Darwinism in schools?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tigress
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest2 said:
What is your stake in this?
Click to expand...
1 Enjoyment.

2 Creationism and ID are being pushed into science classes. See the current, “Teach the Controversy” laws in Tennessee, Oklahoma and Louisiana. There are also some similar efforts in the UK at the moment, the Vardy schools for instance.

rossum
 
rossum said:
1 Enjoyment.

2 Creationism and ID are being pushed into science classes. See the current, “Teach the Controversy” laws in Tennessee, Oklahoma and Louisiana. There are also some similar efforts in the UK at the moment, the Vardy schools for instance.

rossum
Click to expand...
  1. Without further explanations to this effect, this makes you sound like you’re just trolling.
  2. Irrelivent. This is the fallacy of false alternatives. Special creationism and darwinian evolution are not the only two choices, nor is Intelligent Design the same thing as Creationism.
You know, we could just kick all of these unscientific theories out of classrooms. Then you wouldn’t have to feel like you have some compulsive need to invade Christian message boards and attack Christianity, and we wouldn’t feel like we have some need to lash out against overeager secularists, who’ve made a competing religion out of Charles Darwin’s theories.
 
mytruepower2 said:
You know, we could just kick all of these unscientific theories out of classrooms.
Click to expand...
I wish people would, but Creationists seem to want to insert their non-science into science classrooms. I have no problem with creationism (OEC or YEC) being taught in comparative religion classes.
Then you wouldn’t have to feel like you have some compulsive need to invade Christian message boards and attack Christianity,
Click to expand...
I do not attack Christianity. I attack certain ludicrously bad interpretations of the Bible, which tend to weaken Christianity in the eyes of anyone with a little scientific knowledge. Saint Thomas Aquinas said:
“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”
YEC, and to a lesser extent OEC, exposes Holy Scripture to the ridicule of unbelievers.

rossum
 
edwest2 said:
On the contrary, the Pope is exactly correct. Therefore, calling such a theory a fact here is not accurate. It is impossible to verify or disprove.
Click to expand...
Let me use an analogy.

Nobody has seen a black hole. The closer we got is seeing the X-ray emissions coming from the gas falling into a black hole (forming a so-called accretion disk around the black hole), and only very recently, we have managed to directly image the accretion disk.

Should we conclude that the black holes don’t exist and the general relativity is wrong?

Moreover, let’s consider a more specific example: the scientists currently hold that the Cygnus X-1 X-ray source contains a black hole. I maintain, that this view is wrong, and the Cygnus X-1 is in fact an alien interstellar spacecraft (which emits X-rays as its manner of operation). I further claim that this knowledge has been revealed to me divinely by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, when I was touched by his noodly appendage.

Should my view be allowed into classroom and why (not)?
 
rossum said:
I wish people would, but Creationists seem to want to insert their non-science into science classrooms. I have no problem with creationism (OEC or YEC) being taught in comparative religion classes.
Click to expand...
It might be there already is non-science in the science classroom. 🙂
 
Rossum, you’ve already been shown that in geneologys there are actual people based on Jesus referring to Abel. You have avoided the answer to your question about “where does it say in the bible” that Joseph had to come from David. It was shown to be Luke 1:27. Without lineages of real people the Jesus story is just a fairytale with no historic reference.

At what point do you start to say the people of the Old Testament are real? Do you have your own created line of delineation between the real ones and the fake ones?

The fall of man, incorporated into the creation event is the basis for the need for Jesus. Imaginary people were not the first sinners. Jesus didn’t die because two fictitious people sinned. The bible tells us that because of ADAM sin came into the world. It could have said only, ‘because of man’, but chose to use a proper name.

If the people are real, and they have been shown to be, then the creation event is real. The Euphrates is a real river (Genesis 2:14) in a fake creation?
 
kama3 said:
Let me use an analogy.

Nobody has seen a black hole. The closer we got is seeing the X-ray emissions coming from the gas falling into a black hole (forming a so-called accretion disk around the black hole), and only very recently, we have managed to directly image the accretion disk.

Should we conclude that the black holes don’t exist and the general relativity is wrong?

