Art Vandelay wrote:I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're being hyperbolic when you say the word "God" can't be mentioned in schools. That is demonstrably false. It's been a while since I was in school, but when I was, we learned about all of the world's major religions. I still remember my 7th grade social studies teacher, who was also my catechism teacher at the time, getting on me for failing an open-book quiz no Christianity. Also, the Big Bang Theory is still (last time I was taught it anyway) presented as a theory with dissenting opinion. Many people who want creation taught in schools think it should be presented as The One True Way.
Honestly I don't know. I know he's been taught about Hindu and Muslim religions along with "cultures" all over the world, and I know he's been taught about the Big Bang Theory and Evolution. There hasn't been one mention of Christianity though. I also don't know how the Big Bang Theory and Evolution were presented to him, but he sure took it as though the Big Bang created everything and then humans evolved from the ooze. Which of course confused the heck out of him.
So no, I don't know exactly what or how those are being taught, but it is irrelevant because "IF" they are teaching the Big Bang as a "theory" (like they should be), then they should teach all the alternatives to that (which includes God). Teach them all or teach none. Doesn't matter to me, as long as they are fair about it.
If you apply that standard (teach all alternatives to every theory), nothing would ever get done. Teaching the most well-accepted (by the scientific community) and best available science is really all we can hope for in science classes.
bleach168 wrote:I guess 61% of Americans don't have internet access because I'm still waiting for someone to claim evolution is a lie.
Depends on the use of "evolution". If they mean man evolved from the ooze, then I've already said I don't believe that and it's no surprise the majority of the world doesn't believe that, because the majority of the world believes in a higher being of some sort. If they mean "evolution" as in humans, animals, plants, evolving due to nature and need, then sure, that does happen and I do believe that (as most people do). So it really depends on what definiton of "evolution" they mean.
I understand you don't believe ooze->humans, but I'm curious whether or not you or others in this thread believe that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor or at least think it is possible.
Art Vandelay wrote:If you apply that standard (teach all alternatives to every theory), nothing would ever get done. Teaching the most well-accepted (by the scientific community) and best available science is really all we can hope for in science classes.
I agree to a point. I just don't like to hear a "theory" taught without having the other alternatives taught. There's a ton of science that is factual that can be taught instead if teachers and schools think it is too big of a task to give every theory a fair shake.
KCollins1304 wrote:
Madison wrote:
bleach168 wrote:I guess 61% of Americans don't have internet access because I'm still waiting for someone to claim evolution is a lie.
Depends on the use of "evolution". If they mean man evolved from the ooze, then I've already said I don't believe that and it's no surprise the majority of the world doesn't believe that, because the majority of the world believes in a higher being of some sort. If they mean "evolution" as in humans, animals, plants, evolving due to nature and need, then sure, that does happen and I do believe that (as most people do). So it really depends on what definiton of "evolution" they mean.
I understand you don't believe ooze->humans, but I'm curious whether or not you or others in this thread believe that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor or at least think it is possible.
I can't speak for others, but I find it doubtful. I think it's far more likely that simply the outliers of each specie (humans and monkeys) resemble each other closely. There are tons of animals, insects, and plants that heavily resemble each other (even more if you study the extreme outliers), so there is no surprise to me that something resembles man. I cannot say "No, it isn't possible" and state it as fact because I don't know that to be a fact, but I do not believe it.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Art Vandelay wrote:If you apply that standard (teach all alternatives to every theory), nothing would ever get done. Teaching the most well-accepted (by the scientific community) and best available science is really all we can hope for in science classes.
I agree to a point. I just don't like to hear a "theory" taught without having the other alternatives taught. There's a ton of science that is factual that can be taught instead if teachers and schools think it is too big of a task to give every theory a fair shake.
I think we're using different definitions of the word theory. Plate techtonics is a theory. Gravity is a theory...should we also make schools teach alternatives to what it is that keeps us on the ground?
Art Vandelay wrote:If you apply that standard (teach all alternatives to every theory), nothing would ever get done. Teaching the most well-accepted (by the scientific community) and best available science is really all we can hope for in science classes.
I agree to a point. I just don't like to hear a "theory" taught without having the other alternatives taught. There's a ton of science that is factual that can be taught instead if teachers and schools think it is too big of a task to give every theory a fair shake.
I think we're using different definitions of the word theory. Plate techtonics is a theory. Gravity is a theory...should we also make schools teach alternatives to what it is that keeps us on the ground?
We must be. I can spin a ball and create gravity, so I've always considered that to be factual. Same goes for showing the plates shifting in the ocean (recreated in an aquarium).
Can't recreate the Big Bang though.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison wrote: I agree to a point. I just don't like to hear a "theory" taught without having the other alternatives taught. There's a ton of science that is factual that can be taught instead if teachers and schools think it is too big of a task to give every theory a fair shake.
I think we're using different definitions of the word theory. Plate techtonics is a theory. Gravity is a theory...should we also make schools teach alternatives to what it is that keeps us on the ground?
We must be. I can spin a ball and create gravity, so I've always considered that to be factual. Same goes for showing the plates shifting in the ocean (recreated in an aquarium).
Can't recreate the Big Bang though.
It's been a while since I took physics, but I'm pretty sure that a spinning ball doesn't create gravity. And I'm certain that you can't recreate plate techtonics in a acquarium. You can simulate it, but that's different. But that's neither here nor there, the point is, just because something is a scientific theory, doesn't mean it's without merit. In fact, quite the opposite. You seem to be equating 'theory' to 'hypothesis,' when in reality a scientific theory is much closer to 'law'.
Art Vandelay wrote:It's been a while since I took physics, but I'm pretty sure that a spinning ball doesn't create gravity. And I'm certain that you can't recreate plate techtonics in a acquarium. You can simulate it, but that's different. But that's neither here nor there, the point is, just because something is a scientific theory, doesn't mean it's without merit. In fact, quite the opposite. You seem to be equating 'theory' to 'hypothesis,' when in reality a scientific theory is much closer to 'law'.
Ok, so I can simulate it. Close enough.
I definitely know what a hypothesis is, and most of those turn out wrong, so no, I don't equate theory to hypothesis.
josebach wrote:Here's a pretty informative, easy to understand and inoffensive video on evolution.
10 minutes, so I'll give it a look later and let you know what I think.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by 
