Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-06-2011, 06:10 AM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,320,777 times
Reputation: 4113

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by fractured_kidult View Post
That is a great Idea. I think that kids should be allowed, once in high school, to learn about various faiths. This way they are informed on all aspects of religion and science.

I don't think science alone should be taught. Strong focus on it, but with a mild focus on religion and philosophy.
Many churches wouldn't like that. If high-school kids learnt about different religions and the origin and history of different religions including Christianity etc...they are more likely to become atheist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-06-2011, 07:45 AM
 
Location: Free State of Texas
20,385 posts, read 12,657,987 times
Reputation: 2476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
Many churches wouldn't like that. If high-school kids learnt about different religions and the origin and history of different religions including Christianity etc...they are more likely to become atheist.
A class like that would likely be an elective, giving parents and students a choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2011, 08:47 AM
 
Location: Richardson, TX
8,734 posts, read 13,763,968 times
Reputation: 3807
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
So you're opposed to education? I get it.
Totally miss points much? I knew that would go over your head. Aren't you the one that wished your education was limited? You are projecting.

Last edited by PanTerra; 03-06-2011 at 09:09 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2011, 09:45 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,232 posts, read 46,520,789 times
Reputation: 11081
No, I am totally for a targeted education. What you want to learn, on your own time, is up to you. But what a school teaches you should be the essentials for your specific job path.

But you seem to be against education and training for a person's career.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2011, 09:48 AM
 
Location: Richardson, TX
8,734 posts, read 13,763,968 times
Reputation: 3807
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
No, I am totally for a targeted education. What you want to learn, on your own time, is up to you. But what a school teaches you should be the essentials for your specific job path.
You are describing trade schools. Have you looked into those? If you want to be a welder or work on cars, HVAC systems, or even install bumper bolts, trade schools are for you - but then you don't need much education for that. It is very targeted. If you set your sights and standards low enough, you could even work in a lumber yard w/o any formal education, if that is your dream job. You could be a day laborer and try and get on a work crew. I have hired many of them for specific tasks.

Quote:
But you seem to be against education and training for a person's career.
I don't know where you are getting that. You're confused and projecting again. You just just seem so eager to want to put in someone else's hands the responsibility of deciding on the direction of your career path. It's up to you.

Last edited by PanTerra; 03-06-2011 at 10:30 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2011, 10:25 AM
 
1,780 posts, read 2,344,808 times
Reputation: 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Hue View Post
An institution which offers instruction in two subjects which directly oppose one another
is in opposition of... the value in study.

A school is a learning enviorment which requires... structure & order.

Providing two subjects which directly oppose one another injects
academic & social... "division"

Academic & social division... within a learning enviorment... is disorder.
Is it not misleading to prepare kids for a "orderly" world? The world is full of disorder, they are taught in school that the world is this thing that can be explained by reason and logic and adding this to that, and so forth.

The way the world works is not orderly. It is by all means disorder. Wouldn't it be better to teach multiple viewpoints so that the students can make up their own mind about something? Would it not instil deeper values and make them more passionate about things in life?

School should teach and prepare students in the ways the world really works.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2011, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,232 posts, read 46,520,789 times
Reputation: 11081
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanTerra View Post
You are describing trade schools. Have you looked into those? If you want to be a welder or work on cars, HVAC systems, or even install bumper bolts, trade schools are for you - but then you don't need much education for that. It is very targeted. If you set your sights and standards low enough, you could even work in a lumber yard w/o any formal education, if that is your dream job. You could be a day laborer and try and get on a work crew. I have hired many of them for specific tasks.



I don't know where you are getting that. You're confused and projecting again. You just just seem so eager to want to put in someone else's hands the responsibility of deciding on the direction of your career path. It's up to you.

Or you could work as a CPA, or a doctor, or lawyer, policeman, etc.

You could be an athlete, or musician.

The training and education you would receive would be applicable to your career. This is not to say that you could not explore other topics of interest, only that your schooling would be contingent on your career path.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2011, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Richardson, TX
8,734 posts, read 13,763,968 times
Reputation: 3807
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
Or you could work as a CPA, or a doctor, or lawyer, policeman, etc.

You could be an athlete, or musician. The training and education you would receive would be applicable to your career. This is not to say that you could not explore other topics of interest, only that your schooling would be contingent on your career path.
Those careers do have very specialized paths already. What is your career?

Last edited by PanTerra; 03-06-2011 at 11:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2011, 11:36 AM
 
912 posts, read 824,271 times
Reputation: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by fractured_kidult View Post
Is it not misleading to prepare kids for a "orderly" world? The world is full of disorder, they are taught in school that the world is this thing that can be explained by reason and logic and adding this to that, and so forth.

The way the world works is not orderly. It is by all means disorder. Wouldn't it be better to teach multiple viewpoints so that the students can make up their own mind about something? Would it not instil deeper values and make them more passionate about things in life?

School should teach and prepare students in the ways the world really works.
The human mind as all Educational exploration study confirms requires structure and order in its enviorment...
It is one of a few fundamental objectives, in ALL formal teaching centers.
Try...a setting like employment....the manager says...do not be skimpy on budget re sales promotion.
Owner says....save ..save ..save...do not waste money on sales promotion.

