Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Creationism in Europe?

dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 8:57:58 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 1:20:39 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Kind of disheartening. Thought this was centralized at the ark museum.

https://www.scientificamerican.com...

I don't think there is much to worry about:

When creationism finds its way into the educational system, European scientists do not just comment in the newspapers. They organize and rally support for counteractions. When a Serbian minister of education ordered schools to stop teaching evolution, the Serbian Academy of Science prompted an anticreationist campaign, supported by 40 different organizations, that eventually forced the minister to resign.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 10:41:02 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Well obviously creationism is taught in *some* parts of Europe...which has a pretty diverse set of cultures as a continent. The minister of science (in Croatia for example) identifies as a creationist. There's definitely a few countries that are still quite backwards.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 10:41:23 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 8:57:58 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:20:39 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Kind of disheartening. Thought this was centralized at the ark museum.

https://www.scientificamerican.com...

I don't think there is much to worry about:

When creationism finds its way into the educational system, European scientists do not just comment in the newspapers. They organize and rally support for counteractions. When a Serbian minister of education ordered schools to stop teaching evolution, the Serbian Academy of Science prompted an anticreationist campaign, supported by 40 different organizations, that eventually forced the minister to resign.

I don't worry, I don't love there
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 1:13:08 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 1:20:39 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Kind of disheartening. Thought this was centralized at the ark museum.

https://www.scientificamerican.com...

Evolution, in the Darwinian sense, has been convincingly explained to me, but never proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. I realize how ignorant that makes me sound, to the righteously correct, but its just another explanation for something we don't know in my opinion, with uncontradictory proof, but not concrete to my knowledge at this time. I don't really have an issue with it being taught, nor would I fault schools for skipping it all together. Its best implementation was relayed to me by a student in an environmental school who claimed it was presented to students, as with many things, in multiple ways and simply explaining in terms of thought and methodology in theory, not fact, not the only view. The fossil record is undeniable however, and downright inspiring for many young minds. Let them make up their own mind on it....It won't hurt anything nor help if we are being honest.

Oh getting off topic aren't I? Oh well, I hope this contributes none the less. If it matters to anyone, I don't consider myself a creationist.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 1:19:32 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 1:13:08 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:20:39 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Kind of disheartening. Thought this was centralized at the ark museum.

https://www.scientificamerican.com...

Evolution, in the Darwinian sense, has been convincingly explained to me, but never proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. I realize how ignorant that makes me sound, to the righteously correct, but its just another explanation for something we don't know in my opinion, with uncontradictory proof, but not concrete to my knowledge at this time. I don't really have an issue with it being taught, nor would I fault schools for skipping it all together. Its best implementation was relayed to me by a student in an environmental school who claimed it was presented to students, as with many things, in multiple ways and simply explaining in terms of thought and methodology in theory, not fact, not the only view. The fossil record is undeniable however, and downright inspiring for many young minds. Let them make up their own mind on it....It won't hurt anything nor help if we are being honest.

Oh getting off topic aren't I? Oh well, I hope this contributes none the less. If it matters to anyone, I don't consider myself a creationist.

Very well said. Know why I posted this? Simple: I'm tired of Americans looking to Europe as the 'bastion' of enlightenment.

I'm an atheist that defends religion tooth and nail. Science has little proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We, humans, are continuously on a learning curve and I abhor those that censor.

My only real intellectual issue with creationism is this: equal protection and separation of church and state. To teach biblical creation law states schools that take fed funding SHALL (legal FOR has too) teach all. Curriculum would get bogged down with every faiths version of 'how'.

Ya dig?
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 1:22:20 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 10:41:02 AM, Emilrose wrote:
Well obviously creationism is taught in *some* parts of Europe...which has a pretty diverse set of cultures as a continent. The minister of science (in Croatia for example) identifies as a creationist. There's definitely a few countries that are still quite backwards.

I don't view them as backwards. This was more of a snide comment on Americans always looking to Europe and putting ourselves down. I don't think creationism should be taught in school, especially science class, but I also am not repulsed by one who may still believe in their faiths creation story.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 6:32:01 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 1:13:08 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:20:39 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Kind of disheartening. Thought this was centralized at the ark museum.

https://www.scientificamerican.com...

Evolution, in the Darwinian sense, has been convincingly explained to me, but never proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. I realize how ignorant that makes me sound, to the righteously correct, but its just another explanation for something we don't know in my opinion, with uncontradictory proof, but not concrete to my knowledge at this time. I don't really have an issue with it being taught, nor would I fault schools for skipping it all together. Its best implementation was relayed to me by a student in an environmental school who claimed it was presented to students, as with many things, in multiple ways and simply explaining in terms of thought and methodology in theory, not fact, not the only view. The fossil record is undeniable however, and downright inspiring for many young minds. Let them make up their own mind on it....It won't hurt anything nor help if we are being honest.

You seem a little confused. There is no such thing as proof in science. There is only mountains and mountains of evidence. The ToE has that. When a theory such as the ToE has such a weight of evidence behind it, has lasted for 150 years, has been repeatedly confirmed by every new discovery (such as DNA) then it attains the status of fact, or at least as close as you can get to fact in science. There are no other contending scientific theories to explain the diversity of life. A school which 'skips' teaching such a fundamental aspect of biology is criminally negligent towards its students. It is done for only one reason - because it conflicts with silly religious beliefs. That is a lousy basis to censor the science curriculum.

