# how would you feel if a creationist taught your kids science?



## blu

"13 percent of biology teachers back creationism"

13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com

Personally, if it was shown that they refused to teach actual science in the classroom I would work to have them removed and their teaching license revoked. If they separated their beliefs and their teaching then its all good.


----------



## AllieBaba

Douche, believing in God does not preclude teaching science, or believing in science. 

Many mathematicians are Christian, too. I suppose you would support a sweep of the schools, like the commies and nazis are fond of doing?


----------



## uscitizen

As long as they taught science and not religion it would be fine with me.

Keep your religion anf your job seperate, unless religion is your job.


----------



## AllieBaba

We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.


----------



## JBeukema

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3My4MHr51c&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## AllieBaba

Puke's hitting the substances again.


----------



## JBeukema




----------



## JBeukema

blu said:


> "13 percent of biology teachers back creationism"
> 
> 13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com
> 
> Personally, if it was shown that they refused to teach actual science in the classroom I would work to have them removed and their teaching license revoked. If they separated their beliefs and their teaching then its all good.


----------



## blu

AllieBaba said:


> Douche, believing in God does not preclude teaching science, or believing in science.
> 
> Many mathematicians are Christian, too. I suppose you would support a sweep of the schools, like the commies and nazis are fond of doing?



yea I am pretty sure I said that if you keep it separate its fine with me


----------



## blu

AllieBaba said:


> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.



there is no room for myths in science instruction


----------



## RetiredGySgt

AllieBaba said:


> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.



In a science class and a Biology class there is a reason, unless a school district allows creationism to be taught.

But my question to the OP is how would you feel if an atheist taught your children about Science? Or a person that so firmly believes science has all the answers as to be a form of religion?


----------



## del

JBeukema said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> "13 percent of biology teachers back creationism"
> 
> 13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com
> 
> Personally, if it was shown that they refused to teach actual science in the classroom I would work to have them removed and their teaching license revoked. If they separated their beliefs and their teaching then its all good.
Click to expand...


----------



## blu

RetiredGySgt said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a science class and a Biology class there is a reason, unless a school district allows creationism to be taught.
> 
> But my question to the OP is how would you feel if an atheist taught your children about Science? Or a person that so firmly believes science has all the answers as to be a form of religion?
Click to expand...


as I said in the first post, as long as the religion is kept separate I really don't care. you could believe in whatever religion you want as long as you don't replace actual science with it.  

the linked story dealt with teachers who were teaching creationism over biology int heir classrooms due to their personal beliefs. that is completely unacceptable.


----------



## Foxfyre

I don't believe that I've ever had a science teacher who was not a creationist or who at least allowed his/her students to be creationists.  And I got an excellent science education without having to denounce my faith or religious beliefs.

A scientist leaves open room for all manner of theories, ideas, concepts, speculation, and even beliefs so long as such is not presented as 'settled science'.  Only the most close minded would suggest that there is no way a supernatural being was involved in the process when there is no scientific method by which such a statement can be made.

It should not be taught as science, but any teacher who denies creationism or intelligent design has no business teaching science at all.


----------



## blu

Foxfyre said:


> I don't believe that I've ever had a science teacher who was not a creationist or who at least allowed his/her students to be creationists.  And I got an excellent science education without having to denounce my faith or religious beliefs.
> 
> A scientist leaves open room for all manner of theories, ideas, concepts, speculation, and even beliefs so long as such is not presented as 'settled science'.  Only the most close minded would suggest that there is no way a supernatural being was involved in the process when there is no scientific method by which such a statement can be made.
> 
> It should not be taught as science,* but any teacher who denies creationism or intelligent design has no business teaching science at all.*



I would love to here this explained.....


----------



## Foxfyre

blu said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that I've ever had a science teacher who was not a creationist or who at least allowed his/her students to be creationists.  And I got an excellent science education without having to denounce my faith or religious beliefs.
> 
> A scientist leaves open room for all manner of theories, ideas, concepts, speculation, and even beliefs so long as such is not presented as 'settled science'.  Only the most close minded would suggest that there is no way a supernatural being was involved in the process when there is no scientific method by which such a statement can be made.
> 
> It should not be taught as science,* but any teacher who denies creationism or intelligent design has no business teaching science at all.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to here this explained.....
Click to expand...


Well I must be getting older than I thought because I thought I did explain it.

If a teacher presumes to teach his/her students that there is no such thing as a Creator or Intelligent Designer, he/she is not teaching science but is teaching religion.  And teaching it badly at that.  As science.   Just won't fly.

I don't care what the teacher's personal beliefs are because they are irrelevent.  If creationism or intelligent design has no place in science class, then neither does denial of creationism or intelligent design have a place in science class.


----------



## blu

Foxfyre said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that I've ever had a science teacher who was not a creationist or who at least allowed his/her students to be creationists.  And I got an excellent science education without having to denounce my faith or religious beliefs.
> 
> A scientist leaves open room for all manner of theories, ideas, concepts, speculation, and even beliefs so long as such is not presented as 'settled science'.  Only the most close minded would suggest that there is no way a supernatural being was involved in the process when there is no scientific method by which such a statement can be made.
> 
> It should not be taught as science,* but any teacher who denies creationism or intelligent design has no business teaching science at all.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to here this explained.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I must be getting older than I thought because I thought I did explain it.
> 
> If a teacher presumes to teach his/her students that there is no such thing as a Creator or Intelligent Designer, he/she is not teaching science but is teaching religion.  And teaching it badly at that.  As science.   Just won't fly.
> 
> I don't care what the teacher's personal beliefs are because they are irrelevent.  If creationism or intelligent design has no place in science class, then neither does denial of creationism or intelligent design have a place in science class.
Click to expand...


you are using really faulty arguments here. science is based on what can be proven and disproven and as implied by faith god or the role of a supernatural being can never be proven or disproven. 

disproving creationism through science is really easy though without having to worry about what a god did or didnt do... examples:

1) creationism requires a earth of only 6k years old... we can see objects millions of light years away
2) the text that describes creationism says that the moon provides ligt which is provably false
3) the same text bred the flat earth theory which we know is false
4) creationism (6k years) also cannot explain even basic geography and natural structures that would require millions of years to develop (e.g. grand canyon)

creationism has no room in science classes period, its simply another creation myth that should be taught with all the others


----------



## Foxfyre

To Blu:

The criteria for science is that any hypothesis must be falsifiable.

There is no way to falsify the existence of a Creator or Intelligent Designer, therefore it is outside the realm of science to evaluate or teach as science either pro or con.

1.  A tiny percentage of creationists believe the Earth is 6k or so years old.  I have never believed that.  I have never been taught that by any religious mentor.  I have never had a science teacher who believed that and I have had at least one who was an ordained minister.  I am a devout Creationist and I have had no requirement to believe anything other than what is considered to be scientific criteria.  I have taught classes in which one or two students believed the literal translation of scripture.  All the teacher has to do in such a case is that the students' beliefs are fine.  And the student is allowed to believe that the scientific theories about the age of the Earth and the Universe are wrong.  But the student will have to pass the test just the same.

You are sadly mistaken if you think Creationism requires a 6k year old Earth.

2.  There are two creation stories in Genesis back to back in Chapters 1 and 2.  The first Creation story--the one most often taught--was one of the most recent manuscripts included in the "Old Testament" and was intended to be a metaphorical theological statement affirming that all that exists does so at the command of God.   It was not written by men trained in science but by devout men who looked to God for all they have ever been or will be.     The second creation story is one of the oldest manuscripts in the "Old Testament' and taught an anthropological methaporical description of how sin came into the world and spoiled God's perfect creation.  Netiher were ever intended to be taken literally.

You are sadly mistaken if you think Creationism requires a literal translation of the opening chapters of Genesis.

3.  You are sadly mistaken if you think that text bred the flat Earth theory or even dealt with the physical structure of the Earth.  What bred the flat Earth theory was visual perception and inability to see the contour of the Earth until Columbus figured it out.

4.  Even science cannot PROVE how anything actually came into being and theories and concepts are constantly changing as we learn more and more.  What was settled science ten years ago or a hundred years ago often no longer is.  For you to condemn Creationism based on your erroneous interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures doesn't make you a scientist.  It does make you a lousy Bible student.


----------



## AllieBaba

blu said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no room for myths in science instruction
Click to expand...


Really?

Guess we need to get rid of all the "theories". Theory is really just another word for "guess".


----------



## Big Black Dog

What would Jesus do?


----------



## Mini 14

blu said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to here this explained.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I must be getting older than I thought because I thought I did explain it.
> 
> If a teacher presumes to teach his/her students that there is no such thing as a Creator or Intelligent Designer, he/she is not teaching science but is teaching religion.  And teaching it badly at that.  As science.   Just won't fly.
> 
> I don't care what the teacher's personal beliefs are because they are irrelevent.  If creationism or intelligent design has no place in science class, then neither does denial of creationism or intelligent design have a place in science class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are using really faulty arguments here. science is based on what can be proven and disproven and as implied by faith god or the role of a supernatural being can never be proven or disproven.
> 
> disproving creationism through science is really easy though without having to worry about what a god did or didnt do... examples:
> 
> 1) creationism requires a earth of only 6k years old... we can see objects millions of light years away
> 2) the text that describes creationism says that the moon provides ligt which is provably false
> 3) the same text bred the flat earth theory which we know is false
> 4) creationism (6k years) also cannot explain even basic geography and natural structures that would require millions of years to develop (e.g. grand canyon)
> 
> creationism has no room in science classes period, its simply another creation myth that should be taught with all the others
Click to expand...


So something that can be neither proven, nor "disproven," is not "Science?"

Then, by your definition, AGW is a religion (or a myth), right? It should be taught with all the other myths, because it can't be proven or "disproven?"

I am a creationist who believes in evolution. I do not subscribe to the 6k year theory you wish to project upon all those who believe in creation, nor do I consider our breadth of knowledge to encompass all of Science, or religion.


----------



## blu

AllieBaba said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no room for myths in science instruction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Guess we need to get rid of all the "theories". Theory is really just another word for "guess".
Click to expand...


LOL what a bafoon you are.


----------



## blu

Mini 14 said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I must be getting older than I thought because I thought I did explain it.
> 
> If a teacher presumes to teach his/her students that there is no such thing as a Creator or Intelligent Designer, he/she is not teaching science but is teaching religion.  And teaching it badly at that.  As science.   Just won't fly.
> 
> I don't care what the teacher's personal beliefs are because they are irrelevent.  If creationism or intelligent design has no place in science class, then neither does denial of creationism or intelligent design have a place in science class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are using really faulty arguments here. science is based on what can be proven and disproven and as implied by faith god or the role of a supernatural being can never be proven or disproven.
> 
> disproving creationism through science is really easy though without having to worry about what a god did or didnt do... examples:
> 
> 1) creationism requires a earth of only 6k years old... we can see objects millions of light years away
> 2) the text that describes creationism says that the moon provides ligt which is provably false
> 3) the same text bred the flat earth theory which we know is false
> 4) creationism (6k years) also cannot explain even basic geography and natural structures that would require millions of years to develop (e.g. grand canyon)
> 
> creationism has no room in science classes period, its simply another creation myth that should be taught with all the others
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So something that can be neither proven, nor "disproven," is not "Science?"
> 
> Then, by your definition, AGW is a religion (or a myth), right? It should be taught with all the other myths, because it can't be proven or "disproven?"
> 
> I am a creationist who believes in evolution. I do not subscribe to the 6k year theory you wish to project upon all those who believe in creation, nor do I consider our breadth of knowledge to encompass all of Science, or religion.
Click to expand...


haha the king of logical fallacies strikes again with AGW

but yes until science can prove AGW its a myth


----------



## SmarterThanHick

RetiredGySgt said:


> But my question to the OP is how would you feel if an atheist taught your children about Science? Or a person that so firmly believes science has all the answers as to be a form of religion?


Science is not a religion. 



Foxfyre said:


> A scientist leaves open room for all manner of theories, ideas, concepts, speculation, and even beliefs so long as such is not presented as 'settled science'.  Only the most close minded would suggest that there is no way a supernatural being was involved in the process when there is no scientific method by which such a statement can be made.
> 
> It should not be taught as science, but any teacher who denies creationism or intelligent design has no business teaching science at all.


Well, yes and no.  Any scientist who denies something that can't be investigated, or acknowledges it as a possibility, is not doing their job correctly.  The correct answer to "is creationism a possible explanation?" is "there's no way to tell."  Saying either yes OR no are both wrong. In religion, only those two options exist.  In science, "I don't know" is encouraged where applicable.


----------



## AllieBaba

Big Black Dog said:


> What would Jesus do?



Jesus would tell us to put aside worldly wisdom for spiritual wisdom, and stop arguing over minutia. It's all a part of God's creation and plan. The more we understand, the more we should see that.


----------



## syrenn

blu said:


> "13 percent of biology teachers back creationism"
> 
> 13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com
> 
> Personally, if it was shown that they refused to teach actual science in the classroom I would work to have them removed and their teaching license revoked. If they separated their beliefs and their teaching then its all good.




So long as they teach the science without a peep about religion, i really dont care what they believe in.  

If a science teacher refuses to teach  science based on their religion they should find a different line of work. They are not teachers they are preachers.


----------



## California Girl

blu said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no room for myths in science instruction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Guess we need to get rid of all the "theories". Theory is really just another word for "guess".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL what a bafoon you are.
Click to expand...


Scientific theory is an explanation or model based on study, observations, experimentation, and reasoning. It is used to describe one that has been tested and confirmed, but many accepted scientific theories have, with further study, been found to be shit. 

We really need to recognize the difference between scientific theory and scientific facts. Often, the left state theory as fact. A theory is not a fact. And that's a fact.


----------



## rdean

AllieBaba said:


> Douche, believing in God does not preclude teaching science, or believing in science.
> 
> Many mathematicians are Christian, too. I suppose you would support a sweep of the schools, like the commies and nazis are fond of doing?



Math doesn't threaten "mystical and occult" beliefs.


----------



## rdean

blu said:


> "13 percent of biology teachers back creationism"
> 
> 13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com
> 
> Personally, if it was shown that they refused to teach actual science in the classroom I would work to have them removed and their teaching license revoked. If they separated their beliefs and their teaching then its all good.



Unfortunately, the right wing has been teaching the country for years.  They have taught you don't need an education because it's "just a piece of paper".  They have taught the world to laugh at their insulated and dangerous ways.  They have taught they don't understand how the world works.  The evidence is the threats to throw us out of an entire part of the world.  The evidence is the disaster that is Iraq.  The evidence is the economy and the tens of thousands of Americans dead and wounded.  

The good thing - they apologized.

The bad thing - it was to BP.


----------



## AllieBaba

rdean said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Douche, believing in God does not preclude teaching science, or believing in science.
> 
> Many mathematicians are Christian, too. I suppose you would support a sweep of the schools, like the commies and nazis are fond of doing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Math doesn't threaten "mystical and occult" beliefs.
Click to expand...


Math is the basis of genetics and most other sciences, rtard.


----------



## AllieBaba

rdean said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> "13 percent of biology teachers back creationism"
> 
> 13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com
> 
> Personally, if it was shown that they refused to teach actual science in the classroom I would work to have them removed and their teaching license revoked. If they separated their beliefs and their teaching then its all good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the right wing has been teaching the country for years.  They have taught you don't need an education because it's "just a piece of paper".  They have taught the world to laugh at their insulated and dangerous ways.  They have taught they don't understand how the world works.  The evidence is the threats to throw us out of an entire part of the world.  The evidence is the disaster that is Iraq.  The evidence is the economy and the tens of thousands of Americans dead and wounded.
> 
> The good thing - they apologized.
> 
> The bad thing - it was to BP.
Click to expand...


----------



## rdean

AllieBaba said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> "13 percent of biology teachers back creationism"
> 
> 13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com
> 
> Personally, if it was shown that they refused to teach actual science in the classroom I would work to have them removed and their teaching license revoked. If they separated their beliefs and their teaching then its all good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the right wing has been teaching the country for years.  They have taught you don't need an education because it's "just a piece of paper".  They have taught the world to laugh at their insulated and dangerous ways.  They have taught they don't understand how the world works.  The evidence is the threats to throw us out of an entire part of the world.  The evidence is the disaster that is Iraq.  The evidence is the economy and the tens of thousands of Americans dead and wounded.
> 
> The good thing - they apologized.
> 
> The bad thing - it was to BP.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You think that's crazy?  You haven't read the right wing threads on this board.  That's the problem with the right.  There is no introspection.  No self awareness.  They a bulls in a China shop.


----------



## rdean

AllieBaba said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Douche, believing in God does not preclude teaching science, or believing in science.
> 
> Many mathematicians are Christian, too. I suppose you would support a sweep of the schools, like the commies and nazis are fond of doing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Math doesn't threaten "mystical and occult" beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Math is the basis of genetics and most other sciences, rtard.
Click to expand...


Gawd you people are dumb.  Go read the available curriculum at most Bible Colleges.  They don't teach "science".  They teach "natural science".  High school stuff.  Bees pollinate plants and why plants have chlorophyll.

The foundation science for biology, botany and physiology is evolution.  In depth science is simply not taught.  Anything related to "old earth".  Including geology, plate tectonics, astronomy, obviously evolution and so on is either barely touched on or not taught at all.  I've posted to these Bible Colleges many times, including the larger ones such as Bob Jones University.

You really should back up some of your words with proof.  Any kind of proof except "Bible quotes".  Those are not proof.  Those are "fables".


----------



## SmarterThanHick

California Girl said:


> Scientific theory is an explanation or model based on study, observations, experimentation, and reasoning. It is used to describe one that has been tested and confirmed, but many accepted scientific theories have, with further study, been found to be shit.
> 
> We really need to recognize the difference between scientific theory and scientific facts. Often, the left state theory as fact. A theory is not a fact. And that's a fact.


Actually I think YOU need to recognize the difference between scientific theory and fact.  I doubt you know the difference, as you seem to be referring to a scientific theory as a hunch, which it's not.  Gravity is an example of a scientific theory.

Can you tell me the last scientific theory that has been tested and confirmed, and proven wrong later?  I don't mean "scientific theory" like the idea of a flat earth from hundreds of  years ago that had no actual scientific basis.  I'm talking about a theory that adheres to today's standards of that term.


----------



## Intense

blu said:


> "13 percent of biology teachers back creationism"
> 
> 13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com
> 
> Personally, if it was shown that they refused to teach actual science in the classroom I would work to have them removed and their teaching license revoked. If they separated their beliefs and their teaching then its all good.



No problem, if the Teacher is qualified to teach Science. Is this a Witch Hunt or just a Tar and Feathering?


----------



## Intense

SmarterThanHick said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific theory is an explanation or model based on study, observations, experimentation, and reasoning. It is used to describe one that has been tested and confirmed, but many accepted scientific theories have, with further study, been found to be shit.
> 
> We really need to recognize the difference between scientific theory and scientific facts. Often, the left state theory as fact. A theory is not a fact. And that's a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I think YOU need to recognize the difference between scientific theory and fact.  I doubt you know the difference, as you seem to be referring to a scientific theory as a hunch, which it's not.  Gravity is an example of a scientific theory.
> 
> Can you tell me the last scientific theory that has been tested and confirmed, and proven wrong later?  I don't mean "scientific theory" like the idea of a flat earth from hundreds of  years ago that had no actual scientific basis.  I'm talking about a theory that adheres to today's standards of that term.
Click to expand...


The flow of electricity. Magnetism in relation to polarization. We do stumble as we go, but you do already know that.  How about CO2 as a Pollutant???


----------



## IanC

as an atheist I have no problem with religion being taught, just not in science class


----------



## Intense

IanC said:


> as an atheist I have no problem with religion being taught, just not in science class



Total agreement.


----------



## elvis

blu said:


> "13 percent of biology teachers back creationism"
> 
> 13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com
> 
> Personally, if it was shown that they refused to teach actual science in the classroom I would work to have them removed and their teaching license revoked. If they separated their beliefs and their teaching then its all good.



same way an evangelical feels about health classes teaching birth control.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Intense said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific theory is an explanation or model based on study, observations, experimentation, and reasoning. It is used to describe one that has been tested and confirmed, but many accepted scientific theories have, with further study, been found to be shit.
> 
> We really need to recognize the difference between scientific theory and scientific facts. Often, the left state theory as fact. A theory is not a fact. And that's a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I think YOU need to recognize the difference between scientific theory and fact.  I doubt you know the difference, as you seem to be referring to a scientific theory as a hunch, which it's not.  Gravity is an example of a scientific theory.
> 
> Can you tell me the last scientific theory that has been tested and confirmed, and proven wrong later?  I don't mean "scientific theory" like the idea of a flat earth from hundreds of  years ago that had no actual scientific basis.  I'm talking about a theory that adheres to today's standards of that term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The flow of electricity. Magnetism in relation to polarization. We do stumble as we go, but you do already know that.  How about CO2 as a Pollutant???
Click to expand...

None of these are scientific theories.  Yes, we do stumble as we go along in our pursuit of truth, but concepts put forth by scientists, especially controversial topics, should NOT be confused with scientific theory.


----------



## Modbert

Foxfyre said:


> It should not be taught as science, but any teacher who denies creationism or intelligent design has no business teaching science at all.



This part of your post makes no sense.


----------



## elvis

Modbert said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should not be taught as science, but any teacher who denies creationism or intelligent design has no business teaching science at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This part of your post makes no sense.
Click to expand...


have to agree.


----------



## Modbert

I wonder how the people in this thread who feel schools should teach Creationism as a science would like it if their son or daughter was taught another religion's creation story as if it was science. For some odd reason (I believe it's logic), I doubt they would like it very much.


----------



## elvis

Modbert said:


> I wonder how the people in this thread who feel schools should teach Creationism as a science would like it if their son or daughter was taught another religion's creation story as if it was science. For some odd reason (I believe it's logic), I doubt they would like it very much.



I'm amazed public schools are allowed to teach creationism from the christian perspective.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> The criteria for science is that any hypothesis must be falsifiable.
> 
> There is no way to falsify the existence of a Creator or Intelligent Designer, therefore it is outside the realm of science to evaluate or teach as science either pro or con.


But creationism is another matter. Creationism violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.


----------



## Modbert

elvis said:


> I'm amazed public schools are allowed to teach creationism from the christian perspective.



It's gotten to the point for me that I am no longer surprised about it. Though I have to say it would be amusing if people like Allie had their kids come home and were told today in science class that frozen people were brought to earth 75 million years ago by Xenu.


----------



## Intense

> None of these are scientific theories. Yes, we do stumble as we go along in our pursuit of truth, but concepts put forth by scientists, especially controversial topics, should NOT be confused with scientific theory.



Electron Theory

Electricity is the movement of electrons through a conductor. Electrons are attracted to protons. Since we have excess electrons on the other end of the conductor, we have many electrons being attracted to the protons. This attraction sort of pushes the electrons toward the protons. This push is normally called electrical pressure. The amount of electrical pressure is determined by the number of electrons that are attracted to protons. 

The electrical pressure or electromotive force (EMF) attempts to push an electron out of its orbit and toward the excess protons. If an electron is freed from its orbit, the atom acquires a positive charge because it now has one more proton than it has electrons. The unbalanced atom or ion attempts to return to its balanced state so it will attract electrons from the orbit of other balanced atoms. This starts a chain reaction as one atom captures an electron and another releases an electron. As this action continues to occur, electrons will flow through the conductor. A stream of free electrons forms and an electrical current is started. 

This does not mean a single electron travels the length of the insulator, it means the overall effect is electrons moving in one direction. All this happens at the speed of light. The strength of the electron flow is dependant on the potential difference or voltage. 

The three elements of electricity are voltage, current, and resistance. How these three elements interrelate governs the behavior of electricity. Once the you comprehend the laws that govern electricity, understanding the function and operation of the various automotive electrical systems is an easier task.

http://www.autolabscopediagnostics.com/electron.htm_
_______________________________________________

*A new theory of Magnetic Fields*

When man first discovered that a piece of loadstone hanging on a thread would always point in the same direction; when Oersted discovered that an electric current in wire affected a compass needle; when Faraday discovered that electricity can be generated by moving a magnet inside a wire coil; they perceived only the tip of the iceberg. The phenomena which we observe and have used to construct wonderful technologies are just the by products of the true nature of magnetism.

What I will show is that magnetism is as fundamental to the structure of matter as the electric force which binds the negative electrons to their positive nuclei. As we delve into the inner mechanisms of nature, magnetism becomes ever more significant. It is the regulator of processes. The phenomena we observe in the macro world are bye products of the inner workings of matter.

Without this insight, Oersted, Ampere, Faraday, Gauss, Biot, Savart and Michelson were working in the dark. The laws they developed are not fundamental laws of nature, but mathematical models designed to mimic the observed phenomena. As a result, they are not wholly self consistent and do not make complete sense. I remember sitting in a lecture trying to follow the mathematics. I am dyslexic and so was unable to take meaningful notes. The other students were writing everything down without understanding. I was more concerned with the way a term of  seemed to come and go from equations. This was before the days of S.I. Units and there were four or five systems of units in operation. I plucked up courage and interrupted the lecture. It was easy with only 20 students in the cosy little physics department of Royal Holloway College.

Magnetic Fields a new theory

__________________________________________________________


Magnetism and magnetic fields 
An phenomenon apparently unrelated to electricity is magnetism. We are familiar with magnetism through the interaction of compasses with the earth's magnetic field, or through fridge magnets or magnets on children's toys. Magnetic forces are explained in terms very similar to those used for electric forces: 
There are two types of magnetic poles, conventionally called North and South 
Like poles repel, and opposite poles attract 
However, magnetism differs from electricity in one important aspect: 
Unlike electric charges, magnetic poles always occur in North-South pairs; there are no magnetic monopoles. 
Later on we will see at the atomic level why this is so. 
As in the case of electric charges, it is convenient to introduce the concept of a magnetic field in describing the action of magnetic forces.

Magnetism and magnetic fields

____________________________________________________________




> The three elements of electricity are voltage, current, and resistance. How these three elements interrelate governs the behavior of electricity. Once the you comprehend the laws that govern electricity, understanding the function and operation of the various automotive electrical systems is an easier task.



Today we see electron flow as from Negative to Positive, that was not always the case. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________



> Without this insight, Oersted, Ampere, Faraday, Gauss, Biot, Savart and Michelson were working in the dark. The laws they developed are not fundamental laws of nature, but mathematical models designed to mimic the observed phenomena. As a result, they are not wholly self consistent and do not make complete sense.



Agreed. Yet we don't condemn them, we pick up from where they left off. It is part of the growth. The same holds true in Religion. 

_________________________________________________________



> An phenomenon apparently unrelated to electricity is magnetism. We are familiar with magnetism through the interaction of compasses with the earth's magnetic field, or through fridge magnets or magnets on children's toys. Magnetic forces are explained in terms very similar to those used for electric forces:
> There are two types of magnetic poles, conventionally called North and South
> Like poles repel, and opposite poles attract
> However, magnetism differs from electricity in one important aspect:
> Unlike electric charges, magnetic poles always occur in North-South pairs; there are no magnetic monopoles.



False premise that Magnetism has no relation to Electricity. Do we accept that as a misstep, correct it and move on, or do we burn the Author at the stake???


----------



## Intense

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true. 

Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different. 

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis. 

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes. 


Law

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'. 

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened. 

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably. 

Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions


----------



## Modbert

Instead of Science class, could always replace it with Miracles class.


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no room for myths in science instruction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Guess we need to get rid of all the "theories". Theory is really just another word for "guess".
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

Modbert said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should not be taught as science, but any teacher who denies creationism or intelligent design has no business teaching science at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This part of your post makes no sense.
Click to expand...


Well I explained it in some detail.  If you can't understand the explanation, there isn't much I can do for you I'm afraid.

Any teacher who has a mind so closed as to deny creationism or intelligent design as possibilities has a mind too closed to teach much of anything, much less science.

Point of order:  Not personally believing something that has never been proved or disproved and thinking one has enough evidence to deny its existence to somebody else = fundamentalist closed mind.


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no room for myths in science instruction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Guess we need to get rid of all the "theories". Theory is really just another word for "guess".
Click to expand...

The funniest part of this is that CG thanked it


----------



## Foxfyre

AllieBaba said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would Jesus do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus would tell us to put aside worldly wisdom for spiritual wisdom, and stop arguing over minutia. It's all a part of God's creation and plan. The more we understand, the more we should see that.
Click to expand...


Jesus was very big on common sense too.  And on the principle that just because we haven't experienced something or seen something or proved something or don't want to believe it, that is insufficient reason to deny that it exists.

I have always thought this was a great quotation:



> There is no philosophical high-road in science, with epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle and find our way by trial and error, building our roads behind us as we proceed. We do not find sign-posts at cross-roads, but our own scouts erect them, to help the rest.
> Max Born (1882-1970), Nobel Prize-winning physicist,
> quoted in Gerald Holton's Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought


----------



## Annie

Rather than read through all the posts, I'll just respond to op. As long as the teacher taught science, i.e., evolution and big bang theories, I could care less about their personal beliefs.

OTOH if my kids were in public school and being taught Adam & Eve or a version of it as fact? I'd go ballistic.


----------



## midcan5

If you teach creationism, which is based on belief and not science, then you have to teach anti gravity as an alternative to gravity theory, witchcraft and blood letting as medicine, astrology as psychology, demonic possession as a mental illness, flat earth theory as geology, tea leaves as an economic predictor, communism as a viable political doctrine, voodoo can be many things, prayer for healing in place of antibiotics, devil worship as an alternative belief system, alcoholism or drug addiction as alternate lifestyles etc etc. Teach creationism, but be fair to all beliefs equally, after all two and two should really equal five, in fairness if someone chooses to believe in that math. Then we can stop all testing, as given a world in which belief is all there is, one belief is as good as any other. Right.

"You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it is going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt." Robert M. Pirsig


----------



## Modbert




----------



## Modbert

Guess Allie didn't like my post. Thanks for the neg rep Allie!


----------



## AllieBaba

Modbert said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm amazed public schools are allowed to teach creationism from the christian perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's gotten to the point for me that I am no longer surprised about it. Though I have to say it would be amusing if people like Allie had their kids come home and were told today in science class that frozen people were brought to earth 75 million years ago by Xenu.
Click to expand...


What a sad, sour, vindictive little person you are.

If my kids came home and said that, they wouldn't go back.


----------



## AllieBaba

Modbert said:


> Guess Allie didn't like my post. Thanks for the neg rep Allie!



But I checked to make sure it wasn't mod red first. I'm sure it will just be a matter of minutes before you give me another choice quote for my siggy.


----------



## Modbert

AllieBaba said:


> What a sad, sour, vindictive little person you are.
> 
> If my kids came home and said that, they wouldn't go back.



Oh but it's okay if Atheist Parents have their kids come home and be told that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago by God? 

 Hypocrite.


----------



## JBeukema

Xenu was a rebel Annunaki

All hail Azazel!


----------



## Modbert

AllieBaba said:


> But I checked to make sure it wasn't mod red first. I'm sure it will just be a matter of minutes before you give me another choice quote for my siggy.



The fact I occupy your signature with a out-of-context quote says volumes more about you then it will ever me.


----------



## Foxfyre

Modbert said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a sad, sour, vindictive little person you are.
> 
> If my kids came home and said that, they wouldn't go back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but it's okay if Atheist Parents have their kids come home and be told that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago by God?
> 
> Hypocrite.
> 
> View attachment 12739
Click to expand...


You really don't read the thread before you post do you.  Or if you do, you really have a serious reading comprehension problem.


----------



## AllieBaba

Modbert said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a sad, sour, vindictive little person you are.
> 
> If my kids came home and said that, they wouldn't go back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but it's okay if Atheist Parents have their kids come home and be told that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago by God?
> 
> Hypocrite.
> 
> View attachment 12739
Click to expand...


If it's presented as a belief or theory, you bet. Though I do know that atheists are so weak-minded they aren't capable of teaching their children their own beliefs....


----------



## Modbert

JBeukema said:


> Xenu was a rebel Annunaki
> 
> All hail Azazel!



All Hail Din, Farore, and Nayru!


----------



## Modbert

Foxfyre said:


> You really don't read the thread before you post do you.  Or if you do, you really have a serious reading comprehension problem.



Just because you don't think that the majority of Creationists believe the earth was created between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago doesn't mean there aren't a lot who do. Though perhaps you can show me some statistics that show otherwise.


----------



## AllieBaba

Modbert said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I checked to make sure it wasn't mod red first. I'm sure it will just be a matter of minutes before you give me another choice quote for my siggy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact I occupy your signature with a out-of-context quote says volumes more about you then it will ever me.
Click to expand...


It says you're a jackass.

What does it say about me?

And speaking of hypocrisy..pretty funny coming from the person who apparently saves ancient posts to flood new threads with. Talk about "out of context".

Lol...what a loser.


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a sad, sour, vindictive little person you are.
> 
> If my kids came home and said that, they wouldn't go back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but it's okay if Atheist Parents have their kids come home and be told that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago by God?
> 
> Hypocrite.
> 
> View attachment 12739
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's presented as a belief or theory, you bet. Though I do know that atheists are so weak-minded they aren't capable of teaching their children their own beliefs....
Click to expand...

What if I teach my students that *XXXXXXX* bear the mark of Cain?


----------



## JBeukema

Modbert said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Xenu was a rebel Annunaki
> 
> All hail Azazel!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All Hail Din, Farore, and Nayru!
Click to expand...

I'm serious.

And you mock peoples' religion with references to some video game?


----------



## Modbert

AllieBaba said:


> If it's presented as a belief or theory, you bet. Though I do know that atheists are so weak-minded they aren't capable of teaching their children their own beliefs....



So wait, you don't mind if Christianity is taught in the classroom as a belief or theory. You do mind however if Scientology is. Interesting.


----------



## Trajan

blu said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that I've ever had a science teacher who was not a creationist or who at least allowed his/her students to be creationists.  And I got an excellent science education without having to denounce my faith or religious beliefs.
> 
> A scientist leaves open room for all manner of theories, ideas, concepts, speculation, and even beliefs so long as such is not presented as 'settled science'.  Only the most close minded would suggest that there is no way a supernatural being was involved in the process when there is no scientific method by which such a statement can be made.
> 
> It should not be taught as science,* but any teacher who denies creationism or intelligent design has no business teaching science at all.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to here this explained.....
Click to expand...


no problem...you can hear it and see it explained...


----------



## Foxfyre

Annie said:


> Rather than read through all the posts, I'll just respond to op. As long as the teacher taught science, i.e., evolution and big bang theories, I could care less about their personal beliefs.
> 
> OTOH if my kids were in public school and being taught Adam & Eve or a version of it as fact? I'd go ballistic.



Well it's too bad that you didn't read through the posts because you wouldn't have found any creationists who disagree with you on this.  You will find a lot of anti-religion or anti-Christian types trying to accuse Creationists of all sorts of things they aren't guilty of though, saying a lot of things that aren't true,  and/or inserting a lot of non sequitur.

I agree that no science teacher should be teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design.  They aren't science and should not be taught as science.

But neither should any science teacher be teaching that Creationism or Intelligent Design are invalid as there is no scientific theory or basis for that either.


----------



## elvis

Modbert said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's presented as a belief or theory, you bet. Though I do know that atheists are so weak-minded they aren't capable of teaching their children their own beliefs....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So wait, you don't mind if Christianity is taught in the classroom as a belief or theory. You do mind however if Scientology is. Interesting.
Click to expand...


christianity has people more reputable than L. Ron Hubbard and Tom Cruise.


----------



## Modbert

JBeukema said:


> And you mock peoples' religion with references to some video game?



Nope, wasn't mocking. I know all about Azazel. I was just making a video game reference.


----------



## Modbert

AllieBaba said:


> And speaking of hypocrisy..pretty funny coming from the person who apparently saves ancient posts to flood new threads with. Talk about "out of context".
> 
> Lol...what a loser.



I don't save anything. 

It's called knowing how to properly use the archives system we have here at USMB.


----------



## jillian

AllieBaba said:


> Douche, believing in God does not preclude teaching science, or believing in science.
> 
> Many mathematicians are Christian, too. I suppose you would support a sweep of the schools, like the commies and nazis are fond of doing?



allie, he didn't say someone christian. he said a 'creationist'. i know there's a difference. i hope you do, too.

and no creationist should teach science to kids. they can teach other things if they leave their beliefs at the door, but not that


----------



## JBeukema

Trajan said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that I've ever had a science teacher who was not a creationist or who at least allowed his/her students to be creationists.  And I got an excellent science education without having to denounce my faith or religious beliefs.
> 
> A scientist leaves open room for all manner of theories, ideas, concepts, speculation, and even beliefs so long as such is not presented as 'settled science'.  Only the most close minded would suggest that there is no way a supernatural being was involved in the process when there is no scientific method by which such a statement can be made.
> 
> It should not be taught as science,* but any teacher who denies creationism or intelligent design has no business teaching science at all.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to here this explained.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no problem...you can hear it and see it explained...
Click to expand...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5ixmLNwF9s&playnext=1&list=PLA3D6C9C847F27E6F[/ame]


----------



## Modbert

elvis said:


> christianity has people more reputable than L. Ron Hubbard and Tom Cruise.



But Tom Cruise was in Tropic Thunder.


----------



## elvis

How come he wasn't able to get Goose into his cult?


----------



## Modbert

JBeukema said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5ixmLNwF9s&playnext=1&list=PLA3D6C9C847F27E6F





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to JBeukema again.



Darn.


----------



## AllieBaba

Modbert said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's presented as a belief or theory, you bet. Though I do know that atheists are so weak-minded they aren't capable of teaching their children their own beliefs....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So wait, you don't mind if Christianity is taught in the classroom as a belief or theory. You do mind however if Scientology is. Interesting.
Click to expand...


When did I say I cared if Scientology was taught? I could care less.

I do care about other theories being substituted for Creationism and presented as infallible, proven fact. They aren't.

I do care about all these incredible theories about the dinosaurs and early man being presented, also as fact, without any class time being given to the more plausible theories of Christian belief. It's considered "science" to come up with ridiculous stories based upon nothing but antique bones; but remain silent on archaeological evidence that supports the bible's portrayal of events.

Anything else, genius?


----------



## JBeukema

Dinosaurs and Early man?

Allie, you're watching the Flintstones. It's a comedy and not intended to be accurate.