Moreover, let’s consider a more specific example: the scientists currently hold that the Cygnus X-1 X-ray source contains a black hole. I maintain, that this view is wrong, and the Cygnus X-1 is in fact an alien interstellar spacecraft (which emits X-rays as its manner of operation). I further claim that this knowledge has been revealed to me divinely by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, when I was touched by his noodly appendage.

Should my view be allowed into classroom and why (not)?
Click to expand...
Any other witnesses to your FSM?
 
buffalo said:
Any other witnesses to your FSM?
Click to expand...
Sure, quite a lot: venganza.org/category/sightings/ It also borders on certainity that I could find some other FSM adherents which would corrobate my revelation about Cygnus X-1, given the nature of the cult.

Assuming I can get a sufficient number of other FSM-worshippers to corrobate my story, should my view on black holes be admitted into classroom?
 
Buffalo, please define “kind,” as I and others have asked you to do several times, without avail. At this point, one would think that you are avoiding the question because you are unable to answer it.
 
Baelor said:
Buffalo, please define “kind,” as I and others have asked you to do several times, without avail. At this point, one would think that you are avoiding the question because you are unable to answer it.
Click to expand...
Of course he’s avoiding it. “Kind” doesn’t have an operational definition to provide. He can search all the creationist/ID literature he wants. It just doesn’t exist.
 
Farsight001 said:
Of course he’s avoiding it. “Kind” doesn’t have an operational definition to provide. He can search all the creationist/ID literature he wants. It just doesn’t exist.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Perhaps we should refrain from posting until he provides said definition.

In addition, buffalo, it is not considerate to post links to long webpages, books, or entire websites in response to very simple questions. If you would like to link to them as resources, fine, but provide a complete (if high-level) answer that is in your own words.

As you are posting now, it is hard to tell whether you are meticulously researching or simply typing in keywords into Google and posting links. Regardless, you are then burdening the other posters to evaluate the validity of the sources and then comment on their content, which is an unfair onus to place on others. It is also not helpful on any level.

In brief, come up with your own answers and cite sources as necessary. Do not simply launch a barrage of links with nothing else.
 
johnnyjones said:
Rossum, you’ve already been shown that in geneologys there are actual people based on Jesus referring to Abel.
Click to expand...
J R R Tolkien was a real person. He referred to Bilbo Baggins, the Hobbit. Many real people refer to Peter Rabbit, Humpty Dumpty and other well known fictional characters.

Real people can refer to known fictional characters.

rossum
 
rossum said:
J R R Tolkien was a real person. He referred to Bilbo Baggins, the Hobbit. Many real people refer to Peter Rabbit, Humpty Dumpty and other well known fictional characters.

Real people can refer to known fictional characters.

rossum
Click to expand...
J RR Tolkien was not Jesus Christ, and Christ referred to Abel. Otherwise throw all geneologies and lineages out and your left with nothing. A huge percentage of the bible uses lineages to establish who people are which is always relevant. Your in fantasy land, I’m dealing with historical context.

. I also have never resolved the issue of you calling me a “disgrace to my religion.” I made a mistake by quoting wrong information, I should not have skimmed the information. I’m glad Christianity doesn’t call everyone who sins or does wrong a disgrace to their religion. Stick to Buddhism.
 
kama3 said:
Sure, quite a lot: venganza.org/category/sightings/ It also borders on certainity that I could find some other FSM adherents which would corrobate my revelation about Cygnus X-1, given the nature of the cult.

Assuming I can get a sufficient number of other FSM-worshippers to corrobate my story, should my view on black holes be admitted into classroom?
Click to expand...
Ok…:hmmm:
 
Baelor said:
Indeed. Perhaps we should refrain from posting until he provides said definition.

In addition, buffalo, it is not considerate to post links to long webpages, books, or entire websites in response to very simple questions. If you would like to link to them as resources, fine, but provide a complete (if high-level) answer that is in your own words.

As you are posting now, it is hard to tell whether you are meticulously researching or simply typing in keywords into Google and posting links. Regardless, you are then burdening the other posters to evaluate the validity of the sources and then comment on their content, which is an unfair onus to place on others. It is also not helpful on any level.

In brief, come up with your own answers and cite sources as necessary. Do not simply launch a barrage of links with nothing else.
Click to expand...
You can view my resource page here

Sometimes simple questions need answers with depth.

I have completed my answer on kinds.

Correct, posters can look at the papers themselves. I encourage it.

I have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top