Oh getting off topic aren't I? Oh well, I hope this contributes none the less. If it matters to anyone, I don't consider myself a creationist.
Annnaxim
Posts: 221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 4:04:08 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 6:32:01 AM, dee-em wrote:

You seem a little confused. There is no such thing as proof in science.

I'd go a step further, and say there is no proof in the world, excpet perhaps in mathematics, where tie axiom seems to rule.

There is only mountains and mountains of evidence. The ToE has that. When a theory such as the ToE has such a weight of evidence behind it, has lasted for 150 years, has been repeatedly confirmed by every new discovery (such as DNA) then it attains the status of fact, or at least as close as you can get to fact in science. There are no other contending scientific theories to explain the diversity of life. A school which 'skips' teaching such a fundamental aspect of biology is criminally negligent towards its students. It is done for only one reason - because it conflicts with silly religious beliefs. That is a lousy basis to censor the science curriculum.

For the rest... I fully agree with your statement.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 5:15:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
I think that while creationism is nonsense, creationists have become very good at marketing it, far better than evolutionists are at marketing evolution. Creationist propaganda doesn't work to well with the scientifically literate elite, but most people are not trained scientists and have a traditional respect for religion and so are susceptible to the creationists carefully crafted firago of half-truths and populism.

Quite likely, most evolutionists in Europe do not realise that creationist are at work, especially in places like churches. Perhaps evolutionists need to promote something like a secular 'alpha course', but of course creationism has the advantage that it is less intellectually demanding than evolution so it has great appeal to a lot of people who are essentially lazy!
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 5:27:21 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 1:19:32 AM, Stymie13 wrote:

I'm an atheist that defends religion tooth and nail.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Science has little proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Science doesn't "prove" things, fyi.

We, humans, are continuously on a learning curve and I abhor those that censor.

My only real intellectual issue with creationism is this: equal protection and separation of church and state. To teach biblical creation law states schools that take fed funding SHALL (legal FOR has too) teach all. Curriculum would get bogged down with every faiths version of 'how'.

Ya dig?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 8:00:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 5:27:21 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/15/2016 1:19:32 AM, Stymie13 wrote:

I'm an atheist that defends religion tooth and nail.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Science has little proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Science doesn't "prove" things, fyi.

We, humans, are continuously on a learning curve and I abhor those that censor.

My only real intellectual issue with creationism is this: equal protection and separation of church and state. To teach biblical creation law states schools that take fed funding SHALL (legal FOR has too) teach all. Curriculum would get bogged down with every faiths version of 'how'.

Ya dig?

And your point?
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 8:26:19 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 1:20:39 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Kind of disheartening. Thought this was centralized at the ark museum.

https://www.scientificamerican.com...

It's actually a rather sad article, it refers collectively to "creationists" and then tars them all with the same brush.

A great many practicing and respected scientists and professors describe themselves as creationists, they are as entitled to their world view as you are to yours.

The anti-creationist lobby has much in common with the Catholic thought police who imprisoned Galileo and forbade him expressing or teaching his ideas.

Granted there are many rather foolish people who call themselves "creationist" but there are many rather foolish people too who hold scientific degrees and doctorates.

This isn't - or shouldn't be presented as being about "science" v "religion", it is rather about freedom of thought. The freedom to express dissenting views and have those views stand or fall on their merits or lack thereof.

As soon as society begins to consider forming a "Ministry of Truth" where truth is defined and decided by some elite group, we begin to go down a very miserable road indeed.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 8:31:47 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 1:22:20 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 10:41:02 AM, Emilrose wrote:
Well obviously creationism is taught in *some* parts of Europe...which has a pretty diverse set of cultures as a continent. The minister of science (in Croatia for example) identifies as a creationist. There's definitely a few countries that are still quite backwards.

I don't view them as backwards. This was more of a snide comment on Americans always looking to Europe and putting ourselves down. I don't think creationism should be taught in school, especially science class, but I also am not repulsed by one who may still believe in their faiths creation story.

We should include in our schools a Philosophy Class. This is the best way to teach our children to discern for themselves what is trustworthy, what is truthful.

Teach children HOW to think then let them out into the world prepared, do not indoctrinate them into this or that ideology or world view, they MUST be the ones who DECIDE what they believe, they must find out for themselves what's true and what's not.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 9:09:21 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 8:00:53 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/15/2016 5:27:21 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/15/2016 1:19:32 AM, Stymie13 wrote:

I'm an atheist that defends religion tooth and nail.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Science has little proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Science doesn't "prove" things, fyi.

We, humans, are continuously on a learning curve and I abhor those that censor.

My only real intellectual issue with creationism is this: equal protection and separation of church and state. To teach biblical creation law states schools that take fed funding SHALL (legal FOR has too) teach all. Curriculum would get bogged down with every faiths version of 'how'.

Ya dig?

And your point?

That you appear to be the furthest thing from an atheist.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 7:17:32 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 6:32:01 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/15/2016 1:13:08 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:20:39 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Kind of disheartening. Thought this was centralized at the ark museum.

https://www.scientificamerican.com...

Evolution, in the Darwinian sense, has been convincingly explained to me, but never proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. I realize how ignorant that makes me sound, to the righteously correct, but its just another explanation for something we don't know in my opinion, with uncontradictory proof, but not concrete to my knowledge at this time. I don't really have an issue with it being taught, nor would I fault schools for skipping it all together. Its best implementation was relayed to me by a student in an environmental school who claimed it was presented to students, as with many things, in multiple ways and simply explaining in terms of thought and methodology in theory, not fact, not the only view. The fossil record is undeniable however, and downright inspiring for many young minds. Let them make up their own mind on it....It won't hurt anything nor help if we are being honest.