----------



## AllieBaba

jillian said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Douche, believing in God does not preclude teaching science, or believing in science.
> 
> Many mathematicians are Christian, too. I suppose you would support a sweep of the schools, like the commies and nazis are fond of doing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> allie, he didn't say someone christian. he said a 'creationist'. i know there's a difference. i hope you do, too.
> 
> and no creationist should teach science to kids. they can teach other things if they leave their beliefs at the door, but not that
Click to expand...


That's ridiculous.


----------



## JBeukema




----------



## Modbert

AllieBaba said:


> *When did I say I cared if Scientology was taught? I could care less.*
> 
> I do care about other theories being substituted for Creationism and presented as infallible, proven fact. They aren't.
> 
> I do care about all these incredible theories about the dinosaurs and early man being presented, also as fact, without any class time being given to the more plausible theories of Christian belief. It's considered "science" to come up with ridiculous stories based upon nothing but antique bones; but remain silent on archaeological evidence that supports the bible's portrayal of events.
> 
> Anything else, genius?



Except you did.



AllieBaba said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's gotten to the point for me that I am no longer surprised about it. Though I have to say it would be amusing if people like Allie had their kids come home *and were told today in science class that frozen people were brought to earth 75 million years ago by Xenu.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a sad, sour, vindictive little person you are.
> 
> *If my kids came home and said that, they wouldn't go back*.
Click to expand...


Also, you think Creationism has been proven but Evolution hasn't?


----------



## RadiomanATL




----------



## elvis

Modbert said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> *When did I say I cared if Scientology was taught? I could care less.*
> 
> I do care about other theories being substituted for Creationism and presented as infallible, proven fact. They aren't.
> 
> I do care about all these incredible theories about the dinosaurs and early man being presented, also as fact, without any class time being given to the more plausible theories of Christian belief. It's considered "science" to come up with ridiculous stories based upon nothing but antique bones; but remain silent on archaeological evidence that supports the bible's portrayal of events.
> 
> Anything else, genius?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except you did.
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's gotten to the point for me that I am no longer surprised about it. Though I have to say it would be amusing if people like Allie had their kids come home *and were told today in science class that frozen people were brought to earth 75 million years ago by Xenu.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a sad, sour, vindictive little person you are.
> 
> *If my kids came home and said that, they wouldn't go back*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Evolution has been proven Allie. *Sorry to burst your bubble.
Click to expand...


Yeah, they've got it on video tape.


----------



## AllieBaba

I guess Max Planck, who developed quantum theory, and Albert Einstein should never have been allowed to share their ideas, those dumb creationists.


----------



## JBeukema

Nylonase proves that God is omniscient and knew we'd create nylon


----------



## RadiomanATL




----------



## Modbert

JBeukema said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s13X66BFd8



Have to wait to rep you for that one too.


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> I guess Max Planck, who developed quantum theory, and Albert Einstein should never have been allowed to share their ideas, those dumb creationists.


Now you're not even trying.


----------



## RadiomanATL

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Max Planck, who developed quantum theory, and Albert Einstein should never have been allowed to share their ideas, those dumb creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're not even trying.
Click to expand...


I don't believe you. You suggest that she actually does at times. I'm gonna need some proof.


----------



## Modbert

alliebaba said:


> i do care about all these incredible theories about the dinosaurs and early man being presented, also as fact, without any class time being given to the more plausible theories of christian belief. It's considered "science" to come up with ridiculous stories based upon nothing but antique bones; but remain silent on archaeological evidence that supports the bible's portrayal of events.


----------



## JBeukema

Thank you very much, South Carolina


----------



## AllieBaba

Modbert said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> *When did I say I cared if Scientology was taught? I could care less.*
> 
> I do care about other theories being substituted for Creationism and presented as infallible, proven fact. They aren't.
> 
> I do care about all these incredible theories about the dinosaurs and early man being presented, also as fact, without any class time being given to the more plausible theories of Christian belief. It's considered "science" to come up with ridiculous stories based upon nothing but antique bones; but remain silent on archaeological evidence that supports the bible's portrayal of events.
> 
> Anything else, genius?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except you did.
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's gotten to the point for me that I am no longer surprised about it. Though I have to say it would be amusing if people like Allie had their kids come home *and were told today in science class that frozen people were brought to earth 75 million years ago by Xenu.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a sad, sour, vindictive little person you are.
> 
> *If my kids came home and said that, they wouldn't go back*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, you think Creationism has been proven but Evolution hasn't?
Click to expand...


Lol..I had no idea Xenu was a Scientology thing. 

I reiterate. So long as it's being taught as a theory, and equal time is given to other (more plausible) theories, I don't care.

Creationism is a theory, and I don't argue about the theory of evolution except as it pertains to creation, and the history of man. There's no evidence that we evolved from some other creature, and evolution in no way explains the origin of life.


----------



## JBeukema




----------



## AllieBaba

Wow, that's great. You guys took a semi-intelligent thread and ran it right into romper room material.

Good going!


----------



## Modbert

JBeukema said:


>



That's not funny. Raptor Jesus went extinct for your sins.


----------



## AllieBaba

Nice.


----------



## elvis

AllieBaba said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> *When did I say I cared if Scientology was taught? I could care less.*
> 
> I do care about other theories being substituted for Creationism and presented as infallible, proven fact. They aren't.
> 
> I do care about all these incredible theories about the dinosaurs and early man being presented, also as fact, without any class time being given to the more plausible theories of Christian belief. It's considered "science" to come up with ridiculous stories based upon nothing but antique bones; but remain silent on archaeological evidence that supports the bible's portrayal of events.
> 
> Anything else, genius?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except you did.
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a sad, sour, vindictive little person you are.
> 
> *If my kids came home and said that, they wouldn't go back*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, you think Creationism has been proven but Evolution hasn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol..I had no idea Xenu was a Scientology thing.
> 
> I reiterate. So long as it's being taught as a theory, and equal time is given to other (more plausible) theories, I don't care.
> 
> Creationism is a theory, and I don't argue about the theory of evolution except as it pertains to creation, and the history of man. There's no evidence that we evolved from some other creature, and evolution in no way explains the origin of life.
Click to expand...


See that's not that controversial.


----------



## JBeukema

Modbert said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not funny. Raptor Jesus went extinct for your sins.
Click to expand...

HE HAS RISEN!

let us prey


----------



## Foxfyre

Modbert said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't read the thread before you post do you.  Or if you do, you really have a serious reading comprehension problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you don't think that the majority of Creationists believe the earth was created between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago doesn't mean there aren't a lot who do. Though perhaps you can show me some statistics that show otherwise.
Click to expand...


I have lived a good long ecumenical life now having close involvement with charismatics, hard line fundamentalists, holy rollers, high church Anglicans, Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists, evangelical groups as Baptists, old fashioned Church of Christ, and Nazarenes, and mainstream groups such as Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ, United Church of Christ as well as nondenomination groups, Jews, Buddhists, and Muslims.

Every single one of these are creationists.  I did find one fundamentalist group that was teaching the literal six days theory.  None of the rest did.  In my lifetime I've taught, been taught by, and participated in activities with tens of thousands of religious people.  I am guessing I ran across maybe 10 out of all of these that still preaches the literal six-day theory or the 6k year old Earth.

I have seen a dedicated and organized effort to dismiss ALL religious beliefs and theories  as irrelevant or mythical or superstition or relegated to some other uncomplimentary class, and I've seen a lot of polls that I am 99% certain were skewed or manufactured.

*I don't believe any of the polls I've seen included the money question on this topic:
Do you believe that Creationism and Evolution can coexist peacefully and rationally side by side?*

I feel very secure that more than 95% of Christians asked that question would answer yes.  I'm guessing that close to the same percentage would agree that Creationism should not be taught in science class, but that neither should science teach students not to believe in Creationism.


----------



## Annie

Foxfyre said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't read the thread before you post do you.  Or if you do, you really have a serious reading comprehension problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you don't think that the majority of Creationists believe the earth was created between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago doesn't mean there aren't a lot who do. Though perhaps you can show me some statistics that show otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have lived a good long ecumenical life now having close involvement with charismatics, hard line fundamentalists, holy rollers, high church Anglicans, Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists, evangelical groups as Baptists, old fashioned Church of Christ, and Nazarenes, and mainstream groups such as Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ, United Church of Christ as well as nondenomination groups, Jews, Buddhists, and Muslims.
> 
> Every single one of these are creationists.  I did find one fundamentalist group that was teaching the literal six days theory.  None of the rest did.  In my lifetime I've taught, been taught by, and participated in activities with tens of thousands of religious people.  I am guessing I ran across maybe 10 out of all of these that still preaches the literal six-day theory or the 6k year old Earth.
> 
> I have seen a dedicated and organized effort to dismiss ALL religious beliefs and theories  as irrelevant or mythical or superstition or relegated to some other uncomplimentary class, and I've seen a lot of polls that I am 99% certain were skewed or manufactured.
> 
> *I don't believe any of the polls I've seen included the money question on this topic:
> Do you believe that Creationism and Evolution can coexist peacefully and rationally side by side?*
> 
> I feel very secure that more than 95% of Christians asked that question would answer yes.  I'm guessing that close to the same percentage would agree that Creationism should not be taught in science class, but that neither should science teach students not to believe in Creationism.
Click to expand...


I do not know of a practicing evangelical or Baptist that does not believe in Adam & Eve, as portrayed in bible. Literally. 

That same 'belief' is not in line with Catholic teachings, so I'm a bit unsure of what you mean. Catholicism can accommodate a 'prime mover' and evolution, many of the others you cited I do not believe can.


----------



## Foxfyre

Annie said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you don't think that the majority of Creationists believe the earth was created between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago doesn't mean there aren't a lot who do. Though perhaps you can show me some statistics that show otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have lived a good long ecumenical life now having close involvement with charismatics, hard line fundamentalists, holy rollers, high church Anglicans, Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists, evangelical groups as Baptists, old fashioned Church of Christ, and Nazarenes, and mainstream groups such as Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ, United Church of Christ as well as nondenomination groups, Jews, Buddhists, and Muslims.
> 
> Every single one of these are creationists.  I did find one fundamentalist group that was teaching the literal six days theory.  None of the rest did.  In my lifetime I've taught, been taught by, and participated in activities with tens of thousands of religious people.  I am guessing I ran across maybe 10 out of all of these that still preaches the literal six-day theory or the 6k year old Earth.
> 
> I have seen a dedicated and organized effort to dismiss ALL religious beliefs and theories  as irrelevant or mythical or superstition or relegated to some other uncomplimentary class, and I've seen a lot of polls that I am 99% certain were skewed or manufactured.
> 
> *I don't believe any of the polls I've seen included the money question on this topic:
> Do you believe that Creationism and Evolution can coexist peacefully and rationally side by side?*
> 
> I feel very secure that more than 95% of Christians asked that question would answer yes.  I'm guessing that close to the same percentage would agree that Creationism should not be taught in science class, but that neither should science teach students not to believe in Creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not know of a practicing evangelical or Baptist that does not believe in Adam & Eve, as portrayed in bible. Literally.
> 
> That same 'belief' is not in line with Catholic teachings, so I'm a bit unsure of what you mean. Catholicism can accommodate a 'prime mover' and evolution, many of the others you cited I do not believe can.
Click to expand...


Again you're in an area where I can claim a great deal of expertise.  And I assure you that the huge majority of ALL of those groups either teach Adam and Eve as metaphorical or allow them to be believed metaphorically.  When I teach Bible I tell my students that I don't require anybody to believe what I am teaching.  If you think Adam and Eva or Noah et al were real, that's okay with me.  If you think they were symbolic, that's also okay with me.  But you will have to pass the test if you want credit and here is what will be on it. . . .

I feel the same way about science class.  There is no reason for a science teacher to bring up Creationism or I.D., but if the student does, the proper response is:  Creationism and I.D. can explain holes that remain in what we know of Evolution and other scientific theories, and if you believe that fine.  But it is not science and it won't be part of this curriculum.  You will have to pass the test if you want credit and here is what will be on it. . . .


----------



## blu

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no room for myths in science instruction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Guess we need to get rid of all the "theories". Theory is really just another word for "guess".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The funniest part of this is that CG thanked it
Click to expand...


thats why I don't post here much anymore. its like arguing with second graders. even my 8 year old step son knows about what scientific theories are


----------



## blu

AllieBaba said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm amazed public schools are allowed to teach creationism from the christian perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's gotten to the point for me that I am no longer surprised about it. Though I have to say it would be amusing if people like Allie had their kids come home and were told today in science class that frozen people were brought to earth 75 million years ago by Xenu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a sad, sour, vindictive little person you are.
> 
> If my kids came home and said that, they wouldn't go back.
Click to expand...


its the same as teaching them creationism, both are equally ludicrous


----------



## jillian

AllieBaba said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no room for myths in science instruction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Guess we need to get rid of all the "theories". Theory is really just another word for "guess".
Click to expand...


not a 'scientific theory'. it is not a GUESS. it is a CONCLUSION drawn from all evidence available at a point in time. 

don't confuse that with one of us 'guessing' its going to be cold out tomorrow.


----------



## blu

jillian said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no room for myths in science instruction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Guess we need to get rid of all the "theories". Theory is really just another word for "guess".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not a 'scientific theory'. it is not a GUESS. it is a CONCLUSION drawn from all evidence available at a point in time.
> 
> don't confuse that with one of us 'guessing' its going to be cold out tomorrow.
Click to expand...


posts like this confirm alliebabe is just a troll


----------



## JakeStarkey

AllieBaba said:


> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.



If it involves tax dollars, kiddo, yes, we do.


----------



## AllieBaba

You moron, that wasn't me, it was Jillian.


----------



## AllieBaba

JakeStarkey said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it involves tax dollars, kiddo, yes, we do.
Click to expand...


No, skippy, we don't. That's a myth perpetuated by the leftards, who are so far gone in their own lies they don't even know what the truth is.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should not be taught as science, but any teacher who denies creationism or intelligent design has no business teaching science at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This part of your post makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I explained it in some detail.  If you can't understand the explanation, there isn't much I can do for you I'm afraid.
> 
> Any teacher who has a mind so closed as to *deny creationism* or intelligent design as possibilities has a mind too closed to teach much of anything, much less science.
> 
> Point of order:  Not personally believing something that has never been proved or disproved and thinking one has enough evidence to deny its existence to somebody else = fundamentalist closed mind.
Click to expand...

And what is someone who calls a science teacher closed minded and unfit to teach because they teach that Creationism violates the First Law of Thermodynamics????? I would guess, hypocrite.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Intense said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> 
> as an atheist I have no problem with religion being taught, just not in science class
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total agreement.
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## JakeStarkey

AllieBaba: "Guess we need to get rid of all the 'theories'. Theory is really just another word for 'guess'."

With the statement above, AB has just struck out in this OP.  Absolutely no need to read AB further.


----------



## Modbert

I now occupy even more of Allie's signature. Though I do think she should educate herself more before trying to say I'm ridiculing Christians.


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> This part of your post makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I explained it in some detail.  If you can't understand the explanation, there isn't much I can do for you I'm afraid.
> 
> Any teacher who has a mind so closed as to *deny creationism* or intelligent design as possibilities has a mind too closed to teach much of anything, much less science.
> 
> Point of order:  Not personally believing something that has never been proved or disproved and thinking one has enough evidence to deny its existence to somebody else = fundamentalist closed mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what is someone who calls a science teacher closed minded and unfit to teach because they teach that Creationism violates the First Law of Thermodynamics????? I would guess, hypocrite.
Click to expand...


And what is somebody who consistently puts words into the 'mouths' of other members--words that have no relationship whatsoever to the context of the message posted?

Or if that is not what you were doing, what is somebody who can't debate the topic so includes ridiculous non sequitur?


----------



## jillian

blu said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Guess we need to get rid of all the "theories". Theory is really just another word for "guess".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not a 'scientific theory'. it is not a GUESS. it is a CONCLUSION drawn from all evidence available at a point in time.
> 
> don't confuse that with one of us 'guessing' its going to be cold out tomorrow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> posts like this confirm alliebabe is just a troll
Click to expand...


i think allie believes what she says. she feels that when people talk about science versus christianity, they're attacking christianity.

i think religion should be left to theologians and science should be left to scientists.


----------



## JakeStarkey

AllieBaba said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it involves tax dollars, kiddo, yes, we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, skippy, we don't. That's a myth perpetuated by the leftards, who are so far gone in their own lies they don't even know what the truth is.
Click to expand...


No myth.  Government does not subsidize religious belief taught in the classroom as science.  I have no idea what leftards think, but I do know that too many far right reactionary agenda-driven activists believe the can teach religion in the public square.  No so.


----------



## Foxfyre

And after Buc went out of his way to detail how dumb I was on this topic, and has since religiously avoided the rebuttal I took some time to provide for him, I'm assuming he has no defense?

Honestly people.  Could somebody explain to me why some are so apolectic and exorcised because most people do believe in some form of Creationism and/or I.D.?  And why can't you just accept that, possibly even discuss it, without assumption that the same people intend to brainwash your kids or corrupt the scientific curriculum?


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> *I don't believe that I've ever had a science teacher who was not a creationist *or who at least allowed his/her students to be creationists.  And I got an excellent science education without having to denounce my faith or religious beliefs.





Foxfyre said:


> But neither should any science teacher be teaching that *Creationism* or Intelligent Design are* invalid as there is no scientific theory or basis for that either.*


A perfect example of why a Creationist should not teach science! Obviously your Creationist teachers never taught you the First Law of Thermodynamics.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I don't think anyone should be irked about creationism or ID, per se.  Anger by a person at such simply reveals some unseen and unresolved inner distress about the subject.   I do think it should be taught in HS in a humanities or comparative religions or mythology class.  However, the minority of the school board wants it in the biology classroom while the Superintendent and a majority of the school board say "no".  Been this way for over twenty years.


----------



## Woyzeck

Are they teaching their own beliefs instead of science in science class?

If so, I don't want them teaching my kids fucking retarded bullshit.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I explained it in some detail.  If you can't understand the explanation, there isn't much I can do for you I'm afraid.
> 
> Any teacher who has a mind so closed as to *deny creationism* or intelligent design as possibilities has a mind too closed to teach much of anything, much less science.
> 
> Point of order:  Not personally believing something that has never been proved or disproved and thinking one has enough evidence to deny its existence to somebody else = fundamentalist closed mind.
> 
> 
> 
> And what is someone who calls a science teacher closed minded and unfit to teach because they teach that Creationism violates the First Law of Thermodynamics????? I would guess, hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is somebody who consistently puts words into the 'mouths' of other members--words that have no relationship whatsoever to the context of the message posted?
> 
> Or if that is not what you were doing, what is somebody who can't debate the topic so includes ridiculous non sequitur?
Click to expand...

And how exactly did I put words in your mouth?

You falsely claim that Creationism cannot be scientifically falsified even though it violates the FLoT. Based on your false claim you condemn as closed minded and unfit to teach anything any science teacher who dares point out that Creationism violates the FLoT. 

It appears you have hypocritically closed your mind to the FLoT!!!


----------



## geauxtohell

California Girl said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Guess we need to get rid of all the "theories". Theory is really just another word for "guess".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL what a bafoon you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientific theory is an explanation or model based on study, observations, experimentation, and reasoning. It is used to describe one that has been tested and confirmed, but many accepted scientific theories have, with further study, been found to be shit.
> 
> We really need to recognize the difference between scientific theory and scientific facts. Often, the left state theory as fact. A theory is not a fact. And that's a fact.
Click to expand...


In biology, "theory" means "highly supported by data and evidence" and is at the top of the pyramid of biological thought.  Strictly speaking, there are laws in math and physics, but there aren't "laws" in biology.

The people think that "theory" means a hunch are either uninformed or trying to muddy the waters.

The larger issue can be debated and discussed without trying to "win" on a silly semantics game.  For the field of biology as a whole, evolution is accepted as the best explanation for the origins of species and is the most strongly supported notion in biology.


----------



## geauxtohell

AllieBaba said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Douche, believing in God does not preclude teaching science, or believing in science.
> 
> Many mathematicians are Christian, too. I suppose you would support a sweep of the schools, like the commies and nazis are fond of doing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Math doesn't threaten "mystical and occult" beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Math is the basis of genetics and most other sciences, rtard.
Click to expand...


and evolution is the common thread that ties together genetics, ecology, physiology, pathology and every other field of the natural sciences.  

Math allows us to understand genetics better.  Math did not spawn genetics.


----------



## geauxtohell

AllieBaba said:


> Creationism is a theory, and I don't argue about the theory of evolution except as it pertains to creation, and the history of man. There's no evidence that we evolved from some other creature, and evolution in no way explains the origin of life.



Evolution doesn't even pretend to explain the origin of life.  That's an entirely separate field, abiogenesis, and is much more controversial.

It's hard to take you guys seriously when it's obvious you've never even studied evolution before dismissing it outright.


----------



## JakeStarkey

This is what gets me about the illogically committed to a belief.  Anytime one reveals that s/he does not understand the difference between origins of species and origins of life in the evolution discussion, that person has nothing other than an opinion to offer.


----------



## geauxtohell

AllieBaba said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it involves tax dollars, kiddo, yes, we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, skippy, we don't. That's a myth perpetuated by the leftards, who are so far gone in their own lies they don't even know what the truth is.
Click to expand...


And that little "myth" was supported by the Supreme Court in 1987.  

Edwards v. Aguillard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## AllieBaba

geauxtohell said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism is a theory, and I don't argue about the theory of evolution except as it pertains to creation, and the history of man. There's no evidence that we evolved from some other creature, and evolution in no way explains the origin of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution doesn't even pretend to explain the origin of life.  That's an entirely separate field, abiogenesis, and is much more controversial.
> 
> It's hard to take you guys seriously when it's obvious you've never even studied evolution before dismissing it outright.
Click to expand...


Don't be so fucking smug. I know evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, which is why I said what I did...evolution doesn't explain away a creator, despit what the non-believing fanatics pretend when they bring up "evolution" in a discussion about whether or not there's a creator. Before assuming you're all that, you might try reading for content next time.


----------



## AllieBaba

geauxtohell said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it involves tax dollars, kiddo, yes, we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, skippy, we don't. That's a myth perpetuated by the leftards, who are so far gone in their own lies they don't even know what the truth is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that little "myth" was supported by the Supreme Court in 1987.
> 
> Edwards v. Aguillard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


I see nothing in that which supports the claim you're making.


----------



## AllieBaba

jillian said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> not a 'scientific theory'. it is not a GUESS. it is a CONCLUSION drawn from all evidence available at a point in time.
> 
> don't confuse that with one of us 'guessing' its going to be cold out tomorrow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> posts like this confirm alliebabe is just a troll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i think allie believes what she says. she feels that when people talk about science versus christianity, they're attacking christianity.
> 
> i think religion should be left to theologians and science should be left to scientists.
Click to expand...


No, I think that people who attack Christianity are attacking Christianity.

And the #1 ruling principle of this nation is that people not be discriminated against on the basis of their religion. That means if a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, want to teach science and they are qualified, they get to.


----------



## geauxtohell

AllieBaba said:


> Don't be so fucking smug. I know evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, which is why I said what I did...evolution doesn't explain away a creator, despit what the non-believing fanatics pretend when they bring up "evolution" in a discussion about whether or not there's a creator. Before assuming you're all that, you might try reading for content next time.



Sure you did, Allie.  

The entire field of science is moot on the existence of the supernatural.  It's beyond the scope of science to prove or refute the existence of God.


----------



## geauxtohell

AllieBaba said:


> I see nothing in that which supports the claim you're making.



You didn't read the ruling, then.  The court found it was illegal to teach creationism in public schools as it equated to state endorsement of religion.


----------



## Two Thumbs

blu said:


> "13 percent of biology teachers back creationism"
> 
> 13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com
> 
> Personally, if it was shown that they refused to teach actual science in the classroom I would work to have them removed and their teaching license revoked. If they separated their beliefs and their teaching then its all good.



Who would give a damn?

The teacher still has to follow the text book.

I kinda doubt the subject of faith would come up.


----------



## JScott

SmarterThanHick said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific theory is an explanation or model based on study, observations, experimentation, and reasoning. It is used to describe one that has been tested and confirmed, but many accepted scientific theories have, with further study, been found to be shit.
> 
> We really need to recognize the difference between scientific theory and scientific facts. Often, the left state theory as fact. A theory is not a fact. And that's a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I think YOU need to recognize the difference between scientific theory and fact.  I doubt you know the difference, as you seem to be referring to a scientific theory as a hunch, which it's not.  Gravity is an example of a scientific theory.
> 
> Can you tell me the last scientific theory that has been tested and confirmed, and proven wrong later?  I don't mean "scientific theory" like the idea of a flat earth from hundreds of  years ago that had no actual scientific basis.  I'm talking about a theory that adheres to today's standards of that term.
Click to expand...


This is a guess, Hawkings theory of everything?


----------



## JScott

Foxfyre said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should not be taught as science, but any teacher who denies creationism or intelligent design has no business teaching science at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This part of your post makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I explained it in some detail.  If you can't understand the explanation, there isn't much I can do for you I'm afraid.
> 
> Any teacher who has a mind so closed as to deny creationism or intelligent design as possibilities has a mind too closed to teach much of anything, much less science.
> 
> Point of order:  Not personally believing something that has never been proved or disproved and thinking one has enough evidence to deny its existence to somebody else = fundamentalist closed mind.
Click to expand...


What has creationism discovered? Are there any theories they can point to they have made?

What technologies can creationism point to that they have created?


----------



## Trajan

JBeukema said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to here this explained.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no problem...you can hear it and see it explained...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5ixmLNwF9s&playnext=1&list=PLA3D6C9C847F27E6F[/ame]
Click to expand...


have you seen the movie?


----------



## Toro

blu said:


> "13 percent of biology teachers back creationism"
> 
> 13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com
> 
> Personally, if it was shown that they refused to teach actual science in the classroom I would work to have them removed and their teaching license revoked. If they separated their beliefs and their teaching then its all good.



As long as they taught science in science class and not creationism, I wouldn't care one bit.


----------



## AllieBaba

Exactly.


----------



## blu

geauxtohell said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism is a theory, and I don't argue about the theory of evolution except as it pertains to creation, and the history of man. There's no evidence that we evolved from some other creature, and evolution in no way explains the origin of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution doesn't even pretend to explain the origin of life.  That's an entirely separate field, abiogenesis, and is much more controversial.
> 
> It's hard to take you guys seriously when it's obvious you've never even studied evolution before dismissing it outright.
Click to expand...


yea its pretty hilarious actually. I remember the first time I brought up abiogenisis here and tons of people who were evolution-deniers never even heard of it


----------



## blu

AllieBaba said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> posts like this confirm alliebabe is just a troll
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think allie believes what she says. she feels that when people talk about science versus christianity, they're attacking christianity.
> 
> i think religion should be left to theologians and science should be left to scientists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I think that people who attack Christianity are attacking Christianity.
> 
> And the #1 ruling principle of this nation is that people not be discriminated against on the basis of their religion. That means if a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, want to teach science and they are qualified, they get to.
Click to expand...


no one has said those people shouldnt teach science, just that they should actually teach SCIENCE and not there version of creation. again the link I posted in the OP stated that 13% of teachers surveryed were teaching creationism instead of biology


----------



## AllieBaba

who denied evolution?

Please name names.


----------



## blu

Two Thumbs said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> "13 percent of biology teachers back creationism"
> 
> 13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com
> 
> Personally, if it was shown that they refused to teach actual science in the classroom I would work to have them removed and their teaching license revoked. If they separated their beliefs and their teaching then its all good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who would give a damn?
> 
> The teacher still has to follow the text book.
> 
> I kinda doubt the subject of faith would come up.
Click to expand...


from the link in my OP



> In comparison, 13 percent of the teachers said they "explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light." These are mostly the same group of teachers (about 14 percent) who personally reject the idea of evolution and the scientific method, and believe that God created humans on Earth in their present form less than 10,000 years ago. (That 14 percent included teachers' personal beliefs, regardless of whether they taught these in the classroom.)



they are teaching creationism in the classroom instead of real science


----------



## AllieBaba

blu said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i think allie believes what she says. she feels that when people talk about science versus christianity, they're attacking christianity.
> 
> i think religion should be left to theologians and science should be left to scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think that people who attack Christianity are attacking Christianity.
> 
> And the #1 ruling principle of this nation is that people not be discriminated against on the basis of their religion. That means if a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, want to teach science and they are qualified, they get to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one has said those people shouldnt teach science, just that they should actually teach SCIENCE and not there version of creation. again the link I posted in the OP stated that 13% of teachers surveryed were teaching creationism instead of biology
Click to expand...


yes, they have. Read the thread. And the QUESTION the thread starts with is how you would feel if a creationist was teaching science.

NOT what if a creationist was teaching about God in science class.


----------



## blu

Toro said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> "13 percent of biology teachers back creationism"
> 
> 13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com
> 
> Personally, if it was shown that they refused to teach actual science in the classroom I would work to have them removed and their teaching license revoked. If they separated their beliefs and their teaching then its all good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as they taught science in science class and not creationism, I wouldn't care one bit.
Click to expand...


try reading the link



> In comparison, 13 percent of the teachers said they "explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light." These are mostly the same group of teachers (about 14 percent) who personally reject the idea of evolution and the scientific method, and believe that God created humans on Earth in their present form less than 10,000 years ago. (That 14 percent included teachers' personal beliefs, regardless of whether they taught these in the classroom.)


----------



## Foxfyre

JScott said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> This part of your post makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I explained it in some detail.  If you can't understand the explanation, there isn't much I can do for you I'm afraid.
> 
> Any teacher who has a mind so closed as to deny creationism or intelligent design as possibilities has a mind too closed to teach much of anything, much less science.
> 
> Point of order:  Not personally believing something that has never been proved or disproved and thinking one has enough evidence to deny its existence to somebody else = fundamentalist closed mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has creationism discovered? Are there any theories they can point to they have made?
> 
> What technologies can creationism point to that they have created?
Click to expand...


What does this have to do with anything though?  Science is defined many different ways but most of us have the gist of what it is and what it is not.  It is not certainty of anything but is a collection of facts from which a conclusion of probability or possibility can be devised:



> Some Definitions of Science
> (An addendum to the GEOL 1122 reading on "What is, and isn't, Science")
> 
> Each of these sections begins with conventional definitions or comments and moves toward less conventional but perhaps more revealing statements.
> 
> *Definitions by goal and process:*
> 
> Science is the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. 2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation. 3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy.
> Academic Press Dictionary of Science & Technology
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Science is an intellectual activity carried on by humans that is designed to discover information about the natural world in which humans live and to discover the ways in which this information can be organized into meaningful patterns. A primary aim of science is to collect facts (data). An ultimate purpose of science is to discern the order that exists between and amongst the various facts.
> Dr. Sheldon Gottlieb in a lecture series at the University of South Alabama
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Science involves more than the gaining of knowledge. It is the systematic and organized inquiry into the natural world and its phenomena. Science is about gaining a deeper and often useful understanding of the world.
> from the Multicultural History of Science page at Vanderbilt University.
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Science consists simply of the formulation and testing of hypotheses based on observational evidence; experiments are important where applicable, but their function is merely to simplify observation by imposing controlled conditions.
> Robert H. Dott, Jr., and Henry L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth (2nd edition)
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceeding generation . . .As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
> Richard Feynman, Nobel-prize-winning physicist,
> in The Pleasure of Finding Things Out
> as quoted in American Scientist v. 87, p. 462 (1999).
> 
> What is Science?



Science is the study of what we don't know as much as study of what we already know or think we know.

Speaking as a Creationist/I.D.er who believes herself to be square in the middle of the mainstream of that group, I can say that most Creationists and/or I.D.ers have no quarrel whatsoever with science UNTIL it presumes to know more than is known.

And most of us see the Creator as the author or designer of science and everything else.


----------



## JakeStarkey

AllieBaba said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> posts like this confirm alliebabe is just a troll
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think allie believes what she says. she feels that when people talk about science versus christianity, they're attacking christianity.
> 
> i think religion should be left to theologians and science should be left to scientists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I think that people who attack Christianity are attacking Christianity.
> 
> And the #1 ruling principle of this nation is that people not be discriminated against on the basis of their religion. That means if a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, want to teach science and they are qualified, they get to.
Click to expand...


Of course they, and if they teach it in a public tax-supported school, they teach evolution while referring students to a comparative religions or creations myth class.


----------



## rdean

There are no discoveries that come from teaching "magical creation" was an "event" that really happened.

Unlike evolution and all of the "old earth" sciences.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Intense said:


> Electron Theory
> http://www.autolabscopediagnostics.com/electron.htm_
> 
> *A new theory of Magnetic Fields*
> Magnetic Fields a new theory
> 
> Magnetism and magnetic fields
> Magnetism and magnetic fields


Pointing to other people who similarly don't understand what a scientific theory is, and citing backwater unused websites with ZERO credentials or authors, while ignoring the fact that the articles appear to be written like grade school book reports and have no citations to the source of their information, very thoroughly points out your ignorance on the topic. 

Give me a date of the last time an actual scientific study which adhered to today's standards of that scientific term was reverted or shot down.  Give me the name of the theory and a year. Because so far, all you've offered is a bunch of non-theories, and crappy websites that also exhibit your degree of misunderstanding.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

AllieBaba said:


> I guess Max Planck, who developed quantum theory, and Albert Einstein should never have been allowed to share their ideas, those dumb creationists.


People often point to long gone scientists and project their ideas as to what they would believe in today's culture.  You should not confuse religion of decades ago as today's understanding of creationism, nor does it have anything to do with teaching SCIENCE in a public school today.  Einstein had a habit of forgetting where he lived as a child.  This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic any more than citing his religious affiliation in relation to his contribution to science. 



AllieBaba said:


> Creationism is a theory


No, no it's not.  It does not meet the standards of the scientific term "theory" and should not be treated as such.  It is a non-scientific idea rooted in no physical supporting evidence.  



AllieBaba said:


> There's no evidence that we evolved from some other creature, and evolution in no way explains the origin of life.


The first half of the sentence is false, and evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.  You continue to show your ignorance and lack of education on this topic, yet fail to recognize the worthlessness of your opinion.



AllieBaba said:


> No, skippy, we don't. That's a myth perpetuated by the leftards, who are so far gone in their own lies they don't even know what the truth is.


This is also false, as GTH pointed out.  Ignorance manifested once again.



AllieBaba said:


> No, I think that people who attack Christianity are attacking Christianity.
> 
> And the #1 ruling principle of this nation is that people not be discriminated against on the basis of their religion. That means if a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, want to teach science and they are qualified, they get to.


Except science is not attacking Christianity.  Science is putting forth good education, and Christians are being threatened by it.  As I said in another thread: a lion doesn't care to attack the little ants beneath its feet, but the ants still feel attacked and swarm.  

This really speaks to your prejudices and perspective here.  You have previously stated that you would ban your children from attending a school that put forth any ideas from other religions, but seem to have no problem if your own religious beliefs are pushed onto other children.  Quite the hypocrite. 

No one is discriminating based on a the personal religion of a teacher.  But problems DO arise when those religious beliefs enter a scientific classroom.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Foxfyre said:


> *I don't believe any of the polls I've seen included the money question on this topic:
> Do you believe that Creationism and Evolution can coexist peacefully and rationally side by side?*


Evolution has NOTHING to do with how the universe was created.  Not a thing.  It doesn't even address how life came into being.  The fact that you need to even ask that question illustrates how you don't actually understand what evolution is about. 



Foxfyre said:


> I feel the same way about science class.  There is no reason for a science teacher to bring up Creationism or I.D., but if the student does, the proper response is:  Creationism and I.D. can explain holes that remain in what we know of Evolution and other scientific theories, and if you believe that fine.


NO!  There is no existing evidence that can confirm or deny either, and as such, those non-scientific ideas have nothing to do with this class. 

Stating they can explain holes that remain in what we know of evolution is FALSE. This is an incorrect an unscientific misleading statement.  You can't even POINT OUT what those "holes in evolution" are, so why claim some other ideas fill them without any evidence to support it?


----------



## saveliberty

Woyzeck said:


> Are they teaching their own beliefs instead of science in science class?
> 
> If so, I don't want them teaching my kids fucking retarded bullshit.



A person believe in creation and teach science.  I have done just that in the past.  Science encompasses many things.  My kids were very well informed on how different landforms are made by tectonic plate movement, erosion and glacial activity.  I believe you have a lot of anger management and socialization issues, but I can still teach you science.


----------



## AllieBaba

I don't know how many times I have to keep saying "EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATION" before you guys get the hint and keep telling me "EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATION".

Of course, it's confusing because you then turn around and say that evolution and creationism can't exist side by side...

Wait..

EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATION.

I'm saying it again in case you didn't read it the first 5000 times I wrote it on this board over the past few years.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

AllieBaba said:


> I don't know how many times I have to keep saying "EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATION" before you guys get the hint and keep telling me "EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATION".
> 
> Of course, it's confusing because you then turn around and say that evolution and creationism can't exist side by side...
> 
> Wait..
> 
> EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATION.
> 
> I'm saying it again in case you didn't read it the first 5000 times I wrote it on this board over the past few years.


Oh, no you misunderstand.  I was saying you have a poor understanding of the topic for the other part of that sentence, being "There's no evidence that we evolved from some other creature."  Let me know if you have questions, or believe anything else I've stated in response to you is incorrect.


----------



## AllieBaba

It's not that it's incorrect, it's that it's completely irrelevant, since I agree.

Your side is the side that insists that Creationists can't teach evolution, after all.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Well, no.  I haven't seen a single person in this thread on "my side" state that creationists can't teach evolution.  Once again you are making crap up because you don't have an actual argument.  The general consensus here has been that anyone can teach science so long as they do so adequately while remaining within the boundaries of scientific understanding and professionalism.  It doesn't matter whether a creationist, Christian, Muslim, or atheist does it, so long as their personal beliefs are kept out of the classroom.

Again I ask: what part of anything I've said thus far do you disagree with?


----------



## AllieBaba

You haven't read the thread then. the thread which starts out with the question "would you want a creationist teaching SCIENCE". Not teaching creationism. 

But carry on anyway.


----------



## Foxfyre

AllieBaba said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think that people who attack Christianity are attacking Christianity.
> 
> And the #1 ruling principle of this nation is that people not be discriminated against on the basis of their religion. That means if a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, want to teach science and they are qualified, they get to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no one has said those people shouldnt teach science, just that they should actually teach SCIENCE and not there version of creation. again the link I posted in the OP stated that 13% of teachers surveryed were teaching creationism instead of biology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, they have. Read the thread. And the QUESTION the thread starts with is how you would feel if a creationist was teaching science.
> 
> NOT what if a creationist was teaching about God in science class.
Click to expand...


