And then we teach that the sun revolves around the earth
- Thread starter jaydee
- Start date
Silver said:
I was once told that when someone resorts to insults in a disagreement it's usually because they feel threatened or they have run out of intelligent things to say.
Which is it for you this time?
Don't know what I'm talking about? The discussion was about peoples values and how they are or are not represented by governments and schools. I was expressing my values.
Please refrain from disrespecting that. I may disagree with your values, but I have never tried to tell you that you are foolish for having them.
Changleen said:
Is that a promise?
Sometimes that is true. It's not an binary choice though, so I'll take box 3 this time.Damn True said:
I'm tired of banging my head into a brick wall of dogma and stupidity. If your pastor doesn't tell you it's ok, your mind isn't going to change anyways.
Yes, Only you don't get to decide what I consider a threat. I consider stupidity of a generation of children a threat. I've seen what happens when idiots are given control. People die in large numbers and other idiots are created.Damn True said:
Damn True said:
keep them to yourself then, and outside any publicly funded institution.
ohhhh you must be catholickinghami3 said:Yeah, but I have my fun messing with the pastor's kids
Well seeing as I'm not in a position to influence that sort of thing (unless I decide to someday seek elected office which isn't likely) we shant have a problem.ALEXIS_DH said:
As far as expressing my values, I am as free to express mine as you are to express yours.
You don't really understand science, do you?Damn True said:
NO ONE TEACHES THAT THESE ARE "PROVEN"
THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED A "THEORY"
Hey, that's wierd... quantum theory is a theory, yet it is responsible for the functioning of the computer in front of you. When the Bible starts explaining phenomenon that make a functioning computer possible, I'll let you teach creationism side by side with evolution.
I do understand it. However what you are saying is NOT how it is being taught in schools. It is being presented as immutable fact.
Not in quite a few years, but I have religious and non-religious friends all over the country with school aged children. Most of the parents are highly dissatisfied with the way their children are being taught.
Of course there are far more reasons for the dissatisfaction than just the subject of this thread.
I think we can all agree that public schools suck way more than they ought to.
Of course there are far more reasons for the dissatisfaction than just the subject of this thread.
I think we can all agree that public schools suck way more than they ought to.
Whilst I know that you understand the difference I'm not convinced that others here do or that all teaching includes information on what theories are and how they are evaluated.ohio said:
I'm bemused by the outright opposition that some here have to kids being taught the concept of the creationism theory alongside the evolution theory. That one has little (if any) observable data to back it up and is reliant pretty much exclusively on faith would become apparent very quickly to any kid with a modicum of intelligence. How they then choose to believe is surely up to them but at leastthey are equipped with what facts we do know and also what flaws there are.
To teach anything less than 100% of what we know and what exists in philosphy & metaphysics is unscientific and to deny the existence of alternative ideas is foolish. This is a debate that could be had by teenage kids in a classroom without crippling their intellectual development, what is the problem?
Once again, very well said brotha...............fluff said:
In normal schools what you have described does occur. In certain states, though creationism is being taught and evolution is banned. I was taught of the existance of creationism in RE in conjunction with science as were probably most people on here, but I stilll have the ability to see it as what it is. However in situations where statewide no children for a generation are taught that only what god says is right, that is a powerful voice for stupid in your country.fluff said:
fluff said:
Yeah, what he said.
That is equally (aguably even more) dumb.Changleen said:
fluff said:
now you open another door.
how we have to teach ONE alternative explanation... but WHY we have to favor ONE unscientific explanation over the others???
if kids are gonna be taught judeocristian creationism, they should (for the sake of equality under the law) be exposed to every non-scientific explanation... and not only in the subject of biology.
but also of physics, chemistry/alchemy, anatomy, homeopathy, geocentric theory, earth is flat, etc, etc, etc, etc...
if we do as you say, should we stop at creationism?? if we do, why? if we dont... that would put a huge strain on schools and kids for a relatively marginal gain...
Given that it is demonstrable that the Earth is not flat that can be canned, as for the rest there is without doubt a sensible limit. Interestingly enough the study of mythology (which no doubt you put creationism into) renders some interesting concepts and understandings.ALEXIS_DH said:
If you look you can find many examples of stupid theories to demonstrate that teaching everything is unworthwhile and indeed impossible. But where would you like to draw the line? After all Newton was wrong (according to current scientific theory_and_observation_) will you stop teaching Newtonian mechanics which is as far as most people get with physics?
The Bible and religion simply cannot be ignored.
In history class, you're correct.fluff said:
In science class, you're 100% wrong. Once again, tell me why we don't teach about my teapot in earth orbit in schools. If you can explain that to me, I'll change my mind. Also, like ohio said upthead, when the Bible sheds some insight on how a computer works, then I'll consider it as a tool for teaching science.
newtonian mechanics explain things just fine until distances get nearly unfathomably small. but you know this, and are just arguing for the sake of it. :nuts: in any case, the point is that newtonian mechanics works on most scales, and does not contradict current "correct" theory at said scales. complexities of string theory do not perceptibly alter the trajectory of a softball.fluff said:
creationism does not jive with observed evidence at ANY scale. entirely different matter. try again.
Firstably I did not say that creationism needs to be taught in science class. Secondabubbly please provide me with observable evidence that proves that the concept of creationism (not simply the judeo-christian version) is demonstrably wrong.Toshi said:
I may be arguing for the sake of it, but if I am so are you.
there is no need to prove creationism wrong, as the burden of proof, or requirement of formal evidence, is on the creationism side first...fluff said:
there is no need to prove false something that isnt accepted as true, within reasonable doubt, in the first place...
