Back a while ago when I was in 6th grade there was a Science teacher that use to show videos with a guy named Dr. Kent Hovind or Dr. Dino and these videos tried to show the flaws of Evolution. Later on I looked up Kent Hovind and discovered that his arguments have been proven false. I felt pissed off and I was annoyed that the teacher had shown those videos and been sarcastic about Evolution when he probably knew that he was spreading lies. I don't think that it's fair that teachers talk about Creation just because of their beliefs. It would be a lot nicer if they'd just let kids decide what theory they prefer and want to believe in. I think that Evolution is a much more valid theory 'cause of all the fossils that scientists have discovered over the years. Lucy is definitely an example. Your thoughts?
I think its better to believe in fact (evolution) than stories in some made up book that was written 40-60 years after the supposed events happened.
Jut as a sie note, the Mayan calendar ends in 7 years. So if you couple that fact with the Christian book of Revelations, the end times are here.
To address the question in your subject...
I do think religion should be allowed to be discussed in public schools for the sake of educating and informing people about what other people and other religions believe. As long as a certain faith or viewpoint is not being imposed on anybody or treated like it's the only right way, I have no problem with religion being discussed.
As for evolution, I really don't see what the big deal is. I consider myself to be a person of faith, and when I was learning about evolution in school, I never felt like that faith was being challenged or threatened. I was learning what other people thought and theorized, and that was all there was to it. I never felt like anyone was saying to me "if you don't believe in evolution, you believe in superstitious nonsense." So it wasn't an issue for me.
Besides, I'm one of those people who believes that science helps prove G-d's existence. There's a specific, artistic order to the universe, and I can't accept the idea that it just happened by chance. There had to be a higher power at work pulling the strings and painting on a canvas. So I don't see religion and science as enemies or rivals.
Quote:
rex said:
I think its better to believe in fact (evolution) than stories in some made up book that was written 40-60 years after the supposed events happened.
Rexy baby, evolution is not fact. Despite popular belief due to mass exhibition, evolution is not proven, and is on shakey grounds not only in theory but also in reputation.
Adaptation is proven though. they just haven't solved punctuated equilibrium. Although it may have something to do with Christian Bale.
Oh yeah, speaking for the Vatican, we definitely believe in Natural Selection, but physical structure evolution is way too hard to swallow.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Rexy baby, evolution is not fact. Despite popular belief due to mass exhibition, evolution is not proven, and is on shakey grounds not only in theory but also in reputation.
Replace evolution with Creationism and your argument would be even more valid.
And please never call me baby again.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Replace evolution with Creationism and your argument would be even more valid.
Back up evolution with facts and this statement will have more merit.
Quote:
rex said:
And please never call me baby again.
No.
Evolution is at least based upon observation not faith.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Replace evolution with Creationism and your argument would be even more valid.
Back up evolution with facts and this statement will have more merit.
Transitional fossils have been found, people have changed over the years, and everything in religion could easily be an explanation from people without our knowledge who thought of a way of how we got here and wrote it down. Transitional fossils can easily be considered as proof of Evolution.
Quote:
Jason Voorhees said:
Transitional fossils have been found, people have changed over the years, and everything in religion could easily be an explanation from people without our knowledge who thought of a way of how we got here and wrote it down. Transitional fossils can easily be considered as proof of Evolution.
Two thirds of those transitional fossils were a hoax and the ones that even came close were/are still disputable. And even if they weren't, that still doesn't change the fact that if evolution were true, there would be thousands upon thousands of transitions based upon the timeline first dated in early 1900s. They've only discovered a few that haven't even confirmed which transition is placed where on the assumptive evolutionary timeline. And this is all piled onto the fact that based on the terrain changes, we should be accidently discovering these transitions at every corner. There should be fields upon fields of them. But there are none.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Evolution is at least based upon observation not faith.
Creationism itself isn't simply a belief that pays homage to a God. It just says that whatever created us drew up an outline that would remain static for thousands of years. Of course we Catholics believe that outline was drawn up God, but that doesn't mean that the term itself should be interpreted as such by everyone (of course I believe it should be, but those skeptical of God anyway don't have to).
