|
Well, of course...
On 2/19/2014 6:32 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Yes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3 Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible... Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html 1990... C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some sort of "alternative." Can you provide a specific example of how creationism is pushed onto public school kids? It's one thing to be discussing science and evolution and, in the course of that discussion make reference to the fact that some people believe in creationism. I don't think that's pushing it onto kids. It's more of a historical and social reference that in their overall education kids should be aware of in their dealings and relationships with others. To teach it as a fact however is wrong and I doubt it happens in public schools. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/2014 8:11 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 7:58 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 5:32:13 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Yes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3 Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible... Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html 1990... C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some sort of "alternative." Great proclamation Harry! Interesting that Creationism is 'dishonest' but an evolutionary theory is taught as a proven fact. LOL! BTW, When you gonna start building the conscentration camps to hold the 'religiously insane?" Can I be the first to sign the guest book? ?;^ ) There is tons of science underpinning evolution, but not a shred of evidence that creationism is anything more than religious delusion. Go ahead, *prove* a supreme being created the universe. Got *any* evidence that will stand scientific scrutiny? Anything at all beyond religious "belief"? You might enjoy skimming this: http://tinyurl.com/mmqga As I have stated many times, I don't give a damn what "the religious" believe in terms of their religion, so long as they don't try to push those beliefs beyond themselves, their families, their churches, et cetera. Teaching or promoting of religious belief should have no place in our public schools or public institutions or public government. One of the goals of teaching is to prepare kids for life's experiences. Having knowledge that some religions believe in creationism is simply part of that education, just like teaching evolutionary theories. It's not appropriate to preach or try to convince kids to accept creationism but having knowledge that some people believe in it is beneficial in their overall education. You seem to want to outlaw it completely and sweep any remaining thoughts of it under a rug. Thing is, it exists as a belief in some and kids should be at least aware of it. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/2014 8:30 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 8:18 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:11:47 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote: Go ahead, *prove* a supreme being created the universe. Got *any* evidence that will stand scientific scrutiny? Anything at all beyond religious "belief"? Nah, let you science prove it. Yeah, right. There is no proof. There's nothing to it beyond religious belief and faith, just as there is nothing more than that underpinning creationism. No proof works for you. Works for me too. But in the eyes of believers and the faithful, no proof is needed. The concept of a Supreme Being is one of faith. We have no right or qualifications to question or be critical of what others believe. It has no place in public schools as a teaching ... I agree, but people have the right to believe what they want. I capitalized "Supreme Being" not because I am religious but out of respect for those who are. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/14, 8:58 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/19/2014 6:32 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Yes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3 Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible... Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html 1990... C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some sort of "alternative." Can you provide a specific example of how creationism is pushed onto public school kids? It's one thing to be discussing science and evolution and, in the course of that discussion make reference to the fact that some people believe in creationism. I don't think that's pushing it onto kids. It's more of a historical and social reference that in their overall education kids should be aware of in their dealings and relationships with others. To teach it as a fact however is wrong and I doubt it happens in public schools. http://tinyurl.com/kxdwumn Creationism is being taught as a legitimate alternative to science in many public and public-funded schools, especially in the south. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/14, 9:04 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/19/2014 8:11 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 7:58 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 5:32:13 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Yes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3 Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible... Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html 1990... C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some sort of "alternative." Great proclamation Harry! Interesting that Creationism is 'dishonest' but an evolutionary theory is taught as a proven fact. LOL! BTW, When you gonna start building the conscentration camps to hold the 'religiously insane?" Can I be the first to sign the guest book? ?;^ ) There is tons of science underpinning evolution, but not a shred of evidence that creationism is anything more than religious delusion. Go ahead, *prove* a supreme being created the universe. Got *any* evidence that will stand scientific scrutiny? Anything at all beyond religious "belief"? You might enjoy skimming this: http://tinyurl.com/mmqga As I have stated many times, I don't give a damn what "the religious" believe in terms of their religion, so long as they don't try to push those beliefs beyond themselves, their families, their churches, et cetera. Teaching or promoting of religious belief should have no place in our public schools or public institutions or public government. One of the goals of teaching is to prepare kids for life's experiences. Having knowledge that some religions believe in creationism is simply part of that education, just like teaching evolutionary theories. It's not appropriate to preach or try to convince kids to accept creationism but having knowledge that some