You seem a little confused. There is no such thing as proof in science. There is only mountains and mountains of evidence. The ToE has that. When a theory such as the ToE has such a weight of evidence behind it, has lasted for 150 years, has been repeatedly confirmed by every new discovery (such as DNA) then it attains the status of fact, or at least as close as you can get to fact in science. There are no other contending scientific theories to explain the diversity of life. A school which 'skips' teaching such a fundamental aspect of biology is criminally negligent towards its students. It is done for only one reason - because it conflicts with silly religious beliefs. That is a lousy basis to censor the science curriculum.

No not confused, nor do I believe I implied anything for which you seem to be attempting to address....Proof in science for example. This was not addressed nor implied. The word science was not even used. The primary focus of the comment was presentation of the topic in our educational systems.

Addressing your statement, I believe evolution has not been proven to be fundamental to biology. In terms of things we study, its not been proven to be anything but a luxury....We test, and refine the theories of evolution with new concepts, and discoveries, not the other way around. One day I hope to be corrected, and look forward to reviewing the research, and its application to the world.

This was stated in my previous post, but it is part of the equation for stating I would have no issue with it not being taught at all in our education system. Had we lacked the interest, we could exist with all things we have today, including our advancements without the theory of evolution, aside from the interesting literature. Aside from inspiration of individuals undertaking more useful research, and the quirks of fate that resulted it has not contributed physically to our society. That inspiration, the interesting aspect, is the only merit I see in it.

If a more rewarding subject/experience were to arise, I would have no qualms with breezing over the subject of evolutionary theory. Ethics, critical thinking, experimentation and just how to address information are things that I would have wished for a more in depth lecture of during my science classes, which got fantastic scores in state testing....and were a complete joke as we weren't presented the skills that should be the primary goal of a primary education. On the list of things I hope for my future children to receive from education, the theory of evolution is not very high, let alone essential. However, the ability it has to provoke thought and show how the development of scientific theory works....That needs to be present, and if its in the form of discussing the theories of how we came to be, well great. That works, and the story of Darwin and the basics of theory that survived well beyond him worked great for me. Hence my wording.

I guess what I'm saying contradicts your words. I don't mean it in argument. You can just ask if something seems unclear. Its just my longstanding position on the subject, which apparently needed clarification.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 7:23:31 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 6:32:01 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/15/2016 1:13:08 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:20:39 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Kind of disheartening. Thought this was centralized at the ark museum.

https://www.scientificamerican.com...

Evolution, in the Darwinian sense, has been convincingly explained to me, but never proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. I realize how ignorant that makes me sound, to the righteously correct, but its just another explanation for something we don't know in my opinion, with uncontradictory proof, but not concrete to my knowledge at this time. I don't really have an issue with it being taught, nor would I fault schools for skipping it all together. Its best implementation was relayed to me by a student in an environmental school who claimed it was presented to students, as with many things, in multiple ways and simply explaining in terms of thought and methodology in theory, not fact, not the only view. The fossil record is undeniable however, and downright inspiring for many young minds. Let them make up their own mind on it....It won't hurt anything nor help if we are being honest.

You seem a little confused. There is no such thing as proof in science. There is only mountains and mountains of evidence. The ToE has that. When a theory such as the ToE has such a weight of evidence behind it, has lasted for 150 years, has been repeatedly confirmed by every new discovery (such as DNA) then it attains the status of fact, or at least as close as you can get to fact in science. There are no other contending scientific theories to explain the diversity of life. A school which 'skips' teaching such a fundamental aspect of biology is criminally negligent towards its students. It is done for only one reason - because it conflicts with silly religious beliefs. That is a lousy basis to censor the science curriculum.

No not confused, nor do I believe I implied anything for which you seem to be attempting to address....Proof in science for example. This was not addressed nor implied. The word science was not even used. The primary focus of the comment was presentation of the topic in our educational systems.

Addressing your statement, I believe evolution has not been proven to be fundamental to biology. In terms of things we study, its not been proven to be anything but a luxury....We test, and refine the theories of evolution with new concepts, and discoveries, not the other way around. One day I hope to be corrected, and look forward to reviewing the research, and its application to the world.

This was stated in my previous post, but it is part of the equation for stating I would have no issue with it not being taught at all in our education system. Had we lacked the interest, we could exist with all things we have today, including our advancements (EDIT) in genetics without the theory of evolution, aside from the interesting literature. Aside from inspiration of individuals undertaking more useful research, and the quirks of fate that resulted it has not contributed physically to our society. That inspiration, the interesting aspect, is the only merit I see in it.

If a more rewarding subject/experience were to arise, I would have no qualms with breezing over the subject of evolutionary theory. Ethics, critical thinking, experimentation and just how to address information are things that I would have wished for a more in depth lecture of during my science classes, which got fantastic scores in state testing....and were a complete joke as we weren't presented the skills that should be the primary goal of a primary education. On the list of things I hope for my future children to receive from education, the theory of evolution is not very high, let alone essential. However, the ability it has to provoke thought and show how the development of scientific theory works....That needs to be present, and if its in the form of discussing the theories of how we came to be, well great. That works, and the story of Darwin and the basics of theory that survived well beyond him worked great for me. Hence my wording.

I guess what I'm saying contradicts your words. I don't mean it in argument. You can just ask if something seems unclear. Its just my longstanding position on the subject, which apparently needed clarification.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 11:11:49 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 8:31:47 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/15/2016 1:22:20 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 10:41:02 AM, Emilrose wrote:
Well obviously creationism is taught in *some* parts of Europe...which has a pretty diverse set of cultures as a continent. The minister of science (in Croatia for example) identifies as a creationist. There's definitely a few countries that are still quite backwards.

