Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 10:17 AM
47 online now:
AZPaul3, Phat (AdminPhat), xongsmith (3 members, 44 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,579 Year: 3,616/19,786 Month: 611/1,087 Week: 201/212 Day: 16/27 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Author Topic:   Support for Louisiana repeal effort
Tram law
Member (Idle past 2782 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 16 of 108 (614984)
05-09-2011 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rahvin
05-09-2011 1:46 PM


It's one thing to discuss things and express an opinion, it's another thing to impose your opinion on people who don't want it.

And asking idiotic questions like "Do you hate x" is not conductive to debate.

And of course, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. The common good is determined by the masses, of course.

So some say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rahvin, posted 05-09-2011 1:46 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Theodoric, posted 05-09-2011 2:03 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Rahvin, posted 05-09-2011 2:11 PM Tram law has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 17 of 108 (614986)
05-09-2011 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Tram law
05-09-2011 1:57 PM


It's one thing to discuss things and express an opinion, it's another thing to impose your opinion on people who don't want it.

Please show how not allowing the teaching of creationism in science classes is imposing opinion?

Do you think Christian creationism is scientific? Are you familiar with the things a brought earlier e.g. establishment clause, precedent? Have you heard of the Dover trial?

Why are you against the people of LA wanting to to change a bad law? Why should they not seek support form other states, especially since this has Constitutional implications. You are just spouting dogma and are not backing anything up with evidence or even a semblance of a coherent argument.

And of course, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. The common good is determined by the masses, of course.

Please explain what you are trying to say here. I do not see how this fits into anything else.

Edited by Theodoric, : Spelling


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 1:57 PM Tram law has not yet responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1264 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 18 of 108 (614987)
05-09-2011 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Tram law
05-09-2011 1:57 PM


It's one thing to discuss things and express an opinion, it's another thing to impose your opinion on people who don't want it.

That's exactly what anti-evolution laws do - they impose a religious opinion, regardless of whether or not that opinion is desired. A person is more than welcome to [i]believe[/]i in ID or Creationism, but a teacher at a public school cannot teach those beliefs in a science classroom because they are a religious opinion, not scientifically accepted theories.

And how is my expression of free speech supposed to impose my will on the people of Louisiana? If I donate money to a group opposing the anti-evolution laws, have I forced someone to accept evolution?

And asking idiotic questions like "Do you hate x" is not conductive to debate.

I disagree, both regarding the intellectual quality of such questions as well as their usefulness in a debate.

If you oppose the expression of free speech from outside a state with regard to a state law, then you oppose free speech. You don;t get to just turn it on and off for things you particularly support or don;t support, or just because there's a state line in the way. If I'm allowed to express my opinion verbally or through financial support, then I'm allowed to do so across state lines as well.

I think pointing that out is extremely effective.

The mechanism preventing me from actually imposing my will on Louisiana, Tram, is not restricting my free speech. Rather, it's the fact that I don;t get to vote on Louisiana law. Only Louisiana citizens do. And so long as their laws don't violate any Federal laws (like say, the Constitution), Louisianans get to solely vote and decide on their own laws regardless of outside money for campaigns or the opinions of out-of-state folks like you or me.

Of course, anti-evolution laws do violate the Constitution, so the federal courts would be able to address this issue if the state doesn't handle it correctly in-house.

And of course, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. The common good is determined by the masses, of course.

So some say.

...a Star Trek quote? I have a disturbing image in my head of you, in some future post, screaming "KHAAAAAAAAAAAANNNN!!" at me if we should continue to disagree.

Please don't do that.

In any case, while the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few, that's hardly relevant to this discussion. Our society has a framework of laws, beginning with the Constitution and ending with local laws. Those laws collectively dictate who may speak and when (everyone, and just about everywhere with the exception of things like yelling "fire" in a crowded place or inciting a riot or violence, etc). They dictate who may believe what (everyone can believe whatever they want to believe, only actions are restricted). They dictate which religions the state can endorse (none).