The conflicting initiatives create....dis-order by virtue of contradictory agenda.
If an institution teaches opposing truths....it is in contradiction in the offering of knowledge through study....I worked for 5 different schools.

Your missing the point in the importance of structure in the learning environment.

The human brain ...is known to advance in optimum ability when there is ...unity in cirriculum...
without unity...in the facility...a lack of unity and dis-order will emerge directly and adequately defining the essence of the institution...

I don't know if any thing more can be said on this and it should...

wrap things up just dandy

Last edited by Blue Hue; 03-06-2011 at 11:44 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2011, 11:37 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 12,875,449 times
Reputation: 3767
Default endlessly tiresome re-iterations

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I believe you will find the evidence in the bold above . . . if you will relinquish your bias and intransigence long enough to actually check the experiments out. Of course, to quote rifle, you, he and the others are so "hidebound" that you wont even make the effort.
Wow! I'm so glad you've finally found something I said to be of use to you, tho' I'm pretty sure I correctly hyphenated it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by HalfNelson View Post
neither evolution nor creationism should be taught in a science class. They should both be taught in a philosophy/religion class. Science should be reserved for that which can be observed and tested.
Well, you obviously have ZERO understanding or knowledge of all the research that's been done and that is ongoing in evolution, genetics, DNA mapping, geological records and processes, the obvious fossil evidence, long-time scale hydrology, deep molecular physics and so on and so forth...

Nope! Instead, you just latch on to the standard talking points and blurt them out, on command, from the hive master. Typical, and it also really clarifies your amazing lack of education in an area that is, granted, well beyond the grasp of most folks now. This would be akin to you critiquing the latest findings in neurosurgical techniques. Oh, you can sit quietly in the back of the seminar room and listen intently (which Christian do not know how to do...) but DO NOT RAISE YOUR HAND to comment until you've also done at least the minimum 4 or 6 years of study. Got it?

No? Perhaps you need an example? OK: your very next line is on display for all to read...


Quote:
Originally Posted by HalfNelson View Post
Evolution is predicated on the assumption that earth has existed for billions of years, which is based on the faith that the current method of dating the earth is accurate, which also assumes that the earth, as observed over the course of modern science, has behaved in the exact same why since it came to be.
There's no unsupported, wild-a$$ assumption that the earth's been around for that long. inmstead, we have all the now-well-proven methods of artifcat aging, plus the accumulation of millions of easily counted [this assumes, of course, that one can, or will, count...] annual sedimentary or ice season or atmospheric dust, sedimentary varves, ancient volcanic debris layers, or asteroid/meteorite deposits.

Nope: you simply *********r eyes tightly shut to not only exclude those individual events, but also to exclude the "strange" coincidental fact that they all co-mingle, and co-support each other. Literally millions, by now, of independent field and lab studies over tens of decades, all neatly swept off the table by you as "junk science" by biased, globally conspiring agent-provocateur scientists? Sure.

Oddly, those studies also provide, as they must, all the information necessary for you or the church to go repeat them, but just as oddly () no-one in religion ever does this important validation step. And yah wanna know why? I didn't think so.

The obvious explanations elude your mind, since of course, that signals the end of your belief system. So you'd prefer to hold on to an outrageously illogical, oh and also completely evidence-free, version of how it happened: to wit: "POOF! [out of nothing, and by an entity with no originations Himself...]", said your imaginary god one lonely afternoon.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HalfNelson View Post
Science takes on faith, that nothing existed in the past that could drastically alter the findings of things in the present. What if there were particles that existed that back then, that have since disappeared, leaving no trace other than the fact that they drastically distort that which we can observe today?
Fine. Why didn't you say so? An hypothesis you mean? good! This is a start for you! Sadly, if we were to check that one out, it would lack any detectable evidence, so eventually, especially since it only answers a question no-one asked, it would be dropped. As well, our investigations have, in fact, answered the majority of questions with complete satisfaction. All except the "How do we make the research resutls suport our pre-determined conclusions?" version. That we'll have to leave in the ever-more frantic hands of religion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HalfNelson View Post
There is simply nothing pertaining to how things were, long before written documentation of things, that does not require a certain amount of faith.
Oh blah. This is simply unsupportable nonsense speculation and wishful thinking. You mean when I [as a professional paid geologist] personally oversaw those sediment sampling drillings in the northern Canadian Rockies, the multiple annual levels of debris that went back a few hundred years were all in our imaginations? [we stopped there, but could easily be still drilling, well into the hundreds of thousands of years of sedimentary record].

Or the ongoing work in the Green River formation, or on Lake Baikal, that clearly shows annual levels for several millions of years of pre-history? It's all faked? you'd have to prove that silliness, since the only reason for faking it would be... well, I dunno, frankly. Science seeks the truth, no matter how uncomfortable that might make some kid's parents. and hence, the OP's quesrtion, BTW. Science and religion [and their specific content] are not on trial here (if they were, you'd lose...); just where they should be philosophically explored.