I don't view them as backwards. This was more of a snide comment on Americans always looking to Europe and putting ourselves down. I don't think creationism should be taught in school, especially science class, but I also am not repulsed by one who may still believe in their faiths creation story.

We should include in our schools a Philosophy Class. This is the best way to teach our children to discern for themselves what is trustworthy, what is truthful.

Teach children HOW to think then let them out into the world prepared, do not indoctrinate them into this or that ideology or world view, they MUST be the ones who DECIDE what they believe, they must find out for themselves what's true and what's not.

I would agree; though not necessarily "Philosophy", but critical thinking, logical reasoning, scientific and media literacy. Understanding the difference between justification, evidence, and rhetoric; typical logical fallacies, how they operate, and patterns to recognize.

I have the highest suspicion that it won't end well for religion, though.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 12:02:11 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 7:17:32 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/15/2016 6:32:01 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/15/2016 1:13:08 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:20:39 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Kind of disheartening. Thought this was centralized at the ark museum.

https://www.scientificamerican.com...

Evolution, in the Darwinian sense, has been convincingly explained to me, but never proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. I realize how ignorant that makes me sound, to the righteously correct, but its just another explanation for something we don't know in my opinion, with uncontradictory proof, but not concrete to my knowledge at this time. I don't really have an issue with it being taught, nor would I fault schools for skipping it all together. Its best implementation was relayed to me by a student in an environmental school who claimed it was presented to students, as with many things, in multiple ways and simply explaining in terms of thought and methodology in theory, not fact, not the only view. The fossil record is undeniable however, and downright inspiring for many young minds. Let them make up their own mind on it....It won't hurt anything nor help if we are being honest.

You seem a little confused. There is no such thing as proof in science. There is only mountains and mountains of evidence. The ToE has that. When a theory such as the ToE has such a weight of evidence behind it, has lasted for 150 years, has been repeatedly confirmed by every new discovery (such as DNA) then it attains the status of fact, or at least as close as you can get to fact in science. There are no other contending scientific theories to explain the diversity of life. A school which 'skips' teaching such a fundamental aspect of biology is criminally negligent towards its students. It is done for only one reason - because it conflicts with silly religious beliefs. That is a lousy basis to censor the science curriculum.

No not confused, nor do I believe I implied anything for which you seem to be attempting to address....Proof in science for example. This was not addressed nor implied. The word science was not even used. The primary focus of the comment was presentation of the topic in our educational systems.

Wrong on both counts. Firstly, the ToE is a scientific theory. When you discuss evolution you are discussing science. Secondly, your words were "but never proven beyond the shadow of a doubt".

Addressing your statement, I believe evolution has not been proven to be fundamental to biology.

There you go with proven again.

https://www.nap.edu...

In short, biological evolution accounts for three of the most fundamental features of the world around us: the similarities among living things, the diversity of life, and many features of the physical world we inhabit. Explanations of these phenomena in terms of evolution draw on results from physics, chemistry, geology, many areas of biology, and other sciences. Thus, evolution is the central organizing principle that biologists use to understand the world. To teach biology without explaining evolution deprives students of a powerful concept that brings great order and coherence to our understanding of life.

In terms of things we study, its not been proven to be anything but a luxury....We test, and refine the theories of evolution with new concepts, and discoveries, not the other way around. One day I hope to be corrected, and look forward to reviewing the research, and its application to the world.

That will be a red letter day indeed.

This was stated in my previous post, but it is part of the equation for stating I would have no issue with it not being taught at all in our education system.

Because you have no concern with handicapping students. Isn't it funny how people like you never state that they have no issue with germ theory or the theory of atoms not being taught in schools. It is always the ToE and the Big Bang. An inquiring mind wonders, why?

Had we lacked the interest, we could exist with all things we have today, including our advancements without the theory of evolution, aside from the interesting literature.

See the link above. Sure we could exist, but civilization would be the poorer for it. We could exist without the discovery of semi-conductors and computer chips too. Somewhat of a peurile argument. Knowledge is far more preferable than ignorance.

Aside from inspiration of individuals undertaking more useful research, and the quirks of fate that resulted it has not contributed physically to our society. That inspiration, the interesting aspect, is the only merit I see in it.

Then you must be blind. Even if evolution had no practical benefits (which it very much does despite your assertions) it would still be invaluable for aiding our understanding of the world around us. Some people may not care about understanding the world because they are content to get their answers from primitives who wrote stuff in a holy book. Thinking people, including the majority of theists, do care and accept and embrace evolutionary theory.

If a more rewarding subject/experience were to arise, I would have no qualms with breezing over the subject of evolutionary theory. Ethics, critical thinking, experimentation and just how to address information are things that I would have wished for a more in depth lecture of during my science classes, which got fantastic scores in state testing....and were a complete joke as we weren't presented the skills that should be the primary goal of a primary education. On the list of things I hope for my future children to receive from education, the theory of evolution is not very high, let alone essential. However, the ability it has to provoke thought and show how the development of scientific theory works....That needs to be present, and if its in the form of discussing the theories of how we came to be, well great. That works, and the story of Darwin and the basics of theory that survived well beyond him worked great for me. Hence my wording.

I guess what I'm saying contradicts your words. I don't mean it in argument. You can just ask if something seems unclear. Its just my longstanding position on the subject, which apparently needed clarification.