Do you have an actual argument beyond your personal opinion that people should stay out of Louisiana's business?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 1:57 PM Tram law has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 2:30 PM Rahvin has responded

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 2782 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 19 of 108 (614990)
05-09-2011 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Rahvin
05-09-2011 2:11 PM


But yet, science laws teach only scientific opinions in school. What makes scientific opinions more right to teach our children than religion?

Expressing an opinion is not the same as imposing one's opinions of course, but encouraging people from other states to get involved actually does impose a person's will because they are attempting to act on an opinion and force people to accept their opinion as truth and to change the laws.

Laws force people to behave in ways they can't accept. Such as imposing anti-abortion laws because they think abortion murders children and the end results is that law abiding citizens are forced to have a child they may not want.

I personally see no real difference in forcing people to teach only science.

And wouldn't free speech also apply to creationists as well? Why should science be taught in schools under the guise of free speech when creationism is not taught in schools under free speech.

Perhaps this is really two conflicting rights. The right of free speech vs the separation of religion.


I disagree, both regarding the intellectual quality of such questions as well as their usefulness in a debate.

If you oppose the expression of free speech from outside a state with regard to a state law, then you oppose free speech. You don;t get to just turn it on and off for things you particularly support or don;t support, or just because there's a state line in the way. If I'm allowed to express my opinion verbally or through financial support, then I'm allowed to do so across state lines as well.

I don't agree that they are useful. They've always been used as strawmen and other distracting tactics in order to shift the burden of proof onto another person. So please, if you don't want me to use the Star Trek quote, i would appreciate it if you wouldn't use those kinds of questions on me.

I'm simply trying to say that this should be left up to the Louisianans to decide for themselves, and it should be left up to the real experts to determine if they truly decide to include creationism in schools.

But yes, the Supreme Court does agree that anti-evolution laws do infringe upon free speech rights.

And I have been making actual arguments to the best of my ability.

Edit:

To put it simply, I suck at debate ebcause I'm not an intellectual elitist than can use a hundred thousand different words to describe a black carpenter ant. I don't do semantic bs.

Edited by Tram law, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Rahvin, posted 05-09-2011 2:11 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Theodoric, posted 05-09-2011 2:39 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Straggler, posted 05-09-2011 5:05 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Rahvin, posted 05-09-2011 5:07 PM Tram law has responded
 Message 24 by Coyote, posted 05-09-2011 7:29 PM Tram law has responded
 Message 49 by Trae, posted 05-11-2011 6:29 AM Tram law has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 20 of 108 (614993)
05-09-2011 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tram law
05-09-2011 2:30 PM


But yet, science laws teach only scientific opinions in school.

So gravitation is just an opinion?
I personally see no real difference in forcing people to teach only science.

There is a reason it is called science class. Which creation fable should be taught? Do we allow them to teach that leprechauns are a fact?
And wouldn't free speech also apply to creationists as well? Why should science be taught in schools under the guise of free speech when creationism is not taught in schools under free speech.

Because it ISN'T SCIENCE? The courts have determined that very clearly.

They've always been used as strawmen

Do you understand what a strawman is?

and it should be left up to the real experts to determine if they truly decide to include creationism in schools.

Who? Preachers? Religious fundies? Since in 1865 the majority of people in the south still supported slavery, the US should have allowed it to continue? You do realize the lots of states did not support the civil rights acts, should we allow states to decide not o have to follow civil rights laws?

But yes, the Supreme Court does agree that anti-evolution laws do infringe upon free speech rights.

So you feel the Supreme Court decisions are not the law of the land?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 2:30 PM Tram law has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 21 of 108 (615014)
05-09-2011 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tram law
05-09-2011 2:30 PM


Science and Religion
Tram writes:

But yet, science laws teach only scientific opinions in school. What makes scientific opinions more right to teach our children than religion?

Well that is a good question - What does make one opinion superior to another? Facts maybe? Evidential validity? Being based on demonstrably successful investigative methods? Or are you suggesting all opinions no matter how baseless or even evidence defying are equally valid? What should we be teaching our kids if we want them to genuinely think critically?

Tram writes:

And wouldn't free speech also apply to creationists as well?

Nobody is denying free speech to creationists.

Tram writes:

Why should science be taught in schools under the guise of free speech when creationism is not taught in schools under free speech.