people believe in it is beneficial in their overall education. You seem to want to outlaw it completely and sweep any remaining thoughts of it under a rug. Thing is, it exists as a belief in some and kids should be at least aware of it. I have no objection to the balanced teaching of comparative religion classes no earlier than what is or was considered junior high. I remember in the 7th grade at Sheridan studying "ancient" history, and the culture and religious beliefs of really early peoples, and then the Egyptians, Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, Christians, et cetera. But no effort was ever made to "push" any of these beliefs. In fact, I recall a rabbi coming in to Sheridan to teach a couple of classes about Judaism and its beliefs, and then a priest and a nun coming in from nearby St. Aedans to do the same about Catholicism. These were simply factual presentations about history and beliefs...no "selling" or negative comparisons to other religions were allowed. Under those sorts of groundrules, I would have no objection to a discussion of creationism. But I would object to it being taught as an "alternative" to reality. I've never understood the push for creationism, since there really is nothing underpinning it but religious superstition and faith...no facts or science whatsoever. I had a college roommate who became an Episcopal priest. He was a very bright guy and he thought creationism was so much "happy horse****," as he referred to it. And when I lived in Kansas City, I was very friendly with a couple of co-workers who were grads of a Jesuit college in the area, again very bright guys, and they certainly weren't "deniers" of evolution. But, then, they had the advantages of a Jesuit education. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/14, 9:10 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/19/2014 8:30 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 8:18 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:11:47 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote: Go ahead, *prove* a supreme being created the universe. Got *any* evidence that will stand scientific scrutiny? Anything at all beyond religious "belief"? Nah, let you science prove it. Yeah, right. There is no proof. There's nothing to it beyond religious belief and faith, just as there is nothing more than that underpinning creationism. No proof works for you. Works for me too. But in the eyes of believers and the faithful, no proof is needed. The concept of a Supreme Being is one of faith. We have no right or qualifications to question or be critical of what others believe. It has no place in public schools as a teaching ... I agree, but people have the right to believe what they want. I capitalized "Supreme Being" not because I am religious but out of respect for those who are. Once again, I don't give a tinker's dam about peoples' religious beliefs, so long as they aren't trying to shape or reshape our society to conform to those beliefs. We certainly have the right and I think obligation to push back when those religious beliefs are shoveled into our path. |
Well, of course...
On 2/19/2014 5:18 AM, Tim wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:11:47 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote: As I have stated many times, I don't give a damn what "the religious" believe in terms of their religion, so long as they don't try to push those beliefs beyond themselves, their families, their churches, et cetera. Sure you do, Harry, Sure you do. That's why you bring it up in here. And that's why it agitates you. Teaching or promoting of religious belief should have no place in our public schools or public institutions or public government. And that's how our government is set up to no be pro- any specific religion. Nor anti- as well. It 'agitates' me when facts are misrepresented. There is the observed fact of evolution; the change of heritable characteristics in populations over generations, and there is the theory of evolution that explains the mechanisms; mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection. Public schools should not be anti-science. |
Well, of course...
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 06:32:13 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote: On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote: Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Yes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3 Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible... Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html 1990... C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate to infer that the whole field is unreliable. As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some are useful." The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly. There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some sort of "alternative." It's similar to TV shows in which half the characters are GLBT. It's dishonest to try to push that onto public school kids as some kind of 'norm'. |
Well, of course...
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:44:12 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 9:10 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 2/19/2014 8:30 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 2/19/14, 8:18 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:11:47 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote: Go ahead, *prove* a supreme being created the universe. Got *any* evidence that will stand scientific scrutiny? Anything at all beyond religious "belief"? Nah, let you science prove it. Yeah, right. There is no proof. There's nothing to it beyond religious belief and faith, just as there is nothing more than that underpinning creationism. No proof works for you. Works for me too. But in the eyes of believers and the faithful, no proof is needed. The concept of a Supreme Being is one of faith. We have no right or qualifications to question or be critical of what others believe. It has no place in public schools as a teaching ... I agree, but people have the right to believe what they want. I capitalized "Supreme Being" not because I am religious but out of respect for those who are. Once again, I don't give a tinker's dam about peoples' religious beliefs, so long as they aren't trying to shape or reshape our society to conform to those beliefs. We certainly have the right and I think obligation to push back when those religious beliefs are shoveled into our path. Who here, besides you, continuously throws anti-religious **** into our paths? You whine about religion being shoved down your throat - where? Certainly not here, as you are the one who continues the postings. Try to keep the 'Dark Tetrad' in mind. You post your crap only to incite arguments and anger. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com