Well said.  The cognitively challenged don't seem to understand what the thesis of the thread is.  It was not an invitation to discuss the pros and cons of Creationism or Intelligent Design but rather to determine who would judge a teacher not by what he or she taught but by what he or she believed.  And it was not specified as to what a Creationist was.

I would not want anybody who openly denied the possibility/probability of Evolution teaching my kids biology, zoology or any related science classes.  Such a person would be too likely to have a closed mind and be unable to effectively teach the concepts of the scientific opinion objectively and without prejudice.  What the teacher personally believed would be irrelevent as long as he or she did not insert it into the class content.

I would not want anybody who openly denied the possibility/probability of Creationism or Intelligent Design teaching my kids any form of science.  Such a person would be too likely to have a closed mind and be unable to teach science objectively and without prejudice.  What the teacher personally believed would be irrelevent as long as he or she did not insert it into the class content.

I don't want science taught as religion.
I don't want Creationism/Intelligent design to be taught as science.

I wouldn't want somebody like SmarterthanHick teaching anybody as he seems to think it is okay to neg rep people who are simply expressing an opinion and making an argument for a point of view.  I think he's hit me with neg rep three times now.  I think too many people who hold Creationists or IDers in such low opinion would not be able to keep their prejudices out of the classroom and would be too likely to retaliate against those who offend them.


----------



## blu

SmarterThanHick said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I don't believe any of the polls I've seen included the money question on this topic:
> Do you believe that Creationism and Evolution can coexist peacefully and rationally side by side?*
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution has NOTHING to do with how the universe was created.  Not a thing.  It doesn't even address how life came into being.  The fact that you need to even ask that question illustrates how you don't actually understand what evolution is about.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel the same way about science class.  There is no reason for a science teacher to bring up Creationism or I.D., but if the student does, the proper response is:  Creationism and I.D. can explain holes that remain in what we know of Evolution and other scientific theories, and if you believe that fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO!  There is no existing evidence that can confirm or deny either, and as such, those non-scientific ideas have nothing to do with this class.
> 
> Stating they can explain holes that remain in what we know of evolution is FALSE. This is an incorrect an unscientific misleading statement.  You can't even POINT OUT what those "holes in evolution" are, so why claim some other ideas fill them without any evidence to support it?
Click to expand...


you are wasting your time on people with less than a 6th graders understanding of science.


----------



## Foxfyre

blu said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I don't believe any of the polls I've seen included the money question on this topic:
> Do you believe that Creationism and Evolution can coexist peacefully and rationally side by side?*
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution has NOTHING to do with how the universe was created.  Not a thing.  It doesn't even address how life came into being.  The fact that you need to even ask that question illustrates how you don't actually understand what evolution is about.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel the same way about science class.  There is no reason for a science teacher to bring up Creationism or I.D., but if the student does, the proper response is:  Creationism and I.D. can explain holes that remain in what we know of Evolution and other scientific theories, and if you believe that fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO!  There is no existing evidence that can confirm or deny either, and as such, those non-scientific ideas have nothing to do with this class.
> 
> Stating they can explain holes that remain in what we know of evolution is FALSE. This is an incorrect an unscientific misleading statement.  You can't even POINT OUT what those "holes in evolution" are, so why claim some other ideas fill them without any evidence to support it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are wasting your time on people with less than a 6th graders understanding of science.
Click to expand...


Really?   Hmmm.   Looking at my college transcript.  Biology - two years - A.  (I only needed one but I loved biology.)   Chemistry -  B - I wasn't as good with inert substances.  Physics - A.  And I did substitute teach for awhile until the rules changed requiring teacher certification.  The science teachers liked me to sub in their classes and asked for me.

So perhaps you might want to back off the personal insults.  They make you look really small and petty.

And I'm still waiting for you to comment on my post directed to your Bible commentary.  Is there a reason you have avoided that despite it being called to your attention two or three times now?


----------



## AllieBaba

blu said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I don't believe any of the polls I've seen included the money question on this topic:
> Do you believe that Creationism and Evolution can coexist peacefully and rationally side by side?*
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution has NOTHING to do with how the universe was created.  Not a thing.  It doesn't even address how life came into being.  The fact that you need to even ask that question illustrates how you don't actually understand what evolution is about.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel the same way about science class.  There is no reason for a science teacher to bring up Creationism or I.D., but if the student does, the proper response is:  Creationism and I.D. can explain holes that remain in what we know of Evolution and other scientific theories, and if you believe that fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO!  There is no existing evidence that can confirm or deny either, and as such, those non-scientific ideas have nothing to do with this class.
> 
> Stating they can explain holes that remain in what we know of evolution is FALSE. This is an incorrect an unscientific misleading statement.  You can't even POINT OUT what those "holes in evolution" are, so why claim some other ideas fill them without any evidence to support it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are wasting your time on people with less than a 6th graders understanding of science.
Click to expand...


We can't all be like you with your advanced understanding and intelligence...after all, you posted...wait...so far all you've contributed nothing to the thread except intermittent sputterings of "yore a big dummie!"

Never mind, I take it back.


----------



## JBeukema

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> This part of your post makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I explained it in some detail.  If you can't understand the explanation, there isn't much I can do for you I'm afraid.
> 
> Any teacher who has a mind so closed as to *deny creationism* or intelligent design as possibilities has a mind too closed to teach much of anything, much less science.
> 
> Point of order:  Not personally believing something that has never been proved or disproved and thinking one has enough evidence to deny its existence to somebody else = fundamentalist closed mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what is someone who calls a science teacher closed minded and unfit to teach because they teach that Creationism violates the First Law of Thermodynamics????? I would guess, hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Demonstrate


----------



## AllieBaba

Foxfyre said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution has NOTHING to do with how the universe was created.  Not a thing.  It doesn't even address how life came into being.  The fact that you need to even ask that question illustrates how you don't actually understand what evolution is about.
> 
> 
> NO!  There is no existing evidence that can confirm or deny either, and as such, those non-scientific ideas have nothing to do with this class.
> 
> Stating they can explain holes that remain in what we know of evolution is FALSE. This is an incorrect an unscientific misleading statement.  You can't even POINT OUT what those "holes in evolution" are, so why claim some other ideas fill them without any evidence to support it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are wasting your time on people with less than a 6th graders understanding of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?   Hmmm.   Looking at my college transcript.  Biology - two years - A.  (I only needed one but I loved biology.)   Chemistry -  B - I wasn't as good with inert substances.  Physics - A.  And I did substitute teach for awhile until the rules changed requiring teacher certification.  The science teachers liked me to sub in their classes and asked for me.
> 
> So perhaps you might want to back off the personal insults.  They make you look really small and petty.
> 
> And I'm still waiting for you to comment on my post directed to your Bible commentary.  Is there a reason you have avoided that despite it being called to your attention two or three times now?
Click to expand...


I've got a full year of college biology, and a full term of genetics.

But I've got less than a 6th grader's understanding of science, lol...


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> This is what gets me about the illogically committed to a belief.  Anytime one reveals that s/he does not understand the difference between origins of species and origins of life in the evolution discussion, that person has nothing other than an opinion to offer.


And not even an intelligent or educated one.


----------



## JBeukema

Trajan said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> no problem...you can hear it and see it explained...
> 
> 
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5ixmLNwF9s&playnext=1&list=PLA3D6C9C847F27E6F[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> have you seen the movie?
Click to expand...

I watched as much as I read of Keynes' _General Theory_- enough to realize it was a bunch of demonstrably false bullshit and not worth wasting further time on.


----------



## JBeukema

blu said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism is a theory, and I don't argue about the theory of evolution except as it pertains to creation, and the history of man. There's no evidence that we evolved from some other creature, and evolution in no way explains the origin of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution doesn't even pretend to explain the origin of life.  That's an entirely separate field, abiogenesis, and is much more controversial.
> 
> It's hard to take you guys seriously when it's obvious you've never even studied evolution before dismissing it outright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yea its pretty hilarious actually. I remember the first time I brought up abiogenisis here and tons of people who were evolution-deniers never even heard of it
Click to expand...


Many of them think at first that it's spontaneous generation


My response?

'No, that'd be creationism'


----------



## Foxfyre

AllieBaba said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are wasting your time on people with less than a 6th graders understanding of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   Hmmm.   Looking at my college transcript.  Biology - two years - A.  (I only needed one but I loved biology.)   Chemistry -  B - I wasn't as good with inert substances.  Physics - A.  And I did substitute teach for awhile until the rules changed requiring teacher certification.  The science teachers liked me to sub in their classes and asked for me.
> 
> So perhaps you might want to back off the personal insults.  They make you look really small and petty.
> 
> And I'm still waiting for you to comment on my post directed to your Bible commentary.  Is there a reason you have avoided that despite it being called to your attention two or three times now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've got a full year of college biology, and a full term of genetics.
> 
> But I've got less than a 6th grader's understanding of science, lol...
Click to expand...


   Oh and I forgot my geology course--it wasn't called geology but that's what it mostly was--and my Anthropology course.  I bet you passed reading comprehension too.


----------



## JBeukema




----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> I don't know how many times I have to keep saying "EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATION" before you guys get the hint and keep telling me "EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATION".
> 
> Of course, it's confusing because you then turn around and say that evolution and creationism can't exist side by side...
> 
> Wait..
> 
> EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATION.
> 
> I'm saying it again in case you didn't read it the first 5000 times I wrote it on this board over the past few years.


I'm honestly amazed by your stupidity.


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> Your side is the side that insists that Creationists can't teach evolution, after all.


I missed that.

Please cite.


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> You haven't read the thread then. the thread which starts out with the question "would you want a creationist teaching SCIENCE". Not teaching creationism.
> 
> But carry on anyway.


See my first three replies...


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are wasting your time on people with less than a 6th graders understanding of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   Hmmm.   Looking at my college transcript.  Biology - two years - A.  (I only needed one but I loved biology.)   Chemistry -  B - I wasn't as good with inert substances.  Physics - A.  And I did substitute teach for awhile until the rules changed requiring teacher certification.  The science teachers liked me to sub in their classes and asked for me.
> 
> So perhaps you might want to back off the personal insults.  They make you look really small and petty.
> 
> And I'm still waiting for you to comment on my post directed to your Bible commentary.  Is there a reason you have avoided that despite it being called to your attention two or three times now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've got a full year of college biology, and a full term of genetics.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



-and Bush2 went to Yale...


----------



## edthecynic

JBeukema said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I explained it in some detail.  If you can't understand the explanation, there isn't much I can do for you I'm afraid.
> 
> Any teacher who has a mind so closed as to *deny creationism* or intelligent design as possibilities has a mind too closed to teach much of anything, much less science.
> 
> Point of order:  Not personally believing something that has never been proved or disproved and thinking one has enough evidence to deny its existence to somebody else = fundamentalist closed mind.
> 
> 
> 
> And what is someone who calls a science teacher closed minded and unfit to teach because they teach that Creationism violates the First Law of Thermodynamics????? I would guess, hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Demonstrate
Click to expand...

It should be obvious!

Creationism says that no thing (God) created everything from nothing.
The FLoT says that from nothing, nothing comes.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution has NOTHING to do with how the universe was created.  Not a thing.  It doesn't even address how life came into being.  The fact that you need to even ask that question illustrates how you don't actually understand what evolution is about.
> 
> 
> NO!  There is no existing evidence that can confirm or deny either, and as such, those non-scientific ideas have nothing to do with this class.
> 
> Stating they can explain holes that remain in what we know of evolution is FALSE. This is an incorrect an unscientific misleading statement.  You can't even POINT OUT what those "holes in evolution" are, so why claim some other ideas fill them without any evidence to support it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are wasting your time on people with less than a 6th graders understanding of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?   Hmmm.   Looking at my college transcript.  Biology - two years - A.  (I only needed one but I loved biology.)   Chemistry -  B - I wasn't as good with inert substances. * Physics - A*.  And I did substitute teach for awhile until the rules changed requiring teacher certification.  The science teachers liked me to sub in their classes and asked for me.
> 
> So perhaps you might want to back off the personal insults.  They make you look really small and petty.
> 
> And I'm still waiting for you to comment on my post directed to your Bible commentary.  Is there a reason you have avoided that despite it being called to your attention two or three times now?
Click to expand...

I'm curious how many credits your physics course was. In my college there were 3 levels of physics classes, a 3 credit physics with no calculus for a BS in a non science major, a 4 credit no calculus physics for non physics science majors, and a 5 credit calculus required physics for physics majors, the physics I took and earned an A.

Even a 3 credit physics course would have required you to learn about the FLoT.


----------



## saveliberty

SmarterThanHick said:


> Well, no.  I haven't seen a single person in this thread on "my side" state that creationists can't teach evolution.  Once again you are making crap up because you don't have an actual argument.  The general consensus here has been that anyone can teach science so long as they do so adequately while remaining within the boundaries of scientific understanding and professionalism.  It doesn't matter whether a creationist, Christian, Muslim, or atheist does it, so long as their personal beliefs are kept out of the classroom.
> 
> Again I ask: what part of anything I've said thus far do you disagree with?



Major fail on your part.  The OP clearly implies that someone who believes in creation should not or cannot teach science.  You also seem to think that a person's beliefs are not part of teaching.  Who and want a person is helps make up the style of teaching.  A strong belief system makes for the best teachers.


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no.  I haven't seen a single person in this thread on "my side" state that creationists can't teach evolution.  Once again you are making crap up because you don't have an actual argument.  The general consensus here has been that anyone can teach science so long as they do so adequately while remaining within the boundaries of scientific understanding and professionalism.  It doesn't matter whether a creationist, Christian, Muslim, or atheist does it, so long as their personal beliefs are kept out of the classroom.
> 
> Again I ask: what part of anything I've said thus far do you disagree with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Major fail on your part.  The OP clearly implies that someone who believes in creation should not or cannot teach science.  You also seem to think that a person's beliefs are not part of teaching.  Who and want a person is helps make up the style of teaching.  A strong belief system makes for the best teachers.
Click to expand...


I agree with this for the most part because say a devout Christian will be far more likely to be open to ALL possibilities and understand how much that we don't know and should be willing to at least look at.   Too many committed and passionate Atheists, especially the anti-Christian types, I think will be too close minded to make good science teachers.

Of course a fundamentalist who refuses to teach Evolution as science and/or that would insert Creationism into the curriculum as science would be as closed minded and also would make a lousy science teacher.

Both, in my opinion, would be wrong.

But I would accept an Einstein type as a science teacher in a heartbeat.  He rejected the concept of a personal god, but was open to a concept of some kind of cosmic intelligence guiding the overall process--he saw far too much symmetry, order, and variety in the Universe to accept that it absolutely had to all be just by coincidence, chance, or accident.

An open mind is all I ask of a scientist or science teacher.


----------



## AllieBaba

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't read the thread then. the thread which starts out with the question "would you want a creationist teaching SCIENCE". Not teaching creationism.
> 
> But carry on anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> See my first three replies...
Click to expand...


Thanks, once was enough. 

The premise of the thread remains the same, no matter how you deny it.


----------



## AllieBaba

Foxfyre said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   Hmmm.   Looking at my college transcript.  Biology - two years - A.  (I only needed one but I loved biology.)   Chemistry -  B - I wasn't as good with inert substances.  Physics - A.  And I did substitute teach for awhile until the rules changed requiring teacher certification.  The science teachers liked me to sub in their classes and asked for me.
> 
> So perhaps you might want to back off the personal insults.  They make you look really small and petty.
> 
> And I'm still waiting for you to comment on my post directed to your Bible commentary.  Is there a reason you have avoided that despite it being called to your attention two or three times now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a full year of college biology, and a full term of genetics.
> 
> But I've got less than a 6th grader's understanding of science, lol...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh and I forgot my geology course--it wasn't called geology but that's what it mostly was--and my Anthropology course.  I bet you passed reading comprehension too.
Click to expand...


I took a term of anthropology and a term of archaeology, and the head of the English dept. came to me to ask me to tutor English comp students who were struggling.

But I'm just a clueless rube.


----------



## Foxfyre

AllieBaba said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a full year of college biology, and a full term of genetics.
> 
> But I've got less than a 6th grader's understanding of science, lol...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and I forgot my geology course--it wasn't called geology but that's what it mostly was--and my Anthropology course.  I bet you passed reading comprehension too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I took a term of anthropology and a term of archaeology, and the head of the English dept. came to me to ask me to tutor English comp students who were struggling.
> 
> But I'm just a clueless rube.
Click to expand...


I wanted to take archaeology so bad--one of my uncles was head of the archaeology/anthropology department at a major Texas university--and as a kid I got to go on some summer digs with him.  I was torn at one time whether to pursue that as a discipline, but my heart was drawn elsewhere and I never could find a place to fit it into the class schedule without dropping something else I had to have or needed.  One of my kids started out with an archaeology major influenced by that same uncle but by the second year had switched and now has a PhD in Sociology.

My aunt (married to that uncle) taught university history and her influence steered me in that direction though my primary major was journalism/communications.   It all fit together though for later vocations and avocations.  I am very grateful for the science classes and a lot of history and my experiences in the summer field work.  All good stuff.

But again I don't want Evolution taught as religion.
I don't want Creationism/I.D. taught as science.
And I don't want teachers denying either to their students.  I want science teachers giving the kids the basics and encouraging them to open their minds to endless possibilities.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

AllieBaba said:


> You haven't read the thread then. the thread which starts out with the question "would you want a creationist teaching SCIENCE". Not teaching creationism.
> 
> But carry on anyway.


And you clearly haven't read the counterargument.  In your usual fashion.  Opinions are great but those little thing called SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS tend to be of higher value.  Let me refresh your memory:

"I haven't seen a single person in this thread on "my side" state that creationists can't teach evolution.  Once again you are making crap up because you don't have an actual argument. ... anyone can teach science so long as they do so adequately while remaining within the boundaries of scientific understanding and professionalism.  It doesn't matter whether a creationist, Christian, Muslim, or atheist does it, so long as their personal beliefs are kept out of the classroom.

Again I ask: what part of anything I've said thus far do you disagree with?



Foxfyre said:


> Well said.  The cognitively challenged don't seem to understand what the thesis of the thread is.  It was not an invitation to discuss the pros and cons of Creationism or Intelligent Design but rather to determine who would judge a teacher not by what he or she taught but by what he or she believed.  And it was not specified as to what a Creationist was.


The thesis of this thread is without merit or understanding, and it seems people like you and Alliebaba have  a very difficult understanding of the counterargument.  Why judge a teacher on what they believe in their personal life if they can adequately teach their subject without their personal beliefs interfering?  The concept is rather simple, and such a separation between personal and professional understanding happens every day by mature individuals. 



Foxfyre said:


> I would not want anybody who openly denied the possibility/probability of Creationism or Intelligent Design teaching my kids any form of science.  Such a person would be too likely to have a closed mind and be unable to teach science objectively and without prejudice.  What the teacher personally believed would be irrelevent as long as he or she did not insert it into the class content.


Once again you seem to lack the understanding that either the acceptance OR denial of creationism/ID has NO PLACE in a classroom.  Therefore, someone who acknowledges such baseless concepts as able to fill in some vague gaps in knowledge, despite you being completely unable to point out what they are even though you have a whopping two semesters of intro college biology, is INCORRECT and not scientific.

This is a point you have been completely unable to refute throughout this thread. 



Foxfyre said:


> I wouldn't want somebody like SmarterthanHick teaching anybody as he seems to think it is okay to neg rep people who are simply expressing an opinion and making an argument for a point of view.  I think he's hit me with neg rep three times now.  I think too many people who hold Creationists or IDers in such low opinion would not be able to keep their prejudices out of the classroom and would be too likely to retaliate against those who offend them.


Ah there there.  Poor baby.  It's ok, let it all out.  You got your feelings hurt because I clicked on a button ONCE in the last two months for you that said "I disapprove" when I disapproved of your unsupported uneducated opinions being put forth as having some worth.  I understand.  It's a cruel cruel world.  Just let it out dear, and you'll feel much better.


----------



## AllieBaba

Wow, you put a lot of effort into a rambling diatribe that still doesn't change the premise of the thread.


----------



## Foxfyre

AllieBaba said:


> Wow, you put a lot of effort into a rambling diatribe that still doesn't change the premise of the thread.



I didn't read much of it but I did see that he declares the thesis of the thread to be without merit.  Wonder how Buc feels about that since they've been cheering each other on?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

saveliberty said:


> Major fail on your part.  The OP clearly implies that someone who believes in creation should not or cannot teach science.  You also seem to think that a person's beliefs are not part of teaching.  Who and want a person is helps make up the style of teaching.  A strong belief system makes for the best teachers.



Yes, that is what it implies, but it does not support that claim in the least, just as you don't support yours.  Where can you show me any evidence that people with strong belief systems make the best teachers?  Let's state the obvious here: the best teachers are people who can professionally convey the content of their subject with the highest efficacy.  That's it.  There is literally nothing else that makes a good teacher outside of that one thing, although that one thing has many influential attributes.  

So the counterargument that has continued to be made by "my side" is that nothing matters outside that one point.  If they personally believe in crazy conspiracy theories yet leave their lunacy at home to be an effective teacher, it doesn't matter.  AS SOON AS their personal beliefs enter the classroom and impede their ability to effectively convey the content of their subject, THEN they are degrading their teaching ability, and there will quickly come a point where such a person should not be teaching.  

I ask you the same as Allie: what part of that do you disagree with?


----------



## geauxtohell

Trajan said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> no problem...you can hear it and see it explained...
> 
> 
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5ixmLNwF9s&playnext=1&list=PLA3D6C9C847F27E6F[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> have you seen the movie?
Click to expand...


I've seen it.  I've also seen the selective editing they did to make people like Dawkins look bad.  I think Dawkins is a pretentious asshole; however, that movie is just dishonest.  

Ben Stein must have needed money and wanted to cash in on some of the fundamentalist $.  That's the only people that buy it.

Furthermore, at the university level, I would fully expect faculty to be excoriated for trying to propel a non-scientific theory (intelligent design) in the biology curriculum.  The overwhelming majority of biologists find ID to be laughable.  Most of the Ph.D.'s who have flocked to the ID movement were in fields outside biology.  Probably the most notable is Behe, who was a biochemist and came up with the non-sense of "irreducible complexity".  The idea was so scientifically unsound that a lawyer with no background in sciences made him look like an ass at the Dover trial and also got him to admit that, if ID were accepted as a scientific field, then astrology would have to also be accepted under the new "lax" rules.  

All the noise that the Discovery Institute tried to create (i.e. "Expelled", "teach the controversy", etc) quickly fell behind the wayside at the Dover Trial, which was the high water mark for ID.  That's why you don't hear much about ID now.  Even the Discovery Institute has withdrawn from it's position of trying to have ID taught as a "competing theory".


----------



## AllieBaba

Modbert said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> And speaking of hypocrisy..pretty funny coming from the person who apparently saves ancient posts to flood new threads with. Talk about "out of context".
> 
> Lol...what a loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't save anything.
> 
> It's called knowing how to properly use the archives system we have here at USMB.
Click to expand...


Still funny you whine about somebody taking quotes out of context when you drag quotes from different times and different threads around to new threads, or start new threads specifically with them.

Typical...accuse the opposition of what you do regularly, and decry it and whine if anyone else dares to do the same.


----------



## saveliberty

SmarterThanHick said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Major fail on your part.  The OP clearly implies that someone who believes in creation should not or cannot teach science.  You also seem to think that a person's beliefs are not part of teaching.  Who and want a person is helps make up the style of teaching.  A strong belief system makes for the best teachers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what it implies, but it does not support that claim in the least, just as you don't support yours.  Where can you show me any evidence that people with strong belief systems make the best teachers?  Let's state the obvious here: the best teachers are people who can professionally convey the content of their subject with the highest efficacy.  That's it.  There is literally nothing else that makes a good teacher outside of that one thing, although that one thing has many influential attributes.
> 
> So the counterargument that has continued to be made by "my side" is that nothing matters outside that one point.  If they personally believe in crazy conspiracy theories yet leave their lunacy at home to be an effective teacher, it doesn't matter.  AS SOON AS their personal beliefs enter the classroom and impede their ability to effectively convey the content of their subject, THEN they are degrading their teaching ability, and there will quickly come a point where such a person should not be teaching.
> 
> I ask you the same as Allie: what part of that do you disagree with?
Click to expand...


1.  Many times a gifted researcher or scientist cannot bring his/her knowledge down to the level of a student.  Teaching clearly involves more than just knowledge.

2.  Most "crazy" people have blinded themselves to at least some part of reality.  It is not a switch they turn off when they leave home.

3.  A person's personality is often what encourages a student to engage learning.  That personality contains that person's beliefs.


----------



## rikules

blu said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no room for myths in science instruction
Click to expand...


religion should be seperate from science

religion should only be taught in mythology courses.

i don't approve of any teacher inflicting their religious beliefs  in public scoools

creation is a religious myth, NOT science.

MOST creationists believe that evolution is a lie....

I strongly disapprove of "science teachers" who believe that evolution is a lie teaching science at all


----------



## geauxtohell

AllieBaba said:


> Wow, you put a lot of effort into a rambling diatribe that still doesn't change the premise of the thread.



Shockingly, most threads evolve past the original OP and people tend to discuss the larger issue at hand.  

Personally, just to answer the OP:  I don't think being religious should exclude anyone from anything as long as they don't try and interject their religious beliefs where they aren't appropriate.  For example, you never hear about Mormon police officers hassling people for drinking coffee.  

Now that we've moved past that, we can move on with the topic.

I have to admire your new found devotion to being a message board purist and self-appointed thread Czar who wants everyone to stay on the OP.  Most people can answer the OP in a few lines.


----------



## Foxfyre

geauxtohell said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you put a lot of effort into a rambling diatribe that still doesn't change the premise of the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shockingly, most threads evolve past the original OP and people tend to discuss the larger issue at hand.
> 
> Personally, just to answer the OP:  I don't think being religious should exclude anyone from anything as long as they don't try and interject their religious beliefs where they aren't appropriate.  For example, you never hear about Mormon police officers hassling people for drinking coffee.
> 
> Now that we've moved past that, we can move on with the topic.
> 
> I have to admire your new found devotion to being a message board purist and self-appointed thread Czar who wants everyone to stay on the OP.  Most people can answer the OP in a few lines.
Click to expand...


Allie hasn't done that though.  All she did, which is what I did, is defend herself when she answered the question posed in the OP.   She was getting blasted for not answering the different questions the anti-religion group wanted to substitute for the original question.

I have no problem whatsoever in discussing the broader subjects generated by the original question and in fact have been discussing some of those.  As has Allie.

But to be accused of saying one thing when you are clearly responding to something else isn't cricket either and one should object when that happens.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

saveliberty said:


> 1.  Many times a gifted researcher or scientist cannot bring his/her knowledge down to the level of a student.  Teaching clearly involves more than just knowledge.


True, this is not a point being contested.



saveliberty said:


> 2.  Most "crazy" people have blinded themselves to at least some part of reality.  It is not a switch they turn off when they leave home.


You don't know what "crazy" actually means, and have no basis in which to project that idea into the realm of teaching unless you want to claim that there is a significant portion of "crazy" teachers.



saveliberty said:


> 3.  A person's personality is often what encourages a student to engage learning.  That personality contains that person's beliefs.


Now you're just making up psychology, once again providing a completely unsupported claim.  Mature professionals have it within their capability of separating personal from professional beliefs.  If you feel YOU lack that distinction, as it sounds like you are implying everyone does, you should not project it onto others.  

But to directly address the claim: Personality can promote effective teaching ability.  While personality is comprised of a person's beliefs, that does not mean that all such beliefs are reflected in their personality at all points in time.  A teacher responding to a child is a different set of personality traits compared to when they are speaking with parents, or their boss, or their friends while partying on a weekend night.  This brings us back to the concept that mature individuals have the ability to tailor their interactions to the situation at hand.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you put a lot of effort into a rambling diatribe that still doesn't change the premise of the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shockingly, most threads evolve past the original OP and people tend to discuss the larger issue at hand.
> 
> Personally, just to answer the OP:  I don't think being religious should exclude anyone from anything as long as they don't try and interject their religious beliefs where they aren't appropriate.  For example, you never hear about Mormon police officers hassling people for drinking coffee.
> 
> Now that we've moved past that, we can move on with the topic.
> 
> I have to admire your new found devotion to being a message board purist and self-appointed thread Czar who wants everyone to stay on the OP.  Most people can answer the OP in a few lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allie hasn't done that though.  All she did, which is what I did, is defend herself when she answered the question posed in the OP.   She was getting blasted for not answering the different questions the anti-religion group wanted to substitute for the original question.
> 
> I have no problem whatsoever in discussing the broader subjects generated by the original question and in fact have been discussing some of those.  As has Allie.
> 
> But to be accused of saying one thing when you are clearly responding to something else isn't cricket either and one should object when that happens.
Click to expand...


Both sides do that.

I don't think either of  you have made a claim that the majority of the posters on this thread have also stated.  So, the OP really isn't that compelling of an issue to discuss at this point.    

As these threads always do, we've wondered into the larger issue of the legitimacy of evolution and the larger debate.  It's inevitable.  I don't see a reason to avoid discussing it because of what was in the "OP".


----------



## Foxfyre

geauxtohell said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shockingly, most threads evolve past the original OP and people tend to discuss the larger issue at hand.
> 
> Personally, just to answer the OP:  I don't think being religious should exclude anyone from anything as long as they don't try and interject their religious beliefs where they aren't appropriate.  For example, you never hear about Mormon police officers hassling people for drinking coffee.
> 
> Now that we've moved past that, we can move on with the topic.
> 
> I have to admire your new found devotion to being a message board purist and self-appointed thread Czar who wants everyone to stay on the OP.  Most people can answer the OP in a few lines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allie hasn't done that though.  All she did, which is what I did, is defend herself when she answered the question posed in the OP.   She was getting blasted for not answering the different questions the anti-religion group wanted to substitute for the original question.
> 
> I have no problem whatsoever in discussing the broader subjects generated by the original question and in fact have been discussing some of those.  As has Allie.
> 
> But to be accused of saying one thing when you are clearly responding to something else isn't cricket either and one should object when that happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both sides do that.
> 
> I don't think either of  you have made a claim that the majority of the posters on this thread have also stated.  So, the OP really isn't that compelling of an issue to discuss at this point.
> 
> As these threads always do, we've wondered into the larger issue of the legitimacy of evolution and the larger debate.  It's inevitable.  I don't see a reason to avoid discussing it because of what was in the "OP".
Click to expand...


To me the OP was sufficiently provocative to encourage me to post.  And I do like to stay on topic in a thread as much as possible.  If folks want to study the merits or lack thereof of Creationism, I.D., or Evolution there are certainly other thread in which to do that or anybody interested in those subjects are certainly capable of starting one.  As all are provocative and contain elements of controversy, such a thread will no doubt be successful if the trolls are kept at bay.

The thesis of this thread, however, was whether a teacher's personal views would affect his/her ability to be a competent teacher in a specific subject.  I think that is a question worth exploring.  And I don't think there is a cut and dried answer to that question.

If others aren't interested in that fine.  I'll just unsubscribe and move on to something else and leave it to the rest of you to discuss whatever you want to discuss.

But the original thread thesis was the topic of interest to me.


----------



## Intense

*how would you feel if a creationist taught your kids science?

Again, as long as the person was qualified to teach, and taught an approved lesson plan, what is the problem here? 

I see the problem with the Thread though. It has been reduced to a pissing contest as to who is the most qualified in the field of Science. Why not start your own Thread on the Subject. I'm sure it will be fun Posting back and forth to yourself. Let's try to stay open to input from Posters on the Topic Subject, and stop chasing people away. Thank You so much. *


----------



## AllieBaba

What kills me is that I am lambasted for disputing the theory of evolution (I don't, so long as it isn't being used as evidence that there's no Creator). The non-ID crowd brings it up, then jeers when you respond to say that evolution doesn't explain creation...

And what do they say in their taunts?

Oh, that evolution has nothing to do with Creation.

NO SHIT!


----------



## Foxfyre

AllieBaba said:


> What kills me is that I am lambasted for disputing the theory of evolution (I don't, so long as it isn't being used as evidence that there's no Creator). The non-ID crowd brings it up, then jeers when you respond to say that evolution doesn't explain creation...
> 
> And what do they say in their taunts?
> 
> Oh, that evolution has nothing to do with Creation.
> 
> NO SHIT!



And none of us have even suggested that it did.

Except. . . . .

If there is a Creator, then that Creator would be the author of Evolution and all science.  Which also is a whole different subject than the thesis of this thread.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Foxfyre said:


> The thesis of this thread, however, was whether a teacher's personal views would affect his/her ability to be a competent teacher in a specific subject.  I think that is a question worth exploring.  And I don't think there is a cut and dried answer to that question.


There's no cut and dry answer to that question because the question is reductive and crap. It's trying to draw a broad sweeping generalization where one does not exist, and is the reason we have moved past it.  

It is impossible to make the determination for all teachers that their personal views do or do not affect their teaching ability in a specific subject.  Impossible.  Every single person is going to have varying degrees of being able to separate their personal and professional views, which is why almost all the answers on the first page were basically "as long as you keep your religion and your job separate," which is the right answer. Most people agreed with this, except for AllieBaba, who gave the wrong answer and is now victimizing herself for unrelated things no one actually cares about in her usual fashion. 



AllieBaba said:


> What kills me is that I am lambasted for disputing the theory of evolution (I don't, so long as it isn't being used as evidence that there's no Creator). The non-ID crowd brings it up, then jeers when you respond to say that evolution doesn't explain creation...


As I just mentioned, you are not wrong for believing evolution has nothing to do with creation.  You're wrong for all the incorrect things you've said in the thread.



Foxfyre said:


> And none of us have even suggested that it did.
> 
> Except. . . . .
> 
> If there is a Creator, then that Creator would be the author of Evolution and all science.  Which also is a whole different subject than the thesis of this thread.


For someone complaining so much about people staying on topic to the original bad question, you sure are bringing up a lot of sidetracking topics.


----------



## L.K.Eder

AllieBaba said:


> What kills me is that I am lambasted for disputing the theory of evolution (I don't, so long as it isn't being used as evidence that there's no Creator). The non-ID crowd brings it up, then jeers when you respond to say that evolution doesn't explain creation...
> 
> And what do they say in their taunts?
> 
> Oh, that evolution has nothing to do with Creation.
> 
> NO SHIT!




you also get mocked for stating that scientific theory is just a guess.


----------



## Foxfyre

L.K.Eder said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kills me is that I am lambasted for disputing the theory of evolution (I don't, so long as it isn't being used as evidence that there's no Creator). The non-ID crowd brings it up, then jeers when you respond to say that evolution doesn't explain creation...
> 
> And what do they say in their taunts?
> 
> Oh, that evolution has nothing to do with Creation.
> 
> NO SHIT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you also get mocked for stating that scientific theory is just a guess.
Click to expand...


Any scientist worth his salt would know that scientific theory is just a guess.  It is an educated guess.  It is not unsupported by observation, testing, empirical evidence.  Some theory does contain a very high degree of probability.  But certainty is a huge word to a true scientist.

That is why those who say there is no such thing as a Creator or I.D. are close minded religionists operating on pure faith that contains nothing of scientific thought.  Believing in a high probability that such does not exist is very different than stating such as an absolute which I believe no competent scientist would do.

And that is why I think a passionate Atheist might make as bad a science teacher as would a Creationist who denied Evolution.


----------



## goldcatt

To answer the question posed by the OP, I really don't care about the personal beliefs of the teacher in any science classroom instructing my kids, so long as they are not teaching those beliefs in class.

Until and unless they start indoctrinating my kids, what they believe or do not believe is none of my business and has nothing to do with their job. Neither is what I believe and teach to my children any business of theirs, nor is it their place to teach my kids things that should be taught at home and/or in our chosen place of worship.


----------



## geauxtohell

AllieBaba said:


> What kills me is that I am lambasted for disputing the theory of evolution (I don't, so long as it isn't being used as evidence that there's no Creator). The non-ID crowd brings it up, then jeers when you respond to say that evolution doesn't explain creation...
> 
> And what do they say in their taunts?
> 
> Oh, that evolution has nothing to do with Creation.
> 
> NO SHIT!



Except, as you stated earlier, you dispute that man evolved.  

That's disputing evolution.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Foxfyre said:


> Any scientist worth his salt would know that scientific theory is just a guess.  It is an educated guess.  It is not unsupported by observation, testing, empirical evidence.  Some theory does contain a very high degree of probability.  But certainty is a huge word to a true scientist.
> 
> That is why those who say there is no such thing as a Creator or I.D. are close minded religionists operating on pure faith that contains nothing of scientific thought.  Believing in a high probability that such does not exist is very different than stating such as an absolute which I believe no competent scientist would do.



You have no clue what you're talking about.  The overwhelmingly large majority of the scientific community, specifically biologists, understand that evolution is essentially fact, as far as scientific discovery allows, and is on par with the theory of gravity.  

You seem to not only lack an understanding of what "theory" means in scientific terms, but also lack all other understanding of scientific language as well.  You describe something as an "educated guess."  The scientific word for "educated guess" is hypothesis, not theory.  The two are very distinct, and their definitions have already been posted in this thread.

It seems you really have a poor understanding of scientific terms, as well as evolution as a whole, and then you wonder why you get negged.  Perhaps you should re-examine your lack of knowledge on the topic before talking about it further.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> Any scientist worth his salt would know that scientific theory is just a guess.



That's absolutely not a true statement.  



> It is an educated guess.  It is not unsupported by observation, testing, empirical evidence.  Some theory does contain a very high degree of probability.  But certainty is a huge word to a true scientist.



That's also not a true statement.  



> And that is why I think a passionate Atheist might make as bad a science teacher as would a Creationist who denied Evolution.



Anyone who can't separate their personal beliefs from their professional duty is bad at what they do period.