Science is taught under the "guise" of science. Religion should NOT be taught under the guise of science. Religion should be taught as religion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 2:30 PM Tram law has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1264 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 22 of 108 (615015)
05-09-2011 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tram law
05-09-2011 2:30 PM


Tram law writes:

But yet, science laws teach only scientific opinions in school. What makes scientific opinions more right to teach our children than religion?

Science is not opinion. Science is the modeling, the describing, of reality, using repeatable, observable, testable evidence. When science classifies a new species, the classification is not based on the "opinion" of a scientist, like a preference for blue over green. It's based on the objective physical characteristics of the organism, things that anyone else can look at and verify.

Science is about fact Facts don't care what you believe - whether you believe in evolution or not, bacteria can still mutate into antibiotic-resistant strains; new species will continue to develop out of existing species. There are still people right now who believe that no men ever set foot on the moon, yet the plaque we left is still there whether they believe it or not.

Science is religiously neutral in the way that saying that the Earth is round is religiously neutral; there may be specific faiths that believe that the Earth is flat, but their beliefs are wrong as a matter of easily observable fact.

When you take a biology class in High School and your teacher tells you about genes and DNA, it's not opinion. It's a factually-supported set of scientific theories upon which a great deal of the modern world is based.

To put it simply, science is not a religion. The two are not comparable in the way you're comparing them.

Expressing an opinion is not the same as imposing one's opinions of course, but encouraging people from other states to get involved actually does impose a person's will because they are attempting to act on an opinion and force people to accept their opinion as truth and to change the laws.

1) Expressing an opinion is not imposing an opinion.

2) Encouraging people from other states to express their opinions IS imposing an opinion.

Your two points are mutually exclusive, Tram, they contradict each other. Either speech IS the imposition of an opinion, or it is not. A state line does not suddenly make speech forceful.

Laws force people to behave in ways they can't accept. Such as imposing anti-abortion laws because they think abortion murders children and the end results is that law abiding citizens are forced to have a child they may not want.

I personally see no real difference in forcing people to teach only science.

Do you remember why we have such things as the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of Religion?

History contains numerous examples of other societies who established state religions and/or restricted speech. In fact, in a Deomcracy, the majority can still enact a state religion, or restrict speech that the majority disapprove of.

That's the entire reason we live in a Constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy. It;s the reason we have the Constitution in the first place: to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

When the majority of people in a state are Creationists, they could vote (as happened in Louisiana) to teach Creationism in their schools. The result would be that all of the children who are not Creationists (more liberal Christians and non-Christians of all kinds) would have their rights violated, because a purely religious dogma would be forced upon them at public school.

The Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court Justices after them have been wise in the established interpretation of the Freedom of Religion: Congress may make no law that establishes a state religion, nor prohibit the free expression thereof. The only way to guarantee that everyone is able to believe according to their own conscience, to truly have the freedom to believe whatever they choose, is for the governmnet, including State governments, to avoid the topic of religion altogether.

No public school teacher may extol the virtues of Jesus, or Allah, or Vishnu to their students. Conversely, no public school teacher may tell Muslims that they're going to Hell, or Christians that they believe in a false deity. Public schools are direct agents of the government, paid for with public funds and subject to the restrictions of religious endorsement set forth in the Constitution. Public schools must remain religiously neutral.

Schools may teach math, because math does not involve endorsing a religion. Schools may teach foreign languages, because languages do not endorse religions.

Schools may teach science, because science does not endorse any religion.

Creationism and ID, however, have been very clearly demonstrated, particularly at the Dover trial, to be exclusively religious in nature. There is no scientific controversy regarding evolution, just as there is no scientific controversy regarding the existence of gravity or tectonic plate theory or atomic theory or the germ theory of disease. The only controversy is religious in nature - only religious individuals from specific religious persuasions (most religious people are not Creationists) claim that evolution is false, and they do so for exclusively religious reasons, not any reason at all grounded within science.

Therefore Creationism and ID are very clearly religious ideals, and as such must not be allowed in public schools, because their inclusion in a curriculum would constitute the state's endorsement of one set of religious ideas above others.

