Ban Creationism and Intelligent Design in the science classroom as federal law.

[JakeStarkey]

Of course, and it is in Comparative Religions or whatever in the various schools.

 

[Hollie]

The heads over the science curriculum.

Yet more co-conspirators involved in your imagined global conspiracy.

Just in case you have not caught on yet but I have been ignoring your posts for a reason.

I generally expect that you will slither away from those questions which tax your limitations.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I think not. I would prefer our schools graduate students capable of thinking for themselves than locking them into particular doctrines.

Couldn't the Genesis myth be taught in philosophy and evolution be taught in science class?

They have gone to far with evolution, it to should not be taught in a science class and maybe in philosophy or allow both philosophies in to science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yet more co-conspirators involved in your imagined global conspiracy.

Just in case you have not caught on yet but I have been ignoring your posts for a reason.

I generally expect that you will slither away from those questions which tax your limitations.

Seriously,you have no business discussing theories which you do not understand. Take your rhetoric somewhere else if you don't mind.

 

[Nosmo King]

I think not. I would prefer our schools graduate students capable of thinking for themselves than locking them into particular doctrines.

Couldn't the Genesis myth be taught in philosophy and evolution be taught in science class?

They have gone to far with evolution, it to should not be taught in a science class and maybe in philosophy or allow both philosophies in to science.

Evolution is based on scientific methodology. It has a tangible fossil record documenting the evolution of the species.

Genesis is based on the writings of a Bronze Age philosopher who also believed that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe.

Which do you think belongs in science class and which belongs in philosophy class?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Couldn't the Genesis myth be taught in philosophy and evolution be taught in science class?

They have gone to far with evolution, it to should not be taught in a science class and maybe in philosophy or allow both philosophies in to science.

Evolution is based on scientific methodology. It has a tangible fossil record documenting the evolution of the species.

Genesis is based on the writings of a Bronze Age philosopher who also believed that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe.

Which do you think belongs in science class and which belongs in philosophy class?

It's a theory filled with holes and conjecture that is not science. If they would have stopped and said yes changes happen within a family or group that would have been fine. They went way beyond the scientific method.

 

[JakeStarkey]

youwerecreated clearly gives us no reason to except that she understands the situation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

youwerecreated clearly gives us no reason to except that she understands the situation.

Not a she pal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

youwerecreated clearly gives us no reason to accept that he understands the situation.

ID is not scientific. Evolution is empirical. They do not belong in the same classroom.

 

[PratchettFan]

I think not. I would prefer our schools graduate students capable of thinking for themselves than locking them into particular doctrines.

Couldn't the Genesis myth be taught in philosophy and evolution be taught in science class?

That depends upon the purpose of teaching science. I think the purpose should be to show students how to use science, not simply accept any given theory. Let them apply the scientific method to both theories and let them decide which is best supported. Teach them how to think, not what to think.

 

[Hollie]

I think not. I would prefer our schools graduate students capable of thinking for themselves than locking them into particular doctrines.

Couldn't the Genesis myth be taught in philosophy and evolution be taught in science class?

They have gone to far with evolution, it to should not be taught in a science class and maybe in philosophy or allow both philosophies in to science.

Who is "they"?

Secondly, the science of Evolution gains support from many different fields of science. Among the relevant science community, there is no real argument as the veracity of the ToE. The ToE describes the changes in the characteristics of populations from one generation to the next. If you had a background in the sciences, the above would be easier for you to understand.

You have been given the relevant data, yet your religious extremist views leaves you unable to form objective opinions on your own.

Try to follow along. life as we know it (and as far back in earth's history we go), follows the laws of chemistry. These laws are rather complex, and while not every question has been answered, the interactions of elements and chemicals can be unpredictable.

Those interactions can produce very complex results, as in toxic waste dumps. In certain instances, chemicals have combined into forms more complex than the chemicals originally deposited there. This was a product of chemistry. It was a function of the chemicals present and external environmental conditions.

Magical gawds and supernatural events played no part.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And atheist mockery of that which they, intrinsically because of their own personal deformities emotionally and mentally, cannot understand is best simply lined through and ignored.

 

[Hollie]

And atheist mockery of that which they, intrinsically because of their own personal deformities emotionally and mentally, cannot understand is best simply lined through and ignored.