Quote:
Pariah said:
Two thirds of those transitional fossils were a hoax
Thats gotta be the funniest thing you've ever said.
Please Rex. Prove me wrong. Just look over the cases where these "transitions" were found and studied.
Maybe tomorow. I too busy tonight.
Even if some were a hoax there are quite a few that can be considered as proof of Evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.htmlThat link gives lots of info on valid fossils that have been discovered. And you say that we'd find tons of fossils if Evolution was true but consider how fragile they would be after such a long period of time. It's not an easy task to find transitional fossils since lots of times they're scattered and they can go undiscovered.
Yeah, I've read up on all of those prior. They've been deemed too few and too fractured to be conclusive.
And as for the bones being fragile: That's not true. The claimed to be missing links found over the years were rock solid and the individual pieces were in no danger of breaking. Same definitely goes for the Dinosaurs, their bones were not fragile.
I had "Christianity" when I was in public school, it was later changed to "Religion"
Though I do not believe in the divine I had no problem with learning about religion. I found it interesting and educating. And I was even lucky to have a teacher who was objective about the various religions, no biased comments, not one!
Basically I have no problem with children learning about religion in school. In fact I think it should be compulsory, but the education should not be based on religion.
listen to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.
Great song that I guess has something to do with evolution and the missing link.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Yeah, I've read up on all of those prior. They've been deemed too few and too fractured to be conclusive.
By who?
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
listen to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.
Great song that I guess has something to do with evolution and the missing link.
so now the Beatles are eductaors?
I thought the thread was about discussing Religion in school, not (yet another) debate on Evolution.
Should religion be discussed in schools? Of course. You can't fully get any kind of a handle on History without discussing religion. You can't appreciate THE SCARLET LETTER without some presentation on the Puritan faith. You can't examine William Blake's poetry without discussing his Christian faith.
The line, I think, not to cross is when the discussion turns toward an attempt by the Instructor to *advocate* a theology.
My goodness........Jim......first you steer this thread that was spiralling towards disaster back on topic!.......Then you counter with the perfect solution to the debate..................You keep this up you'll be moderator by the end of the week.
Quote:
PJP said:
You keep this up ....
Just send money.
The check is in the mail my friend!
I also threw in a Reds cap too! They are going to the World Series you know!
Quote:
Lucy is definitely an example. Your thoughts?
You're the 1% who experiences what believers in intellegent design theory have experienced. You say you want kids to make up there own minds, but you don't seem to be bothered by the fact that 99% of classes teach evolution as though it were fact or teh only viable option. I too saw a video in highschool that turned out to be false. The topic? Lucy! Lucy was deemed by other evolutionists to be nothing more than an oranutang (you can spell check that for me). So I can't help but laugh because one poor evolutionist kid had to hear about intellegent design theory. I take that as seriously as a white guy saying taxis refused to pick him up.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Evolution is at least based upon observation not faith.
Careful. Observation of isolated incidents and conjectures dependent upon related conjectures. For the fossil record to work in all cases, for example, strata would have to be identical everywhere in the world, which is quite simply impossible near fault lines and atop subduction zones and similar places, not to mention places where existing strata have been radically altered by volcanism, impacts from space, and so on. Ultimately, there are enough holes in macroevolution that much of it has to be taken on faith as well.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
listen to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.
Great song that I guess has something to do with evolution and the missing link.
After the fact. The Australopithecus (sp?) fossil found was named 'Lucy' in reference to the song, but quite frankly that little ditty has way more to do with drugs (surprise!) than anything else. 
This ain't no darwin!
This ain't no party!
This ain't no disco!
This ain't no fooling around!
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Lucy is definitely an example. Your thoughts?
You're the 1% who experiences what believers in intellegent design theory have experienced. You say you want kids to make up there own minds, but you don't seem to be bothered by the fact that 99% of classes teach evolution as though it were fact or teh only viable option. I too saw a video in highschool that turned out to be false. The topic? Lucy! Lucy was deemed by other evolutionists to be nothing more than an oranutang (you can spell check that for me). So I can't help but laugh because one poor evolutionist kid had to hear about intellegent design theory. I take that as seriously as a white guy saying taxis refused to pick him up.