----------



## Trajan

geauxtohell said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5ixmLNwF9s&playnext=1&list=PLA3D6C9C847F27E6F
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have you seen the movie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen it.  I've also seen the selective editing they did to make people like Dawkins look bad.  I think Dawkins is a pretentious asshole; however, that movie is just dishonest.
> 
> Ben Stein must have needed money and wanted to cash in on some of the fundamentalist $.  That's the only people that buy it.
> 
> Furthermore, at the university level, I would fully expect faculty to be excoriated for trying to propel a non-scientific theory (intelligent design) in the biology curriculum.  The overwhelming majority of biologists find ID to be laughable.  Most of the Ph.D.'s who have flocked to the ID movement were in fields outside biology.  Probably the most notable is Behe, who was a biochemist and came up with the non-sense of "irreducible complexity".  The idea was so scientifically unsound that a lawyer with no background in sciences made him look like an ass at the Dover trial and also got him to admit that, if ID were accepted as a scientific field, then astrology would have to also be accepted under the new "lax" rules.
> 
> All the noise that the Discovery Institute tried to create (i.e. "Expelled", "teach the controversy", etc) quickly fell behind the wayside at the Dover Trial, which was the high water mark for ID.  That's why you don't hear much about ID now.  Even the Discovery Institute has withdrawn from it's position of trying to have ID taught as a "competing theory".
Click to expand...




> Ben Stein must have needed money and wanted to cash in on some of the fundamentalist $.  That's the only people that buy it.



thats why I asked.

 I never saw it as fundamentalist or creationist as it is shaped to stand, theologically per se'. I saw it as an attempt to fill in some blanks.  I think that though there is no scientific empirically backed examination that renders a scientific satisfactory result doesn't mean discussion and research into this theory should stop or be denigrated. 

In some cases I can see how they that is proponents can become their own worst enemy in that they wish to fashion this in a religiously couched  fundamentalist term(s). 

I see the apparent, excoriation as no different really from papal edict(s) that stopped scientific theorem from moving forward because the prevailing authority at the time had a vested interest in stopping it or were influenced by bias.


----------



## AllieBaba

geauxtohell said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kills me is that I am lambasted for disputing the theory of evolution (I don't, so long as it isn't being used as evidence that there's no Creator). The non-ID crowd brings it up, then jeers when you respond to say that evolution doesn't explain creation...
> 
> And what do they say in their taunts?
> 
> Oh, that evolution has nothing to do with Creation.
> 
> NO SHIT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except, as you stated earlier, you dispute that man evolved.
> 
> That's disputing evolution.
Click to expand...


No, I dispute that man evolved from some other animal. 

I bred horses for years. I get basic, standard evolution within a species.

However, one thing doesn't magically evolve into something else. There's no proof for it. That is just a theory.


----------



## Foxfyre

goldcatt said:


> To answer the question posed by the OP, I really don't care about the personal beliefs of the teacher in any science classroom instructing my kids, so long as they are not teaching those beliefs in class.
> 
> Until and unless they start indoctrinating my kids, what they believe or do not believe is none of my business and has nothing to do with their job. Neither is what I believe and teach to my children any business of theirs, nor is it their place to teach my kids things that should be taught at home and/or in our chosen place of worship.



For the most part I agree, but I do think teachers should be committed to their subject matter if they are going to teach.  I don't want a teacher teaching math who thinks Einstein's theory of relativity is unimportant or who doesn't believe it has any validity.

I don't want a biology teacher who disbelieves in Evolution teaching that subject.

I don't want a committed Marxist teaching economics.

I don't want a committed anarchist teaching Constitution.

I don't want a Holocaust denier teaching history.

I want teachers and professors from pre-school through all levels of higher education to teach information objectively and without prejudice and without dictating absolutes in anything.  The best teachers give their students all the available data, statistics, known facts, theories, and possibilities and then encourage the students to use that to draw conclusions or do further research.

If science teachers across the land were teaching their students that there are nine planets in our Solar System, they were all wrong as of 2006 (?) once Pluto was busted back to dwarf planet wouldn't they.  A good science teacher now says that we have so far discovered eight planets in our solar system and that is probably all that there is out there.

As I posted earlier, one scientists described science as an evolving process of learning and understanding.  Born and Ridley have summarized my personal view thusly:



> The fuel on which science runs is ignorance. Science is like a hungry furnace that must be fed logs from the forests of ignorance that surround us. In the process, the clearing that we call knowledge expands, but the more it expands, the longer its perimeter and the more ignorance comes into view. . . . A true scientist is bored by knowledge; it is the assault on ignorance that motivates him - the mysteries that previous discoveries have revealed. The forest is more interesting than the clearing.
> Matt Ridley, 1999
> Genome: the autobiography of a species in 23 chapters, p. 271.
> 
> 
> There is no philosophical high-road in science, with epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle and find our way by trial and error, building our roads behind us as we proceed. We do not find sign-posts at cross-roads, but our own scouts erect them, to help the rest.
> Max Born (1882-1970), Nobel Prize-winning physicist,
> quoted in Gerald Holton's Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought


----------



## geauxtohell

AllieBaba said:


> No, I dispute that man evolved from some other animal.



I guess you'd have to expand on that.  What do you think man evolved from? 



> I bred horses for years. I get basic, standard evolution within a species.



Except that's "artificial selection" and not "natural selection".  Though Darwin bred dogs and that probably laid some of the basis for his theory.  



> However, one thing doesn't magically evolve into something else. There's no proof for it. That is just a theory.



That's also something that people commonly state evolution claims that it does not claim.


----------



## Modbert

Foxfyre said:


> I don't want a biology teacher who disbelieves in Evolution teaching that subject.
> 
> I don't want a committed Marxist teaching economics.
> 
> I don't want a committed anarchist teaching Constitution.
> 
> I don't want a Holocaust denier teaching history.



Hooray! False Equivalences!


----------



## Foxfyre

Modbert said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want a biology teacher who disbelieves in Evolution teaching that subject.
> 
> I don't want a committed Marxist teaching economics.
> 
> I don't want a committed anarchist teaching Constitution.
> 
> I don't want a Holocaust denier teaching history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hooray! False Equivalences!
Click to expand...


Non sequitur.


----------



## geauxtohell

Trajan said:


> thats why I asked.
> 
> I never saw it as fundamentalist or creationist as it is shaped to stand, theologically per se'. I saw it as an attempt to fill in some blanks.  I think that though there is no scientific empirically backed examination that renders a scientific satisfactory result doesn't mean discussion and research into this theory should stop or be denigrated.



If you honestly want to explore the roots of Intelligent Design, which is a political movement designed to try and introduce creationism and God back into public schools, then I recommend this: 

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial

A lot of us have written about the matter, but they do a better job of summing it up.  The roots of intelligent design are not ground in academic thought.  They are ground in political activism, and there are the court documents to prove it.  

The larger problem with ID is that it is not a scientific theory. It violates the scientific method (the existence of a supernatural force can't be falsified) which means there can be no legitimate scientific research into it.  It's a procedural argument more than an argument for or against the concept.


----------



## goldcatt

Foxfyre said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> To answer the question posed by the OP, I really don't care about the personal beliefs of the teacher in any science classroom instructing my kids, so long as they are not teaching those beliefs in class.
> 
> Until and unless they start indoctrinating my kids, what they believe or do not believe is none of my business and has nothing to do with their job. Neither is what I believe and teach to my children any business of theirs, nor is it their place to teach my kids things that should be taught at home and/or in our chosen place of worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the most part I agree, but I do think teachers should be committed to their subject matter if they are going to teach.  I don't want a teacher teaching math who thinks Einstein's theory of relativity is unimportant or who doesn't believe it has any validity.
> 
> I don't want a biology teacher who disbelieves in Evolution teaching that subject.
> 
> I don't want a committed Marxist teaching economics.
> 
> I don't want a committed anarchist teaching Constitution.
> 
> I don't want a Holocaust denier teaching history.
> 
> I want teachers and professors from pre-school through all levels of higher education to teach information objectively and without prejudice and without dictating absolutes in anything.  The best teachers give their students all the available data, statistics, known facts, theories, and possibilities and then encourage the students to use that to draw conclusions or do further research.
> 
> If science teachers across the land were teaching their students that there are nine planets in our Solar System, they were all wrong as of 2006 (?) once Pluto was busted back to dwarf planet wouldn't they.  A good science teacher now says that we have so far discovered eight planets in our solar system and that is probably all that there is out there.
> 
> As I posted earlier, one scientists described science as an evolving process of learning and understanding.  Born and Ridley have summarized my personal view thusly:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fuel on which science runs is ignorance. Science is like a hungry furnace that must be fed logs from the forests of ignorance that surround us. In the process, the clearing that we call knowledge expands, but the more it expands, the longer its perimeter and the more ignorance comes into view. . . . A true scientist is bored by knowledge; it is the assault on ignorance that motivates him - the mysteries that previous discoveries have revealed. The forest is more interesting than the clearing.
> Matt Ridley, 1999
> Genome: the autobiography of a species in 23 chapters, p. 271.
> 
> 
> There is no philosophical high-road in science, with epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle and find our way by trial and error, building our roads behind us as we proceed. We do not find sign-posts at cross-roads, but our own scouts erect them, to help the rest.
> Max Born (1882-1970), Nobel Prize-winning physicist,
> quoted in Gerald Holton's Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


When we're talking about science classes (trying to stick closely with the OP here), then I have no problem with a science teacher explaining different scientific theories and taking that route.

What I do have a problem with is a teacher indoctrinating my children in religion when in science class. If a student raises their hand and says they believe in creationism and there is no such thing as evolution, the student should simply be told not that creationism is right or wrong, but that it is not a subject for science class. Because it's not.

For all that teacher knows, my children could be any flavor of Christian. Or Jewish. Or Muslim. Or Zooastrian. Or Hindu. Or Buddhist. Or a Native American religion. Or atheist. And what they are taught as far as religious beliefs and values is my decision as the parent, not theirs as the authority figure while they are a captive audience in school.


----------



## JBeukema

edthecynic said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what is someone who calls a science teacher closed minded and unfit to teach because they teach that Creationism violates the First Law of Thermodynamics????? I would guess, hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It should be obvious!
> 
> Creationism says that no thing (God) created everything from nothing.
> The FLoT says that from nothing, nothing comes.
Click to expand...

FLoT applies within a given system: this univese


God, like Branes, exists outside of the system in question


There is no evidence FLoT can be extrapolated to apply outside of this universe, to whatever medium it might itself exist within

Science recognizes this when discussing M-theory and bubble universes


----------



## JBeukema

saveliberty said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no.  I haven't seen a single person in this thread on "my side" state that creationists can't teach evolution.  Once again you are making crap up because you don't have an actual argument.  The general consensus here has been that anyone can teach science so long as they do so adequately while remaining within the boundaries of scientific understanding and professionalism.  It doesn't matter whether a creationist, Christian, Muslim, or atheist does it, so long as their personal beliefs are kept out of the classroom.
> 
> Again I ask: what part of anything I've said thus far do you disagree with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Major fail on your part.  The OP clearly implies that someone who believes in creation should not or cannot teach science.  You also seem to think that a person's beliefs are not part of teaching.  Who and want a person is helps make up the style of teaching.  A strong belief system makes for the best teachers.
Click to expand...


As pointed out on page one, the OP was trolling for suckers


----------



## JBeukema

SmarterThanHick said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any scientist worth his salt would know that scientific theory is just a guess.  It is an educated guess.  It is not unsupported by observation, testing, empirical evidence.  Some theory does contain a very high degree of probability.  But certainty is a huge word to a true scientist.
> 
> That is why those who say there is no such thing as a Creator or I.D. are close minded religionists operating on pure faith that contains nothing of scientific thought.  Believing in a high probability that such does not exist is very different than stating such as an absolute which I believe no competent scientist would do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no clue what you're talking about.  The overwhelmingly large majority of the scientific community, specifically biologists, understand that evolution is essentially fact, as far as scientific discovery allows, and is on par with the theory of gravity.
> 
> You seem to not only lack an understanding of what "theory" means in scientific terms, but also lack all other understanding of scientific language as well.  You describe something as an "educated guess."  The scientific word for "educated guess" is hypothesis, not theory.  The two are very distinct, and their definitions have already been posted in this thread.
> 
> It seems you really have a poor understanding of scientific terms, as well as evolution as a whole, and then you wonder why you get negged.  Perhaps you should re-examine your lack of knowledge on the topic before talking about it further.
Click to expand...


There is also the small matter of our observing evolution.

See: nylonase


Evolution is an observed *fact*, like gravity

Evolution is not the same thing as the Theory of Evolution, which posit both (A) the mechanisms behind evolution (mutation, selection, genetic drift) and (B) that these same evolutionary forces we observe today gave rise to current species from common ancestors


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kills me is that I am lambasted for disputing the theory of evolution (I don't, so long as it isn't being used as evidence that there's no Creator). The non-ID crowd brings it up, then jeers when you respond to say that evolution doesn't explain creation...
> 
> And what do they say in their taunts?
> 
> Oh, that evolution has nothing to do with Creation.
> 
> NO SHIT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except, as you stated earlier, you dispute that man evolved.
> 
> That's disputing evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I dispute that man evolved from some other animal.
> 
> I bred horses for years. I get basic, standard evolution within a species.
> 
> However, one thing doesn't magically evolve into something else. There's no proof for it. That is just a theory.
Click to expand...



You're confused, child. The magic hypothesis is called Creationism.


----------



## Trajan

geauxtohell said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats why I asked.
> 
> I never saw it as fundamentalist or creationist as it is shaped to stand, theologically per se'. I saw it as an attempt to fill in some blanks.  I think that though there is no scientific empirically backed examination that renders a scientific satisfactory result doesn't mean discussion and research into this theory should stop or be denigrated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you honestly want to explore the roots of Intelligent Design, which is a political movement designed to try and introduce creationism and God back into public schools, then I recommend this:
> 
> NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial
> 
> A lot of us have written about the matter, but they do a better job of summing it up.  The roots of intelligent design are not ground in academic thought.  They are ground in political activism, and there are the court documents to prove it.
> 
> The larger problem with ID is that it is not a scientific theory. It violates the scientific method (the existence of a supernatural force can't be falsified) which means there can be no legitimate scientific research into it.  It's a procedural argument more than an argument for or against the concept.
Click to expand...


I wasn't aware I had explored it dishonestly.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Scientific theory is an educated, factual deduction based on the evidence.  The theory of evolution is not an airy fairy speculation based on whimsy.  That is why it is taught in the biology classroom.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

AllieBaba said:


> No, I dispute that man evolved from some other animal.
> 
> I bred horses for years. I get basic, standard evolution within a species.
> 
> However, one thing doesn't magically evolve into something else. There's no proof for it. That is just a theory.


Breeding horses is not evolution.  Again, you don't actually know what the term means.  Stop thinking you do.  As someone else mentioned, the only magical explanation is produced by religion, not science.  There is an overwhelming and undeniable proof for evolution.



Foxfyre said:


> For the most part I agree, but I do think teachers should be committed to their subject matter if they are going to teach.  I don't want a teacher teaching math who thinks Einstein's theory of relativity is unimportant or who doesn't believe it has any validity.


The theory of relativity is irrelevant to a grade school math classroom, and regardless of what a teacher thinks about it, it is moot so long as it does not inhibit that teacher from effectively conveying their subject, which I've mentioned is the ONLY real issue.  



Foxfyre said:


> I don't want a biology teacher who disbelieves in Evolution teaching that subject.
> 
> I don't want a committed Marxist teaching economics.
> 
> I don't want a committed anarchist teaching Constitution.
> 
> I don't want a Holocaust denier teaching history.


Again, none of those things matter if those personal beliefs in no way effect that person's effectiveness at conveying the content of their subject.  If a religious zealot personally believed evolution to be a fraud left by the devil, but was able to drop those personal beliefs in the classroom and effectively each evolution, there's no problem.  

Personal beliefs are NOT the issue here.  Personal beliefs that compromise education ARE the issue.  You seem to be incapable of understanding how mature adults can distinguish between personal and professional ideas.  My guess is that you lack such a capacity, and thus project your deficiency onto everyone else when such is not the case. 



Foxfyre said:


> I want teachers and professors from pre-school through all levels of higher education to teach information objectively and without prejudice and without dictating absolutes in anything.  The best teachers give their students all the available data, statistics, known facts, theories, and possibilities and then encourage the students to use that to draw conclusions or do further research.


What you have also said you want is for teachers to state creation is a possible explanation for the gaps in scientific understanding, which directly contradicts the above quoted excerpt, as such an idea is NOT available data or known fact, but rather unsupported guesswork. [/QUOTE]


----------



## JakeStarkey

Creationism and ID may be taught as unscientific supposition in comparative religions or mythology or philosophy classes, but never in a biology classroom.


----------



## Foxfyre

goldcatt said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> To answer the question posed by the OP, I really don't care about the personal beliefs of the teacher in any science classroom instructing my kids, so long as they are not teaching those beliefs in class.
> 
> Until and unless they start indoctrinating my kids, what they believe or do not believe is none of my business and has nothing to do with their job. Neither is what I believe and teach to my children any business of theirs, nor is it their place to teach my kids things that should be taught at home and/or in our chosen place of worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the most part I agree, but I do think teachers should be committed to their subject matter if they are going to teach.  I don't want a teacher teaching math who thinks Einstein's theory of relativity is unimportant or who doesn't believe it has any validity.
> 
> I don't want a biology teacher who disbelieves in Evolution teaching that subject.
> 
> I don't want a committed Marxist teaching economics.
> 
> I don't want a committed anarchist teaching Constitution.
> 
> I don't want a Holocaust denier teaching history.
> 
> I want teachers and professors from pre-school through all levels of higher education to teach information objectively and without prejudice and without dictating absolutes in anything.  The best teachers give their students all the available data, statistics, known facts, theories, and possibilities and then encourage the students to use that to draw conclusions or do further research.
> 
> If science teachers across the land were teaching their students that there are nine planets in our Solar System, they were all wrong as of 2006 (?) once Pluto was busted back to dwarf planet wouldn't they.  A good science teacher now says that we have so far discovered eight planets in our solar system and that is probably all that there is out there.
> 
> As I posted earlier, one scientists described science as an evolving process of learning and understanding.  Born and Ridley have summarized my personal view thusly:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fuel on which science runs is ignorance. Science is like a hungry furnace that must be fed logs from the forests of ignorance that surround us. In the process, the clearing that we call knowledge expands, but the more it expands, the longer its perimeter and the more ignorance comes into view. . . . A true scientist is bored by knowledge; it is the assault on ignorance that motivates him - the mysteries that previous discoveries have revealed. The forest is more interesting than the clearing.
> Matt Ridley, 1999
> Genome: the autobiography of a species in 23 chapters, p. 271.
> 
> 
> There is no philosophical high-road in science, with epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle and find our way by trial and error, building our roads behind us as we proceed. We do not find sign-posts at cross-roads, but our own scouts erect them, to help the rest.
> Max Born (1882-1970), Nobel Prize-winning physicist,
> quoted in Gerald Holton's Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we're talking about science classes (trying to stick closely with the OP here), then I have no problem with a science teacher explaining different scientific theories and taking that route.
> 
> What I do have a problem with is a teacher indoctrinating my children in religion when in science class. If a student raises their hand and says they believe in creationism and there is no such thing as evolution, the student should simply be told not that creationism is right or wrong, but that it is not a subject for science class. Because it's not.
> 
> For all that teacher knows, my children could be any flavor of Christian. Or Jewish. Or Muslim. Or Zooastrian. Or Hindu. Or Buddhist. Or a Native American religion. Or atheist. And what they are taught as far as religious beliefs and values is my decision as the parent, not theirs as the authority figure while they are a captive audience in school.
Click to expand...


Which is pretty much what I've been arguing all along and getting blasted (and neg repped) for while you get applauded.  LOL.

But the teacher should also not be saying that Evolution is an absolute, because it isn't, but shoud be explaining that it is the best and most credible explanations for the evolvement of various species and the scientific theory that is most credible at this time.  But there are many unanswered questions yet within the theory of Evolution and it will be up to your generation--speaking to the students--to carry that further to greater knowledge and understandings.  And the students you teach will add even more to the body of knowledge available to us.

As you said, schools should not be indoctrinating students with anything but should be giving them as much information, including varying perspectives, as possible and encouraging the students to think, expand their scope of perspective, ask questions, and believe that for all the great science we have, it is but a tiny fraction of all the science that we will likely one day have.

Had the OP started with the question of whether I want a Creationist teaching Creationism in Science class, that would be an easy no.  Also I would not wanting a teacher telling students that Evolution was the only belief worth having and trumps your religious beliefs.
Both would be the same degree of close minded indoctrination.


----------



## Woyzeck

saveliberty said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they teaching their own beliefs instead of science in science class?
> 
> If so, I don't want them teaching my kids fucking retarded bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person believe in creation and teach science.  I have done just that in the past.  Science encompasses many things.  My kids were very well informed on how different landforms are made by tectonic plate movement, erosion and glacial activity.  I believe you have a lot of anger management and socialization issues, but I can still teach you science.
Click to expand...


Creationism is fucking retarded.


----------



## geauxtohell

Trajan said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats why I asked.
> 
> I never saw it as fundamentalist or creationist as it is shaped to stand, theologically per se'. I saw it as an attempt to fill in some blanks.  I think that though there is no scientific empirically backed examination that renders a scientific satisfactory result doesn't mean discussion and research into this theory should stop or be denigrated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you honestly want to explore the roots of Intelligent Design, which is a political movement designed to try and introduce creationism and God back into public schools, then I recommend this:
> 
> NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial
> 
> A lot of us have written about the matter, but they do a better job of summing it up.  The roots of intelligent design are not ground in academic thought.  They are ground in political activism, and there are the court documents to prove it.
> 
> The larger problem with ID is that it is not a scientific theory. It violates the scientific method (the existence of a supernatural force can't be falsified) which means there can be no legitimate scientific research into it.  It's a procedural argument more than an argument for or against the concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware I had explored it dishonestly.
Click to expand...


No, no, not you.  The people who have peddled ID have been dishonest about their intents and goals.  

The whole point is to make it seem like this isn't a religious movement.  

That is not what the courts have found.  So ID proponents (the professional ones, like the discovery institute) put out talking points to claim that ID is a scientifically valid theory on it's own merits to put up a smoke screen to cover their real agenda, which I suspect most Americans (even those who accept ID) would be opposed too.

The problem is that they have skeletons in their closet.

Wedge strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the most part I agree, but I do think teachers should be committed to their subject matter if they are going to teach.  I don't want a teacher teaching math who thinks Einstein's theory of relativity is unimportant or who doesn't believe it has any validity.
> 
> I don't want a biology teacher who disbelieves in Evolution teaching that subject.
> 
> I don't want a committed Marxist teaching economics.
> 
> I don't want a committed anarchist teaching Constitution.
> 
> I don't want a Holocaust denier teaching history.
> 
> I want teachers and professors from pre-school through all levels of higher education to teach information objectively and without prejudice and without dictating absolutes in anything.  The best teachers give their students all the available data, statistics, known facts, theories, and possibilities and then encourage the students to use that to draw conclusions or do further research.
> 
> If science teachers across the land were teaching their students that there are nine planets in our Solar System, they were all wrong as of 2006 (?) once Pluto was busted back to dwarf planet wouldn't they.  A good science teacher now says that we have so far discovered eight planets in our solar system and that is probably all that there is out there.
> 
> As I posted earlier, one scientists described science as an evolving process of learning and understanding.  Born and Ridley have summarized my personal view thusly:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we're talking about science classes (trying to stick closely with the OP here), then I have no problem with a science teacher explaining different scientific theories and taking that route.
> 
> What I do have a problem with is a teacher indoctrinating my children in religion when in science class. If a student raises their hand and says they believe in creationism and there is no such thing as evolution, the student should simply be told not that creationism is right or wrong, but that it is not a subject for science class. Because it's not.
> 
> For all that teacher knows, my children could be any flavor of Christian. Or Jewish. Or Muslim. Or Zooastrian. Or Hindu. Or Buddhist. Or a Native American religion. Or atheist. And what they are taught as far as religious beliefs and values is my decision as the parent, not theirs as the authority figure while they are a captive audience in school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is pretty much what I've been arguing all along and getting blasted (and neg repped) for while you get applauded.  LOL.
> 
> But the teacher should also not be saying that Evolution is an absolute, because it isn't, but shoud be explaining that it is the best and most credible explanations for the evolvement of various species and the scientific theory that is most credible at this time.  But there are many unanswered questions yet within the theory of Evolution and it will be up to your generation--speaking to the students--to carry that further to greater knowledge and understandings.  And the students you teach will add even more to the body of knowledge available to us.
> 
> As you said, schools should not be indoctrinating students with anything but should be giving them as much information, including varying perspectives, as possible and encouraging the students to think, expand their scope of perspective, ask questions, and believe that for all the great science we have, it is but a tiny fraction of all the science that we will likely one day have.
> 
> Had the OP started with the question of whether I want a Creationist teaching Creationism in Science class, that would be an easy no.  Also I would not wanting a teacher telling students that Evolution was the only belief worth having and trumps your religious beliefs.
> Both would be the same degree of close minded indoctrination.
Click to expand...


One thing that tends to give people outside the field of science trouble, I think, is that science is not static in it's thinking and procedures (unlike religion, which is basically inflexible). 

The theory of evolution today barely resembles the theory that Darwin proposed.  Science is free to adapt and change a theory as newer and better evidence comes forward.  As long as nothing comes forward that would invalidate the entire theory (evolution could be invalidated by finding a single fossil in the wrong place in the ground) it is sound.  People who are trying to argue against evolution (or don't know better) point to these events as "a ha!" moments, but the whole point of science is to continually move the ball of thought and progress forward.  

It's simply a separate venture then religion, which the gospel or whatever holy book is the word and is static in nature.  There might be some things that are up for debate, but the book hasn't really changed in centuries, and when it does, it spawns entirely new religions.


----------



## goldcatt

Foxfyre said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the most part I agree, but I do think teachers should be committed to their subject matter if they are going to teach.  I don't want a teacher teaching math who thinks Einstein's theory of relativity is unimportant or who doesn't believe it has any validity.
> 
> I don't want a biology teacher who disbelieves in Evolution teaching that subject.
> 
> I don't want a committed Marxist teaching economics.
> 
> I don't want a committed anarchist teaching Constitution.
> 
> I don't want a Holocaust denier teaching history.
> 
> I want teachers and professors from pre-school through all levels of higher education to teach information objectively and without prejudice and without dictating absolutes in anything.  The best teachers give their students all the available data, statistics, known facts, theories, and possibilities and then encourage the students to use that to draw conclusions or do further research.
> 
> If science teachers across the land were teaching their students that there are nine planets in our Solar System, they were all wrong as of 2006 (?) once Pluto was busted back to dwarf planet wouldn't they.  A good science teacher now says that we have so far discovered eight planets in our solar system and that is probably all that there is out there.
> 
> As I posted earlier, one scientists described science as an evolving process of learning and understanding.  Born and Ridley have summarized my personal view thusly:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we're talking about science classes (trying to stick closely with the OP here), then I have no problem with a science teacher explaining different scientific theories and taking that route.
> 
> What I do have a problem with is a teacher indoctrinating my children in religion when in science class. If a student raises their hand and says they believe in creationism and there is no such thing as evolution, the student should simply be told not that creationism is right or wrong, but that it is not a subject for science class. Because it's not.
> 
> For all that teacher knows, my children could be any flavor of Christian. Or Jewish. Or Muslim. Or Zooastrian. Or Hindu. Or Buddhist. Or a Native American religion. Or atheist. And what they are taught as far as religious beliefs and values is my decision as the parent, not theirs as the authority figure while they are a captive audience in school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is pretty much what I've been arguing all along and getting blasted (and neg repped) for while you get applauded.  LOL.
> 
> But the teacher should also not be saying that Evolution is an absolute, because it isn't, but shoud be explaining that it is the best and most credible explanations for the evolvement of various species and the scientific theory that is most credible at this time.  But there are many unanswered questions yet within the theory of Evolution and it will be up to your generation--speaking to the students--to carry that further to greater knowledge and understandings.  And the students you teach will add even more to the body of knowledge available to us.
> 
> As you said, schools should not be indoctrinating students with anything but should be giving them as much information, including varying perspectives, as possible and encouraging the students to think, expand their scope of perspective, ask questions, and believe that for all the great science we have, it is but a tiny fraction of all the science that we will likely one day have.
> 
> Had the OP started with the question of whether I want a Creationist teaching Creationism in Science class, that would be an easy no.  Also I would not wanting a teacher telling students that Evolution was the only belief worth having and trumps your religious beliefs.
> Both would be the same degree of close minded indoctrination.
Click to expand...


Oh! Maybe it was the way your posts were worded, I was under the impression you favored bringing up creationism or I.D. in the science classroom as an alternative rather than pointing out that there are things we don't know about evolution. Which is true, there are things we do not yet know. I have no problem with that. What I would have a problem with is the teacher teaching his or her specific beliefs on creation in a class on science and calling it an "alternative". 

So basically, we agree.


----------



## edthecynic

JBeukema said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrate
> 
> 
> 
> It should be obvious!
> 
> Creationism says that no thing (God) created everything from nothing.
> The FLoT says that from nothing, nothing comes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FLoT applies within a given system: this univese
> 
> 
> God, like Branes, exists outside of the system in question
> 
> 
> There is no evidence FLoT can be extrapolated to apply outside of this universe, to whatever medium it might itself exist within
> 
> Science recognizes this when discussing M-theory and bubble universes
Click to expand...

Neither M-Theory, nor String Theory, nor Brane Theory says that you can get something from nothing. The FLoT still stands and Creationism still violates it.


----------



## Foxfyre

goldcatt said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we're talking about science classes (trying to stick closely with the OP here), then I have no problem with a science teacher explaining different scientific theories and taking that route.
> 
> What I do have a problem with is a teacher indoctrinating my children in religion when in science class. If a student raises their hand and says they believe in creationism and there is no such thing as evolution, the student should simply be told not that creationism is right or wrong, but that it is not a subject for science class. Because it's not.
> 
> For all that teacher knows, my children could be any flavor of Christian. Or Jewish. Or Muslim. Or Zooastrian. Or Hindu. Or Buddhist. Or a Native American religion. Or atheist. And what they are taught as far as religious beliefs and values is my decision as the parent, not theirs as the authority figure while they are a captive audience in school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is pretty much what I've been arguing all along and getting blasted (and neg repped) for while you get applauded.  LOL.
> 
> But the teacher should also not be saying that Evolution is an absolute, because it isn't, but shoud be explaining that it is the best and most credible explanations for the evolvement of various species and the scientific theory that is most credible at this time.  But there are many unanswered questions yet within the theory of Evolution and it will be up to your generation--speaking to the students--to carry that further to greater knowledge and understandings.  And the students you teach will add even more to the body of knowledge available to us.
> 
> As you said, schools should not be indoctrinating students with anything but should be giving them as much information, including varying perspectives, as possible and encouraging the students to think, expand their scope of perspective, ask questions, and believe that for all the great science we have, it is but a tiny fraction of all the science that we will likely one day have.
> 
> Had the OP started with the question of whether I want a Creationist teaching Creationism in Science class, that would be an easy no.  Also I would not wanting a teacher telling students that Evolution was the only belief worth having and trumps your religious beliefs.
> Both would be the same degree of close minded indoctrination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh! Maybe it was the way your posts were worded, I was under the impression you favored bringing up creationism or I.D. in the science classroom as an alternative rather than pointing out that there are things we don't know about evolution. Which is true, there are things we do not yet know. I have no problem with that. What I would have a problem with is the teacher teaching his or her specific beliefs on creation in a class on science and calling it an "alternative".
> 
> So basically, we agree.
Click to expand...


Nope.  If you re-read my posts you will see that I in no way suggested that the science teacher should bring up ID or Creationism as an alternative.  And in almost every case I explicitly added a separate line that I do not want Creationism or ID taught as science.

But it is likely that sooner or later the teacher will get a student who does reject evolution and insists on the literal Biblical interpretation.  All the teacher has to say is that millions of people believe in some form of Creationism and/or I.D. and that is one explanation for how things came to be.  However, it is not science and will not be included in the curriculum in this class.  I don't insist that you agree with Evolution, but you will have to answer the questions correctly as taught if you want to pass the test.  

Any science teacher who tells the student that his/her religious beliefs are wrong should be fired or transfered to shop or typing class or some such.


----------



## geauxtohell

edthecynic said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be obvious!
> 
> Creationism says that no thing (God) created everything from nothing.
> The FLoT says that from nothing, nothing comes.
> 
> 
> 
> FLoT applies within a given system: this univese
> 
> 
> God, like Branes, exists outside of the system in question
> 
> 
> There is no evidence FLoT can be extrapolated to apply outside of this universe, to whatever medium it might itself exist within
> 
> Science recognizes this when discussing M-theory and bubble universes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither M-Theory, nor String Theory, nor Brane Theory says that you can get something from nothing. The FLoT still stands and Creationism still violates it.
Click to expand...


Thermodynamics in one sentence:

"You can't win, and you can't break even."


----------



## goldcatt

Foxfyre said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is pretty much what I've been arguing all along and getting blasted (and neg repped) for while you get applauded.  LOL.
> 
> But the teacher should also not be saying that Evolution is an absolute, because it isn't, but shoud be explaining that it is the best and most credible explanations for the evolvement of various species and the scientific theory that is most credible at this time.  But there are many unanswered questions yet within the theory of Evolution and it will be up to your generation--speaking to the students--to carry that further to greater knowledge and understandings.  And the students you teach will add even more to the body of knowledge available to us.
> 
> As you said, schools should not be indoctrinating students with anything but should be giving them as much information, including varying perspectives, as possible and encouraging the students to think, expand their scope of perspective, ask questions, and believe that for all the great science we have, it is but a tiny fraction of all the science that we will likely one day have.
> 
> Had the OP started with the question of whether I want a Creationist teaching Creationism in Science class, that would be an easy no.  Also I would not wanting a teacher telling students that Evolution was the only belief worth having and trumps your religious beliefs.
> Both would be the same degree of close minded indoctrination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh! Maybe it was the way your posts were worded, I was under the impression you favored bringing up creationism or I.D. in the science classroom as an alternative rather than pointing out that there are things we don't know about evolution. Which is true, there are things we do not yet know. I have no problem with that. What I would have a problem with is the teacher teaching his or her specific beliefs on creation in a class on science and calling it an "alternative".
> 
> So basically, we agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  If you re-read my posts you will see that I in no way suggested that the science teacher should bring up ID or Creationism as an alternative.  And in almost every case I explicitly added a separate line that I do not want Creationism or ID taught as science.
> 
> But it is likely that sooner or later the teacher will get a student who does reject evolution and insists on the literal Biblical interpretation.  All the teacher has to say is that millions of people believe in some form of Creationism and/or I.D. and that is one explanation for how things came to be.  However, it is not science and will not be included in the curriculum in this class.  I don't insist that you agree with Evolution, but you will have to answer the questions correctly as taught if you want to pass the test.
> 
> Any science teacher who tells the student that his/her religious beliefs are wrong should be fired or transfered to shop or typing class or some such.
Click to expand...


I agree there too. However it is addressed, it needs to be neutral.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> I don't want a committed Marxist teaching economics.
> 
> I don't want a committed anarchist teaching Constitution.


Talk about being close minded!!!

You would probably have no problem with a committed Capitalist teaching economics!


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want a committed Marxist teaching economics.
> 
> I don't want a committed anarchist teaching Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about being close minded!!!
> 
> You would probably have no problem with a committed Capitalist teaching economics!
Click to expand...


A committed capitalist would probably know all the theories of economics out there and would probably teach them competently.  If he was of the bent  that would teach Marxism as evil rather than as an economic concept, however, then yes, I would object to him as a teacher.

I've never known a committed Marxist however who even understood how capitalism works, much less would be able to teach it objectively.  And yes, my opinion about that speaks to my own prejudices as there could be a Marxist out there somewhere who could teach economics competently and objectively.  But I've never known one.  Nor read one.  Nor listened to one.   So I'll just hold onto my opinion about that.  A Marxist by definition views capitalism as evil.


----------



## edthecynic

geauxtohell said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> FLoT applies within a given system: this univese
> 
> 
> God, like Branes, exists outside of the system in question
> 
> 
> There is no evidence FLoT can be extrapolated to apply outside of this universe, to whatever medium it might itself exist within
> 
> Science recognizes this when discussing M-theory and bubble universes
> 
> 
> 
> Neither M-Theory, nor String Theory, nor Brane Theory says that you can get something from nothing. The FLoT still stands and Creationism still violates it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thermodynamics in one sentence:
> 
> *"You can't win, and you can't break even."*
Click to expand...

That is not the FLoT!

That is the Creationist's PERVERSION of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The actual SLoT says, In a closed thermodynamic system, Entropy is greater than OR EQUAL TO zero. When Entropy equals zero you break even. If Entropy could not equal zero, no matter could exist.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Foxfyre said:


> But the teacher should also not be saying that Evolution is an absolute, because it isn't, but shoud be explaining that it is the best and most credible explanations for the evolvement of various species and the scientific theory that is most credible at this time.  But there are many unanswered questions yet within the theory of Evolution and it will be up to your generation


Which questions are those, exactly?  You keep making references to holes and unanswered questions, and yet seem incapable of stating what they are.  As GTH mentioned, science allows for increased understanding, but we know what evolution is.  There is no gap in the theory, although there are certainly genetics questions to answer regarding evolution.  So please, identify which questions and holes you continually keep referring to.



Foxfyre said:


> Had the OP started with the question of whether I want a Creationist teaching Creationism in Science class, that would be an easy no.  Also I would not wanting a teacher telling students that Evolution was the only belief worth having and trumps your religious beliefs.
> Both would be the same degree of close minded indoctrination.


You have this tendency of backpedaling away from your initial response, which is that teachers shoudl acknowledge ID as an acceptable explanation that fills in unidentified holes in evolution.  In this quote, you once again state that science teachers should be comparing RELIGION and SCIENCE in a SCIENCE classroom.  It seems you still haven't learned that RELIGION has NO PLACE in a SCIENCE classroom, neither in acknowledgement nor comparison.  If a student brings it up, the SCIENCE teacher should direct their RELIGIOUS inquiries elsewhere and continue teaching SCIENCE.  Stop promoting the very wedge strategy GTH just pointed out.



Foxfyre said:


> But it is likely that sooner or later the teacher will get a student who does reject evolution and insists on the literal Biblical interpretation.  All the teacher has to say is that millions of people believe in some form of Creationism and/or I.D. and that is one explanation for how things came to be.


No, no they should NOT tell the student that whatsoever, because it is not scientifically sound and has no place in a SCIENCE classroom.  All the teacher has to say is "please consult your religious authorities, we will not go into that here" while specifically omitting the parts regarding how popular a belief it is or stating is is an explanation for the same topic.  From a science standpoint, it's not.