Evolution, on the other hand, is religiously neutral in that it has no "agenda." It's not religious dogma. It comes from no holy book. It;s not pushed by any manner of preacher. It has nothing to do with anything spiritual or moral or supernatural or any of the other defining aspects of "religion." Evolution is a scientific theory, well-tested and well-supported by repeatable, observable fact. Virtually all of modern biology touches in some way on the Theory of Evolution.

If you're going to have a science class at all, evolution deserves a place.

Creationism and ID are very clearly religious in nature and thus have no place in a public school as they violate the Constitutional ban on state endorsement of religion.

And wouldn't free speech also apply to creationists as well? Why should science be taught in schools under the guise of free speech when creationism is not taught in schools under free speech.

Schools are agents of the government, not individuals. A teacher, as an individual, outside of his/her role as a teacher, may practice whatever religion they choose, and can speak about that religion all they want. As an agent of the government, meaning when in a classroom with students, the teacher's right to free speech is restricted. He/she may not express any religious ideas to the children, as that would constitute the endorsement by the state of those religious views above others.

Individuals have the right of free speech. The government, because it represents all of us and must respect the rights of the majority [i]and[/]i the minority, does not.

Perhaps this is really two conflicting rights. The right of free speech vs the separation of religion.

Free speech doesn't even come into the classroom. Representatives of the government, including teachers, give up some of their free speech rights when acting in their official capacity, because of things like the separation of church and state.

Incidentally, teachers in their official capacity aren't allowed to tell kids that a specific political party is good or bad, either. It's not jsut religion that's restricted.


I disagree, both regarding the intellectual quality of such questions as well as their usefulness in a debate.

If you oppose the expression of free speech from outside a state with regard to a state law, then you oppose free speech. You don;t get to just turn it on and off for things you particularly support or don;t support, or just because there's a state line in the way. If I'm allowed to express my opinion verbally or through financial support, then I'm allowed to do so across state lines as well.

I don't agree that they are useful. They've always been used as strawmen and other distracting tactics in order to shift the burden of proof onto another person. So please, if you don't want me to use the Star Trek quote, i would appreciate it if you wouldn't use those kinds of questions on me.

Do you support free speech or not, Tram? If you do, then you [i]must[/]i support the right of people from outside of Louisiana to express their speech across state lines, including the donation of money.

The only way to not support the right of people outside of Louisiana to speak regarding the anti-evolution laws is to oppose free speech.

You cannot have it both ways. Either speech is free and people can express whatever they want regardless of state lines, or not.

Which is it, Tram?

I'm simply trying to say that this should be left up to the Louisianans to decide for themselves, and it should be left up to the real experts to determine if they truly decide to include creationism in schools.

And in fact they will be, to an extent. Outside opinions are only speech, after all, and as you agreed earlier, speech cannot force anything on anyone. Only Louisianans can vote in Louisiana - I can express my opinion all I want, but they get to decide for themselves whether my arguments are moving or even relevant.

The only exception is if the case is brought before the courts on Constitutional grounds. The citizens of a state can decide for themselves how they want their state run, except when those decisions conflict with the Constitution.

But yes, the Supreme Court does agree that anti-evolution laws do infringe upon free speech rights.

Do you understand why?

And I have been making actual arguments to the best of my ability.

Edit:

To put it simply, I suck at debate ebcause I'm not an intellectual elitist than can use a hundred thousand different words to describe a black carpenter ant. I don't do semantic bs.

Who exactly do you think I am? I'm not some politically-stereotyped white-tower intellectual. I'm just a regular guy. I don't even have a bachelor's degree.

You don't need a great education or a huge vocabulary to argue with me, Tram. All you need are logically consistent arguments and facts to back them up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 2:30 PM Tram law has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 7:20 PM Rahvin has responded

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 2782 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 23 of 108 (615043)
05-09-2011 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Rahvin
05-09-2011 5:07 PM


The common good is determined by the masses. Free speech is besides the point. Especially if it's harmful speech. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any hate speech laws.