Why shouldn't Evolution be taught when it does have some evidence while religion does not have any at all.
EDIT
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html
Nope Lucy is not deemed a orangutan.
Quote:
Jason Voorhees said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Lucy is definitely an example. Your thoughts?
You're the 1% who experiences what believers in intellegent design theory have experienced. You say you want kids to make up there own minds, but you don't seem to be bothered by the fact that 99% of classes teach evolution as though it were fact or teh only viable option. I too saw a video in highschool that turned out to be false. The topic? Lucy! Lucy was deemed by other evolutionists to be nothing more than an oranutang (you can spell check that for me). So I can't help but laugh because one poor evolutionist kid had to hear about intellegent design theory. I take that as seriously as a white guy saying taxis refused to pick him up.
Why shouldn't Evolution be taught when it does have some evidence while religion does not have any at all.
EDIT
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html
No, Lucy is still deemed as a bipedal.
There is no evidence of intelegent design whatsoever? Gee, I guess you would know, because after all you have a link that proves Lucy was a biped. (Orangutans are bipeds) Also I didn't say evolution shouldn't be taught. Did you read your science books with the same scrutiny you read my post? I simply pointed out your hypocracy in that you think one unprovable theory should be taught and not the other, but then out of the other side of your mouth you claim kids should be able to choose. I think what you meant was kids should be able to choose to agree with your position. i won't bother to share any "evidence" of intelegent design because clearly you know everything you need to know and don't need to learn anymore. Congradulations on achiving what so few do.
Quote:
PJP said:
so now the Beatles are eductaors?
Its a joke. The scientists who discovered Lucy were listening to the song at the time.
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
See? Drugs!
drugs? see!
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
Yeah, I've read up on all of those prior. They've been deemed too few and too fractured to be conclusive.
By who?
Many scientists of the scientific community who are opposed by other scientists. You can follow which ever opinion you want, but considering evolutionists are the ones who have something to prove here, that inconsistency in findings as well as professional opinion is their decapitated sense of pride.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
See? Drugs!
drugs? see!
!eeS ?sgurD
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
Yeah, I've read up on all of those prior. They've been deemed too few and too fractured to be conclusive.
By who?
Many scientists of the scientific community who are opposed by other scientists. You can follow which ever opinion you want, but considering evolutionists are the ones who have something to prove here, that inconsistency in findings as well as professional opinion is their decapitated sense of pride.
I would say both sides have something to prove, and I don't see where Creationists have proven anything.
They're trying to get their physical "facts" of evolution by some standards that Creationists have brought to light (standards which Evolutionists haven't really disputed either). Nothing they've come up with has done so. In a nut shell, they've essentially proven that all of the public confidence and mass exhibition of the evolution theory is misplaced.
I can't believe people are actually debating the value of creationism over that of evolution. You all say there are no facts to support the idea of intelligent order, right? I've always liked the analogy where if you found a fully functional house in the middle of the forest, would you question for a second that it was made by someone? Of course not. But the earth...no, just look at the human body and how its millions of parts work harmoniously to sustatin it. This happened simply on account of cosmic accidents?
The statistical improbabilites of evolution far outweigh the hypothetical 'evidence' that has been established in it's favor. No, there is no hard proof...as has been shown here by the lack of any being presented by the pro-evo group. If it was so well documented, you shouldn't have to strain to come up with these shoddy ass examples. On the other hand, creationism just makes sense when one examines the intricate balance that is played out constantly from the smallest micro-organism the the movement of our solar system and beyond. There was a thought process behind it all. Trying to deny that reveals either ignorance on your part or a bias in your observation.
And yes, religion should be taught in schools. Not just Christianity, but a cross section of the worlds great religions. People are defined by thier faith and if we are to understand eachother it's a good start to appreciate eachothers convictions.
Yeah, that's pretty much the counter-argument to the mass mutation theory of evolution. When you have an isolated amount of sporadic mutations being reasoned as eventually creating biological harmony within individual genetic creatures, you got one hell of a fallacy. Mutations are cumulitive and random. They wouldn't create symmetry so much as they would create a mass amount of flaws.
