Summations Only

quote:

---

They discussed everything and anything the kids wanted to bring up who were bright enough to bring them up.
  —jchardy

---

When I was at school, in physics classes only physics was discussed. In chemistry classes, only chemistry was discussed. In biology classes, only biology was discussed.My teachers were bright enough to know that even the brightest kids didn't know much about these subjects. Those kids were there to get an education.These teachers were also bright enough to know that they, themselves, didn't know enough to tell all those professional physisists, chemists and biologists that they all are wrong about everything.

Yes, everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe.However, nobody has the right to teach sham science as "science". Only science should be taught as science.Religious beliefs should not be taught as "science". Therefore no accommodation of religious beliefs in science classes.The fraudulence of creationists pretending that Intelligent Design is "science" should be exposed for what it is: dishonesty. That's it. Pseudo "science" should not be taught in science classes. You, jchardy, are a victim of their dishonesty; you believe their deception.Furthermore, the only thing to understand about Intelligent Design is that it is not science. It is religion dressed up as "science". They don't tell the truth by keeping on pretending to lay people that they do "science". It isn't . Nothing more to understand about that.Edited by Pressie, : Added last paragraphEdited by Pressie, : Edited at request of moderatorEdited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Ah, the global conspiracy against creation "scientists". Poor, oppressed little people; these faith-based "scientists" are.Has it ever occurred to you that the simple reason creation "scientists" don't often get published is the fact they don't normally follow the scientific method; and if they do, they usually do really, really bad science? I could provide you with quite a few examples if you're interested.Edited by Pressie, : Added sentenceEdited by Pressie, : Added sentence

jchardyI don't understand much of what you're trying to say, but I completely disagree in some of the instances I do understand. For example, your point 3: I disagree. They should compliment each other. You only see, for example science, toxic to religion because science disproves a literal interpretation of your holy book, together with providing strong evidence that that your religion is based on wishful thinking. The lack of empirical, verifiable evidence for you surviving your death is one example. Another one is the evidence that organisms always died and death did not start after somebody was tricked into eating from some tree. I disagree. For example, allegations that prayer heals people should be investigated. This should be tested rigorously, as it could improve conditions for humanity if true. Unfortunately for you, the studies done so far indicate that people being prayed for are just as likely to die as people not being prayed for. I disagree. For example, there is a very high degree of certainty that Antartica is (tomorrow we could say was) situated in the Southern Hemisphere on the Seventh day of March, 2012. This is deducted through a variety of lines of empirical, verifiable evidence for Antartica existing in the first place, as well as being situated where it is in the second place. Empirical, verifiable evidence for a phenonema can provide a very high degree of certainty. Certitude.Edited by Pressie, : Changed the last few sentencesEdited by Pressie, : Changed a few sentences

I found that remark by jchardy very disrespectful towards a lot of people, too. Along with those other remarks about some scientists being victims of some conspiracy by everyone else (including me). I think his remarks defeat the purpose of his thread.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Could you be so kind as to provide the following: 1) define what you mean by such an "agent"; 2) provide empirical, verifiable evidence for the existence of said agent; 3) provide a definition of what you mean by "plausible means" in this instance; 4) provide empirical, verifiable evidence for the existence of those "plausible means"; 5) provide evidence that there is anything else but our "physical universe" and could influence it; 6) define what you mean by "manipulated" in this instance;7) provide empirical, verifiable evidence for this manipulation?Without this the sentence surely doesn't have much meaning. You might as well have said:"My point is that there are kdkdnfndfjldslwelwe by which an ahsbdkjrytgfdh%* (far beyond our understanding) might sjdjdldlrreujewl the evolution both of the physical universe and of life and it's evolution".Edited by Pressie, : Changed last sentenceEdited by Pressie, : Spelling and changed a sentence