Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Education
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 286 of 304 (271766)
12-22-2005 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by jar
12-21-2005 2:53 PM


Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
jar writes:
Philip writes:
1) God (specially) created Heaven and Earth
2) God (specially) created living entities
3) God (specially) created "psyches"
Any such statements would be ... (1) unconstitutional as well as (2) really really bad science.
(1) "Unconstitutional" seems to me like "unbiblical", oft-ammended/interpreted to mean almost anything (by both sides). Yet it seems to have evolved into an excellent "disclaimer" against all *vicars* in the US ...be it Pope, Darwin, Al Qaeda, N.A.S., Philip, or the like.
(2) I concede, it sounds really really bad on science paper. But, the alternative theories of evolution for these 3 *key events* are really really bad flaws, puny scientists delving into infinitely-complex-mysteries; and/or worse yet: "science disproving science"
The greatest flaw continues: science authority misrepresents itself to 9nth graders and (ignorantly) comes across as disproving all *spiritual events* to these children, beginning with these 3 *key* events.
Science academia is most excellent, I agree ... But, we're know-it-alls, puffed-up, defensive, flawed, and clumsy... to various extents.
Should little Sally fully trust everything she reads from Philip, Jar, the N.A.S. and other biology hirelings? They have sin, too. There's plenty of blame to go around.
Who knows? ... Being 'cool' and pre-confessing our sins with public science disclaimers everywhere might actually benefit R&D, discoveries, genetic breakthroughs, etc. ... evoking more excellent science breakthroughs and fewer perverted flaws.
-----------------------------
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. (Luk 17:2)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by jar, posted 12-21-2005 2:53 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by FliesOnly, posted 12-22-2005 3:49 PM Philip has not replied
 Message 288 by jar, posted 12-22-2005 4:33 PM Philip has not replied
 Message 289 by Theodoric, posted 12-22-2005 5:00 PM Philip has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 287 of 304 (271775)
12-22-2005 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Philip
12-22-2005 3:24 PM


Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
I know your latest message wasn't a reply to me...but I have to ask: What are you talking about?
For example, what is the meaning of this sentence?:
Philip writes:
(1) "Unconstitutional" seems to me like "unbiblical", oft-ammended/interpreted to mean almost anything (by both sides). Yet it seems to have evolved into an excellent "disclaimer" against all *vicars* in the US ...be it Pope, Darwin, Al Qaeda, N.A.S., Philip, or the like.
Seriously. I have no clue what it is you are trying to say here.
"Unconstitutional seems to me like unbiblical"...this means nothing.
"disclaimer against all vicars in the US...be it Pope, Darwin, Al Qaeda..."Again, this is senseless rambling.
Philip writes:
(2) I concede, it sounds really really bad on science paper. But, the alternative theories of evolution for these 3 *key events* are really really bad flaws, puny scientists delving into infinitely-complex-mysteries; and/or worse yet: "science disproving science"
You have said similar things in previous posts but when I have repeatedly asked you to explain how the ToE is "flawed" you ignore the question(s). How about it Philip? Will you please explain how the ToE is flawed?
Philip writes:
Should little Sally fully trust everything she reads from Philip, Jar, the N.A.S. and other biology hirelings? They have sin, too. There's plenty of blame to go around.
And this means what, exactly?
Philip writes:
Who knows? ... Being 'cool' and pre-confessing our sins with public science disclaimers everywhere might actually benefit R&D, discoveries, genetic breakthroughs, etc. ... evoking more excellent science breakthroughs and fewer perverted flaws.
Pre-confessing our sins? How can you pre-confess a sin? And again with the “perverted flaws" that you have never elaborated on, despite repeated requests from myself to please do so. Maybe in your next post? Please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Philip, posted 12-22-2005 3:24 PM Philip has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 288 of 304 (271780)
12-22-2005 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Philip
12-22-2005 3:24 PM


What are you talking about?
I'm sorry Philip but you post is simply utter trash and nonsense.
Should little Sally fully trust everything she reads from Philip, Jar, the N.A.S. and other biology hirelings?
No, little Sally should be taught the tools of critical thinking so that she can recognize the lies and distortions spewed forth by the supporters of ID, Biblical Creationism and much of the Conservative Christian movement.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Philip, posted 12-22-2005 3:24 PM Philip has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 289 of 304 (271785)
12-22-2005 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Philip
12-22-2005 3:24 PM


Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
1) God (specially) created Heaven and Earth
2) God (specially) created living entities
3) God (specially) created "psyches"
If you want them in schools or some sort of disclaimer, prove that they are scientific and not religiously based.
We are a country whose basis for existence and basis for all laws is the Constiution, not the christian bible or any other book of faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Philip, posted 12-22-2005 3:24 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Carico, posted 12-28-2005 6:39 PM Theodoric has replied
 Message 296 by Philip, posted 01-11-2006 11:16 AM Theodoric has not replied

Carico
Inactive Member


Message 290 of 304 (273634)
12-28-2005 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Theodoric
12-22-2005 5:00 PM


Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
So are you interested in teaching truth of fiction? If you're interested in teaching the truth, then there is no reason to try to keep the biblical account of creation out of the classrooms, unless, of course, you're afraid of hearing and teaching all sides of an issue.
This message has been edited by Carico, 12-28-2005 06:39 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Theodoric, posted 12-22-2005 5:00 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Asgara, posted 12-28-2005 6:49 PM Carico has not replied
 Message 292 by mark24, posted 12-28-2005 6:55 PM Carico has not replied
 Message 293 by Theodoric, posted 12-28-2005 7:20 PM Carico has not replied
 Message 294 by nwr, posted 12-28-2005 7:50 PM Carico has not replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 291 of 304 (273638)
12-28-2005 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Carico
12-28-2005 6:39 PM


Truth, Fiction, and all the bull in between
Carico, considering your abysmal record in science threads around here, I suggest that you have no clue about truth or fiction.
When you are ready to learn what others have to say (I didn't say agree with what others have to say) about science topics, then you might have a leg to stand on.