And yes, technically, I agree: everything does take a certain amount of faith, like that your computer will turn on again this morning, but that, really.... all laptops are in truth run by a global coven of witches. Well OK then; some of those sorts of ideas are just, well, nutto. Like an Insta-poofy Creation event, or that "there's not evidence of an ancient earth!! Nyahhh!"

More simply put, your scientifically illiterate blatherings do not make your commentary somehow valid. In fact, they only further prove that illiteracy, on a pathological scale. Congrats!

Quote:
Originally Posted by HalfNelson View Post
Simply put, science can only attempt explanations based on what is known, which naturally cannot account for things which are unknown. Modern science has absolutely zero knowledge about the ancient past, as supposedly no human being was there to document it.
Zero knowledge, huh? OK: I'm done at this point, but Thank God you're not in charge of the high school education system, with such clod-headed comments like these.

Science is, in fact, the ongoing investigation of the unknown, and it builds on what it learns. its knows a lot about lots of things. Sadly for your hide-bound perspective. It also predicts things, and if those are accurate, and reliably so, and to an ever-increasing level of confidence, then we begin to rely on the findings as true. and we press on. If they were not true, then a lot of our larter work and findings would collapse, and yet, they do not.

This is akin to building a new house: if the foundation's made of styrofoam, then the later structure, built on false assumptions, collapses. But if it's built on reinforced concrete, it will stand. As do the modern findings in science. Sorta buttresses the earler work, dohn'it?

You don't like this, so you make stuff up. OK then; go for it. Too bad for your kids though...

BTW, if an hypothesis is found to be incorrect by scientific research, it's abandoned, and another possible explanation is sought. Not so with the church; you'd better go with all the ancient lies, or else. So what if it's easily proven to be contradictory or downright false? So what.

Finally, this classically ignorant zinger by you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HalfNelson View Post
With regard to science and religion, I fail to see any meaningful contribution to society being made by science that is contrary to the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Hue View Post
An institution which offers instruction in two subjects which directly oppose one another
is in opposition of... the value in study.

A school is a learning enviroment which requires... structure & order.

Providing two subjects which directly oppose one another injects
academic & social... "division"

Academic & social division... within a learning enviorment... is disorder.
You don't seem to want to acknowlege, Blue Hue, that no-one here wants to disallow the provision of a scientific education as well as one in comparative religions. One, however, does not belong in the same physical classroom, under the same curriculum as the other. Scientists do not belong in the Sunday Morning church service to provide a valid counterpoint to what the minister is saying, and that would surely not be allowed, now would it? Nor are any scientists demanding that, unlike the demands of the various Christian PTA groups in some backeard school districts.

Just as clearly, the touchy personal subjct of one's personal spiritual education probably belongs more in the home or church, but as an academic exercise, and in a comparative way, the huge topic of all the world's religions should be available to an interested student as a Comp religion course.

Meantime, down the hall, the overall Scientific Method (i.e: "How to Think Critically" and how to design simple means to find good answers) rightfully belongs on it's own in a science class. The facts of Evolution, BTW, actually belong in a biology or genetics class, but may be provided as examples of how science works. The danger inherent to them in this sort of advanced thinking is obvious to the intransigent dogmo-theists (IDTrs) amongst us.

There's a whole lot of intellectual dishonesty in this thread, to be sure. A lot of people know they'er cornered, and are fighting like a trapped alley cat in a garbage can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HalfNelson View Post
I will agree that Microevolution, as something that has been observed, should be discussed in a science class, but Macroevolution has never been observed.
Wrong. Again. As usual. "Macro-Evolution" is not some bizzare overnight thing, as I'm sure you'd require in the infamously stupid "I'll believe it when my cat gives birth to a dog overnight!!!..." line. This only shows one's preferred gross ignorance of the subject.

In fact, we have all sorts of irrefutable evidence, and since we can easily show the valid mechanisms and key elements of adaptive mutations and speciation, I'll ask you specifically:

Q: Which specific part of that observed and recorded process suddenly stops working, in your educated opinion, and ceases in the accumulation of new genetic variations, good, bad or neutral?

Does it only stop when you want it to? How convenient!

And then you go on from there with your wildly inaccurate assumptions, easily dis-proven, about the so-called assumptions of proven scientific facts. Your understanding and knowledge of modern scientific accomplishments and limitations is appallingly inadequate, as evidenced by the absolute statements you continue to make here, all grossly inaccurate.

Compelling arguments you make, HN.

What was it that Warren T Rat stated in Fivel? "I'm surrounded by..." etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej View Post
A class like that would likely be an elective, giving parents and students a choice.
Exactly what we're suggesting, jimmiej. Trouble is, a whole lot of intellectually challenged and terrified Christian parents demand that science's systematics never be explained without a challenge from a non-scientific body of information.

Tell me please: why is a course that focuses solely on Critical Thinking and Research Design so terrifying to Christians? That's what this is really all about. It's not about Evolution or geology: those belong in their own specific classrooms: Biology 101, Geology 202, etc. Those bodies of accumulated information are, yes, a result of Critical Thinking and careful research design, but science in and of itself is not a listing of the facts that resulted from it's application.

Do I need to re-post this simple question for clarity? Not lost in my usual run-on posts? OK then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top