----------



## geauxtohell

edthecynic said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither M-Theory, nor String Theory, nor Brane Theory says that you can get something from nothing. The FLoT still stands and Creationism still violates it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thermodynamics in one sentence:
> 
> *"You can't win, and you can't break even."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the FLot!
> 
> That is the Creationist's PERVERSION of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The actual SLoT says, In a closed thermodynamic system, Entropy is greater than OR EQUAL TO zero. When Entropy equals zero you break even. If Entropy could not equal zero, no matter could exist.
Click to expand...


Well, I heard it from my physics professor and took it to mean you can never get to 100% efficiency when it comes to energy, which encompasses all three laws.  

In other words, it took millions of years to form the hydrocarbons that we are going to blow through in a few hundred years.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> But it is likely that sooner or later the teacher will get a student who does reject evolution and insists on the literal Biblical interpretation.  *All the teacher has to say is that millions of people believe in some form of Creationism and/or I.D. and that is one explanation for how things came to be.*  However, it is not science and will not be included in the curriculum in this class.  I don't insist that you agree with Evolution, but you will have to answer the questions correctly as taught if you want to pass the test.



Then that is problematic.  Even the bolded part, as ID/Creationism are not scientific explanations for anything and shouldn't even be introduced in the classroom.

This speaks to the "sticker" controversy in the state of Texas.  

A teacher shouldn't undermine legitimate scientific theories in favor of non-scientific theories in a scientific classroom.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want a committed Marxist teaching economics.
> 
> I don't want a committed anarchist teaching Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about being close minded!!!
> 
> You would probably have no problem with a committed Capitalist teaching economics!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A committed capitalist would probably know all the theories of economics out there* and would probably teach them competently.  If he was of the bent  that would teach Marxism as evil rather than as an economic concept, however, then yes, I would object to him as a teacher.
> 
> I've never known a committed Marxist however who even understood how capitalism works, much less would be able to teach it objectively.  And yes, my opinion about that speaks to my own prejudices as there could be a Marxist out there somewhere who could teach economics competently and objectively.  But I've never known one.  Nor read one.  Nor listened to one.   So I'll just hold onto my opinion about that.*  A Marxist by definition views capitalism as evil.*
Click to expand...

Judging from the committed Capitalists on this board, it is highly unlikely they would know any theory of economics, not even Capitalism.

Fortunately you CON$ervative "mind-readers" don't get to control the definitions!!!


----------



## Foxfyre

geauxtohell said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it is likely that sooner or later the teacher will get a student who does reject evolution and insists on the literal Biblical interpretation.  *All the teacher has to say is that millions of people believe in some form of Creationism and/or I.D. and that is one explanation for how things came to be.*  However, it is not science and will not be included in the curriculum in this class.  I don't insist that you agree with Evolution, but you will have to answer the questions correctly as taught if you want to pass the test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then that is problematic.  Even the bolded part, as ID/Creationism are not scientific explanations for anything and shouldn't even be introduced in the classroom.
> 
> This speaks to the "sticker" controversy in the state of Texas.
> 
> A teacher shouldn't undermine legitimate scientific theories in favor of non-scientific theories in a scientific classroom.
Click to expand...


Well bully for you.  I would like to see how you would organize a classroom full of students from a wide variety of backgrounds, experiences, and faiths and ensure that none of them ever ask the awkward question about anything.  Perhaps you wouldn't ever allow them to talk or ask questions?   Or maybe you would be the science teacher I would recommend to transferred to the shop class?


----------



## saveliberty

How would I feel if a cartoonist taught my kids science?  Hmmm...


----------



## edthecynic

geauxtohell said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thermodynamics in one sentence:
> 
> *"You can't win, and you can't break even."*
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the FLot!
> 
> That is the Creationist's PERVERSION of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The actual SLoT says, In a closed thermodynamic system, Entropy is greater than OR EQUAL TO zero. When Entropy equals zero you break even. If Entropy could not equal zero, no matter could exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I heard it from my physics professor and took it to mean you can never get to 100% efficiency when it comes to energy, which encompasses all three laws.
> 
> In other words, it took millions of years to form the hydrocarbons that we are going to blow through in a few hundred years.
Click to expand...

I would guess that you misunderstood your professor. If you look it up you will see the equation is E &#8805; 0. Your version would be E > 0. While there are many examples where E > 0, it is not true in ALL cases.


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about being close minded!!!
> 
> You would probably have no problem with a committed Capitalist teaching economics!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A committed capitalist would probably know all the theories of economics out there* and would probably teach them competently.  If he was of the bent  that would teach Marxism as evil rather than as an economic concept, however, then yes, I would object to him as a teacher.
> 
> I've never known a committed Marxist however who even understood how capitalism works, much less would be able to teach it objectively.  And yes, my opinion about that speaks to my own prejudices as there could be a Marxist out there somewhere who could teach economics competently and objectively.  But I've never known one.  Nor read one.  Nor listened to one.   So I'll just hold onto my opinion about that.*  A Marxist by definition views capitalism as evil.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judging from the committed Capitalists on this board, it is highly unlikely they would know any theory of economics, not even Capitalism.
> 
> Fortunately you CON$ervative "mind-readers" don't get to control the definitions!!!
Click to expand...


But we can argue a point of view without being hateful or ad hominem or personally insulting.  Can you?


----------



## saveliberty

I guess as long as the cartoonist doesn't draw pictures of Muhammad in science class we're good.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> Well bully for you.  I would like to see how you would organize a classroom full of students from a wide variety of backgrounds, experiences, and faiths and ensure that none of them ever ask the awkward question about anything.  Perhaps you wouldn't ever allow them to talk or ask questions?   Or maybe you would be the science teacher I would recommend to transferred to the shop class?



Actually, I have a very pragmatic solution for this issue:  teach science.

That means, before you get into the meat of scientific curriculum; do a block about what science is and is not, to include the history of science.  Then explain the scientific method and how it defines what is and what is not a scientific theory.

In this aspect, I think ID has a very good role in the science classroom:  as an example of what a scientific theory is not.  You don't have to try and debate ID, you simply have to demonstrate why it is not a legitimate scientific theory (among the many reasons, you can't falsify the existence of a supernatural, all powerful being).  

Don't insult me.  I've been rather civil on this thread, despite the fact that the same dishonest crap gets thrown around.  As I am a year and a half away from being an M.D., i am fairly confident I could handle a scientific curriculum at the high school level.  I don't know a damn thing about shop class and would be completely worthless there.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A committed capitalist would probably know all the theories of economics out there* and would probably teach them competently.  If he was of the bent  that would teach Marxism as evil rather than as an economic concept, however, then yes, I would object to him as a teacher.
> 
> I've never known a committed Marxist however who even understood how capitalism works, much less would be able to teach it objectively.  And yes, my opinion about that speaks to my own prejudices as there could be a Marxist out there somewhere who could teach economics competently and objectively.  But I've never known one.  Nor read one.  Nor listened to one.   So I'll just hold onto my opinion about that.*  A Marxist by definition views capitalism as evil.*
> 
> 
> 
> Judging from the committed Capitalists on this board, it is highly unlikely they would know any theory of economics, not even Capitalism.
> 
> Fortunately you CON$ervative "mind-readers" don't get to control the definitions!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we can argue a point of view without being hateful or ad hominem or personally insulting.  Can you?
Click to expand...

But can you stop reading minds?


----------



## geauxtohell

edthecynic said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the FLot!
> 
> That is the Creationist's PERVERSION of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The actual SLoT says, In a closed thermodynamic system, Entropy is greater than OR EQUAL TO zero. When Entropy equals zero you break even. If Entropy could not equal zero, no matter could exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I heard it from my physics professor and took it to mean you can never get to 100% efficiency when it comes to energy, which encompasses all three laws.
> 
> In other words, it took millions of years to form the hydrocarbons that we are going to blow through in a few hundred years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would guess that you misunderstood your professor. If you look it up you will see the equation is E &#8805; 0. Your version would be E > 0. While there are many examples where E > 0, it is not true in ALL cases.
Click to expand...


Maybe, physics wasn't my cup of tea.

Although I do find the lame attempts by the creationists to evoke the 2nd law of TD as an argument against evolution to be hilarious.  Almost as funny as the "You'll never see a plane spontaneously assemble in a junkyard" crapola.


----------



## geauxtohell

saveliberty said:


> I guess as long as the cartoonist doesn't draw pictures of Muhammad in science class we're good.



What the hell does that have to do with anything?


----------



## saveliberty

geauxtohell said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess as long as the cartoonist doesn't draw pictures of Muhammad in science class we're good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does that have to do with anything?
Click to expand...


Exactly dumbass.


----------



## geauxtohell

saveliberty said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess as long as the cartoonist doesn't draw pictures of Muhammad in science class we're good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does that have to do with anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly dumbass.
Click to expand...


Aren't you a peach?

Are you going to actually contribute to the thread, or just keep posting dumb-assed one liners?


----------



## Foxfyre

geauxtohell said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well bully for you.  I would like to see how you would organize a classroom full of students from a wide variety of backgrounds, experiences, and faiths and ensure that none of them ever ask the awkward question about anything.  Perhaps you wouldn't ever allow them to talk or ask questions?   Or maybe you would be the science teacher I would recommend to transferred to the shop class?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I have a very pragmatic solution for this issue:  teach science.
> 
> That means, before you get into the meat of scientific curriculum; do a block about what science is and is not, to include the history of science.  Then explain the scientific method and how it defines what is and what is not a scientific theory.
> 
> In this aspect, I think ID has a very good role in the science classroom:  as an example of what a scientific theory is not.  You don't have to try and debate ID, you simply have to demonstrate why it is not a legitimate scientific theory (among the many reasons, you can't falsify the existence of a supernatural, all powerful being).
> 
> Don't insult me.  I've been rather civil on this thread, despite the fact that the same dishonest crap gets thrown around.  As I am a year and a half away from being an M.D., i am fairly confident I could handle a scientific curriculum at the high school level.  I don't know a damn thing about shop class and would be completely worthless there.
Click to expand...


I don't think you're listening.  I hope you listen to your patients better.  I don't want the teacher to debate ID or Creationism or anything even remotely like that.  I have been pretty explicit about that.  But if you would choose that as the illustration of what scientific theory is not, it's shop class for you.  You might suck at teaching shop but at least you would not be perceived as attacking the religious faith of your students.

I suppose your lecture on what science is and science is not would work with most students.  I doubt seriously it would head off the awkward question or objection from the sincere fundamentalist student who felt it necessary to defend his religious beliefs.


----------



## saveliberty

geauxtohell said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does that have to do with anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aren't you a peach?
> 
> Are you going to actually contribute to the thread, or just keep posting dumb-assed one liners?
Click to expand...


Already did a few pages back.  I suppose a black person should not bring their beliefs into an American History class.  Fat gym teachers should be fired.  I definitely think a doctor is worthless, if he doesn't understand a patient's state of mind as important in recovery.


----------



## JakeStarkey

saveliberty said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you a peach?
> 
> Are you going to actually contribute to the thread, or just keep posting dumb-assed one liners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already did a few pages back.  I suppose a black person should not bring their beliefs into an American History class.  Fat gym teachers should be fired.
Click to expand...


The public school biology class, saveliberty, deals with evolution not ID or creationism, which can be taught elsewhere in the school because they are philosophical explanations.  Foxfyre has answered clearly as anybody here as to questions about ID and creationism should be handled: sensitively and reasonably.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> I don't think you're listening.  I hope you listen to your patients better.



Lame personal attack.  You are usually better than this.    



> I don't want the teacher to debate ID or Creationism or anything even remotely like that.  I have been pretty explicit about that.  But if you would choose that as the illustration of what scientific theory is not, it's shop class for you.



No, I'd just give up on being a pro-bono High School Science Teacher (which I am interested in doing) and go back to be a full time Doctor and making much more money.

I realize that was a dick thing to post, but since you have decided to become somewhat nasty, I figured I'd return the favor.  

By all means, inform me why intelligent design is a scientific theory.  I am really interested in your thoughts on the matter.  Though, I am curious as to how you are going to formulate your null hypothesis.

Do you know what a null hypothesis is?  I can explain it to you if you want.    



> You might suck at teaching shop but at least you would not be perceived as attacking the religious faith of your students.



As I said before, you don't have to debate the issue of whether ID is true or not true, you simply have to point out that is is not scientific and doesn't belong in science class.  Not a hard concept.  



> I suppose your lecture on what science is and science is not would work with most students.  I doubt seriously it would head off the awkward question or objection from the sincere fundamentalist student who felt it necessary to defend his religious beliefs.



Again, you have obviously misunderstood my thoughts on the matter.  My response would be:  "I can't tell you if ID is true or not true.  That is beyond the scope of science.  My point to you is that it is _not_ science.  Now let's review the scientific method again so we understand the difference between science and theology as I obviously didn't do a good job of explaining that."


----------



## geauxtohell

saveliberty said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you a peach?
> 
> Are you going to actually contribute to the thread, or just keep posting dumb-assed one liners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already did a few pages back.  I suppose a black person should not bring their beliefs into an American History class.  Fat gym teachers should be fired.  I definitely think a doctor is worthless, if he doesn't understand a patient's state of mind as important in recovery.
Click to expand...


That's apples and footballs to this subject.  Science is a rigorously defined matter that doesn't leave any room for debate over what is and is not scientific.  

That's why it's a little different then the other fields.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Foxfyre said:


> I would like to see how you would organize a classroom full of students from a wide variety of backgrounds, experiences, and faiths and ensure that none of them ever ask the awkward question about anything.  Perhaps you wouldn't ever allow them to talk or ask questions?


The dumb suggestions you are making have little to do with what the children ask, but how the science teacher answers.  Kids are allowed to ask questions, but that doesn't mean a teacher needs to answer them directly.  If a 5th grader raises his hand and asks his English teacher to go over the benefits and drawbacks of abortion to society, that is NOT an appropriate topic to be addressed by that teacher, and should be redirected elsewhere.  Similarly, a student asking about religious topics in a SCIENCE classroom should NOT have his religious ideas acknowledged, but redirected elsewhere.

Stop pushing your religious beliefs into the science classroom in ANY capacity, regardless of who brings it up first.



Foxfyre said:


> I don't think you're listening.  I hope you listen to your patients better.  I don't want the teacher to debate ID or Creationism or anything even remotely like that.  I have been pretty explicit about that.  But if you would choose that as the illustration of what scientific theory is not, it's shop class for you.  You might suck at teaching shop but at least you would not be perceived as attacking the religious faith of your students.


I don't think YOU'RE listening.  This has nothing to do with attacking the faith of others.  It has to do with not acknowledging it.  You seem to have difficulty with the idea of no acknowledged response.  It seems that to you, the teacher needs to either agree or disagree on the spot, when the third option of doing neither and redirecting that student is the BEST option. 

Your religion has NO place in the science classroom.


----------



## saveliberty

geauxtohell said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you a peach?
> 
> Are you going to actually contribute to the thread, or just keep posting dumb-assed one liners?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already did a few pages back.  I suppose a black person should not bring their beliefs into an American History class.  Fat gym teachers should be fired.  I definitely think a doctor is worthless, if he doesn't understand a patient's state of mind as important in recovery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's apples and footballs to this subject.  Science is a rigorously defined matter that doesn't leave any room for debate over what is and is not scientific.
> 
> That's why it's a little different then the other fields.
Click to expand...


Sceince has large areas of theory, which by definition, are not proven fact.  You choose to dismiss what I say, because it is truth and hurtful to your argument.


----------



## geauxtohell

saveliberty said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already did a few pages back.  I suppose a black person should not bring their beliefs into an American History class.  Fat gym teachers should be fired.  I definitely think a doctor is worthless, if he doesn't understand a patient's state of mind as important in recovery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's apples and footballs to this subject.  Science is a rigorously defined matter that doesn't leave any room for debate over what is and is not scientific.
> 
> That's why it's a little different then the other fields.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sceince has large areas of theory, which by definition, are not proven fact.  You choose to dismiss what I say, because it is truth and hurtful to your argument.
Click to expand...


LMAO.  If you are one of those whack-a-doodles that doesn't know the difference between a scientific theory and the common usage of the word, you are beyond caring about.

Don't play lame semantics games with me.  I know better.


----------



## Foxfyre

geauxtohell said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you're listening.  I hope you listen to your patients better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lame personal attack.  You are usually better than this.
Click to expand...


Not a personal attack at all.  My perception is you are not hearing what I'm saying and you are misinterpreting my point of view.  I could have left off the patients thing I suppose but you're the one claiming expertise in science because you're about to be a doctor.  So I think I wasn't totally out of line there.  My intent is not to offend but to defend my own point of view.




> I don't want the teacher to debate ID or Creationism or anything even remotely like that.  I have been pretty explicit about that.  But if you would choose that as the illustration of what scientific theory is not, it's shop class for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'd just give up on being a pro-bono High School Science Teacher (which I am interested in doing) and go back to be a full time Doctor and making much more money.
> 
> I realize that was a dick thing to post, but since you have decided to become somewhat nasty, I figured I'd return the favor.
Click to expand...


No sir.  I have not become in any way nasty and I have refrained from personal insults or ad hominem comments.  You're the one who said you wouldn't make a good shop teacher.  I wouldn't either.  But neither one of us has any business in a discussion class of any kind if we are going to even appear to attack or criticize the faith of our students.



> By all means, inform me why intelligent design is a scientific theory.  I am really interested in your thoughts on the matter.  Though, I am curious as to how you are going to formulate your null hypothesis.
> 
> Do you know what a null hypothesis is?  I can explain it to you if you want.



And this is why I think you aren't listening.  I have not even remotely suggested that intelligent design is a scientific theory and have specifically stated that numerous times in this thread.  I have provided a lot of thoughts on the matter.  Perhaps if you had read them you would not be suggesting that I am proposing what I am not proposing.



> You might suck at teaching shop but at least you would not be perceived as attacking the religious faith of your students.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, you don't have to debate the issue of whether ID is true or not true, you simply have to point out that is is not scientific and doesn't belong in science class.  Not a hard concept.
Click to expand...


But why in the world would you, the teacher, introduce a hot button topic such as that if it was not for the explicit purpose of appearing to attack the students' faith?  That might not be your intent at all but it would absolutely have that effect and almost force the issue onto the surface.  I think your principal would have every reason to see that as very poor judgment however objective your motive might have been.



> I suppose your lecture on what science is and science is not would work with most students.  I doubt seriously it would head off the awkward question or objection from the sincere fundamentalist student who felt it necessary to defend his religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you have obviously misunderstood my thoughts on the matter.  My response would be:  "I can't tell you if ID is true or not true.  That is beyond the scope of science.  My point to you is that it is _not_ science.  Now let's review the scientific method again so we understand the difference between science and theology as I obviously didn't do a good job of explaining that."
Click to expand...


You still aren't getting my point.  My point is that this student will not give a flying fig about what your concept of scientific theory is.  This student will be defending his belief system, his faith.  Your job as the teacher, the way I see it, is not to attack or dismiss that faith in any way.  All you have to do is agree that there are those who see it as the student sees it, but as it is a matter of faith and not science, it will not be discussed in your class.  That would be the truth.  And you can tell the student he does not have to agree with the theory of evolution.   But he will have to know the subject matter in order to pass the test.


----------



## saveliberty

geauxtohell said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's apples and footballs to this subject.  Science is a rigorously defined matter that doesn't leave any room for debate over what is and is not scientific.
> 
> That's why it's a little different then the other fields.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sceince has large areas of theory, which by definition, are not proven fact.  You choose to dismiss what I say, because it is truth and hurtful to your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO.  If you are one of those whack-a-doodles that doesn't know the difference between a scientific theory and the common usage of the word, you are beyond caring about.
> 
> Don't play lame semantics games with me.  I know better.
Click to expand...


Fact:  I'm a trained science teacher.
Fact:  Theories are not proven fact.

Suggestion:  Become a surgeon.  Your bedside manner sucks.  Relating to people is critical to being a successful teacher.


----------



## rdean

AllieBaba said:


> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.



One is the study of this "reality".  The other is based on the belief in "magic".


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sceince has large areas of theory, which by definition, are not proven fact.  You choose to dismiss what I say, because it is truth and hurtful to your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO.  If you are one of those whack-a-doodles that doesn't know the difference between a scientific theory and the common usage of the word, you are beyond caring about.
> 
> Don't play lame semantics games with me.  I know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact:  I'm a trained science teacher.
> Fact:  Theories are not proven fact.
> 
> Suggestion:  Become a surgeon.  Your bedside manner sucks.  Relating to people is critical to being a successful teacher.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  I had a science teacher once--the best I EVER had--who wouldn't allow us to state anything as fact.  If "A" worked in a stationary environment or at X speed or at mach speed, would it work at warp speed?   We don't know as we have never had a way to test that.

If "B" is a fact on Planet Earth would it be the same in a different solar system?  We can suppose that it would be, but we won't know for certain until we test it.

Geauxtohell told me that it wasn't true that 'certainty' was a very big deal to a scientist.

That science teacher taught me to believe that it was true.   He died last year.  He left a lot of very much better educated students behind who will remember him fondly.


----------



## rdean

saveliberty said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sceince has large areas of theory, which by definition, are not proven fact.  You choose to dismiss what I say, because it is truth and hurtful to your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO.  If you are one of those whack-a-doodles that doesn't know the difference between a scientific theory and the common usage of the word, you are beyond caring about.
> 
> Don't play lame semantics games with me.  I know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact:  I'm a trained science teacher.
> Fact:  Theories are not proven fact.
> 
> Suggestion:  Become a surgeon.  Your bedside manner sucks.  Relating to people is critical to being a successful teacher.
Click to expand...


Is there a difference between a "theory" and a "scientific" theory and if there is, what makes them "different"?


----------



## saveliberty

There are very few facts in science Foxfyre.  He taught you corrctly.  Mr. God complex is typical of doctors.


----------



## geauxtohell

saveliberty said:


> Fact:  I'm a trained science teacher.
> Fact:  Theories are not proven fact.



What do you teach?

Scientific theories are exactly as I stated they were before in regards to biology:  highly supported by data, testing, and all other relevant manners.  



> Suggestion:  Become a surgeon.  Your bedside manner sucks.  Relating to people is critical to being a successful teacher.



And here's a suggestion to you fucktards:  stop acting like you know anything about the way I conduct myself in professional school based on my postings on an internet message board.  Other than what I post on here, you whack-nuts don't know a damned thing about me.  

BTW, being a surgeon =/= bad bedside manner.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> Not a personal attack at all.  My perception is you are not hearing what I'm saying and you are misinterpreting my point of view.  I could have left off the patients thing I suppose but you're the one claiming expertise in science because you're about to be a doctor.  So I think I wasn't totally out of line there.  My intent is not to offend but to defend my own point of view.



Oh, that wasn't a personal attack?  Have you ever seen "The Outlaw Josey Wales"?  "Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining."



> No sir.  I have not become in any way nasty and I have refrained from personal insults or ad hominem comments.  You're the one who said you wouldn't make a good shop teacher.



After you used it in an insulting manner.  If you are going to go nasty, then at least own up to it.  This trying to play the middle stuff is for the birds.  



> I wouldn't either.  But neither one of us has any business in a discussion class of any kind if we are going to even appear to attack or criticize the faith of our students.



And I have no idea how you ever inferred I would do that.  Are you even reading my posts?



> And this is why I think you aren't listening.  I have not even remotely suggested that intelligent design is a scientific theory and have specifically stated that numerous times in this thread.  I have provided a lot of thoughts on the matter.  Perhaps if you had read them you would not be suggesting that I am proposing what I am not proposing.



Perhaps you are not being as clear as you think you are.  To reiterate; you said this:



> I don't want the teacher to debate ID or Creationism or anything even remotely like that. I have been pretty explicit about that. But if you would choose that as the illustration of what scientific theory is not, it's shop class for you. You might suck at teaching shop but at least you would not be perceived as attacking the religious faith of your students.



Do you think ID is or is not a scientific theory?  If not, then why would there be a problem in using it as an example?  Once again, doing so can be done without commenting on the validity of ID.  



> But why in the world would you, the teacher, introduce a hot button topic such as that if it was not for the explicit purpose of appearing to attack the students' faith?  That might not be your intent at all but it would absolutely have that effect and almost force the issue onto the surface.  I think your principal would have every reason to see that as very poor judgment however objective your motive might have been.



Because it's an excellent example of a theory that has been paraded around as "scientific" by a dishonest group of hucksters that is, in fact, not scientific (per the consensus of the scientific community and the Federal Judge at the Dover Trial).  It's also topical and has been in the news recently.

My question to you would be:  what would be a better example?  

I've already answered the issue of discussing ID without attacking faith.  



> You still aren't getting my point.  My point is that this student will not give a flying fig about what your concept of scientific theory is.



LMAO.  This might surprise you, but I didn't create the "scientific method".  It's a well defined set of rules.  If a student wants to reject it, they are rejecting fact.  I have no control over that, but I am not introducing my "opinion" on what is and is not scientific.

If you doubt that, feel free to explain how a researcher could falsify the existence of God.  If you can't falsify a hypothesis, it's not a legit hypothesis.    



> This student will be defending his belief system, his faith.  Your job as the teacher, the way I see it, is not to attack or dismiss that faith in any way.  All you have to do is agree that there are those who see it as the student sees it, but as it is a matter of faith and not science, it will not be discussed in your class.  That would be the truth.  And you can tell the student he does not have to agree with the theory of evolution.   But he will have to know the subject matter in order to pass the test.



Making a statement of fact:  "ID is not a scientific theory, it is more philosophical/theological." is not an attack on a student's belief system.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> Geauxtohell told me that it wasn't true that 'certainty' was a very big deal to a scientist.



I did?  Where?

Also, when did I use the word:  "scientific fact" in this thread?


----------



## saveliberty

geauxtohell said:


> And here's a suggestion to you fucktards:  stop acting like you know anything about the way I conduct myself in professional school based on my postings on an internet message board.  Other than what I post on here, you whack-nuts don't know a damned thing about me.
> 
> BTW, being a surgeon =/= bad bedside manner.



You seem very comfortable expressing how a teacher needs to conduct themselves.  You reveal much more about yourself than you understand apparently.  Your not even close to being the smartest person in the room here bub, so I'd watch who you call stupid.


----------



## geauxtohell

saveliberty said:


> You seem very comfortable expressing how a teacher needs to conduct themselves.  You reveal much more about yourself than you understand apparently.  Your not even close to being the smartest person in the room here bub, so I'd watch who you call stupid.



Don't toss out personal attacks if you want to maintain a civil tone on this matter.

In other words, don't call people "dumbass" and expect them to have a degree of respect for your opinion.

It doesn't make you sound intelligent, it makes you sound like a jerk.  

I also have said nothing about any other teachers than a hypothetical situation where I were the teacher and how I'd handle the matter.  That seems offensive to you two, but I've yet to see where I have made an inaccurate statement.  

As always, I'll take your assessment of intelligence and advice on career paths for what they are worth:  jack and squat.  

What did you say you taught again?


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here's a suggestion to you fucktards:  stop acting like you know anything about the way I conduct myself in professional school based on my postings on an internet message board.  Other than what I post on here, you whack-nuts don't know a damned thing about me.
> 
> BTW, being a surgeon =/= bad bedside manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem very comfortable expressing how a teacher needs to conduct themselves.  You reveal much more about yourself than you understand apparently.  Your not even close to being the smartest person in the room here bub, so I'd watch who you call stupid.
Click to expand...


I wonder if GTH is really a medical student?  I've known a lot of med students and a lot of doctors but never one as disconnected in their train of thought.  You never know though.


----------



## saveliberty

geauxtohell said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem very comfortable expressing how a teacher needs to conduct themselves.  You reveal much more about yourself than you understand apparently.  Your not even close to being the smartest person in the room here bub, so I'd watch who you call stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't toss out personal attacks if you want to maintain a civil tone on this matter.
> 
> In other words, don't call people "dumbass" and expect them to have a degree of respect for your opinion.
> 
> It doesn't make you sound intelligent, it makes you sound like a jerk.
> 
> I also have said nothing about any other teachers than a hypothetical situation where I were the teacher and how I'd handle the matter.  That seems offensive to you two, but I've yet to see where I have made an inaccurate statement.
> 
> As always, I'll take your assessment of intelligence and advice on career paths for what they are worth:  jack and squat.
> 
> What did you say you taught again?
Click to expand...


Lately my specialty has been God complex med students.  Seriously, if you can raise Foxfyre to even a small degree of anger, you're a world class asshole.  If I respected you at all, the language would be better.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Telling a student, who asks about ID, that it is not a scientific subject and redirect him or her to his religious instructors and parents is the appropriate response.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> I wonder if GTH is really a medical student?  I've known a lot of med students and a lot of doctors but never one as disconnected in their train of thought.  You never know though.



Again, if you are going to go nasty, go full bore.  

If you are going to call me a liar, just do so to my face.  It's not going to phase me.  I'll still show up to GYN rounds tomorrow and go about my OB/GYN rotation regardless of whether you believe me or not.


----------



## saveliberty

Proctology.  Somebody had to say it.


----------



## geauxtohell

saveliberty said:


> Lately my specialty has been God complex med students.  Seriously, if you can raise Foxfyre to even a small degree of anger, you're a world class asshole.  If I respected you at all, the language would be better.



Here's a hint for you:  if you think you are knocking us "God complex med students" down a peg or two, you have delusions of relevance.  We don't give a shit what you think of us.  

I've been civil on this thread.  I reserved my insults until you two decided to become insulting.  

To remind you, you tossed out the names first.  If I upset Foxfyre, it wasn't through a personal attack.  If people can't discuss this issue in a logical and rational manner without becoming enraged, it's not my problem and it doesn't detract from the larger issue. 

Again, you are always welcome to comment on the content of my posts, as opposed to lame personal attacks.  

And again, I have no regard for your opinion of me.


----------



## Intense

270 Posts and 18 Pages, and I'm wondering if we are any closer to a Constitutional Amendment from banning any Teachers that believe in God from teaching science. I don't think so. The only thing I see reflected here is intolerance and bias. Just an observation.


----------



## geauxtohell

saveliberty said:


> Proctology.  Somebody had to say it.



You are starting to get upset, aren't you?

What do you teach again?  If you are going to take personal potshots at me, you could at least have the stones to tell us exactly why your opinion is relevant.

"Professionally trained science teacher" doesn't mean squat to me.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

saveliberty said:


> Sceince has large areas of theory, which by definition, are not proven fact.  You choose to dismiss what I say, because it is truth and hurtful to your argument.


You seem to have a poor understanding of the term.  It is true that scientific theories are not disprovable facts, but it is foolish to insinuate that they are therefore not reliable, reliably predictable, or the closest thing to fact allowable by scientific investigation.   If you claim to be a trained science teacher, it is certainly not established certified American scientific training of any variety. A quick google or wikipedia search will confirm what GTH and I have been saying.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially."



Foxfyre said:


> But neither one of us has any business in a discussion class of any kind if we are going to even appear to attack or criticize the faith of our students.


Can you point to a SINGLE person in this thread who has stated science teachers should criticize the faith of students?  Can you quote any mention of this completely unsupported fear of yours whatsoever?  NO!

It is YOU who continue to remain clueless.  GTH and I have clearly demonstrated understanding of your desires, that you believe teachers should state religious beliefs can explain holes in scientific understanding when asked.  This is still false, and you have yet to demonstrate an understanding of what GTH, or I, or ANYONE else in this thread is saying on the topic.  

Are you purposely ignoring logic and fact?  Or are you just still so hurt over the neg that you can't bring yourself to concede the silly points you are making?



Foxfyre said:


> But why in the world would you, the teacher, introduce a hot button topic such as that if it was not for the explicit purpose of appearing to attack the students' faith?


NO ONE HAS SAID THAT.  In fact it has been consistently clear that the only hypothetical person bringing up the topic is the student, and the teachers are NOT introducing the topic, as they shouldn't.



Foxfyre said:


> You still aren't getting my point.  My point is that this student will not give a flying fig about what your concept of scientific theory is.  This student will be defending his belief system, his faith.  Your job as the teacher, the way I see it, is not to attack or dismiss that faith in any way.


It IS the science teacher's job to dismiss all religion from their classroom.  It doesn't matter if the student feels he is defending his religion or not.  What matters is the student learning the well studied material, in a way that hopefully convinces him of its validity based on the scientific method. 



saveliberty said:


> Fact:  I'm a trained science teacher.
> Fact:  Theories are not proven fact.


Fact: they are the closest thing to fact allowable by science, and are reliably predictable.


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem very comfortable expressing how a teacher needs to conduct themselves.  You reveal much more about yourself than you understand apparently.  Your not even close to being the smartest person in the room here bub, so I'd watch who you call stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't toss out personal attacks if you want to maintain a civil tone on this matter.
> 
> In other words, don't call people "dumbass" and expect them to have a degree of respect for your opinion.
> 
> It doesn't make you sound intelligent, it makes you sound like a jerk.
> 
> I also have said nothing about any other teachers than a hypothetical situation where I were the teacher and how I'd handle the matter.  That seems offensive to you two, but I've yet to see where I have made an inaccurate statement.
> 
> As always, I'll take your assessment of intelligence and advice on career paths for what they are worth:  jack and squat.
> 
> What did you say you taught again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lately my specialty has been God complex med students.  Seriously, if you can raise Foxfyre to even a small degree of anger, you're a world class asshole.  If I respected you at all, the language would be better.
Click to expand...


LOL, thanks but I am not angry.  I do get frustrated--okay I guess that's a form of anger--when people misrepresent my point of view and refuse to correct that when it is pointed out to them.  You'll note Goldcatt did that and, when she realized her inadvertent error, did not repeat it but we were able to continue in a cordial manner.  That's one of several reasons she has my utmost respect and admiration by the way.]

I suppose we've pretty well exhausted the subject here though.  The anti-Christian crowd is not likely to acknowledge any point of view but the contentuous one they have adopted re Creationism or I.D.   And the rest of us are just preaching to the choir.    It was a pretty good workout before it started getting really stupid though.

Unless a good discussion gets going here again I'll probably find something else to do for awhile.

Ya'll have a good day.


----------



## saveliberty

geauxtohell said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lately my specialty has been God complex med students.  Seriously, if you can raise Foxfyre to even a small degree of anger, you're a world class asshole.  If I respected you at all, the language would be better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a hint for you:  if you think you are knocking us "God complex med students" down a peg or two, you have delusions of relevance.  We don't give a shit what you think of us.
> 
> I've been civil on this thread.  I reserved my insults until you two decided to become insulting.
> 
> To remind you, you tossed out the names first.  If I upset Foxfyre, it wasn't through a personal attack.  If people can't discuss this issue in a logical and rational manner without becoming enraged, it's not my problem and it doesn't detract from the larger issue.
> 
> Again, you are always welcome to comment on the content of my posts, as opposed to lame personal attacks.
> 
> And again, I have no regard for your opinion of me.
Click to expand...


Seems like I hurt your feelings pretty bad.  You had to comment on it multiple times in the same post.  God complex folks use it as a defense for their very insecure feelings.  Interesting that you find your arguments logical and rational, when your theory cannot explain in the least where the smallest parts of creation started and what started it in motion.  A rational and logical person would not default to chance.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> I suppose we've pretty well exhausted the subject here though.  *The anti-Christian crowd* is not likely to acknowledge any point of view but the contentuous one they have adopted re Creationism or I.D.   And the rest of us are just preaching to the choir.    It was a pretty good workout before it started getting really stupid though.
> 
> Unless a good discussion gets going here again I'll probably find something else to do for awhile.
> 
> Ya'll have a good day.



I am "anti-Christian" now?  That's news to me too.

As much as you whine about people misrepresenting your viewpoints, I asked you to clarify and you refused.  

Run along, now.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Most believers in deity understand that ID is not scientific and belongs in the comparative religions classroom, not the science classroom.


----------



## geauxtohell

saveliberty said:


> Seems like I hurt your feelings pretty bad.



You did.  You really did.  I am sitting over here frigging crying myself to death over your "proctology comment".  Your verbal arrows are more harrowing then when I was in the 'Stan.  You are truly a master debater and a USMB God.   



> You had to comment on it multiple times in the same post.  God complex folks use it as a defense for their very insecure feelings.  Interesting that you find your arguments logical and rational, when your theory cannot explain in the least where the smallest parts of creation started and what started it in motion.



Again:  Evolution doesn't pretend to have the answer to the origins of life Mr. Professionally Trained Science Teacher.  

Nor does it pretend too.  

Maybe you slept through that part of your professional training. 



> A rational and logical person would not default to chance.



And we've come full circle.  The ever lame:  I don't accept evolution because it's all "chance".  

It's not really true and it's a silly counter point to hang your hat on.  What's next?  Pascale's Wager?


----------



## Modbert

geauxtohell said:


> It's not really true and it's a silly counter point to hang your hat on.  What's next?  *Pascale's Wager?*



Speaking of which, I feel this would apply nicely to this thread and others on USMB.


----------



## manifold

I don't live in Kentucky so I don't imagine this will be an issue for me. 

But if my kid's science teacher actually taught creationism in the classroom, I'd be very displeased to say the least.


----------



## geauxtohell

SmarterThanHick said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sceince has large areas of theory, which by definition, are not proven fact.  You choose to dismiss what I say, because it is truth and hurtful to your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have a poor understanding of the term.  It is true that scientific theories are not disprovable facts, but it is foolish to insinuate that they are therefore not reliable, reliably predictable, or the closest thing to fact allowable by scientific investigation.   If you claim to be a trained science teacher, it is certainly not established certified American scientific training of any variety. A quick google or wikipedia search will confirm what GTH and I have been saying.
> 
> Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> "The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially."
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But neither one of us has any business in a discussion class of any kind if we are going to even appear to attack or criticize the faith of our students.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you point to a SINGLE person in this thread who has stated science teachers should criticize the faith of students?  Can you quote any mention of this completely unsupported fear of yours whatsoever?  NO!
> 
> It is YOU who continue to remain clueless.  GTH and I have clearly demonstrated understanding of your desires, that you believe teachers should state religious beliefs can explain holes in scientific understanding when asked.  This is still false, and you have yet to demonstrate an understanding of what GTH, or I, or ANYONE else in this thread is saying on the topic.
> 
> Are you purposely ignoring logic and fact?  Or are you just still so hurt over the neg that you can't bring yourself to concede the silly points you are making?
> 
> 
> NO ONE HAS SAID THAT.  In fact it has been consistently clear that the only hypothetical person bringing up the topic is the student, and the teachers are NOT introducing the topic, as they shouldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still aren't getting my point.  My point is that this student will not give a flying fig about what your concept of scientific theory is.  This student will be defending his belief system, his faith.  Your job as the teacher, the way I see it, is not to attack or dismiss that faith in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It IS the science teacher's job to dismiss all religion from their classroom.  It doesn't matter if the student feels he is defending his religion or not.  What matters is the student learning the well studied material, in a way that hopefully convinces him of its validity based on the scientific method.
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact:  I'm a trained science teacher.
> Fact:  Theories are not proven fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact: they are the closest thing to fact allowable by science, and are reliably predictable.
Click to expand...