Your ambivalence is based on a lack of understanding. The topic of evolution is integral to modern biology. You would seek to handicap secondary students who wanted to go on to tertiary education. No biological sciences degree in the world would not contain units relating to evolutionary theory. Here is a brief course outline from Oxford:

https://www.ox.ac.uk...#
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 2:08:06 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 12:02:11 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:17:32 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/15/2016 6:32:01 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/15/2016 1:13:08 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:20:39 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Kind of disheartening. Thought this was centralized at the ark museum.



Evolution, in the Darwinian sense, has been convincingly explained to me, but never proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. I realize how ignorant that makes me sound, to the righteously correct, but its just another explanation for something we don't know in my opinion, with uncontradictory proof, but not concrete to my knowledge at this time. I don't really have an issue with it being taught, nor would I fault schools for skipping it all together. Its best implementation was relayed to me by a student in an environmental school who claimed it was presented to students, as with many things, in multiple ways and simply explaining in terms of thought and methodology in theory, not fact, not the only view. The fossil record is undeniable however, and downright inspiring for many young minds. Let them make up their own mind on it....It won't hurt anything nor help if we are being honest.

You seem a little confused. There is no such thing as proof in science. There is only mountains and mountains of evidence. The ToE has that. When a theory such as the ToE has such a weight of evidence behind it, has lasted for 150 years, has been repeatedly confirmed by every new discovery (such as DNA) then it attains the status of fact, or at least as close as you can get to fact in science. There are no other contending scientific theories to explain the diversity of life. A school which 'skips' teaching such a fundamental aspect of biology is criminally negligent towards its students. It is done for only one reason - because it conflicts with silly religious beliefs. That is a lousy basis to censor the science curriculum.

No not confused, nor do I believe I implied anything for which you seem to be attempting to address....Proof in science for example. This was not addressed nor implied. The word science was not even used. The primary focus of the comment was presentation of the topic in our educational systems.

Wrong on both counts. Firstly, the ToE is a scientific theory. When you discuss evolution you are discussing science. Secondly, your words were "but never proven beyond the shadow of a doubt".

Addressing your statement, I believe evolution has not been proven to be fundamental to biology.

There you go with proven again.

https://www.nap.edu...

In short, biological evolution accounts for three of the most fundamental features of the world around us: the similarities among living things, the diversity of life, and many features of the physical world we inhabit. Explanations of these phenomena in terms of evolution draw on results from physics, chemistry, geology, many areas of biology, and other sciences. Thus, evolution is the central organizing principle that biologists use to understand the world. To teach biology without explaining evolution deprives students of a powerful concept that brings great order and coherence to our understanding of life.

In terms of things we study, its not been proven to be anything but a luxury....We test, and refine the theories of evolution with new concepts, and discoveries, not the other way around. One day I hope to be corrected, and look forward to reviewing the research, and its application to the world.

That will be a red letter day indeed.

This was stated in my previous post, but it is part of the equation for stating I would have no issue with it not being taught at all in our education system.

Because you have no concern with handicapping students. Isn't it funny how people like you never state that they have no issue with germ theory or the theory of atoms not being taught in schools. It is always the ToE and the Big Bang. An inquiring mind wonders, why?

Had we lacked the interest, we could exist with all things we have today, including our advancements without the theory of evolution, aside from the interesting literature.

See the link above. Sure we could exist, but civilization would be the poorer for it. We could exist without the discovery of semi-conductors and computer chips too. Somewhat of a peurile argument. Knowledge is far more preferable than ignorance.

I wasn't saying we'd just exist. We could exist with everything we have today, without the Darwinian theory of evolution. How would we be poorer for it? What could we possibly not do without the theory? Again not arguing, I've been waiting to hear something new for a long time.

Aside from inspiration of individuals undertaking more useful research, and the quirks of fate that resulted it has not contributed physically to our society. That inspiration, the interesting aspect, is the only merit I see in it.

Then you must be blind. Even if evolution had no practical benefits (which it very much does despite your assertions) it would still be invaluable for aiding our understanding of the world around us. Some people may not care about understanding the world because they are content to get their answers from primitives who wrote stuff in a holy book. Thinking people, including the majority of theists, do care and accept and embrace evolutionary theory.

What are they? We could still breed. We could still classify every living thing on earth. We could still consider the advantages of biodiversity in ecology. We could still account for changing pathogens. We could still have all of our technology. We could focus work on other things. We could still study, model, and manipulate DNA. We would still have the fossil record. We could still date life on earth. We could still recognize specific genetic populations. We could still use fossils for attempting to reconstruct previous climates. We could still watch football on Sundays. What could we not do?

If a more rewarding subject/experience were to arise, I would have no qualms with breezing over the subject of evolutionary theory. Ethics, critical thinking, experimentation and just how to address information are things that I would have wished for a more in depth lecture of during my science classes, which got fantastic scores in state testing....and were a complete joke as we weren't presented the skills that should be the primary goal of a primary education. On the list of things I hope for my future children to receive from education, the theory of evolution is not very high, let alone essential. However, the ability it has to provoke thought and show how the development of scientific theory works....That needs to be present, and if its in the form of discussing the theories of how we came to be, well great. That works, and the story of Darwin and the basics of theory that survived well beyond him worked great for me. Hence my wording.

I guess what I'm saying contradicts your words. I don't mean it in argument. You can just ask if something seems unclear. Its just my longstanding position on the subject, which apparently needed clarification.