Asgara
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now"
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Carico, posted 12-28-2005 6:39 PM Carico has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 292 of 304 (273642)
12-28-2005 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Carico
12-28-2005 6:39 PM


Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
Carico,
So are you interested in teaching truth of fiction?
The truth. Which rules out the scientifically contradicted creationism.
If you're interested in teaching the truth, then there is no reason to try to keep the biblical account of creation out of the classrooms, unless, of course, you're afraid of hearing and teaching all sides of an issue.
And does your scholarly leniency go so far as teaching other religions creation accounts as well as chistianities?
It really goes back to teaching the truth, or at least the best we can know. The biblical creation account & timeline is scientifically contradicted. Even were that not true, the biblical account has no supporting evidence & therefore no real veracity. This is why it is a religion & they have to put so much stock in pure faith.
Moreover, you have a post (or two) to catch up with here. I particularly took offense with being called liar. Please show me where I lied or retract the accusation. You are supposed to be a christian. Act like one.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Carico, posted 12-28-2005 6:39 PM Carico has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 293 of 304 (273656)
12-28-2005 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Carico
12-28-2005 6:39 PM


Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
If you're interested in teaching the truth, then there is no reason to try to keep the biblical account of creation out of the classrooms, unless, of course, you're afraid of hearing and teaching all sides of an issue.
What about those of us that don't accept this account as truth? The hell with us? Tough luck because it is good for us? Are any other creations stories going to be allowed to be taught?
Is it your way only?
Pretty damn pompous of you to demand that everyone have your beliefs.
This message has been edited by Theodoric, 12-28-2005 06:20 PM

Barb's Site
Exposing the radical right with facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Carico, posted 12-28-2005 6:39 PM Carico has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 294 of 304 (273667)
12-28-2005 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Carico
12-28-2005 6:39 PM


Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
Carico writes:
So are you interested in teaching truth of fiction?
Neither.
I'm interested in teaching method, process, understanding. That gives students what they need to be able to make their own assessments of truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Carico, posted 12-28-2005 6:39 PM Carico has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Funkaloyd, posted 12-28-2005 9:27 PM nwr has not replied

Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 304 (273683)
12-28-2005 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by nwr
12-28-2005 7:50 PM


Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
Reading comprehension can help, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by nwr, posted 12-28-2005 7:50 PM nwr has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 296 of 304 (278105)
01-11-2006 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Theodoric
12-22-2005 5:00 PM


Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
Theodoric writes:
If you want... some sort of disclaimers, prove that they are scientific and not religiously based.
This is utter trash and nonsense!
A disclaimer against false science in classrooms is humanistic and legalistic (i.e., to protect against freaky science)
(Disclaimers need not be religious nor scientific): E.g.:
"Don't believe everything you read"
"Theories are not always fact"
"Scientific flaws and gaps abound in the following material ..."
...etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Theodoric, posted 12-22-2005 5:00 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by crashfrog, posted 01-11-2006 11:28 AM Philip has replied
 Message 298 by mark24, posted 01-11-2006 1:53 PM Philip has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 297 of 304 (278117)
01-11-2006 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Philip
01-11-2006 11:16 AM


Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
"Theories are not always fact"
Theories are never facts. Theories are explanitory models developed to explain facts.
Theories do not ever become facts, no matter how well-proven they become; theories are made of facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Philip, posted 01-11-2006 11:16 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Philip, posted 01-11-2006 6:10 PM crashfrog has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 298 of 304 (278176)
01-11-2006 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Philip
01-11-2006 11:16 AM


Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
Philip,
A disclaimer against false science in classrooms is humanistic and legalistic (i.e., to protect against freaky science)
But not when directed against perfectly valid science because it offends evidence free religion.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Philip, posted 01-11-2006 11:16 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Philip, posted 01-11-2006 6:48 PM mark24 has replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 299 of 304 (278266)
01-11-2006 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by crashfrog
01-11-2006 11:28 AM


Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
"Theories are never facts. Theories are explanitory models developed to explain facts."
Good point concerning scientific fact(s) (if there be such a thing).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by crashfrog, posted 01-11-2006 11:28 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by crashfrog, posted 01-12-2006 11:45 AM Philip has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 300 of 304 (278282)
01-11-2006 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by mark24
01-11-2006 1:53 PM


Re: N.A.S. Evo-Knowledge vs. My Cat's
Now how can perfectly valid science offend religion or perfectly valid religion offend science?
The disclaimer is against assumptions of science as being perfectly valid.
Because the current mega-ToE is not perfectly valid and is, moreover, seriously flawed and fluked; it must be disclaimed as flawed and such.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by mark24, posted 01-11-2006 1:53 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by mark24, posted 01-11-2006 6:50 PM Philip has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024