Quote:
klinton said:
I can't believe people are actually debating the value of creationism over that of evolution. You all say there are no facts to support the idea of intelligent order, right? I've always liked the analogy where if you found a fully functional house in the middle of the forest, would you question for a second that it was made by someone? Of course not. But the earth...no, just look at the human body and how its millions of parts work harmoniously to sustatin it. This happened simply on account of cosmic accidents?
The statistical improbabilites of evolution far outweigh the hypothetical 'evidence' that has been established in it's favor. No, there is no hard proof...as has been shown here by the lack of any being presented by the pro-evo group. If it was so well documented, you shouldn't have to strain to come up with these shoddy ass examples. On the other hand, creationism just makes sense when one examines the intricate balance that is played out constantly from the smallest micro-organism the the movement of our solar system and beyond. There was a thought process behind it all. Trying to deny that reveals either ignorance on your part or a bias in your observation.
And yes, religion should be taught in schools. Not just Christianity, but a cross section of the worlds great religions. People are defined by thier faith and if we are to understand eachother it's a good start to appreciate eachothers convictions.
Take your hate speech elsewhere. This forum is for rational science!
You know Jesus loves you.
Yeah I agree with klinton. I think it's important to give both sides of the story! Piajet's developmental learning stages say that high school students have the ability to weigh the pros/cons, causes/effects and make up their own minds. That's what teachers should do. Present both sides of the story and ultimately leave it up to the students to critically think for themselves.
As for the issue of religion, I wish it could be talked about more in school ya know? Not just the Christian side but other sides as well. I think it would be a cool idea to look at the other religions and see when all the holy/sacred days are according to the different beliefs the student's have. Ya know, have each student present the basic philsophy of their religion to the class. Then each kid could compare/contrast the similarities and differences between them. Once again requiring them to think things through!
Good post Princess, my thoughts precisely.
you can't really expect that parents will allow their children to decide for themselves! why, that's un-American!
The irony is in most of the (accademic) christia schools I've come across there is alot of discussion regarding other religions, not just challlenges but acctual examination.
I know a Christian educator who teaches at a Christian school and he teaches a course on "Modern Athiesm" In this class kids are REQUIRED to read Kahnt Russle Neitchi Marx and (my favorite athiest) Sartre. The class isn't even an apologetics class that attempts to disprove each theory it simply examines common themes and the results of those themes and where those ideas developed. Could you imagine for a second a secular educator getting away with teaching a class on Christianity requireing kids to read Agustine, Aquinus, Spourgen and Schaefer without a public outcry? i guess they just have a little catching up to do in regards to tollerance.
Quote:
Darknight613 said:
To address the question in your subject...
I do think religion should be allowed to be discussed in public schools for the sake of educating and informing people about what other people and other religions believe. As long as a certain faith or viewpoint is not being imposed on anybody or treated like it's the only right way, I have no problem with religion being discussed.
As for evolution, I really don't see what the big deal is. I consider myself to be a person of faith, and when I was learning about evolution in school, I never felt like that faith was being challenged or threatened. I was learning what other people thought and theorized, and that was all there was to it. I never felt like anyone was saying to me "if you don't believe in evolution, you believe in superstitious nonsense." So it wasn't an issue for me.
I agree. Religions, atleast the five most popular religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism) should be studied at all grade and high schools for better understanding of other people's beliefs.
Quote:
Besides, I'm one of those people who believes that science helps prove G-d's existence. There's a specific, artistic order to the universe, and I can't accept the idea that it just happened by chance. There had to be a higher power at work pulling the strings and painting on a canvas. So I don't see religion and science as enemies or rivals.
I respectfully disagree that the complexity of the world would prove God's existence. BTW, my religious feelings are based on Romantic ideas, so I simply don't care about rationalistic "God proofs".
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
rex said:
I think its better to believe in fact (evolution) than stories in some made up book that was written 40-60 years after the supposed events happened.
Rexy baby, evolution is not fact. Despite popular belief due to mass exhibition, evolution is not proven, and is on shakey grounds not only in theory but also in reputation.
But is the Biblic creation proven? Or for that matter, the Hinduistic creation?
If proof and rationalism is so important for you: Do you trust a book which approves of genocide and incest but then also benovelence and tolerance, and was written by several writers over centuries, starting for over 2000 years ago?