Your ambivalence is based on a lack of understanding. The topic of evolution is integral to modern biology. You would seek to handicap secondary students who wanted to go on to tertiary education. No biological sciences degree in the world would not contain units relating to evolutionary theory. Here is a brief course outline from Oxford:

https://www.ox.ac.uk...#

Nothing in there requires ToE, aside from ToE itself. I do hope this doesn't turn into a creation vs evolution thread
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 5:33:22 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 2:08:06 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/17/2016 12:02:11 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:17:32 PM, Quadrunner wrote:

No not confused, nor do I believe I implied anything for which you seem to be attempting to address....Proof in science for example. This was not addressed nor implied. The word science was not even used. The primary focus of the comment was presentation of the topic in our educational systems.

Wrong on both counts. Firstly, the ToE is a scientific theory. When you discuss evolution you are discussing science. Secondly, your words were "but never proven beyond the shadow of a doubt".

No apology?

Addressing your statement, I believe evolution has not been proven to be fundamental to biology.

There you go with proven again.

https://www.nap.edu...

In short, biological evolution accounts for three of the most fundamental features of the world around us: the similarities among living things, the diversity of life, and many features of the physical world we inhabit. Explanations of these phenomena in terms of evolution draw on results from physics, chemistry, geology, many areas of biology, and other sciences. Thus, evolution is the central organizing principle that biologists use to understand the world. To teach biology without explaining evolution deprives students of a powerful concept that brings great order and coherence to our understanding of life.

So it is fundamental to biology, right?

In terms of things we study, its not been proven to be anything but a luxury....We test, and refine the theories of evolution with new concepts, and discoveries, not the other way around. One day I hope to be corrected, and look forward to reviewing the research, and its application to the world.

That will be a red letter day indeed.

This was stated in my previous post, but it is part of the equation for stating I would have no issue with it not being taught at all in our education system.

Because you have no concern with handicapping students. Isn't it funny how people like you never state that they have no issue with germ theory or the theory of atoms not being taught in schools. It is always the ToE and the Big Bang. An inquiring mind wonders, why?

No answer?

Had we lacked the interest, we could exist with all things we have today, including our advancements without the theory of evolution, aside from the interesting literature.

See the link above. Sure we could exist, but civilization would be the poorer for it. We could exist without the discovery of semi-conductors and computer chips too. Somewhat of a peurile argument. Knowledge is far more preferable than ignorance.

I wasn't saying we'd just exist. We could exist with everything we have today, without the Darwinian theory of evolution. How would we be poorer for it?

Not having a complete understanding of the world, of course. As with any other fundamental knowledge. D'oh.

What could we possibly not do without the theory? Again not arguing, I've been waiting to hear something new for a long time.

So, pure research is of no value to you? If a discovery about nature has no immediate practical application then it is useless?

You're not paying attention. Are there any vital practical applications for astronomy? Do you suggest that humanity would be no worse off if we didn't study the stars? Of course not. Knowledge is its own reward. We do it because we want to understand our place in the universe. Or at least most of us do.

Aside from inspiration of individuals undertaking more useful research, and the quirks of fate that resulted it has not contributed physically to our society. That inspiration, the interesting aspect, is the only merit I see in it.

Then you must be blind. Even if evolution had no practical benefits (which it very much does despite your assertions) it would still be invaluable for aiding our understanding of the world around us. Some people may not care about understanding the world because they are content to get their answers from primitives who wrote stuff in a holy book. Thinking people, including the majority of theists, do care and accept and embrace evolutionary theory.

What are they? We could still breed. We could still classify every living thing on earth. We could still consider the advantages of biodiversity in ecology. We could still account for changing pathogens. We could still have all of our technology. We could focus work on other things. We could still study, model, and manipulate DNA. We would still have the fossil record. We could still date life on earth. We could still recognize specific genetic populations. We could still use fossils for attempting to reconstruct previous climates. We could still watch football on Sundays. What could we not do?

Did you bother to read the link I provided? Evolution ties all those things together in one unifying theory explaining the diversity of all life on Earth. It was inevitable that if the theory did not originate with Darwin that it would have been discovered sooner or later as a result of study and discoveries in the areas you have listed. The theory produces order out of chaos. How could you possibly argue that it is of no importance?

If a more rewarding subject/experience were to arise, I would have no qualms with breezing over the subject of evolutionary theory. Ethics, critical thinking, experimentation and just how to address information are things that I would have wished for a more in depth lecture of during my science classes, which got fantastic scores in state testing....and were a complete joke as we weren't presented the skills that should be the primary goal of a primary education. On the list of things I hope for my future children to receive from education, the theory of evolution is not very high, let alone essential. However, the ability it has to provoke thought and show how the development of scientific theory works....That needs to be present, and if its in the form of discussing the theories of how we came to be, well great. That works, and the story of Darwin and the basics of theory that survived well beyond him worked great for me. Hence my wording.

I guess what I'm saying contradicts your words. I don't mean it in argument. You can just ask if something seems unclear. Its just my longstanding position on the subject, which apparently needed clarification.

Your ambivalence is based on a lack of understanding. The topic of evolution is integral to modern biology. You would seek to handicap secondary students who wanted to go on to tertiary education. No biological sciences degree in the world would not contain units relating to evolutionary theory. Here is a brief course outline from Oxford:

https://www.ox.ac.uk...#

Nothing in there requires ToE, aside from ToE itself. I do hope this doesn't turn into a creation vs evolution thread.

