|
Author
|
Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 4 of 2073 (559026)
05-06-2010 8:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by extent
05-04-2010 7:22 PM
|
|
It's a good idea to teach comparative religion in school. This lets all sides of the theological world get a fair hearing (rather than just xianty, for example). People only exposed to one faith are more closed minded about other faiths and therefor cannot really make an informed decision as to what to beleive in. Once they make that choice (say Hinduism over Islam, for example) they are free to go to the relevant holy place to learn and worship freely. Teaching religion as it is done in such a place should never take place at school: I for one remember being in primary school and have to say the 'lords prayer' with little choice in the matter. When you talk about the 'facts' are you talking about the 'facts' of reality or the 'facts' of any of the religions we have to choose from?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by extent, posted 05-04-2010 7:22 PM | | extent has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 146 of 2073 (658568)
04-06-2012 11:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 145 by PaulGL
04-06-2012 11:06 AM
|
|
Did that make sense in your head?
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 145 by PaulGL, posted 04-06-2012 11:06 AM | | PaulGL has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: ugh acronyms
Don't feel bad, Arty: when I first found the Landover Baptist site I immediately registered to liberal-rage and made several pompous post about how wrong it is to keep African children as house pets... Then I thought: 'hang on, I'm being SO trolled'. Edited by Larni, : Clarification
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 Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 162 of 2073 (659849)
04-19-2012 9:09 AM
|
Reply to: Message 161 by frako
04-19-2012 7:41 AM
|
|
Re: ugh acronyms
I have to say the site is bloody funny. They use the Bible really well to justify thier points.
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 161 by frako, posted 04-19-2012 7:41 AM | | frako has replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 255 of 2073 (737710)
09-28-2014 5:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 254 by PaulGL
09-28-2014 5:52 PM
|
|
Re: Genesis is an evolutionary account
The Bible is God's word No it isn't. So, where do we go from here?
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 254 by PaulGL, posted 09-28-2014 5:52 PM | | PaulGL has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 320 of 2073 (738247)
10-07-2014 8:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 290 by djufo
10-04-2014 12:42 PM
|
|
All this ranting about geeks and nerds. Did they bully you at school or something?
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 290 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 12:42 PM | | djufo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 321 by djufo, posted 10-09-2014 6:37 PM | | Larni has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 380 of 2073 (740332)
11-04-2014 6:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 355 by Colbard
10-30-2014 8:05 AM
|
|
Re: How to teach Evolution
Children are nowhere near as dumb as you seem to beleive.
Colbard writes: Show what nature has but don't put forward dumb conclusions, let the students make up their own mind. The problem with that is that many things are non intuitive. For example: levels of anxiety decrease with exposure to the anxiety provoking situation. But intuitively we avoid anxiety provoking situations. Children need to be informed about how the world works when it is counter intuitive. Does they Sun go around the Earth? Sure looks that way. Does the Moon circle the Earth? Sure looks that way. Both of the above statements are false: but it is not obvious unless one is informed why. Bo you see? Edited by Larni, : DVD extras.
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 355 by Colbard, posted 10-30-2014 8:05 AM | | Colbard has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 386 by Colbard, posted 11-05-2014 6:45 AM | | Larni has replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 400 of 2073 (740794)
11-07-2014 2:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 386 by Colbard
11-05-2014 6:45 AM
|
|
Re: How to teach Evolution
Colbard writes: In China children were taught that Chairman Mao makes the sun rise. That's force. Education would be to take them onto the China wall at sunrise. Sigh. That would not educate the children. It would reinforce the idea that 'Chairman Mao' can make the Sun come up even when they are at the Great Wall of China. How do you not understand why this is wrong? Edited by Larni, : spelling
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 386 by Colbard, posted 11-05-2014 6:45 AM | | Colbard has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 407 by Colbard, posted 11-07-2014 10:16 PM | | Larni has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 527 of 2073 (741585)
11-13-2014 11:32 AM
|
Reply to: Message 480 by Colbard
11-12-2014 8:13 AM
|
|
Re: Back on track
And be tested on it, and if they fail they will have a mundane career. My god, girl, did you fail an exam? You seem to have such a wide-on for stereotyping scientists or people who did well at school. Maybe you should try making lemonade?
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 480 by Colbard, posted 11-12-2014 8:13 AM | | Colbard has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 591 of 2073 (742025)
11-16-2014 1:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 578 by Colbard
11-16-2014 5:38 AM
|
|
By the way it was a state school with an atheist teacher, who by the way became a Christian soon after. Bullshit.
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 578 by Colbard, posted 11-16-2014 5:38 AM | | Colbard has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 622 of 2073 (742520)
11-21-2014 4:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 612 by Colbard
11-20-2014 8:45 PM
|
|
Why would it be necessary for a whole brigade to pounce on a "delusional" with lesson sticks if the suspect is of no consequence to the system? Because these delusionalisticals inevitably start wanting to to teach their delusions in science classes. Google the 'Wedge Document'.
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 612 by Colbard, posted 11-20-2014 8:45 PM | | Colbard has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 623 of 2073 (742521)
11-21-2014 5:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 620 by Colbard
11-21-2014 3:18 AM
|
|
Re: Belief in science
You believe that science is a flawless self justifying machine, when it is also based on fundamental human beliefs which drive the conclusions considered to be evidence.
One of these days science will double over and die, taking the theories of the last century with it.
That is already beginning to happen now.
It will also be uncovered that the dating methods used are based on false premises. Do you realise that you are responding to a post cautioning against attacking science rather than describing the evidence for 'creation science' by attacking science. Being 18 is no excuse for not reading the posts that you are responding to.
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 620 by Colbard, posted 11-21-2014 3:18 AM | | Colbard has replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 693 of 2073 (742993)
11-26-2014 8:30 AM
|
Reply to: Message 681 by Colbard
11-25-2014 10:51 PM
|
|
Re: Belief in science instead of fantasy ...
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 681 by Colbard, posted 11-25-2014 10:51 PM | | Colbard has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
Re: Belief in science
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 689 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-25-2014 11:32 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 695 of 2073 (742995)
11-26-2014 8:39 AM
|
Reply to: Message 691 by Colbard
11-25-2014 11:44 PM
|
|
Re: Belief in science
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 691 by Colbard, posted 11-25-2014 11:44 PM | | Colbard has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2