Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
if you know that god created the world in seven days, how long could a day have been? one day in god years might be how long it took for let's say the precambrian era which could correspond. and how we sprung from apes might have been how he created us. i don't know just some thoughts
If it says days and it is absolute truth (meaning no metaphors) then it took seven days. Shut the fuck up with your wand waving story changing bullshit. The bible is what it is, a tome that has set the boundaries in stone- too bad those boundaries are made of shit.
retardJ said:
And lol morm, okay, you take all the findings made throughout history by athiest scientists, and I'll take all the findings made throughout history by Christian scientists. Deal?
What a classic point, the fact that christians CAN do science does nothing to demonstrate that you aren't full of shit and counter my point. Either science is a process that works and yields correct results overall and you therefore trust it AND THE EXPERTS when they say shit or you don't and you mistrust it all. Hence my point about picking and choosing, you fucking dabbler.
I think creationists shouldn't reap the benefits of a secular process that they don't 'believe in'. No more vaccines, no more non-walking transportation, no more farm harvested food, no more surgery, no more ANYTHING basically.
I don't agree with the recent redefinition of planet. Maybe I shouldn't be living on one then. I think that's the gist of what you are saying.
Edit: Vonfondler it's typically republicans that dislike global climate change and what demographic swarms to republican values? That's what I thought.
If it says days and it is absolute truth (meaning no metaphors) then it took seven days. Shut the fuck up with your wand waving story changing bullshit. The bible is what it is, a tome that has set the boundaries in stone- too bad those boundaries are made of shit.
i never said it was absolute truth, the bible has alot of weird moments in it that don't make sense (story of Job for example) and some are just stories. if the creation isn't one however, i'm just presenting one part of how it could be explained. you didn't have to read it if you didn't want to.
Blamon: good but true Christian dogma holds every word, even the ones that contradict, to be absolutely true.
Vonfondler: you missed the point. Entirely. Maybe one of my other posts is more accessible to you? Perhaps where I point out that you either trust the process or you don't? Not dabbling into things that suit your ignorant fancy?
How is observing that republicans are often christian and often in disagreement with climate change polarization?
What a classic point, the fact that christians CAN do science does nothing to demonstrate that you aren't full of shit and counter my point. Either science is a process that works and yields correct results overall and you therefore trust it AND THE EXPERTS when they say shit or you don't and you mistrust it all. Hence my point about picking and choosing, you fucking dabbler.
I take an experts word over my own. It's not like I'm an amateur doctor with any measure of success. Creationists, on the other hand, might as well just make up anything they want if they don't agree with the process.
That's a great quote. Believe everything they say, or believe nothing. No middleground. Quite logical.
That aside, I've yet to see anyone (aside of Lanturn, who I think just happens to be unintentionally reading the language incorrectly) point out how this Bill is harmful to school children. Is all this hubbub just about the sponsor's religious beliefs? That doesn't sound very enlightened.
Wasn't it you who said that Science isn't some all knowing force? People should trust the process. They shouldn't always trust the results. Especially not other scientists. If scientists had absolute faith in the results of the scientific method, why, acoelomorphs might never have been reclassified. Fascinating. I do trust evolution, but I sure as hell don't trust restless leg syndrome. I'm sure some experts out there did a nice study about it, but they are also experts at selling medication and it doesn't take a scientist to realize that neither tapping your foot nor insomnia are abnormal. If I don't trust that process, then I guess I shouldn't be using a computer. Was THAT your point? Or am I going to keep missing it until I start sucking your cock?
Mattj:
Believe experts when they talk or don't? Yeah that's an illogical set of alternatives. Way to paraphrase me in a manipulative way. I have not been contradictory at any point in this thread. Don't be a retard.
Lanturn actually pointed out what the language means. I think if anyone is misreading, it's you. Considering science to be docterine is harmful. Making sure it doesn't offend anyone (and thusly not teaching evolution) is harmful. It's censoring science in science class because some people can't handle things.
Vonfondler:
If you trust the process then evolution, as a theory, should be beyond contestation- especially by those who don't know how it works and select to believe whatever they want. I am saying that if you don't trust the process, you shouldn't pick and choose which benefits you reap as it makes you a hypocrite.
Wasn't it you who said that Science isn't some all knowing force? People should trust the process. They shouldn't always trust the results. Especially not other scientists. If scientists had absolute faith in the results of the scientific method, why, acoelomorphs might never have been reclassified. Fascinating. I do trust evolution, but I sure as hell don't trust restless leg syndrome. I'm sure some experts out there did a nice study about it, but they are also experts at selling medication and it doesn't take a scientist to realize that neither tapping your foot nor insomnia are abnormal. If I don't trust that process, then I guess I shouldn't be using a computer. Was THAT your point? Or am I going to keep missing it until I start sucking your cock?
