Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I accept as true is true because it's supported by evidence. I noted the evidence earlier. The National Academy of Scientists accepts the evidence as fact. 1000s have tested, meased and examined the evidence that constitute the theory of evolution and all of come to the same conclusion.
You're trying to make a false equivalency. It's not working. Comparing one real scientific theory to any one of a 1000 superstitious beliefs is just asinine. Science should be taught in science classes because it's science not because I accept it.
Science evolves. What was believed true 100yrs ago is often shown false today.
Your argument insists we treat the current level of science as established fact with no regard whatsoever for the theoretical (read that as faith based) aspects of that science.
Why do you have such a problem with the concept of teach them all or teach none of them? Are you really that desperate to insure government compels everyone to accept your view as the only one with merit?
Liberal tolerance has to be one of the most oxymoronic phrases in the current lexicon.
Science evolves. What was believed true 100yrs ago is often shown false today.
Your argument insists we treat the current level of science as established fact with no regard whatsoever for the theoretical (read that as faith based) aspects of that science.
Why do you have such a problem with the concept of teach them all or teach none of them? Are you really that desperate to insure government compels everyone to accept your view as the only one with merit?
Liberal tolerance has to be one of the most oxymoronic phrases in the current lexicon.
Yes, science evolves, religion doesn't...That's the central difference between science and superstition. Evidence dictates the science. Dogma dictates religion.
We should treat facts as they are today as facts because today they are in fact, facts. And, as such we should treat superstition as superstition because that's all it is and ever will be. Truth's come from facts. Scientist always assess and reassess facts and can make adjustments. That's why we have technological progress. Was it not a fact that the first computer didn't have an intel pentium processor? Do historical facts change what has been learned since. The difference is that, you're still stuck in the dark ages while science has given us, me and you the capacity to communicate from around the world. Your superstition hasn't given us anything. If/when the theory of evolution is scientifically fine tuned by real scientist that would be a great day. Each day we get closer to finding out what our true beginning was, is a great day. Religion gets us no closer to that. It wants us to rely on 2000 year old dessert scribblings of people that burned witches. To not teach what's supported by evidence today because it may be altered in the future is again asinine.
You can teach all myths in mythology class and all science in science class. I've said that 3 times. No religious mythology should be taught in any science class. People consider science to be supported by evidence, religious claims are not (as noted by you never providing any and the need for "faith). Science and superstition are not to be confused.
Yes, science evolves, religion doesn't...That's the central difference between science and superstition. Evidence dictates the science. Dogma dictates religion.
We should treat facts as they are today as facts because today they are in fact, facts. And, as such we should treat superstition as superstition because that's all it is and ever will be. Truth's come from facts. Scientist always assess and reassess facts and can make adjustments. That's why we have technological progress. Was it not a fact that the first computer didn't have an intel pentium processor? Do historical facts change what has been learned since. The difference is that, you're still stuck in the dark ages while science has given us, me and you the capacity to communicate from around the world. Your superstition hasn't given us anything. If/when the theory of evolution is scientifically fine tuned by real scientist that would be a great day. Each day we get closer to finding out what our true beginning was, is a great day. Religion gets us no closer to that. It wants us to rely on 2000 year old dessert scribblings of people that burned witches. To not teach what's supported by evidence today because it may be altered in the future is again asinine.
You can teach all myths in mythology class and all science in science class. I've said that 3 times. No religious mythology should be taught in any science class. People consider science to be supported by evidence, religious claims are not (as noted by you never providing any and the need for "faith). Science and superstition are not to be confused.
There is no arguing with those that refuse to see. I'm not supporting Christianity nor have I ever stated my personal beliefs. I've repeatedly stated that government has no dog in this fight and is Constitutionally restricted from picking a side.
Argue on about the superiority of your science. Bottom line is you maintain government should teach religion as a myth and use taxpayer funded science classes as a means of enforcing those teachings. There is nothing whatsoever open-minded about your proposals. They are agenda-driven and should in no way be confused with any efforts on your part to prohibit government from meddling in religion.
I'll say it again in the hope those of you in the cheap seats will finally hear it; If government schools are going to discuss religion and science they need to treat all belief systems equally or refrain from addressing any of them.
It's a fairness and lack of bias thing, you wouldn't understand.
If government schools are going to discuss religion and science they need to treat all belief systems equally or refrain from addressing any of them.
They aren't discussing religion though, they are discussing applied sciences.
There is also no way in the world to give equal time and effort to all the 'belief systems' humanity has come up with since the beginning of time. It's an interesting aside, and you can research the heck of of it, but it's not the basis of an education.
They aren't discussing religion though, they are discussing applied sciences.
There is also no way in the world to give equal time and effort to all the 'belief systems' humanity has come up with since the beginning of time. It's an interesting aside, and you can research the heck of of it, but it's not the basis of an education.
In the case of evolution they are discussing theoretical science. Scientific opinion on the subject changes constantly. To claim it as fact is as agenda driven as pushing creationism. Hence my statement "refrain from addressing any of them".