Stupid God-Complex Medical Student!  How dare you try and introduce your formal training and knowledge into this matter!

Consider yourself banished to wood shop with me, where we can over-see highschoolers making wooding bongs a la "Dazed And Confused"...........


----------



## geauxtohell

Modbert said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not really true and it's a silly counter point to hang your hat on.  What's next?  *Pascale's Wager?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of which, I feel this would apply nicely to this thread and others on USMB.
> 
> View attachment 12748
Click to expand...


You know, I am not even an atheist.  

I am also still trying to figure just how I became the "asshole" on this thread.


----------



## Modbert

geauxtohell said:


> Consider yourself banished to wood shop with me, where we can over-see highschoolers making wooding bongs a la "Dazed And Confused"...........


----------



## Dr Grump

saveliberty said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here's a suggestion to you fucktards:  stop acting like you know anything about the way I conduct myself in professional school based on my postings on an internet message board.  Other than what I post on here, you whack-nuts don't know a damned thing about me.
> 
> BTW, being a surgeon =/= bad bedside manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem very comfortable expressing how a teacher needs to conduct themselves.  You reveal much more about yourself than you understand apparently.  Your not even close to being the smartest person in the room here bub, so I'd watch who you call stupid.
Click to expand...


Yet, he is kicking your arse, and I doubt he's even brought his A game to the table....


----------



## Modbert

geauxtohell said:


> You know, I am not even an atheist.
> 
> I am also still trying to figure just how I became the "asshole" on this thread.



Same here. But we seem to get the arguments as if we are. 

Maybe you're the "asshole" because you don't want to teach wood shop?


----------



## AllieBaba

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except, as you stated earlier, you dispute that man evolved.
> 
> That's disputing evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I dispute that man evolved from some other animal.
> 
> I bred horses for years. I get basic, standard evolution within a species.
> 
> However, one thing doesn't magically evolve into something else. There's no proof for it. That is just a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're confused, child. The magic hypothesis is called Creationism.
Click to expand...


You're repeating yourself, simpleton.


----------



## AllieBaba

Foxfyre said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here's a suggestion to you fucktards:  stop acting like you know anything about the way I conduct myself in professional school based on my postings on an internet message board.  Other than what I post on here, you whack-nuts don't know a damned thing about me.
> 
> BTW, being a surgeon =/= bad bedside manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem very comfortable expressing how a teacher needs to conduct themselves.  You reveal much more about yourself than you understand apparently.  Your not even close to being the smartest person in the room here bub, so I'd watch who you call stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if GTH is really a medical student?  I've known a lot of med students and a lot of doctors but never one as disconnected in their train of thought.  You never know though.
Click to expand...


No, he's not.


----------



## Modbert

AllieBaba said:


> No, he's not.



As someone who was complaining about others making statements without all the facts recently, it is not surprising to see you making statements without none of the facts.

Edit: Don't worry folks, I notice the double negative but it has already been commented on so no point in changing it.


----------



## geauxtohell

AllieBaba said:


> No, he's not.



Lying is very un-Christian.

By all means, support your assertion that it is I who am the liar and not you.


----------



## AllieBaba

It's a theory, no need to back it up with facts...


----------



## AllieBaba

An educated guess based upon the fact that I've never known a medical student who had time to waste on a message board to the degree Goat does...


----------



## geauxtohell

AllieBaba said:


> It's a theory, no need to back it up with facts...



I suppose that's easier on your conscious than admitting you lied.  

Still tacky behavior though.


----------



## geauxtohell

AllieBaba said:


> An educated guess based upon the fact that I've never known a medical student who had time to waste on a message board to the degree Goat does...



As you make almost twice the amounts of post/day that I do on here, what does that say about you?

Are you retired or something?


----------



## Modbert

AllieBaba said:


> An educated guess based upon the fact that I've never known a medical student who had time to waste on a message board to the degree Goat does...



Except it's neither educated or a guess. It's a accusation.

Ever hear of "Thou shall not bear false witness" Allie? I guess not.


----------



## AllieBaba

Modbert said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As someone who was complaining about others making statements without all the facts recently, it is not surprising to see you making statements without none of the facts.
Click to expand...


----------



## AllieBaba

Wait...

Without none of the facts???

LOL!


----------



## AllieBaba

My siggy area is filling up fast...while that one is precious, I think I'll wait for something better.


----------



## geauxtohell

AllieBaba said:


> Wait...
> 
> Without none of the facts???
> 
> LOL!



It's okay, Allie.

I forgive you for bearing false witness against me.  

It's just the Christian thing to do.


----------



## AllieBaba

geauxtohell said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> An educated guess based upon the fact that I've never known a medical student who had time to waste on a message board to the degree Goat does...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you make almost twice the amounts of post/day that I do on here, what does that say about you?
> 
> Are you retired or something?
Click to expand...


I'm not a medical student, that's for sure.


----------



## geauxtohell

AllieBaba said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> An educated guess based upon the fact that I've never known a medical student who had time to waste on a message board to the degree Goat does...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you make almost twice the amounts of post/day that I do on here, what does that say about you?
> 
> Are you retired or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a medical student, that's for sure.
Click to expand...


No shit.


----------



## AllieBaba

Wow, that's brilliant.

So why do you have so much time available, goat? Surely you should be studying....I know my niece is a resident, she gets online for fun about once a month. Before she was a resident, she was NEVER online, at least not networking.

Tell us how you do it. Please. And where are you going to school? What year?


----------



## jillian

geauxtohell said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not really true and it's a silly counter point to hang your hat on.  What's next?  *Pascale's Wager?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of which, I feel this would apply nicely to this thread and others on USMB.
> 
> View attachment 12748
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, I am not even an atheist.
> 
> I am also still trying to figure just how I became the "asshole" on this thread.
Click to expand...


you didn't by any rational assessment.


----------



## Dr Grump

jillian said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of which, I feel this would apply nicely to this thread and others on USMB.
> 
> View attachment 12748
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I am not even an atheist.
> 
> I am also still trying to figure just how I became the "asshole" on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you didn't by any *rational *assessment.
Click to expand...


He's talking to Savlib and Allie....'nuff said?


----------



## AllieBaba

This thread has multiple assholes.


----------



## geauxtohell

AllieBaba said:


> Wow, that's brilliant.
> 
> So why do you have so much time available, goat? Surely you should be studying....I know my niece is a resident, she gets online for fun about once a month. Before she was a resident, she was NEVER online, at least not networking.
> 
> Tell us how you do it. Please. And where are you going to school? What year?



Wow.  So you can make a judgment about every single medical student based on your niece?  I have friends in Medical School who work part time, some that play in bands, and some that are raising families.  I choose to do this to blow off steam.  Maybe some of us just multi-task better than others.  

Of course, it's proposterous that medical students would spend time posting on the internet.  I mean, it's not like entire websites like: 

Student Doctor Network|An educational community for students and doctors spanning all the health professions. 

exist or something.  

As my profile says (or used to say); I go to a state medical school that grants an M.D. degree somewhere in the midwest.  I am a third year.  

I am not inclined to give anymore personal information out to people who are dishonest and obviously have an axe to grind.  

All that aside, now you are asking me to justify myself?  This is after your statement that I wasn't a medical student?  

If you were so sure, why am I even being asked?  Isn't it up to you to present the "evidence"?

You have turned into a dishonest hack.  I don't expect you to agree with me, but I would expect better than for you to lie about me.


----------



## geauxtohell

jillian said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of which, I feel this would apply nicely to this thread and others on USMB.
> 
> View attachment 12748
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I am not even an atheist.
> 
> I am also still trying to figure just how I became the "asshole" on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you didn't by any rational assessment.
Click to expand...


Thanks.  This thread went downhill quickly.  I am still trying to figure out how I became the "asshole in the bar".  I thought I was being pretty reasonable until the names started getting tossed out.


----------



## AllieBaba

Sure, anyone who makes claims on here gets to back them up.

Otherwise I just assume you're full of shit.

I assume you're full of shit.


----------



## Modbert

AllieBaba said:


> Sure, anyone who makes claims on here gets to back them up.
> 
> Otherwise I just assume you're full of shit.
> 
> I assume you're full of shit.



The burden of proof is on you Allie.


----------



## AllieBaba

Wow, the "how DARE you question me" is almost enough to convince me you have gone to asshole..I mean medical...school.

But not quite.


----------



## saveliberty

The thread was just a platform for Christian bashing.  I treated it with the respect it deserved.


----------



## AllieBaba

Modbert said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, anyone who makes claims on here gets to back them up.
> 
> Otherwise I just assume you're full of shit.
> 
> I assume you're full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The burden of proof is on you Allie.
Click to expand...


No, it's on the person who made the claim, nitwit. 

I don't have to prove a negative. If Goat wants to claim he's a dr, fine, he can back it up..otherwise I will continue to think he's a pimple-faced dweeb.


----------



## geauxtohell

AllieBaba said:


> Sure, anyone who makes claims on here gets to back them up.
> 
> Otherwise I just assume you're full of shit.
> 
> I assume you're full of shit.



You made the claim.  Back it up.  

I would assume you have something better than:  "You post too much on here to be in Medical School!".

There are plenty of posters on here who know enough about me and have followed my progression through Medical School and all the relevant hurdles (i.e. Step I and the rotations I've been on) to know you are talking out of your ass.

Either that, or I've conducted a two year charade and kept all the facts straight.


----------



## geauxtohell

saveliberty said:


> The thread was just a platform for Christian bashing.  I treated it with the respect it deserved.



When did I "bash" Christians?


----------



## AllieBaba

saveliberty said:


> The thread was just a platform for Christian bashing.  I treated it with the respect it deserved.



It should have been sunk in the Romper Room from day 1. I don't know why it's not. Oh wait..Modbert's here, breathing life into it and lending it "credibility", lol.


----------



## geauxtohell

AllieBaba said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, anyone who makes claims on here gets to back them up.
> 
> Otherwise I just assume you're full of shit.
> 
> I assume you're full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The burden of proof is on you Allie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's on the person who made the claim, nitwit.
> 
> I don't have to prove a negative. If Goat wants to claim he's a dr, fine, he can back it up..otherwise I will continue to think he's a pimple-faced dweeb.
Click to expand...


Dig... dig... dig.... dig...

You claimed I lied about my background.

I never claimed to be a Doctor, by the way.  

I am still trying to figure out why there would be any merit in lying about being a medical student.


----------



## AllieBaba

geauxtohell said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> The burden of proof is on you Allie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's on the person who made the claim, nitwit.
> 
> I don't have to prove a negative. If Goat wants to claim he's a dr, fine, he can back it up..otherwise I will continue to think he's a pimple-faced dweeb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dig... dig... dig.... dig...
> 
> You claimed I lied about my background.
> 
> I never claimed to be a Doctor, by the way.
> 
> I am still trying to figure out why there would be any merit in lying about being a medical student.
Click to expand...

If there's no merit in it, I don't imagine you would spout it all over the place. Apparently you think there's some merit to it.

So do I, which is why I really doubt you are one.


----------



## geauxtohell

AllieBaba said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's on the person who made the claim, nitwit.
> 
> I don't have to prove a negative. If Goat wants to claim he's a dr, fine, he can back it up..otherwise I will continue to think he's a pimple-faced dweeb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dig... dig... dig.... dig...
> 
> You claimed I lied about my background.
> 
> I never claimed to be a Doctor, by the way.
> 
> I am still trying to figure out why there would be any merit in lying about being a medical student.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there's no merit in it, I don't imagine you would spout it all over the place. Apparently you think there's some merit to it.
> 
> So do I, which is why I really doubt you are one.
Click to expand...


Oh, now it's a matter of doubt?  You made a (false) statement of fact earlier.

Dig... dig... dig....


----------



## Modbert

AllieBaba said:


> It should have been sunk in the Romper Room from day 1. I don't know why it's not. Oh wait..Modbert's here, breathing life into it and lending it "credibility", lol.



If you have a problem with moderation action (or lack thereof) then you can always drop me a PM Allie.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Telling believers that ID and creationists questions in a biology class should be redirected to the questioners' parents, religious instructors, and humanities classroom is not, repeat, not Christian bashing.


----------



## AllieBaba

No thank you.


----------



## saveliberty

geauxtohell said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was just a platform for Christian bashing.  I treated it with the respect it deserved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did I "bash" Christians?
Click to expand...


I didn't specify you did I?  Geuxtohell, I do believe you are a med student.  Be the best one you know how to be. Go help alot of people.  You made a statement that I was just throwing one liners and not contributing to the  thread.  That was untrue, it just happened before you entered.  We started off badly.  I see the thread's intent as Christian bashing pure and simple.

Points I made:

1.  A person's beliefs strongly influence their personality and through that, their teaching style and relatibility to students.

2.  Christians have been successfully teaching students science for a very long time.

3.  It is entirely possible you may come off condescending to patients, I hope you will work hard to treat the whole person.  I'm sure you have the ability.


----------



## AllieBaba

JakeStarkey said:


> Telling believers that ID and creationists questions in a biology class should be redirected to the questioners' parents, religious instructors, and humanities classroom is not, repeat, not Christian bashing.



And those things aren't considered Christian bashing.

The Christian bashing takes place when jackasses like Modbert  start saying things like what is in my siggy.


----------



## geauxtohell

saveliberty said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was just a platform for Christian bashing.  I treated it with the respect it deserved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did I "bash" Christians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't specify you did I?  Geuxtohell, I do believe you are a med student.  Be the best one you know how to be. Go help alot of people.  You made a statement that I was just throwing one liners and not contributing to the  thread.  That was untrue, it just happened before you entered.  We started off badly.  I see the thread's intent as Christian bashing pure and simple.
> 
> Points I made:
> 
> 1.  A person's beliefs strongly influence their personality and through that, their teaching style and relatibility to students.
> 
> 2.  Christians have been successfully teaching students science for a very long time.
> 
> 3.  It is entirely possible you may come off condescending to patients, I hope you will work hard to treat the whole person.  I'm sure you have the ability.
Click to expand...


I appreciate the reset and thank you.  I agree with 1-3, though I generally get high marks for the empathy side of medicine.  Both from attendings and patients.  Needless to say, I approach the infirm differently then I do internet posters.


----------



## geauxtohell

AllieBaba said:


> No thank you.



I'll cut you a deal:

In the spring of 2012, you send me a mailing address and I'll send you a graduation announcement. 

With that, you can do what you want as you see fit in regards to the things you have said on here (with the understanding that we won't release any private information about each other).


----------



## saveliberty

geauxtohell said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did I "bash" Christians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't specify you did I?  Geuxtohell, I do believe you are a med student.  Be the best one you know how to be. Go help alot of people.  You made a statement that I was just throwing one liners and not contributing to the  thread.  That was untrue, it just happened before you entered.  We started off badly.  I see the thread's intent as Christian bashing pure and simple.
> 
> Points I made:
> 
> 1.  A person's beliefs strongly influence their personality and through that, their teaching style and relatibility to students.
> 
> 2.  Christians have been successfully teaching students science for a very long time.
> 
> 3.  It is entirely possible you may come off condescending to patients, I hope you will work hard to treat the whole person.  I'm sure you have the ability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I appreciate the reset and thank you.  I agree with 1-3, though I generally get high marks for the empathy side of medicine.  Both from attendings and patients.  Needless to say, I approach the infirm differently then I do internet posters.
Click to expand...


I treat customers much nicer on the lot than here too.

We need a reset in this country.  Practicing it here on USMB might catch on other places.


----------



## AllieBaba

It's a deal.

No fear I'm no stalker; I'm hard pressed to visit my own family and they're just a little over a hundred miles away, lol.


----------



## geauxtohell

AllieBaba said:


> It's a deal.
> 
> No fear I'm no stalker; I'm hard pressed to visit my own family and they're just a little over a hundred miles away, lol.



Fair enough, bookmarked for posterity.


----------



## AllieBaba

It's always amusing when you pretend to be dumber than you actually are. As if that were possible.


----------



## saveliberty

Let's put the pokey sticks way.


----------



## Modbert

AllieBaba said:


> It's always amusing when you pretend to be dumber than you actually are. As if that were possible.



I assume that was a response to a post on the previous page I deleted while I was editing it just now. You missed the point if you think I'm Christian bashing.


----------



## Foxfyre

Well this has taken an unexpected and pleasant turn.  So I will do my part in admitting that I said some things that were far more caustic than I can be proud of and I apologize for that.

I would very much like the tone and quality of discussion to be reset here and there on USMB.  In order for it to be effective and not compromise the special spirit of USMB that we all love, it wouldl need to be voluntary.

I did find the opening thesis interesting and a topic worth discussing whatever the underlying motive might or might not have been.  As Save said, a person's beliefs can affect how he or she approaches his/her task in just about anything.

So. . .
How would you feel if your child's science teacher was a Creationist is a valid question.
How would you feel if your President was a Muslim is a valid question.
How would you feel if your dentist/doctor/nurse/therapist was a recovering alcoholic is a valid question.

Used as a launch pad for another bashing session of anything though will invariably start a food fight.  And I really dislike those.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Respectfully, may I answer your questions, Foxfyre?

How would you feel if your child's science teacher was a Creationist is a valid question.  *I would be very concerned.*
How would you feel if your President was a Muslim is a valid question.  *That would depend.*
How would you feel if your dentist/doctor/nurse/therapist was a recovering alcoholic is a valid question. * I agree.  And I would include baker, policeman, fireman, mayor, etc.*


----------



## AllieBaba

So you'd be "concerned" if you found out a science teacher was a Christian?

When did it become a requirement that science teachers recant their faith?


----------



## JakeStarkey

AllieBaba said:


> So you'd be "concerned" if you found out a science teacher was a Christian?
> 
> When did it become a requirement that science teachers recant their faith?



We are resetting here, aren't we?

Don't put words in my mouth that I did not say and, by a reasonable person's standard, did not imply.

One can be a faithful believing Christian without be a creationist.


----------



## AllieBaba

Thanks I think my tone has been okay all along. You go ahead and reset.

But I will mirror...so I'll ask you again but word it a little differently; do you support banning Creationists from teaching science?


----------



## JakeStarkey

AllieBaba said:


> Thanks I think my tone has been okay all along. You go ahead and reset.
> 
> But I will mirror...so I'll ask you again but word it a little differently; do you support banning Creationists from teaching science?



The implication was not OK, imho, but thank you for mirroring.  No, believing in Creationism by itself is not grounds for banning someone from teaching science.  I would not ban a commie from teaching government because the person was a commie.  But I certainly would want to be aware of both folks' beliefs in those two classes.


----------



## Modbert

AllieBaba said:


> Thanks I think my tone has been okay all along. You go ahead and reset.
> 
> But I will mirror...so I'll ask you again but word it a little differently; do you support banning Creationists from teaching science?



I don't think anyone here has said Creationists should be banned from teaching science.


----------



## Foxfyre

I agree to a degree, but I don't think many Christians believe that God had no part in creation.  The issue for me was having to accept somebody else's definition of Creationist given after the fact and not included in the OP.

I am a Creationist because I believe God was involved in Creation.  I would not want that taught in Science Class, however, as I do not see it as science as we define science.

I also accept much/most of Evolution theory and would object strongly if that was not taught in Science Class.

So we're back to where I started on this thread.  And I didn't think my point of view unreasonable at the beginning.  And I don't think it is unreasonable now.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I don't think it unreasonable at all, Foxfyre.


----------



## AllieBaba

Modbert said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks I think my tone has been okay all along. You go ahead and reset.
> 
> But I will mirror...so I'll ask you again but word it a little differently; do you support banning Creationists from teaching science?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone here has said Creationists should be banned from teaching science.
Click to expand...


I didn't say they did. I asked if JS did. Try to keep up.


----------



## Modbert

AllieBaba said:


> *I didn't say they did. I asked if JS did.* Try to keep up.



I realize that. However, I'm just pointing out that nobody here is trying to keep creationists out of the classrooms.


----------



## saveliberty

A failed reset should merit Romper room status.


----------



## JBeukema

edthecynic said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be obvious!
> 
> Creationism says that no thing (God) created everything from nothing.
> The FLoT says that from nothing, nothing comes.
> 
> 
> 
> FLoT applies within a given system: this univese
> 
> 
> God, like Branes, exists outside of the system in question
> 
> 
> There is no evidence FLoT can be extrapolated to apply outside of this universe, to whatever medium it might itself exist within
> 
> Science recognizes this when discussing M-theory and bubble universes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither M-Theory, nor String Theory, nor Brane Theory says that you can get something from nothing. The FLoT still stands and Creationism still violates it.
Click to expand...


Nope. According to M-Theory, the Universe comes into being when two branes collide. FLoT applies within the universe, but we cannot know the rules that govern the realm of the branes.

According to the God Hypothesis, the Universe was created in whatever medium (perhaps it's a bubble universe? Or perhaps the Strings are the very 'body' of FSM?) by an outside intelligence. Nowhere does it say something came from nothing and nowhere does it violate the laws of physics that apply within the created universe, both because we cannot logically assume that they apply in other universes or outside of the universe at all and because It's never stated explicitly how the universe comes into being following god's speech. For all we know, he spoke to an AI in a laboratory and it automated the processes which manipulated the string ultimately leading to the emergent changes we see in the universe before us.

God creating a cow next to me wouldn't even violate FLoT, as the intervention of an outside agent and introduction of matter/energy (or 'information', if you prefer the term) from outside the universe means the universe isn't a closed system- and FLoT only applies to a closed system.

You're guilty of the same fallacy as those who claim evolution violates FLoT and Earth is a closed system- neglecting the sun and the rest of the universe.


----------



## AllieBaba

Modbert said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I didn't say they did. I asked if JS did.* Try to keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that. However, I'm just pointing out that nobody here is trying to keep creationists out of the classrooms.
Click to expand...


Er..that would explain why he said it would concern him if one was in one.

Oh, wait, no it wouldn't.


----------



## JBeukema

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want a committed Marxist teaching economics.
> 
> I don't want a committed anarchist teaching Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about being close minded!!!
> 
> You would probably have no problem with a committed Capitalist teaching economics!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A committed capitalist would probably know all the theories of economics out there
Click to expand...


Nope. Rarely have I met someone devoted to capitalism who understood the basics of the Marxian school.





> A Marxist by definition views capitalism as evil.


Nope. You probably think Marx advocated communism, don't you?


----------



## JScott

Foxfyre said:


> JScott said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I explained it in some detail.  If you can't understand the explanation, there isn't much I can do for you I'm afraid.
> 
> Any teacher who has a mind so closed as to deny creationism or intelligent design as possibilities has a mind too closed to teach much of anything, much less science.
> 
> Point of order:  Not personally believing something that has never been proved or disproved and thinking one has enough evidence to deny its existence to somebody else = fundamentalist closed mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What has creationism discovered? Are there any theories they can point to they have made?
> 
> What technologies can creationism point to that they have created?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does this have to do with anything though?  Science is defined many different ways but most of us have the gist of what it is and what it is not.  It is not certainty of anything but is a collection of facts from which a conclusion of probability or possibility can be devised:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some Definitions of Science
> (An addendum to the GEOL 1122 reading on "What is, and isn't, Science")
> 
> Each of these sections begins with conventional definitions or comments and moves toward less conventional but perhaps more revealing statements.
> 
> *Definitions by goal and process:*
> 
> Science is the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. 2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation. 3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy.
> Academic Press Dictionary of Science & Technology
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Science is an intellectual activity carried on by humans that is designed to discover information about the natural world in which humans live and to discover the ways in which this information can be organized into meaningful patterns. A primary aim of science is to collect facts (data). An ultimate purpose of science is to discern the order that exists between and amongst the various facts.
> Dr. Sheldon Gottlieb in a lecture series at the University of South Alabama
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Science involves more than the gaining of knowledge. It is the systematic and organized inquiry into the natural world and its phenomena. Science is about gaining a deeper and often useful understanding of the world.
> from the Multicultural History of Science page at Vanderbilt University.
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Science consists simply of the formulation and testing of hypotheses based on observational evidence; experiments are important where applicable, but their function is merely to simplify observation by imposing controlled conditions.
> Robert H. Dott, Jr., and Henry L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth (2nd edition)
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceeding generation . . .As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
> Richard Feynman, Nobel-prize-winning physicist,
> in The Pleasure of Finding Things Out
> as quoted in American Scientist v. 87, p. 462 (1999).
> 
> What is Science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is the study of what we don't know as much as study of what we already know or think we know.
> 
> Speaking as a Creationist/I.D.er who believes herself to be square in the middle of the mainstream of that group, I can say that most Creationists and/or I.D.ers have no quarrel whatsoever with science *UNTIL it presumes to know more than is known*.
> 
> And most of us see the Creator as the author or designer of science and everything else.
Click to expand...


Why do you presume theres a creator? It is not known.


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I dispute that man evolved from some other animal.
> 
> I bred horses for years. I get basic, standard evolution within a species.
> 
> However, one thing doesn't magically evolve into something else. There's no proof for it. That is just a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're confused, child. The magic hypothesis is called Creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself, simpleton.
Click to expand...


Maybe if we repeat it more slowly, you'll finally get it?


----------



## JakeStarkey

AllieBaba said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I didn't say they did. I asked if JS did.* Try to keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that. However, I'm just pointing out that nobody here is trying to keep creationists out of the classrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er..that would explain why he said it would concern him if one was in one.
> 
> Oh, wait, no it wouldn't.
Click to expand...


Let's be clear here: I would be concerned if a committed capitalist or a committed communist was teaching economics.  I didn't say that a creationist should not teach in a science classroom.


----------



## JBeukema

Modbert said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As someone who was complaining about others making statements without all the facts recently, it is not surprising to see you making statements without none of the facts.
Click to expand...

Do I point out the double negative?


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> It's a theory, no need to back it up with facts...


----------



## Modbert

JBeukema said:


> Do I point out the double negative?



Feel free to point out the "without none" part of my post. 

I was going to edit it earlier but figure I'd leave it in for posterity and because it had already been pointed out.


----------



## AllieBaba

JBeukema said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As someone who was complaining about others making statements without all the facts recently, it is not surprising to see you making statements without none of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I point out the double negative?
Click to expand...


Already did.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

saveliberty said:


> Seems like I hurt your feelings pretty bad.  You had to comment on it multiple times in the same post.  God complex folks use it as a defense for their very insecure feelings.  Interesting that you find your arguments logical and rational, when your theory cannot explain in the least where the smallest parts of creation started and what started it in motion.  A rational and logical person would not default to chance.


So just because he is training to become a doctor he automatically has a God complex now?  Amazing how a 10 pages ago that wasn't the case, but now that you've established that fact, he's that egotistical.  

A RATIONAL and LOGICAL person would look at the facts and evidence surrounding evolution, and realize it did not come about by chance, although it does heavily involve randomness.  Again, for a trained science teacher, you seem to lack understanding on this topic.



AllieBaba said:


> An educated guess based upon the fact that I've never known a medical student who had time to waste on a message board to the degree Goat does...


A gross generalization based on your sample size of ONE person at a different part of their medical career.   You have proven to be intellectually bankrupt in more threads than I can count, and I'd say this is one of your more ridiculous unsupported claims, but I'm sad to admit that's not actually the case. 



AllieBaba said:


> I'm not a medical student, that's for sure.


Yes, we can all tell that.


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, anyone who makes claims on here gets to back them up.
> 
> Otherwise I just assume you're full of shit.
> 
> I assume you're full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The burden of proof is on you Allie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's on the person who made the claim, nitwit.
> 
> I don't have to prove a negative. If Goat wants to claim he's a dr, fine, he can back it up..otherwise I will continue to think he's a pimple-faced dweeb.
Click to expand...

Where did he make that claim, exactly?

Oh yeah, he didn't. I forgot you're retarded.


----------



## Dr Grump

JakeStarkey said:


> Telling believers that ID and creationists questions in a biology class should be redirected to the questioners' parents, religious instructors, and humanities classroom is not, repeat, not Christian bashing.



You have to realise that if you even question a diehard follower of any indoctrined religion - you offer up facts etc - it quickly dissolves into name calling and frothing at the mouth by our religious breathren.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Foxfyre said:


> How would you feel if your child's science teacher was a Creationist is a valid question.
> How would you feel if your President was a Muslim is a valid question.
> How would you feel if your dentist/doctor/nurse/therapist was a recovering alcoholic is a valid question.


All of these questions are answered the exact same way: it doesn't matter so long as their personal issues don't come into their professional responsibilities.  You can make the claim all day that people's personalities are based on their beliefs, but there's a distinct cutoff as to whether those beliefs enter the professional realm.  It's a yes or no evaluation.



Foxfyre said:


> I agree to a degree, but I don't think many Christians believe that God had no part in creation.  The issue for me was having to accept somebody else's definition of Creationist given after the fact and not included in the OP.
> 
> I am a Creationist because I believe God was involved in Creation.  I would not want that taught in Science Class, however, as I do not see it as science as we define science.
> 
> I also accept much/most of Evolution theory and would object strongly if that was not taught in Science Class.
> 
> So we're back to where I started on this thread.  And I didn't think my point of view unreasonable at the beginning.  And I don't think it is unreasonable now.


No, where you started in this thread was stating that science teachers need to acknowledge creationism when asked by students as a legitimate alternative to evolution that answers all the unstated questions you felt evolution didn't address.  This is STILL a wrong idea, but I appreciate your effort in backpedaling away from it and slowly removing it from your points while not specifically conceding the point.

If a student raised their hand and said they believed the Earth was flat, the science teacher in no way should acknowledge it as an acceptable alternative. It doesn't matter whether the uneducated child's faith is hurt.  His ideas are solidly proven incorrect.  The teacher should acknowledge the evidence, and instruct the student to see him after class to redirect if needed.  Overall, it is the science teacher's responsibility to stick to evidence based knowledge and not claim non-scientific ideas are acceptable alternatives.

I'd ask if you agree or not, but you're still so hurt over the last time I negged you, and I've shot you down so thoroughly, your only recourse at this time is to ignore the things I say because you can't actually bring yourself to face them. Ignorance is helpful like that.


----------



## JScott

Foxfyre said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no.  I haven't seen a single person in this thread on "my side" state that creationists can't teach evolution.  Once again you are making crap up because you don't have an actual argument.  The general consensus here has been that anyone can teach science so long as they do so adequately while remaining within the boundaries of scientific understanding and professionalism.  It doesn't matter whether a creationist, Christian, Muslim, or atheist does it, so long as their personal beliefs are kept out of the classroom.
> 
> Again I ask: what part of anything I've said thus far do you disagree with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Major fail on your part.  The OP clearly implies that someone who believes in creation should not or cannot teach science.  You also seem to think that a person's beliefs are not part of teaching.  Who and want a person is helps make up the style of teaching.  A strong belief system makes for the best teachers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with this for the most part because say a devout Christian will be far more likely to be open to ALL possibilities and understand how much that we don't know and should be willing to at least look at.  Too many committed and passionate Atheists, especially the anti-Christian types, I think will be too close minded to make good science teachers.
> 
> Of course a fundamentalist who refuses to teach Evolution as science and/or that would insert Creationism into the curriculum as science would be as closed minded and also would make a lousy science teacher.
> 
> Both, in my opinion, would be wrong.
> 
> But I would accept an Einstein type as a science teacher in a heartbeat.  He rejected the concept of a personal god, but was open to a concept of some kind of cosmic intelligence guiding the overall process--he saw far too much symmetry, order, and variety in the Universe to accept that it absolutely had to all be just by coincidence, chance, or accident.
> 
> An open mind is all I ask of a scientist or science teacher.
Click to expand...


Most atheists base their beliefs on science and good observation. Why would you think they wouldnt make good science teachers? 

A committed and passionate(devout) anti-Atheist anti-evolution Christian would, theoretically, give credit to God over finding the truth.

A fundamentalist would lose his/her job if they refused to teach the curriculum.

Seems Einstein was an agnostic.


----------



## Dr Grump

Nothing wrong with a creationist teaching science, as long as they stick with the programme...


----------



## AllieBaba

SmarterThanHick said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like I hurt your feelings pretty bad.  You had to comment on it multiple times in the same post.  God complex folks use it as a defense for their very insecure feelings.  Interesting that you find your arguments logical and rational, when your theory cannot explain in the least where the smallest parts of creation started and what started it in motion.  A rational and logical person would not default to chance.
> 
> 
> 
> So just because he is training to become a doctor he automatically has a God complex now?  Amazing how a 10 pages ago that wasn't the case, but now that you've established that fact, he's that egotistical.
> 
> A RATIONAL and LOGICAL person would look at the facts and evidence surrounding evolution, and realize it did not come about by chance, although it does heavily involve randomness.  Again, for a trained science teacher, you seem to lack understanding on this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> An educated guess based upon the fact that I've never known a medical student who had time to waste on a message board to the degree Goat does...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A gross generalization based on your sample size of ONE person at a different part of their medical career.   You have proven to be intellectually bankrupt in more threads than I can count, and I'd say this is one of your more ridiculous unsupported claims, but I'm sad to admit that's not actually the case.
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a medical student, that's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we can all tell that.
Click to expand...


Er..not one person. I simply referred to my niece.

And I didn't refer to one point of her career only. Mayhap you should read the post again.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Ah I see, you based your conclusion based on more than one person, citing one person as your definitive source.  Do you realize how foolish that is?  Do you even realize that there are medical students and different types of doctors with drastically different schedules?

You base the ENTIRETY of your poorly drawn conclusion on this short-sighted information.  Tell me: how many hours of free time did your niece or other unnamed references have as a medical student?  Give us an estimated number.  Let's see you actually support what you say for once instead of making vague references you run behind.


----------



## AllieBaba

Good lord you love the sound of your own voice, don't you?


----------



## edthecynic

JBeukema said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> FLoT applies within a given system: this univese
> 
> 
> God, like Branes, exists outside of the system in question
> 
> 
> There is no evidence FLoT can be extrapolated to apply outside of this universe, to whatever medium it might itself exist within
> 
> Science recognizes this when discussing M-theory and bubble universes
> 
> 
> 
> Neither M-Theory, nor String Theory, nor Brane Theory says that you can get something from nothing. The FLoT still stands and Creationism still violates it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. *According to M-Theory, the Universe comes into being when two branes collide.* FLoT applies within the universe, but we cannot know the rules that govern the realm of the branes.
> 
> According to the God Hypothesis, the Universe was created in whatever medium (perhaps it's a bubble universe? Or perhaps the Strings are the very 'body' of FSM?) by an outside intelligence. Nowhere does it say something came from nothing and nowhere does it violate the laws of physics that apply within the created universe, both because we cannot logically assume that they apply in other universes or outside of the universe at all and because It's never stated explicitly how the universe comes into being following god's speech. For all we know, he spoke to an AI in a laboratory and it automated the processes which manipulated the string ultimately leading to the emergent changes we see in the universe before us.
> 
> God creating a cow next to me wouldn't even violate FLoT, as the intervention of an outside agent and introduction of matter/energy (or 'information', if you prefer the term) from outside the universe means the universe isn't a closed system- and* FLoT only applies to a closed system.*
> 
> You're guilty of the same fallacy as those who claim* evolution violates FLoT* and Earth is a closed system- neglecting the sun and the rest of the universe.
Click to expand...

Two Branes are not NOTHING!!! So M-Theory doesn't violate the FLoT.

And Creationists claim evolution violates the SECOND Law of Thermodynamics, not the First. It's the SLoT that involves a closed system.


----------



## JBeukema

> M-Theory doesn't violate the FLoT.


I never claimed it did.



> And Creationists claim evolution violates the SECOND Law of  Thermodynamics, not the First. It's the SLoT that involves a closed  system.



If god's intervening and introducing new energy/matter, then the universe is not a closed system and SLoT doesn't apply at all.


----------



## edthecynic

JBeukema said:


> M-Theory doesn't violate the FLoT.
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Creationists claim evolution violates the SECOND Law of  Thermodynamics, not the First. It's the SLoT that involves a closed  system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If god's intervening and introducing new energy/matter, then the universe is not a closed system and SLoT doesn't apply at all.
Click to expand...

You were clearly implying that M-Theory was free to violate the FLoT, which obviously you have confused with the SLoT.


That is not why the Creationists are wrong about the SLoT. The SLoT says in a closed thermodynamic system, Entropy NEVER DECREASES. In scientific language "never decreases" means "greater than or EQUAL TO" zero (E&#8805;0). Creationists dishonestly changed "never decreases" to "always increases" which in scientific language means "greater than but NOT EQUAL TO" zero (E>0), because they know most non-physists would not catch the difference. They dishonestly use semantics rather than mathematics to eliminate the zero. As I already pointed out, if Entropy could not equal zero, no matter could exist.
So even in a closed system the Creationists would be wrong.


----------



## konradv

I wouldn't want a creationist teaching my kids.  I expect a certain amount of logical thinking from teachers and creationists fail that test, IMO.  Anyone that can look at fossil record and maintain that species did not evolve, I don't want anywhere near teaching kids.


----------



## Foxfyre

konradv said:


> I wouldn't want a creationist teaching my kids.  I expect a certain amount of logical thinking from teachers and creationists fail that test, IMO.  Anyone that can look at fossil record and maintain that species did not evolve, I don't want anywhere near teaching kids.



I am a Creationist who believes species evolved and have no problem with the Theory of Evolution and in fact have taught it with some degree of competence I believe,.

I think probably 95% of Creationists pretty much see it as I see it.  And that would include most likely all my science teachers from grade school through college.

None of us should teach?


----------



## saveliberty

Here's a thought:  If you get rid of all the Christian, who will teach all those kids science?


----------



## JBeukema

edthecynic said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M-Theory doesn't violate the FLoT.
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Creationists claim evolution violates the SECOND Law of  Thermodynamics, not the First. It's the SLoT that involves a closed  system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If god's intervening and introducing new energy/matter, then the universe is not a closed system and SLoT doesn't apply at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were clearly implying that M-Theory was free to violate the FLoT, which obviously you have confused with the SLoT.
Click to expand...


Fail. I made it clear that it did not- nor [certain forms of] creationism. 


Try reading for comprehension.