And there I was thinking you were serious. Perhaps you would care to explain why you think evolution is taught in biology courses if it is absolutely irrelevant as you claim? Are there idiots running our colleges and universities? Do you know better than the academics who sit on boards and decide the biology curriculums around the world? Perhaps you think it is all a gigantic conspiracy?
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 11:29:48 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 5:33:22 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/17/2016 2:08:06 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/17/2016 12:02:11 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:17:32 PM, Quadrunner wrote:

No not confused, nor do I believe I implied anything for which you seem to be attempting to address....Proof in science for example. This was not addressed nor implied. The word science was not even used. The primary focus of the comment was presentation of the topic in our educational systems.

Wrong on both counts. Firstly, the ToE is a scientific theory. When you discuss evolution you are discussing science. Secondly, your words were "but never proven beyond the shadow of a doubt".

Discussing evolution is not synonymous with science. Logic, imagination, and reasoning were used to create it. Logic is used to prove things. Its unproven, to my knowledge. Science tests things. Its okay, that you took implication. Done.

No apology?

Sorry, for what?


Addressing your statement, I believe evolution has not been proven to be fundamental to biology.

There you go with proven again.



In short, biological evolution accounts for three of the most fundamental features of the world around us: the similarities among living things, the diversity of life, and many features of the physical world we inhabit. Explanations of these phenomena in terms of evolution draw on results from physics, chemistry, geology, many areas of biology, and other sciences. Thus, evolution is the central organizing principle that biologists use to understand the world. To teach biology without explaining evolution deprives students of a powerful concept that brings great order and coherence to our understanding of life.

So it is fundamental to biology, right?

No. It is built in attempt to explain how things came to be through our natural observations. It is not a building block, nor definitively proven, to me.






This was stated in my previous post, but it is part of the equation for stating I would have no issue with it not being taught at all in our education system.

Because you have no concern with handicapping students. Isn't it funny how people like you never state that they have no issue with germ theory or the theory of atoms not being taught in schools. It is always the ToE and the Big Bang. An inquiring mind wonders, why?

No answer?

Ran out of words. "People like me" is a gross generalization as you don't know me, nor understand where I come from yet as I've been explaining myself. This did not warrant the effort. Not a big deal, sorry.

Had we lacked the interest, we could exist with all things we have today, including our advancements without the theory of evolution, aside from the interesting literature.

See the link above. Sure we could exist, but civilization would be the poorer for it. We could exist without the discovery of semi-conductors and computer chips too. Somewhat of a peurile argument. Knowledge is far more preferable than ignorance.

I wasn't saying we'd just exist. We could exist with everything we have today, without the Darwinian theory of evolution. How would we be poorer for it?

Not having a complete understanding of the world, of course. As with any other fundamental knowledge. D'oh.

Well okay then...Who does have a complete understanding? Where did they go to school?

What could we possibly not do without the theory? Again not arguing, I've been waiting to hear something new for a long time.

So, pure research is of no value to you? If a discovery about nature has no immediate practical application then it is useless?

It is, just not so much as you.

You're not paying attention. Are there any vital practical applications for astronomy?

Now you are getting it. There is just only so much time to educate them, and if we were to come up with something better, (we have in astronomy's case) I'd have no problem skimming over astronomy, as its not essential. Its not a for or against thing. I just recognize that the system could be reformed without it, as its not essential.


Aside from inspiration of individuals undertaking more useful research, and the quirks of fate that resulted it has not contributed physically to our society. That inspiration, the interesting aspect, is the only merit I see in it.

Then you must be blind. Even if evolution had no practical benefits (which it very much does despite your assertions) it would still be invaluable for aiding our understanding of the world around us. Some people may not care about understanding the world because they are content to get their answers from primitives who wrote stuff in a holy book. Thinking people, including the majority of theists, do care and accept and embrace evolutionary theory.

What are they?..... What could we not do?

Did you bother to read the link I provided? Evolution ties all those things together in one unifying theory explaining the diversity of all life on Earth. It was inevitable that if the theory did not originate with Darwin that it would have been discovered sooner or later as a result of study and discoveries in the areas you have listed. The theory produces order out of chaos. How could you possibly argue that it is of no importance?

Evolution is tied together by all those things. Its only natural that it "unified them", because they were 'all' used in refining it. I did not argue that, or at all really. Just asking...I would project that the theory was inevitable without Darwin as well, but I'm open minded, and don't discount the possibility that someone could have overshadowed it with a "better" one, just as his was overshadowed, and might still be again some day.

If a more rewarding subject/experience were to arise, I would have no qualms with breezing over the subject of evolutionary theory. Ethics, critical thinking, experimentation and just how to address information are things that I would have wished for a more in depth lecture of during my science classes, which got fantastic scores in state testing....and were a complete joke as we weren't presented the skills that should be the primary goal of a primary education. On the list of things I hope for my future children to receive from education, the theory of evolution is not very high, let alone essential. However, the ability it has to provoke thought and show how the development of scientific theory works....That needs to be present, and if its in the form of discussing the theories of how we came to be, well great. That works, and the story of Darwin and the basics of theory that survived well beyond him worked great for me. Hence my wording.

I guess what I'm saying contradicts your words. I don't mean it in argument. You can just ask if something seems unclear. Its just my longstanding position on the subject, which apparently needed clarification.



https://www.ox.ac.uk...#

Nothing in there requires ToE, aside from ToE itself. I do hope this doesn't turn into a creation vs evolution thread.

And there I was thinking you were serious. Perhaps you would care to explain why you think evolution is taught in biology courses if it is absolutely irrelevant as you claim? Are there idiots running our colleges and universities? Do you know better than the academics who sit on boards and decide the biology curriculums around the world?