Keep science in science classes and religion in religion classes.
Quote:
Captain Sweden said:
I agree. Religions, atleast the five most popular religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism) should be studied at all grade and high schools for better understanding of other people's beliefs.
Studied at all grade levels? That's a bit much...
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Studied at all grade levels? That's a bit much...
Why not? Religion is the most divisive influence known to man. What possible harm can come from an indepth knowledge of various faiths?
Kindergarteners could play "Pin the arm on the Shiva"!
Quote:
Captain Sweden said:
But is the Biblic creation proven? Or for that matter, the Hinduistic creation?
If proof and rationalism is so important for you: Do you trust a book which approves of genocide and incest but then also benovelence and tolerance, and was written by several writers over centuries, starting for over 2000 years ago?
Keep science in science classes and religion in religion classes.
You pretty much know nothing about the Bible.
And if there's a strong possibility that science should be concordant with religion, then they shouldn't be separated. There's more given proof of creation than there is for evolution. Are you so spiteful towards religion as to practice junk science--While you know its junk science--Just to keep the concept of God out of schools?
The next time Pariah calls me condescending, I'm just going to laugh.
I laugh at everything he says.
Yes this is quite interesting yes.
Quote:
Animalman said:
The next time Pariah calls me condescending, I'm just going to laugh.
Actually I'm speaking out of mock anger.
Quote:
rex said:
I laugh at everything he says.
Only when you don't agree with me! 
Quote:
Captain Sweden said:
Quote:
Besides, I'm one of those people who believes that science helps prove G-d's existence. There's a specific, artistic order to the universe, and I can't accept the idea that it just happened by chance. There had to be a higher power at work pulling the strings and painting on a canvas. So I don't see religion and science as enemies or rivals.
I respectfully disagree that the complexity of the world would prove God's existence. BTW, my religious feelings are based on Romantic ideas, so I simply don't care about rationalistic "God proofs".
Fair enough.
However, the complexity of the world isn't the one and only reason why I think G-d exists.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
Captain Sweden said:
I agree. Religions, atleast the five most popular religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism) should be studied at all grade and high schools for better understanding of other people's beliefs.
Studied at all grade levels? That's a bit much...
Heh... I meant that all grade schools and all high schools should have religion lessons/classes. I didn't exactly mean that religion should be taught at all grades. Sorry for the missunderstanding.
Actually, I studied religion from the 1st grade, but it was only about the Old and New Testament at that time and it was relatively simply. IIRC, I started with other religions at the 5th or the 6th grade. It became more complex around the 7th to 9th grade, and it became more about religeous practice and less about religeous "tales".
Pariah said:
Quote:
Captain Sweden said:
But is the Biblic creation proven? Or for that matter, the Hinduistic creation?
If proof and rationalism is so important for you: Do you trust a book which approves of genocide and incest but then also benovelence and tolerance, and was written by several writers over centuries, starting for over 2000 years ago?
Keep science in science classes and religion in religion classes.
Quote:
You pretty much know nothing about the Bible.
While I certainly don't the read the Bible as often as, lets say Bush Jr, I have read most parts of the New Testament and I have it on my bookshelf. As I've said before, I've been taught religion at grade school and (senior) high school, and since my childhood I have a book called My own book of Bible Stories written by Pat Alexander (1983).
Quote:
And if there's a strong possibility that science should be concordant with religion, then they shouldn't be separated. There's more given proof of creation than there is for evolution. Are you so spiteful towards religion as to practice junk science--While you know its junk science--Just to keep the concept of God out of schools?
1st, evolution is not "junk science". 2nd, if you had read my other posts, you would have known that I certainly am not "spiteful" against religion(s). Orthodox and certainly fundamentalistic interpretions of it/them, is another question... 
Well, he does have a point, we should all think about it long and hard.
heh
You said long and hard.
Quote:
Captain Sweden said:
While I certainly don't the read the Bible as often as, lets say Bush Jr, I have read most parts of the New Testament and I have it on my bookshelf. As I've said before, I've been taught religion at grade school and (senior) high school, and since my childhood I have a book called My own book of Bible Stories written by Pat Alexander (1983).