----------



## Mr. Sauerkraut

aren´t your kids dumb enough? is it after overporning and pc-overgaming them still necessary to feed them up with these nerdy creationist theofascist lies? C´mon, don´t kill the minds of your kids completely, or should every work become exported to china or be done by illegals?


----------



## Anguille

how would you feel if a creationist taught your kids science? 

I would prefer to have a scientist teach my kids about creationism.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Atheism is first and foremost the most virulent of all religions, because it requires the most faith of all.  Thank heavens such believers are so small in total numbers in America.  No, guys, philosophical fallacies will only disprove your own faith, not that of the believers.

To those of you have been generous to believers, understand this is primarily for sauerkraut, the dumbkopf.


----------



## Mr. Sauerkraut

science isn´t atheism

creationsim isn´t christianity

theofacism isn´t knowing jesus

and who´s a DUMMKOPF is just another question.


----------



## Mr. Sauerkraut

JakeStarkey said:


> Atheism is first and foremost the most virulent of all religions, because it requires the most faith of all.



no. It´s because you ignorant, nerdy, daffy and fearish creationistic liars have raped, traited, poisoned and abused the message of jesus completely, so that´s impossible today to stand for the faith without being laughed ore hostiled. Thank you, well done.


----------



## Foxfyre

Mr. Sauerkraut said:


> science isn´t atheism
> 
> creationsim isn´t christianity
> 
> theofacism isn´t knowing jesus
> 
> and who´s a DUMMKOPF is just another question.



None of which is relevant to the thread.

If you are the highschool principal interviewing me to teach biology, in today's climate it would not be out of line for you to ask my views on Origin of the Species or Darwin's Theory.

I would answer truthfully that I would include that in Biology class and would teach it as valid science.

In today's climate it would also be reasonable to also ask if I would also teach Creationism in Biology cclass.

I would answer truthfully that I would not as I do not believe Creationism to be science or appropriate for Biology Class.

That should end the interview questions on that subject.

So later you show up to interview me for the village weekly newspaper serving a community who will be interested in the new guy teaching at the highschool.  Ms. Foxfyre, you are certainly aware of all the controversy re those pushing for Creationism to be included in the school curriculum.  Are you a Creationist?

I would answer truthfully that yes I am.  I believe there is a Creator who called all that we have into being and a divine intelligence behind the whole process.  That makes me both a Creationist and an I.D.er.

If the reporter is honest and dedicated to reporting the facts with accuracy, he will follow with:  "Would you be teaching that to our students in Biology Class."

I would answer truthfully that no I would not because it is a matter of religious belief or faith that has no place in a Science curriculum.

That should make me satisfactory for all but the few fundamentalists at the little church in the hollow who refute Evolution and want only Creationism taught.   But they will be greatly outnumbered and overruled.

However, my answers have not been satisfactory for many of our more militant anti-religionists or anti-Christians who do not seem to be able to understand my answers and want to make me into something that I am not and who accuse me of wanting or intending what I do not.

And THAT is the truth of the issues on this thread.


----------



## Mr. Sauerkraut

i would demand to fire that teacher and if that wouldn´t help, i´ll take my kids from school if a biology teacher would teach creationism. And I would sue the teacher and enforce that he becomes forbidden to put a foot in any classroom.


----------



## Foxfyre

Mr. Sauerkraut said:


> i would demand to fire that teacher and if that wouldn´t help, i´ll take my kids from school if a biology teacher would teach creationism. And I would sue the teacher and enforce that he becomes forbidden to put a foot in any classroom.



If that was directed at me, I sure as hell wouldn't hire you to teach reading comprehension.


----------



## Mr. Sauerkraut

Foxfyre said:


> Mr. Sauerkraut said:
> 
> 
> 
> i would demand to fire that teacher and if that wouldn´t help, i´ll take my kids from school if a biology teacher would teach creationism. And I would sue the teacher and enforce that he becomes forbidden to put a foot in any classroom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that was directed at me, I sure as hell wouldn't hire you to teach reading comprehension.
Click to expand...


no it wasn´t.

another idea: What if we put the the gilgamesh epos in curriculums for religion?


----------



## The Infidel

blu said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no room for myths in science instruction
Click to expand...


Prove its a myth or shut the fuck up!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mr. Sauerkraut said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is first and foremost the most virulent of all religions, because it requires the most faith of all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no. It´s because you ignorant, nerdy, daffy and fearish creationistic liars have raped, traited, poisoned and abused the message of jesus completely, so that´s impossible today to stand for the faith without being laughed ore hostiled. Thank you, well done.
Click to expand...


You judge others by how you judge yourself.

Tell that to the 165 kids who go home with knapsacks full of food from the school for the weekend so they can eat.

Tell that to the 43 homes of the elderly that we visit as many times as necessary each week to make sure the folks are cared for and know that they are cared for.

Tell that to our boys scouts, girl scouts, the orphanage in Siberia where 13 to 19 members spend each summer doing their best to assist with education and medical care and friendship, to the Christmas choirs that visit the elderly and the shut in and ill ~ tell that to thousands in my home town.

Tell that to me when they came to help (many of them not knowing me) when my wife died, when my oldest daughter died, and when I became so ill several years ago.

Tell that to them and they will say, "You poor soul, how can we help?"


----------



## edthecynic

edthecynic said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be obvious!
> 
> Creationism says that no thing (God) created everything from nothing.
> The FLoT says that from nothing, nothing comes.
> 
> 
> 
> *FLoT applies within a given system*: this univese
> 
> 
> God, like Branes, exists outside of the system in question
> 
> 
> There is no evidence FLoT can be extrapolated to apply outside of this universe, to whatever medium it might itself exist within
> 
> Science recognizes this when discussing M-theory and bubble universes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither M-Theory, nor String Theory, nor Brane Theory says that you can get something from nothing. The FLoT still stands and Creationism still violates it.
Click to expand...




> Originally Posted by *JBeukema*
> 
> Nope. *According to M-Theory, the Universe comes into being when two branes collide.* FLoT applies within the universe, but we cannot know the rules that govern the realm of the branes.
> 
> According to the God Hypothesis, the Universe was created in whatever  medium (perhaps it's a bubble universe? Or perhaps the Strings are the  very 'body' of FSM?) by an outside intelligence. Nowhere does it say  something came from nothing and nowhere does it violate the laws of  physics that apply within the created universe, both because we cannot  logically assume that they apply in other universes or outside of the  universe at all and because It's never stated explicitly how the  universe comes into being following god's speech. For all we know, he  spoke to an AI in a laboratory and it automated the processes which  manipulated the string ultimately leading to the emergent changes we see  in the universe before us.
> 
> God creating a cow next to me wouldn't even violate FLoT, as the  intervention of an outside agent and introduction of matter/energy (or  'information', if you prefer the term) from outside the universe means  the universe isn't a closed system- and* FLoT only applies to a closed system.*





JBeukema said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed it did.
> 
> If god's intervening and introducing new energy/matter, then *the universe is not a closed system* and SLoT doesn't apply at all.
> 
> 
> 
> You were clearly implying that M-Theory was free to violate* the FLoT, which obviously you have confused with the SLoT.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Fail.* I made it clear that it did not- nor [certain forms of] creationism.
> 
> 
> *Try reading for comprehension.*
Click to expand...

Cut the arrogant condescension! 

I have the comprehension to know the difference between the FLoT and the SLoT, which YOU obviously lack, and the comprehension to see from your earlier posts you have put the "closed system" limitation of the SLoT on the FLoT where it doesn't exist from your earlier posts!!! It was such a stupid thing to say I could not forget that you said it, like you did. You obviously didn't realize that it was so stupid that it would stick out like a sore thumb and therefore be easy to remember. You probably thought you were BRILLIANT!

Again, the FLoT is not limited to a closed system, and you have no idea what you are babbling about.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> Atheism is first and foremost the most virulent of all religions, because it requires the most faith of all.








































































































that was a good one


----------



## JBeukema

The Infidel said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no room for myths in science instruction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove its a myth or shut the fuck up!
Click to expand...

S: (n) *myth* (a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people) 

WordNet Search - 3.0


By definition


----------



## JBeukema

> you have put the "closed system" limitation of the SLoT on the FLoT where it doesn't exist from your earlier posts



It's implicit in the entire line you've been arguing. Again, comprehension seems to be an issue for you.

You've still yet to demonstrate your premise while you attack me.


----------



## Mr. Sauerkraut

JakeStarkey said:


> You judge others by how you judge yourself.
> 
> Tell that to the 165 kids who go home with knapsacks full of food from the school for the weekend so they can eat.
> 
> Tell that to the 43 homes of the elderly that we visit as many times as necessary each week to make sure the folks are cared for and know that they are cared for.
> 
> Tell that to our boys scouts, girl scouts, the orphanage in Siberia where 13 to 19 members spend each summer doing their best to assist with education and medical care and friendship, to the Christmas choirs that visit the elderly and the shut in and ill ~ tell that to thousands in my home town.
> 
> Tell that to me when they came to help (many of them not knowing me) when my wife died, when my oldest daughter died, and when I became so ill several years ago.
> 
> Tell that to them and they will say, "You poor soul, how can we help?"



so good works do justify any doctrine? That´s how the nazis did it yesterday and the muslimic terrorists do it today. What do you think do the suicide bombers come from?

No. Any doctrine which forbids me to use my brain is bad and unworthy. Any "good works" that are done by the agents of this doctrine is a lie and only done to increase power over my mind.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You judge others as you judge yourself.

False statement.  No one is compelling you to not use your brain,

You have no defensible position.


----------



## Old Rocks

AllieBaba said:


> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.



You damned well better keep it seperate. A biology teacher that teaches creationism is teaching one particular religions mythology, not science. For doing that, the teacher should not be allowed to teach science, period.


----------



## Old Rocks

The Infidel said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no room for myths in science instruction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove its a myth or shut the fuck up!
Click to expand...


No worldwide flood. Period.

Jericho was a stone ruin at the time the Isrealites left Egypt.

Talking snakes, ect.


----------



## konradv

Foxfyre said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't want a creationist teaching my kids.  I expect a certain amount of logical thinking from teachers and creationists fail that test, IMO.  Anyone that can look at fossil record and maintain that species did not evolve, I don't want anywhere near teaching kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a Creationist who believes species evolved and have no problem with the Theory of Evolution and in fact have taught it with some degree of competence I believe,.
> 
> I think probably 95% of Creationists pretty much see it as I see it.  And that would include most likely all my science teachers from grade school through college.
> 
> None of us should teach?
Click to expand...


If you don't have a problem with the Theory of Evolution, then you're the kind of "creationist" I am.  The Bible says "let there be light"(The Big Bang) and everything after that in Genesis is allegory, because the universe EVOLVED from created laws of science NOT created as individuals or species.


----------



## AllieBaba

Mr. Sauerkraut said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You judge others by how you judge yourself.
> 
> Tell that to the 165 kids who go home with knapsacks full of food from the school for the weekend so they can eat.
> 
> Tell that to the 43 homes of the elderly that we visit as many times as necessary each week to make sure the folks are cared for and know that they are cared for.
> 
> Tell that to our boys scouts, girl scouts, the orphanage in Siberia where 13 to 19 members spend each summer doing their best to assist with education and medical care and friendship, to the Christmas choirs that visit the elderly and the shut in and ill ~ tell that to thousands in my home town.
> 
> Tell that to me when they came to help (many of them not knowing me) when my wife died, when my oldest daughter died, and when I became so ill several years ago.
> 
> Tell that to them and they will say, "You poor soul, how can we help?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so good works do justify any doctrine? That´s how the nazis did it yesterday and the muslimic terrorists do it today. What do you think do the suicide bombers come from?
> 
> No. Any doctrine which forbids me to use my brain is bad and unworthy. Any "good works" that are done by the agents of this doctrine is a lie and only done to increase power over my mind.
Click to expand...


Christian doctrine doesn't forbid you to use your brain, you lunatic. In fact, if you were to seriously read and research the bible, you'd be using your brain to a greater extent that I've ever seen evidence you're capable of.

And comparing Christianity to Nazism & Islam... The myth that the numbers of people systematically killed in tne name of the Christian God in any way compares to the numbers killed in the name of Islam or Nazism is ludicrous. It's a myth perpetrated by those who want to see Christians eliminated, killed, silenced, and it's completely false.


----------



## AllieBaba

Old Rocks said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You damned well better keep it seperate. A biology teacher that teaches creationism is teaching one particular religions mythology, not science. For doing that, the teacher should not be allowed to teach science, period.
Click to expand...


Perhaps a Christian needs to teach you to spell. "Separate".

There is nothing wrong with sharing one's personal beliefs in the classroom. Teachers of all subjects talk about social issues all the time, and the issue of faith is just an extension of that. You won't ever see me saying they should teach creationism in PLACE of whatever subject is being taught (except in parochial schools, where the curriculum wraps around the bible and prayer) because kids are in particular classrooms to learn about particular subjects.

But IF children are being taught about the "theory" that we have evolved from a "common ancestor" that we share with other primates...a theory that has no basis in fact and is a complete guess based on the fact that we are all similar and share basic gene structure, then I see no thing wrong with touching on the theory, believed by a HUGE number of people in the world, that we were created by a creator. There should be no requirement that children believe this, any more than there's a requirement that they believe we're the grandchildren of Lucy; but they should know the theory exists, and not be taught the lie that it's myth, that it doesn't bear consideration, or that the people who believe it it are stuipd. It's about increasing knowledge, instead of limiting it, and it makes me ill people, claim that teaching children all the possilities somehow makes them more ignorant than withholding information. You don't enlighten children by refusing to give them information, or by passing on your personal opinion about things...in place of truth.


----------



## JScott

AllieBaba said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You damned well better keep it seperate. A biology teacher that teaches creationism is teaching one particular religions mythology, not science. For doing that, the teacher should not be allowed to teach science, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps a Christian needs to teach you to spell. "Separate".
> 
> There is nothing wrong with sharing one's personal beliefs in the classroom. Teachers of all subjects talk about social issues all the time, and the issue of faith is just an extension of that. You won't ever see me saying they should teach creationism in PLACE of whatever subject is being taught (except in parochial schools, where the curriculum wraps around the bible and prayer) because kids are in particular classrooms to learn about particular subjects.
> 
> But IF children are being taught about the "theory" that we have evolved from a "common ancestor" that we share with other primates...a theory that has no basis in fact and is a complete guess based on the fact that we are all similar and share basic gene structure, then I see no thing wrong with touching on the theory, believed by a HUGE number of people in the world, that we were created by a creator. There should be no requirement that children believe this, any more than there's a requirement that they believe we're the grandchildren of Lucy; but they should know the theory exists, and not be taught the lie that it's myth, that it doesn't bear consideration, or that the people who believe it it are stuipd. It's about increasing knowledge, instead of limiting it, and it makes me ill people, claim that teaching children all the possilities somehow makes them more ignorant than withholding information. You don't enlighten children by refusing to give them information, or by passing on your personal opinion about things...in place of truth.
Click to expand...


Here are some examples of possible evolution: 





















What can you show me of creation?


----------



## edthecynic

JBeukema said:


> you have put the "closed system" limitation of the SLoT on the FLoT where it doesn't exist from your earlier posts
> 
> 
> 
> It's implicit in the entire line you've been arguing. Again, comprehension seems to be an issue for you.
> 
> You've still yet to demonstrate your premise while you attack me.
Click to expand...

Your imagined "closed system" limitation of the FLoT is not "implicit." If there was such a limitation science would have no trouble stating it right up front in the FLoT like they do with the SLoT. Your JBFLoT would be stated as, "In a closed thermodynamic systen, energy can neither be created nor destroyed," just as the SLoT states, "In a closed thermodynamic system, Entropy never decreases." But you will NEVER find the FLoT stated as such in any physics text book because there is no such limitation on the FLoT.

You just can't admit the obvious, you confused the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and built your faulty arguments on your confusion. And rather than admit your error you have reduced yourself to arrogant condescension.


----------



## JakeStarkey

AllieBaba said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You damned well better keep it seperate. A biology teacher that teaches creationism is teaching one particular religions mythology, not science. For doing that, the teacher should not be allowed to teach science, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps a Christian needs to teach you to spell. "Separate".
> 
> There is nothing wrong with sharing one's personal beliefs in the classroom. Teachers of all subjects talk about social issues all the time, and the issue of faith is just an extension of that. You won't ever see me saying they should teach creationism in PLACE of whatever subject is being taught (except in parochial schools, where the curriculum wraps around the bible and prayer) because kids are in particular classrooms to learn about particular subjects.
> 
> But IF children are being taught about the "theory" that we have evolved from a "common ancestor" that we share with other primates...a theory that has no basis in fact and is a complete guess based on the fact that we are all similar and share basic gene structure, then I see no thing wrong with touching on the theory, believed by a HUGE number of people in the world, that we were created by a creator. There should be no requirement that children believe this, any more than there's a requirement that they believe we're the grandchildren of Lucy; but they should know the theory exists, and not be taught the lie that it's myth, that it doesn't bear consideration, or that the people who believe it it are stuipd. It's about increasing knowledge, instead of limiting it, and it makes me ill people, claim that teaching children all the possilities somehow makes them more ignorant than withholding information. You don't enlighten children by refusing to give them information, or by passing on your personal opinion about things...in place of truth.
Click to expand...


Stop the either or dichotomy, for it does not exist.

The biology classroom is for teaching biology, not sharing religious opinion.  ID and creationism can be taught in comparative religions or creation mythology classes..


----------



## AllieBaba

JScott said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> You damned well better keep it seperate. A biology teacher that teaches creationism is teaching one particular religions mythology, not science. For doing that, the teacher should not be allowed to teach science, period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps a Christian needs to teach you to spell. "Separate".
> 
> There is nothing wrong with sharing one's personal beliefs in the classroom. Teachers of all subjects talk about social issues all the time, and the issue of faith is just an extension of that. You won't ever see me saying they should teach creationism in PLACE of whatever subject is being taught (except in parochial schools, where the curriculum wraps around the bible and prayer) because kids are in particular classrooms to learn about particular subjects.
> 
> But IF children are being taught about the "theory" that we have evolved from a "common ancestor" that we share with other primates...a theory that has no basis in fact and is a complete guess based on the fact that we are all similar and share basic gene structure, then I see no thing wrong with touching on the theory, believed by a HUGE number of people in the world, that we were created by a creator. There should be no requirement that children believe this, any more than there's a requirement that they believe we're the grandchildren of Lucy; but they should know the theory exists, and not be taught the lie that it's myth, that it doesn't bear consideration, or that the people who believe it it are stuipd. It's about increasing knowledge, instead of limiting it, and it makes me ill people, claim that teaching children all the possilities somehow makes them more ignorant than withholding information. You don't enlighten children by refusing to give them information, or by passing on your personal opinion about things...in place of truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are some examples of possible evolution:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What can you show me of creation?
Click to expand...


Those are pictures of "POSSIBLE" evolution.

I can also provide pictures of "POSSIBLE" creation...






Here's a picture of the "POSSIBLE" creation of man:






and here's a picture of a pyramid crystal which "POSSIBLY" has healing ability:






In other words, a bunch of pictures mean nothing in this instance. They have feature length films filled with fantastical animation of what the earth could POSSIBLY look like in thousands of year, too. Means nothing. It's just somebody's imagination run amock. Fun to look at, fun to condsider; but indicative of nothing real.


----------



## JBeukema

Old Rocks said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no room for myths in science instruction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove its a myth or shut the fuck up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No worldwide flood. Period.
> 
> Jericho was a stone ruin at the time the Isrealites left Egypt.
> 
> Talking snakes, ect.
Click to expand...

_A_ talking snake.

And if a jalapeno can talk...


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> The myth that the numbers of people systematically killed in tne name of the Christian God in any way compares to the numbers killed in the name of Islam or Nazism is ludicrous.


Crusades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






Salem witch trials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And let's not get started on the Jews


----------



## AllieBaba

JBeukema said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove its a myth or shut the fuck up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No worldwide flood. Period.
> 
> Jericho was a stone ruin at the time the Isrealites left Egypt.
> 
> Talking snakes, ect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _A_ talking snake.
> 
> And if a jalapeno can talk...
Click to expand...


That's not proof, that's just a couple of ppl making fun of another person's theory, without adding anything to the convo.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

blu said:


> "13 percent of biology teachers back creationism"
> 
> 13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com
> 
> Personally, if it was shown that they refused to teach actual science in the classroom I would work to have them removed and their teaching license revoked. If they separated their beliefs and their teaching then its all good.



I would feel the same as if an evolutionist was teaching them science.  

As long as the teacher is being proper and not trying to push their own personal agenda on the student it doesn't matter which type is the teacher.


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> There is nothing wrong with sharing one's personal beliefs in the classroom



Anyone wanna bet her tune changes the first time a Muslim teacher quotes the Suras?



> But IF children are being taught about the "theory" that we have evolved from a "common ancestor" that we share with other primates...a theory that has no basis in fact


----------



## AllieBaba

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> The myth that the numbers of people systematically killed in tne name of the Christian God in any way compares to the numbers killed in the name of Islam or Nazism is ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> Crusades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salem witch trials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> And let's not get started on the Jews
Click to expand...


How many people died in the witch trials? 6 million? 

And was that behavior decried or not? Why yes, it was.

If that's the best you have, you have nothing.


----------



## JScott

AllieBaba said:


> JScott said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps a Christian needs to teach you to spell. "Separate".
> 
> There is nothing wrong with sharing one's personal beliefs in the classroom. Teachers of all subjects talk about social issues all the time, and the issue of faith is just an extension of that. You won't ever see me saying they should teach creationism in PLACE of whatever subject is being taught (except in parochial schools, where the curriculum wraps around the bible and prayer) because kids are in particular classrooms to learn about particular subjects.
> 
> But IF children are being taught about the "theory" that we have evolved from a "common ancestor" that we share with other primates...a theory that has no basis in fact and is a complete guess based on the fact that we are all similar and share basic gene structure, then I see no thing wrong with touching on the theory, believed by a HUGE number of people in the world, that we were created by a creator. There should be no requirement that children believe this, any more than there's a requirement that they believe we're the grandchildren of Lucy; but they should know the theory exists, and not be taught the lie that it's myth, that it doesn't bear consideration, or that the people who believe it it are stuipd. It's about increasing knowledge, instead of limiting it, and it makes me ill people, claim that teaching children all the possilities somehow makes them more ignorant than withholding information. You don't enlighten children by refusing to give them information, or by passing on your personal opinion about things...in place of truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some examples of possible evolution:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What can you show me of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are pictures of "POSSIBLE" evolution.
> 
> I can also provide pictures of "POSSIBLE" creation...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a picture of the "POSSIBLE" creation of man:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and here's a picture of a pyramid crystal which "POSSIBLY" has healing ability:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, a bunch of pictures mean nothing in this instance. They have feature length films filled with fantastical animation of what the earth could POSSIBLY look like in thousands of year, too. Means nothing. It's just somebody's imagination run amock. Fun to look at, fun to condsider; but indicative of nothing real.
Click to expand...


The problem with what you showed and what I showed is that I can back up, with proof, what is depicted in the pictures.


----------



## JBeukema

AllieBaba said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> The myth that the numbers of people systematically killed in tne name of the Christian God in any way compares to the numbers killed in the name of Islam or Nazism is ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> Crusades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salem witch trials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> And let's not get started on the Jews
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many people died in the witch trials? 6 million?
> 
> And was that behavior decried or not? Why yes, it was.
> 
> If that's the best you have, you have nothing.
Click to expand...

Where's you get this 6 Million number?

Auschwitz - Myths & Facts

Ever-Diminishing Official Numbers Of Auschwitz Dead






                 [SIZE=+1] The first is the plaque that was on display at the Auschwitz     camp from 1948 until 1989 (note the "4 million" victims). [/SIZE]           
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




           [SIZE=+1]The second is the plaque currently on display at Auschwitz.[/SIZE]           [SIZE=+1]Note the dramatically reduced number of victims, now     only 1.5 million.[/SIZE]           [SIZE=+1]A casual reduction in the number of deaths by some 2.5     million.[/SIZE]           [SIZE=+1]Deaths at Auschwitz drop by a whopping 2.5 million, but     6,000,000 dead Jewish prisoners, remains the same. [/SIZE]
http://www.usmessageboard.com/education/98008-jewish-math-and-wwii.html


In Jewish mathematics, everything always adds up to six million.

2+2? Six Million

3-2? Six Million


----------



## AllieBaba

Oh good grief. I think we're done.


----------



## JBeukema

Perhaps we should make sure Jews don't teach math in our schools.


----------



## AllieBaba

JScott said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JScott said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some examples of possible evolution:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What can you show me of creation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are pictures of "POSSIBLE" evolution.
> 
> I can also provide pictures of "POSSIBLE" creation...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a picture of the "POSSIBLE" creation of man:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and here's a picture of a pyramid crystal which "POSSIBLY" has healing ability:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, a bunch of pictures mean nothing in this instance. They have feature length films filled with fantastical animation of what the earth could POSSIBLY look like in thousands of year, too. Means nothing. It's just somebody's imagination run amock. Fun to look at, fun to condsider; but indicative of nothing real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with what you showed and what I showed is that I can back up, with proof, what is depicted in the pictures.
Click to expand...

No, what you depicted is a POSSIBILITY, which has absolutely zero to do with the creation of life. Animals evolve, I've never disputed that. Look at dogs. 

That doesn't mean there's no God. I wish you loons would quit pretending it does.


----------



## JBeukema

Keep on claiming that high ground, Babbles


----------



## geauxtohell

SmarterThanHick said:


> Ah I see, you based your conclusion based on more than one person, citing one person as your definitive source.  Do you realize how foolish that is?  Do you even realize that there are medical students and different types of doctors with drastically different schedules?
> 
> You base the ENTIRETY of your poorly drawn conclusion on this short-sighted information.  Tell me: how many hours of free time did your niece or other unnamed references have as a medical student?  Give us an estimated number.  Let's see you actually support what you say for once instead of making vague references you run behind.



Snowmageddon closed all our afternoon OB clinics, but I am wondering how the hell I am going to make it to morning rounds tomorrow.

Now the endless conundrum:  Casefiles or couch?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

AllieBaba said:


> Good lord you love the sound of your own voice, don't you?


Especially when I'm TYPING.  You must love the sound of the ocean emanating from between your ears. 



AllieBaba said:


> There is nothing wrong with sharing one's personal beliefs in the classroom.


False.  Just curious: how would you feel if a science teacher talked about the benefits of homosexuality and abortion on a daily basis?  It's just personal belief, right?  Completely appropriate for a science classroom, right?



AllieBaba said:


> But IF children are being taught about the "theory" that we have evolved from a "common ancestor" that we share with other primates...a theory that has no basis in fact and is a complete guess based on the fact that we are all similar and share basic gene structure, then I see no thing wrong with touching on the theory, believed by a HUGE number of people in the world, that we were created by a creator. There should be no requirement that children believe this, any more than there's a requirement that they believe we're the grandchildren of Lucy; but they should know the theory exists, and not be taught the lie that it's myth, that it doesn't bear consideration, or that the people who believe it it are stuipd. It's about increasing knowledge, instead of limiting it, and it makes me ill people, claim that teaching children all the possilities somehow makes them more ignorant than withholding information. You don't enlighten children by refusing to give them information, or by passing on your personal opinion about things...in place of truth.


As I said: intellectually bankrupt.  



The Infidel said:


> Prove its a myth or shut the fuck up!


That's not how science works.  You prove what's real, you don't prove things that are non-existent. 



geauxtohell said:


> Snowmageddon closed all our afternoon OB clinics, but I am wondering how the hell I am going to make it to morning rounds tomorrow.
> 
> Now the endless conundrum:  Casefiles or couch?


As if I really believe that!  I know a guy who knew a medical student once from the south who never saw snow.  I really doubt you are telling the truth based on my vast life experiences with REAL people who have experienced snow.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Foxfyre said:


> None of which is relevant to the thread.
> 
> If you are the highschool principal interviewing me to teach biology, in today's climate it would not be out of line for you to ask my views on Origin of the Species or Darwin's Theory.
> 
> I would answer truthfully that I would include that in Biology class and would teach it as valid science.
> 
> In today's climate it would also be reasonable to also ask if I would also teach Creationism in Biology cclass.
> 
> I would answer truthfully that I would not as I do not believe Creationism to be science or appropriate for Biology Class.
> 
> That should end the interview questions on that subject.
> 
> So later you show up to interview me for the village weekly newspaper serving a community who will be interested in the new guy teaching at the highschool.  Ms. Foxfyre, you are certainly aware of all the controversy re those pushing for Creationism to be included in the school curriculum.  Are you a Creationist?
> 
> I would answer truthfully that yes I am.  I believe there is a Creator who called all that we have into being and a divine intelligence behind the whole process.  That makes me both a Creationist and an I.D.er.
> 
> If the reporter is honest and dedicated to reporting the facts with accuracy, he will follow with:  "Would you be teaching that to our students in Biology Class."
> 
> I would answer truthfully that no I would not because it is a matter of religious belief or faith that has no place in a Science curriculum.
> 
> That should make me satisfactory for all but the few fundamentalists at the little church in the hollow who refute Evolution and want only Creationism taught.   But they will be greatly outnumbered and overruled.
> 
> However, my answers have not been satisfactory for many of our more militant anti-religionists or anti-Christians who do not seem to be able to understand my answers and want to make me into something that I am not and who accuse me of wanting or intending what I do not.
> 
> And THAT is the truth of the issues on this thread.


And how would you answer when asked: If a student asked you about Intelligent Design while you were teaching evolution, what would you say?

I look forward to you providing an answer that would ensure you never got a job at a public school.  Just kidding, you won't actually answer that question because you are avoiding incriminating yourself now.  Closet zealot with wedge strategy.


----------



## JScott

AllieBaba said:


> JScott said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are pictures of "POSSIBLE" evolution.
> 
> I can also provide pictures of "POSSIBLE" creation...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a picture of the "POSSIBLE" creation of man:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and here's a picture of a pyramid crystal which "POSSIBLY" has healing ability:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, a bunch of pictures mean nothing in this instance. They have feature length films filled with fantastical animation of what the earth could POSSIBLY look like in thousands of year, too. Means nothing. It's just somebody's imagination run amock. Fun to look at, fun to condsider; but indicative of nothing real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with what you showed and what I showed is that I can back up, with proof, what is depicted in the pictures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, what you depicted is a POSSIBILITY, which has absolutely zero to do with the creation of life. Animals evolve, I've never disputed that. Look at dogs.
> 
> That doesn't mean there's no God. I wish you loons would quit pretending it does.
Click to expand...


Never called you any derogatory names. If you want to believe in God and live the pure life calling people names, so be it. I do not believe in magic.

The idea of creation is far fetched. The history of the earth goes back further than a few thousand years and theres proof to back it up. 

Someone who believes in creationism should be able to teach science. Their ideas should not ever be introduced, the same goes for an atheist. I dont expect a Jew or a Muslim to talk about their beliefs either. Everyone can be a science teacher as long as they keep it professional.

Good luck with your endeavors.


----------



## Mr. Sauerkraut

it´s a typical american thing, that you don´te take things so serious if when it´s about definitions. although it is the first sentence of the wikipedia Definition, i denie that "Creatonism" is only the faith in a all-mighty god. On this level, every believer is a Creationist. The "Creationism" we´re talking about is the close and wordly biblial explaination about the creation of the world - and the fighting against any other science or doctrine, anyway how proofable it is. "Creationistic" is for my unterstanding this  - on the one hand wordly, on the other hand strong selective use and way to read the bible. The thing about this selective use is, that the bible´s lessons are focussed on fear, punishment, anger and seperation. It´s not the focus on love, peace and harmony - what´s in my (and my lutheran church) the focus of the message is. That´s what drives me mad about the "Creationists", although i describe myself as an reborn christian too. 

If we teach children the genesis in biology, we should teach them the gilgamesh in religion. That would be fair.


----------



## geauxtohell

SmarterThanHick said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Snowmageddon closed all our afternoon OB clinics, but I am wondering how the hell I am going to make it to morning rounds tomorrow.
> 
> Now the endless conundrum:  Casefiles or couch?
> 
> 
> 
> As if I really believe that!  I know a guy who knew a medical student once from the south who never saw snow.  I really doubt you are telling the truth based on my vast life experiences with REAL people who have experienced snow.
Click to expand...


Dammit!  Busted!


----------



## AllieBaba

SmarterThanHick said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good lord you love the sound of your own voice, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Especially when I'm TYPING.  You must love the sound of the ocean emanating from between your ears.
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with sharing one's personal beliefs in the classroom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False.  Just curious: how would you feel if a science teacher talked about the benefits of homosexuality and abortion on a daily basis?  It's just personal belief, right?  Completely appropriate for a science classroom, right?
> 
> 
> As I said: intellectually bankrupt.
> 
> 
> 
> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove its a myth or shut the fuck up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not how science works.  You prove what's real, you don't prove things that are non-existent.
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Snowmageddon closed all our afternoon OB clinics, but I am wondering how the hell I am going to make it to morning rounds tomorrow.
> 
> Now the endless conundrum:  Casefiles or couch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As if I really believe that!  I know a guy who knew a medical student once from the south who never saw snow.  I really doubt you are telling the truth based on my vast life experiences with REAL people who have experienced snow.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry my eyes always glaze over about 8 characters into whatever you submit. I have a low tolerance for pontificating asshats, you see.


----------



## rdean

IanC said:


> as an atheist I have no problem with religion being taught, just not in science class



Unless it's taught as something "real".


----------



## rdean

Modbert said:


> Instead of Science class, could always replace it with Miracles class.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs



Because "light bulbs" and "LEDs" are bright little miracles.


----------



## rdean

AllieBaba said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no room for myths in science instruction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Guess we need to get rid of all the "theories". Theory is really just another word for "guess".
Click to expand...


California Girl thanked you.

A guess is what you do when you choose numbers for the Lotto.

A "theory" is when you look at a situation and make a "guess".

If you don't know by now the difference between them and a "scientific theory", then I guess you are unable to learn.


----------



## rdean

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   Hmmm.   Looking at my college transcript.  Biology - two years - A.  (I only needed one but I loved biology.)   Chemistry -  B - I wasn't as good with inert substances.  Physics - A.  And I did substitute teach for awhile until the rules changed requiring teacher certification.  The science teachers liked me to sub in their classes and asked for me.
> 
> So perhaps you might want to back off the personal insults.  They make you look really small and petty.
> 
> And I'm still waiting for you to comment on my post directed to your Bible commentary.  Is there a reason you have avoided that despite it being called to your attention two or three times now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a full year of college biology, and a full term of genetics.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> -and Bush2 went to Yale...
Click to expand...


He sure did:






Thank Gawd for Daddy's connections!


----------



## rdean

Funny, right wingers have zero problem with teaching "Creation Magic" in public schools as something kind of "scientific" and "smart sounding", but when you point out that only 6% of scientists are Republican, they insist is must be more.  Based on the existing evidence, my "theory" is that 6% is vastly overstated.


----------



## rdean

AllieBaba said:


> JScott said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps a Christian needs to teach you to spell. "Separate".
> 
> There is nothing wrong with sharing one's personal beliefs in the classroom. Teachers of all subjects talk about social issues all the time, and the issue of faith is just an extension of that. You won't ever see me saying they should teach creationism in PLACE of whatever subject is being taught (except in parochial schools, where the curriculum wraps around the bible and prayer) because kids are in particular classrooms to learn about particular subjects.
> 
> But IF children are being taught about the "theory" that we have evolved from a "common ancestor" that we share with other primates...a theory that has no basis in fact and is a complete guess based on the fact that we are all similar and share basic gene structure, then I see no thing wrong with touching on the theory, believed by a HUGE number of people in the world, that we were created by a creator. There should be no requirement that children believe this, any more than there's a requirement that they believe we're the grandchildren of Lucy; but they should know the theory exists, and not be taught the lie that it's myth, that it doesn't bear consideration, or that the people who believe it it are stuipd. It's about increasing knowledge, instead of limiting it, and it makes me ill people, claim that teaching children all the possilities somehow makes them more ignorant than withholding information. You don't enlighten children by refusing to give them information, or by passing on your personal opinion about things...in place of truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some examples of possible evolution:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What can you show me of creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are pictures of "POSSIBLE" evolution.
> 
> I can also provide pictures of "POSSIBLE" creation...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a picture of the "POSSIBLE" creation of man:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and here's a picture of a pyramid crystal which "POSSIBLY" has healing ability:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, a bunch of pictures mean nothing in this instance. They have feature length films filled with fantastical animation of what the earth could POSSIBLY look like in thousands of year, too. Means nothing. It's just somebody's imagination run amock. Fun to look at, fun to condsider; but indicative of nothing real.
Click to expand...


Nope, those aren't possible.  Genetics has shown the FIRST people were "African".  Which means "white sand" is a "no no".


----------



## IanC

don't people understand how incomplete the theory of evolution is? it only explains how previously existing life changes according to conditions. the beginnings of life are totally unexplained. and even the method of new species is a huge stretch of faith to say we have any understanding.


----------



## rdean

IanC said:


> don't people understand how incomplete the theory of evolution is? it only explains how previously existing life changes according to conditions. the beginnings of life are totally unexplained. and even the method of new species is a huge stretch of faith to say we have any understanding.



I don't believe that's true.  With the addition of genetics, geology, plate tectonics and all the other sciences, the theory is very robust.

This isn't 1980.


----------



## Foxfyre

Until science can come up with a plausible theory for how the substance of the universe came to be in the first place, the theory of a Creator or Intelligent Designer is just as plausible as any other theory.


----------



## IanC

rdean said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't people understand how incomplete the theory of evolution is? it only explains how previously existing life changes according to conditions. the beginnings of life are totally unexplained. and even the method of new species is a huge stretch of faith to say we have any understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that's true.  With the addition of genetics, geology, plate tectonics and all the other sciences, the theory is very robust.
> 
> This isn't 1980.
Click to expand...


hahaha. consensus, right? what are the main points of advancement since 1980?


----------



## blu

IanC said:


> don't people understand how incomplete the theory of *evolution* is? it only explains how previously existing life changes according to conditions. *the beginnings of life are totally unexplained*. and even the method of new species is a huge stretch of faith to say we have any understanding.



lol what an idiot you are... evolution has nothing to do with the 'beginning of life' so of course it doesn't explain it


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Until science can come up with a plausible theory for how the substance of the universe came to be in the first place, the theory of a Creator or Intelligent Designer is just as plausible as any other theory.


How could you have possibly passed a physics course when you have no understanding of the FLoT??????