You're befuddled. That's alright, but if you're not equipped to offer a coherent argument, you might want to remain silent.

 

[Nosmo King]

They have gone to far with evolution, it to should not be taught in a science class and maybe in philosophy or allow both philosophies in to science.

Evolution is based on scientific methodology. It has a tangible fossil record documenting the evolution of the species.

Genesis is based on the writings of a Bronze Age philosopher who also believed that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe.

Which do you think belongs in science class and which belongs in philosophy class?

It's a theory filled with holes and conjecture that is not science. If they would have stopped and said yes changes happen within a family or group that would have been fine. They went way beyond the scientific method.

I don't think you understand how the scientific method works. It is based on hypothesis, experimentation, observation, repeatable outcomes, peer review and then the whole process starts all over again.

And like many Conservatives, you want to throw away the science once it disagrees with your myths. Just look at environmental science. When asbestos was declared a hazardous material, Conservatives bitched and whined and called the findings 'junk science' all because the findings showed negligence and culpability and the resulting clean up would cost money. Today Conservatives are clinging to the Genesis myth in spite of the science to the contrary.

 

[Nosmo King]

I think not. I would prefer our schools graduate students capable of thinking for themselves than locking them into particular doctrines.

Couldn't the Genesis myth be taught in philosophy and evolution be taught in science class?

That depends upon the purpose of teaching science. I think the purpose should be to show students how to use science, not simply accept any given theory. Let them apply the scientific method to both theories and let them decide which is best supported. Teach them how to think, not what to think.

Should that line of, well, we'll call it 'thinking' be extended to other sciences as well? Or just the science that refutes the Bronze Age myths? Should children be taught that the earth lays at the center of the universe along with the facts that the earth is one planet out of many in the universe?

I think that too many Conservatives lack the education necessary to know what "theory" means. Once they see that word, they use the context they themselves have accepted, ignore the scientific method, ignore scientific terminology and run with their own shallow thoughts to boards of education begging that ignorance be the hallmark of society. Because the Bible tells them so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And atheist mockery of that which they, intrinsically because of their own personal deformities emotionally and mentally, cannot understand is best simply lined through and ignored.

You're befuddled. That's alright, but if you're not equipped to offer a coherent argument, you might want to remain silent.

You describe your inadequacy quite well if not able to recognize your own deformities.

 

[Youwerecreated]

youwerecreated clearly gives us no reason to accept that he understands the situation.

ID is not scientific. Evolution is empirical. They do not belong in the same classroom.

Empirical lol.

1. Present your best evidence that shows the general theory of evolution is a fact? I don't want to see a simple change within a population that we both know is a Micro adaptation.

2. How bout fossils showing one major kind of organism changing into another?

This means an example of one taxon order becoming another.

 

[BarryDesborough]

youwerecreated clearly gives us no reason to accept that he understands the situation.

ID is not scientific. Evolution is empirical. They do not belong in the same classroom.

Empirical lol.

1. Present your best evidence that shows the general theory of evolution is a fact? I don't want to see a simple change within a population that we both know is a Micro adaptation.

2. How bout fossils showing one major kind of organism changing into another?

This means an example of one taxon order becoming another.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...nous-retroviruses-confirm-common-descent.html

 

[Youwerecreated]

youwerecreated clearly gives us no reason to accept that he understands the situation.

ID is not scientific. Evolution is empirical. They do not belong in the same classroom.

Empirical lol.

1. Present your best evidence that shows the general theory of evolution is a fact? I don't want to see a simple change within a population that we both know is a Micro adaptation.

2. How bout fossils showing one major kind of organism changing into another?

This means an example of one taxon order becoming another.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...nous-retroviruses-confirm-common-descent.html

I responded to your thread with a link with a rebuttal.

This did not answer my questions.

 

[Hollie]

Empirical lol.

1. Present your best evidence that shows the general theory of evolution is a fact? I don't want to see a simple change within a population that we both know is a Micro adaptation.

2. How bout fossils showing one major kind of organism changing into another?

This means an example of one taxon order becoming another.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...nous-retroviruses-confirm-common-descent.html

I responded to your thread with a link with a rebuttal.

This did not answer my questions.

You have been provided with the data many times.

Continue with your belief that all the data proving evolution is a global conspiracy.