That's lovely.
Y'know Charles Manson read the Bible too. His favorite was revelations. D'you know that he thought the Four Horseman were the Beatles?
Quote:
1st, evolution is not "junk science". 2nd, if you had read my other posts, you would have known that I certainly am not "spiteful" against religion(s). Orthodox and certainly fundamentalistic interpretions of it/them, is another question...
.....No, you're spiteful.
And yes. It is junk science.
Evolution is what? Something based upon nothing right? Yeah, the term "junk science" is spot on.
Quote:
Captain Sweden said:
Heh... I meant that all grade schools and all high schools should have religion lessons/classes. I didn't exactly mean that religion should be taught at all grades. Sorry for the missunderstanding.
I can't agree with a public elementary school having religion lessons. Save it for church.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
Captain Sweden said:
Heh... I meant that all grade schools and all high schools should have religion lessons/classes. I didn't exactly mean that religion should be taught at all grades. Sorry for the missunderstanding.
I can't agree with a public elementary school having religion lessons. Save it for church.
i wonder what is your view on sexual tolerance being taught in school?
My grandfather had to fight to get his kids out of a little publicly funded farm school that spent more time teaching just one religion & less time on the basics. My fear is this would be abused & twisted into preaching & not teaching, a return to the way things were so to speak. As it is, public schools generally are having trouble covering the basics. Perhaps those of you that feel it's important should get your local churches to spend time exploring various religions?
I agree I dont want a school teaching my child what to believe. I think what alot of people dont understand when they think religion should be taught in a public school is chances are the person teaching will not be of the same belief. For instance if they are christian their beliefs on being a christian may be different.
I think an overall tolerance should be taught in school.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
I think an overall tolerance should be taught in school.
Tolerance of what?
Tolerance of bsams :P
All joking aside, it's more of a problem trying to keep all religion out of school instead of in it. It's sad when you have spring and winter holidays, and november celebration instead of Halloween, Christmas, and Easter!
I really don't see anything wrong with talking about what a person believes in if it tides into the curriculum...student's history books are filled with wars between different cultures. Why not talk about their cultural backgrounds and religions? It would help the kiddos understand the similarities and differences between what people around the world believe.
i also dont see the problem with intolerence, if you tell someone they cant believe a certain way i think is equal to telling somone they have to believe a certain way.....
Quote:
rex said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
I think an overall tolerance should be taught in school.
Tolerance of what?
Tolerance for others' feelings.
Damn hippies need to grow a pair.
I like sleep deprived Captain Sammitch.
Quote:
britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
i also dont see the problem with intolerence, if you tell someone they cant believe a certain way i think is equal to telling somone they have to believe a certain way.....
In that case, you won't mind me telling you to shut the fuck up and piss off for talking shite!
He never minds that. Just don't expect him to listen to you.
Quote:
Steve T said:
Quote:
britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
i also dont see the problem with intolerence, if you tell someone they cant believe a certain way i think is equal to telling somone they have to believe a certain way.....
In that case, you won't mind me telling you to shut the fuck up and piss off for talking shite!
i live for it! i gnerally hang out with people of other beliefs on a variety of subjects, i enjoy being the only right one!
Quote:
Pariah said:
.....No, you're spiteful.
And yes. It is junk science.
Evolution is what? Something based upon nothing right? Yeah, the term "junk science" is spot on.
you obviously know nothing about evolution
homo superior = mutie scum
Quote:
winged creature said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
.....No, you're spiteful.
And yes. It is junk science.
Evolution is what? Something based upon nothing right? Yeah, the term "junk science" is spot on.
you obviously know nothing about evolution
We should respect science. Science is what taught us that the stars were set into giant circular plates that covered the surface of the Earth. Science gave us peace at night that lest we travel in excess of 40 Mph our heads would not explode, but exceed such speeds and you'll be responsible for having someone clean up the muck that was once your head. Science gave us the the N-Ray and cold fusion. In 1895 thanks to scientific endevors a letter was drafted by teh chief of the US patent office requesting that the office be closed because "everything that could be invented has been invented". Now I would most like to thank science for it's greatest infallible statement that billions of years ago a single celled oagnism (set asside for a moment where this thing came from in the first place) decided it would be much happier as a bipedal creature with opposable thumbs and capable of abstract reasoning and set off to do so, stopping briefly to be a Brontosaurus and Piltdown man on the way. So thank you science for your flawless record of being right 100% of the time and not letting us down in our blind obedience!