The "substance" of the universe is energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed according to the PROVEN FLoT. We know energy exists because it can be measured, please prove that a Creator or Intelligent Designer exists.


----------



## Old Rocks

AllieBaba said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You damned well better keep it seperate. A biology teacher that teaches creationism is teaching one particular religions mythology, not science. For doing that, the teacher should not be allowed to teach science, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps a Christian needs to teach you to spell. "Separate".
> 
> There is nothing wrong with sharing one's personal beliefs in the classroom. Teachers of all subjects talk about social issues all the time, and the issue of faith is just an extension of that. You won't ever see me saying they should teach creationism in PLACE of whatever subject is being taught (except in parochial schools, where the curriculum wraps around the bible and prayer) because kids are in particular classrooms to learn about particular subjects.
> 
> But IF children are being taught about the "theory" that we have evolved from a "common ancestor" that we share with other primates...a theory that has no basis in fact and is a complete guess based on the fact that we are all similar and share basic gene structure, then I see no thing wrong with touching on the theory, believed by a HUGE number of people in the world, that we were created by a creator. There should be no requirement that children believe this, any more than there's a requirement that they believe we're the grandchildren of Lucy; but they should know the theory exists, and not be taught the lie that it's myth, that it doesn't bear consideration, or that the people who believe it it are stuipd. It's about increasing knowledge, instead of limiting it, and it makes me ill people, claim that teaching children all the possilities somehow makes them more ignorant than withholding information. You don't enlighten children by refusing to give them information, or by passing on your personal opinion about things...in place of truth.
Click to expand...


No basis at all except genetics and fossils. Grew up in a fundementalist evangelical home. I despise willfull ignorance. There is little that you can do to damage your children more than to indoctrinate them into the belief that denial of reality is acceptable. And I read the Bible cover to cover twice before I was 12. End of my religious belief.


----------



## Old Rocks

IanC said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IanC said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't people understand how incomplete the theory of evolution is? it only explains how previously existing life changes according to conditions. the beginnings of life are totally unexplained. and even the method of new species is a huge stretch of faith to say we have any understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that's true.  With the addition of genetics, geology, plate tectonics and all the other sciences, the theory is very robust.
> 
> This isn't 1980.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hahaha. consensus, right? what are the main points of advancement since 1980?
Click to expand...


Major improvements in our understanding of genetics. The maping of our genome and that of other life has shown how intricaley we are connected to all life on this smal planet.

In geology, much better understanding of the conditions that were in place at the time of abiogenisis. And the conditions under which life evolved.


----------



## AllieBaba

blu said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't people understand how incomplete the theory of *evolution* is? it only explains how previously existing life changes according to conditions. *the beginnings of life are totally unexplained*. and even the method of new species is a huge stretch of faith to say we have any understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol what an idiot you are... evolution has nothing to do with the 'beginning of life' so of course it doesn't explain it
Click to expand...


You're a regular one trick pony, aren't you?

And while I agree with you, I'd like to know why it always becomes an issue in discussions about creation.


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until science can come up with a plausible theory for how the substance of the universe came to be in the first place, the theory of a Creator or Intelligent Designer is just as plausible as any other theory.
> 
> 
> 
> How could you have possibly passed a physics course when you have no understanding of the FLoT??????
> 
> The "substance" of the universe is energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed according to the PROVEN FLoT. We know energy exists because it can be measured, please prove that a Creator or Intelligent Designer exists.
Click to expand...


When you can show proof of how something that exists does so without being created, we probably won't need to discuss whether a Creator or Intelligent Designer exists.


----------



## Old Rocks

All hail Shiva!


----------



## JakeStarkey

We don't need to discuss Creationism or ID here as valid or not.  We merely need to come to agree that the former should be taught in a non-science class.


----------



## AllieBaba

Old Rocks said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> You damned well better keep it seperate. A biology teacher that teaches creationism is teaching one particular religions mythology, not science. For doing that, the teacher should not be allowed to teach science, period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps a Christian needs to teach you to spell. "Separate".
> 
> There is nothing wrong with sharing one's personal beliefs in the classroom. Teachers of all subjects talk about social issues all the time, and the issue of faith is just an extension of that. You won't ever see me saying they should teach creationism in PLACE of whatever subject is being taught (except in parochial schools, where the curriculum wraps around the bible and prayer) because kids are in particular classrooms to learn about particular subjects.
> 
> But IF children are being taught about the "theory" that we have evolved from a "common ancestor" that we share with other primates...a theory that has no basis in fact and is a complete guess based on the fact that we are all similar and share basic gene structure, then I see no thing wrong with touching on the theory, believed by a HUGE number of people in the world, that we were created by a creator. There should be no requirement that children believe this, any more than there's a requirement that they believe we're the grandchildren of Lucy; but they should know the theory exists, and not be taught the lie that it's myth, that it doesn't bear consideration, or that the people who believe it it are stuipd. It's about increasing knowledge, instead of limiting it, and it makes me ill people, claim that teaching children all the possilities somehow makes them more ignorant than withholding information. You don't enlighten children by refusing to give them information, or by passing on your personal opinion about things...in place of truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No basis at all except genetics and fossils. Grew up in a fundementalist evangelical home. I despise willfull ignorance. There is little that you can do to damage your children more than to indoctrinate them into the belief that denial of reality is acceptable. And I read the Bible cover to cover twice before I was 12. End of my religious belief.
Click to expand...


Wow. Twice, huh?


----------



## Mr. Peepers

> Do you believe that Creationism and Evolution can coexist peacefully and rationally side by side?



Absolutely not.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until science can come up with a plausible theory for how the substance of the universe came to be in the first place, the theory of a Creator or Intelligent Designer is just as plausible as any other theory.
> 
> 
> 
> How could you have possibly passed a physics course when you have no understanding of the FLoT??????
> 
> The "substance" of the universe is energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed according to the PROVEN FLoT. We know energy exists because it can be measured, please prove that a Creator or Intelligent Designer exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you can show proof of how something that exists does so without being created, we probably won't need to discuss whether a Creator or Intelligent Designer exists.
Click to expand...

It would be the same way an uncreated creator exists without being created, except we can prove energy exists!!!! And we can prove energy cannot be created or destroyed. Prove your uncreated creator exists.

The FLoT was proven with a REPEATABLE experiment by James Prescott Joule, you probably have a surge protector on your computer and/or stereo system rated in Joules, named after him in honor of this great achievement.


----------



## IanC

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that's true.  With the addition of genetics, geology, plate tectonics and all the other sciences, the theory is very robust.
> 
> This isn't 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hahaha. consensus, right? what are the main points of advancement since 1980?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Major improvements in our understanding of genetics. The maping of our genome and that of other life has shown how intricaley we are connected to all life on this smal planet.
> 
> In geology, much better understanding of the conditions that were in place at the time of abiogenisis. And the conditions under which life evolved.
Click to expand...




yes we have greater understanding. but that understanding doesnt necessarily lead closer us to the conclusion that life just appeared. if anything it demonstrates the impossible odds of it happening. only the fact that there is life existing gives us any hope that we might someday be able to explain it. but that day is not today.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

AllieBaba said:


> I'm sorry my eyes always glaze over about 8 characters into whatever you submit.


Based on the global deficiency of intelligence you have presented, I'm surprised your attention span is even THAT long. 



IanC said:


> don't people understand how incomplete the theory of evolution is? it only explains how previously existing life changes according to conditions. the beginnings of life are totally unexplained. and even the method of new species is a huge stretch of faith to say we have any understanding.


How incomplete is the theory of evolution?  What part of it is incomplete?  It has nothing to do with how life started, just how life EVOLVES.  So what part is incomplete?  It sounds like you have a poor understanding of evolution.



Foxfyre said:


> Until science can come up with a plausible theory for how the substance of the universe came to be in the first place, the theory of a Creator or Intelligent Designer is just as plausible as any other theory.


Yes, being that they all equally have NO PLAUSIBILITY whatsoever.  Just as predicted: you completely avoided the previous question so as not to incriminate your closeted religious agenda.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> Until science can come up with a plausible theory for how the substance of the universe came to be in the first place, the theory of a Creator or Intelligent Designer is just as plausible as any other theory.



They just aren't plausible scientific theories.  Again, you can't falsify the existence of a supernatural force.  Therefore, you can't fit ID into the scientific method.


----------



## Foxfyre

geauxtohell said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until science can come up with a plausible theory for how the substance of the universe came to be in the first place, the theory of a Creator or Intelligent Designer is just as plausible as any other theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They just aren't plausible scientific theories.  Again, you can't falsify the existence of a supernatural force.  Therefore, you can't fit ID into the scientific method.
Click to expand...


I haven't tried to fit it into a scientific method.  I have consistently stated that a Creator, Creationism, I.D. are not science and have no place in science curriculum.

But when a member makes a flat out statement that energy has always existed as it cannot be created nor destroyed, I submit he cannot falsify that statement any more than one can falsify a religious belief.

We don't know where the substance of the universe came from, whether it has always existed, or whether it will always exist.

So again, until science can come up with a plausible theory for the origin of the substance of the universe, I still say that a theory of a spirit Creator or I.D. is just as plausible as any other theory of origins of the universe that cannot be examined or tested.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until science can come up with a plausible theory for how the substance of the universe came to be in the first place, the theory of a Creator or Intelligent Designer is just as plausible as any other theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They just aren't plausible scientific theories.  Again, you can't falsify the existence of a supernatural force.  Therefore, you can't fit ID into the scientific method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't tried to fit it into a scientific method.  I have consistently stated that a Creator, Creationism, I.D. are not science and have no place in science curriculum.
> 
> *But when a member makes a flat out statement that energy has always existed as it cannot be created nor destroyed, I submit he cannot falsify that statement any more than one can falsify a religious belief.
> *
> We don't know where the substance of the universe came from, whether it has always existed, or whether it will always exist.
> 
> So again, until science can come up with a plausible theory for the origin of the substance of the universe, I still say that a theory of a spirit Creator or I.D. is just as plausible as any other theory of origins of the universe that *cannot be examined or tested.*
Click to expand...

Your post is perfect proof why a Creationist should not be allowed to teach science!!!!
Your Creationist science "teacher" deliberately failed to teach you anything about the FLoT, for obvious reasons!!!!!! 

Please explain how a Law of science that can be PROVEN by a REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT can't be "examined or TESTED"?????
This should be a real winner! 
 Oh, that's right, you will avoid this post!


----------



## frazzledgear

blu said:


> "13 percent of biology teachers back creationism"
> 
> 13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com
> 
> Personally, if it was shown that they refused to teach actual science in the classroom I would work to have them removed and their teaching license revoked. If they separated their beliefs and their teaching then its all good.




Do you like it that public school teachers do not teach children about the flaws with the theory of evolution and where it falls apart?  Or that none of them teach children that Darwin said the only evidence that could possibly support his theory would be found in the fossil record which he said, IF his theory were true, the majority of fossils would be "in between" specimens, neither fully one species or another but ones showing that one species was in the process of turning into another one?  Yet the FACT is that even though the fossil record has been quadrupled since Darwin, there are ZERO "in between" fossils at all and that every single fossil ever found is a KNOWN species and not an "in between" of one species turning into another?  Not only are the majority of fossils NOT the "in betweens" Darwin predicted would exist in the fossil record -there isn't even ONE!  Were your kids taught THAT in public school?  Of course not -but let's pretend teaching our kids crap you approve of isn't a detriment to human knowledge!  

I don't want religion taught as science -but I also don't want science treated as if it were a religion and scientists were gods either.  The theory of evolution is seriously flawed and if Darwin were alive today, he would be the first to admit it.  The Bible is not a science book and was never intended to be one either.  But science is not a religion and it NEVER requires my FAITH.  I don't ever bear ANY burden to explain why I refuse to believe in a THEORY.  I only accept proven FACTS -theories can be interesting, suggestive or even ridiculous -but they are ALWAYS unproven and NEVER facts.  Which is why they are called THEORIES and not FACTS.  Scientific THEORIES are NEVER something that requires MY explanation as to why I don't fall down and worship at that altar.   I do not EVER challenge scientific FACTS -they are what they are!  And there are NO scientific facts that can ever have ANY impact on my religious beliefs! I do not fear gains in scientific knowledge -at all.  Wish I could say the same for those on the left.

The theory of evolution really is the primary religion of the left.  And they have ONLY so firmly glommed onto it because they think it neatly cuts out any role for a Supreme Being -and they will cling to that no matter what problems and flaws are found with the theory.  *And they will because they fear the next scientific advancement in knowledge will not so easily dismiss the role of God in the equation*.  That is the ONLY reason they are so off the wall whacko on the subject when anyone tells the truth about the theory and says it is seriously and evenly fatally FLAWED -which it is.  Not realizing that even if the theory were true, it would have ZERO impact on anyone's religious beliefs!  I don't care if it true or not -only the left CARES about that.  I only care about what is scientifically PROVEN -but the left only cares about what theory will best eliminate a role for God in their OPINION.  An opinion that isn't shared by those with religious beliefs anyway since there are no scientific facts that can prove or disprove RELIGIOUS FAITH!  "Faith" is that which is believed with NO PROOF at all!  And it has NO ROLE whatsoever in SCIENCE!

The left will not tolerate ANY challenge to their theory they love only because they think it cuts out any role for a Supreme Being -and they are AFRAID the next theory grounded in better scientific facts MIGHT NOT!  TOUGH SHIT -that is NOT how scientific truth is determined.   What you WISH were true does not and cannot ever MAKE it true!  Clinging to a theory in spite of its flaws can ONLY delay any advances in scientific knowledge.   Those who cling to the theory of evolution in spite of more than 40 known MAJOR flaws with the theory and at least 2 dozen scientific facts that outright contradict major portions of it -are the new flat earthers.  They FEAR any further scientific challenge to their "religion", will not tolerate any scientific challenge to it -and I mean ANY SCIENTIFIC challenge to it, not a religious one.  And they won't and can't because they are politically invested into THIS ONE.  And that means any further advancement in scientific knowledge about the origins of life on this planet have been set back for at least two centuries and maybe longer.  Only the left becomes politically invested in a scientific theory because those with no religious beliefs will still search for SOMETHING to believe in.  So scientists become their gods and their theories becomes their bibles.  And it is provably BAD for the benefit of man, is a known detriment to the advancement of scientific knowledge and the advancement of our species.   

Scientific FACTS are what they are.  They NEVER require anyone's faith, they NEVER require my BELIEF -as if it were my BELIEF that makes them TRUE!  They must FIRST be proven TRUE before I ACCEPT it as proven FACT.  Notice in that sentence there is no role for my BELIEF!  Only my ACCEPTANCE in proven FACT.  But the left actually demands the opposite.  The theory of evolution requires FAITH just like creationism does.  And FAITH is "belief in something without proof it is true".   They are both RELIGIOUS beliefs and not scientific FACTS at all -but the theory of evolution actually requires the greater leap of faith. (an issue for another thread)  I don't EVER mind if a science teacher shows respect for the religious beliefs of their students -because it is ALWAYS possible to teach SCIENCE without denigrating anyone's religious beliefs.  The left seems to think that is somehow IMPOSSIBLE but it is not.  

I object FAR MORE to public school teachers refusing to teach the TRUTH about Darwinism -warts and all -and instead try to foist off the LIE that it is somehow "proven fact" when it not is NOT, but it is actually a badly flawed theory that attempted to explain EVERYTHING with an overly simplistic postulation and ended up explaining NOTHING.  It will NEVER, NEVER, EVER be "fact" because of these KNOWN, FATAL flaws with the theory.  Were your kids taught THAT?

Even if you are one of the fruitcakes who worship at the altar of Darwinism -you still can't get around the scientific FACT that there is absolutely nothing "natural" about the notion that inanimate, unconscious, nonliving materials will somehow "naturally" produce a conscious, self aware, living organism.  The person who can prove THAT will be THE biggest name in science, a name that will live forever in the annals of man's history -not just science.  But in fact man has spent nearly his entire existence trying to prove that is not only possible but "natural" -meaning "seen to occur in nature".  For something to be "natural", it must actually occur in nature.  And what man has REALLY proven is that IF the origin of life is that nonliving, unconscious, inanimate materials gave rise to a living organism -there is absolutely NOTHING "natural" about it whatsoever because it has never once been seen to occur in nature EVER.   There is more evidence that the origin of life was the result of alien life seeding our planet than the ridiculous notion that nonliving materials somehow "naturally" produced a living organism.  A magical property that promptly disappeared again and was never again seen to occur in nature!  Seriously, they do NOT teach rational and critical thinking in public schools anymore -they INDOCTRINATE instead.  The reason that allowing government control of what your kids are taught in school is always a really bad idea.  What your kids will REALLY be taught is determined by who has political control of the educational process AND their political agenda.  And nothing else.  What the "I worship at the evolution altar" whacko crowd cannot accept is the fact I am not the one who fears further scientific advancements and knowledge -because science can neither prove NOR disprove ANY of my religious beliefs.  But further scientific gains sure as hell can disprove the "religion" of the left and THAT is something they will NOT tolerate at all.  For NO other reason than the FACT they so greatly fear that further scientific gains will not let them so easily insist there is no role for a Supreme Being.  They won't let go of this fatally flawed theory until like the Vatican-FACT can no longer be denied.  It took CENTURIES before science advanced enough that the Vatican could no longer deny the earth was not flat.  The left who are so politically invested in this theory they demand people's FAITH in it -have actually set back human knowledge and scientific advancement as well.   And THEY control our public schools.

Crap is CRAP.  Religion is not science and people like you can really get that one.  You can wrap your head around that one.  But you cannot get that science is not a religion because for you it is.  And it is a religion that people like you demand the BLIND FAITH of everyone else to pretend it is somehow "proven fact" when in fact it is a scientifically KNOWN fatally flawed theory.  But since most people do NOT go on the advanced sciences -politically indoctrinating them to this "religion" only benefits the political agenda of one side.  The only side that thinks keeping people IGNORANT somehow benefits them.


----------



## IanC

frazzledgear said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> "13 percent of biology teachers back creationism"
> 
> 13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com
> 
> Personally, if it was shown that they refused to teach actual science in the classroom I would work to have them removed and their teaching license revoked. If they separated their beliefs and their teaching then its all good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you like it that public school teachers do not teach children about the flaws with the theory of evolution and where it falls apart?  Or that none of them teach children that Darwin said the only evidence that could possibly support his theory would be found in the fossil record which he said, IF his theory were true, the majority of fossils would be "in between" specimens, neither fully one species or another but ones showing that one species was in the process of turning into another one?  Yet the FACT is that even though the fossil record has been quadrupled since Darwin, there are ZERO "in between" fossils at all and that every single fossil ever found is a KNOWN species and not an "in between" of one species turning into another?  Not only are the majority of fossils NOT the "in betweens" Darwin predicted would exist in the fossil record -there isn't even ONE!  Were your kids taught THAT in public school?  Of course not -but let's pretend teaching our kids crap you approve of isn't a detriment to human knowledge!
> 
> I don't want religion taught as science -but I also don't want science treated as if it were a religion and scientists were gods either.  The theory of evolution is seriously flawed and if Darwin were alive today, he would be the first to admit it.  The Bible is not a science book and was never intended to be one either.  But science is not a religion and it NEVER requires my FAITH.  I don't ever bear ANY burden to explain why I refuse to believe in a THEORY.  I only accept proven FACTS -theories can be interesting, suggestive or even ridiculous -but they are ALWAYS unproven and NEVER facts.  Which is why they are called THEORIES and not FACTS.  Scientific THEORIES are NEVER something that requires MY explanation as to why I don't fall down and worship at that altar.   I do not EVER challenge scientific FACTS -they are what they are!  And there are NO scientific facts that can ever have ANY impact on my religious beliefs! I do not fear gains in scientific knowledge -at all.  Wish I could say the same for those on the left.
> 
> The theory of evolution really is the primary religion of the left.  And they have ONLY so firmly glommed onto it because they think it neatly cuts out any role for a Supreme Being -and they will cling to that no matter what problems and flaws are found with the theory.  *And they will because they fear the next scientific advancement in knowledge will not so easily dismiss the role of God in the equation*.  That is the ONLY reason they are so off the wall whacko on the subject when anyone tells the truth about the theory and says it is seriously and evenly fatally FLAWED -which it is.  Not realizing that even if the theory were true, it would have ZERO impact on anyone's religious beliefs!  I don't care if it true or not -only the left CARES about that.  I only care about what is scientifically PROVEN -but the left only cares about what theory will best eliminate a role for God in their OPINION.  An opinion that isn't shared by those with religious beliefs anyway since there are no scientific facts that can prove or disprove RELIGIOUS FAITH!  "Faith" is that which is believed with NO PROOF at all!  And it has NO ROLE whatsoever in SCIENCE!
> 
> The left will not tolerate ANY challenge to their theory they love only because they think it cuts out any role for a Supreme Being -and they are AFRAID the next theory grounded in better scientific facts MIGHT NOT!  TOUGH SHIT -that is NOT how scientific truth is determined.   What you WISH were true does not and cannot ever MAKE it true!  Clinging to a theory in spite of its flaws can ONLY delay any advances in scientific knowledge.   Those who cling to the theory of evolution in spite of more than 40 known MAJOR flaws with the theory and at least 2 dozen scientific facts that outright contradict major portions of it -are the new flat earthers.  They FEAR any further scientific challenge to their "religion", will not tolerate any scientific challenge to it -and I mean ANY SCIENTIFIC challenge to it, not a religious one.  And they won't and can't because they are politically invested into THIS ONE.  And that means any further advancement in scientific knowledge about the origins of life on this planet have been set back for at least two centuries and maybe longer.  Only the left becomes politically invested in a scientific theory because those with no religious beliefs will still search for SOMETHING to believe in.  So scientists become their gods and their theories becomes their bibles.  And it is provably BAD for the benefit of man, is a known detriment to the advancement of scientific knowledge and the advancement of our species.
> 
> Scientific FACTS are what they are.  They NEVER require anyone's faith, they NEVER require my BELIEF -as if it were my BELIEF that makes them TRUE!  They must FIRST be proven TRUE before I ACCEPT it as proven FACT.  Notice in that sentence there is no role for my BELIEF!  Only my ACCEPTANCE in proven FACT.  But the left actually demands the opposite.  The theory of evolution requires FAITH just like creationism does.  And FAITH is "belief in something without proof it is true".   They are both RELIGIOUS beliefs and not scientific FACTS at all -but the theory of evolution actually requires the greater leap of faith. (an issue for another thread)  I don't EVER mind if a science teacher shows respect for the religious beliefs of their students -because it is ALWAYS possible to teach SCIENCE without denigrating anyone's religious beliefs.  The left seems to think that is somehow IMPOSSIBLE but it is not.
> 
> I object FAR MORE to public school teachers refusing to teach the TRUTH about Darwinism -warts and all -and instead try to foist off the LIE that it is somehow "proven fact" when it not is NOT, but it is actually a badly flawed theory that attempted to explain EVERYTHING with an overly simplistic postulation and ended up explaining NOTHING.  It will NEVER, NEVER, EVER be "fact" because of these KNOWN, FATAL flaws with the theory.  Were your kids taught THAT?
> 
> Even if you are one of the fruitcakes who worship at the altar of Darwinism -you still can't get around the scientific FACT that there is absolutely nothing "natural" about the notion that inanimate, unconscious, nonliving materials will somehow "naturally" produce a conscious, self aware, living organism.  The person who can prove THAT will be THE biggest name in science, a name that will live forever in the annals of man's history -not just science.  But in fact man has spent nearly his entire existence trying to prove that is not only possible but "natural" -meaning "seen to occur in nature".  For something to be "natural", it must actually occur in nature.  And what man has REALLY proven is that IF the origin of life is that nonliving, unconscious, inanimate materials gave rise to a living organism -there is absolutely NOTHING "natural" about it whatsoever because it has never once been seen to occur in nature EVER.   There is more evidence that the origin of life was the result of alien life seeding our planet than the ridiculous notion that nonliving materials somehow "naturally" produced a living organism.  A magical property that promptly disappeared again and was never again seen to occur in nature!  Seriously, they do NOT teach rational and critical thinking in public schools anymore -they INDOCTRINATE instead.  The reason that allowing government control of what your kids are taught in school is always a really bad idea.  What your kids will REALLY be taught is determined by who has political control of the educational process AND their political agenda.  And nothing else.  What the "I worship at the evolution altar" whacko crowd cannot accept is the fact I am not the one who fears further scientific advancements and knowledge -because science can neither prove NOR disprove ANY of my religious beliefs.  But further scientific gains sure as hell can disprove the "religion" of the left and THAT is something they will NOT tolerate at all.  For NO other reason than the FACT they so greatly fear that further scientific gains will not let them so easily insist there is no role for a Supreme Being.  They won't let go of this fatally flawed theory until like the Vatican-FACT can no longer be denied.  It took CENTURIES before science advanced enough that the Vatican could no longer deny the earth was not flat.  The left who are so politically invested in this theory they demand people's FAITH in it -have actually set back human knowledge and scientific advancement as well.   And THEY control our public schools.
> 
> Crap is CRAP.  Religion is not science and people like you can really get that one.  You can wrap your head around that one.  But you cannot get that science is not a religion because for you it is.  And it is a religion that people like you demand the BLIND FAITH of everyone else to pretend it is somehow "proven fact" when in fact it is a scientifically KNOWN fatally flawed theory.  But since most people do NOT go on the advanced sciences -politically indoctrinating them to this "religion" only benefits the political agenda of one side.  The only side that thinks keeping people IGNORANT somehow benefits them.
Click to expand...


I am certainly not as passionate about this subject as you but I think you made quite a few strong points. I like that you are an independant thinker who considers the evidence and makes his own conclusions in spite of the prevailing opinion. I agree that the emperor (evolution) is not fully dressed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I am fine with frazzledgear's concern about teaching evolution in public schools as long as the issues are taught in a liberal arts classroom, in a course such as Philosophy of Science and or Comparative Religions.


----------



## IanC

JakeStarkey said:


> I am fine with frazzledgear's concern about teaching evolution in public schools as long as the issues are taught in a liberal arts classroom, in a course such as Philosophy of Science and or Comparative Religions.



I dont know fraz's position on what should be taught, other than he wants evolution to be shown for the useful but incomplete tool that it is. 

and I dont know anyone that couldnt get something out of comparative religion class. even an atheist like me.


----------



## oxfordcoma

If he taught creationism, I would demand my children be allowed to switch classes, or schools. If he taught evolution, i do not care what he believes, as long as he teaches my kids science, not religion. Creationism is a religious belief, evolution is a scientific fact.


----------



## Foxfyre

IanC said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine with frazzledgear's concern about teaching evolution in public schools as long as the issues are taught in a liberal arts classroom, in a course such as Philosophy of Science and or Comparative Religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know fraz's position on what should be taught, other than he wants evolution to be shown for the useful but incomplete tool that it is.
> 
> and I dont know anyone that couldnt get something out of comparative religion class. even an atheist like me.
Click to expand...


   Thank you.  You are a perfect illustration of a scientific thinker like Einstein who, unlike some, kept an open mind about all things.  While he might not embrace or endorse the thoughts and perceptions of others, he never ridiculed or disrespected them.  And he himself knew that Evolution could explain only so much and no more.  He understood the gaps in understanding of our origins, development, existence, and possibilities that "Darwinism" simply cannot answer.

He did not make science his religion because he knew that it could answer only a tiny fraction of questions that there are to be answered.

And he was intelligent and open minded enough to see a harmony, unity, and system to the universe that he could not come to believe was by pure coincidence.  Therefore he rejected the title of "Atheist" though he did not believe in a personal "God" or supernatural deity.

But he did accept the possibility of some kind of eternal cosmic intelligence out there guiding the process.

And that has always been what I expect of a science teacher in regard to Creationism or I.D.   I don't want him to teach it or even necessarily to bring it up.  But neither do I want him to deny it to his students.  If he does, he is teaching them to be closed minded and that makes him a terrible science teacher.

Hats off to frazzledgear too.  I may not agree with every single point, but I admire somebody who is thinking about this stuff rationally, without prejudice, and leaving room for yet unknown possibilities.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until science can come up with a plausible theory for how the substance of the universe came to be in the first place, the theory of a Creator or Intelligent Designer is just as plausible as any other theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They just aren't plausible scientific theories.  Again, you can't falsify the existence of a supernatural force.  Therefore, you can't fit ID into the scientific method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't tried to fit it into a scientific method.  I have consistently stated that a Creator, Creationism, I.D. are not science and have no place in science curriculum.
> 
> But when a member makes a flat out statement that energy has always existed as it cannot be created nor destroyed, I submit he cannot falsify that statement any more than one can falsify a religious belief.
> 
> We don't know where the substance of the universe came from, whether it has always existed, or whether it will always exist.
> 
> So again, until science can come up with a plausible theory for the origin of the substance of the universe, I still say that a theory of a spirit Creator or I.D. is just as plausible as any other theory of origins of the universe that cannot be examined or tested.
Click to expand...


As a personal opinion/theory, sure.

As a "scientific theory", no.

This is where the semantics behind the word "theory" do become important.


----------



## geauxtohell

frazzledgear said:


> Do you like it that public school teachers do not teach children about the flaws with the theory of evolution and where it falls apart?  Or that none of them teach children that Darwin said the only evidence that could possibly support his theory would be found in the fossil record which he said, IF his theory were true, the majority of fossils would be "in between" specimens, neither fully one species or another but ones showing that one species was in the process of turning into another one?  Yet the FACT is that even though the fossil record has been quadrupled since Darwin, there are ZERO "in between" fossils at all and that every single fossil ever found is a KNOWN species and not an "in between" of one species turning into another?



This is simply not true:

NOVA | Fossil Evidence

If you are holding out for an "in between" fossil that is some sort of phenotypic mesh between two species; that's absurd and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the theory of evolution.  

Gradual change over millions of years.

I snipped the rest of your post.  No offense, but with the way you started, I didn't expect it to get much better.


----------



## Foxfyre

geauxtohell said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> They just aren't plausible scientific theories.  Again, you can't falsify the existence of a supernatural force.  Therefore, you can't fit ID into the scientific method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't tried to fit it into a scientific method.  I have consistently stated that a Creator, Creationism, I.D. are not science and have no place in science curriculum.
> 
> But when a member makes a flat out statement that energy has always existed as it cannot be created nor destroyed, I submit he cannot falsify that statement any more than one can falsify a religious belief.
> 
> We don't know where the substance of the universe came from, whether it has always existed, or whether it will always exist.
> 
> So again, until science can come up with a plausible theory for the origin of the substance of the universe, I still say that a theory of a spirit Creator or I.D. is just as plausible as any other theory of origins of the universe that cannot be examined or tested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a personal opinion/theory, sure.
> 
> As a "scientific theory", no.
> 
> This is where the semantics behind the word "theory" do become important.
Click to expand...


A theory is a theory is a theory.

A theory about I.D. is not science and is therefore not a scientific theory.  It can, however, be just a valid as a valid scientific theory.  What we are arguing here is not to make science so much a religion that nothing outside of it can be recognized or appreciated.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> A theory is a theory is a theory.



That is not correct.  As has been pointed out, the term "theory" in biology has significant more weight behind it then the common usage on the street.  In biology, a notion can't be elevated beyond a "theory".  



> A theory about I.D. is not science and is therefore not a scientific theory.  It can, however, be just a valid as a valid scientific theory.  What we are arguing here is not to make science so much a religion that nothing outside of it can be recognized or appreciated.



I agree.  I don't care what people choose to believe.  That is their business as long as they don't try and claim theories are scientific theories when they can't fit into the parameters set by the scientific method. 

Science is not a religion.  It's a man made construct to observe, study, and explain the natural world.  If people want to follow it with the same zeal that some people follow religion, that is their prerogative, but it doesn't change the nature of the venture.  The only people who claim science is a theory are people who are trying to disparage evolution (or another theory) and are desperate to paint people who understand scientific methodology and the claims is makes as a bunch of zealots who believe what they believe only out of blind faith.  

That also is incorrect.


----------



## AllieBaba

"Science is ... a religion. It's a man made construct to observe, study, and explain the natural world."

Funny how that works both ways.


----------



## geauxtohell

AllieBaba said:


> "Science is ... a religion. It's a man made construct to observe, study, and explain the natural world."
> 
> Funny how that works both ways.



I said:  "Science is not a religion."

Was that a deliberate or mistaken omission?

Either way, science is testable.  Religion, not so much.  

The two are not the same, no matter how much people want to pretend otherwise.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Foxfyre said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't tried to fit it into a scientific method.  I have consistently stated that a Creator, Creationism, I.D. are not science and have no place in science curriculum.
> 
> But when a member makes a flat out statement that energy has always existed as it cannot be created nor destroyed, I submit he cannot falsify that statement any more than one can falsify a religious belief.
> 
> We don't know where the substance of the universe came from, whether it has always existed, or whether it will always exist.
> 
> So again, until science can come up with a plausible theory for the origin of the substance of the universe, I still say that a theory of a spirit Creator or I.D. is just as plausible as any other theory of origins of the universe that cannot be examined or tested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a personal opinion/theory, sure.
> 
> As a "scientific theory", no.
> 
> This is where the semantics behind the word "theory" do become important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A theory is a theory is a theory.
> 
> A theory about I.D. is not science and is therefore not a scientific theory.  It can, however, be just a valid as a valid scientific theory.  What we are arguing here is not to make science so much a religion that nothing outside of it can be recognized or appreciated.
Click to expand...


I do disagree with your explanation but not your common sense or good spirit.  A science teacher should not dismiss creationism or ID out of hand; that is not their role.  In my opinion, a teacher should direct such questions to parents or the appropriate liberal arts classroom instructor.


----------



## AllieBaba

You'll notice the "...". That means something has been left out.

Hence my comment that it works either way.

Get it yet?


----------



## geauxtohell

AllieBaba said:


> You'll notice the "...". That means something has been left out.
> 
> Hence my comment that it works either way.
> 
> Get it yet?



I got it the first time, I just thought it was poor form.

Again, Science follows a methodology.  Religion does not.  People can argue that religion is "observable in the wonders of God's creation" or whatever.  However, that is not the same type of observation that science requires.  

They are not the same thing.  They aren't even the same proverbial sport.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

These responses by uneducated religious zealots are perfect examples of how that camp can only seem to use underhanded, deceitful, misleading, and incorrect information to further their goals.  Truth is something that escapes them in both "theory" and usage. 



frazzledgear said:


> Do you like it that public school teachers do not teach children about the flaws with the theory of evolution and where it falls apart?


And what are those flaws?  Where does evolution fall apart?  Because the scientific community doesn't see it as falling apart whatsoever.  Stop making vague references to ghosts or misinformation. 



frazzledgear said:


> But you cannot get that science is not a religion because for you it is.  And it is a religion that people like you demand the BLIND FAITH of everyone else to pretend it is somehow "proven fact" when in fact it is a scientifically KNOWN fatally flawed theory.


This is still false.  Science demands reproducible evidence, not blind faith.



Foxfyre said:


> Thank you.  You are a perfect illustration of a scientific thinker like Einstein who, unlike some, kept an open mind about all things.  While he might not embrace or endorse the thoughts and perceptions of others, he never ridiculed or disrespected them.  And he himself knew that Evolution could explain only so much and no more.  He understood the gaps in understanding of our origins, development, existence, and possibilities that "Darwinism" simply cannot answer.


It's amazing that you know so much about what Einstein believed, despite no documentation whatsoever that suggests you to be correct.  I ESPECIALLY like how you know what Einstein would have thought if he were hypothetically alive today.  

This once again goes to show: religious zealots use unsupported imagination and put it forth as factual.  



Foxfyre said:


> Hats off to frazzledgear too.  I may not agree with every single point, but I admire somebody who is thinking about this stuff rationally, without prejudice, and leaving room for yet unknown possibilities.


Too bad the only way you seem to be able to "think" about this is by blatantly ignoring everyone who proves you to be incompetent.  I'm thinking you're pushed your fingers so deep into your ears for so long to blot out everything else you don't want to hear, that you've started drilling through brain. 



Foxfyre said:


> A theory is a theory is a theory.


This is still completely false, as shown by the supporting links I provided and you ignored.  You clearly have no scientific training or education.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

AllieBaba said:


> "Science is ... a religion. It's a man made construct to observe, study, and explain the natural world."
> 
> Funny how that works both ways.



No.  no it doesn't.  How sad that you need to pull things out of context and completely mangle his point in the exact opposite meaning to state your ridiculous idea.


----------



## Intense

*For the Record If what was Posted is not in a Quote Box or Attributed to being stated by a specific member or post, there is no foul. What was stated above could be interpreted as the Posters own view. Had it been an official Quote, it would have been Rightly Edited.*


----------



## eots

blu said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no room for myths in science instruction
Click to expand...


what about theories ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Creation mythology, in which Intelligent Design is grouped, belongs in the a liberal arts class, never in science class.  And, no, science is not religion.


----------



## blu

eots said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no room for myths in science instruction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what about theories ?
Click to expand...


----------



## SmarterThanHick

So I think we've established at this point that religious beliefs should in no way be acknowledged in the classroom, regardless of whether a student asks about it or otherwise, as they have nothing to do with the scientific method.  As such, it is irrelevant whether a student perceives his personal belief system or faith is bruised if such issues are deferred by a teacher based on contradicting reproducible valid scientific evidence.


----------



## rikules

eots said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no room for myths in science instruction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what about theories ?
Click to expand...


MOST myths are NOT the same as theories....

MOST myths are based on nonsense 

while SCIENTIFIC THEORIES are based upon REASON and LOGIC

MOST MYTHS can NEVER BE TESTED for proof/evidence

while SCIENTIFIC THEORIES can be (at least,if not now, then in the future)

god is a myth that can NEVER be tested or proven one way or the other

where-as, the theory that man can populate the stars will probably be "proven" at som epoint

"religious creation" is a myth that can never be tested

where-as we can INVESTIGATE and STUDY the theory of evolution and quite possibly determine its' accuracy and validity


----------



## SmarterThanHick

DerailAmnesty.c said:


> It would depend upon what he was teaching.


Well yes.  It only applies to reproducible valid scientific evidence.  If a science teacher starts saying the world is flat, there's a problem.


----------



## JakeStarkey

A factual error is that ID or the such can be documented by "reproducible valid scientific evidence."  Many have said that religion, ID, and creationism do not belong the evolution biology classroom, and comments dealing with such should be referred to parents and or church.  Many have also said that Creationism and ID should be included in the high school liberal arts classroom.


----------