It doesn't matter if it is a fact or not. People have their beliefs when it comes to fact, and schools have become a great tool for indoctrination of those beliefs. After all, if homosexual literature telling why it's okay to be homosexual, which is a belief and not a fact, then it should be okay to teach that creationism is okay to believe, otherwise, it is discrimination.

But all that really is is nothing more than indoctrination.

The common good is dictated by the masses.

That means individual rights are moot and have no place in society.

Or so I'm told.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Rahvin, posted 05-09-2011 5:07 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Rahvin, posted 05-09-2011 7:41 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Theodoric, posted 05-09-2011 8:57 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 37 by ZenMonkey, posted 05-09-2011 10:45 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2011 2:44 AM Tram law has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 183 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 24 of 108 (615045)
05-09-2011 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tram law
05-09-2011 2:30 PM


Evidence
What makes scientific opinions more right to teach our children than religion?

Scientific opinions (theories) are based on evidence.

Religion is based on belief, dogma, scripture, revelation and other squishy subjects. No evidence is required, and evidence is generally rejected when it contradicts the above squishy subjects.

Is the difference clear now?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 2:30 PM Tram law has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 7:41 PM Coyote has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1264 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 25 of 108 (615046)
05-09-2011 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tram law
05-09-2011 7:20 PM


The common good is determined by the masses. Free speech is besides the point. Especially if it's harmful speech. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any hate speech laws.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, Tram. We don;t live in a Democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic. The majority rules except where the majority conflicts with the Constitution. The many do not have the right to oppress the few.

Free speech is completely relevant when discussing whether I, as a citizen of California, have the right to comment on or donate money to a political faction in Louisiana. The freedom to express my speech is what gives me the unassailable right to make such a donation or speak out if I so choose.

Free speech is only not relevant when talking about what should and should not be taught at schools, because that's not a free speech issue.

It doesn't matter if it is a fact or not. People have their beliefs when it comes to fact, and schools have become a great tool for indoctrination of those beliefs.

According to that line of thought, if a majority of people in Weed, California decided that 2+2=5, they could vote to have that mandated into the curriculum because "it doesn't matter if it is a fact or not."

We don't tiptoe around beliefs that religiously-neutral facts might come into conflict with - there are thousands of different belief systems, and it's impossible to avoid contradicting any of them, especially when some of them come into conflict with basic facts like whether the Earth is round or flat.

Facts are facts. Facts are not indoctrination. 2+2=4, not 5. The Earth is not flat. The Moon orbits the Earth, and the Earth orbits the Sun. The stars are other Suns, very far away. Human beings are primates, mammals, and vertebrates.

After all, if homosexual literature telling why it's okay to be homosexual, which is a belief and not a fact, then it should be okay to teach that creationism is okay to believe, otherwise, it is discrimination.

...what? Schools don't push "homosexual literature," Tram. The only even remotely related thing I can think of that you might be twisting would be the recent California law that ensures homosexual historical figures don;t get left out - which, you may note, is a matter of accurately reporting historical facts to kids, not about telling them whether they should be gay or not.

Further, no school teaches that it's "not okay" to believe in Creationism! Teachers aren't allowed to say that Creationists are dumb any more than they're allowed to teach that Creationists are right - all they can do is present the currently accepted scientific theories as accurately as possible. Sometimes those theories will come into conflict with religious beliefs, but that's impossible to avoid in every case. I'm sure you'd agree that one can know about the Theory of Evolution without necessarily believing it to be true; after all, I know about Creationism without believing it to be true.

But all that really is is nothing more than indoctrination.

You keep on using that word, "indoctrination." I do not think that it means what you think that it means.

The common good is dictated by the masses.

That means individual rights are moot and have no place in society.

Or so I'm told.

By whom? Certainly not me. Full Democracy degenerates into tyranny of the minority by the majority. Under the American political system, a Constitutional Republic, individual rights like the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of Religion (as examples) are unassailable, and can only be limited in very specific instances like crying "fire!" in a crowded place.

But teaching evolution does not in any way violate anyone's religious freedom, nor their freedom of speech.

Teaching Creationism does not violate the freedom of speech of the teacher, but does violate the religious rights of the students - and the teacher has a diminished right to speech when acting as an agent of the government in the classroom, to the students' rights win out.