Quote:
winged creature said:
you obviously know nothing about evolution
Please, dispute my thoughts on evolution.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
[We should respect science. <snip the rest of the attempt at humor>
The beauty of science is that it allows humans to update and refine their understanding of the universe (one of my professors used to refer to science as a descending set of concentric cirlces, with each circle slightly smaller than the one before it, as we move toward and refine Knowledge). Science is not advanced as the "inspired word" of any deity. It doesn't even assert that you're a heretic if you don't believe in it.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
[We should respect science. <snip the rest of the attempt at humor>
The beauty of science is that it allows humans to update and refine their understanding of the universe (one of my professors used to refer to science as a descending set of concentric cirlces, with each circle slightly smaller than the one before it, as we move toward and refine Knowledge). Science is not advanced as the "inspired word" of any deity. It doesn't even assert that you're a heretic if you don't believe in it.
But every generatio seems to treat the claims of science as though, "we're sure this time they got it right!" And in alot of ways you may not be called a heritic, but you are assumed to be a religious zealot or "irrational" or "stupid" so they may not use the term heritic, but they have other words that imply pretty much the same thing. I mean look at the evolution in scools debate and where it's come too. Not only is there an uproar anytime someone suggests teaching an opposing scientific view to evolution, but they don't even want sticker communicating what the teachers SHOULD but aren't teaching wich is that evolution is an unprovan theory. I think that if a highschool science teacher openly questioned evolution he would be run out on a rail much like the heritics of old.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
But every generatio seems to treat the claims of science as though, "we're sure this time they got it right!"
If that were the case, then all the scientists would go home and call it a day.
And clearly, that hasn't and isn't happening.
Perhaps what you're alluding is the arrogance of some scientists who say they've got the final handle on this thing called Knowledge. I would counter that scientists of that ilk are few and far between. But the assumption is that there is some final, knowable state of affairs in the Universe and that Science is working toward revealing that state.
We're hopeful it's not turtles all the way down...
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
But every generatio seems to treat the claims of science as though, "we're sure this time they got it right!"
If that were the case, then all the scientists would go home and call it a day.
And clearly, that hasn't and isn't happening.
Perhaps what you're alluding is the arrogance of some scientists who say they've got the final handle on this thing called Knowledge. I would counter that scientists of that ilk are few and far between. But the assumption is that there is some final, knowable state of affairs in the Universe and that Science is working toward revealing that state.
We're hopeful it's not turtles all the way down...
I'm refering less to the scientists and more to those who teach and preach thier findings and don't want to admit that thier scientists are fallible human beings.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
I'm refering less to the scientists and more to those who teach and preach thier findings and don't want to admit that thier scientists are fallible human beings.
Well, if you don't want Christians lumped together as one homoegenous group, don't do the same thing to scientists.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
I'm refering less to the scientists and more to those who teach and preach thier findings and don't want to admit that thier scientists are fallible human beings.
Well, if you don't want Christians lumped together as one homoegenous group, don't do the same thing to scientists.
Like I said I'm refering to the public schools who dispense the information not the noble (and Nobel) scientists who research it. The public scools make claims regarding evolution that no self respecting researcher would ever make.
homoegenous Oscar Wylde was a homo genius!
Sorry, I should stop posting now.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:The public scools make claims regarding evolution that no self respecting researcher would ever make.
Like what?
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Like I said I'm refering to the public schools who dispense the information not the noble (and Nobel) scientists who research it. The public scools make claims regarding evolution that no self respecting researcher would ever make.
Again with the broad generalizations. Should I look at all the Christians I've ever known and draw conclusions about ALL OF YOU from them?
Quote:
Sorry, I should stop posting now.
When you spell Oscar Wilde as Oscar Wylde, yeah you should.
Quote:
Darknight613 said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:The public scools make claims regarding evolution that no self respecting researcher would ever make.
Like what?
