
"Intelligent design should be taught in a science class."
I agree that Intelligent Design should be taught in a science class.
Knowledge is not exclusive to scientists. Many scientific theories are incomplete but science chooses to ignore this because science is concerned with proof by repeatability, ie: If element a and element b are combined under x circumstances the result is molecule ab.
The trouble is, what combination of elements results in an eye? Or an ear? And how do you repeat the same result over and over, when everyones eyes and ears are different?
This leaves room for Intelligent Design to be ALSO presented, but as an answer "Based on Faith" with emphasis being placed on the Majority Faith of the particular country involved.
Those scientists, teachers and parents who exclude answers based on faith are usually opposed specifically to Christianity and its being mentioned in schools. The debate surrounding Intelligent Design is one of exposure to religion in school not credibilty of information.
i think i'll take this one if nobody minds:
the flaw in your argument here is that you have stated that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, but is instead a theory based on religion or faith. therefore, by your own argument Intelligent Design should not be taught in science class because it is not science, but rather should be part of an RE or philosophy class because it requires unprovable tenets of Creationist ideology.
in order to have place in a science class, ID must be subject to the scientific method, viz:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment.
It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory. When one speaks of holes in a scientific theory it is not that there is anything wrong with the theory per se, but that our understanding of the phenomenon is incomplete. Simply because there may be one or two minor examples which appear on the surface to conflict with evolution does not invalidate evolution as a theory. It merely shows our understanding of evolutionary mechanisms is flawed or incomplete - or more likely, that the lay-person's understanding is far from comprehensive.
--
Posted: 2006-08-24 01:08:28
Edit :
Quote
I personally despise the idea of the TV license. At tehn end of the day, I'm being forced to pay a fee to *watch* Tv channels, eg BBC, that I don't usually watch. In all honesty, I only watch BBC1 to see MOTD on a saturday night and thats it. Bu when the Premiership was on ITV, I watched that. I personally feel that companies such as ITV, Channel 4 etc with advertising can make just as good programs, if not better than the BBC. So why should I pay for the BBC?
Secxondly, with most people using digital services, and come 2011 when its all digital and 90% of the population will be paying monthly subscriptions, why then should people still be charged? It just bugs me, £131.50 per year for somthing I don't use is just wrong!
/RANT
Cheers
--
Posted: 2006-08-24 01:18:59
Edit :
Quote
Hey Scotsupoy . . . what the NEXT 'topic' for debate
How about - SEX?
--
Posted: 2006-08-24 04:23:33
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2006-08-24 01:08:28, gelfen wrote:
...i think i'll take this one if nobody minds:
My understanding of this thread was that Scotsboy UK would critique the arguments. We're not asked to debate each other.
In your post you offer no constructive criticism, no comment on style or effectiveness of argument, etc, etc.
Please reread the first few posts.
________________
Happy 5th Birthday Esato!
[ This Message was edited by: carkitter on 2006-08-24 07:41 ]
--
Posted: 2006-08-24 08:29:42
Edit :
Quote
excuse me for breathing!
if you read my first sentence you will see that i was offering a critique of your argument - that your own argument provided sufficient amunition for an opponent to defeat your point because you effectively conceded it. i then went on to exploit that weakness by offering my own counter-argument citing accepted scientific practice. perhaps i could have been more clear on what i was doing (i.e. that i was offering a potential counter-argument, one of many).
if i was to go further, i could add that your points linking ID to faith, religion and christianity are points that a majority of ID advocates go miles to avoid since they run counter to the argument that ID is a valid scientific theory.
_________________
Whomsoever you see in distress, recognize in him a fellow man
Gelfen's special place where nobody talks to him anymore 
[ This Message was edited by: gelfen on 2006-08-24 10:03 ]
--
Posted: 2006-08-24 09:45:22
Edit :
Quote
Sorry I bothered to post. Post duly
deleted - see above
--
Posted: 2006-08-24 20:11:31
Edit :
Quote
relax max. it was just a simple misunderstanding. no need to overreact.
--
Posted: 2006-08-25 00:26:19
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