I know you're aware of Dover, Tram, and how the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue in the past. But I'll ask again, are you aware of why?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 7:20 PM Tram law has not yet responded

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 2782 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 26 of 108 (615047)
05-09-2011 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Coyote
05-09-2011 7:29 PM


Re: Evidence
Evidence schmevidence. Just because there's evidence doesn't mean it's right. After all, science always teaches that it is not about morality.

That's why religion is needed/ in schools.And children need to be taught what's right and wrong. Not the so called morality of science.

If science is not about morality, then religion is, and it is needed in schools now more than ever.

Not, evolution.

Evolution is no more than science fiction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Coyote, posted 05-09-2011 7:29 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 05-09-2011 7:48 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Rahvin, posted 05-09-2011 7:52 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 30 by DrJones*, posted 05-09-2011 7:55 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 50 by Trae, posted 05-11-2011 7:06 AM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 52 by ZenMonkey, posted 05-11-2011 12:56 PM Tram law has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 183 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 27 of 108 (615049)
05-09-2011 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tram law
05-09-2011 7:41 PM


Re: Evidence
Evolution is no more than science fiction.

False.

I have studied evolution, particularly the fossil man side of things. That was one of the subjects for my Ph.D. exams. There was no science fiction involved. Rather, there was a lot of science and a lot of facts, leading to strong theories. And the fossil evidence is supported by the genetic evidence, although there was less of that when I was in grad school.

You are preaching based on beliefs. Got any real evidence to share with us?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 7:41 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Rahvin, posted 05-09-2011 7:54 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1264 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 28 of 108 (615050)
05-09-2011 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tram law
05-09-2011 7:41 PM


Re: Evidence
Evidence schmevidence. Just because there's evidence doesn't mean it's right. After all, science always teaches that it is not about morality.

Whoa whoa whoa.

Stop.

There's a difference between "morally right" and "factually right."

2+2=4 is a factually right statement. It's correct. I can prove it any time.

2+2=4 gives no moral direction at all.

Observing that the Earth is round and not flat is factually right. The roundness of the Earth makes absolutely no suggestions as to ethics or morality.

The theory of evolution is a theoretical framework that attempts to explain a large number of observed facts, and whose predictions have been tested and shown to be extremely accurate.

Evolution makes no suggestions as to how we should behave towards each other.

That's why religion is needed/ in schools.And children need to be taught what's right and wrong. Not the so called morality of science.

Excuse me, but that's both absolutely wrong and extremely insulting. Morality and ethics do not need to come from religion, as every Atheist who is not a mass-murdering rapist thief cannibal proves.

Further, you cannot teach children religion in a public school without choosing which religion(s) to teach...which then functions as the state endorsing those religions above the others. If a Christian sent his child to a public school, would he want his child to be taught Islam? Judaism? Hindu? Buddhism? You're suggesting that we violate the religious rights of children to teach them "morality," when morality does not require religion to be taught.

You're operating under the assumption that morality MUST come from either science or religion, and that's just not true.

If science is not about morality, then religion is, and it is needed in schools now more than ever.

Not, evolution.

Why can't we have both morality AND evolution without violating the religious rights of the kids?

Evolution is no more than science fiction.

Which is of course why virtually every biologist in the entire world agrees that evolution is an extremely accurate model.

(that was sarcasm)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 7:41 PM Tram law has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1264 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 29 of 108 (615051)
05-09-2011 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Coyote
05-09-2011 7:48 PM


Re: Evidence
Got any real evidence to share with us?

Well, he did just say "evidence schmevidence."

I don't think that basing beliefs on evidence is a strong concern for Tram.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 05-09-2011 7:48 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 7:59 PM Rahvin has responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1806
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 30 of 108 (615052)
05-09-2011 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tram law
05-09-2011 7:41 PM


Re: Evidence
That's why religion is needed/ in schools.And children need to be taught what's right and wrong.

I concur, we need to teach the children the Truth of Odin the Allfather so that they learn right from wrong and won't stray to those false religions like christianity or scientology.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 7:41 PM Tram law has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019