|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3391 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Coyote writes: But your real problem is that creationism does not "prove" itself, but must rely on belief, dogma, scripture and other fluff. There's no evidence that can stand up to testing. If there were, there would not be some 40,000 different brands, flavors, denominations, etc. of Christianity alone. If there were some way of testing claims with evidence you would have convergence rather than schism. In that, religion is the exact opposite of science whether you like it or not. That's true. Firstly the 3,000 year old book is not wrong.But you would have to prove which versions of the Bible are genuine, and what religions measure up to its standards. Virtually none. The reason there is confusion and schism out there, compared to relative uniformity in science, is because science demands rationality, however it is limited to the rationality of human beings. Religion is part of a conflict between Christ and Satan, of which all religions, both pagan and christian are practically under the guide of Satan who has masterminded the state of confusion, as well as the animosity between genuine science and matters of faith. It can be rationally proven in a few sentences from the Bible that every religion is false, yet many persuasions of Christendom claim this book as their guide.It is a total farce that works well in favor continued ignorance. So in essence we have both science and religion divorcing people from God the creator. One through unbelief or humanism, the other through false doctrines or the doctrines of men - which is also humanism. Self worship is the key fault of the original apostate in heaven, and he has well succeeded in not only dragging a third of the angels with him, but the entire world. So really, we should not teach evolution or religion in school, but faith and reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
How about a compromise, Creationists of any sort get 10 minutes to "teach" their theory in a science class but, they get their 10 minutes at the end of the class and they have to sit trough the whole class before and not bother the students. They just have to apply beforehand given that the curriculum is planned beforehand they can even pick a time where they think it would fit best, and the time is taken out of the brake time so the students dont suffer from lack of time to learn about the subject..
Basically, you tried an old "you wouldn't like it if we did the same thing to you" rejoinder and he called your bluff.But we get the same right, we get 10 minutes during your mass or whatever religious ceremonies you hold, to talk about how its all scientifically wrong and what really happened and what history says. >ou can fit those 10 minutes in anytime you like. Would this work for both sides or does anyone have any objections. That compromise wouldn't work. For one thing, your going into their churches to challenge them with science will have no positive effect:
No, it would be far better to leave the churches to themselves and to teach only science in the science classrooms. And as a compromise, have special "balanced treatment" classes in addition to regular science classes in which "creation science" claims can be presented and examined and discussed. And those classes would not be run just by a creationist, nor just by a science teacher, but jointly run by both. In these classes, the creationist claim would be presented by the creationist, the actual science would be presented by the science teacher, and the creationist claim would be compared against the actual science and the actual scientific evidence. A true, "Two Model", "balanced treatment" class, which should offered as an elective with the regular science classes as the prerequisite; after all, the creationist students will be coming into the class already thoroughly indoctrinated by their churches. And the science teacher would need to be knowledgeable of both science and "creation science". But what creationist would ever agree to such a class? Their success depends on ignorance, confusion, and deception -- no, rather it's their entire position that depends on ignorance, confusion and deception. Over the decades, I have found that there's nothing that almost all creationists hate more than to have someone take their claims seriously and to examine those claims and to try to discuss their claims with them. They really hate that! Such classes have been done. For several years, Thwaites and Awbrey ran a two-model class at San Diego State University. They gave half the lectures and guest speakers from the then-nearby Institute for Creation Research, including the leading creationists who literally wrote the book on "creation science", gave the other half, and then the class would examine the creationist claims with the actual science. Creationism never fares well when examined directly, plus the class provided opportunities for demonstrations that proved creationist claims wrong, such as the bomdadier beetle claim that two chemicals explode spontaneously when mixed together (that claim was made by Duane Gish and the experiment was conducted in his presence in front of the entire class). The campus Christian clubs absolutely hated that class! Finally, those clubs put so much pressure on the university administration that the class was closed. The bookstore used to sell the class notes; I don't know whether they still do. I also heard of a similar class at California State University, Fullerton. I don't know the details, nor whether it survived the massive financial meltdown six years ago, President Bush's parting gift to us all. I would think that Colbard should really like this compromise. He can spend his half of the class telling them how radio-carbon dating is wrong because it had dated his 1950's coin to be over 2000 years old. And the science teacher can explain to the students how radio-carbon dating really works and what that means about Colbard's claim. Come to think of it, I haven't seen any indication from Colbard that he has any clue what's wrong about his claim. Have you? Edited by dwise1, : slight clean-up
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
And if that valid rational is valid, but not to the readers, then according to your system it is not valid, and remains invalid until the rationality of the readers reaches a point where it can rationalize something which they could not before. That's not what RAZD means. If you believe something to be true you have to have a rationale supported by evidence that can be examined. You have presented no evidence (if I'm wrong tell me the post number because I can't find it). You have however, lied through your teeth about evidence.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Besides being childishly silly, that was also a complete non sequitur. I've actually learnt how to write some really well structured non sequiturs from reading her posts. Edited by Larni, : I remembered how to spell write properly.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Religion is part of a conflict between Christ and Satan, of which all religions, both pagan and christian are practically under the guide of Satan who has masterminded the state of confusion, as well as the animosity between genuine science and matters of faith. It can be rationally proven in a few sentences from the Bible that every religion is false, yet many persuasions of Christendom claim this book as their guide.It is a total farce that works well in favor continued ignorance. So in essence we have both science and religion divorcing people from God the creator. One through unbelief or humanism, the other through false doctrines or the doctrines of men - which is also humanism. Young lady, you are in a science forum! How is your take on one version of Christianity significant?The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2893 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
True, evolution is also a religion, the ancient religion of Baal worship, which is essentially humanism, the ideas of humanity above any revelation or God. Horse manure. You are in it way over your head. I didn't know home schooling with unqualified teachers was permitted in Australia.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2893 days) Posts: 882 Joined:
|
This post is seriously off topic for this discussion or any discussion in a Science forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Hi Colbard,
You stated in another thread that you were going to begin seeking scientific support for what you say - what happened? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Swamp again? Please tell us what a swamp has to do with any of this.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Firstly the 3,000 year old book is not wrong. But you would have to prove which versions of the Bible are genuine, and what religions measure up to its standards. Virtually none. Well if you are talking about the Bible then it is certainly not 3000 years old and most certainly has much in it that is factually wrong. It's not a matter of which version or any churches practices, it is that the words written are often contradictory, mutually exclusive and factually wrong. Sorry but them's the facts.