In the case of evolution they are discussing theoretical science. Scientific opinion on the subject changes constantly. To claim it as fact is as agenda driven as pushing creationism.
No, it's no theoretical. And don't quote "Theory of Evolution" if you don't know what the word "Theory" means.
Discuss the rest of my post. How would you suggest approaching every "belief system" ever thought up by mankind?
No, it's no theoretical. And don't quote "Theory of Evolution" if you don't know what the word "Theory" means.
Discuss the rest of my post. How would you suggest approaching every "belief system" ever thought up by mankind?
Are you claiming theory as it continues to evolve somehow equates with established fact?
I suggested government run schools refrain from addressing any system of religious beliefs if they can not be presented to their captive audiences in an unbiased fashion. Sorry you seem to be having difficulty understanding me.
Are you advocating government pick a side in the religious fight?
As an aside, don't presume a right to tell me which words or phrases I'm allowed to use in making my arguments.
...That invalidates the remainder of the article..I mean it's wiki for goodness sakes. There's no need for scientist to debate religious people. The religious have nothing to be examined.
Au Contraire! When self described religious try peddling a madison ave agenda using a bogus science cloak, they've opened themselves up for scientific scrutiny surely as a scientist claiming a new religion would be up for scrutiny by religious traditions. It's already been partially challenged here...
Creationism vs Science - YouTube
What most of science fails to prove is that they have adequate ethical constraint on their side in blind pursuit of science. Because THIS... Featherless chicken creates a flap - 21 May 2002 - New Scientist is the mental sickness of mankind abusing animals to service his greed. For God sake, will y'all leave these poor creatures be what they are as nature intended! I'm sick at heart by this. Truly I am. Monsanto is evil.
Should it surprise you (from a female perspective) I see/ hear both sides as partially right and partially wrong in one % or another?
So long as all parties have a vested interest marginalizing the gifts of womankind, they'll continue carrying on servicing their vanity at the expense of humanity. That's the real problem across the board trampling children underfoot all the while. You're just too blind to yourselves to see your commitment to mutually assured destruction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenyo
Just because "love" may be represented by a chemical, that does not make it any less valuable. That chemical is real as is the emotion it invokes. Just because physical/mental feelings have chemical explanations that doesn't not diminish them. I have no idea what you're talking about with Dawkins. He's expressed a love for science and other things. Knowing what causes said emotions does not preclude them. Being upset about learning the true cause of things is pretty sad. I guess you'd rather remain ignorant? Would you want to know the chemical source of a disease you contracted? Or is it just the romantic things you want to remain magical?
Bolded portion-- you've presumed far too much about what I am/ am not upset about.
Where did I claim magical powers? Name the day time and place! Never happened. But... what did just happen above is the presumption that because my perspective fails to qualify as sufficiently male, it's entirely invalidated by your preferred standard of maleness. Then follow through with lies and poo flinging because you believe in zero sum supremacy games whereas I do not. There's nothing to say to this kind of ignorance & conceited perspective. Ladies smirk and move on with a resounding never mind surely as they step away from the Church of pontificating ignorance giving lectures about womanhood by males standing on a stage wearing a dress.
Dawkins is myopic & as cold as a stone from my perspective. Sam Harris strikes me as more open minded to feminine perspectives & acceptance of the unknown being beyond human comprehension, which is exactly what women have been trying to get across to deaf and ignorant ears for millennium and counting. Rationalist Sam Harris Believes in God - The Daily Beast
Quote:
Harris places reason at the apex of human abilities and achievement, but he concedes that there’s much that humans may never empirically know—like what happens after death.
I accept that he's chosen reason as an apex considered a needful tool of communication with males stuck on one side of their brains. Where I stand it's not the true apex and evoking a loosely paraphrased poet to best express my point...
Quote:
"We're all banging on the same damned typewriters" ~Allen Ginsburg
Fact: Harris is running the risk of creating a contrivance of God in his intellectual grasping. He is as much a slave to his human limitations of this moment as Moses was in his time. God cannot be owned by any human being. I wish him well and hope he takes heed the cautionary tale of Icarus & heaping cups of Krishnamurti. Marx meant well too and look what took it over.
Fact: Harris is creating his own religion (which may or may not pan out to be a rebrand of scientology) and will be theologically challenged at some future date.
Sure you can have your religious freedom. Just don't expect to get an easy ride when your faith makes no sense. You'll get no freedom from scrutiny no matter how loudly you complain. Don't like it? Then keep your religion private and out of everyone else's lives.
Yet you continue to claim we should teach what you believe to be true to the exclusion of the beliefs of others. Again, teach them all or teach none of them. You're advocating government assume a side in the argument which they have no business assuming. Freedom of Religion does not confer a government espoused embrace of atheism.
Hypocrite much?
No, Sir, it is yourself who is the hypocrite, along with the poor put upon persecuted religions. Religious instruction belongs in the Church/ Temple. If preachers & parents are abdicating their responsibility to teach IN THE CHURCH and AT HOME by demanding public school systems do their jobs for them, that's squarely on them.
Grow up already. Your children will be grateful.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