I am serious? I don't care...I already gave great reasons to keep it. You've given other reasons. Its an adequate tool in education.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Annnaxim
Posts: 221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 11:49:48 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 5:33:22 AM, dee-em wrote:
Evolution ties all those things together in one unifying theory explaining the diversity of all life on Earth. It was inevitable that if the theory did not originate with Darwin that it would have been discovered sooner or later as a result of study and discoveries in the areas you have listed.

More than that...

Modern science is like a web in which disciplines support one another. Geology, palaeontology, plate tectonics, biology and anthropology all hang together. Geology, palaeontology and evolution depend on the correctness of dating methods, which are based on knowledge in physics and chemistry.

What I'm trying to say is, you can't take one piece out and negate it, without negating the rest of science.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 12:12:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 11:29:48 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:33:22 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/17/2016 2:08:06 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/17/2016 12:02:11 AM, dee-em wrote:

Wrong on both counts. Firstly, the ToE is a scientific theory. When you discuss evolution you are discussing science. Secondly, your words were "but never proven beyond the shadow of a doubt".

Discussing evolution is not synonymous with science. Logic, imagination, and reasoning were used to create it. Logic is used to prove things. Its unproven, to my knowledge. Science tests things. Its okay, that you took implication. Done.

No apology?

Sorry, for what?

This dishonest response alone confirms to me my earlier suspicion that you were trolling. We are done. Begone troll.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 12:15:28 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 11:49:48 AM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:33:22 AM, dee-em wrote:
Evolution ties all those things together in one unifying theory explaining the diversity of all life on Earth. It was inevitable that if the theory did not originate with Darwin that it would have been discovered sooner or later as a result of study and discoveries in the areas you have listed.

More than that...

Modern science is like a web in which disciplines support one another. Geology, palaeontology, plate tectonics, biology and anthropology all hang together. Geology, palaeontology and evolution depend on the correctness of dating methods, which are based on knowledge in physics and chemistry.

Indeed.

What I'm trying to say is, you can't take one piece out and negate it, without negating the rest of science.

That's a little too broad, but I understand your point.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 12:15:52 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 12:12:04 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/17/2016 11:29:48 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:33:22 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/17/2016 2:08:06 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/17/2016 12:02:11 AM, dee-em wrote:


Sorry about the chains guys. I didn't mean to clutter up the thread.

Wrong on both counts. Firstly, the ToE is a scientific theory. When you discuss evolution you are discussing science. Secondly, your words were "but never proven beyond the shadow of a doubt".

Discussing evolution is not synonymous with science. Logic, imagination, and reasoning were used to create it. Logic is used to prove things. Its unproven, to my knowledge. Science tests things. Its okay, that you took implication. Done.

No apology?

Sorry, for what?

This dishonest response alone confirms to me my earlier suspicion that you were trolling. We are done. Begone troll.

Okay.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 10:03:00 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 8:26:19 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:


The anti-creationist lobby has much in common with the Catholic thought police who imprisoned Galileo and forbade him expressing or teaching his ideas.


Except that the catholic thought police would be creationists, so your analogy is somewhat bizarre. If anyone is the modern day thought police it is the creationist movement which is more of a media campaign than an organisation dedicated to free expression of thought.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 10:05:48 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 8:31:47 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:


We should include in our schools a Philosophy Class. This is the best way to teach our children to discern for themselves what is trustworthy, what is truthful.

Teach children HOW to think then let them out into the world prepared, do not indoctrinate them into this or that ideology or world view, they MUST be the ones who DECIDE what they believe, they must find out for themselves what's true and what's not.

I totally agree. Children should not be allowed in churches for the same reason.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 12:17:06 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 8:31:47 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/15/2016 1:22:20 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 10:41:02 AM, Emilrose wrote:
Well obviously creationism is taught in *some* parts of Europe...which has a pretty diverse set of cultures as a continent. The minister of science (in Croatia for example) identifies as a creationist. There's definitely a few countries that are still quite backwards.

I don't view them as backwards. This was more of a snide comment on Americans always looking to Europe and putting ourselves down. I don't think creationism should be taught in school, especially science class, but I also am not repulsed by one who may still believe in their faiths creation story.

We should include in our schools a Philosophy Class. This is the best way to teach our children to discern for themselves what is trustworthy, what is truthful.

Teach children HOW to think then let them out into the world prepared, do not indoctrinate them into this or that ideology or world view, they MUST be the ones who DECIDE what they believe, they must find out for themselves what's true and what's not.

No issue with that.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 12:20:56 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 9:09:21 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/15/2016 8:00:53 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/15/2016 5:27:21 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/15/2016 1:19:32 AM, Stymie13 wrote:

I'm an atheist that defends religion tooth and nail.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Science has little proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Science doesn't "prove" things, fyi.

We, humans, are continuously on a learning curve and I abhor those that censor.

My only real intellectual issue with creationism is this: equal protection and separation of church and state. To teach biblical creation law states schools that take fed funding SHALL (legal FOR has too) teach all. Curriculum would get bogged down with every faiths version of 'how'.

Ya dig?

And your point?

That you appear to be the furthest thing from an atheist.

Glad you read minds. Religion is a concept. Religion is not god. A-theism is Greek for without god. I do not believe in a personified deity. It doesn't mean I can't respect the cultural contributions and charitable works of 'religions' around the world (as well as inspired artwork, architecture, and literature).

Just because one doesn't believe in something doesn't mean they need to be a douche bag about incsome vain attempt to appear 'intellectual'.

That is hubris which fills many online forums.