Self worship is the key fault of the original apostate in heaven, and he has well succeeded in not only dragging a third of the angels with him, but the entire world. Again, you are simply showing your ignorance of scripture and the Bible. Satan was not involved in self worship, rather the issue was that He refused to bow down and worship humans as beings higher than angels.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Colbard writes:
You're almost half right. Try it this way: "True, evolution is... the ideas of humanity above any revelation or God." True, evolution is also a religion, the ancient religion of Baal worship, which is essentially humanism, the ideas of humanity above any revelation or God. The reason the theory of evolution is so successful is because it works. Revelations seldom do. And there are so many conflicting revelations. Science works by weeding out the revelations (and I use the word `weed` deliberately). That leaves observations that can be confirmed repeatedly. And of course `humanism`is a good thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
It is possible to have a perverse observational skill due to a wrong idea in the first place. Science does not disprove Creationism at all, the false conclusions of brain washed men do. It depends on how one interprets the evidence. That's not quite right; let me fix it for you:
It is possible to have a perverse (handicapped) observational skill due to a wrong idea based on a priori beliefs. Creationism does not disprove Science at all, the false conclusions of brain washed, indoctrinated people are still false. It depends on how one interprets ALL the evidence. Curiously the rest of the world do not care one speck of ant frass about what you find "acceptable" or not. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Please provide sufficient material in the quotes so that the context is apparent to other readers (if not to you); what I said was:
When you voice a personal opinion based on belief without evidence as a counter to conclusions reached from objective empirical evidence that has been validated and confirmed by others, you need to provide some valid rational for people to think your argument is credible rather than self-serving fantasy. For instance, when I look at the tree ring record from Bristlecone Pines in California and Oaks in Ireland and Germany, I can count more rings than your 6000 year old earth belief can explain ... these tree rings also cross-reference with each other and historical data as well as solar data in the form of 14C/12C levels in each of the rings recording solar cycles ... you need to provide me with some reason, some causal relationship, some basis, for your belief in a 6000 year old earth in order for me to consider it as anything more than delusional fantasy on your part. This data alone shows the earth is older than your 6000 year belief. How do you explain it? If you can't explain it then your argument has no relevance to reality.
And if that valid rational is valid, but not to the readers, then according to your system it is not valid, and remains invalid until the rationality of the readers reaches a point where it can rationalize something which they could not before. I'm sure you thought that word salad was rational and even amusing when you wrote it.
... And if that valid rational is valid, but not to the readers, ... In logic a conclusion is valid if it necessarily follows from the premises, and that if neither premise is false that the conclusion is true. This remains true no matter who reads it, it is the structure of the argument, not the content. This has not been apparent in any of your arguments\rants\whinings, btw.
... then according to your system it is not valid, and remains invalid until ... If the structure of the argument is valid then its validity is not subject to change no matter who reads it. In science we take this a step further and require that the premises be based on objective empirical evidence. This means that the observation in the premises can be repeated by others and that they then come to the same conclusion based on the evidence and the validity of the argument.
... until the rationality of the readers reaches a point where it can rationalize something which they could not before Beware of the logical fallacy of equivocation, using the same word with different meanings in different parts of your argument ... the mental stability of the reader has nothing to do with the rationale of the argument.
... until the rationality of the readers reaches a point where it can rationalize something which they could not before So that's not quite right; let me fix it for you:
... until the education\knowledge of the readers reaches a point where it can understand something which they could not before ... If you reject the truth of the evidence it doesn't change the validity of the argument. You are at fault, not the argument. When you understand the evidence rather than reject it then you can correct your previous ignorant position. If you reject the truth of the conclusion following from the evidence then you do not have a rationale basis for your argument. You are at fault, not the argument. When you understand the conclusion rather than reject it then you can correct your previous ignorant position. As you can see this applies to all arguments that have a reason, a purpose, and which are supported by objective empirical evidence so that the relative truth of the premises can be judged. Note "true" and "truth" are lowercase, meaning that they are not absolute values.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3391 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Percy writes: You stated in another thread that you were going to begin seeking scientific support for what you say - what happened? Someone just complained that what I was saying was off topic, well I thought that if matters of faith were in the discussion surely its on topic. Faith should go hand in hand with reason. You learn the alphabet by faith, you reason out the applications in words. Science has gone on a tour after rejecting initial training in faith, so it cannot know the facts that have been established, but it is left to progress from where it started, from nothing. So to prove something from science which will take infinity to figure out, it can not be done. You ask for evidence for things that are obvious, but admit you are not interested because you are in a progress of getting it - your way, the slow way.That's not how education works. You need both faith and reasoning. Your starting point is nature, the natural world. It is a gift of knowledge, it is full of intelligent things, which instead of leading you to the intelligent conclusion of gratitude to an obvious Maker and designer, you go down the path of doubt, analysis, dissections, postulations.Then you have the gall to ask proof of others what you have rejected as evidence in the first place. You need to understand what balance is, before your blindness becomes totally incurable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3391 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD
In essence you are saying? That only what you think is valid? I don't mind an opinionated man, because at least he has one.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024