Says who? As I have said, teach the kids all the facts, all the conjecture and let make their own minds up. Anything else verges on propaganda or brainwashing. Would you wish to have information witheld from you?ALEXIS_DH said:
Enough people appear to believe it to shoot a few millions holes in that argument..ALEXIS_DH said:
easy cowboy!!!! you are using too many logical fallacies today..
science is not propaganda or brainwashing.. like i said before, science has no propaganda/purpose/agenda to push, and this lack of propaganda/purpose/agenda does not constitutes an agenda by itself...
what constitutes "irrelevant stuff"?? everything that i cannot validate or see others validate directly..
i would not want to be bothered with irrelevant stuff in my schooling either, 11 (or 12) years of basic schooling were enough... or to have loads of fairy tales stuffed in my throat without making any distintion on the degrees of certainty on each....fluff said:
science is not propaganda or brainwashing.. like i said before, science has no propaganda/purpose/agenda to push, and this lack of propaganda/purpose/agenda does not constitutes an agenda by itself...
what constitutes "irrelevant stuff"?? everything that i cannot validate or see others validate directly..
appeal to majority., logical fallacy.
No more than you my friend. You argue that acceptably is a just criteria for teaching, I argue that that is subjective.ALEXIS_DH said:
That this thread exists and is this long is also evidence that creationism needs to be addressed. It is relevant to today's world, otherwise why are you posting?
fluff said:
if you believe "acceptaibility" is related to "accordance with validable experiments" then yes..
if you dont, then no.
this thread exists because i have lots of free time to waste on 1k+ posts on ridemonkey.com, and not necesarilly the fact i argue against it means that i believe creationism is more scientific than its counterparts...
the importance and number of believers of creationism as a "fact" does NOT grant creationism a place as a "factual" truth, and it doesnt make it any better (or more true) than other non-scientific explanations. that is wishful thinking.
like i said, it has a place in yeshivas or bible studies, or maybe in history or philosophy, but not in the same league as its scientific counterparts, like biology, which belong to publicly funded schools.
Did I say it was true? Did I say it was factual? Did I even say it was scientific? But the 'theory' exists, millions believe it and it appears to be a divisive issue so to ignore it is stupid.
Populism _is_ actually the measure of any accepted scientific theory. If no physicists believe it a theory is sunk, until it is believed it is scorned. The basis of a theory's popularity is a more important issue regarding its validity.
Populism _is_ actually the measure of any accepted scientific theory. If no physicists believe it a theory is sunk, until it is believed it is scorned. The basis of a theory's popularity is a more important issue regarding its validity.
then it has no place in an institution of secular scientific knowledge.. like a public school.fluff said:
to deny it a place in the league of science is not ignoring it.
it certainly has a place, but, its place is NOT among other "scientific theories" (aka a secular publicly funded school) because it doesnt comply with the requirements to be a "secular scientific knowledge".
again, if we admit ONE theory that is not "secular scientific knowledge" in a league where only such knowledge is to be taught, then why should we stop at one? should we?
yo wait, now this is kinda pcp-esque...
validity is what makes an unknown scientist theory a nobel recipient or a genius...
validity is what defines the popularity of a theory, not the other way around.
fluff said:
Then what are you saying?fluff said:
To those who are opposed to the mere mention of creation in a school:
What are you so afraid of?
What are you so afraid of?
of opening the door for non secular-scientific-knowledge in publicly funded places.
plus the issue here is not "why not" but "why yes"??..
plus the issue here is not "why not" but "why yes"??..
A slippery slope to Israel/Palistine, Bosnia/Croatia, Northern Ireland, India/Pakistan, a host of African conflicts, etc...Damn True said:
Edit: Added quote for context.
i'm afraid the usa will become even more scientifically illiterate. enough people already think the moon landing was a hoax, that vaccines will give your child autism in more than extremely sporadic cases, that prayer by anonymous 3rd parties makes plants grow better and people heal faster.Damn True said:
yes, basically i feel that american kids need to be saved from themselves, since the hucksterism of modern day religion (specifically in the guise of creationism here) is appealing to those for whom mtv2 is high art. not to pick on mtv2.
Because, as Fluff saidALEXIS_DH said:
and as I said
Notice the misdirection, which fluff has been doing as well:Damn True said:
It's not schools, it's teaching it as an alternative theory in science class that is the problem. Mention it in history, along with all the other creation myths.
The thing is I don't think that many of the people participating in this thread are prepared to allow even that which you suggest. There is a fear in there somewhere. I'm trying to figure out what it might be.Silver said:
What is wrong with saying the following:
"The most widely accepted theroy is that of evolution, however, there are many people who believe in different forms of creation and/or intelligent design."
The discussion that comes from that sort of presentation can only serve children well in terms of the requirement for not only critical thought, but understanding of other cultures and value systems.
Nothing, as long as the next words are: "But those people don't understand what they are talking about."Damn True said:
pfft, typical.....there I go again thinking that a liberal MIGHT be amenable to an equitable comprimise.
You do realize I hope that the propogation of disrespect for peoples values in regard to religion will only serve to further alienate people of faith who have historically voted Democrat thus ensuring future Republican victories.
What happend to the left that accepted people and their values and purported to honor and respect folks regardless of race or creed?
You do realize I hope that the propogation of disrespect for peoples values in regard to religion will only serve to further alienate people of faith who have historically voted Democrat thus ensuring future Republican victories.
What happend to the left that accepted people and their values and purported to honor and respect folks regardless of race or creed?