Lol omgz morm, you too! Look at the words on the page. This is not complicated.
(e) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.
(e) This section only protects the teaching of religious doctrines, and shall not be construed to promote any scientific or factual study, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.
Then yes, the language of said (imaginary) bill would be promoting Creationism.
This bill protects the teaching of scientific information
This bill protects the teaching of scientific information
This bill protects the teaching of scientific information
What is so hard to understand about that? It does not promote the teaching of Creationism in any science class. The words in this bill do not support that. Creationism is a religious doctrine, the teaching of which is noooooot supported by this bill. a;ldskgja;lsdg English you guys. What this bill actually does is:
A)
(2) The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy; and
B)
(3) Some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.
C)
(b) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues. (c) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught. (d) Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.
D)
(e) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.
Where does it consider science to be doctrine?
What. Line. Of. Freaking. Text. Are. You. Getting. This. Nonsense. From? None. You're superimposing your prejudices upon this text based on your assumption of the sponsor's beliefs.
In case you haven't noticed yet, people do exist that disagree with you. I don't know where you live, but there are quite a few of them around here. How do you propose we deal with those other viewpoints in the science class? Ignore them? Hold our faces close to the textbooks and read aloud in unison for two hours per period? People want to discuss them. Why shouldn't they be able to? If Creationism doesn't hold water, what harm has it caused pointing that out in class?
I already responded directly to it. She misread it. There is no place in this bill that says that scientific findings are "doctrine". People are making it up to fuel their need to bash the religious. Hence. Strawmen.
In case you haven't noticed yet, people do exist that disagree with you. I don't know where you live, but there are quite a few of them around here. How do you propose we deal with those other viewpoints in the science class? Ignore them? People want to discuss them.
Or maybe we can discuss SCIENCE in science class? If someone wanted to talk about unicorns in science class they would get shut down and that's every bit as backed scientifically as jesus.
I already responded directly to it. She misread it. There is no place in this bill that says that scientific findings are "doctrine". People are making it up to fuel their need to bash the religious. Hence. Strawmen.
Stuff like this. A co-worker of mine is reading a book about it. There are lots of "non-religious" Creation theories.
[edit]
You know, when I was in like the third grade, and we were learning about animals, we did talk about mythical creatures, and how there wasn't any evidence to support their existence. When I was in highschool, we talked about mythical creatures in science class too. We talked about how dragons and thunderbirds could quite possibly be based on early civilizations finding fossils and trying to make sense of them. That was excellent discussion. What's wrong with discussing things that you don't happen to believe in, in a science class? Are you, and your circle of belief, the only source of valid discussion?
Agreed 100%. I'm actually gonna read the first of like 12 books that this crazy author he's reading has written just so I can try to get some kind of handle on where he's getting these far out ideas from. x)
Yes. Are you not? Were you born in a laboratory surrounded by learned people who never gave you false information? We all get information from family, friends, people we meet, stuff we see on TV. Much of it is false. Why are you so dead set on squelching discussion that could enlighten people? If a kid wants to know what his teachers, and classmates, and the scientific community think about "Idea X", and there's time for it, throw it out there and discuss.
I'm not about to run out and buy some drugs, and you know they'd prescribe them to me to because the diagnosis of a disorder that is supposed to affect you at night when you are in bed, doesn't even require any sort of sleep tests.
Not to mention that actual doctors have criticized RLS, but if you think that in the field of pharmaceuticals that science and marketing are separate enough for there to an objective scientific process, you've been living under a rock. In spite of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke's findings that RLS is at best a difficult diagnosis, they will still sell the medication to anyone who walks into a doctor's office saying that they kicked off their sheets at night. And you could do worse than sell snake oil in that industry. You could be upcharging a truly vital medication based on false science. And they do.
I think that the best scientific ideas (even those in contention with each other) should be taught in science class. Nothing more. If people wanna talk about mythological creatures there's a place for that: backwater internet forums filled with paranoia and crackpot ideas.
So your approach is to blindly abandon any and all your beliefs for whatever the current edition of the textbook tells you in science class. And to ignore any pressing questions that every day people may have. Open mouth. Insert book.
Science is a process. In science class you should learn about that process. The reason "creationism" and other alternatives should not be discussed in science class is because they're not science. If they were honestly alternative scientific theories morm would advocate their inclusion. But creationists don't use the scientific process. They take what they believe the answer to be and then try and find a way to interpret the evidence to fit their answer. If they deal in evidence at all.