There are still schools that teach Piltdown man and schools refuse to accept a notation in books saying that evolution is just a theory.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
When you spell Oscar Wilde as Oscar Wylde, yeah you should.
Is my inability to spell new to you?
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
When you spell Oscar Wilde as Oscar Wylde, yeah you should.
Is my inability to spell new to you?
No, but when you misspell the name of a great gay icon, it kinda gets my dander up.
Oscar Wilde was GAY!
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
When you spell Oscar Wilde as Oscar Wylde, yeah you should.
Is my inability to spell new to you?
No, but when you misspell the name of a great gay icon, it kinda gets my dander up.
If it makes you feel any better, I've even misspelled my own religion in past posts. And you're the one who misspelled genious in the term homogenious!
that's an OSU education for you.
Quote:
PJP said:
that's an OSU education for you.
If you're referring to me, I did not go to Ohio State...
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
PJP said:
that's an OSU education for you.
If you're referring to me, I did not go to Ohio State...
that'a Miami of Ohio education for you.
Quote:
PJP said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
PJP said:
that's an OSU education for you.
If you're referring to me, I did not go to Ohio State...
that'a Miami of Ohio education for you.
Uh huh. And what a great rep you are for whatever institution of higher learning you went to....
Bryant College, Fairleigh Dickinson University, and the Culinary Institute of America.
Geez, even my schools have better sports teams....
tell me about it.
I usually am forced to cheer for Seton Hall or Rutgers since they are State Schools......
Well, I'm sure that's a fun way to spend your leisure time....
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
Captain Sweden said:
Heh... I meant that all grade schools and all high schools should have religion lessons/classes. I didn't exactly mean that religion should be taught at all grades. Sorry for the missunderstanding.
I can't agree with a public elementary school having religion lessons. Save it for church.
Then you Americans are doomed to continue to piss of Moslims while you have a War on Terror... Sorry but that needed to be said.
Quote:
PrincessElisa said:
Tolerance of bsams :P
All joking aside, it's more of a problem trying to keep all religion out of school instead of in it. It's sad when you have spring and winter holidays, and november celebration instead of Halloween, Christmas, and Easter!
I really don't see anything wrong with talking about what a person believes in if it tides into the curriculum...student's history books are filled with wars between different cultures. Why not talk about their cultural backgrounds and religions? It would help the kiddos understand the similarities and differences between what people around the world believe.
Exactly my point! Thanks very much, my dear princess!
I thought you had left the Rob K boards in order to regain attention span or something like that? And what the eff has that pic' to do with this discussion?
Quote:
Captain Sweden said:
I thought you had left the Rob K boards in order to regain attention span or something like that? And what the eff has that pic' to do with this discussion?
I failed. Inexorably.
Uschi said:
...before they all shrivel out of my mind forever.
This is it, this is the end.
I've been here... not quite as long as everybody else, but I'm sure almost everyone knows my name. Because I'm already #14 on the top posters list and by deductive reasoning that means I am constantly talking on here and kinda hard to ignore. Or not notice.
Anyways, I'm not sure of this as a fact, but I think my IQ has dropped since I joined Rob's louverly boards. I DO know for a fact my attention span has shortened dramatically. And frankly, I don't like this. I miss reading books and being alone with my thoughts. I don't have any self control unless I force myself to have no other option, which is the reason I'm writing this rather than just quietly dissappearing.
Goodbye, I don't think I'll be around again.
I have allowed this place to drain and rot my mind and I thoroughly sick of it. I hate not having the intellectual edge I used to flaunt so effortlessly. So this is it. Auf Wiedersehen.
With regards,
-Uschi Von Büccher
Quote:
Uschi said:
Quote:
Captain Sweden said:
I thought you had left the Rob K boards in order to regain attention span or something like that? And what the eff has that pic' to do with this discussion?
I failed. Inexorably.
If it comforts you, I followed your example to some degree and has cut down on Internet time, at least on weekdays.
Aren't you the guy from DCMB whom I got repeatedly banned for chatting with?
It wasn't the boards that were the problem, it was me. I've fixed me and so I came back.
Of course it's me!
I even included my very 1st poster name below "Captain Sweden" if anyone remembered it...
